California (Bay Area, Northern) Artist has work removed from Ritual Coffee Roasters, deemed too "Serious"

This is great news for me!

I have a wonderful portfolio of kitten and puppy photos to send to Ritual. This could be a quick and easy pay check.
 
Harry S. said:
A non-issue to me. The owner doesnt like your work, take it down. Be thankful for any and all time it was hanging.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm going to agree with this. It's obviously rather emotionally heavy work, and if the owner doesn't want it there it's pretty obvious to me that there are always other opportunities. The contract is a bummer but it's not like he's ruined or something because of it...
 
Given that the coffee shop is located in San Francisco, in the Mission District to be exact - one of the bastions of creativity & personal expression in the City, I am a bit perplexed that the owner decided to take it down. Yes it is her choice and she owns the place but barring the specifics of the "contract" signed by both parties, she should have kept them up.

Honestly I think in today's world of Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and what not, the owner bit more than what she wanted and may lose customers...more than what she would have lost if she just kept the artwork up.
 
I might be unpopular for saying this, but we don't know what the contract says (it might just define liability in case of damage), we don't know if she had customer complaints, she has another show lined up and a business to run.
 
the contract is linked - but it says the prints will remain for at least 6 weeks, and there will be a 75/25 split of receipts. so the photog has laid out, s/he says, $3k in anticipation of selling some work.

of course, the photog is getting way more publicity with this little furore than would have been the case on the wall of a coffee shop in the Mission district.
 
I can understand being upset about spending that much money for framing etc and being disappointed about having the work removed when the photographer was probably pretty excited about hanging their work in the shop.

Still, the photographer's response is lame and unprofessional. Especially when the owner seems to be willing to try to hook them up with some of their personal connections to venues that would ultimately be harder to reach (probably.)

I don't like or agree with the sentiment that someone is doing you a favor just by showing your work. Sure, if it's a venue that has a lot of power or legitimacy in the community you're trying to reach with your art then I can definitely see it as a huge favor to you and one you should treat as such. Maybe allow yourself to be pushed around a little bit in that case ;)
 
Paul T. said:
Absolutely incorrect.

THere was an agreement - by two parties - to display the work. The owner has broken that contract - in fact, she confirms she is in the wrong by saying she's fired the curator. The curator was hired by her, she has responsibility for the curator's agreements, a responsibility that is not affected by her sacking the curator.

One can argue all of this on an aesthetic basis, but the fact remains the owner is being unprofessional .
Click to expand...

No, you are incorrect. I was commenting on the photographer's use of the word "banned" and her public behavior. "Banned" implies that the coffee shop owner took the photos down for moral or political reasons which is clearly not the case. She just didn't think they were the right fit for this venue. We do not know what kind of contract they had and it doesn't concern us since it's a legal matter which should be resolved legally. The owner is being far more professional than the photographer. She sent her a polite letter explaining her reasons. The photographer, OTOH, is being totally unprofessional by badmouthing the coffee shop owner on public platforms, showing her full name, address and e-mail address.
 
Paul T. said:
the contract is linked - but it says the prints will remain for at least 6 weeks, and there will be a 75/25 split of receipts. so the photog has laid out, s/he says, $3k in anticipation of selling some work.

of course, the photog is getting way more publicity with this little furore than would have been the case on the wall of a coffee shop in the Mission district.
Click to expand...

I can't find the contract either, but like I said, it's a legal matter and should be dealt with legally.

But let's talk about the photographer. She anticipated to sell work for a total of at least $4000 to break even? In a coffee shop? Either she's not being honest about the cost, very naive or just plain stupid.

And yes, you're right, the photographer's obviously trying to create controversy for publicity's sake. She even added the caption "Just banned from Ritual, San Francisco" to the gallery on her website.
 
All sounds like a storm in a coffe pot to me.

Shop owner says they fired someone over this. That sounds pretty pathethic considering from the sound of it they hired them to make the choice. To then fire them saying the choice they made wasn't what was wanted sounds like the job definition was "You can choose anything so long as I like it otherwise I fire you". Doesn't say much for the coffee shop owner.
 
agi said:
Given that the coffee shop is located in San Francisco, in the Mission District to be exact - one of the bastions of creativity & personal expression in the City, I am a bit perplexed that the owner decided to take it down. Yes it is her choice and she owns the place but barring the specifics of the "contract" signed by both parties, she should have kept them up.

Honestly I think in today's world of Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and what not, the owner bit more than what she wanted and may lose customers...more than what she would have lost if she just kept the artwork up.
Click to expand...


My thoughts exactly, John. The action of the owner was way outside the tone and the aesthetics of the neighborhood. There is no way that this work would have offended her patrons, but the actions of the owner certainly will. The artist can make hay with this (and obviously is doing just that). The owner of Ritual should have know better.


/
 
Jamie123 said:
I can't find the contract either, but like I said, it's a legal matter and should be dealt with legally.

But let's talk about the photographer. She anticipated to sell work for a total of at least $4000 to break even? In a coffee shop? Either she's not being honest about the cost, very naive or just plain stupid.

