The Globe and Mail reports that the family of a Canadian sculptor, Haydn Davies, and the Lambton College of Applied Arts and Technology have settled a $1.2-million lawsuit over the destruction of one of the artist’s most famous works. Davies’s monumental scuplture Homage, made of laminated western red cedar, was razed in 2005.
Details of the settlement were not available, but The Globe and Mail reports that the settlement will result in an annual cash award for one sculpture student from the Ontario College of Art and Design in Toronto, where Davies studied in the 1940s. The lawsuit has also inspired a play, which is set to open in Toronto in June.
At the time of its destruction, Homage was deemed structurally unsafe by college officials. Animals like raccoons and hornets had taken up residence in the holes in the artwork, according to reports at the time. However, fans of the sculpture called its removal “an act of vandalism” and accused the college of failing to maintain the sculpture properly.
Before his death in 2008, Davies designed a new sculpture that will incorporate pieces of Homage. The new sculpture will sit outside the Art Gallery of Algoma in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. The museum already has a large collection of the artist’s work.
Follow Buildings & Grounds through your favorite RSS reader: 
2 Responses to Family of Canadian Artist Settles Lawsuit With College That Destroyed His Sculpture
drangie - May 25, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Who *owned* the work? I know that at my institution, when we accept works of art, it’s written deal: the donor agrees to the terms that institution owns it, and is free to do with it whatever it wants. If, on the other hand, this was still owned by the artist or his estate, and was on loan to the college, then it’s another matter. The institution should have told the artist that it wanted him to remove it. it would have been good if this article explained that. I also wonder if the institution tried to find someone to sell it to, or another organization that would take and display the art. Like so many of these little news nuggets in the CHE, so much more information is left out than is included, leaving more questions than answers.
scarlson - May 30, 2010 at 9:42 am
Ownership here is not part of the claim, as far as I can see. The artist and his family were suing on the basis of a violation of his moral rights under Canadian copyright law. Here’s what that covers, from Creative Commons Canada: “This is the right that protects an author’s work from mutilation or distortion. Regardless of whether the economic rights in a creative work have been sold, the work cannot be so modified as to constitute a mutilation or distortion that would harm the honour or reputation of the creator.”Also, if you read the linked articles, you’ll see that the artist’s family said that they had worked out an agreement with administrators to delay destruction of the work to allow time to prepare a response. But the work was destroyed anyway through miscommunication.