Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave...

 When First We Practice To deceive...

 

I mentioned this before; I feel it is important to point out the lies that have been presented by Alexandra Grant in her professional life. These lies have been pointed out repeatedly on social media over the past few years.

 

 

Lie #1 - grantLOVE Project is a non-profit - stated on her resume

https://alexandragrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/CV-Alexandra-Grant.pdf

 

 

grantLove Project is not a non-profit, nor is it a registered charity within the State of California. grantLOVE Project and Alexandra Grant have no legitimate rights to do any fundraising within the State of California. Neither her Project, nor herself, are registered to do so. I have checked this extensively and on numerous occasions. No registration exists. Yet, Alexandra Grant has stated on the resume posted to her personal website, that grantLOVE Project is a non-profit. Many articles have subsequently been written about her and grantLOVE Project declaring it as a non-profit charity.

 

https://celebsindepth.com/alexandra-grant/

 

https://www.therichest.com/pop-culture/keanu-facts-girlfriend-alexandra-grant/

 

 

 

And in this case below, I believe Frieze was duped into believing that grantLOVE Project was qualified to have a booth in their backlot, which was reserved exclusively for non-profits. 

 

https://www.frieze.com/article/activism-social-identity-and-body-politics-frieze-los-angeles-2020?amp

 

 

 

 

Lie # 2 - Her art is part of the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) permanent collection - stated on her resume

 

This was proven to be false by multiple sources. One of these sources emailed the gallery in order to ask the question...

 

 

 Out of due diligence, I have also personally contacted the Gallery (phone call) and was also told that they do not have any of her works as part of their permanent collection. 

I think it is important to note that once this fact was discovered back in March 2020 and was posted about on social media, Alexandra Grant saw fit to modify her resume and remove this "mistake". This pretty much confirms that this was a lie from the start and that she knew this to be the case. It is also around this time, after being called out for not being a registered charity, that she changed grantLOVE Project from being declared a non-profit on her resume.

 

Unfortunately, I believe she has given the 2019 resume to several organizations she works with as they are still openly advertising this falsehood. 

 

She serves as Secretary on the Board at Bemis and they are stating that her works are part of the permanent collection at The Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO).

 

 

She has an upcoming exhibit and pop-up shop at Marfa International in April 2021 and they are advertising this erroneous fact as well. 

 

 

The above Instagram post was made December 6, 2020. As stated earlier, Alexandra Grant corrected this "mistake" on her resume in March 2020. Did she fail to notify Marfa and Bemis that this information was incorrect? Perhaps it was too embarrassing for her to admit she had lied? After all, it is a very unprofessional and dishonest thing to do. It certainly would not put her and her philanthropic work in high esteem. In fact, it would prove the opposite, that she can't be trusted. Why would anyone want to be associated with someone who would do such a thing? Hmm... 

 

This information has also been used in PR articles, namely this one from Narcity (below). 

 

 

Interestingly enough, the connection to the Gallery of Ontario was used as a charming connection with X Artists' Books co-founder Keanu Reeves, whom she is supposedly dating (neither party have confirmed this). Which begs the question, was the fabrication of having her art as part of a Museum in Toronto, Canada (the hometown of Mr. Reeves) for the sole purpose of using it for PR and establishing a strengthened connection/bond to Mr. Reeves because they appeared to be in a romantic relationship? Was this the plan all along? If so... What an unethical manipulative thing to do. It would have had to have been the plan all along. She changed her resume in July 2019. The media established them as a couple in November 2019. There were many paparazzi shots of them together throughout Social Media and the press during the several months in between. Could it be that this was the sole reason to create this lie? If this is true, then it was pre-meditated and planned months in advance. I can't for the life of me figure out another reason for creating this falsehood, other than strengthening a romantic PR narrative. Can you? Still... it is very odd.

 

 

Lie # 3 - How long she served on various Board Memberships - stated on her resume

 

 

I will give some leniency here and acknowledge that not everyone would update this on a regular basis and that the likelihood of some discrepancies would be understandable. But, the fact that only 2 out of the 6 entries listed there were actually accurate is not a simple oversight. 

