There never will be a good time to speak publicly of a bad client, yet it remains essential
Author: Distil Ennui | Post Date: 02-08-2025It is with great regret that I write this journal entry where I am publicly addressing a client relationship that failed to meet its commitments and has put the provenance and integrity of my work at risk. This has affected my reputation, confused my collectors about provenance, and misrepresented my association with their project, all while their platform benefited from my name and imagery.
I feel a lot of artists may be going through similar experiences and are being taken advantage of or mistreated whilst not speaking out in fear of retribution. In many cases their silence is led by naivety in copyright and IP law preventing action of any kind, but I feel in moments such as these a compulsion to share with the world, past resident artists now totalling 478 and my wider supporter & collector base with what have recently come to pass.
Back in 2012 I sold two works to an at the time unknown buyer, buying two key works ´Witness´ dated 2012 and ´ Morpho Adonis 0116’ dated 2011. They were very keenly priced at the time as this was my first major solo exhibition in London after having been away for over 15 years. The gallery Pertwee Anderson & Gold, in Soho London priced the works little over that of their production cost. Each was beautifully framed to museum standard in ´snug´ walnut frame with the darkroom print mounted so a solid aluminium panel behind museum acrylic; a delicious execution that I still use today, expensive to produce but the lifespan of the artworks can be counted in generations.
Morpho Adonis 0116’ dated 2011.
Available in 3 Edition sizes of 2 prints each. + II artist proofs.
Edition I at 15.8 x 15.8 inches / 40 x 40 cms.
Edition II at 23.6 x 23.6 inches / 60 x 60 cms
Edition III at 63 x 63 inches / 160 x 160 cms. SOLD OUT
Provenance:
exhibition 'The house of the Nobleman' 2011. London.
exhibition 'A beautiful announcement of death' 2012. PA & G Gallery, London.
reverse of the original framing execution.
In brief, this is what has come to pass…. Shortly after the exhibition a dialogue began with the client, and out of the blue I was kindly invited to spend a few days in Jersey, it was a lovely first time to the island and his wife & family were lovely hosts, I was able to write and reflect on my next big project. I was in fact planning to drive a truck to Moscow and setup an underground studio just metres from the Kremlin at the famous Red October chocolate factory, departing in only a few months.
After that time I did not hear much from the client and several years passed, until 2018 I was contacted asking to help repair a damaged work the big butterfly. Support in this way is something that I have always offered my clients while I am still alive, charging nothing for my time, but setting up the supply chain and studio time to effect a ´like for like´ replacement from a damaged artwork so long as the original is destroyed to protect my editions provenance. This particular butterfly is an edition of just 2 prints at 160 x 160 cms Its a complex process organising logistics such as art couriers, printers, mounters and then finally framing deconstruction and replacement, its a lot of work. Happily I have only done this on a few occasions in the past 30 years and have never billed anything farther than the materials and physical costs. I am happy to ensure my legacy lives on and support my past collectors in this way.
So after a few days organising this was all setup and ready to go but the client just disappeared and I never heard much of a response until 2 years later when the same request re-occurred asking to have the work replaced / repaired, I went through the whole process of working a supply chain solution for the artworks replacement and the client again decided now was not the time for one reason or another. All of this is fully documented on the client archive which I maintain with the same dedication I pour into all my projects,
Then one day in late 2022 the client popped up again and they were very excited about setting up a property development company on the East coast of Australia on the Gold Coast, a funny co-incidence as I had a studio there for quite a few years, literally 5klm away from their new project.
To cut the story short but retaining the pertinent facts, the client requested the artworks replacement again, only doing this in Australia was a monumental task for me as there was no known supply chain that could handle a museum acrylic face mounted artwork in the UV protecting format as originally delivered back in 2012. After a lot of leg work taking over 2 months of emails, phone calls and lost leads, I did manage to find a supply chain to effect the replacement. The client asked for his developer company to be invoiced for the materials and delivery charges for a like for like replacement. I handled this remotely for over 4 months sourcing the supply chain and finally engaging suppliers to effect the delivery some 2,000 kms by road away. The ´only condition´ I placed on doing this work free of charge, a condition that was clearly documented on every dialogue, email and invoice was that the original is destroyed by way of circular saw cut into pieces and documented evidence provided in the form of a video to prove the same, it was an express condition of the replacement.
The artwork was delivered, and, here we are nearly two years have past since that time and no video evidence of the original artworks destruction has ever being sighted, meaning the client has in fact 2 copies, utterly destroying the provenance of my editions and potentially damaging my oeuvre and collector base confidence.