And yes, you're right, the photographer's obviously trying to create controversy for publicity's sake. She even added the caption "Just banned from Ritual, San Francisco" to the gallery on her website.
Click to expand...

you don't expect to break even in one show unless you are delusional. you do however make an investment in materials that you need to start earning back. 4-5 sales could make up a good payment on the card you ran up to purchase said materials. not selling anything can hurt, i assure you.

my two cents? the photographer should make some quick decisions and make this go away. check out her 'friends' gallery offer and if it's reputable and the staff will promote her show then get on it. not only is she going to hurt her 'brand' by pursuing this mess too publicly she may also miss a great opportunity. as an artist you 'buy' lines on your bio/cv when you get rolling. exhibition history is a very important section and the coffee shop stuff usually isn't worth it. an established and reputable gallery? very worth an investment in the same range.

just my 2c
 
I don't think the artists expected to break even, I surely wouldn't in today's economy. She wanted exposure (boy she got it) and Ritual is a very known product here in the City. I wouldn't have done the same thing she's doing now from a legal standpoint. She made it too public and if she decides to pursue it in a legal sense I think she's already shot herself in the foot. The gallery route with the owners boyfriend & friend has also been nixed now. I would have sat down, calmed down and assessed what I should do and how to approach it before I go forward. Going her route and with the Controbloggers hawking her situation isn't going to help.

My 2 cents....
 
I walk into lots of coffee shops with photography on the walls. I seldom read the backgrounder, I'm getting coffee not art. I don't think I've ever bought art from a coffee shop.

What do we have here? A photographer who documented her mom's apartment as she moved the belongings out. She's someone with an emotional attachment and she's a photographer who sells photographs

Now the coffee shop owner, she has no interest in photography. She wants free stuff decorating the shop walls and if some sells she gets a few bucks. Every month or two she has fresh art decorating the shop. She has no emotional investment in the photography

So the photographer does a show all encouraged by the appointee for the coffee shop manager. Somewhere a gap develops between the owner who likes free decoration and the person (curator) who gets free decorating for her. The owner says "no shots of dreary apartment interiors that look like the former Soviet Republic I want birds!"

Because she's the owner she says "Take it down!" Because there's a contract she offers $300.00 as settlement. It's called a flyer. Maybe the photographer will take it and go away because pressing the case takes more time and money than it's worth.

The photographer who is really showing part of their heart is devastated by the rejection.

Now you can write your own ending.
...................

FWIW I don't see anything dark in any of these photographs. I've seen the same stuff from Eastern Block photographers and they have credentials. Personally "chacun a son gout" The owner is off the mark sending the photographer to her boyfriend. It reeks of building his business at the photographers expense or alternately passing the buck. All round it was badly handled.
 
Last edited:
jan normandale said:
I walk into lots of coffee shops with photography on the walls. I seldom read the backgrounder, I'm getting coffee not art. I don't think I've ever bought art from a coffee shop.

What do we have here? A photographer who documented her mom's apartment as she moved the belongings out. She's someone with an emotional attachment and she's a photographer who sells photographs

Now the coffee shop owner, she has no interest in photography. She wants free stuff decorating the shop walls and if some sells she gets a few bucks. Every month or two she has fresh art decorating the shop. She has no emotional investment in the photography

So the photographer does a show all encouraged by the appointee for the coffee shop manager. Somewhere a gap develops between the owner who likes free decoration and the person (curator) who gets free decorating for her. The owner says "no shots of dreary apartment interiors that look like the former Soviet Republic I want birds!"

Because she's the owner she says "Take it down!" Because there's a contract she offers $300.00 as settlement. It's called a flyer. Maybe the photographer will take it and go away because pressing the case takes more time and money than it's worth.

The photographer who is really showing part of their heart is devastated by the rejection.

Now you can write your own ending.
...................
Click to expand...

Mostly agree with what you've said here but can't comment on the contract. Personally I don't find much merit in the photography or much merit in the reaction of the photographer. There is no god given right to have your work classified as art or valued as such. The owner, contracts aside, has every right to decide what she wants hanging in her premises. If life was easy, we'd all be famous photogs with exhibitions and book deals coming out of our ears. There are more important matters in the world today, even the virtual world.
 
The shop owner was well withn her rights to remove the work. The content of the work or ones impression of the work makes no difference; she is the owner nad does not want it there.

She also has some sort of contract with the artist. The artist is well within their rights to demand performance of the contract.

An attorney could have settleled this with a few lettters but now that the artist publicised the actions of the owner the artist has gained publicity and that has a dollar figure to it....makes this all more complicated to arrive at a fair settlement of damages.

What sort of damages could we be talking about? Does the artist have a history of this sort of work in this sort of venue with projected sales? Are there established estimated sales from other exhibits hung in that coffee shop? In other words how would one decide what damages were suffered by the artist?

3k to set up the show? That seems high but the artist stil has the 3k worth of framing in his or her hands. That is called a capital investment in ones product that can be sold at a later date.
 
Stepping back, the strength of feeling of the various posters is quite interesting. If I have a strong reaction to something involving someone else, that strong reaction sheds a light on some issue I have more than anything else.

There are many factors not yet known which would affect how strong or weak a case the artist would have legally. What if the artist had explicitly told the curator that $3,000 would be spent on prepping a display specific to the coffee shop setting. Then that actual knowledge could be used as a basis for seeking $3,000 in damages. Absent a way of showing actual knowledge of the $3,000 having been spent and absent proving that it was indeed spent specifically for that display, the artist would be limited to whatever could be proved to have been the amount of income lost from the time the display was taken down up through the time it should have been taken down (i.e. the 6-week mark). Such proof would usually be quite difficult. Parenthetically, this assumes that one could prove the curator was the agent, real or ostensible, of the coffee house owner. Lastly, one would want to know if the contract have an attorney-fee clause. In the real world, that might be the deciding question underneath all questions as to the merits of the case.

If, out of idle curiosity, one were wondering about something other than breach of contract, off the top of my head, and based on the very limited information, I'm not coming up with any legitimate extra-contractual claims.

I mention all this boring legal stuff because it is independent of aesthetics and taste and is, for better or worse, all that really matters in the real world sense of what is arguably right or wrong. All the other considerations are a matter of opinion, and that just gets us arguing about the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top