Louis Vuitton vs The Artist

 © Louis Vuitton

It cannot be denied that this 21st century world we inhabit is one entirely dominated by an obsession with image and celebrity. Proof, if proof is needed, can be found in a quick glance at topics trending on Twitter: it seems the most pressing concerns for the vast majority of the western world is the significance of Angelina Jolie’s latest tattoo or the current style of Justin Bieber’s hair.

This mania for celebrity, and the subsequent column inches devoted to it, comes at the expense of the many humanitarian crises which have been brewing, largely unnoticed, in the developing world. In particular, the worsening situation in Darfur seems to be roundly ignored by the world’s media which instead clambers to feed our incessant appetite for celebrity gossip and scandal. Fortunately, Nadia Plesner, a Danish artist and activist, is on a mission to change this.

Nadia first made headlines in 2008 when she incurred the wrath of luxury goods manufacturer Louis Vuitton. Plesner used a likeness of one of LV’s designer handbags in a controversial image which juxtaposed symbols of western wealth and excess with a starving child. The controversial picture, which was subsequently printed on t-shirts and posters, depicted a small, undernourished black boy holding a Chihuahua in one hand and a LV handbag in the other. The message was obvious, hard-hitting and made for uncomfortable viewing … and Louis Vuitton didn’t like it.

The luxury goods conglomerate, objecting to the fact that money was being raised (albeit to benefit the people of Darfur) on the back of one of its designs, sued the artist for breach of intellectual property rights ... and won. Plesner was forced to withdraw the t-shirts and posters from sale, and ordered to pay damages to the company. And there the story would have ended, if it were not for the admirable tenacity of Ms Plesner.

Undeterred by her legal defeat, Nadia soon got to work on a more ambitious project. The result is Darfurnica, a modern-day take on Guernica, Picasso’s masterpiece which depicts the horror of the Spanish Civil War. Like its predecessor, Darfurnica is a mish-mash of images – western political and ‘cultural’ icons like Paris Hilton, Victoria Beckham and Barack Obama, vie for space on the canvas with an ominous militiaman and the forgotten victims of Darfur’s civil war. But perhaps the most significant image of all is the re-appearance of the boy with the small dog and the designer handbag …

The artist decided to include the contested image because she believed that, this time, Louis Vuitton had no legal basis to object. Her argument centres on her conviction that Darfunica should be viewed as a whole, with the artist’s right to artistic freedom in mind. Louis Vuitton disagreed, and brought the case to court again. The court found in LV’s favour and ordered Plesner to remove the image from her website and to refrain from exhibiting the piece. The artist refused to comply with the order and is therefore obliged to pay Louis Vuitton €5,000 damages for every day the Darfunica image remains on her website. As of today, Nadia Plesner is in debt to LV for a staggering €350,000 and counting. She has launched a counter-claim against LV, claiming that her rights of artistic freedom have been infringed. The case is ongoing.

This is proving to be a showdown to rival that of David and Goliath. Who will win this epic battle of wills – Louis Vuitton, the ultimate symbol of rampant western consumerism or Nadia Plesner, a lone, brave voice trying to make herself heard in defence of the citizens of Darfur?

Whatever the outcome, we can be fairly certain that we haven’t heard the last from this particular artist – she is already working on her next project, using characters from the Mr Men and Little Miss series.

She has said her first piece will be called Little Miss Child Prostitute ….

 Darfurnica © Nadia Plesner 2011

For more information on Nadia Plesner, see her website:
http://www.nadiaplesner.com/

Picasso’s Nude Grabs the Spotlight

Today’s art world is replete with big personalities – and even bigger egos. It goes with the territory in our celebrity-obsessed society. Fame, and occasionally notoriety, have become a by-product of artistic success: remember how Tracey Emin became front-page news when the most reclusive of art dealers, Charles Saatchi, plucked her and her unmade bed from relative obscurity?

Unfortunately, the cult of personality that springs up around successful artists often has a diminishing effect on the work they produce. The art is left to languish in the shade, while the artist soaks up the spotlight: the artist outshines the art. One only has to look to artists such as Damien Hirst and Banksy for proof - they are classic examples of those who have built a brand around their legendary name rather than their actual work.

This is not a new phenomenon. In fact, it is a trend that can be traced all the way back to the early 20th century, past Warhol and even Dalí, to the granddaddy of infamous artists – Pablo Picasso.

Let’s think about this for a minute. Picasso was a huge celebrity during his lifetime, famous not just for his ground-breaking work in Cubism, but also for the unorthodox life he led, his tangled love-life and the bohemian company he kept. (Picasso forged friendships with the likes of Chanel, Serge Diaghilev, Jean Cocteau and Stravinsky, and courted controversy by joining the Communist Party in 1944.) Eventually, inevitably, the Picasso legend surpassed the Picasso art, and this has remained true right up to the present day. Most people have heard of Pablo Picasso, but how many have seen his work?

Admittedly, there have been a couple of works by the Spanish cubist master that have emerged from the shadow of their creator, most notably Guernica. The artist’s harrowing and haunting depiction of the brutal bombing of a small rural town during the Spanish Civil War inspires an immense depth of feeling among those who see it, with the result that the painting has become legendary in its own right. This is a work that stands alone, unburdened by the infamy of its creator, but laden down with the terrible legacy of a cruel war.

Guernica

But now, another Picasso creation has been grabbing the headlines, albeit for entirely different reasons. Nude, Green Leaves and Bust, a 1932 painting of Picasso’s sometime mistress Marie-Thérèse Walter, is fast gaining an infamy to rival that of the master himself. Having been hidden away from public view by a private collector for many years (it was only exhibited once, in 1961, to commemorate the artist’s 80th birthday), the painting resurfaced recently after the death of its owner. Understandably, the resulting auction (at Christies New York) attracted much attention, with a projected sale price of $80 million. After a bidding frenzy, the gavel finally came down on a bid of $106 million (£65 million) and Nude, Green Leaves and Bust entered the history books as the most expensive painting ever sold at auction.

When it transpired that the deep-pocketed buyer was an anonymous bidder, the most expensive painting in the world seemed fated to languish in a private collection yet again, to be viewed only by the privileged few. And so, it is hardly surprising that the painting once again garnered headlines this week when Tate Modern announced, with much fanfare, that the work had been given on loan to the gallery by the mysterious owner.

Nude, Green Leaves and Bust

No doubt, Nude, Green Leaves and Bust will attract countless visitors, keen to see the world's most expensive painting. But will it fall victim to it's own success? The heavy price-tag will carry with it a heavy burden of expectation. Undoubtedly, the painting is a wonderful example of Picasso's genius, but as we all know, being the most expensive does not necessarily equate to being the best ...

The painting’s infamy means it has emerged from the shadow of it’s equally famous creator … but will it ever escape the spectre of it’s gigantic price-tag? Ultimately, it will be up to the viewing public to decide ...

"Nude, Green Leaves and Bust" can be viewed in the Poetry and Dream wing of the Tate Modern, London. Admission free.