ROCHESTER, Minn. (KTTC) – Mustafah Abdulaziz, a photographer from Berlin, Germany, will be showcasing his work at the Minnesota Marine Art Museum.
His exhibit, titled ‘Water’, is intended to showcase the ongoing international issues with water access. Abdulaziz has dedicated more than a decade of his life to capturing the effects of climate change on humanity.
Abdulaziz’s exhibit opened on Jan. 13 and will be open to the public until June 23.
Copyright 2024 KTTC. All rights reserved.
As the civil fraud trial brought against Sotheby’s by the Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev lurches toward its conclusion—possibly as soon as next week—a clear tension has emerged in Judge Jesse Furman’s Manhattan courtroom: despite what was framed in the art world as “the trial of the century”, the substance of the proceedings has mostly come down to lawyers haggling over the minutiae of email correspondence and corporate bureaucracy.
In fairness, this was always the most likely path for the dispute to travel. Roughly 30 years of John Grisham novels and Aaron Sorkin screenplays have conditioned the public to expect any high-stakes trial to deliver a consistent stream of theatrical dialogue, bombshell evidence and stunning reversals. Instead, actual white-collar civil cases tend to see the mundane overrule the melodramatic. Even the cases that eventually reveal outrageous wrongdoing usually have to get there by slogging through reams of evidence and weeks of testimony that only look damning to a jury in the aggregate.
Although these first three weeks of Rybolovlev’s clash with Sotheby’s suggest some of the auction house’s processes certainly could have been more rigorous in the four high-value private sales at issue, they also seem to indicate that, by the 2010s, the house had professionalised enough to avoid the kind of blatant self-dealing being alleged. And the strongest argument in Sotheby’s favour is that the behind-the-scenes story the evidence tells about its business so far is ultimately so boring—just as it should be for a reasonably mature business.
Glamour gone
The captivating glimpses of drama, glamour and power have mostly vanished since Rybolovlev himself stepped down from the witness stand on 12 January. Replacing them, for the most part, have been dozens of hours of testimony parsing the semantics of messages and documents written by current and former Sotheby’s staff.
Much of the testimony delivered in weeks two and three came from Samuel Valette, the Impressionist and Modern specialist who acted as Sotheby’s main conduit to Yves Bouvier, the Swiss dealer Rybolovlev had accused of price-gouging him to the tune of more than $1bn; Alexander Bell, the co-chair of Sotheby’s Old Master paintings department; Bruno Vinciguerra, house’s former chief operating officer; and Franka Haiderer, Sotheby’s chair of valuations for Europe during the period in question.
But in their campaign to expose incriminating gaps in the auction house’s compliance architecture, Rybolovlev’s lawyers mostly had to try to convince the jury that subtle weaknesses were nefarious structural failures.
In the case of the Salvator Mundi, for instance: When a Sotheby’s higher-up emailed Bell about the “adviser” who would be visiting the house for a private viewing of the painting in 2013, did he understand that to mean Bouvier or his sometimes-intermediary Jean-Marc Peretti—and why was his answer now different than his answer in an earlier deposition? Was a 2015 Sotheby’s appraisal of the painting’s insurance value sent as a “letter” without the house’s legalistic “conditions of valuation” attached, or as a formal certificate? Who at Sotheby’s gets to decide which currency denominates an appraisal, and how typical is it for a client to be allowed to review a draft of the appraisal once that decision has been made?
Keep in mind that getting to these types of questions requires literal hours of court-formalised back-and-forth between lawyers and witnesses to establish the absolute basics of the evidence: Do you see the date on this email reproduced onscreen for the jury? Do you recognise this attachment? Remind us again who this person copied on the email was? (The answer has almost invariably been, “My assistant at the time”. Never forget that assistants make the art world go ’round.)
It is still a matter of debate whether the proceedings have sufficiently shifted opinions on whether Sotheby’s involvement with Bouvier amounted to fraud. But they have definitively proven that one of the only things less interesting than hearing about a stranger’s dream is hearing about a stranger’s inbox.
Another reason the trial has devolved into such a grind is that so much of the testimony has offered so little new information. In many instances, the same fine distinctions about Sotheby’s practices have been litigated through the testimony of three or more people with only slightly different perspectives on the events and communications in question.
