In contrast with the comparatively frequent cases of unhealthy behaviour within the commerce for up to date and Fashionable artwork, the champions of Outdated Masters are typically regarded as not solely extra connoisseurial however typically extra refined and upstanding. That picture takes critical injury in an explosive, multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed in New York final month in opposition to Edmondo di Robilant, Marco Voena and their high-end Outdated Grasp dealership Robilant + Voena.
Introduced by the curator Virginia Good, who labored as an unbiased guide to the gallery from December 2019 till earlier this yr, the criticism (first reported by The Day by day Beast) accuses the Robilant + Voena’s namesakes of making a office overrun by antisemitism, sexism, sexual harassment, homophobia, physique shaming and common toxicity. It additionally accuses the sellers of breach of contract, discriminatory labour practices and reneging on a pledge to cowl a whole bunch of hundreds of {dollars} in medical prices for Good’s breast most cancers remedy.
Previous to being employed by the gallery, Good had been the pinnacle of the European work division on the Nice Artwork Museums of San Francisco since 2017. Her earlier institutional roles included being the curator of collections on the Ringling Museum of Artwork in Sarasota, Florida, following curatorial stints on the Cleveland Museum of Artwork and the J. Paul Getty Museum. Her work for Robilant + Voena ranged extensively, from performing analysis and writing scholarly essays on artistic endeavors, to sourcing and promoting stock, to managing the gallery’s New York location, to translating paperwork from Italian into English and even “[producing] movies”. The lawsuit portrays the total scope of Good’s duties as one during which she was anticipated to “in each respect undertake assignments that far exceeded the scope of an unbiased contractor”, with out both assist workers for many of her tenure or aid from a pervasive ambiance of bigotry and antagonism.
Good is in search of at the least $3m plus further damages to be decided, in addition to the reimbursement of her authorized charges. Mitchell Cantor, the lawyer representing Good, instructed The Artwork Newspaper, “The criticism which was filed in New York State Supreme Court docket speaks for itself,” including: “All the related info are contained in it.” A request for remark despatched to Robilant + Voena was not instantly returned.
Allegations of toxicity
Probably the most jaw-dropping accusations within the lawsuit revolve across the claims that Robilant and Voena “created a poisonous office atmosphere by repeatedly, recurrently and consistently making misogynistic, antisemitic, racist and homophobic feedback within the presence of and directed towards” Good. To the latter level, the criticism alleges that Robilant repeatedly known as her “a silly f…g c…t”, presumably indicating an egregious slang time period for feminine sexual anatomy, and subjected her to “common phone calls earlier than and after enterprise hours during which in (sic) Robilant has screamed at her and cursed at her”.
Additional accusations embrace that Robilant and Voena “repeatedly and frequently harassed [Brilliant] on the idea of her gender and bodily look”. Such cases have been stated to have “occurred consistently” and included Robilant pressuring Good to “have sexual relations with a colleague to safe a consignment”, enquiring about what number of males she had slept with and recounting to her how he had misplaced his virginity. As well as, the lawsuit alleges, Voena confirmed Good “a number of images of one in all [his] mistresses clad solely in provocative lingerie”.
Even Robilant’s spouse is claimed to have contributed to the issues. She purportedly recommended that Good shed some pounds “by following a food plan of champagne and Xanax” and, during times during which the curator was already enduring radiation, chemotherapy and surgical procedure for her most cancers, mailed her a number of shipments of “unlawful, unprescribed” and unsolicited medicine; the contents are stated to have included 1,200 Xanax tablets and what the lawsuit attests was “generic Ozempic in capsule type sourced within the Balkans so ‘[Brilliant] may unfastened [sic] 25 kilos earlier than [Tefaf] Maastricht’”.