 

To list serving as a founding board chair for Watts House Project as ongoing when it has been defunct since 2014 is ridiculous. Doubly so, when you compare it to the updated resume, and realize that she only served for 2 years (2009 & 2010). It took her 10 years to update this information?!?

 

Meanwhile, she had made 5 additional entries to this field during this 10 year period, and it never occurred to her to change the one entry where it was obvious that she could not be part of a no longer existing board??

 

If you ask me, these are not oversights. These listings were not accurate because it looks more impressive to seem like you are a member of multiple boards. It makes it seem like your insights are valued and that you are more important and busier than you actually are. Basically, it makes her seem more desirable and like someone people enjoy working with. The updated resume, the accurate resume, shows that this is not the case at all. In other words, it’s not impressive.

 

 Lie # 4 - Founder of X Artists' Books - stated on her resume

Alexandra Grant was not THE SOLE FOUNDER of X Artists' Books. She was a co-founder, along with Jessica Fleishmann, Keanu Reeves and Florence Grant. To state otherwise is just self-aggrandizing behavior.

 

 

https://fadmagazine.com/2017/07/30/x-artists-books-launches-los-angeles/

https://www.latimes.com/books/la-ca-jc-keanu-reeves-artists-books-20170719-story.html

 

 

 

 

 

Lie # 5 - That she helped found the non-profit Woman's Center for Creative Work (WCCW) - quoted in an article

https://www.latimes.com/lifestyle/story/2020-02-24/artist-alexandra-grant-discusses-beauty-patriarchy-godmother-taught-her

 

 

Alexandra Grant did NOT help found this nonprofit. Again, someone emailed the WCCW in order to ask this question. This was the response back...

 

 

 

Lie # 6 - That her jewelry is trademarked - stated on her personal website and quoted in an article

 

 

She does not hold any trademarks for her LOVE brand/symbol in the precious metals/jewelry category. She abandoned that application in her lawsuit with Cartier. Her claim to this is false. Please follow this link as it will give you more insight as to the illegitimacy of this claim.

 

https://grantloveproject-caution.blogspot.com/2020/12/trademarked-jewelry-what-trademarked_28.html

 

 

Conclusion:

 

All this to say that I believe Alexandra Grant has a propensity for deception and the "exaggeration of truth". I would be remiss in not pointing this out; her personal art business, as well as grantLOVE Project and X Artists' Books are all owned and managed by her and they all operate out of the same studio/office space.

 

Given Ms. Grant's obvious tenuous grasp at being truthful, it is hard to imagine that there has not been any overlap or misappropriation of funds regarding grantLOVE Project and her other businesses, especially given they all occupy the same business space and she is the sole manager for all of them. 

 

There seems to be a lack of integrity here and I feel that this may have permeated through every aspect of her career and philanthropic work. I would not in the least be surprised to find out that there have been some grievous breaches of trust within all her business practices, charitable or otherwise.

Trademarked Jewelry?? What Trademarked Jewelry??

 Alexandra Grant's Jewelry is NOT TRADEMARKED!!!

 

Below is a screen capture taken of a post on Alexandra grant's personal website about The LOVE House. It was posted on October 8, 2014.

 

 

https://alexandragrant.com/?s=love+house 

 

Why is she posting about her jewelry being "trademarked" on October 8, 2014 when she abandoned the trademark application to class 14 (precious metals, jewelry) in the her lawsuit with Cartier in 2012? Her jewelry is NOT TRADEMARKED. 

 https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91193555

 

 

That's false advertising on her personal website. By publicly posting this erroneous information about her jewelry, she is allowing the public and media to be misled and, as such, to unknowingly mislead others by further spreading this misinformation through articles and SM posts. This information has been used multiple times in PR articles, including this one, in March 2020, where she was interviewed (see below). As such, she is openly advertising and spreading this falsehood.

In conversation with alum Alexandra Grant

 

 

 

The above article is also listed on her website under press. 

https://alexandragrant.com/tag/press/

 

I apologize for bringing this up again, unfortunately this does come up a lot with grantLOVE Project but, the FTC plainly states that this type of "misinformation" is considered FRAUD.

