Peter Nahum has an excellent editorial in the Art Newspaper titled “How I was duped by the Bolton forgers”
Author: Derek Fincham
The Lewis Chessmen
On December 19th, Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, stated “I find it utterly unacceptable that the Lewis Chessment are scattered around Britain in a bizarre parody of the Barnett formula. And you can be assured that I will continue campaigning for a united set of Lewis Chessmen in an independent Scotland.”
The Barnett formula is a means by which the United Kingdom allocates its expenditures. This statement is sure to gain support among those Scots who feel England has been harassing and plundering Scotland for centuries. However I find the claim for the removal of all the chessmen to Scotland half-hearted. If one were to be unkind it could be called intellectually laze, intended to strengthen the notion of an independent and historically separate Scotland. It’s the kind of irresponsible and base nationalistic claim that does a disservice to legitimate repatriation claims.
The Lewis chessmen are a medieval collection of 93 pieces forming four or five complete sets. They were most likely carved in Norway in the 12th century, and then were likely taken by a merchant on their way to nobles in Ireland perhaps. However the pieces were lost, and were rediscovered sometime shortly before 1831 on a sand bank near the Bay of Uig on the West coast of the Isle of Lewis. The island at the time was ruled by Norway. The precise details of the discovery are unknown, but they were exhibited by Roderick Ririe at a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in 1831. Soon after 10 pieces were purchased by Kirkpatrick Sharpe and this collection eventually was donated to the Royal Museum in Edinburgh in 1888, now the National Museum of Scotland. The remaining pieces were purchased in 1831 for the British Museum in London.
The pieces are fantastic, and reproductions of the set are quite popular. They are carved from walrus ivory and whale teeth, and many of the human figures are quite expressive. In fact, the representations have a lot to teach about medieval weapons and dress.
Ian Jack in an excellent article in the Guardian examines the possible claims Scotland might have to all of the chessmen, and rightly comes to the conclusion that
It would be easy to accuse Salmond of nothing more than opportunism, adding to his reputation for that streak. In fact, he has been sporadically campaigning for the return of the Lewis Chessmen for 10 years. My explanation is that his demand comes out of a previous era of nationalism that was quite blind to Scotland’s history as England’s imperial partner – needed to be blind to it, because in terms of wealth it was Scotland’s golden age and inconvenient to anti-English grievance. I had thought that the grievance mode was passing. But not yet, not yet.
Neil MacGregor, the director of the British Museum contacted Scotland’s culture minister, to ask if the statement was serious: “Because if it is, we need to understand the principles that lie behind it.” No response has apparently been sent to this query. What kinds of events can trigger a return? In the case of the string of the recent repatriations from American institutions to Italy, they came in response to solid evidence, including photographs that the returned objects had been looted, in violation of Italian law. In other cases, if an object is an ethnographic object important to ongoing religious or community practices for example, an excellent case can be made for a return; such is the case with vigango from Africa. However Salmond is unable to provide this kind argument for a return. His motivating animus seems to be that a unified set would make a great deal of money for the National Museum of Scotland or the Isle of Lewis. In fact in 1995 a complete exhibition of the chessmen was held on the Isle, and it attracted record crowds.
Salmond has been making this claim since at least 1996. In a Sunday Times piece by Alastair Robertson from 1 Dec. 1996 Salmond argued “just as the Elgin marbles should be restored to Greece … so should ancient artefacts come home to Scotland. There is no justification for them to remain in England.” Now this policy has some troubling consequences for Scotland’s museums. Its collections are packed with objects taken home by Scots during the colonial era, and many of these objects were hardly taken in a properly bargained for exchange. These institutions would surely have to quickly dispose of much of their collection. In fact, the chessmen were legally acquired, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest they were wrongfully acquired. If we were to return these objects to their homeland where they were created, they would not return to the Outer Hebrides, but rather to Norway.
Given the fact that Great Britain has such an ancient and fascinating history, it is perhaps unsurprising that various communities have called for the return of various objects. Inhabitants of St. Ninian’s Isle have begun to call for the return of medieval treasure, currently housed at the National Museum of Scotland. Many of these arguments would appear surprising to visitors to others from larger and more disparate nations. Scotland is after all not much larger than South Carolina.
When objects are allocated to regional museums, it makes the risk of theft and other difficulties more pressing. A handful of regional institutions are more difficult to safeguard than larger centralized locations of course. More importantly though, these objects should have a substantial curatorial or cultural imperative which dictates a return. If Salmond is able to construct or to offer such a narrative, perhaps he will move beyond base political rhetoric. If he’s looking for an example, perhaps he should take a look at the St. Louis Museum of Art’s exhibition of George Caleb Bingham’s The Sunday Election, which Tyler Green praises today.
Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com
Stolen Works Discovered in Glasgow
The BBC reported over the weekend that five paintings have been recovered by a a pensioner in his Dunbartonshire flat (just outside Glasgow). Three are the work of Robert Gemmell Hutchison, the Pink Pinafore, Feeding the Seagulls, and Cottarita. Also recovered was this work, Candlelight by Sir James Guthrie, along with Luss Road. A slideshow of all the works is here.
The works were found by an elderly man in his loft. At present, authorities are still attempting to understand how these works came to arrive there, after they had been stolen in 2002. There still aren’t many details, and I’ll update if and when more details emerge.
The works are estimated to be worth £246,000. Of course that doesn’t measure the artistic or cultural value of the works which have been stolen. In fact cultural value was the main reason the Norweigian Supreme Court gave for increasing the sentences of two thieves who took Edvard Munch’s The Scream and the Madonna as they are of “irreplaceable national cultural value.” It’s this cultural value which gives art theft a prominent place in the news, and arouses such interest. However I think measuring it, especially for courts, can often be difficult, especially for lawmakers who aren’t trained in art history. Increasing punishment for well-renowned masterpieces such as Munch’s works, this cultural value may be pretty easy to measure; however these works recovered in Glasgow may be harder to measure culturally, and our only gauge is the price they may garner at auction.
Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com
Repatriation of the Krater
Pictured here is the Euphronios krater, one of the finest known antiquities. Created in 515 BC, it is the only known complete example of a work painted by Euphronios. The krater was purchased by the Metropolitan Museum of Art for a then-record $1 million from Robert Hecht. Suspicion was aroused as soon as the work was purchased about the provenance of the piece, where it was discovered, had it been in an existing collection etc. The most likely explanation now indicates the krater was purchased from Giacomo Medici, an Italian who was convicted of selling illicit antiquities on 2004. A 2004 article on artnet by the Met director at the time, Thomas Hoving, details his account of the acquisition of the krater. The krater was almost certainly illegally excavated. As a result we know nothing of its archaeological context.
As a result these questions, Italy and the Met agreed to arrange the return of the krater in exchange for other long term loans. Sunday will be the final day to see the krater at the Met before it is returned to Italy’s “Nostoi” exhibition championing the recent repatriation efforts.
In exchange, the Met will be receiving a terracotta cup depicting gods on Mt. Olympus signed by Euxitheos, a jug shaped like a woman’s head, and another krater made in southern Italy. I’ll leave to the art historians and others the question of whether this is a fair bargain, and how much the Met’s antiquities collection has been diminished.
Does this exchange remedy the earlier illegal excavation? The answer is no, it seems to me. It does not punish the illegal excavators. We still do not know anything about the krater’s context. More than anything, this seems to indicate that the Met and other institutions will think long and hard before making another similarly dubious acquisition in the future. That I think is the real relevance, and its one I think has not been discussed amid the retirement of Philippe de Montebello and the stories about these returns. The salient question remains, are there ways to ensure antiquities are licit? The answer it seems to me is still no. Sites are still vulnerable, and the antiquities trade does not promote the careful scientific study of sites. Amid all of this controversy after returns by the Met, the MFA Boston, the Getty, and the University of Virginia, a fundamental conundrum remains. Should the antiquities trade exist in some form? The discussion should, I think, focus now on the next Euprhonios Krater. Is it being protected? Are there new acquisition policies which are sufficient? Will more institutions abroad adopt the standards of the Getty or the Indianapolis Museum of Art? Are source nations effectively regulating their sites? Are they promoting compliance with these regulations?
Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com
Recovery in Sao Paulo
The AP is reporting that the two works stolen last month in Brazil have been recovered in Sao Paulo. The recovered works, Portrait of Suzanne Bloch, 1904 by Pablo Picasso and O Lavrador de Cafe, 1939 by Candido Portinari were recovered in a home on the outskirts of Sao Paulo on Tuesday. The works were stolen last month, by thieves using only crowbar and a car jack. Given that, are the assualt rifles, pistols, and bullet-proof jackets worn by guards at yesterday’s press conference necessary?
