Steinkamp Vs Hoffman Case Study

663 Words2 Pages

In the case of Steinkamp vs Hoffman, a collector in New York, Roderick Steinkamp sued Hoffman gallery for missing paperwork related to a Sol LeWitt drawing, Wall Drawing #448, on May 22,2012. The Suit, which seeks $350,000, claims that without the certificate of authenticity, the artwork is unsalable and thereby worthless (Cohen). Steinkamp owned Wall Drawing #448 via signed contract with the gallery in which the gallery agreed to be liable for all “loss, damage or deterioration” (Cohen). However, when the gallery claimed that they lost the certificate, their insurance company refused to pay for the document’s “mysterious disappearance,” which consequently lead to the lawsuit. “There appears to be no evidence of sales without such certificates, nor of sales of certificates alone” (Lydiate). In court, the greatest challenge to the art lawyer would then be to argue that a LeWitt certificate is a necessary component in evaluating the art market cost of the wall drawing it verifies as authentic. In other words, the lawyer must argue that the absence of a LeWitt certificate of authenticity will render the art piece it accompanied as …show more content…

If this is the case that the certificate of authenticity is the complete essence of Sol LeWitt’s work, then that means only one of his wall drawings can exist at a time as an authentic Sol Lewitt. Wall Drawing #448 was created for a private residence in 1985 in Massachusetts during LeWitt’s lifetime. However, because the certificate was sold to Steinkamp, the Wall Drawing made for the private residence would then arguably cease to be authentic. Only one authentic piece of Sol Lewitt can exist at a time, even if the “original” physical rendition of the wall drawing was made during Sol LeWitt’s life. However, this argument continues to be more

More about Steinkamp Vs Hoffman Case Study

Open Document