Derek Fincham

Odyssey Marine Salvage Award

One nation’s underwater looters are another nation’s excavators-for-hire. Dow Jones Newswires is reporting that Odyssey Marine will receive a $160,000 award for recovering artifacts for the U.K. from the English Channel:

Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. (OMEX) will receive a salvage award of $160,000 in a settlement with the U.K. government for artifacts recovered so far from a gunship wreck in the English Channel.The company – which uses advanced technology to comb the ocean’s depths for silver, gold and historical artifacts – also has filed a motion to vacate its admiralty arrest on the wreck in U.S. federal court. An admiralty arrest is a legal proceeding by which Odyssey seeks court recognition of its right to salvage a ship.Shares recently were up 14% at $2.33 in recent premarket trading. Still, that’s far below its all-time high of $8.32 a share in May 2007, shortly after a separate major discovery in the Atlantic Ocean, which led to a legal dispute with Spain. Shares lost two-thirds of their value in one day in June after Odyssey was recommended to return an estimated $500 million in sunken cargo. The case is still pending.The U.K. salvage award represents about 80% of the value of two cannon recovered from Admiral Balchin’s HMS Victory, a British Navy 100 gun ship lost in 1744 and submitted to the U.K. Receiver of Wreck. The company plans to contribute $75,000 of the award to support the National Museum of the Royal Navy.The company also will be involved in talks to determine approaches that should be adopted towards the wreck. Odyssey has booked losses in every year except one since it went public in 1997, but has loyal investors confident in its long-term prospects. The company generates revenue by selling artifacts and coins, from a partnership with the Discovery Channel and from leasing fees for traveling museum exhibits. The HMS Victory is one of Odyssey’s significant finds and sank in a storm with 41 bronze cannons and other artifacts aboard.Odyssey in April had admiralty arrest on about a dozen sites.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Redds Sentenced to Probation

Jeanne and Jericca Redd (pictured here with their attorney) have been sentenced in the federal artifact-looting investigation. They are the first to be sentenced, there are at least 26 other potential criminal defendants. U.S. District Court Judge Waddous sentenced Jeanne Redd to 36 months’s probation and a $2,000 fine, and her daughter Jericca to 24 months’ probatoin and a $300 fine. Federal prosecutors had recommended 18 months in prison for Jeanne. Jeanne pleaded guilty to seven felonies, two counts of violating the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, two counts of theft, and three counts of theft of tribal property. Each one of those counts carried a potential fine of $250,000 and 10 years in prison. The younger Redd admitted to three felonies for digging up a seed jar, a vase, and a vessel on the Navajo reservation. Over 800 objects, including human remains were seized from the Redds.

However Judge Waddous said “This is a community where this kind of conduct . . . has been justified for a number of years . . . This is a woman who has spent her life as a member of her community . . . I want to express my thanks, . . . I know this has been a terrible experience for all of you.”
Judge Waddons is referring to the suicide of James Redd earlier this summer, and that seems to have had a substantial impact on the sentencing. It is also a general rule in sentencing that when a defendant pleads guilty, a prosecutor will recommend a much lesser sentence, but in this case the sentence fell far short of the sentence recommended by the prosecutors.

George Hardeen, a spokeseman for Navajo Nation president Joe Shirley Jr. said “The Navajo people are compassionate toward others who have had a tragic loss as the Redd family have . . . At the same time, Navajos have a deep respect for burials and ruins and teach that these are not to be disturbed. Obviously, Navajos want them left alone and not looted for their artifacts.”

In an interview on NPR this morning Mark Michel of the Archeological Conservancy said “The sentence is disappointing . . . And I’m afraid it sends a message that this is not serious criminal activity.”

U.S. Attorney Richard McKelvie saw it another way, “I can’t imagine anybody willfully subjecting themselves to anything the Redds have gone through . . . You can’t ignore the consequences that these people have suffered as a result of the investigation and prosecution of this case.”

