building in the city and the headquarters of the banking network. Periera proposed me for the commission and provided a free-standing light-weight wall extending the full length of the banking lobby to receive the mural. This made it easily removable. The mural was 13 feet high, 120 feet in length, and required two years of designing and painting. Materials used were artist's acrylic on canvas applied to the wall with clear acrylic adhesive. The commission price was forty-thousand dollars.

The subject of the mural was the history of California migrations. This began with the migration of the Native American indians from Asia, the Spanish explorers and the building of the California missions, the rush of Americans to California following the discovery of gold at Sutter's Creek, the influx of Chinese labourers to build the railroads, and culminated with the greatest migration of all, the movement of Americans to California following the Second

World War.

The building was opened in 1968 with festivities and the mural was published by Crocker Bank with pride. Photo enlargements of this painting were used to decorate branch offices. Being open to the public the mural was visited and enjoyed by many citizens and educational tours, and it became a part of the artistic cultural fabric of Los Angeles and California.

In 1982 Crocker Bank sold the building to Mitsui Fudosan, an international Japanese real estate and bank conglomerate. In 1984 Mitsui leased the building to AT&T. To accommodate it's tenants, the new owners remodelled portions of the building and added another complete floor in the former banking lobby to hold AT&T's computers. Floor beams were punched through the mural and another wall built over it's face, thereby mutilating and entombing the painting. When the building reopened, I was notified by those wishing to view the mural that neither the painting nor the lobby was in evidence. My enquiries to AT&T amd Mitsui were met with evasiveness and misdirection. AT&T engineers finally divulged the truth, but their sentiments were capsulated in the expression "You were paid, were'nt

you?. What's your problem?".

Upon the urging of Artists Equity Association I reluctantly filed suit against the principals for intentionally destroying this historic mural on behalf of the public and California's artistic heritage. The publicity surrounding this event was instrumental in informing California owners of works of art they they have a responsibility which goes beyond the payment for the work. They also have the obligation to protect it against intentional or negligent damage. In addition, a work of art is an expression of the artist's personality. It's destruction is detremental to the artist's reputation. After many months of research, depositions and negotiations, the suit was settled out of court.

- 5

In the past three years I have received many

requests from art

owners for guidance in the maintenance of murals and the care and disposition of art work touched by building renovation or demolition. It has been gratifying to participate through the Los Angeles Mural Conservancy in the salvation of wonderful works which would have

otherwise been lost.

With respect and appreciation I urge you to support this important legislation. It strikes a fair balance between the interests of the artist, commercial and public institutions, and our cultural heritage. The California precedent has been successful, free of any excesses or frivolous suits. This bill creates a needed national uniform standard, providing this important protection across the country.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Dennis DeConcini,
Chairman,

Sub-Committee on Patents, Copyrights & Trademarks,

United States Senate,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington,

DC 20510 - 6275

Re: Visual Artists Rights Act (S. 1198) Hearing of June 20 1989
Supplemental questions.

Dear Senator DeConcini,

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your sub-committee
regarding the Visual Artists Rights Act. I am happy to respond to
your supplemental questions accompanying your letter of June 28th
1989, as well as any additional questions you may have in the future.
Moral Rights Waivers

-

response to DeConcini

I and Artist Equity Association, would oppose a provision in this
legislation which would allow an artist to waive moral rights.

contracts

In principle, it could be said that the best legislation regarding
would be that legislation which allows the widest options
to the participating parties. I believe this to be a valid exception

for several reasons.

1. There is a dramatic difference between the social and economic
power of the two parties entering into such an agreement. I
believe dealers and collectors would cause waivers to become
common practice due to their position in the relationship.

2. I believe the purpose of this legislation is to ensure artists
rights and to protect our cultural and artistic heritage. Though
the artist may waive his personal rights, by this act he is also
waiving what implied rights the community has to preserve works
of art from destruction

Artist/Client relationships

response to DeConcini

I have no reason to believe that the relationship between artists
and their clients would be harmed by moral rights legislation.
There has been only one case taken to court under the California

/cont..

Tom Van Sant, Inc. • 146 Entrada Drive Santa Monica, California 90402 • Tel. 213 459-4342

2

Fine Arts Preservation Act since its adoption in 1979. All other cases have been settled out of court. There have been no frivolous suits, no confounding of lawyers and judges, no burdening of the courts, and no reduction in artist's sales or commissions. To my mind, there have been no requests for moral rights waivers.

The loss in 1984 of the Crocker Citizens National Bank mural is not an isolated incident. Every active, mature artist I know has suffered the loss or mutilation of one of his major works. We hear of the loss or alteration of the Calder sculpture in Pittsburg, the Noguchi piece in New York, the Smith mural in Maryland and the chopped up Picasso. What is not well known are the losses occuring each day in local communities. Los Angeles has lost major works by Richard Haines, Susan Hertel, Millard Sheets, Kent Twitchell, Jane Golden, and many others prior to 1979. There have been fewer losses since the enactment of the California Fine Arts Preservation Act. This legislation has made possible the forming of the Los Angeles Mural Conservancy which now catalogues, restores and provides guidance to mural owners regarding preservation.

Success story: In 1987 the Beverly Wilshire Hotel called me regarding the California Fine Arts Preservation Act and a Millard Sheets mural in an area destined for renovation. The Mural Conservancy advised them in the removal of the mural. The Beverly Wilshire presented it as a gift to the people of Beverly Hills, and the mural now decorates a wall of the new Beverly Hills City Hall. The hotel benefited from the publicity and the community benefited from the mural relocation. This story would not have taken place without the California arts legislation.

Thank you for your consideration of the Visual Artists Rights Act.