After Sale Service

The foremost issue is the nature of responsibility for art. Is there a difference between the responsibility of the government (as a collector or owner) and a private individual or establishment? I would say there is. Governments, at least in a democratic set-up, have a public responsibility in what they do. They are answerable for their actions to citizens. When a government body buys an artwork, it has procured it on behalf of its citizens. As such, it is the keeper of such art, and must maintain it in good shape on behalf of its citizens.

When we see or hear how national and state galleries or museums dump and destroy art, a legal suit against them is totally admissible because, in a way, they are inflicting damage to common property. They might even be using some fraction of taxpayers’ money to fund the purchases. Moreover, it also sets the tone for others: It suggests that it is OK to ill-treat art.

Private individuals, or private organisations, on the other hand, are just simply themselves, so to say. They do not represent anyone and personally own the physical work once they have paid for it. Does the artist have the right to interfere in how his or her works are maintained after the payment has been made? How many weavers of fine, hand-knotted carpets have demanded compensation because their buyers dropped a glass of red wine on their handiwork after they bought it? I would suggest that one must actually apply differential, not double standards here. If we want collectors to share work in their possession and to continue to foster a healthy critiquing of art, then collectors can’t be living in fear of the angry artist waiting at the corner with a lawsuit.

I am hardly trying to compromise an art practitioner’s value of his or her work beyond the monetary. But, without a detailed MOU that insists on careful caretaking—not in tune with the Indian market—can the artist exercise the right to post-sale upkeep (separate from representation)? For the moment, I don’t think so. Just as the buyer takes a risk in buying a work, an artist must realise the inherent risks in selling. More importantly, an artist needs to simply trust the buyer’s love of the work.

And the most difficult thing of all: What do we do when an artist with or without a brand name buys another (usually lesser known) painter’s work, paints on it or assimilates it into an installation and then sells it? If that does not fall in the same category of defacing that Sehgal has taken offense to, then what does? Sehgal’s landmark case will really only set a precedent when it is used to prevent such mutilation too.