E.U Turn The Lights Out On Flavin And Viola

// December 23rd, 2010 // b-scene // b-uncut

At b-uncut, we have often raised the debate over what really constitutes art. It seems now even the tax man is getting in on the act…

The late artist Dan Flavin, famous for his installations lit by fluorescent tubes, has stirred up the debate over artistic merit with the most unlikely of sources…the tax man. A ruling by European Commission officials mean that pieces by the late American artist are liable for full VAT because they are simply no more than “lighting fittings”. The ruling means that any museum or gallery bringing his works into the country from outside the EU will have to pay a full VAT levy, due to rise to 20 per cent on Jan 1. This is bad news for art fans, as prices will have to rise to accommodate. That’s if the galleries decide it viable to show Flavin’s works at all. The E.U’s decision will also affect the works of Bill Viola, whose slow motion video pieces won plaudits when they were exhibited at the National Gallery in London.

The E.U.’S decision follows a legal battle by London’s Haunch of Venison art gallery, which was ordered to pay a £36,000 VAT bill by British tax authorities for importing components for pieces by both artists in 2006. As sculptures, the pieces would have only been subject to 5 per cent VAT. Quite a difference. In its ruling, the court said Flavin’s work has “the characteristics of lighting fittings … and is therefore to be classified … as wall lighting fittings”. Great insight and logic then.

It has to be said, the ruling of this case is absolutely ridiculous and is clearly the reasoning of people that don’t value or even like art. A view shared by Pierre Valentin, the lawyer who challenged the original customs ruling, “To suggest, for example, that a work by Dan Flavin is a work of art only when it is switched on, is comical. One is entitled to ask if the commission has made a judicious use of its powers when overruling these judicial decisions. The reasons given in the regulation in support of the classification are absurd, and the regulation conflicts with the jurisprudence of the European court of justice.”

It does, however, bring to the social consciousness the question of what constitutes art. It will be interesting to see how this ruling impacts upon other types of art. Are there any other areas for the tax man to exploit? Once the verdict sinks in, what will the public opinion be on this?

What do you think? In the face of this ruling, does Flavin’s work carry any less merit than the much derided works of Martin Creed or Tracey Emin?

Let us know what you think on this…