Royally Fooled

In a recent Sotheby's Contemporary Art Auction, this Cano wax (on the right) sold for above the anticipated price. The catalogue quotes a line from an Architectural Digest article about Cano:

"In a moment where nearly no artist draws, Cano turns this discipline into the sign of identity of his work: black outline on white background. With ink on paper or with encaustic on canvas, his
craftsmanship is impeccable and the effects spectacular."

(Cristina Giménez, 'José-María Cano', in: Architectural Digest, no. 39, Madrid, September 2009, p. 152)

Ms. Giménez clearly did not do her research. I could easily draw it out for her. ;-)

11 comments:

waa said...

Good to see you're still able to make a joke about this.

Brock said...

This is so infuriating... You should do a headcut of the artist, so the paper can to a scathing op-ed on this hack...

Julie said...

Okay, I'm coming into this new, so someone can set me straight, but who wouldn't look at that shot on the right and say, "Hey! That comes out of the Wall Street Journal!" and therefore ASSUME it was not original art? Why are serious art collectors looking at this and not thinking it's unoriginal, as it's already been done in the WSJ? What stops YOU, Noli, from taking your art and selling it in the same places, side by side, with a sign over yours that says "the original"? I would think the original would be worth more. Sigh. Rant over.

Preston L. Bannister said...

The joke is the completely-clueless magazine writer. Takes great ... something ... to completely fail to make the obvious deduction.

Um, where does she think the drawing in the newspaper came from? (Maybe she thinks it is computer generated? Or maybe the question never occurred to her.)

Zero Won said...

I wrote a big one but lost it... here's the basic idea:

Doesn't the WSJ put your name under the image? If so, it should be in his pieces, but I see they are cropped to hide that area. Cano must assume that everyone knows it's yours from the WSJ or that people may look it up. Maybe it's a nod, but he should include a *note somewhere in his exhibitions identifying it as 'reproduction in wax of WSJ portrait by Noli Novak' and correct people saying it's his portraits.

You still doing art for WSJ? They should back you, to at least get that asterisk in there - for you and for themselves. Can't WSJ do a story on him and repeatedly note that it's your pieces he's copying? He'll be happy as a rich-at-your-expense-rip-off-artist because, as they say, any publicity is good publicity.

Do a larger size, use bingo markers (possibly color) and do the same people of a different shot. WSJ shouldn't have rights over that, and Public figures (actors, politicians, spokesmen) have no claim - hence Paparazzi. Then sell that shit outside his auctions.

At it's best it should be a compliment to your art (the important thing?) and it's worst copyright infringement that is up to WSJ to act on. If they respect you and your work, they'd say or do something.

The UnBookish said...

You are insanely talented. We aren't sure how to get a hold of you but here's our blog - theunbookish.blogspot.com - your artistry really inspires us. thank you!

Noli said...

Thanks everybody! Thanks for your understanding and for your ability to share my frustration. Thanks for many great ideas on what to do or how to proceed. I'm definitely brainstorming and your help is welcomed.
Alongside many blogs, this issue has by now been discussed in a number of academic circles, and the overall conclusion is that Cano is doing something extremely unethical if not fraudelent. Let me make this clear again: I'm not standing to gain anything here, not even a credit for my drawing since as a staff illustrator I don't get credited in the paper either. Also, I doubt we'll see a WSJ vs. Cano case ever taking place since the paper might not stand to gain much from a long and expensive lagal process. However, it gives me great pleaseure exposing Cano! He gets ALL credit for a drawing somebody else did. He is profiting greatly and gaining world wide recognition. I'm glad many of you have picked up on the issue and helped spreading the word about this hack. Let me assure you that I'm not going to stop so easily. My drawings are my babies. I feel like a proud momma ever time I finish one. These drawings define me as an artist and they are not available for adoption!

Noli said...

... and sorry, but no more anonymous comments.

mcgardiner1 said...

Wow! I can only imagine how frustrated you must feel. You are truly talented and I wish more could be done to expose this joker. I also agree with others... WSJ should back you on this one. Money aside, it's about principle and honor. I respect your attitude and wish you the best.

Diana Moses Botkin said...

It's such a slap in the face to see this kind of blatant thievery of intellectual property. I hope you're able to expose it properly.

Rebecca V. O'Neal said...

I love your work. Found you via BlogsOfNote.

I was just featured there and decided to check out the archives. Glad I did.