Troubling legal precedent set in Kreuk vs. Vo/Bortolozzi ruling

[karenarchey]

Galerie Bortolozzi sent an update to their press list regarding the recent court ruling on the long battle between collector Bert Kreuk and Danh Vo, backed by his gallery, Isabella Bortolozzi. Kreuk alleges that he is owed a “new,” “large” and “impressive” artwork by Vo, which the artist and gallery disputes. Bortolozzi importantly notes that this is a disappointing legal precedent for artists. See the statement from Bortolozzi below, as well as previous statements from Vo and Kreuk.

STATEMENT FROM GALERIE ISABELLA BORTOLOZZI REGARDING KREUK VS. VO/BORTOLOZZI COURT RULING

I have to say we are very shocked with the verdict, as is every art professional that has been in contact with us since the verdict was announced. Whilst the legal consequences are hopefully confined to the Netherlands, it nevertheless sets a precedent, and represents a serious threat to the intellectual freedom of creative individuals everywhere. That is a disappointment we must all bear.

The court has ruled that Danh Vo will have to produce a work by June 24th, 2016. The judge specifies what kind of work Danh must produce for Kreuk: “Although the artist has artistic freedom, he will have to talk to Kreuk about the design of the work. In addition, the judge instructs that the work should be large and impressive.” The absurdity of this requires no further comment.

Bert Kreuk believes he has won something, but on the contrary he has lost everything. He has had to resort to the law in order to force an artist to make work against his will. He must ask himself why the artist does not do so voluntarily. The fact that Kreuk was able to use the influence of a public art institution to achieve this result is all the more troubling, and undoubtedly the subject of an article waiting to be written. Unfortunately the art world is now host to many individuals whose motivations are alien to our interests. This is something we must now all be more vigilant about.

On a brighter note, Bert Kreuk claimed 3 million US dollars in damages. At least in this he failed, which for a man who understands everything about money, but has no understanding of value, I presume must have been a bit of a let down.

Isabella Bortolozzi
Galerie Isabella Bortolozzi

Here are previous statements from Danh Vo’s gallerists and Bert Kreuk, via ARTINFO:

It has come to our attention that an untrue story is circulating about Danh Vo. We feel these unfounded accusations urgently need to be addressed. Please find here a statement from Mr. Vo.
Cordially, Marian Goodman

Statement from Danh Vo

Danh Vo and Galerie Isabella Bortolozzi confirm their involvement in legal proceedings with Bert Kreuk.

Danh Vo participated in Kreuk’s exhibition “Transforming the Known”, at the Hague’s Gemeentemuseum. Contrary to Kreuk’s claim, a work was delivered by Danh Vo for the exhibition ‘Transforming the Known’ and displayed as part of the show.

The work was provided to the Gemeentemuseum under a signed loan agreement between Danh Vo and the Gemeentemuseum only. After the exhibition closed, Kreuk took it upon himself to intercept the Museum loan and block the return of Vo’s work from the Gemeentemuseum, by taking out an injunction that prevented the work from being transported back to Danh Vo. 12 months on, Danh Vo is still waiting for his artwork to be rightfully returned to him.

Contrary to Kreuk’s claim, no sale of an artwork was conducted either by Danh Vo or Galerie Bortolozzi for this exhibition.

When requested by the courts to do so, Kreuk has been repeatedly unable to produce any proof indicating the existence of a purchase contract with Vo or Galerie Bortolozzi for the work that Kreuk claims. As there is no purchase agreement with Kreuk with regard to the claimed artwork, Danh Vo and Galerie Bortolozzi are confident that they will prevail in the legal proceedings.

———-

REACTION FROM BERT KREUK TO STATEMENT FROM DANH VO

It has come to our attention that a statement by Danh Vo has been released concerning the ongoing legal dispute between him and collector Bert Kreuk. Though we find it unfortunate that we have to reply, as a result of numerous requests for comment on his statement, we have determined to issue the following statement of our own in response. We have limited our reaction by referring only to the interim ruling in this case by the Dutch courts, which has already been made public.

Note : Since both Danh Vo and Galerie Bortolozzi have publicly confirmed their involvement in the proceedings, their names appear here in full.

Article 4.9 (translated from Dutch to English) begins as follows:

“From evidence in the file and the exchanges during the appearance before the court, it is clear the parties had agreed that Vo, through his Galerie Bortolozzi, would make available one or more works to be exhibited by Kreuk in his exhibition in the Gemeentemuseum in The Hague in the hall determined by parties”

“Parties essentially are in agreement that Vo would make new work for this exhibition, for which, in principle, he had complete artistic freedom but for which Kreuk had indicated which earlier works by Vo he found appealing, and that he has in the end not produced new work , but instead provided an existing box, titled “Fiat Veritas”, on loan“

Article 4.10 (translated from Dutch to English) begins as follows:

“Because Bortolozzi failed to make available a new work, or one specially created for the exhibition by Vo, she fell short of her contractual obligation on this point.”