These sentences are certainly on the light side, but even if the judge had thrown the “book” at the Redds and all the other defendants, would that have a sustained impact on the preservation of the archaeological record in the Southwest? It may, or it may produce a backlash. Criminal penalties are an important component, but criminal penalties in isolation will not solve the problem. There are very different ways of valuing these sites and objects, and increased awareness of how important and valuable the archaeological record is are critical components of this process.

Howard Berkes, Mother, Daughter Get Probation In Artifacts Theft [NPR, Sep. 16, 2009].
Patty Henetz, Redds dodge prison in artifact sentencing [The Salt Lake Tribune, Sep. 17, 2009].

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Nine Double Eagle Coins

Roy Langbord discovered in 2003 that his family had 9 of these rare double eagle coins locked away in a safe-deposit box:

The famous “double eagles” from that year were never officially released by the government. Only a few had ever made their way out of federal vaults, and only one had ever been sold publicly, in 2002. The price: $7.6 million. And there were nine more of them in the safe-deposit box. But after the Langbord family took the coins to the United States Mint to be authenticated in 2004, they got a rude surprise. The Mint said the coins were genuine and kept them. The government claims that they are government property stolen from the Mint, most likely in the 1930s, by Mr. Langbord’s grandfather, Israel Switt, a Philadelphia jewelry dealer. The Langbords went to court and recently won an important ruling. A United States District Court judge has given the government until the end of the month either to give back the coins or go back to court to prove that they were in fact stolen by Mr. Switt, a daunting task after three-quarters of a century. Nearly a half-million 1933 double eagles were minted before President Franklin D. Roosevelt, shifting the nation away from the gold standard, issued an executive order that made owning large amounts of gold bullion and coins illegal. Two of the coins went to the Smithsonian Institution, and almost all the rest were melted down.

The Federal government believes the coins were stolen, and it seems unlikely these coins ever found their way to the marketplace legitimately, but the government will have to prove these coins were stolen, 75 years after they were ordered to be melted down.

John Schwartz, Rare Coins: Family Treasure or Ill-Gotten Goods? [New York Times, Sep. 15, 2009].

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Undoing a Sale to HItler

The Austrian Culture Ministry has revealed that it has received a formal request for the restitution of this work, The Art of Painting by Johannes Vermeer. The family of Jaromir Czernin has urged its return for nearly 40 years, but the Austrian authorities refused on the grounds the sale was voluntary. However an attorney for the Czernin family argues the work was sold to guarantee the safety of Czernin and his family. The work was sold to Hitler in 1940 for 1.65 million Reichsmark. Irrespective of the outcome of this request, arguing Hitler purchased the disputed work is not exactly the kind of publicity Austria’s Kunsthistorisches Museum would enjoy.

Philippe Schwab, Vienna museum fears restitution of stolen Vermeer [AFP, Sep. 13, 2009].

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

No Libraries in Philadelphia?

We get the State and City we deserve. Another sign of the dismal state of liberal arts funding generally. If the Pennsylvania State Legislature doesn’t allocate funds, the Philadelphia Free Library will close on October 2nd and end all programs and services. All books are due on October 1st.

The Pennsylvania senate is unable to pass a budget, and this late-arriving state funding will force the closure of the entire system. Perhaps a Pirate Party can fill the void for the citizens of Philadelphia to get access to books, movies and music.

All Free Library of Philadelphia Branch, Regional and Central Libraries Closed Effective Close of Business October 2, 2009 [Free Library of Philadelphia]

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Early Review of the Art of the Steal

The Art of the Steal is a new documentary on the Barnes foundation and its planned move from Merion. Scott Tobias has a review for the AV Club:

