Art

Donald Trump and the dying art of the courtroom sketch

Published

1 year ago

April 18, 2023

For the first time in its history, The New Yorker featured a courtroom sketch on its cover.

The image, which appears on its April 17, 2023, issue, gives viewers a glimpse of a historic court proceeding that could not be captured by cameras: the arraignment hearing of Donald Trump two weeks earlier.

Because Trump is the first former U.S. president to be criminally indicted, there is immense public interest in this case. However, when Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, his reactions and expressions could be visually recorded only by three approved courtroom artists.

In a way, it was a throwback to an era when only artists could provide the public with visual records of court proceedings. Yet with more and more jurisdictions allowing cameras into courtrooms, courtroom artists now find themselves working in a dying field.

Having studied both courtroom sketches and tabloid crime photography, I sometimes wonder what might be lost if courtroom art were to become extinct.

The history of courtroom sketches

Despite their dwindling numbers, courtroom artists are still able to pursue their craft because many judges continue to forbid photography in their courtrooms.

Yet a national standard for banning cameras in U.S. courtrooms is less than 100 years old.

When news photography flourished after World War I, courtroom photographs became a staple of tabloids such as the New York Daily News. These newspapers regularly sent their reporters to cover high-profile trials, taking advantage of the uneven patchwork of judicial positions on whether cameras should be allowed in courtrooms.

The trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann spurred a wave of regulations against cameras in courtrooms.

In 1935, Hauptmann was tried for kidnapping and murdering the child of Charles Lindbergh. To cover the so-called “Trial of the Century,” an estimated 700 reporters and more than 130 cameramen rushed to Flemington, New Jersey, leading to reports of photographers climbing on the counsel’s table, shoving their flashbulbs in witnesses’ faces and jockeying with one another to take pictures of Hauptmann.

The trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann attracted hoards of photographers.
Keystone-France/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

After investigating the sensational publicity surrounding the Hauptmann trial, the American Bar Association went on to ban courtroom photography in Canon 35 of its 1937 Canons of Judicial Ethics. Following the American Bar Association’s lead, Congress enacted Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 1944, which prohibited photography in federal courtrooms during judicial proceedings.

This statutory ban remains in place today in American federal criminal courts and in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The bulky cameras of the past, along with their cables, microphones and wires, required judges, witnesses, lawyers and jurors to navigate around them. Today’s cameras, however – whether in their compact, portable form or as remotely controlled, permanently mounted features in courtrooms – operate as less physically disruptive recorders of court proceedings.

Although cameras can give the general public direct access to what happens during a trial, they can also threaten what the American Bar Association has termed the “fitting dignity and decorum” of court proceedings. When cameras are permitted, as they were in the O.J. Simpson trial, judges and lawyers sometimes worry that the proceedings will turn into a circuslike spectacle.

An artistic flash

Because the history of courtroom sketches cannot be separated from the history of prohibiting photography in the courtroom, cameras and human artists are often positioned as competitors in the production of courtroom images.

Working with a print or television news agency, freelance courtroom artists need to draw quickly to meet news deadlines. Notably, courtroom artist Mary Chaney was able to depict, through more than 260 sketches, the criminal and civil trials of the four Los Angeles police officers charged with beating Rodney King.

Mary Chaney’s sketch of Rodney King on the witness stand during his 1994 trial.
Library of Congress

When courtroom illustrators, such as David Rose, assert that “the camera sees everything, but captures nothing,” they are arguing that the camera’s mechanical eye is a poor substitute for – as Chicago courtroom artist Andy Austin puts it – “the human eye, the human hand, dealing with a human subject for viewing by humans.”

While the camera can immediately generate highly detailed images of a trial, it cannot capture the emotional resonance of a courtroom moment. By funneling the emotional highs and lows of a trial through their body, courtroom artists can bring to their work irreplaceable sensory and dramatic insights.

Part of the drama stems from a courtroom artist’s ability to compress hours of court action into a single drawing. Artists can also manipulate the composition and perspective of their drawings to create “artistic pull.” Even though judges, lawyers, witnesses and the defendant may be physically spread out in the actual courtroom, the artist can bring them into close proximity with one another and the viewer.

