I clearly should have gone into factory art. Or gourmet butter

Remember that post we made a while back about how this guy Clint Arthur is suing Louis Vuitton because it turned out his two $6000 Takashi Murakami prints were just repurposed handbag material stretched on canvases?

Nutshell recap: Takashi Murakami does art in which retail, mass consumption and mass production are often themes. One of the more recent things he’s done is a collaboration with Louis Vuitton on a very colorful reinterpretation of their logo, which went on a limited-edition line of handbags. In Murakami’s Superflat exhibitions in L.A. and Brooklyn in 2007, Louis Vuitton set up mid-exhibit stores in which you could buy handbags with the special print for about $1000 and “art” prints of the pattern (comparison above) for more.

L.A. apparently-has-more-money-than-knowledge-of-modern-art guy Clint Arthur sued after reading an ARTINFO interview with the MOCA show’s curator, specifically this part:

Whose idea was the Vuitton boutique?

It was Takashi’s idea to the degree that he had worked with them on two occasions. I don’t think he thought they would do it. But Takashi had full control through Louis Vuitton of what has gone on inside that space. And there have been some things that have surprised me.

Like what?

Takashi found exactly the point that would irritate both me and Louis Vuitton. He took the materials that he had printed for various [Vuitton] products—the white one, the cherry one, five different sorts of patterns—and he had them stretched like paintings and made into a very large but numbered edition. He’s sort of selling this rather high-end multiple up in the Louis Vuitton boutique.

We hoped beyond hope that this wouldn’t just get settled out of court, because if it goes to trial it is perhaps one of the most interesting excuses for a national discussion of what art is, like, all about that we’ve had in recent memory.

And it’s going to civil court!

An earlier judge tossed out a case Arthur filed against the museum, because they had offered Arthur (and anyone else displeased with the prints bought from the museum store) a full refund, which he turned down because he wanted to keep the prints; the ruling read “To allow a purchaser to both keep his allegedly defective purchase and to get his money back … rewards opportunistic litigation (of which this case is a prime example).”

The surviving lawsuit is against Vuitton, on the same grounds; Arthur claims Vuitton kept it a secret that the above print was made of the same materials as the handbag below it. Although the lawsuits are very similar, and Vuitton has also offered to refund Arthur’s money, a judge ruled yesterday that it was going to court, baby!

I kind of find it hilarious how all the art magazines that mention this case, not allowed to just say “This guy’s an utter idiot,” make up for it by taking the douchiest possible picture of him and mentioning at every possible opportunity that Arthur is a “manufacturer of gourmet butter.”

Photo: Stefano Paltera for the L.A. Times

L.A. Times blog: Art fraud lawsuit against Louis Vuitton over Murakami prints to go forward [updated]

ARTINFO: Murakami Print Buyer Wins Right to Pursue Lawsuit Against Vuitton