Caro Would Have Been Protected in the US

Daniel Grant follows up on the failed Anthony Caro sale where the owner of a sculpture restored it without regard to the artists wishes:

It is rare that the owner of valuable and important artworks intentionally alter them, but it does happen. “People, by and large, are very careful with important works of art, because these things have value” said Gilbert Edelson, administrative vice-president of the Art Dealers Association of America. “If they don’t like something, they sell rather than intentionally destroy it.” Capobianco noted that England doesn’t have a law that prohibits collectors from making alterations in artworks, or to penalize collectors who do, although the United States does – the 1990 Visual Artists Rights Act. A key example of the problem that Congress was addressing in the law took place in 1960 when a collector sought to purchase a red-painted welded-steel sculpture by David Smith from a dealer. The collector liked the sculpture but not the color. To accommodate the buyer, the dealer sent the sculpture to a foundry where the paint was stripped off. The artist was furious and sought to buy his work back, but the collector refused, informing Smith that the work looked much better now. The artist publicly “disowned” the sculpture but had no legal recourse to enforce his claims. (VARA offers that as a right.)

Sculpture that Anthony Caro “Disowned” Fails to Sell at Auction (Huffington Post)