The words evidence, new and not in the above translated text are highlighted by us.

Out of respect for the judicial process, we can make no further comments on matters which are still under deliberation by the courts. Kreuk is confident that he will prevail in the legal proceedings

UNQUOTE

————–

PLEASE NOTE : IF THIS STATEMENT IS TO BE PUBLISHED, IT MUST BE PRINTED IN ITS ENTIRETY

The translation of the above sections of articles 4.9 and 4.10 from Dutch to English are not legal translations, but a translation which, is in our opinion, is as accurate as possible. For the full text and full contents we refer to the interim ruling, available here.

*Image of Danh Vo’s “We the People” courtesy Contemporary Art Daily.

[karenarchey]

And here are further responses from Vo and Kreuk:

From Vo, dated July 16th:

Dear Bert,

I am writing to you to make the following proposition as fulfillment of the court’s verdict. However, you must understand that I insist that my site visit to the Gemeentemuseum in January 2013 did not lead to an agreement about a commissioned work. Your friends director Benno Temple and chief curator Hans Janssen of the Gemeentemuseum, as well as your art advisor and uncle by marriage Theo Schols made, in my opinion, false witness declarations: the amount of $350,000 was never mentioned, neither that I ‘spoke specifically about figures/numbers’, nor that after the supposed agreement I was ‘jumping around for joy’. I will make sure all of this will be corrected in the appeal proceedings. As you are aware, I have already instructed my lawyers to begin this process.

Notwithstanding my decision to appeal – and with reservation of all my rights and defenses – I am prepared to execute the court’s verdict, and propose a new work based on current themes in my practice. I refer to works, which I made for the Danish Pavilion in the 56th Venice Biennale 2015, which take the form of writing by my father, Phung Vo. His writing has been a continuous part of my production since 2009, which I have publicly announced as my most important contribution to the arts.

Considering the requirements as set forth in the verdict, I will propose to make the following work:

For your residence in Panama as well as in room 38 of Gemeentemuseum, I will have my father Phung Vo execute a site specific wall work, in which he writes out the following sentence indicated below; it is a line delivered by the demon from the film ‘The Exorcist’, which – as you may know – constitutes a source of inspiration for my latest body of work. You may voice your preferences with regard to its design (as far as a selection of fonts and colors are concerned) and manifestation to the extent it will become as impressive and large as you find fitting for the amount of $350,000:

SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS, YOU FAGGOT

I would like to hear from you in writing before Wednesday 22 July, 2015 if you accept my proposal.

Best regards,

Danh Vō

And from Kreuk, dated July 20th:

Dear Danh,

Although I find it quite unusual that you correspond publicly, I appreciate your initiative to comply with the court order. Especially since you ignored my suggestions to resolve this matter outside the courts for nearly 2 years now.

I am open to discussing the situation with you in a civilized and respectful way. I will however not lower myself to the level of name-calling, profanity, abuse, and other childish behavior. Any further efforts to discredit reputations are unworthy, not constructive and will fail, just like your previous attempts to distract from the merits of this case. They will be met with an appropriate response. Maybe you should consider article 2.24 of the ruling, where the court decided on the €350,000 penalties, specifically “because of your attitude”. For now let’s concentrate, without prejudice, on the possibility to finalize this whole saga.

Your proposed work

I find any offensive language and discriminating statements relating to gender, orientation, race, and religion (intended or not) very inappropriate. It is not something I want in my collection or on my walls.

I suggest you find another sentence, for instance from the film Rite of Exorcism that reads: “FROM ANGER, HATRED, AND ALL ILL WILL.”

I am sure when all parties abide by the court decision; to come to a “detailed agreement" through “professional" communication (for instance about the medium), that the end result will be worthy enough to be included in my collection.

If your aim is however to make offensive works out of “self-imposed” frustration, or if they are meant to prove some kind of point beyond your conceptual practice, then the resulting works are, in my opinion, not made with the right artistic intention or ambition. When you reach that conclusion, I suggest that instead you donate $350,000 to good causes or the equivalent in art to a Dutch or American museum. I will do the same with another $350,000. So $700,000 total to good causes; a cure for any frustration!

The finality to this case Danh, will not only be defined by winning and losing, but by making the right decisions.

Best regards,

Bert Kreuk