ART PICK OF THE MONTH (July '11): Ode to the Romantic Schizophrenic

Gallery View - Romantic Gothic. Courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art

"Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty"
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Through August 7, 2011

Dedicated to my dear friend Jeremy

More often than not, fashion is fickle and fleeting, derivative and uninspired until the genius of the caliber of McQueen accomplishes that rare feat of turning garments and accessories into nothing less than a pure artistic endeavour. While "Alexander McQueen" the fashion house may evoke images of the giddiness of Paris fashion week and even mass consumption (who can forget the ubiquitous trend of the silk scarfs imprinted with skulls? I must confess I own two myself.... neither of which has seen the light of day since circa 2006), Savage Beauty pays tribute to McQueen the artist, his boundless imagination, impeccable craftsmanship and intellect for, reminiscent of the greatest of artists, the creative and the conceptual are intimately intertwined in each of his works, a more fitting noun for his creations than "designs." The exhibition itself is a marvel too.

As you walk through the galleries in awe of the overwhelming beauty and enthralled in the sensory overload that are the sumptuous, tactile materials, resonant music and theatrical showcases (not to mention, the heaving crowds), certain themes begin to take shape though admittedly, some more convincingly than others. Rising from the assortment of delicate lace, intricate beading, deathly feathers, tough tartan wool and sensuous metal is the irresistible voice of nationalistic and anti-racist sentiment, sexual freedom and self-determination. The art critic Holland Cotter rightly points out how Savage Beauty channels any and all political and social commentary emanating from McQueen's oeuvre in the vein of Romanticism and as a result, fails to capture some of the deeper complexities of his mindset and his place among his contemporaries. Notwithstanding the escapist, Byronic nature of McQueen the Romantic, art critics will have to ask how his real-life context of 1980s and 90s London -- so strongly associated with the YBAs ("Young British Artists," the term coined to refer to the group of artists who began to exhibit together in London from 1988, most of whom were Goldsmiths graduates and had Charles Saatchi for their patron) -- shaped who McQueen was and the work he created. Undoubtedly "l'enfant terrible" and "the hooligan of English fashion" in his embodiment of the unorthodox and avant-garde and his unruly, shocking ways, we shouldn't be blindsided into believing that McQueen actually lived in Victorian England.

This is not in any way to disparage the curatorship and research that went into such extraordinary an exhibition. Romanticism certainly works exceedingly well as an overall framework and, let's face it, a crowd pleaser (aren't we all Romantics at heart?). However, if we're going to -- as we should -- embrace these spectacular creations as "art," then the accompanying art criticism should be held to similar standards as those applicable to more traditional artistic mediums and in this respect, the Savage Beauty catalogue marks only the beginning of the "evaluative process" of McQueen's work. Where I would tend to disagree with Cotter is in his suggestion that the artistic nature of the objects in the exhibition is somewhat jeopardised if unaccompanied by art criticism of a certain, shall we say, "quality," which leads me to touch on the far-reaching debate concerning whether art criticism itself defines what is or isn't "art." From a legal perspective, artists are at times required to articulate the intellectual process underlying their creations in order to be afforded certain legal protections or rights (Cariou v. Prince being the latest decision in favor of art criticism in the context of the "fair use" defense to copyright infringement). However, beyond the realm of the law, I leave it up to you to decide which side to take, that of the artist or the art critic, in such a momentous debate.

Tattoo Settlement

ST. LOUIS. It's always bitter sweet when a case settles. On the one hand, it's a good thing that costly, lengthy and probably hugely draining litigation has been avoided. However, on the other hand, we lawyers are robbed of what could have been a valuable legal precedent. And often it's precisely those cases capable of clarifying a previously unsettled area of law that are settled out of court.

We had predicted that this was likely to happen in tattoo artist Whitmill's claim against Warner Bros. over the copy of his Tyson tattoo featured in the film The Hangover II. And indeed a few days after the parties met with a mediator as Judge Perry ordered them to, a settlement had been reached. We'll never know what the outcome would have been (at the time I argued that Whitmill had a pretty strong case),  "Judge Perry made it clear in her comments to the lawyers [when she rejected plaintiff injunctive relief] that she was sympathetic to Mr. Whitmill's argument, noting that he had a “strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits for copyright infringement” and that most of the arguments put forward by Warner Brothers were “just silly.”" No comments as to the terms of the settlement of course.

Monkey Art

We're all clear that under the U.S. Copyright Code, the author of an original work has exclusive rights over the copyrighted work. But what if the author is not a living person but rather a monkey? The question has arisen not once but twice in the past eighteen months: originally in the context of a video that was entirely filmed by chimpanzees and more recently when a monkey in Indonesia snatched nature photographer David Slater's camera and started taking photographs. Two of those photographs were found to be subject to copyright notices claiming that not the monkey, not Slater but Caters News Agency held the copyright. The only way the agency could claim to have such rights is if there had been an assignment (a legal transfer of rights) of the copyrights by the author of the original work to the agency. But there could not have been any such assignment since no one owns the copyright - neither the monkey nor Slater (who presumably "submitted the photos to the agency"). Why? Because monkeys are not afforded rights under the Copyright Code and because Slater did not take the photos himself. The photos, I would argue, are therefore not protected by copyright.