Even Judge Furman has voiced his frustrations with this aspect of the case. At the end of proceedings this Tuesday (23 January), he told both sets of lawyers that “if you’re detecting increasing impatience on my part, you’re not wrong. It is one thing to have one witness corroborate the testimony of another on an issue that is actually in dispute. But it strikes me… that we’re really going over things that are not disputed in this case, and the jury has gotten at this point.”
This is a bigger problem for Rybolovlev’s lawyers than Sotheby’s. Obviously, the former haven’t been hired to entertain journalists in the courtroom. They were, however, hired to convince the 12 art world outsiders making up the jury that how Sotheby’s conducted business surrounding the Salvator Mundi and three other high-value works was so deceptive and self-serving that Rybolovlev, a billionaire, deserves compensation that would constitute a large fortune to the vast majority of people now living on earth. (His side is petitioning the court for at least $190m in damages.) The tedium and repetition leave me sceptical that much of what has been litigated so far is moving the jurors’ hearts and minds to his side.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if some, or even all, members of the jury come away from this trial believing that certain aspects of Sotheby’s private sales, appraisals or communications procedures were surprisingly sloppy, loose or confusing for a multibillion-dollar business. But deciding that the house’s procedures left room for improvement is fundamentally different from deciding that the lack of rigour equates to material assistance in fraud.
It doesn’t help Rybolovlev that, in these later stages of the trial, the most memorable testimony for his side concerned Bouvier, not Sotheby’s. One of the only witnesses this week not to have worked at the auction house was Sandy Heller, the powerful New York-based art adviser whose December 2014 meeting with Rybolovlev proved critical in convincing the Russian that Bouvier had been cheating him. Heller’s testimony included saying that he told Rybolovlev that it sounded “like [he was] being controlled” by Bouvier and “paying way above the market” for the works he had acquired.
These statements—along with when Heller recounted that he replied to Rybolovlev’s contention that Bouvier was “the most important man in the art world” by saying he’d “never heard of the man”—may have had more direct power than, say, the dissection of Sotheby’s appraisal process. But how exactly it helped prove the fault lay with the auction house was no clearer afterward. (Bouvier has never been found guilty of any crime anywhere; he and Rybolovlev settled all of their legal disputes in all jurisdictions in December 2023.)
That said, a flawless case isn’t necessary for success. Unlike in US criminal trials, the lawyers in a stateside civil trial do not have to prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Instead, the jury is instructed to form its verdict based on “a preponderance of the evidence”. In plain English: to win, Rybolovlev’s lawyers don’t have to convince the jury that Sotheby’s conduct was unquestionably fraudulent, only that it was more fraudulent than not.
Although satisfying this lesser burden of proof is easier to do in theory, their apparent choice (if not need) to do so by laboriously sifting through the details of Sotheby’s imperfect but real bureaucracy probably means it’s out of reach. The uppermost echelon of the private art market still often hinges on informal arrangements, but the minutiae that follows has become more and more overwhelming with time. Rather than the devil being in the details, the drudgery could very well be Sotheby’s salvation.
For a decade, young people have been capturing the essence of the Bronx and bringing it to life through photos featured at the Bronx Documentary Center. Now, it’s all on display.
The exhibit at the BDC is called “Through Our Eyes: Youth Photography at the Bronx Documentary Center.” Over 60 photos are hanging on the walls, showing everyday life around the neighborhoods of the Bronx from 2013 to now.
There are also award-winning images that have received honors and also have appeared in festivals all the way as far as Paris. Some of the work has been featured in the New York Times.
The BDC’s Youth Photo League is a free program that more than 400 students have participated in since 2013.
To celebrate 10 years of the youth program at the BDC, they have released a photo book that includes photos in the exhibit and much more. There is a special discount for Bronx residents.
For information on how tado donate and by the book, head to
LOS ANGELES –
A jury found Friday that celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D did not violate a photographer’s copyright when she used his portrait of Miles Davis as the basis for a tattoo she put on the arm of a friend.
The Los Angeles jury deliberated for just over two hours before deciding that the tattoo by the former star of the reality shows “Miami Ink” and “LA Ink” was not similar enough to photographer Jeffrey Sedlik’s 1989 portrait of the jazz legend that she needed to have paid permission.