 

"The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive advertising in any medium. That is, advertising must tell the truth and not mislead consumers. A claim can be misleading if any relevant information is left out or if the claim implies something that is not true."

 

If you are asking yourself why she would lie about such a thing, the answer is quite simple... increased profits.  

 

Trademarked items have increased value and therefore can be sold at higher prices. At first, you would think this is a good thing as it means that more money will go to the charity. Agreed... but that's not what she's doing. Only an unspecified portion of the profits goes towards charity.

 

In essence, this implies that Alexandra Grant is operating grantLOVE Project like it is a for-profit company, and not a non-profit charity. 

 

This is a problem. She's referred to it as a non-profit on many occasions, including her resume. She can't be both.

 

As discussed in earlier posts, grantLOVE Project is an LLC charity, which, in the State of California, is considered and must operate like a Charitable Trustee. Which means what she is doing is against the rules.

 

I am going to attempt to explain what is meant by "profits". Profits are determined after all operating expenses are deducted. Operating expenses are things like salaries for employees, rent, the fabrication and purchases of items to be sold, advertising, etc… Essentially, everything that a normal business needs to spend in order to maintain operations. Included in this are some basic extra funds for expenses, as these can fluctuate over time and they need to have something to draw from. Whatever is left over is considered the profits. These profits are what are donated. That is how non-profits work. The fact that she openly declares that only a portion of these profits will go to charity implies that she is not operating grantLOVE Project in accordance with the law; that she is not operating it like a non-profit.

 

In summary:

 

Alexandra Grant is lying when she says her jewelry is trademarked.

 

The only reason to lie about it is because it allows her to increase the price for her grantLOVE jewelry.

 

Increased price = increased profits.

 

Since she only donates a portion of the profits to charity, this implies she keeps the rest for herself.

  

grantLOVE Project ≠ non-profit

 

You can find many more deceptions of this nature regarding Alexandra Grant throughout her personal website. One only has to do some basic research to uncover them. The most egregious ones can be found on her July 2019 resume (https://alexandragrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/CV-Alexandra-Grant.pdf).

 

In my next post, I will be highlighting the lies on that particular resume as well as a few others that she has made the last few years. I feel it is important to point these out as it shines a light on a pattern of behaviour that is omnipresent in her life. When someone is involved in charitable fundraising and has a propensity for spreading miss-truths, one must question this individual's moral character and whether or not they can be trusted with the funds being raised and whether they will actually use them for their advertised purposes. I feel this heightened scrutiny should come as no surprise and is warranted at this point given all the other deceptions that have been pointed out in this blog.

 

P.S. - You can easily check the status of her trademark application at this URL. At which point you will see that she does not hold any trademark for her jewelry.

 

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=4309340&caseType=US_REGISTRATION_NO&searchType=statusSearch

 

https://uspto.report/TM/90164700

 

https://uspto.report/TM/90356071

 

https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/018301889

What Kind of Trickery is This

  

I am going to attempt to illustrates the kind of deception that grantLOVE Project does when it comes to purchasing items earmarked for certain charities. This one is going to be about the current grantLOVE x OCMA pop-up shop. On October 15th, OCMA both opened a curated show of Alexandra Grant's "Telepathy is one step further than Empathy" as well as a grantLOVE x OCMA pop-up shop, the profits of which go to a "Funds for Artist". 

 

On November 21st, 2020, due to Covid-19, the shop was temporarily closed but continuing online. This was posted on Instagram by OCMA and reposted by grantLOVE Project. They clearly list a url to follow in order to get a full listing of the items for sale that benefit the charity and where to purchase them (see below).

 

 

https://www.grantlove.com/collections/grantlove-x-ocma-pop-up-shop

 

When you follow that link it takes you to a page where this is the banner at the top. (see below).

 

 "Please join us at the grantLOVE x OCMA pop-up shop at the Orange County Museum of Art. The pop-up shop is a fundraising project to bring m­­­­ore and diverse artists into the museum’s permanent collection. Profits from the grantLOVE x OCMA pop-up shop will go towards the grantLOVE x OCMA Fund for Artists, allowing the museum to acquire one or multiple works created by women-identified or non-binary artists from California and the Pacific Rim.