At the same time we were in discussions about the client / developer supporting my community projects via corporate sponsorship towards the Makers Place program, a wonderful gesture I welcomed with open arms. I began planning the second and much larger edition of the original recycling centre I had setup in the Maldives in 2021, still in full operation today. This was a monumental task in planning, specifications, building, planning applications, redesigning the internal processes with new machine designs, all started in earnest.
In November 2024 They went in another direction for their corporate sponsorship despite a great deal of work putting together a complete Makers Place II schedule, set of accounts, finding and getting permissions for the site to break ground. This took a great deal of time and broad us of my connection base to set everything up. My records show an off the cliff drop in communications from the client and his organisation within a week of the replacement artwork being delivered. The artwork was installed in the sales suite of a 28 storey high rise residential development project called Nera, I maintained regular updates to them on new developments from my side to keep them updated and of course asking for updates on their proposed sponsorship. Until finally I was advised that they had changed direction and would not be supporting Makers Place in a one line text message. I do fully understand that it is their money and they can support whichever community project they like, but they dropped the Makers Place II project without so much as a thank you for putting it all together or even a simple sorry.
The client had also placed my work and name on their website www.bastion.group in their ´Art & Ecology´ section, I was never asked for permission to use my name and work. It remained online for nearly 2 years, without any credible link and even misrepresented my name as Alexander Hamilton James, daft and just plain annoying. I did mention it several times by email, and never heard a response. This online publication started in July 2023 and remained online until early July 2025.
the website of Bastion.Group showing an artwork from the ´Empirical Research & Evidence´ series dated 2022
note the lack of author naming or a link to the studio website.
Their website was updated on the 17th July 2025 with my name and imagery removed, but you can still find them at www.Bastion.Group
The replacement butterfly artwork had been installed at their sales suite and has appeared in many of their social media posts, again on each and every occasion the artworks were depicted without any tag, name or accreditation of any kind, brazenly against copyright and IP laws.
The artwork can be found on the ´Swarm´2008-2013 series page with a much smaller 40 x 40 cms version currently available at 5,400 GBP, their 160 x 160 cms work is 1500% bigger and was delivered for 30% less than the current 40 x 40 cms price.
This journal entry is not about the lost possibility of sponsorship, but rather the taking advantage of my support with little or no consideration. Every piece of paperwork between us insists on the destruction of the original artwork now with a value of 22,000 GBP British Pounds. The artwork was purchased 10 years before and my support purely a professional legacy ensuring courtesy.
The use of my name and artworks on their website and on social media posts without even a single accreditation tag or hot-link to the studio website shows a complete disregard of returning the same professional courtesy and indeed a complete disregard for copyright & IP law. I issued repeated polite requests, offered a generous concession (60% discount), and held back on broader claims like unlicensed use to avoid escalation, all to no avail.
Regarding the replacement artwork, back in August 2023 they were originally invoiced for the print, mount substrate (DiBond), museum acrylic face, frame & delivery, nothing more. The fact that the original artwork is still in circulation it utterly unacceptable and will be the basis for a legal claim against the same. The client is fully aware of my position, and has negligently ignored all requests to destroy the original as per our agreement. This resulted in a balance invoice for the artwork being issued with a generous discount of over 50% on the gallery price of the piece, issued in November of 2024 which still to this date remains unpaid.
As part of my due diligence, I explored the dialogue and email threads and did some online research and found that in fact the client owns a property in Jersey which in a sales & rental listing with Broadlands Commercial property clearly showing the artwork hanging on the wall 18 months after is was supposedly destroyed. A fair assumption would be to believe it has been rented with all the fixtures and fittings or sold as the same. Meaning my client no longer has access to the artwork or any intention to comply with the conditions they agreed to.
in Jersey at the same time of this dispute, the client had a property listing showing the allegedly damaged artwork hanging inside a property they own
I just find all this deeply unsettling, the archived responses from the client are very much in the vein of Donald Trumps tactics, by replying to fair and reasonable requests with almost infantile recollections of the facts and making threats to me for asserting my worries and indeed rights.
This is about provenance, honesty, and protecting those who support my work, nothing more. I will of course make progress updates as this unfolds. From my side I have gained nothing other than distress and a staggering amount of time lost; all of which I would have rather been avoided by simple courtesy and fair play.
It should be noted that as with all my work, the artworks are registered with the US Copyright office, this extra layer of copyright & IP protection allows me to seek damages outside of the law covered by the Berne Convention, normally this is merely a deterrent but in cases such as this an invaluable path to seeking fair & reasonable compensation. The certificates of registration with the US Copyright Office are copied below for clarity and to confirm with verifiable data that I take these matters very seriously.