“I’m obviously very happy for this to be over,” Von D, who inked her friend’s arm with Davis as a gift about seven years ago, said outside the courtroom. “It’s been two years of a nightmare worrying about this, not just for myself but for my fellow tattoo artists.”
The eight jurors made the same decision about a drawing Von D made from the portrait to base the tattoo on, and to several social media posts she made about the process, which were also part of Sedlik’s lawsuit. And they found that the tattoo, drawing and posts also all fell within the legal doctrine of fair use of a copyrighted work, giving Von D and other tattoo artists who supported her and followed the trial a resounding across-the-board victory.
“We’ve said all along that this case never should have been brought,” Von D’s attorney Allen B. Grodsky said after the verdict. “The jury recognized that this was just ridiculous.”
Sedlik’s attorney Robert Edward Allen said they plan to appeal. He said it the images, which both featured a close-up of Davis gazing toward the viewer and making a “shh” gesture, were so similar he didn’t know how the jury could reach the conclusion they did.
“If those two things are not substantially similar, then no one’s art is safe,” Allen said.
He told jurors during closing arguments earlier Friday that the case has “nothing to do with tattoos.”
“It’s about copying others’ protected works,” Allen said. “It’s not going to hurt the tattoo industry. The tattoo police are not going to come after anyone.”
BANFF – Shutterbugs will have their shots on full display in the Bow Valley for the upcoming Exposure Photography Festival.
The photography festival is in its 20th year of spotlighting photographers around Alberta.
“It’s really lovely to have this one festival that showcases up-and-coming talent, talent that’s been around and unknown talent,” said D.L. Cameron, curator at the Whyte Museum of the Canadian Rockies.
With 42 exhibitions across the province, there will be five exhibitions in Banff and Canmore showcasing the work of talented photographers. There are also exhibits in Calgary, Edmonton, Peace River, Crownest Pass and Red Deer.
In Banff, the Whyte Museum will be displaying the work of, Hans P. Berkhout and Arto Djerdjerian.
Djerdjerian is framing six years of in-depth documentation of the Ya Ha Tinda Ranch, which is Canada’s only federally operated horse ranch
“His whole thing was to follow people around, follow scenes and be as unobtrusive as possible and just really watch the scenes unfold in front of him,” said Cameron. “He didn’t set anything up. Nothing was staged. It’s every day, day-to-day things that are happening up at Ya Ha Tinda.”
Contrasting Djerdjerian, Berkhout has compiled his fine art, black-and-white landscape photographs shot on film.
“He just does film and wet darkroom, which is beautiful images in itself. A silver gelatin print is so much different than a digital print. There’s just so much more depth,” said Cameron.
“You’ve got the colour and the busyness of the ranch and the horses and then these quiet landscapes.”
To kick off the two photographers’ shows, the Whyte Museum will be hosting an opening reception Friday (Jan. 26) at 7 p.m., where guests can meet the artists and learn more about their work. The exhibition will be on the walls until April 7.
“It’s a nice event to go and meet people, see the pictures and talk to the artists, and that is really lovely to be able to just listen to the artists talk about their work too,” said Cameron.
The now expansive festival began at the Whyte Museum after Craig Richards and Dianne Bos curated the first show in 2004.
“He and Dianne started 20 years ago, so it initially started at the Whyte Museum, which is kind of cool,” said Cameron.
Additionally in Banff from Feb. 4 to Feb. 25., Willox and Sax Gallery will have the work of Calgary photographer Ray van Nes, with a theme of Chinese terracotta teapots.
In Canmore, the Three Sisters Gallery and the Canmore Art Guild, which are both located in Elevation Place, will be showcasing the work of 13 artists.
On the second floor of the Three Sisters Gallery, the exhibit called Friends in Focus illustrates the work of six photographers, separated over 100 kilometres, who venture into the mountains and capture the day in their own unique perspective.
“As an artist group, they are looking at a real eclectic collection of photographs that capture their moments as they’re out as a group, hiking and photographing,” said Sue Hayduk, Town of Canmore arts and culture coordinator.
Neighbouring the Town of Canmore gallery, the Canmore Art Guild on the main floor next to the public library are laying out the work of eight artists. They call the show Beyond the Valley, as the photographs showcase scenes and portraiture outside of the region. Each photographer’s work surrounds a certain theme, whether it’s the landscape, a culture or people.