All of these items are available for pick-up at OCMA!"

 

Clearly all the items below the banner are meant to benefit the grantLOVE x OCMA Fund, correct? Lets' pick one.

 

 

 The selected item mention the grantLOVE x OCMA pop-up shop, so it looks like this item is good and will benefit the charity. Off we go to checkout.

 

 

 

Everything seems good. We have our purchase and we can feel certain that it will benefit the charity in question, so we proceed with our purchase.

 

That is what the average consumer would think and do. 

 

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

 

Notice that I highlighted an "add order notes" section in the checkout picture. The reason that is there is because if you are purchasing an item to benefit the grantLOVE x OCMA fund, and are having it delivered outside of Orange County, you must put a note on your purchase that you want your purchase to benefit that fund. I AM NOT JOKING ABOUT THIS. At no point during the purchasing process is this highlighted to you. The only reason I knew to look for this is because of this Instagram post by OCMA (see below).

 

 

I was wondering why they would make a post and ask people to add OCMA in the notes section for their purchases? Why would this be required? Weren't these purchases already supposed to be benefiting them and only them?  That's certainly what they made it sound like by reading the banner on the web page. 

 

So, I did a little digging. Turns out, if you click on the highlighted "grantLOVE x OCMA pop-up shop" on the item you are purchasing, it takes you to another page where there is long explanation of the fund, the exhibit, etc. and at the very bottom of that long page is this lovely disclaimer (see below)...

 

 

Talk about a "bait and switch" on who will benefit from these funds! I'm not even sure if I can call it that? Normally, in a "bait and switch", the consumer is AWARE that something is different about the purchase than what was intended. In this case, grantLOVE Project seems to be deliberately making this "switch" as obscure and hard to find as possible.

 

How many people have been duped by this?

 

How many people will be duped by this? 

 

The pop-up shop will be active until March 2021. These items are available for purchase WORLDWIDE. This is an ongoing deception that very likely fools the majority of the consumers that purchase these items

 

How can grantLOVE Project be diverting funds from products clearly identified as being sold for the purpose of benefiting one charity to… Where? They are not even identifying where these diverted profits are going and who will benefit from them!! It's outrageous!! If I made a purchase wanting to benefit the grantLOVE x OCMA Fund and didn't notice this in time, I would be livid!!! What right have they to do this? It's unethical!!

 

What is also troubling to me is that OCMA is clearly aware of this since they obviously felt the need to make that Instagram post asking people to put OCMA in the note. To me, this indicates that some kind of deal between Alexandra Grant and OCMA was struck, where the proceeds of the sale of items during the pop-up shop would be used as compensation for them exhibiting her "Telepathy is One Step Further than Empathy" series in their museum. I believe Alexandra Grant is using grantLOVE Project and its charitable earnings as payment for others (Museums, galleries, etc...) promoting her solo art career (separate from grantLOVE Project). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this is referred to as "self-dealing".

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/self-dealing.asp

 

 In fact, if you pay close attention to the description of the "grantLOVE Project x OCMA Fund for Artists" you will see that the fund is not benefiting artists directly. The funds are in fact going to OCMA so that they can expand their permanent collection. This is not charity. This is trade.

 

I believe the only reason OCMA made that Instagram post is because they felt they were not getting their fair share of the pie. Whatever agreement was made between Alexandra Grant and OCMA was likely based on items sold at the pop-up shop physically. When that could no longer happen (due to Covid), things were renegotiated and I believe this is what they came up with and what was agreed upon.

