Earlier this week, the LA Times ran a story under the headline: “Did David Burdeny copy Sze Tsung Leong’s photographs?” After reading the article, not only did I not care…but I was convinced that the REAL headline should have read: “New York Dealer Protects Artist’s Brand.”

I diligently read the article which trotted out all the Journalism 101 tropes of setting up adversarial diatribes and sprinkling a few well-placed contextual and historical markers. I had hopes of ultimately encountering an objective point of view….and I am still hoping for that. Given the prominent space devoted to the article one might wonder why there was never any revelation, at the very least, of who had what to gain in all of the exchanges that were cited. Additionally, at what point does the writer and publisher of the article owe it to the reader to reveal whatever relationships they may have with the principals; in other words, how did they know there was a “story,” at all?

We may never know the answer to the latter. But, please, allow me to shed some light on the former:

What does the gallerist in Vancouver have to gain by Mr. Burdeny’s “show?” Sales come to mind…and this article in which she bulldoggedly stands up for her artist’s aesthetic integrity will do nothing if not bring a show that should have passed without notice more notoriety than it deserves, and thereby, perhaps, drive sales. Though it could certainly backfire: her clientele may catch on that she is pushing them to buy “art” that may be little more than technically proficient imagemaking. Did anyone check out the gallery website to see what her exhibition schedule looked like and who was being shown besides Mr. Burdeny? Enough said.

How about Mr. Burdeny? What did he have to gain? Well, he got the show, didn’t he? Again the backfire: Did anyone go on his website to see what else he has been making? YIKES! Mr. Burdeny may be a very competent technician making very nice images…but his work seems clearly about the view and not about IDEAS (from whomever they may come).

And Mr. Leong? Interestingly enough, as the aggrieved party he may come out of this looking the best and may also have the most to gain…if one were to quantify the punitive damages he may reap through the legal efforts of his Canadian attorney and the investigative research provided by Mr. Milo, or, more likely, an assistant.

So of the major players, this leaves only Mr. Milo. What could he possibly have to gain from the publication of an article on the front page of the Sunday Arts section in a major U.S. market that presents his artist as the supposed wronged party whose ideas have been usurped, his livelihood threatened…and his institutional affiliations and pedigree highlighted . Can you say advertising? Does anyone really think that the sale of pretty pictures in British Columbia will adversely impact Mr. Leong’s market as the writer teasingly suggests?  Sure, Mr. Milo may lose a “decorator” sale, but let’s be serious: those sales would never have been realized on the basis of a serious collecting decision, anyway. Mr. Milo has been successful in hawking Mr. Leong’s work to a few big collections and alot of little ones…how big are Mr. Leong’s editions, anyway? From the “evidence” cited by the writer, sounds like what really is at stake is a pissing contest between dealers with Mr. Milo (who is winning, by the way) more interested in protecting his income than his artist’s intellectual integrity.

All that said (and I feel so much better for having gotten it all off my chest), I guess the true reason this rant has kept my fingers moving is that the article, which is passing as Arts Coverage is more like a petulant first half of what may be a new television series: “Law & Order: SBA (selling bad art).” Shame on you, Ms. Arts Editor!

Stay tuned for my take on the real issues of this soap-opera, and what their implications may be.