{"id":2120,"date":"2010-02-25T11:45:46","date_gmt":"2010-02-25T15:45:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/?p=2120"},"modified":"2010-02-25T11:45:46","modified_gmt":"2010-02-25T15:45:46","slug":"polaroid-collection-update-13a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/2010\/02\/25\/polaroid-collection-update-13a\/","title":{"rendered":"Polaroid Collection: Update 14"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Polaroid Camera, 1960s wood prototype<\/p><\/div>\n

Here’s Sotheby’s February 11, 2010 press release announcing the pending auction of the Polaroid Collection<\/a>. It concludes with the following: “Note to editors: The collection is being sold by Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota.”<\/p>\n

\u00b7<\/strong><\/p>\n

A February 12, 2010 post by Marion Maneker\u00a0at Art Market Monitor<\/em><\/a> states that “A. D. Coleman has been leading the fight against the sale of the Polaroid collection.” Let me correct this misperception, or at least put a finer point on it.<\/p>\n

As both the Minnesota Bankruptcy Court, in its August 27, 2009 proceeding<\/a>, and Federal Magistrate Judge Sam Joyner<\/a> have made clear, I don’t have standing in this case, since I don’t have work in the collection. In Joyner’s words, I “don’t have a dog in this fight.”<\/p>\n

Therefore, by definition, I can’t “lead the fight.” If a “fight against the sale of the Polaroid collection” does take place, it will do so because, and only<\/em> because, plaintiffs with standing \u2014 photographers with work in the collection \u2014 file either a Motion for Rehearing of the August 27 court decision or an appeal thereof. In relation to that fight, should it ensue, I will function as a cultural journalist commenting on it and possibly an expert witness (should either side solicit my services in that role).<\/p>\n

What I do lead presently, have led since July ’09, and intend to lead until this situation plays itself out and culminates, is the effort to inform the photography\/art audience \u2014 including those with work in the collection \u2014 of what’s happening in regard to this auction, and how we got to this sorry point. This is a journalistic project, not a legal one, and should be understood as such.<\/p>\n

Surely the planned break-up of this distinctive repository (at a time when notable photo collections are so often respected in their integrity, conserved, and protected for posterity), merits such attention. Just as certainly, the steps by which legally binding contracts “in perpetuity,” made with hundreds of photographers and covering thousands of works, got voided by courts that never reviewed those documents deserves close scrutiny, and careful study as a cautionary tale. I feel no need or obligation to rationalize or justify my project beyond that.<\/p>\n

Toward those ends, here at Photocritic International<\/em> I’ve done the following since mid-July ’09:<\/p>\n