A private art collector was recently ordered to remove a large sculpture by renowned artist Anselm Kiefer from his property, raising questions regarding the demarcation lines between art and architecture as the authorities found that the piece qualified as a “structure.”
Nevertheless, the installation was assessed by the planning authorities in the area. The authorities determined that due to its permanence and size, the sculpture fell under the regulations of buildings and hence needed planning permission.
The collector reportedly did not ask for such permission before placing the artwork. The officials said that any large and permanent installation of any kind would require compliance with local zoning and construction regulations.
This ruling surprised many in the art community. Sculptures are normally regarded as works of art rather than buildings. In this particular case, the materials and fixed position were taken into consideration.
The supporters of the decision claim that the law should be equal for all. They also believe large installations have the potential to affect the public’s safety and land management. It is easier to ensure there are no conflicts or unaccountability within those clear-cut guidelines.
But to those opposed to the ruling, it represents an attack on artistic freedom. They think any strict interpretation of the law could affect how collectors display large works of art.
Another interesting thing about this case is that it points to the problems that art collectors face themselves. Displaying colossal art may, in fact, necessitate legal and logistical complexities for art collectors, who may unknowingly go against legal regulations in the area.
Authorities Enforce Legal Compliance
Local authorities say the judgment was not aimed at censoring art. They said the judgment was about planning law. Any structure, whatever its artistic merit, needs to comply with the law from a planning point of view.
This, however, was not done, and the officials further noted that the collector could re-apply for permission to ensure that the sculpture could be set up under regulated circumstances after the reviews were done.
According to art experts, an important precedent has been set with this case. This shows that even larger pieces of art may be governed under structural laws. Legal advice may be sought in this regard for art collectors and artists.
The incident has raised a number of issues pertaining to public spaces and private property. The after-effect of the artwork is another factor in this case. The law is set to balance the right of expression and property rights.
Ultimately, the case represents an increasing interface between art and law. This is because, as the scale of art increases, the law changes. Finding a balance will continue to present a novel challenge to the world of art.
