Choosing law as a profession stemmed from a deep intellectual curiosity. A high school political science course ignited a fascination with government and politics. This early interest solidified into a goal: becoming a law school graduate. The appeal wasn’t just about creative thinking, but about gaining a “legitimate” voice in society through critical thinking honed by legal training.
Becoming a lawyer was also a strategic decision to support another passion: painting. The plan was straightforward – practice law to handle financial obligations and dedicate time to painting to nurture the artistic spirit. During law school at New York Law School, discovering an art law course taught by Judith Bressler felt like a pivotal moment. This course was transformative, merging what had been separate worlds of art appreciation and legal interest. The potential for these two passions to coexist harmoniously became clear.
The field of art law is broad and diverse. It encompasses areas ranging from the technical aspects of art contracts to the compelling narratives of Nazi-looted art. Studies at London’s Institute of Art and Law (IAL) broadened the understanding of art law to include restitution and repatriation, de-accessioning, art protection, and the complexities surrounding street art censorship, among other topics.
The sheer variety and significance of art law issues are consistently striking. At an IAL Study Forum, Assistant Director Alexander Herman discussed the case of an 18th-century Panini painting that disappeared from London’s Orleans House Gallery fifty years prior. The gallery commissioned Fred Fordham to recreate the painting from a black-and-white photograph and existing versions. This situation raised questions about copyright law in the UK concerning derivative works. For Fordham to claim copyright, his work needed to be deemed an “original work of skill, labour and judgement,” distinct from minor alterations that don’t substantially change the original. The legal question was whether Fordham’s recreation, given the same composition, constituted minor alterations or substantial changes, especially regarding palette choices and reference to other versions.
These questions surrounding the Panini reproduction highlight the intriguing issues within art law. It prompts reflection on whether the same level of passion to explore these issues would exist without being both a painter and an attorney. Navigating the dual path of artist and attorney has, at times, brought self-doubt about prioritizing law over full-time painting. The adage by Matisse, “creativity takes courage,” resonates deeply. Witnessing the success of full-time artists has led to questioning the authenticity of being a painter while also practicing law.
Legal practice has spanned various fields, with limited direct engagement with art law initially, focusing on reinsurance, director/officer liability, and construction defects. The routine of a litigator involves research, drafting memoranda, conducting depositions, negotiating with opposing counsel, preparing for mediation, trial, and appeals, and managing client expectations regarding case timelines. Like many law graduates, the financial stability is there, but the demanding legal environment can be draining. Painting in the evenings and weekends serves as a vital counterbalance, a way to recharge and find creative fulfillment.
A recent brunch conversation with a law school friend touched upon the artistic inclinations both had felt since childhood. The discussion revisited Elle Luna’s book, The Crossroads of Should and Must, which promotes self-awareness in career and calling. Luna, whose father was a lawyer, faced law school rejections that she now sees as a catalyst for pursuing her artistic career and calling. The friend, with a passion for writing, had temporarily left corporate work to write full-time. After a year of grappling with the writing process, he returned to corporate life, seeking roles that could integrate his writing passion. When the conversation shifted to painting aspirations, the pointed question arose: is practicing law and engaging with art law a way to avoid fully committing to painting? The directness of the question was impactful.
The answer, after reflection, is no. There’s an appreciation for the chosen path, recognizing that the choices made were not missteps. Similar to T.S. Eliot’s banking career supporting his writing and Philip Glass’s plumbing work enabling his composition, law practice provides the freedom to paint, whether or not the legal work directly involves art. Furthermore, being a lawyer arguably amplifies the artistic voice. While artists might be stereotyped as “rule breakers” potentially detrimental to institutions like museum boards, an attorney who is also an artist is less likely to be dismissed in such institutional roles.
The legal career and artistic calling are complementary. Legal analysis, such as in the Panini reproduction case, is enhanced by the perspective of a painter. Conversely, painting benefits from the analytical mindset cultivated through legal training. This dual existence sharpens mental acuity for both legal and artistic endeavors, whether drafting a legal brief or creating a watercolor.
About the Author: Stephanie Drawdy is admitted to practice law in New York and South Carolina. She holds a B.A. in Studio Art and Political Science from the College of Charleston, a J.D. from New York Law School, and a Diploma in Arts Profession Law and Ethics from London’s Institute of Art and Law. She has studied painting under renowned figurative artists from institutions like the New York Academy of Art and the Art Students League. Her artwork is largely representational, encompassing landscapes, still life, and figures. She can be found on Instagram as stephaniedrawdyart and reached via email at [email protected].
Disclaimer: This article is intended for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. No statement within this article should be considered legal counsel. For legal advice, consult with a qualified attorney.
