Opinion ID: 202371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The district court's understanding of site-specific art and VARA

Text: 77 To help explain our holding that VARA does not apply to site-specific art, we must begin with a restatement of the district court's view of the interaction between VARA and site-specific art. On the one hand, the district court accepted the concept of site-specific art. It credited the unopposed testimony of Ranalli, Phillips' expert, that for site specific art, the location of the work is a constituent element of the work. Phillips I, 288 F.Supp.2d at 95. The district court understood that [u]nder this approach, because the location defines the art, site-specific sculpture is destroyed if it is moved from the site. Id. The district court also found that [t]o move Phillips' integrated work of visual art (i.e., the sculptures, boulders, and granite paths along the axis . . . described in the VARA discussion) to another location . . . would be to alter it physically, id. at 102. 78 On the other hand, in the section of its opinion addressing Phillips' site-specificity argument — entitled `Public-Presentation' Exclusion — the district court noted that Section 106A(c)(2) has been interpreted to exclude from VARA's protection `site-specific' works, works that would be modified if they were moved. Phillips I, 288 F.Supp.2d at 99. It then referenced Soho I ([T]he point of VARA `is not . . . to preserve a work of visual art where it is, but rather to preserve as work as it is,' 2003 WL 21403333, ) and Soho II (`[N]owhere in VARA does the statute make any legal distinction between site-specific or free-standing works,' 2003 WL 21767653, at ). The district court concluded that an artist has no right to the placement or public presentation of his sculpture under the exception in § 106A(c)(2). Phillips I, 288 F.Supp.2d at 100. In short, the district court found that while VARA applies to site-specific art, the public presentation exception permits the removal of site-specific art, e.g., Phillips' work in the Park. 79 Without in any way diminishing our respect for the district court's careful handling of this difficult case, we find its analysis of VARA's relationship to site-specific art unpersuasive. By definition, site-specific art integrates its location as one of its elements. Therefore, the removal of a site-specific work from its location necessarily destroys that work of art. Here, the district court concluded that VARA recognized site-specific art as a type of integrated art, and then concluded that VARA treats site-specific art the same way that it treats other integrated art. 9 However, a work of integrated art, unless it is a site-specific work, is not destroyed by removal from its location. 80 By concluding that VARA applies to site-specific art, and then allowing the removal of site-specific art pursuant to the public presentation exception, the district court purports to protect site-specific art under VARA's general provisions, and then permit its destruction by the application of one of VARA's exceptions. To us, this is not a sensible reading of VARA's plain meaning. Either VARA recognizes site-specific art and protects it, or it does not recognize site-specific art at all.