Ever since I read this article in the New York Times, I've been feeling steadily more outraged on behalf of the man in question. The piece, somewhat ironically titled "Indian Artist Enjoys his World Audience," profiles Tyeb Mehta, whose paintings "fetch the highest prices of any living Indian artist." Last fall, one of his 1997 paintings was sold at Christie's (in New York) for $1.58 million. And yet, Mehta doesn't see a cent of the money. Why? Because the piece has "changed hands" several times since he made them, and so they're in the secondary market. Visual artists don't get resale royalties. Paintings could appreciate in value 1000-fold and not a single bit of that wealth would reach the person responsible for creating them. If that's not unfair, I don't know what is.
Musicians get royalties. Writers get royalties. But visual artists don't. In this article that tackles the subject, Australian artist Jason Benjamin is quoted as saying: "A great piece of art is like a great rock song. It's got to burn from the first bar and then, if it's good, it will keep you in there and keep giving pleasure for years," he says. "It's only right that, like record royalties, artists should be paid something every time their work is sold."
I couldn't agee more.
Apparently, the EU has adopted a policy that allows for artists to get a percentage of the resale price, if the work of art has gone up in value (I belive it's called droit de suite). One of the concerns people have is that investors will then resell the works in markets that don't impose this policy -- for instance, in America or Switzerland (or India!). Clearly, it seems to me, the way to tackle this is to make the rule universal. All artists anywhere in the world should get resale royalties for work that has appreciated in value.
The Times article describes Mehta as possibly the least commerical Indian artist: "Vincent van Gogh, he is fond of pointing out, died hungry." So, others should as well? I understand that the article was trying to play on Mehta's simplicity and modesty. But, while that might be seen as admirable, it is not helpful. And with all due respect, he is 80 years old and nearly at the end of his career. There's nothing wrong with younger artists (or of any age really) to want a piece of the pie. After all, they baked the pie in the first place! I say, they're owed a piece.