Julio Neves, the president of the Sao Paulo Museum of Art said the works are “in absolutely perfect condition”, and “[t]he museum is upgrading and improving its security system to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.” There is no word on how the works were recovered, as police are still investigation as “other suspects remain at large and providing details could jeopardize the ongoing investigation.” Given the comments of the city’s chief police inspector Mauricio Lemos Freire, it seems like they are investigating this as a theft-to-order, and are still going after the buyer who ordered the theft.
Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com
Vineberg v. Bissonnette
If you find yourself involved in a Nazi restitution dispute, be sure to develop your statute of limitations defense in responding to a motion for summary judgment. That’s the lesson I take from Vineberg v. Bissonnette, 2007 WL 4571154 D.R.I., 2007 (Dec. 27, 2007). Federal District Court Judge Mary Lisi ordered Maria-Louise Bissonnette to return the work to the estate of Max Stern. The dispute involved this work, Girl from the Sabiner Mountains, by Franz-Xaver Winterhalter.
The court gave the background of the case as follows (emphasis added):
Dr. Stern was of Jewish descent and, under the Nuremberg laws, was subject to official persecution by the German government. In 1935, the Reich Chamber for the Fine Arts (“Reich Chamber”), an organization of the Nazi government, sent letters to Dr. Stern demanding that he liquidate his inventory and gallery. On or about September 13, 1937, Dr. Stern received a final order to sell his inventory immediately through a dealer approved by the Reich Chamber. Dr. Stern consigned most of his inventory and private collection, constituting hundreds of works, to the Lempertz Auction House (“LAH”), in Cologne, Germany. On or about November 13, 1937, LAH auctioned the items consigned to it by Dr. Stern, including the property that is the subject of the dispute in this matter, a nineteenth century painting by Franz Xaver Winterhalter entitled “Madchen aus den Sabiner Bergen” (“Girl from the Sabiner Mountains”) (“the Painting”). The items consigned to LAH by Dr. Stern were sold at well below market value. Dr. Stern fled Germany for Paris in December 1937. Upon discovering that Dr. Stern left Germany, the German government issued an order freezing his assets. Dr. Stern never received the proceeds of the LAH sale. Dr. Stern eventually left Paris to join his sister in London prior to the outbreak of World War II. Dr. Stern later emigrated to Canada and became a preeminent art collector and dealer there.
In most of these disputes, the question of whether an action is timely is outcome-determinative. That’s probably not surprising given the events giving rise to a cause of action occurred seventy years ago. It seems clear that Stern took great pains to attempt to locate his lost works, and as such the limitations defense may have been difficult. But even so, the defendant seems to have missed their best argument by failing to raise an adequate statute of limitations defense. As such, the action was timely, and both parties had agreed to most of the relevant facts. As the painting was sold “well below market value” and Stern never received the proceeds, the defendant now has to relinquish the painting, even though she appears blameless.
Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com
2007 in Review
One of the best things about the end of the year is the chance to catch up on things I’ve missed out on during the year. I love the year-end best music lists, all of which are helpfully compiled on largehearted boy. Movie lists are great as well, though many of the Onion’s favorite movies have yet to appear in most theaters. Dahlia Lithwick, the always-excellent legal reporter for Slate also runs down the “Bush administrations Dumbest Legal Arguments of the Year“.
It’s also been an eventful year in the cultural policy world, and in that spirit I’ve compiled the Top Ten Cultural Property events of the past year.
10. The Major theft in Brazil of Picasso’s Portrait of Suzanne Bloch and a work by Brazilian artist Candido Portinari from the greatest South American Art Museum, the Sao Paulo Museum of Art. Much of the subsequent US media coverage of the theft has misleadingly depicted the Sao Paulo Museum of Art as a poor and bumbling institution that couldn’t afford insurance. That’s highly misleading, because even the wealthiest institutions have difficulty insuring their works. It’s expensive to insure a work worth $100 million, and its often more cost-effective to spend that money on security. Of course the security was not up to the task in this case, but one wonders if a major theft of this nature from an American or European museum would be so quick to blame the museum?
9. The still-to-be revealed extent of the forgeries created by Shaun Greenhalgh, who lived in Council Housing in Bolton with his aging parents. His forgeries fooled the British Museum, the Art Institute of Chicago, and some of the world’s leading experts on Gauguin. The most surprising aspect may be the breadth of the forged objects which ranged from an ancient Greek kouros to Egyptian to ancient cuneiform to a sculpture by Gauguin. How many more Greenhalgh’s are on display now? We don’t know for sure. It calls to mind Orson Welles’ final masterpiece F for Fake: “It’s pretty but is it art? How is it valued? The value depends on opinion, opinion depends on the expert, a faker … makes fool of the experts – so who’s the expert? Who’s the faker?”
