Who is the real author? German court agrees with artist who painted work by Kippenberger

A ruling bound to be controversial, that of the Munich District Court, which has ruled on the case pitting Berlin painter Götz Valien against the administrators of the estate of Martin Kippenberger (Dortmund, 1953 - Vienna, 1997), one of the greatest and most controversial artists of the second half of the 20th century. The issue concerns the series of paintings Paris Bar, dedicated to the Berlin club of the same name, a legendary artists’ hangout in the early 1990s. In 1991, Kippenberger, excluded from a major art exhibition held at Berlin’s Gropius Bau, organized a counter-exhibition calling artists friends of his. Kippenberger then commissioned an advertising company, Werner Werbung, to execute a painting based on a photo from the exhibition held at the Paris Bar. The painting thus depicts the interior of the bar with the exhibition organized by the German artist.

A first version was finished in 1992, the second was completed in 1993, and the third was completed in 2010, several years after Kippenberger’s death. It was Valien himself who materially handled the paintings, and he is now asking to be recognized as the co-author of the paintings along with Kippenberger: the 2010 painting is in fact already attributed to him, which is not the case for the first two versions.

The court decision came on Monday, and the verdict was favorable to Valien. “During the creation of the paintings,” the court ruled, “the plaintiff had enough leeway for his own creative work.” With the first version, Valien created “an inviting, lively and warm atmosphere for the exhibition at the Paris Bar, which is not found in the photographic model of the exhibition and was not provided to him by Kippenberger.” A personal figure that the court would also identify in the second version.

The paintings, after they were completed, were always exhibited as works by Kippenberger. And it is not just about mere recognition of one’s work: a lot of money is also involved. In fact, the first version was sold at auction for 2.3 million pounds in 2009 in London. At the moment, however, the only issue being debated by the court is that of authorship: it is not yet known what economic consequences the Munich court’s decision will have. However, Kippenberger’s heirs have made it known that they will appeal.

In some ways, the affair is reminiscent of the Druet-Cattelan case, which pitted Maurizio Cattelan against French artist Daniel Druet, who wanted to have the authorship of some of the Paduan artist’s celebrated works, such as The Ninth Hour and Him: in that case, however, the Paris court agreed with Cattelan, since, in short, Druet was recognized as a mere material executor of the Italian artist’s ideas, who therefore remains the sole author of the works. In Munich, however, it was recognized that Valien provided a personal interpretation in responding to the commission. It will have to be seen, however, whether the ruling will be upheld in subsequent levels of judgment.

Pictured is the third version (2010) of Paris Bar.

Who is the real author? German court agrees with artist who painted work by Kippenberger

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.