WHO OWNS WPA PRINTS?
TRANSCRIPT OF PANEL DISCUSSION HELD AT THE PRINT FAIR
NOVEMBER 4, 2000 -- page 8
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS continued
Question: Isn't it for the government to prove that the transfer didn't take place properly?
FF: I'll answer it this way. In their regulations, they use the word "allocation." They then define "allocation" as transfer of title, and they said we've allocated. But then later on, they say even though there's a transfer of title, we have a reservation of interest, but they don't base it on anything. That's in their memorandum. You want to say something to put this in perspective. The GSA has backed off to some extent. I think we should all be aware of this. In latest memorandum, which they've issued in the last month or so, the last paragraph, let me read this to you, [it] was not in the earlier paragraphs. It says this position . . . it says "Impact on custodians of WPA artwork. This position, namely that they own everything, has no immediate impact on custodians of WPA artwork. The GSA is attempting to catalogue all works of art, which we're presuming include painting, created under the WPA that are located in non-federal repositories, but has no intention of reclaiming any of these works unless requested to do so by the custodial agency or institution."
Well, I can't believe that any institution is going to ask the GSA to come by and pick up your work. So I think this is really a tremendous backtrack.
DM: Just to add on to what you just brought out about Wisconsin. There was a sale of prints to the Metropolitan in 1940. There were sales of prints in '41 and '43, where the government did sell and get back financial reward for that, and thereby created a market, if you will, for the works created in the WPA, and did transfer title at that point to the Metropolitan. That's the thing David Kiehl has researched.
FF:There's another relevant question that hasn't been discussed here. We're talking about graphic art . . . the graphic art consisted principally of lithographs and etchings. The lithographs, after they were executed, were erased with levigator so there is no other evidence of it any longer. But the etching's done on a plate, and I was curious who owns the plate? Where are the plates? Now, I asked Riva Helfond but it's like asking Moses where are the original tablets. She doesn't know. Either they were destroyed or they're sitting in the United States archives? For what purpose? They're not being exhibited.
WB: Etching plates is a mystery. That's all I can tell you because all of my etching plates have disappeared, and I don't know where they are. That's the truth.
FO: I've seen documentation clearly stating that the plates belong to the federal government. I've seen that in writing in the WPA and the PWAP. On the other hand, I believe that they were probably gathered somewhere in New York City, I can't speak for other states, and were simply destroyed because there was an enormous amount of surplus property sold off. I suspect, all of that nice copper was useful to someone, and it was simply melted it down. I have never, for instance, seen a cartoon for a WPA mural. All of that stuff was taken away as government property and I'm sure in some warehouse somewhere and then destroyed. You cannot imagine the administrative chaos between January and June of 1943, when the projects were disintegrating, when the entire thinking of the federal government was toward the war effort, and Cahill and his few helpers like Mildred Holzhauer, were in Chicago desperately trying to give the art to anyone who would take it before they simply had to scrap it. Eventually, the head of the treasury section came along and said I'll take whatever is left just to keep it on interest because they had a little longer life span than the WPA.
Question: I have some WPA prints, one with stamp, one without. What does this mean?
SC: I think stamps are just labor intensive. They just didn't stamp everything, some whole editions might not have been stamped, or maybe the first few. I remember Gustave von Groschwitz telling me he ran the New York WPA, and he had a salesman that went around to hospitals, schools, anyplace that he could get this material disseminated. Whether they didn't have time to stamp all the works or maybe they just stamped the first few samples that this salesman carried, I don't know.
Question: As a collector, are you reluctant to have shows?
HC: I never thought about it, I didn't know it was an issue until this all came up.
Audience: And now?
HC: I always thought it was kind of cool to find a print with a stamp on it.
Question: Can I put my collection on show, with and without stamps?
SC: I wish you'd have the show, because somewhere along the line, we've got to have a test case.
Question: If the GSA were really after prints, they would be here at the fair pulling prints out of the racks?
GG: Well, as far as we know, they might have some sneaky operatives out there.
Question: Is there any legal significance to the fact that for 40 years, GSA did nothing?
FF: Well of course that's relevant, but the GSA's position is that the statute of limitations doesn't apply to us. Therefore, it could be 600 years. It's ridiculous, because cases have said that in certain situations, the statute of limitations does apply to the United States government, where there's private property involved or where there's competition with the United States. And I would think those situations apply here. I do not believe they would institute a lawsuit. I think in light of this most recent state, they, and you ask me, I would say go ahead with your suit, write to The New York Times, let The New York Times say there's going to be an exhibition on a certain date. Publicize, absolutely. And you will see it will end. They will not send someone.
Question: Has the GSA ever had a store on 42nd Street?
FO: No, never. That is one thing they would have never have done. No record of that whatsoever.
GG: I want to thank everybody on the panel.
page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
|
