Artistic pseudonyms

January 22, 2011 4:14 PM

Artistic pseudonyms and the lies behind them. How far is legal?

You are not my lawyer. I have sold artworks under a pseudonym before, but how far is it legal to go when it comes to gilding your product and the backstory behind it? When writing a biography is it okay to say "Lived with monks in Nepal for 3 years researching calligraphy techniques" but not "Gained X qualification in X place etc?" How much can be embellished and invented? What are the ins and outs of this? What expectation exists when purchasing art that the aspirational backstory of the artist which is the foundation of the work for some, be true. Can I invent Willy Wangalang Phd and put him through every experience and course out there in his bio while keeping his artworks strictly sold as seen? These works would be sold in a gallery setting. I'm in the UK but any and all advice is welcome.

posted by fire&wings to media & arts (25 answers total)

It's the show business of art. You can say anything you like. Some people will be pissed off when they find out you lied, most will never find out you lied, and some people will be sort of amused that you're a flagrant liar.

You think Andy Warhol never lied?
posted by musofire at 4:19 PM on January 22, 2011

Unless the story were so cartoonishly absurd as to be an obvious fantasty, I would expect every word of it to be true. Plausible but not true = lying.

IANARegularArtBuyer.
posted by jon1270 at 4:20 PM on January 22, 2011 [2 favorites]

Sorry, you were asking what's legal, not for my opinion. I have no idea what's legal in the U.K.
posted by jon1270 at 4:21 PM on January 22, 2011

Are you talking about writing a fictional biography or autobiography? I think it's OK as long as you make it clear that it is fiction. I guess I mean OK in the "not totally crazy or weird" sense, because I don't really know what is legal. You might have more of an issue finding someone to publish a biography about a made-up person, because who really cares about said made-up person?

If you are talking about adding a bio section to a website on which you sell art, I doubt it will have much impact until you become more well-known in the art world. If/when that happens, people will eventually find out that you are not who you say you are, and you'd probably get a bad reputation. Whether or not that effects the sale of your art is another story.
posted by two lights above the sea at 4:21 PM on January 22, 2011

I don't know about legal, but that kind of lying is likely to discredit you. It will make many people not want to do business with you regardless of the merits of the work you're selling.
posted by tel3path at 4:24 PM on January 22, 2011

Are you advertising some benefit that your fake experience would bring? For example, you cannot pretend to be a doctor and start treating people. Similarly, you cannot advertise your art as being an authentic widget created by an authentic widget-maker.

But if it's just purely subjective art ...
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:28 PM on January 22, 2011

You saw this thread, right?
posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 4:31 PM on January 22, 2011

The only artists I know of who do something like this make it fairly clear that the second identity is false, or at least the gallery is very aware of this information and will bring it up to anyone who asks seriously about the work. For examples, take a look at the work of Emily Feather, Patrick Ireland, or Claire Fontaine (this second one might not be quite the same, since it's the pseudonym of a collective rather than a single person).

Legally, I'm not sure what the rules are. But morally, and in terms of what folks in art expect, I think a false identity should be pretty easy to trace back to you personally.
posted by EmilyFlew at 4:34 PM on January 22, 2011

My impression is that this sort of thing usually only becomes illegal if it is fraudulent. If you get into a gallery based on your Nepali monkhood, or get a commission based on your multiple Harvard PhDs, then you're committing fraud. Otherwise, maybe not? I think the main exceptions are for things like professions (eg, claiming to be a lawyer might be illegal even if you don't try to practice law). This is coming from an American perspective, though, so take with a grain of salt.
posted by hattifattener at 4:41 PM on January 22, 2011

I don't think that most people interested in following an artist's career have much interest in the veracity of the artist's story.

Andy Warhol and Dash Snow developed followings and mystiques precisely because their aura was so contrived.
posted by dfriedman at 4:41 PM on January 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

> I don't think that most people interested in following an artist's career have much interest in the veracity of the artist's story.

I don't think this is true, and in any case it has nothing to do with the question, which is about legality.
posted by languagehat at 4:52 PM on January 22, 2011

(Also from the timing I assume you have read this thread on the blue)
posted by hattifattener at 5:05 PM on January 22, 2011

I am surprised that the usual suspects (MeFi lawyers) haven't weighed in.

