Art and Law: The Bronson Controversy

This story has been in the news for about a month now, but took a legal twist this week – Canadian artist AA Bronson has retained counsel to pressure the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery to return his portrait Felix to the National Gallery of Canada, in response to the NPG’s significant alteration of another artist’s video installation on “moral” grounds.  You can brush up on the details of the controversy in Toronto Life and the Globe and Mail.  In the meantime, it raises an interesting question – how much control can Canadian visual artists exert over their works through the law?

Answer: not much.  Visual artists in Canada have legal counsel at their disposal through the non-profit organization CARFAC (Canadian Artists’ Representation/Le Front des artistes canadiens).  CARFAC’s mandate is to “defend artists’ economic and legal rights and educate the public on fair dealing with artists.”  CARFAC’s history has been one of protecting copyright and ensuring fair payment for living artists, but it has not historically been a strong advocate for artists’ ability to have their works displayed in context.  No wonder – there is little provision under Canadian law for this, and artists take a risk when selling their works that they won’t be used as intended.

What’s the solution?  It’s difficult to see how any legal provision could be taken to uphold contextual rights in visual art that wouldn’t seriously infringe on an exhibitor’s freedom of expression.  My armchair musing?  Artists need to negotiate control over the display of their works at the time of purchase, and they can only do this if they are in a sufficiently strong economic position.  Control will always come at a price, but hopefully, continued advocacy for fair payment should make the cost of control less prohibitive for artists.

I unequivocally agree that Bronson’s portrait of his partner’s corpse, shortly after his death from AIDS, is compromised by being displayed with a video installation that has been heavily edited to remove allusions to HIV/AIDS that are deemed “un-Christian.”  I think it is reprehensible that the NPG is motivated more by the religious right than by artists’ intent.  With no evidence of a purchase agreement friendly to Bronson’s wishes, though, I think he and his legal team are unlikely to be successful.