List of Items and Profit Distribution, if Any

Here is a list of all the items currently for sale on the grantLOVE Project website, as well as the various descriptions used about profit distribution, if any:

100% profits donated...         (3 items)

• Black grantLOVE hoodie with WHITE --- $115
• Pink grantLOVE hoodie with BLACK --- $115
• Blue grantLOVE x Zink Quilt --- $6,500

Profits from... go to...             (22 items)

• Love Tie-Dye Hoodies --- $115
• Black grantLOVE hoodie with GOLD --- $115 
• LOVE Tie-Dye T-Shirts --- $45  
• LOVE Trucker Hat ---  $35
• grantLOVE for ODLR print- aquamarine --- $150 
• grantLOVE for ODLR print- amber --- $150 
• grantLOVE for ODLR print- coral --- $150 
• grantLOVE for ODLR print- light pink --- $150 
• grantLOVE for ODLR prints – all four --- $600 
• LOVE, 2019 print – cream --- $150 
• LOVE, 2019 print – fuschia --- $150 
• LOVE, 2019 print– lavender --- $150
• LOVE, 2019 print– brick --- $150 
• LOVE, 2019 print– suite of four --- $500 
• LOVE, 2020 print– gold foil --- $150 
• grantLOVE xCynthia Navarro print 2018 --- $75
• grantLOVE x Jesse Parrott print 2018 --- $100 
• grantLOVE Beach Towel – Pink --- $59.99
• grantLOVE Beach Towel – Blue --- $59.99 
• Small LOVE neon – black/white --- $7,500 
• Medium LOVE neon - black/pink --- $15,000  
• United in LOVE neon--- $30,000        

 

A Percentage of the profits go to...            (9 items)

• Small LOVE neon – green --- $7,500
• Small LOVE neon – purple --- $7,500
• Small LOVE neon – white --- $7,500 
• Small LOVE neon – blue --- $7,500
• Small LOVE neon – pink --- $7,500
• Small LOVE neon – green --- $7,500
• Large LOVE neon – black/white --- $20,000
• Large LOVE neon – white --- $20,000 
• Large LOVE neon – pink --- $20,000

A portion of the profits go to...            (3 items)

• grantLOVE Necklace – Sterling Silver --- $175
• grantLOVE Necklace – Gold --- $775
• grantLOVE Micro Pavé Diamond Necklace --- $3,500

Benefits...            (5 items)

• grantLOVE x Cahetejack L.L.L. (Lunar, Love, Lady) print --- $150
• grantLOVE x Cahetejack Team Power print --- $150
• grantLOVE x Cahetejack Love Chakras print --- $150
• grantLOVE x Cahetejack Rainbow Mood print --- $150
• grantLOVE x Cahetejack all four prints --- $600

No Profits donated...            (12 items)

• Companion Heart Crew Neck Sweatshirt --- $100
• Companion Crew Neck Sweatshirt --- $100
• grantLOVE Shopping Bag --- $45
• grantLOVE Fabric Zip Clutch --- $25 
• grantLOVE hoodie/Sweatshirt-Side Pockets --- $115
• grantLOVE hoodie/Sweatshirt --- $115
• grantLOVE Crew Neck Sweatshirt --- $100 
• grantLOVE x Zinc Quilt – black --- $8,000 
• Love, love, love – pink 2018 --- $12,500 
• Love, love, love – blue 2018 --- $12,500
• Love, love, love – lavender 2018 --- $12,500
• I was Born To Love Not To Hate Stickers --- $5

Lets summarize the list:

3 Items where 100% of the profits go towards charity.

22 items that list “profits go to”… (We have no way of knowing how much of these profits go towards charity. It could be a percentage just as it could be $1 for every purchase. NO TRANSPARENCY HERE. “Profits go to” does not mean all profits go to.

9 items that list “% of the profits” going to charity (NO TRANSPARENCY regarding what the % is. It could be as little as 1%. There's no way to know).
 

3 items where “a portion of the profits go to”… (NO TRANSPARENCY. What portion? A percentage? A dollar amount for every sale?)

 

5 items that say “benefits”... (Confusing? How will it benefit?? NO TRANSPARENCY).

12 items listed on the website with no mention of any profits from the sale of these items going to charity. (This is VERY TRANSPARENT. NOTHING IS BEING DONATED. THIS IS VERY CLEAR).

Of the 54 items listed on the grantLOVE website:

- Only 3 items are listed as 100% going to charity.

- 39 items have some undetermined portion going towards charity.

