[...] the beginning of this year, there was some confusion over the question of artist credits in Archie comics, due to a glitch with labels at an art exhibit at MoCCA. In responding to the discussion, Archie [...]

And for the record – we disagree on the importance of the wall cards. Again – the issue here is on the form of attribution – not whether the attributions were given. Nadel seems to accuse the museum that they do not care about attributions. He is focused on the wrong thing – and that accusation it seems is misguide s it is wrong.

[Insults to Nadel deleted]

and by the way – I appreciate the fact that you do NOT censor your comments.

I think clear credits is a basic must in displaying art. You disagree? Fine. As you said, “your opinion … is not deemed correct by everyone.”

And your continuing attacks on Mr. Nadel — whom I’ve never met, as far as I know, so I wouldn’t presume to call him friend — reflect more on you than him.

I am not sure that I saw the full release from MoCCA, but I did not get the impression they apologized – I thought they explained the situation and said they believe fully in attributions.

Your comment about distinguishing between handouts and wall credits is exactly the problem I am referring to. Frankly – you have no right to demand wall credits. Any institution has the right to display art, and information, anyway they deem fit. what you are suggesting is something similar to complaining that you didnt like the arrangement of the work and they should have been exhibited in a different order. Many museums DO NOT put up labels – but provide the information on other ways. It is a question of aesthetics. There was a similar comment somewhere from someone named Beauregard that said a similar thing.

You are focused on the hole and not the donut. Your opinion is your opinion – but it is not deemed correct by everyone. Different strokes …….

Mr. Nadel is a childish fool who seems to only know how to criticize MoCCA, and anyone else that is not part of his vision of the world. I still believe the Mazz show was great – but his writings werent so good. I heard he had to beg MoCCA to curate that show, which is why he is now on their case. And his Brooklyn show might as well have been held in a 2-car garage from what I could tell – yet he has told everyone he has done a better job than MoCCA ! Who is he kidding?? Nadel is only out for his own glory – which to him is the same as a glory hole. Anyone who is simply not his friend can read him like an open comic.

And attacking Mr. Nadel for bringing the problem to public view, a problem that the museum has apologized for, is tacky and irrelevant. Especially from someone unwilling to sign their real name.

It seems Nadel did not do his research and never took the time to re-visit the sho to see for himself. I guess he is too busy selling books.

There are other motives here I believe for Nadel. Everyone should be aware of that.

[...] Nadel’s post brought immediate and justified support from Tom Spurgeon, Dirk Deppey and Johanna Carlson. [...]

[...] a comment posted to my post about the question of artist credits at the MoCCA Archie Comics exhibit, Ellen Abramowitz, a member of the MoCCA Board of Trustees and one of the exhibit creators, [...]

We invited Mr. Nadel to come to discuss his issues with the show with us in the gallery, in part so he could see for himself that this was true, but as he said in his blog post, his schedule seems to have prevented him from attending such a meeting.

It’s our policy as a museum to give proper credit to every piece of art on our walls. We regret the wall cards not being finished closer to the actual opening of the show, and resorting to the necessity of handouts, but they are up there now and will have been there for the majority of the time the show was open to the public.
We thank the comics community for their understanding and continued support.

At least fanboys aren’t going to enable this behaviour. They only care about superheroes.

The article says that the exhibit was organized and hosted by MoCCA, but I have to wonder how much corporate meddling was involved. I wonder if MoCCA actually had little to do with the exhibit other than being a place to display it. It almost sounds like the exhibit was really organized by the company and then just handed over to MoCCA, so I wonder if that’s why the artwork went unattributed. It’s a slippery slope for the museum. Do they just take the show with uncredited art and (hopefully) receive some sort of donation in return? Or, assuming that the museum staff recognized the lack of attribution, do they dispute this and risk the company walking away with the exhibit and, thus, funding? Either way it sounds like the museum loses.