Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
1–10 of 72 posts
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#2[deleted]
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#3The facts of the case (as summarized in the article) makes this seem like an obvious case of mistaken identity. Not sure what's noteworthy here.
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#4The facts of the case (as summarized in the article) makes this seem like an obvious case of mistaken identity. Not sure what's noteworthy here.
Mostly that an artist had to pay legal fees to defend himself because he told the truth and someone didn't like it. The ridiculous litigiousness of the whole thing is disconcerting. The last name wasn't even spelled correctly, if an artist doesn't claim a painting, that should be good enough.
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#5I wonder what the auction price will be now that the notoriety of the trial is attached to the work.
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#6The facts of the case (as summarized in the article) makes this seem like an obvious case of mistaken identity. Not sure what's noteworthy here.
Mostly that an artist had to pay legal fees to defend himself because he told the truth and someone didn't like it. The ridiculous litigiousness of the whole thing is disconcerting. The last name wasn't even spelled correctly, if an artist doesn't claim a painting, that should be good enough.
Nor were all of the mentioned facts in the pre-trial coverage. I don't remember the stuff about the other Doig's sister, and the prison records had not yet surfaced (the prison system had been unable to find them at the time).
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#7I can't imagine what grounds the plaintiffs would have to appeal... if he didn't start painting until after the claimed meeting, Q.E.D., suit dismissed, money grubbing plaintiffs pay the defense's costs.
(I know it doesn't work that way, Doig is out of pocket to defend himself and that's the shitty way it turns out.)
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly that an artist had to pay legal fees to defend himself because he told the truth and someone didn't like it. The ridiculous litigiousness of the whole thing is disconcerting. The last name wasn't even spelled correctly, if an artist doesn't claim a painting, that should be good enough.
Nor were all of the mentioned facts in the pre-trial coverage. I don't remember the stuff about the other Doig's sister, and the prison records had not yet surfaced (the prison system had been unable to find them at the time).
> Nor were all of the mentioned facts in the pre-trial coverage.
Which actually should never have mattered, because the trial never should have happened. Doig said, no, that is not my painting. That should have been the end of it, but the other party didn't like that and tried to get the court to say otherwise because they thought they had basically won the lottery.
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#9The facts of the case (as summarized in the article) makes this seem like an obvious case of mistaken identity. Not sure what's noteworthy here.
Mostly that an artist had to pay legal fees to defend himself because he told the truth and someone didn't like it. The ridiculous litigiousness of the whole thing is disconcerting. The last name wasn't even spelled correctly, if an artist doesn't claim a painting, that should be good enough.
He wasn't in prison, the names are different, and he's adamantly denying creating it in the first place. That he got dragged into court and had to pay to prove he didn't create something is absurd.
This could happen to anyone who creates things.
Re: Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
#10The idea that this had to be argued in a court of law is absolutely ridiculous.