- 12 items are listed with definitively NO PORTION going to charity.


For Alexandra Grant to advertise grantLOVE Project as a non-profit, when there are only 3 out of the 54 items listed for sale there that would qualify as non-profit charitable purchases, is blatant false advertising.

In order for her to be legally able to use comparisons and/or references to well known non-profit charities (Newman’s Own and Red Campaign) in her advertising, ALL OF THE ITEMS ON THE grantLOVE PROJECT WEBSITE MUST LIST 100% OF PROFITS GO TO CHARITY.

What she is doing with regards to grantLOVE Project is PROHIBITED by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as it is considered deceptive advertising (see below).

Advertising and Marketing on the Internet: Rules of the Road

"The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive advertising in any medium. That is, advertising must tell the truth and not mislead consumers. A claim can be misleading if any relevant information is left out or if the claim implies something that is not true."

This means that the way she is advertising grantLOVE Project, both on the website and in PR articles (see attachments and links below), is illegal.

The fact that she has 12 items listed for sale on her grantLOVE Project website that have NO PORTION going to charity makes her comparison to a non-profit charity that much more egregious. This is blatant fraud.


This is how Newman’s Own advertises their non-profit charity. This is how it should be done:

100% Profits to Charity - Newman's Own

 

 

“Our “100% of Profits to Charity” commitment is one of two founding values upon which Newman’s Own is built (the other being “Quality Will Always Trump the Bottom Line”). It’s a very important part of our story, it’s in our DNA, it’s why we exist, it motivates all of us, and it’s the true heart of Newman’s Own. We are proud of this commitment and want to be clear and unambiguous about what we mean when we say “100% of Profits to Charity.” It’s not something we just thought up to boost sales, it’s not a play on words, and one shouldn’t need an accounting degree to understand it. We have been doing it for over 35 years, and as of 2019, have donated over $550 million to thousands of deserving organizations around the world.

In the simplest terms, when we say 100% of profits, we mean what’s left over (aka surplus, balance, difference) after normal business expenses are deducted from all the income we derive from sales from our food and beverage business. That income comes from two sources, direct sales of our products and royalties paid by both the Company and third parties we license to sell our products.”

 

There is perfect transparency here. a consumer can feel assured in the knowledge that their purchase will benefit others, unquestioningly.

I actually love this part; "it’s not something we just thought up to boost sales, it’s not a play on words,..." This implies that they stand by every word they say and they are not using clever phrasing to disguise deceptive intentions, there are no ulterior motivations.

This is how Alexandra Grant advertises her grantLOVE Project charity on her website:

https://www.grantlove.com/pages/about-w-news

  

“The grantLOVE project is an artist-owned and operated project that produces and sells original artworks and editions to benefit artists and arts non-profits.

Created by Los Angeles artist Alexandra Grant in 2008, grantLOVE is a symbol of artist philanthropy. Alexandra was inspired by the work of Paul Newman and the Newman’s Own brand as a form of lateral philanthropy, where a company sells products in order to generate profits to give to charity. To date, the sale of grantLOVE products and Alexandra’s artwork (prints, sculpture, etc.), necklaces and rings have raised funds to support multiple Los Angeles art projects and charities.”

 
There is complete lack of transparency here. The comparison Alexandra Grant is trying to establish here with Newman’s Own is false. In fact, she kind of gives this away when she mentions they "sell products to generate profits to give to charity", but gives no clarity as whether ALL THE PROFITS from the products sold is intended for charity.

There is no commitment established here as to the portion of the profits. The way it is stated gives the sense that it could be 100%, but this isn’t clear. The fact that in the previous sentence Newman’s Own is mentioned (well known and well established non-profit) further deceives the consumer into thinking that 100% of profits is what is meant by this, without this actually being confirmed.

I also think that the very first sentence, benefit artists and arts non-profits, is another deception tactic on her part. By using the words “non-profit” in her opening statement about grantLOVE Project it insinuates a misleading connection to grantLOVE Project being a non-profit when that is not the case.