As a forward-thinking art collector in the ‘20s, Dr. Albert Barnes snapped up an extraordinary wealth of post-impressionist and modernist paintings from the likes of Matisse, Picasso, Renoir, and Cezanne; though dismissed by tastemakers at the time, his collection is now valued in the tens of billions. In his will, Dr. Barnes was very specific about what the trustees were to do with his assets: He wanted them to remain housed in his small, meticulously conceived institution in the Philadelphia suburb of Merion, never to be loaned out or sold to other museums. He wanted the Barnes trustees to continue his educational mission. And most of all, he wanted to make sure the corporate foundations and politicians in Philly didn’t get their grubby paws on it. The Art Of The Steal is about how Barnes’ seemingly ironclad wishes were withered away by unscrupulous trustees, coffer-draining legal battles, and the overwhelming force of a city looking to bring in the tourist dollar. There are two sides of the story—the other being that the Barnes Foundation simply didn’t have the capital to be a sustainable entity—but the film makes its allegiances clear. And that’s not a bad thing: In this David and Goliath story, Goliath kicks the ever loving shit out of David, and the film is convincing and righteous in its advocacy. It also leaves you with troubling questions about the runaway commodification of art, the extent to which it does or does not belong the public, and just how much power the individual really has in society. Grade: B

Toronto Film Festival ’09: Day 4 [AV Club].

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Reward Offered for Stolen Warhol Works

A series of prominent Andy Warhol portraits of 1970’s-era athletes has been stolen from the home of Robert Weisman in Los Angeles earlier this month. It seems the thieves knew what they were looking for, as the home wasn’t ransacked. A reward of $1m has been offered for information leading to the return of the paintings. As has been noted many times, the theft of these works was probably the easy part, the difficulty will be trying to sell these well-known works.

Why were these works stolen?

Mark Durney wonders why these works were taken:

Were thieves simply enticed by the popularity of Warhol’s athletic icons? Maybe they sought to steal Weisman’s most emotionally important pieces of personal property. Could there be a market of potential buyers who feel dejected by the “absurdly” high asking price for the series in 2007?

There are four other possibilities:

The first, is that a collector admires the piece, and hired a thief to take it for him. We can call this the Dr. No situation. This seems the least likely possibility, but the one that strikes a chord with the imagination. Writers in this subject frequently cite the Dr. No as being responsible for thefts, and I admit it makes for good Bond villains, but there has been no convincing evidence that thsi is why people are stealing rare objects. Another similar possibility which seems far more likely is that an unscrupulous dealer may have a similar piece for sale, and if he can establish some excitement around these kinds of pieces, the price for his clock may go up. This is just wild speculation, and assigns a quite sinister tak to arts and antiquities dealers, a habit far too many writers in this field are fond of doing.

Second, the thief may not have known that the object was so rare as to make its subsequent sale difficult.

Third, the thief may simply be trying to kidnap the object. They could then insure its safe return for a generous reward, or negotiate its return.

Finally, perhaps the market is doing such a poor job of regulating what is and is not legitimate, that it may not be all that difficult to sell this piece after all. This strikes me as the most troubling possibility, but also not very likely.

Joel Rubin, Fortune in Warhol Pop Art stolen [LA Times, Sep. 12, 2009].

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Soft Cultural Power

The Economist examines how well UNESCO manages its list of World Heritage Sites:

This year’s most dramatic move was a rare decision to strip a place—Dresden and the surrounding Elbe valley—of its status as a “World Heritage Site”: that is, a location deemed to be of universal worth to humanity by virtue of its built environment, ecological importance or both.

The German metropolis, belatedly restored to its Baroque glory after massive wartime bombing, was punished because of a motorway bridge that threatens to wreck the skyline. (The only other place to have been delisted is an antelope sanctuary in Oman, where the government actually wanted to renounce the status.) Meanwhile UNESCO accepted 13 new sites, including a sacred peak in Kyrgyzstan and a fortress in Burkina Faso, bringing to 890 the number of places under its purview.

What makes this whole procedure tolerable (and indeed, respected) is that it is a voluntary arrangement between governments, with groups of states taking turns to form committees that duly exercise UNESCO’s moral power. At least in theory, it is not the permanent staff of the World Heritage Centre (a smallish part of the UNESCO bureaucracy) who exercise dominion over the glories of the earth, but the 186 states that have ratified the World Heritage Convention and thus signed up to the notion that some places are too precious to be left at the mercy of one government alone.