The "is this legal" question often gets interpreted by a lawyer as "what is the likelihood I will get sued (or criminally prosecuted)".

One way to state the common-law elements of fraud is: (1) a material false statement made with intent to deceive; (2) reliance; and (3) damages.

So someone opining on the risk of embellishments to an artist bio would have to assess the likelihood of all of those elements coming into play. Is the hypothetical Nepali monkhood material to anyone we care about. In the various types of transactions which could conceivably result in a lawsuit, what is the likelihood that the Nepali monkhood could be relied upon ("well, if he never actually studied in Nepal, I would never have bought his artwork!") or cause actual damages ("works by artists who studied at that particular school are worth twice as much as the ones down the road").

Anyone who has endured the first few weeks of law school contracts can probably create crazy hypotheticals satisfying all of those elements. Assessing the real-world implications would seem to require a much more nuanced application of exactly what "embellishments" are being considered and how those "embellishments" are likely to be perceived by the target audience.

In hypothetical art sale transactions, I would also think that material misunderstandings about the artist's background could conceivably undermine ongoing purchase contracts for the artwork. So for instance, if the gallery owner does not know about the "embellishments" and sells the work to a buyer, and both the owner and the buyer find out about the "embellishments" and they are material, that might render the purchase contract voidable.

(This is from the perspective of a US attorney, but my understanding is that common-law fraud across the pond is based upon the same principles. TINLA, YANMC, etc.)
posted by QuantumMeruit at 5:32 PM on January 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

I don't know about the legality of it, but I would be extremely pissed off if I bought art that claimed to be by an artist from a specific culture only to find out it was a white guy living in London. For example, there are a lot of fake "Aboriginal" artists here in Australia who do dot-style traditional paintings and flog them to the tourists, who presumably believe they are buying something made from a real Aboriginal person in the outback, or at least someone with close ties to an Aboriginal community, trained in traditional techniques. This came to mind because of your "Willy Wangalang" example, which made me wonder if you were thinking of something like this.

What would concern me more in this hypothetical case is what the actual Aboriginal artists in the market feel about it, and whether they are going to try some legal action to get the other artist to stop pretending to be one of them.

In your hypothetical case, you might want to find out how litigious your hypothetical Tibetan monks might be :)
posted by lollusc at 6:11 PM on January 22, 2011

Great responses so far, thanks.

I'm talking about a gallery setting where the owner is aware, and the biography is a panel alongside the works. These are whimsical paintings and the story of a female finding herself in the back streets and art workshops of Gothenburg while gaining her Phd via correspondence in Hamburg will certainly go down better than Guy knocking out crap in his spare time for profit.

The work speaks for itself and I will be in this position because of the quality of the work, no doubt. The biography is a panel that hangs next to the work.

The "embellishments" are fuzzy. I want this artist to have studied in the right place at the right time, have travelled in the right places, and to have an airy studio in a remote and desirable place. I want to go into detail but none of it will be true. There would be no misunderstanding with the gallery or problem with ongoing sales - I'm knocking out 50 works on a one off basis under this name as a one off but I'm damn sure a fantasy background would move things along nicely.

The Nepal thing was a random example. I'm not going to claim knowledge of any indigenous techniques, just experience here and there. The art will mostly speak for itself, the bio will just give it a big leg up.
posted by fire&wings at 6:21 PM on January 22, 2011

OP, someone answering the "is this legal" / "will I get sued" question would have to assess the likelihood that a buyer seeing those representations about the artist's background would be justified in relying on the information and suffer actual injury as a result of the reliance.

Or, for that matter, be angry enough to hire a barrister to send angry letters even absent clear damages.
posted by QuantumMeruit at 7:04 PM on January 22, 2011

I'm knocking out 50 works on a one off basis under this name as a one off but I'm damn sure a fantasy background would move things along nicely. . . . [T]he bio will just give it a big leg up.

I'm reading you to say that some people, perhaps many people, would buy the art but for the (current) absence of the fantasy background, i.e. that the fantasy background is material to their decisions to buy the art.

So far, it is clear that the gallery is aware the biography is fabricated, but it still isn't clear that the buyers are aware that the biography is fabricated. If they are not, would the fantasy background still move things along nicely if they knew it was just a fantasy?

