(Why) Is non-representational art protected by the 1st Amendment?

[Corcos, Christine]

J. S. G. Boggs. There is a book about him by Lawrence Wechsler, Boggs: A
Comedy of Values (University of Chicago Press, 1999). Some are now
apparently forging Boggs' work and at least one collector is collecting
the forgeries. See
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jul/9907moneyartist.htm

 

 

________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Miller, Darrell
(mille2di)
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:00 PM
To: 'Mark Tushnet'; hamilton02 at aol.com; Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu;
Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: (Why) Is non-representational art protected by the 1st
Amendment?

You don't have to pose the hypothetical.  I seem to recall an artist who
draws almost 100% accurate copies of paper money by hand and his "art"
is seeing whether a person will give him goods or services (a hot-dog, a
t-shirt, etc.) in exchange for the replica. 

 

 

 

 

 

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Tushnet
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:40 PM
To: hamilton02 at aol.com; Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu;
Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: (Why) Is non-representational art protected by the 1st
Amendment?

 

Both of Marci Hamilton's posts seem to me to run up against the
ticket-scalping problem (or if you don't like that as the problem
example, fill in some other regulated activity as to which libertarians
might find regulation unjustified).  How better to destabilize
expectations about the post-New Deal state than by doing a performance
art piece consisting of violating the regulations?

 

Mark Tushnet

William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law

223 Areeda Hall

Harvard Law School

Cambridge, MA  02138

ph:  617-496-4451 (office); 202-374-9571 (mobile); 617-496-4866 (fax)

________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
hamilton02 at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:29 PM
To: Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu; Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: (Why) Is non-representational art protected by the 1st
Amendment?

 

One does not need emanations and penumbras to protect
nonrepresentational art.  All art, whether written or visual,
contributes to a more reticulated discourse for the marketplace of
ideas, with art typically functioning to destabilize or enrich settled
expectations and understandings.  Images often do a better job of that
than do words, though there are plenty of written works that challenge
settled understandings.  (This was the theory I set forth in Art Speech
in Vanderbilt Law Review in 1996.)

 

Marci

 

 

Marci A. Hamilton

Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Yeshiva University









 










 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20091013/967cfd17/attachment.htm>