Fashion functions in circles and what was trendy in previous decades tends to become fashionable again after 20 or 30 years have passed. But now it looks like we have a new trend courtesy of the Uffizi Gallery in Florence - the return of the fashion lawsuit concerning Botticelli's Venus.
The offending party this time is Jean Paul Gaultier: the French designer launched a capsule collection in April this year entitled "Le Musée". The latter features garments with prints of Sandro Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus", Pieter Paul Rubens' "The Three Graces", and Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam" on tops, pants, skirts and dresses.
It was recently announced that The Uffizi took legal action against the use of Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" in the collection. This is not the first time that the institution complains about the use of Botticelli's painting.
Last year, the museum took offense when Pornhub included in its "Classic Nudes" series a clip with Cicciolina as Botticelli's Venus.
The official statement released by the Uffizi on Monday claimed Gaultier used the image "without asking for permission", and didn't pay the fee provided for by law.
"According to the Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio (the Italian Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape, also known as Cultural Heritage Code, CHC) the use of images under the Italian public propriety is compulsorily subjected to a specific authorization and the payment of a fee," the Uffizi stated.
The cultural institution explained that the museum's legal office had sent a letter of formal notice to the fashion company back in April, but the notification was "substantially ignored" by the fashion house.
The general rule states that works are usually protected by copyright for 70 years after the death of their author; "The Birth of Venus" was painted in the mid-1480s, so it is usually considered as being in the public domain, free from copyright around the world.
Yet Article 10 of the CHC states that any object with a "cultural interest", from an artistic, historical, archaeological or ethno-anthropological viewpoint, may be declared of cultural interest and, consequently, classified as "cultural property", whether it is owned by a public entity (state, region, municipality), a private entity (corporation or not-for-profit organisation) or an individual.
More specifically: objects with a cultural interest made by non-living authors more than 70 years ago may be declared of cultural interest; objects made by living artists or by non-living artists less than 50 years ago cannot be declared of cultural interest and are not subject to cultural heritage protection. Objects with a cultural interest made by a non-living author between 50 and 70 years ago may be declared of cultural interest only if they show an exceptional interest for the integrity and completeness of the Italian cultural heritage.
The article offers therefore a way to control for-profit reproductions of Italian cultural heritage, irrespective of their copyright status.
Yet, there may be some ways for Gaultier to avoid the lawsuit: first of all, certain uses though do not fall under the CHC obligations, including "the reproduction of such images by private individuals for personal use and for the purpose of study, research, creative expression, or enhancement of cultural heritage." Gaultier may turn to creative expression in connection with these designs, indeed he didn't use the entire painting here, but sections remixed together in the garments. Besides, Gaultier's capsule that claims to promote art, so the fashion house may even claim it was enhancing cultural heritage.
Museums usually do not own copyrights of the artworks they own or preserve but hold permission to use an artwork as a whole or as a part and Gaultier may prove he has derived the images in "Le Musée" not from protectable reproductions of "The Birth of Venus" as owned by the museum.
There is another way for Gaultier to escape it all: proving that others haven't paid in previous cases and creating in this way a precedent. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples in which artists, designers, fashion designers, illustrators and assorted creative minds, used "The Birth of Venus" for commercial purposes.
In a previous post, we mentioned a wide range of artists including Andy Warhol, Tomoko Nagao (the logo-covered "Birth of Venus"), David LaChapelle ("Rebirth of Venus") and many more. Fashion-wise Dolce & Gabbana used the Venus in a 1990s halter dress and in a pantsuit and dress from their S/S 1993 collection.
On top of that Gaultier was sued only by The Uffizi, but he also used prints of Rubens and Michelangelo and he wasn't sued by the Museo del Prado that owns Rubens' paintings nor by The Vatican Museums ("The Creation of Adam" is a fresco part of the Sistine Chapel which is located inside the Vatican Museums; rights to take pictures or film the Sistine Chapel belonged to Nippon TV till the '90s as they had funded the restoration).
Maybe Gaultier should have been sued in this case not for using the painting, but for his rather banal choice, after all, we have seen Botticelli’s Venus all over the place. Next time, though, we would like to see a proper collaboration between a museum and a designer, like Pacsun's "The Study of Fine Arts: Highlights from The Met", a capsule collection in collaboration with The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. The capsule in this case features a wide variety of pieces including sweatsuits, t-shirts, hats, socks, inspired by Tiepolo, Latour and Van Gogh's artworks and obviously authorised by the museum.
As for the Uffizi, they have a record of suing people for using their artworks: a while back they even sued Italian waste collection company Alia for depicting Michelangelo's David in a hi-vis jacket and a red broomstick. So, if you're a fashion designer and want to use a painting, opt for one which is not in the Uffizi collection, and check out permissions in your country and in the rest of the world.
Last, but not least, for art's sake, please leave Botticelli's Venus alone, maybe opt for somebody less known and a bit angrier, stronger and fiercer à la Artemisia Gentileschi (bearing in mind that also her Judith beheading Holofernes is at the Uffizi…). After all, in our troubled times Venus is terribly passé.
Comments