Claims of antisemitism run rampant via the criticism. It asserts that Robilant and Voena “recurrently and routinely used phrases similar to ‘f…ing Jew’, ‘that f….g Jew’, ‘disgusting Jews’, ‘you already know X’s spouse is a Jew so all these fairly blond kids are simply extra f….g Jews’, ‘they’re simply grasping f….g Jews pretending to be as English because the Queen’” and extra. These allegations tackle an much more insidious forged within the context of Good herself, who claims to have been instructed at one level throughout her tenure on the gallery that she was “simply Jewish sufficient to be convincing to American purchasers”.
Different demographics got here underneath verbal assault at Robilant + Voena, too, the criticism asserts. Voena is claimed to have instructed Good to edit the textual content of an interview he had executed with a journalist to “make me not sound racist: I don’t like Black individuals, they’re disgusting, however I’m not racist”. (Two different gallery staffers are stated to have heard this remark.) The lawsuit additionally purports that Voena “recurrently and routinely” used a well-recognized slur and its shortened type to seek advice from “individuals he believed to be homosexual”, together with not solely Robilant himself but in addition Robilant’s son and uncle.
Breach of contract and office discrimination
The criticism makes claims of tangible, monetary misdeeds executed to Good by Robilant and Voena, as properly. It petitions the court docket for $580,000 for alleged uncompensated labour carried out by Good from 2020 till 2023, assessed on the price of her earlier curatorial wage of $145,000 yearly. Compared, her agreed compensation from Robilant + Voena consisted of a base wage of $50,000 (stated to have been diminished to $40,000 in April 2020 underneath the auspices of chopping prices in the course of the Covid-19 lockdowns), plus commissions starting from 10% to twenty% of earnings on the sale of works relying on whether or not stated works have been sourced by Good, bought by Good or each.
The gallery’s guarantees of fee funds and medical help have been brittle, in accordance with the lawsuit. Good alleges she continues to be owed a fee of $57,500 from the sale of an Orsola Caccia portray in December 2023, regardless of the shopper’s cost in full the next month. The criticism additionally seeks recompense for Robilant and Voena’s alleged reversal on a pledge to cowl the prices of Good’s medical remedies after she was recognized with breast most cancers this February. (As an unbiased contractor, she obtained no healthcare protection or different advantages from the gallery.) These prices will rise to greater than $200,000, the lawsuit estimates; she is suing for $257,500 to make up for the hole left by Robilant and Voena’s alleged refusal to make good on their dedication.
Underlying a few of the monetary accusations is an allegedly stark distinction between the compensation of Good, whose doctorate from the Courtauld Institute preceded her curatorial profession, versus that of a much less skilled rent named Nicholas Ginsburg. Ginsburg, the lawsuit claims, had not but turned 30 when he was introduced on by Robilant + Voena as a gallery supervisor and gross sales affiliate, had no training past an undergraduate diploma from Northeastern College in Boston, no expertise working as an institutional curator or in a “important or senior” position at a business gallery, no coaching in both of the gallery’s specialties (Outdated Grasp and post-war Italian artwork) and “no purchasers or some other particular expertise”. The criticism states he was nonetheless paid double Good’s base wage, plus unspecified advantages denied her, “for the only purpose that he was male somewhat than feminine”.
The lawsuit additional alleges that Good was the one lady to work for the gallery for the practically 4 years between her begin with Robilant + Voena in December 2019 and the hiring of a feminine salesperson on the New York location in September 2023. The co-founders’ reactions to the collapse of potential transactions have been additionally stated to range dramatically relying on whether or not Good or a male colleague was answerable for main the deal. Within the latter circumstances, the criticism states, Robilant and Voena “have been sometimes sympathetic”, whereas “Robilant specifically berated, castigated and screamed at [Brilliant]… in some circumstances demanding to know ‘how/the place you f….d up’”.
Robilant + Voena presently operates galleries in London, New York, Paris and Milan. It has been a mainstay exhibitor at high-end artwork festivals for years, together with Tefaf’s festivals in Maastricht and New York, Frieze’s festivals in London, Los Angeles and Seoul and Artwork Basel in Miami Seashore. The defendants have till 3 July to answer Good’s lawsuit in court docket.
