Stuffed Eagles and Nonsense

So, as my first blog entry, it has become quite the difficult task to come up with something to write, but here it is.

Recently, a fellow student for this class (Printmaking Now, thus the title of this blog) sent everyone a few links. Out of said links, one struck me as quite particular. The link was an article in the New York Times called'Art’s Sale Value? Zero. The Tax Bill? $29 Million' published on 22 july 2012. It mentions how the current owners of Robert Rauschenberg's 'Canyon' must pay an exhorbitant amount of tax for a piece that is, essentially, of no value.

'Canyon', done in a post-war America 1959, features collage elements and mixed media. The reason that adds to it's contoversy is the use of a stuffed bald eagle. The contraversy that resides in this piece is a derrivative of the the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. These Acts "make it a crime to possess, sell, purchase, barter, transport, import or export any bald eagle — alive or dead".

The issue presented in this article, aside from a violation of these two acts, is that the I.R.S. is charging an exhorbitant amount of taxes and fees to the owners of this, basically, economically speaking, worthless piece. Taxes upon works of art are usually imposed due to the monetary value of the piece, yet granted that 'Canyon' has no financial value, it is up in question if said taxes and fees should be applied upon the heirs of the original owner, Ileana Sonnabend.

Now that the facts have been stated, I would like to approach this from a more opinionated and personal perspective.

Rauschenberg, creating this piece in a time after these two acts had been imposed, clearly knew this controversy was to arise at some point of his carrer. What the I.R.S. and those that 'give value' a work of art do not comprehend, I believe, is that this is part of the work's powerful statement. Because Rauschenberg did not personally kill nor taxidermy the eagle and used an eagle killed by Teddy Roosvelt's Rough Riders, I believe the artist nor the piece itself, an extension of the artist, should be held accountable to follow these Acts.

Let me explain myself. I believe the eagle within 'Canyon' is part of the piece now, it is not a separate entitiy from the work of art. It is no longer an illegal owned stuffed bald eagle; it is Rauschenberg's 'Canyon' and, because it's a work of art he made, it is an extension of himself.

Tha being said, I believe the work of art should not be subjected to economical technicisims because it has been rejected from a monitary value in the first place. Also, I believe people are looking past the work of art and merely focusing on one element that composes it, which, in all due respect, is quite silly for me.

Cheers,

-Bettina