And just when will court punish people wrongly suing artists that denies you make money with counterfeits ? Even worse is the greediness of these art dealers that just want to make money whatever the cost to artists. Art market is sick.
Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
11–20 of 72 posts
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#12Could such a case be made where the work is a piece of code? I'm not sure why someone would sue someone for claiming they are not the author. May be for a coder to take responsibility for bad code?
At times like this I am happy to have a rare (non-English) last name.
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#13I wonder if the painting will actually be worth something now that it's been all over the media.
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#14I wonder what the auction price will be now that the notoriety of the trial is attached to the work.
I'd give the guy $200 for it. Then give it to the real artist's sister.
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#15Art's a lot like real estate: an investment with a view. Sadly, the integrity of the view cannot be tolerated to outweigh the integrity of the market.
The really strange thing to me was how little resemblance the painting bore to Doig's work. The former looks like a bad Dali.
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#16I kinda want that Pete Doige painting now...
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#17The idea that this had to be argued in a court of law is absolutely ridiculous.
That Doig had to prove a negative is really awful too. It's hard to prove a negative in a court of law, and usually judges stop that crap very early in a case. Amazed it took this long.
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#18I wonder what the auction price will be now that the notoriety of the trial is attached to the work.
A great observation and question. This is one of those things about art that really intrigues me - it gets to the heart of the big questions on human nature, culture, and economics. It's delightfully absurd.
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#19What if he really had painted it? What duty does he have to authenticate it?
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#20The idea that this had to be argued in a court of law is absolutely ridiculous.
That Doig had to prove a negative is really awful too. It's hard to prove a negative in a court of law, and usually judges stop that crap very early in a case. Amazed it took this long.
> That Doig had to prove a negative is really awful too. It's hard to prove a negative in a court of law
Not really. All that it means to "prove a negative" in this kind of a case (a civil case where the standard is "preponderance of the evidence") is that you have to bring sufficient evidence that the trier of fact (jury or judge, as the case may be) finds that the claims that the other party is making are less likely true than the alternative claims that you are making. It isn't "proof" to a high degree of certainty.