McKenna is British or lives there and is donating to a French museum. I don't know how the tax and inheritance laws are affected in this situation.
I wouldn't be surprised if that would still result in a big capital gains tax bill for Mr. Kenna's estate.
We don't really have much in the way of inheritance taxes in Canada - less than 1.4% in Probate fees in this province - but 1/2 of any crystalized capital gain is added to the year of death income, and taxed at the rates that apply to the resulting sum. A properly structured donation to appropriately configured not-for-profit registered entities wipes out that tax on capital gains.
Who cares?? It is his money and you do not get a say in what he does with his money? Why are you poking you nose in his personal business?
really?It was the OP who said in his opening post"...I'm honestly a bit taken aback by this, outside of the incredible gesture of the gift, not sure what to make of it." Secondly, McKenna went public about this because he's interested in notoriety and what people think about his work after he's dead. So that opens up the discussion for public comment. It's not an "incredible gesture" without knowing how it affects his heirs. It also affects the taxes the rest of us pay. It's no longer a personal matter.
Additionally, some people here may want to do something similar: protect their negatives and prints but allow for their heirs to profit from their work after they're dead. Apparently, you're not one of those people. But there may be others who might learn from what McKenna did.
I will gladly apologize if he would explain how his heirs were protected since he gifted the museum. The article only explained how he protected his heritage and his concern for that after he dies.
Well, at least you realize it was a shitty thing to say and see the need to apologize. But since you are an uninterested party (in the legal sense), I wonder why you feel you have any expectations of an explanation from MK (personally or in an article). Even if MK left all his family and assorted heirs out of the deal completely, it would still none of your (our) business.
It was the OP who said in his opening post"...I'm honestly a bit taken aback by this, outside of the incredible gesture of the gift, not sure what to make of it." Secondly, McKenna went public about this because he's interested in notoriety and what people think about his work after he's dead. So that opens up the discussion for public comment. It's not an "incredible gesture" without knowing how it affects his heirs. It also affects the taxes the rest of us pay. It's no longer a personal matter.
Additionally, some people here may want to do something similar: protect their negatives and prints but allow for their heirs to profit from their work after they're dead. Apparently, you're not one of those people. But there may be others who might learn from what McKenna did.
From my personal experience, Michael did his heirs a tremendous favor.
Based on that consideration, I apologize to him for being so critical, and congratulate him for the thoughtful donation of his work to the museum. That was in fact a great way of doing it.
Well, at least you realize it was a shitty thing to say and see the need to apologize. But since you are an uninterested party (in the legal sense), I wonder why you feel you have any expectations of an explanation from MK (personally or in an article). Even if MK left all his family and assorted heirs out of the deal completely, it would still none of your (our) business.
It took long enough for you to get there.
Merg convinced me of the reason why it made sense. The rest of you just attacked me for my opinions. Maybe you were out of order.
What if a future curator decides there is not much artistic merit in his works and wishes to off load it. Is it theirs to choose?
In interviews he has said that if he was forced to live & photograph in only one country, he would choose France.
His complete lack of recognition in the UK is typical of the very poor status of photography in the UK and lack of understanding of it as an artform. Something that Helmut Gernsheim spoke about in scathing terms in his chapter in Paul Hill's 'Dialogue with Photography'.
You're entitled to your opinion. I like Mr Kenna's work. Maybe his books don't interest you but that may be more of a matter of editing and publishing. One could say the same about Robert Adams or Ansel Adams for that matter. I think a compilation book of Mr Kenna's work would be a worthwhile addition to a collection of photo books--well, mine at least.Or could it be that Kenna's work is just ... boring? Not seen as inventive enough to remember?
I'm not surprised this is big news to a number of people, but ultimately he made office wall photographs. Some, as individual / alone, are fine pieces, seeing them page by page is quickly not so. But that is what I see. Perhaps there is a hidden treasure in his negatives that has never seen the daylight, something that is quite far from what has been published, but to me he was just treating photography as way of making a living, a job of sorts, without having much individuality in most of them.
Now I'll step back into the bunker to avoid all the grenades coming my way.
What if a future curator decides there is not much artistic merit in his works and wishes to off load it. Is it theirs to choose?
Whatever agreement is now in place can't be valid in perpetuity. So, of course.
I guess it depends if the institution in question belongs to the AAMC or not, or still belongs at some future time when the imagined deaccession were to occur. And they are guidelines, not hard and fast rules or regulations. There is nothing to stop the institution or curator from doing as they please, except maybe public outrage. I am unsure if the French government has rules in place to regulate such an action.No it's not theirs to choose. There are strict rules. He can recommend the deaccessioning of an artwork or collection, but that just sets the motion. Guidelines from the Association of Art Museum Curators regarding deaccessioning are as follows:
The curator, or department chair, should initiate any recommendation for the disposition or deaccessioning of works of art from the collection. Procedures for approving proposed deaccessions differ from museum to museum: in many institutions, a curator’s recommendations are considered by the director and the appropriate committee and then submitted to a board of trustees for final decision. Curators must be candid and forthcoming with their director should they have any reservations about objects proposed for deaccession, whether or not the objects emanate from their department.
Strong reasons are needed for deaccessioning—for example, if the works are proven to be fake or misattributed, if the museum needs space that a large collection is taking, or if it is in financial trouble and needs money. Never will it happen simply according to the artistic taste of a curator. And since deaccessions are for selling the work, it would make a pretty bad sales pitch to say that the works are being "loaded off" for lack of artistic merit.
Moreover, there can be provisions in deals that prevents the selling of an artwork, part of a collection or the entire collection. Regarding Kenna, we don't know what the provisions are.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?