Contested images.

We read with interest Frances Richard's review of the [Sean Kelly] gallery's recent Seydou Keita exhibition, our second show of Keita's work presented in collaboration with the artist and, subsequent to his passing, with the Seydou Keita Foundation. While Ms. Richard wrote accurately about the brilliance, impact, and contemporary relevance of this wonderful artist, she chose to venture out of the framework of what is a critical review of an art exhibition and conjecture about matters she appears to be less than fully informed about, or not to have researched thoroughly. She made assumptions that are misleading and give the unintended (we assume) appearance of bias.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

For example we question on what basis she can state "their exhibition may have been a political move in the estate battle." It was not; the exhibition had been planned for some time. The extensive article in the New York Times ["Who Owns Seydou Keita?" by Michael Rips] which was published on January 22, 2006, was timed by the newspaper to coincide with the exhibition, not the other way around.

Furthermore Ms. Richard stated that the prints "look like second choices." This is absolutely not the case. The archive is quite extensive, and the choice of images for the exhibition was made based on the criteria curators normally use when planning such an exhibition.

She also stated that "the wrangle inevitably tinges any considered response to the new pictures." We disagree, and in fact find the assertion remarkably presumptuous. Judging by the feedback we had from numerous museum curators, critics, and collectors, to say nothing of the exhibition's commercial success, her view was not commonly shared.

She continues, "In short, much about the recent prints is controversial." This is not the case. What is controversial is that 921 of Keita's negatives were taken by his previous representatives and remain "missing" to this day. Keita, who never gave away or sold a negative to anyone during his lifetime, asked that these negatives be returned to him while he was alive. This did not occur, and four years after his death, his heirs are pursuing Keita's quest to be given back what was his. The art world should be outraged about this blatant attack on an artist's rights and patrimony, and should be vehemently protesting it. Maybe Ms. Richard meant the "old" prints, those printed before we started representing Keita's work? Indeed, there are many controversies surrounding these prints.

Of course we respect Ms. Richard's right to her opinions and are grateful that she chose to write about our exhibition of Keita's work. However, it is regrettable that she did not contact us, or the foundation, to investigate and verify the validity of what Artforum readers will now view as facts and not as misinformed opinion.

--Cecile Panzieri

Director, Sean Kelly Gallery

FRANCES RICHARD RESPONDS:

Remarkable presumption, indeed. Ms. Panzieri is obviously not aware that much of the information regarding provenance with which she takes issue was included in the press packet provided to me by her staff, and that when I requested other materials, including reproductions of the photographs to refer to as I wrote, I was told that nothing else was available.

As to the assertion that no strategic motive could be involved in mounting the show, we must take her word for it. It is no insult to the Sean Kelly Gallery, however, to note that while the lamentable struggle for control of Seydou Keita's estate continues, every assertion of the power to print, display, or sell his photographs has "political" impact.

Keita was a brilliant artist, whose work was cannily conceived to satisfy both his own profound vision and the requirements of his clientele--the rising Bamakois middle class of the mid-twentieth century. Some of this work was subsequently entrusted to art-world representatives. The exact terms of that transaction remain the subject of debate. However, Keita must have hoped that his work would be seen, appreciated, collected, and preserved for an international audience. As Ms. Panzieri surely understands, critical discussion is integral to this historicizing process. Keita took thousands of pictures, exploring precise and inventive variations on specific social and compositional themes; he could not possibly produce at peak level for decades without nuance. No artist can, and therefore what seem "second choices" are inevitable.

In raising the issues to which Ms. Panzieri objects, I was simply providing precise attention to Keita's achievement. To demand anything less is to enfeeble the artist's reputation and patronize his talent.