8. The recovery in August of three Picasso works stolen from the artist’s granddaughter in February.
7. Another major story is the state of antiquities–discovered, displayed, stolen– in Iraq.
6. The theft in August in Nice France, in which thieves stole 4 works by Monet, Sisley, and Bruegel. It’s probably not possible to sell these works on the open market, but at least two of these paintings had been stolen in 1999. A theft to order seems the likely explanation.
5. A significant continuing story is the increasing number of WWII-era art claims.
4. In October da Vinci’s Madonna of the Yarnwinder was recovered from a Solicitor’s office in Glasgow, four years after its theft from Drumlanrig Castle. It was a major recovery because it was a da Vinci, but also because it was recovered in a solicitor’s office. I’m looking forward to more details as the criminal trial unfolds in 2008.
3. A major story in the UK is the trouble for arts and museum funding in the face of the London Olympic bid. This funding shortage could destroy much of what makes the UK cultural policy tick, including the Waverley limited export scheme, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, and arts funding generally.
2. A major milestone this year was the legal claims brought by Iran in England to seek to block the sale of antiquities. The first was Iran v. Berend [2007] EWHC 132 (QB) (an unsuccessful attempt to block the sale of a limestone relief from Persepolis). The other major dispute involved chlorite objects from the Jiroft region of Iran. The High Court ruling Iran v. Barakat Galleries Ltd. [2007] EWHC 705 held Iran was not able to establish an ownership interest, however this was overturned by the Court of Appeal in Iran v. Barakat Galleries [2007] EWCA Civ 1374. These decisions received surprisingly little media coverage, but will have long-lasting consequences for years to come as they have extended the standing of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and provided important precedent for other nations which may seek to prevent the sale of antiquities in London’s bustling antiquities markets.
1. The story I found myself writing the most about this year was the interminable dispute between Italy and the Getty, which finally culminated in an agreement this summer for the return of dozens of important works to Italy. The dispute has a number of related stories, including the ongoing dispute over the Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth, and the Marion True/Robert Hecht criminal trial in Italy. Will it fundamentally change the antiquities trade? Does it signal the end of the universal museum? Will cultural policy matter in nations other than Italy? Perhaps 2008 has the answer to those questions.
Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com
Happy Festivus
Iran Wins Barakat Appeal
The judgment in Republic of Iran v. Barakat Galleries [2007] EWCA Civ 1374 has been released today. At the High Court, Gray J decided in favor of the gallery because, first and foremost, the ownership declarations Iran relied on were in his eyes insufficient. The Court of Appeal reached the opposite result by holding that a claim for conversion is tenable so long as the various rights granted to Iran amount to an ownership interest under English law. Pictured here is a chlorite vase on the Barakat Gallery website, of the “intercultural style” similar to the objects now recovered by Iran.
Two preliminary issues were raised:
i) Whether under the provisions of Iranian law pleaded in the Amended Particulars of Claim, the claimant can show that it has obtained title to the Objects as a matter of Iranian law and if so by what means, and
ii) If the claimant can show that it has obtained such title under Iranian law, whether this court should recognise and/or enforce that title.
The Court of Appeal answered both in favor of Iran.
In a startling rebuke to Gray J, the Court of Appeal noted that the lower court had concluded the relevant Iranian law was “both penal and public in character” and as a result it “could not be enforced in this country”. As the Court of Appeal noted
Emphasis added.
Importantly, the Court of Appeal noted that “it is important to bear in mind that it is not the label which foreign law gives to the legal relationship, but its substance, which is relevant. If the rights given by Iranian law are equivalent to ownership in English law, then English law would treat that as ownership for the purposes of the conflict of laws.” At issue was whether Iran’s rights were sufficient to give it a claim for conversion under English law. The distinction from the lower court turns not on the legal significance of a proclamation such as “Iran declares itself the owner of all undiscovered antiquities”; but rather in the individual rights which Iran has given itself in these objects. If the sum of these rights amounts to ownership under English law, then Iran has a viable legal claim. As the Court of appeal noted in para. 80:
We consider that this is an arid issue. Given our conclusion that the finder did not own the antiquities (and the fact, as was common ground, that the owner of the land from which they came had no claim to them), there are only two possibilities. Either they were “bona vacantia” to which Iran had an immediate right of possession and which would become Iran’s property once Iran obtained possession and which could not become the property of anyone else or they belonged to Iran from, at least, the moment that they were found. We consider that the former alternative is artificial. Iran’s personal rights in relation to antiquities found were so extensive and exclusive that Iran was properly to be considered the owner of the properties found.