“Throughout the year, photography is a small fraction of what you see in the gallery. But this is a month for us to go 100 per cent photography and celebrate what people contribute,” said Kevin McCormick, a member of the Canmore Art Guild.
“This time we thought well, ‘let’s focus beyond the Bow Valley to give some of the contributing artists latitude to show other pieces of their art.’”
Both Canmore galleries will host a joint opening reception on Feb. 2 starting at 6:30 p.m. In the art guild’s gallery at 7 p.m., one of the showcased photographers, Mark Vitaris, will be giving a talk about his artwork, which will be followed by a talk with the exhibited artist in the Three Sisters Gallery at 7:45 p.m.
Additionally, there will be a small gallery in the Canmore Civic Centre, which is an extension of the two exhibits in Elevation Place.
“We’ll have a small showcase of some artists at the Civic Centre as well as part of Exposure,” said Hayduk.
The Canmore Art Guild will be displaying its exhibit from Feb. 1-25 and the Three Sisters Gallery will be open for viewing from Feb. 1 to March 11.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A jury found Friday that celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D did not violate a photographer’s copyright when she used his portrait of Miles Davis as the basis for a tattoo she put on the arm of a friend.
The Los Angeles jury deliberated for just over two hours before deciding that the tattoo by the former star of the reality shows “Miami Ink” and “LA Ink” was not similar enough to photographer Jeffrey Sedlik’s 1989 portrait of the jazz legend that she needed to have paid permission.
“I’m obviously very happy for this to be over,” Von D, who inked her friend’s arm with Davis as a gift about seven years ago, said outside the courtroom. “It’s been two years of a nightmare worrying about this, not just for myself but for my fellow tattoo artists.”
The eight jurors made the same decision about a drawing Von D made from the portrait to base the tattoo on, and to several social media posts she made about the process, which were also part of Sedlik’s lawsuit. And they found that the tattoo, drawing and posts also all fell within the legal doctrine of fair use of a copyrighted work, giving Von D and other tattoo artists who supported her and followed the trial a resounding across-the-board victory.
“We’ve said all along that this case never should have been brought,” Von D’s attorney Allen B. Grodsky said after the verdict. “The jury recognized that this was just ridiculous.”
Sedlik’s attorney Robert Edward Allen said they plan to appeal. He said it the images, which both featured a close-up of Davis gazing toward the viewer and making a “shh” gesture, were so similar he didn’t know how the jury could reach the conclusion they did.
“If those two things are not substantially similar, then no one’s art is safe,” Allen said.
He told jurors during closing arguments earlier Friday that the case has “nothing to do with tattoos.”
“It’s about copying others’ protected works,” Allen said. “It’s not going to hurt the tattoo industry. The tattoo police are not going to come after anyone.”
Allen emphasized the meticulous work Sedlik did to set up the shoot, to create the lighting and mood, and to put Davis in the pose that would make for an iconic photo that was first published on the cover of JAZZIZ magazine in 1989. Sedlik registered the copyright in 1994.
And he said that subsequently, licensing the image to others including tattoo artists was a major part of how he made his living.
Von D said during the three-day trial that she never licenses the images she recreates, and she considers work like the Davis tattoo a form of “fan art.”
“I made zero money off it,” she testified. “I’m not mass-producing anything. I think there is a big difference.”
Her attorney Grodsky emphasized for jurors that that lack of an attempt to cash in on the image was essential to the tattoo being a form of fair use, an exception in copyright law used for works including commentary, criticism and parody.
Allen argued in his closing that the social media posts about the tattoo were a promotion of her and her studio, and thus a form of monetizing the image.
If jurors had sided with Sedlik, they could have awarded him as little as a few hundred dollars or as much as $150,000.
Von D was among the stars of the reality series “Miami Ink” then was the featured artist on its spinoff “LA Ink,” which ran ran on TLC from 2007 to 2011.
The 41-year-old Von D, whose legal name is Katherine von Drachenberg, was already a prominent young tattoo artist when she became a TV personality through her appearances on TLC’s “Miami Ink” starting in 2005 on TLC. She was the central star of its spinoff, “LA Ink,” which ran from 2007 to 2011 and made her possibly the most famous tattoo artist in the country.
