Evaluating Art After Warhol
Will Contemporary Art Be Chilled by the Supreme Court?
Doomsayers and dissenters have breathlessly warned that the Supreme Court’s decision in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith would needlessly chill artistic endeavors, particularly for appropriation artists. But is that really so? And what do contemporary artists, gallerists, and curators have to say about it? Xiyin Tang, Assistant Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, asked art insiders this very question, and we are pleased to get an early look and discussion about her forthcoming article in the UCLA Law Review called, appropriately, “Art After Warhol.” Her article outlines how contemporary artists have developed an ethics of appropriation almost entirely independent from the legal frameworks long presumed to incentivize or chill artistic expression—but one that is more consonant with copyright law than the traditional arguments have assumed.
Professor Tang is an Assistant Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. She has previously served as a lead counsel for Facebook and an associate at Mayer Brown LLP and Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, where she worked on a variety of transactional and litigation matters in the technology, media, and entertainment sectors. Tang’s research focuses on the roles that technological evolution and new modes of dissemination play in the law of intellectual property. Her publications have appeared in top law journals including the Yale, Columbia, and Michigan law reviews. Tang received her B.A. in English Literature and Creative Writing summa cum laude from Columbia University and her J.D. from Yale Law School.
