Unclear on the Concept

The Los Angeles Times has a piece on collector Clint Arthur, who is suing Louis Vuitton over two Takashi Murakami multiples he bought at the quasi-notorious LV "boutique" inside MOCA's 2007 Murakami show. Arthur's complaint appears to be that there is a binary distinction between "luxury goods" and "fine art." He bought the items as "fine art" and has now concluded that they are only "luxury goods." The prints in question consist of Murakami-designed LV logo patterns on the same material used for handbags, stretched to hang on the wall like a painting. In best retail practice, LV has offered to accept a return and refund Arthur's money. Arthur isn't interested, insisting there's a principle involved. (Personally, I was a little skeptical about the conceptual chops of the boutique-within-a-museum. This lawsuit may justify it.)


Donald Frazell said…
"Art" became fashion long ago, the two should never be entwined. Buyer beware, and one is born every minute, come to mind. I know someone who helped design the store, and they went to buy the purses, Not the absurd kiddie design pimped off as "art". If you are that dumb, and succumb to pressure that easily, whether a hard sell or the soft sell of wanting to "appear" to be hip, too damn bad. No one of right mind goes to MoCA anyway, the only reason they get people to show, besides artiste studetns and wannabes, is because of merchandizing campaigns. Birds of a feather.

See you, MAN guy and CK at the Braley Building in Pasadena Friday night, got wine, women and song, A DJ with a myriad styles of art, hung as it should be, not on sterile white walls, but as a living space. Not a dead zone of dumbdumbs. I'll be the athletic, good looking guy with a hot wife, and lots of huge paintings and BW photos from my college age days, I was too busy working and having a life to waste time and money in art school. Bring your dancing shoes, hope he plays some funk or blues. No polyester.

art collegia delenda est