For an earlier post on the promise and peril of declaring an area a World Heritage Site, see this earlier post.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Roerich Thieves Arrested

The thieves who stole two paintings from the Roerich Museum in Manhattan were arrested last week as they tried to sell one of the stolen works to an undercover cop at a Starbucks:

On Sept. 3, Ryjenko and Croussouloudis — carrying the painting in a blue paper shopping bag — traveled to a Lower East Side Starbucks to meet with the detective, police said.

While Ryjenko waited outside, Croussouloudis met with the phony collector and asked for $20,000 for the painting. She even warned him that the work of art had been stolen and that he would be unable to freely display it in his gallery, police said.

The cop then asked her to come with him to his gallery where he would give her the money. As she and Ryjenko walked with him up Allen Street, they were arrested.

A law-enforcement source said the couple denied having stolen the painting.

Couple busted with Stolen painting [New York Post, Sep. 10, 2009].

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Navigating the Deaccessioning Crisis

I have posted on SSRN a working manuscript of my piece Navigating the Deaccession Crisis.

I’d like to acknowledge my cohort of arts bloggers who have looked in terrific detail at many aspects of the issue, and the piece is far richer for their insights. In particular, Donn Zaretsky at the art law blog; Lee Rosenbaum at CultureGrrl; Tyler Green at Modern Art Notes; Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento at the Deaccessioning Blog; Richard Lacayo at Looking Around; and many others.

My proposal has three parts. First, the unnecessary restriction on deaccession proceeds should be eliminated. Second, when an important work of art is deaccessioned, other museums should be given an opportunity to purchase a work – to keep it in the public trust or its region – in much the same way the United Kingdom and other nations regulate the export of works of art. Finally, when any museum is considering a deaccession, it must provide reasons for the sale and publicize the decision to allow for public comment.

My thinking on deaccession first took shape in the wake of the controversy which surrounded the proposed sale of this painting, Thomas Eakins’ Gross Clinic, back in 2006. Why so much anger over the sale of a painting people weren’t seeing? Are there inconsistencies in the American Museum community with respect to deaccession and the acquisition of potentially looted antiquities? Can the process be streamlined? Will it happen more often? I sought an answer to these questions in the piece, and I’d be much obliged as always to hear any thoughts or reactions.

Here is the abstract:

A deaccession crisis confronts the American Museum community. Deaccession of art occurs when a museum decides to sell or dispose of a work of art. The crisis stems not from the practice itself – though there are indications deaccession will occur with increasing regularity. Rather the curious mixture of trust and estates law, state law, tax policy, nonprofit governance, professional guidelines, and doctrines governing deaccession all combine to form a body of rules which lack clarity and often conflict. These general and ephemeral standards preclude reasoned appraisal of whether any given sale may benefit the public. More care should be taken when crafting the rules governing our collective cultural heritage.

This article attempts to define the public interest in works of art, and provide a framework to guide in the deaccession of works of art to ensure those sales do in fact serve the public interest. The decision to sell works of art should be taken with care; but the current rules lead to a number of pernicious consequences. They have caused the loss of works from the public trust, the closure of museums and unnecessary legal battles.

Current guidelines require that deaccession proceeds be used only to purchase more art; however this rule appears to be a product of one high-profile scandal involving New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. To assist donors, museum directors and state Attorney Generals, this article proposes three changes. First, the unnecessary restriction on deaccession proceeds should be eliminated. Second, when an important work of art is deaccessioned, other museums should be given an opportunity to purchase a work – to keep it in the public trust or its region – in much the same way the United Kingdom and other nations regulate the export of works of art. Finally, when any museum is considering a deaccession, it must provide reasons for the sale and publicize the decision to allow for public comment.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com