UPDATED: More on the European Commission's attempt to "define" art

A previous post discussed the European Commission's recent controversial classification of light and video-sound installations as not constituting art and therefore being subject to VAT at a rate of 20% (as opposed to 5% charged on artworks). The logic behind the regulation is inherently flawed given that VAT is said to be charged on the work's value as "sculpture" - clearly far greater than the value of its component light fitting parts. Pierre Valentin of Withers, London, who spoke to The Art Newspaper back in December, has now published an article in the opinion section of the site discussing in more detail the European Commission's move to "define" what is art or what is not art to be more precise. Valentin describes the European Commission's promulgation of EU regulation 731/2010, which overturns the decisions of two member states' (the UK and the Netherlands) tax tribunals, as a "mockery of the judicial process." But doesn't this case simply illustrate the fact that in the hierarchy of legislative sources in member states, EU law trumps national laws? Of course this doesn't justify the regulation in either substance or form (the reasoning is frankly absurd and there was no publicity or public consultation). However, the notion of the Commission taking a view on an issue different to that of two member states is hardly shocking. Furthermore, the "consensus" was among only two of the twenty-seven member states...

UPDATE: Yet one more article from The Art Newspaper on how the art world is "up in arms" over the "light bulb law"

European Commission declares light and video-sound installations not "art"

The classification is crucial for it means that "full VAT (value added tax, which goes up to 20% next year) and customs dues" will be payable when video and light works are imported from outside the EU to any EU member state since the decision is binding on all members. In this case, the works in question were six Viola video-sound installations imported by Haunch of Venison from the US in 2006 and a Flavin light sculpture. Had the European Commission agreed with the UK's VAT and Duties Tribunal that ruled such works were indeed "art", their import would only have given rise to a 5% VAT charge. The Art Newspaper reports on the questionable grounds for the decision and includes commentary from leading art lawyer Pierre Valentin (of Withers, London).