Von D said that despite the victory, she’s not enthused about getting back to work.
“I think I don’t want to ever tattoo again, my heart has been crushed through this in different ways,” she said. “We’ll see with time.”
LOS ANGELES – A jury found Friday that celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D did not violate a photographer’s copyright when she used his portrait of Miles Davis as the basis for a tattoo she put on the arm of a friend.
The Los Angeles jury deliberated for just over two hours before deciding that the tattoo by the former star of the reality shows “Miami Ink” and “LA Ink” was not similar enough to photographer Jeffrey Sedlik’s 1989 portrait of the jazz legend that she needed to have paid permission.
“I’m obviously very happy for this to be over,” Von D, who inked her friend’s arm with Davis as a gift about seven years ago, said outside the courtroom. “It’s been two years of a nightmare worrying about this, not just for myself but for my fellow tattoo artists.”
The eight jurors made the same decision about a drawing Von D made from the portrait to base the tattoo on, and to several social media posts she made about the process, which were also part of Sedlik’s lawsuit. And they found that the tattoo, drawing and posts also all fell within the legal doctrine of fair use of a copyrighted work, giving Von D and other tattoo artists who supported her and followed the trial a resounding across-the-board victory.
“We’ve said all along that this case never should have been brought,” Von D’s attorney Allen B. Grodsky said after the verdict. “The jury recognized that this was just ridiculous.”
Sedlik’s attorney Robert Edward Allen said they plan to appeal. He said it the images, which both featured a close-up of Davis gazing toward the viewer and making a “shh” gesture, were so similar he didn’t know how the jury could reach the conclusion they did.
“If those two things are not substantially similar, then no one’s art is safe,” Allen said.
He told jurors during closing arguments earlier Friday that the case has “nothing to do with tattoos.”
“It’s about copying others’ protected works,” Allen said. “It’s not going to hurt the tattoo industry. The tattoo police are not going to come after anyone.”
Allen emphasized the meticulous work Sedlik did to set up the shoot, to create the lighting and mood, and to put Davis in the pose that would make for an iconic photo that was first published on the cover of JAZZIZ magazine in 1989. Sedlik registered the copyright in 1994.
And he said that subsequently, licensing the image to others including tattoo artists was a major part of how he made his living.
Von D said during the three-day trial that she never licenses the images she recreates, and she considers work like the Davis tattoo a form of “fan art.”
“I made zero money off it,” she testified. “I’m not mass-producing anything. I think there is a big difference.”
Her attorney Grodsky emphasized for jurors that that lack of an attempt to cash in on the image was essential to the tattoo being a form of fair use, an exception in copyright law used for works including commentary, criticism and parody.
Allen argued in his closing that the social media posts about the tattoo were a promotion of her and her studio, and thus a form of monetizing the image.
If jurors had sided with Sedlik, they could have awarded him as little as a few hundred dollars or as much as $150,000.
Von D was among the stars of the reality series “Miami Ink” then was the featured artist on its spinoff “LA Ink,” which ran ran on TLC from 2007 to 2011.
The 41-year-old Von D, whose legal name is Katherine von Drachenberg, was already a prominent young tattoo artist when she became a TV personality through her appearances on TLC’s “Miami Ink” starting in 2005 on TLC. She was the central star of its spinoff, “LA Ink,” which ran from 2007 to 2011 and made her possibly the most famous tattoo artist in the country.
Von D said that despite the victory, she’s not enthused about getting back to work.
“I think I don’t want to ever tattoo again, my heart has been crushed through this in different ways,” she said. “We’ll see with time.”
The HOVERAir X1 Self-Flying Camera is a compact photography drone engineered to provide users with the easiest way to capture a range of shots in a handsfree manner. The drone weighs in at just 125-grams and is compact enough to be carried anywhere, while the preprogrammed flight modes work with self-stabilization technology to keep it hovering at just the right level. The unit is equipped with a premium lens rated to record videos at up to 2.7K at 30fps, 1080p at 60fps and 1080p HDR, while single images can also be snapped at leisure.
The HOVERAir X1 Self-Flying Camera comes in black and white color options, and works in Follow, Hover, Orbit, Zoom Out and Bird’s Eye modes to support any user needs.