It is in this way that courtroom sketches can make viewers feel the emotional pull of the trial’s main characters.

One sketch goes viral

This is what happened in Jane Rosenberg’s viral courtroom sketch of Trump.

Compared with the drawings made by Christine Cornell and Elizabeth Williams, Rosenberg’s image is the only one that depicts Trump looking glum, with his arms crossed as he eyes Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Because Bragg is not visible in the image, it appears as though Trump is fully facing the viewer with an expression that has been simultaneously described as despondent, disdainful and “pissed off.”

To allow viewers to focus even further on Trump’s facial expression and body language, the New Yorker cover crops Rosenberg’s illustration, so that it becomes a portrait of a former president in criminal court. Made up of energetic pastel-chalk lines that are suggestive but ultimately unfinished, the rough sketch aesthetically aligns with the moral “sketchiness” that has long dogged Trump.

The afterlives of courtroom sketches

When Reuters tweeted Rosenberg’s courtroom sketch of Trump, it jump-started the image’s afterlife.

Even though the practice of courtroom illustration has been described as a dying art form, courtroom sketches, like other cultural artifacts, are not only preserved in special collections and exhibits; they can also evolve through successive framings and interpretations.

In our current digital world, courtroom sketches can go viral on social media, especially if the artist fails to accurately capture the likeness of a high-profile, celebrity defendant.

Rosenberg herself is no stranger to creating viral courtroom sketches. When covering Deflategate – the deflated ball controversy involving NFL star Tom Brady – she drew a portrait of the then-New England Patriots quarterback that elicited comparisons to Quasimodo, Lurch and Thriller-era Michael Jackson.

Courtroom sketches can also be creatively transformed into online memes. Rosenberg’s Trump sketch has been photo-edited to evoke Edvard Munch’s “The Scream,” to include a bucket of KFC fried chicken and to appear as if he’d been caught by the Scooby Doo gang.

Trump’s fans and foes may not have gotten their mugshot. But they have a viral courtroom sketch, and what started as an image drawn under a courtroom’s tightly regulated conditions has since taken on a life of its own.

Source link

Art

Calvin Lucyshyn: Vancouver Island Art Dealer Faces Fraud Charges After Police Seize Millions in Artwork

Published

6 days ago

September 13, 2024

Harry Miller

In a case that has sent shockwaves through the Vancouver Island art community, a local art dealer has been charged with one count of fraud over $5,000. Calvin Lucyshyn, the former operator of the now-closed Winchester Galleries in Oak Bay, faces the charge after police seized hundreds of artworks, valued in the tens of millions of dollars, from various storage sites in the Greater Victoria area.

Alleged Fraud Scheme

Police allege that Lucyshyn had been taking valuable art from members of the public under the guise of appraising or consigning the pieces for sale, only to cut off all communication with the owners. This investigation began in April 2022, when police received a complaint from an individual who had provided four paintings to Lucyshyn, including three works by renowned British Columbia artist Emily Carr, and had not received any updates on their sale.

Further investigation by the Saanich Police Department revealed that this was not an isolated incident. Detectives found other alleged victims who had similar experiences with Winchester Galleries, leading police to execute search warrants at three separate storage locations across Greater Victoria.

Massive Seizure of Artworks

In what has become one of the largest art fraud investigations in recent Canadian history, authorities seized approximately 1,100 pieces of art, including more than 600 pieces from a storage site in Saanich, over 300 in Langford, and more than 100 in Oak Bay. Some of the more valuable pieces, according to police, were estimated to be worth $85,000 each.

Lucyshyn was arrested on April 21, 2022, but was later released from custody. In May 2024, a fraud charge was formally laid against him.

Artwork Returned, but Some Remain Unclaimed

In a statement released on Monday, the Saanich Police Department confirmed that 1,050 of the seized artworks have been returned to their rightful owners. However, several pieces remain unclaimed, and police continue their efforts to track down the owners of these works.

Court Proceedings Ongoing

The criminal charge against Lucyshyn has not yet been tested in court, and he has publicly stated his intention to defend himself against any pending allegations. His next court appearance is scheduled for September 10, 2024.

