The Appropriation of Joan Mitchell: Louis Vuitton’s Non-Consensual Use of the Late Artists’ Work

Should access to art be unrestricted? Once art is sent out into the world, to whom does it belong? Given the prevalence and dependence our society has on social media and the internet, it can be difficult to control what happens to a piece of art once it makes its way to platforms like Instagram, Twitter, and search engines like Google. This is made particularly burdensome by the oversaturation of information and images available. Just because something is readily accessible online does not mean it's free to use. And while there does exist a copyright law, Section 106, Copyright Act of 1976, that provides the artists who have created “fixed, tangible works” rights, there are still many instances in which art is used without permission.

One such instance occurred on February 12, when luxury fashion house Louis Vuitton released new ad campaigns for their Capucine handbags featuring actress Léa Seydoux. Upon the first view, the ads and their colors are vibrant, putting forth a feeling of joy and beckoning spring. But any art enthusiast, collector, historian, or anyone who pauses to look more closely at the paintings behind Seydoux recognizes that they aren’t just random works of art on canvas. They are, indeed, the work of the late Joan Mitchell, an American abstract expressionist who passed away in 1992. Shortly after the ads debuted, her foundation, the Joan Mitchell Foundation (JMF), issued a cease-and-desist letter. JMF stated that it had not agreed to the use of Mitchell’s work in the ads and that unless they were removed within three days of the letter’s delivery, the foundation would take legal action. 

Although the obvious commodity in the ads is meant to be the Louis Vuitton bags, the paintings are so inviting and alluring that the viewer’s eyes go right to them, further complicating the issue of the use of the paintings. Mitchell’s work helps sell the handbags being promoted and yet receives no credit. Writing for Hyperallergic, Elaine Velie states that the ads crop the paintings and do not include a credit line to Mitchell, further robbing the artist of agency over her work. The JMF typically does not allow the use of Mitchell’s work in work that promotes goods or services, as it was her wish that her work only be used for educational purposes. 

In her will, she detailed that upon her death, a foundation should be organized that “provides support and recognition for individual artists.” Since its inception, JMF has provided many artists with fellowships and residencies, extending invaluable assistance in their careers. The foundation’s fellowships are particularly stellar as they are awarded to 15 artists and contribute not only monetary funds over a five-year period but also guidance and support throughout this period. This exemplifies the commitment that JMF has to artists and their education within the art world and their aversion to commercializing the work of its founder. 

Yet in this instance, Louis Vuitton included Mitchell’s work in their ads despite their requests being repeatedly declined. As Carlie Porterfield writes for The Art Newspaper, the fashion house has not only circumvented the wishes of the late artist but has profited directly from their illicit usage. The foundation states that while it granted permission for Mitchell’s work to be used in an exhibit organized by the Foundation Louis Vuitton, an art museum sponsored by LVMH, Louis Vuitton’s parent company, it did not provide permission for any further use. 

The utilization of artwork without consent speaks to the lack of respect that is afforded to artists. This appropriative practice promotes the devaluation of art and artists. It advances the belief that making use of the work that someone has spent days, weeks, or even years creating is somehow acceptable. I would argue that the non-consensual use of artwork by women is a greater affront given that their work has not only historically been eclipsed by that of men, but women artists have frequently been positioned or cast as muses or props. Within art movements, such as the abstract expressionist movement of the 20^th century and earlier, artists like Lee Krasner, Elaine de Kooning, and Mitchell were either overlooked or consistently referred to in relation to their male partners. In including Mitchell’s work without consent, Louis Vuitton perpetuated the use of women artists as dispensable and unserious, disregarding the individual. 

The question that must be asked is, what happens when a brand, which has financial and legal privilege, appropriates the work of an artist? This is a particularly pertinent question when the artist in question does not have a foundation like Mitchell’s protecting their work. Those artists may not, and often do not have the same platform or following, and are left to attempt to retrieve the rights to own their own work by themselves. It’s not at all shocking that an influential and sizable luxury fashion house like Louis Vuitton would disregard the desires of an artist or their estate and use their work in a manner that goes against the artist’s ideology. 

Companies like Zara, who in 2016 was accused of stealing designs from over 40 artists, and Urban Outfitters, whom artist Stevie Koerner claimed stole a design, have had their share of being confronted and publicly called out by artists over their unlicensed use of their work. But unfortunately, when these big companies commit these kinds of grievances, they are not held responsible, and the artists lose out financially and creatively. 

Where does it end? How can artists put a stop to the intentional theft of their work?