Opinion ID: 202371
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Integrated art

Text: 48 The district court addressed the integrated art question first: 49 The first question is whether Phillips' twenty-seven (27) sculptures constitute a single work of visual art or instead are discrete works of art that must be treated separately under VARA. A related issue is whether the Park as a whole should be treated as a work of visual art. 50 . . . 51 Phillips takes the position that his artwork extends beyond the[] individual sculptures and includes the finished and rough-hewn granite and stone pavings and the stone walls that he designed and placed, including the Chords path and the medallion path (the Stone Elements). He also contends that all of his sculptures form one integrated, interrelated work of visual art. To place the sculptural elements in different alignments relative to one another . . . would destroy sight lines and alter the deliberately-crafted spatial relationships among the paths, granite walls, and individual pieces of sculpture. 52 Phillips I, 288 F.Supp.2d at 97-98. 53 The district court had to decide whether the phrase work of visual art, as used in VARA, encompassed the concept of integrated art. The district court first looked to the few existing cases addressing VARA. The court found that courts have held that works composed of a variety of pieces and in a variety of media may still constitute one work of `visual art' under VARA. Id. at 98 (citing Carter, 71 F.3d at 83-84; English v. BFC & R E. 11th St. LLC, No. 97-7446, 1997 WL 746444, at  (S.D.N.Y.1997); and Pavia v. 1120 Ave. of the Americas Assoc., 901 F.Supp. 620, 627-28 (S.D.N.Y.1995)). The district court next looked to legislative history, particularly a statement instructing courts to: 54 use common sense and generally accepted standards of the artistic community in determining whether a particular work falls within the scope of the definition [of work of visual art]. Artists may work in a variety of media, and use any number of materials in creating their works. Therefore, whether a particular work falls within the definition should not depend on the medium or materials used. 55 Id. at 98-99 (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 101-514, at 6). Based on the case law and legislative history, the district court found that VARA embraced the concept of integrated art: Despite [Congress'] narrow definition, courts have held that works composed of a variety of pieces and in a variety of media may still constitute one work of `visual art' under VARA. Id. at 98. 56 What remained was a question of fact: whether all of Phillips' work in the Park constituted a single work of visual art? The district court found that: 57 the sculptures along the northwest to southeast axis of the Park, including Chords and the medallion sculpture, as well as the Stone Elements, are one integrated work of visual art. It begins with a spiral in the northwest corner along Seaport Boulevard, includes Plaintiff's Chords sculpture, and continues along a spiral path of mosaic paving stone, culminating in the bronze medallion. In determining that the sculptures along this axis, as well as the related Stone Elements, are one work of visual art, the Court relies on the integrated marine theme and recurring spirals, as well as the use of marine granite boulders and pavers. However, the remainder of the sculptures . . . that do not lie along the axis are not part of the same work of visual art. While these sculptures share the marine theme, the Court finds these pieces are individual free-standing pieces of sculpture, which are not integrated into the other pieces by spirals or granite. 58 Id. at 98. 5 In other words, the district court concluded that most of Phillips' pieces in the Park constituted a single work of integrated art, but it rejected his position that all of his pieces comprised a single work of art. 59 The district court then addressed Phillips' argument that the Park itself is an integrated work of art: 60 [o]ne novel issue is whether a park can be a work of visual art under VARA. Phillips contends that the Eastport Park as a whole is one large integrated piece of sculpture. 61 The Court rejects Plaintiff's argument that the Park as a whole is a work of visual art. As [] Barreto conceded, a park does not fit within the traditional definition of sculpture . . . . Conceivably, a sculptor could design a sculpture garden that includes multiple inter-related sculptural elements that form an integrated work of visual art . . . . However, here, many elements in the Park were not created by Phillips . . . . Substantial areas of the Park are unrelated to Phillips' sculpture and not integrated with it . . . . While Phillips certainly assisted in designing the stone elements in the paths and walls and in placing his own sculptures, the Park as a whole is not an integrated work of art. 62 Id. at 98-99 (internal citation omitted). In deciding whether the Park was an integrated work of art, the district court left open the legal question of whether a park could ever be a work of visual art as defined by VARA. Instead, it held that, assuming a park could be a work of integrated art recognized by VARA, the Park was not such a work. 63 Finally, the district court's conclusion that VARA applied to integrated art, and its related conclusion that Phillips had created a work of integrated art in the Park, did not prevent the removal of Phillips' works from the Park. That was so because the district court also concluded that integrated art was subject to the public presentation exception of VARA, § 106A(c)(2). Phillips' integrated work of art could still be disassembled and moved so long as the works of visual art are not alter[ed], modif[ied], or destroy[ed]. Id. at 100. 6