Impact on the Local Art Community

The news of Lucyshyn’s alleged fraud has deeply affected Vancouver Island’s art community, particularly collectors, galleries, and artists who may have been impacted by the gallery’s operations. With high-value pieces from artists like Emily Carr involved, the case underscores the vulnerabilities that can exist in art transactions.

For many art collectors, the investigation has raised concerns about the potential for fraud in the art world, particularly when it comes to dealing with private galleries and dealers. The seizure of such a vast collection of artworks has also led to questions about the management and oversight of valuable art pieces, as well as the importance of transparency and trust in the industry.

As the case continues to unfold in court, it will likely serve as a cautionary tale for collectors and galleries alike, highlighting the need for due diligence in the sale and appraisal of high-value artworks.

While much of the seized artwork has been returned, the full scale of the alleged fraud is still being unraveled. Lucyshyn’s upcoming court appearances will be closely watched, not only by the legal community but also by the wider art world, as it navigates the fallout from one of Canada’s most significant art fraud cases in recent memory.

Art collectors and individuals who believe they may have been affected by this case are encouraged to contact the Saanich Police Department to inquire about any unclaimed pieces. Additionally, the case serves as a reminder for anyone involved in high-value art transactions to work with reputable dealers and to keep thorough documentation of all transactions.

As with any investment, whether in art or other ventures, it is crucial to be cautious and informed. Art fraud can devastate personal collections and finances, but by taking steps to verify authenticity, provenance, and the reputation of dealers, collectors can help safeguard their valuable pieces.

Art

Ukrainian sells art in Essex while stuck in a warzone – BBC.com

Published

2 weeks ago

September 2, 2024

Harry Miller

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Ukrainian sells art in Essex while stuck in a warzone BBC.com

Source link

Art

Somerset House Fire: Courtauld Gallery Reopens, Rest of Landmark Closed

Published

1 month ago

August 18, 2024

Harry Miller

The Courtauld Gallery at Somerset House has reopened its doors to the public after a fire swept through the historic building in central London. While the gallery has resumed operations, the rest of the iconic site remains closed “until further notice.”

On Saturday, approximately 125 firefighters were called to the scene to battle the blaze, which sent smoke billowing across the city. Fortunately, the fire occurred in a part of the building not housing valuable artworks, and no injuries were reported. Authorities are still investigating the cause of the fire.

Despite the disruption, art lovers queued outside the gallery before it reopened at 10:00 BST on Sunday. One visitor expressed his relief, saying, “I was sad to see the fire, but I’m relieved the art is safe.”

The Clark family, visiting London from Washington state, USA, had a unique perspective on the incident. While sightseeing on the London Eye, they watched as firefighters tackled the flames. Paul Clark, accompanied by his wife Jiorgia and their four children, shared their concern for the safety of the artwork inside Somerset House. “It was sad to see,” Mr. Clark told the BBC. As a fan of Vincent Van Gogh, he was particularly relieved to learn that the painter’s famous Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear had not been affected by the fire.

Blaze in the West Wing

The fire broke out around midday on Saturday in the west wing of Somerset House, a section of the building primarily used for offices and storage. Jonathan Reekie, director of Somerset House Trust, assured the public that “no valuable artefacts or artworks” were located in that part of the building. By Sunday, fire engines were still stationed outside as investigations into the fire’s origin continued.

About Somerset House

Located on the Strand in central London, Somerset House is a prominent arts venue with a rich history dating back to the Georgian era. Built on the site of a former Tudor palace, the complex is known for its iconic courtyard and is home to the Courtauld Gallery. The gallery houses a prestigious collection from the Samuel Courtauld Trust, showcasing masterpieces from the Middle Ages to the 20th century. Among the notable works are pieces by impressionist legends such as Edouard Manet, Claude Monet, Paul Cézanne, and Vincent Van Gogh.

Somerset House regularly hosts cultural exhibitions and public events, including its popular winter ice skating sessions in the courtyard. However, for now, the venue remains partially closed as authorities ensure the safety of the site following the fire.

Art lovers and the Somerset House community can take solace in knowing that the invaluable collection remains unharmed, and the Courtauld Gallery continues to welcome visitors, offering a reprieve amid the disruption.

Source link