The last sentence where she mentions “to date, grantLOVE Project… has raised funds” is completely absurd to me. grantLOVE Project was established in 2008. I certainly hope they would have raised funds for charity since then. The fact that she does not attribute any hint as to the quantity of money raised since its inception is alarming to me. If fact, that whole sentence feels like a way to deflect from any accountability towards honestly answering that question. Very suspicious.

The way she advertises grantLOVE Project on the website is the opposite of Newman's Own. In my opinion, it is something she just thought up to boost sales, it is a play on words. It is deception.

 

This is how Alexandra Grant advertises her grantLOVE Project charity in PR articles:

Spread a Little Love: Artist Alexandra Grant Teams Up With Chocolatiers for Valentine's Day - LA Weekly
 

 

“Inspired by Paul Newman and Newman’s Own, grantLOVE is a philanthropic company, rooted deeply in the idea of giving. “I really love the idea that I can work with artists or companies and then offer a strong visual identity that communicates. My dream is for the grantLOVE symbol to sort of be like the Red campaign so that you know when you’re buying something with it on there you’re supporting the arts or arts education,” Grant said”

 

Again, she is wrongfully comparing grantLOVE Project to Newman’s Own. She even takes it a step further and mentions that it is her dream for her LOVE symbol to be a recognized brand like the RED CAMPAIGN.  

 

The Red Campaign is another non-profit charity that contributes 100% of its funds. Therefore, in this article, Alexandra Grant is comparing grantLOVE Project to not one, but TWO well know non-profit charities. Yet her grantLOVE Project does not operate like a non-profit. Again this is blatant false advertising. 

 

This was not a misprint in an article. These are her own words in a PR article that came out February 12, 2020, right before Valentine's Day, for her collaborative work with And Sons (chocolatiers) and the chocolate boxes she designed for them. This was a promotional venture and the article would have been approved and paid for by her and And Sons chocolatiers. She did not misspeak. This was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent grantLOVE Project as a non-profit charity.

Also, in this article she alludes to wanting the consumers to "feel secure about her LOVE brand symbol, knowing that whenever they see that symbol/brand on a product that they can be assured that the profits from the sale went towards supporting the arts and art education." 

How can she say this and then list 12 items (9 of which bear the LOVE brand/symbol) on the grantLOVE Project website where no profits are going to charity?

I don't have an answer to this one. My opinion is that she can't legally be doing this, yet she is getting away with it. In fact, she's been getting away with it for the past 12 years.

Alexandra Grant and all her respective entities (grantLOVE Project, X Artists' Books) are not registered with the State of California's Registry of Charitable Trust in any way. Not as a charity. Not as a coventurer. Given that her fundraising with And Sons was a collaborative endeavor, she would have had to register this with the state. Same goes with her collaborative fundraising efforts with Oscar de la Renta, OCMA, Heart of Los Angeles (HOLA), Devon Tsuno, the artist Risk and, I am sure, many many more. 

I am also going to take a wild guess that it will be the same regarding the upcoming grantLOVE x Marfa pop-up shop scheduled for April 2021. 

Just so you understand, she would have to register for EVERY SINGLE COLLABORATIVE ENDEAVOR. One registration for each… every time… year after year. That adds up to a lot of missing registrations.

She has been fraudulently representing grantLOVE Project as a non-profit with many artists and business entities (charitable or otherwise). Also included in this is Frieze. 

https://www.frieze.com/article/activism-social-identity-and-body-politics-frieze-los-angeles-2020?amp

 

It is clearly stated that the backlot is exclusively for non-profits. 

I am not sure how Alexandra Grant's grantLOVE Project came to be included in this. 

Was Frieze negligent in checking grantLOVE Project's eligibility for participation in this event? 

Did they just take Ms. Grant's word, as stated on her resume, that grantLOVE Project was a non-profit and assumed it was a registered charity? 

Or did they know and chose to turn a blind eye because it served their purpose?

 

Unfortunately, I don't have the answer to this one either. One thing I do feel confident in stating is that many well meaning and honorable people and entities are now entangled with Ms. Grant's duplicitous "charity". I also fear that many more will get drawn into this web. This is truly unfortunate.