The question then became, under English law does the Iranian interest in the objects support a claim in conversion, and if so is the claim founded on a penal or public law? The relevant 1979 Legal Bill was not penal with respect to ownership of antiquities, though other segments dealing with criminal penalties for unlawfully excavating or dealing with antiquities may have been. The court, distinguishing between export restrictions and asserting ownership. The former is clearly a public law and unenforceable ablsent another treaty obligation while the latter is justiciable. When a state owns property in the same way as a private citizen “there is no impediment to recovery.” King of Italy v de Medici (1918) 34 TLR 623.
Though the court did recognize difficulty in enforcing Iran’s sovereign authority, the Court of Appeal classified the claim as a “patrimonial claim”. In distinguishing this claim reference was made to US precedent, United States v Schultz, 333 F 3d 393 (2d Cir. 2003) in which the Second Circuit recognized an Egyptian patrimony law even though Egypt had never reduced the objects at issue to possession. Importantly, the Court of Appeal reasoned that even if it was wrong in not characterizing the claim as the enforcement of foreign public law, the claim would still not be barred because there exists no “general principle that this country will not entertain an action whose object is to enforce the public law of another State.” In supporting this principle reference was made to the UNESCO Convention, the UNIDROIT Convention, the Commonwealth Scheme (which has not apparently been fully implemented), as well as the relevant EU directives.
The appeal is a tremendous gain for source nations, and establishes English courts will in fact recognize foreign ownership declarations even when they are not explicit, so long as they grant rights to the source nation similar in nature to ownership requirements under English law. In the initial AP news story Fayez Barakat the owner of the gallery indicated “This means that the Iranian government could claim every Persian item at a British Museum, and that doesn’t make any sense”. He’s right that it doesn’t make any sense, because its patently ridiculous, and indicative of the ridiculous exaggerations which often occur after a ruling like this. The British Museum will not be emptied of its Persian collection because of this decision; rather antiquities dealers are unable to sell new and illegally excavated objects from Iran.
Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com
Olympics or Arts
A steady string of arts venues have suffered closure in the UK in recent weeks. The Komedia in Brighton has had to shut its doors; the Windsor Arts Centre closed its doors last friday; and earlier this month the Lemon Tree in Aberdeen suddenly shut its doors as well. I should note in the interest of full disclosure that my wife had been in charge of marketing at the Lemon Tree for nearly a year, and its sudden closure came as quite a shock. It was hardly the season’s greetings we were expecting from the Aberdeen City Council. The Lemon Tree closing was particularly disappointing for us, as it was a great venue which did a lot of community and charity work; and in many cases funding was secured which actually made these events profitable.
Sadly the trend seems likely to continue. And what is the root cause? Arts funding is always a battle, especially for real new and creative enterprises. In many cases much of the money the arts council and other organizations had previously given these organizations has been diverted to the Olympic fund. Not only that but corporate and other sponsorships are diverted to the Olympics as well. It’s not only arts funding either.
The Portable Antiquities Scheme, a pioneering community archeology project will likely have its funding cut this year. Will Anderson rightly points out that “to halt the PAS now that it is operating so successfully would be folly. All so they can build another few domes for the Olympics. It is the department of ‘Culture’ Media and SPORT and its proxy the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, that deserve to be scrapped”.
Colin Renfrew had an excellent summary of the scheme’s benefits in an opinion piece in the Guardian earlier this week. He points out that the scheme is “starting to transform our understanding of many aspects of the past”. Seventeen PhDs have used PAS data. I know it featured prominently in my thesis as an excellent and pragmatic way to effectively regulate sites in source nations. In terms of concrete discoveries, a Viking age cemetery was discovered in cumbria, a Roman bowl bearing the names of forts on Hadrian’s wall has been acquired by the British Museum and others. Perhaps most importantly, “the scheme has also taken the initiative in policing the internet for objects that should be reported under the Treasure Act and has promoted a code of practice”.
The situation isn’t any better in Scotland either, where funding for the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow will likely begin to increase as well. I don’t doubt that holding the Olympics in London will give a number of benefits to London and the UK. Perhaps if most British citizens were given a choice maybe they would choose Olympic funding over the arts and culture. However, I think those in charge should be upfront about the hidden costs and very real cuts which this Olympic bid will cause.
Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com