I wouldn't be qualified to answer questions about the legality of the plan, but if you're talking about multiple sales for any meaningful amount of money, investing in a consultation with someone who is qualified to assess it would be a very good idea.
posted by Marty Marx at 7:36 PM on January 22, 2011

I don't know about the legal stuff, but it seems like you are just doing the fake back story to sell more paintings. I am of two minds on this. On one hand, if you created a specific character and then made art in character, thus making the persona part of the art as it were - I think this is something that happens all the time.

However, if you just think that no one will buy your art unless it is perceived to be made by a certain kind of person (ie random abstract art done by young child = amazing, done by parent= boring and) AND you were making a big deal about the bio while keeping your real identity secret, then that just sounds like you are committing a kind of fraud and people will be pissed when they find out.

It almost seems like you lack to confidence to "own" your art as made by boring old you. If that's the case, don't do this. If you want to have fun and paint like someone who grew up on mars or something, I think that's ok, but if you are just shy of making work that looks too feminine or something like that, then I would go with little to no backstory and just be more of a mysterious pseudonym type (like Banksy).
posted by smartypantz at 10:00 PM on January 22, 2011

Bear in mind that there will be people who will buy because of the bio (some people will fall for anything etc) and if they find out the bio was fiction they may not be pleased. Worst of all if the art wins a prize of some sort. I don't have good examples from visual art, but I remember the controversy in Oz when "Helen Demidenko" was outed as not being a Ukrainian with a relationship with the SS after her novel won a major prize.
posted by Logophiliac at 12:48 AM on January 23, 2011

Why not base the bio on yourself but with loose embellishments? Ones that, in that Forrest Gump sort of way, are not entirely unbelievable or impossible.
posted by dougrayrankin at 1:52 AM on January 23, 2011

> I don't know about the legal stuff,

Then you should not be attempting the question. In fact, hardly anyone here is even pretending to answer the question. Folks, the question is not "Would you think less of me or my artwork if I did this?" The question is, "Is it legal?"

Note: Ask MetaFilter is as useful as you make it. Please limit comments to answers or help in finding an answer.
posted by languagehat at 6:12 AM on January 23, 2011

FYI that there is a law in the United States that a person cannot sell traditional art as a Native American unless they are legally enrolled in a tribe. I don't know how that fits in here but I thought I should bring it up.

If you make at least one of the statements physically impossible or outlandish then it becomes poetry in my opinion. Mati Klarwein did this. Part of his bio was something like "I mix the tears of a Peruvian virgin into my paints - that is what gives them that inner glow". That was NOT what he wrote but it was similar.

Please come back here and let us know if you talked to a lawyer and what you decided to do. This is pretty interesting to me.
posted by cda at 6:52 AM on January 23, 2011

I'm not so sure that that the 'I'd be pissed / I'd think less of your artwork' answers are irrelevant to the legal question that was asked, even if they don't come at it directly. The O.P. is hoping that his false stories will increase sales. QuantumMeruit posed part of the legal issue as, "Is the hypothetical Nepali monkhood material to anyone we care about?" It seems to me that to the extent that these stories succeed at increasing sales, they would have been material to significant parties (the customers). If I'm understanding the legal principle that QuantumMeruit is invoking, then the fact that people would care about / react to the story, either by buying the art or by being pissed about the deception, is exactly what makes the stories legally significant.

On the bright side, it seems that if the strategy should utterly fail then the OP is probably in the clear.
posted by jon1270 at 6:53 AM on January 23, 2011 [2 favorites]

What you describe seems pretty similar to the JT Leroy hoax and subsequent scandal in the publishing and entertainment world. Essentially, a young woman named Laura Albert published novels under a fictional pseudonym to whom she ascribed an elaborate backstory as a former homeless drug-addicted transexual prostitute. When interest in the pretend author outpaced interest in the works themselves, Albert perpetuated the hoax, going so far as to have her boyfriend's half-sister impersonate Leroy in public appearances.

Ultimately, Albert was convicted for fraud in 2007, but only for having signed a movie-rights deal under her identity de plume.

If I were you, I'd read up as much as I could on the JT Leroy affair and the subsequent amicus brief, as it seems to be the most recent directly applicable legal precedent. I'd start with this excellent and thoroughly reported "post mortem" article in the LA Weekly, and move on from there.
posted by patnasty at 12:06 PM on January 23, 2011

Banksy, Get back to work.
posted by DrtyBlvd at 7:05 AM on January 25, 2011