More Repatriations to Italy Likely?

At the ARCA Conference in Amelia back in July, Francesco Rutelli gave a very interesting talk elaborating in some detail on the wave of repatriations from many museums to Italy; and of course this resulted in many North American museums and even a collector returned works of art to Italy. The Met, the MFA Boston, the Getty, the Cleveland Museum of Art, Princeton University, and Shelby White have all returned important antiquities to Italy.

Some have questioned whether these repatriations have been worth all the negative publicity, particularly if the nation of origin cares little for the returned objects. At the conference, I asked Rutelli about that, about how some have argued that Italians don’t seem all that interested in the return of the Euphronios Krater and how not many people are visiting it. He responded with what I thought was a pretty thoughtful answer. He stated that the piece is in “the correct place” and that in “scientific terms it is correct”. It is an Etruscan object, and the Villa Giulia is the Etruscan museum—arguing that if the piece had been properly and legally excavated from Cerveteri, this is where the piece would have been displayed. He did acknowledge though, that there may have been problems with “publicity and information”, a problem he traces to the current government, which he argued “should do more”, and these repatriated objects should all be displayed together as part of a meaningful message.

Rutelli finished his talk by providing a number of documents to ARCA Director Noah Charney, and I’ve had a chance to scan some of them (some of the same pictures also appear in a piece by Suzan Mazur for Scoop).

The image on the left is a picture of a terracotta relief from the Symes collection, the picture on the right is a photo seized from Giacomo Medici. The resemblance is striking, and they indicate, if Medici had a polaroid of the object over a decade ago; it was very likely looted.

There are more documents and photos embedded below, but first a little background. The impetus for the recent returns was the criminal investigation of Giacomo Medici, whose conviction was upheld in July. When Medici’s Swiss warehouse was searched, it produced a number of Polaroids of works of art which ultimately wound up in the United States and elsewhere. Italy has been engaged in a concerted effort to seek the return of many of these objects. Rutelli argued that these returns were not on “nationalistic terms” a rebuke to the criticism of Jim Cuno and others who have criticized the repatriations. Rutelli argued they were “fighting to recover some masterpieces” and that Italy did the same when other countries discovered other stolen works of art in Italy. He said the effort was motivated by the “context of archaeology”, adding that “when you enter a museum you should be sure that these objects are clean”.

One of the individuals Rutelli focused on during his presentation was Robin Symes. Symes is a former antiquities dealer who has served 7 months in prison in the U.K. for perjury. Roberto Conforti, former head of art recovery for the Carabinieri has been labeled “the core” of the illicit antiquities trade for a period, and “everyone’s boss”. He was “once the prince of the ancient art trade.” But those days have long since passed. There are a number of indications he had a very close relationship with Giacomo Medici, Robert Hecht, and even Marion True. As a consequence, any antiquities which have been handled by Symes may likely have been looted. Rutelli revealed in July that the Italian government had attempted to reach an agreement withe the U.K. authorities over the Robin Symes collection. They had included photographs and other evidence, and in total some 1,000 pieces were requested from the estate of the now-bankrupt Symes. However the Italians were not able to secure a return of the objects, which was a “failure in criminal court”. Rutelli noted that these objects have no likely purchaser, someone “could buy them, but they shouldn’t”. Despite this photographic evidence, it seems unlikely any scrupulous buyer would purchase these looted objects. Indeed it is troubling that the Italians continue to have such difficulty seeking the return of these objects. Such is the state of the antiquities trade.

Embedded below are some of the documents Rutelli provided at the conference on July 11th. The first three pages are in English, while the rest are in Italian. They reveal I think the tremendous difficulty Italy has had in seeking the return of these objects, even in the face of clear and convincing photographic evidence. How can these objects from the Symes collection not be returned?

Rutelli Looted Antiquities Documents Provided to ARCA

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

Forgeries of Russian avant-garde

File:Artwork by El Lissitzky 1919.jpgKonstantin Akinsha and Sylvia Hochfield report for ARTnews on the slew of Russian avant-garde paintings which were alleged to be fakes. An exhabition at the Château Museum in Tours, France was slated to exhibit 192 Russian avant-garde paintings was abruptly canceled in March, three days before its opening. Russian avant-garde is the body of modern art which was created roughly between 1890 and 1930. Pictured here is an authentic (I think) lithograph by El Lissitzky, Beat the white with the Red wedge (c. 1919).

It seems there is a slew of these forged works. Natalia Kournikova of the Kournikova Gallery in Moscow notes in the piece that “we can say that almost every artist whose prices have risen has become the victim of fake makers.” Alla Rosenfeld, curator of the Norton Dodge Collection of Soviet Nonconformist Art at Rutgers University from 1992 to 2006 and former vice president of the Russian art department at Sotheby’s New York says “There are more fakes than genuine pictures”:

Fake icons and “fauxbergé” trinkets have bedeviled the art market for generations, but the escalating demand for Russian art in the last two decades has led to more ingenious abuses. For a while, “Russified” pictures—minor 19th-century European landscapes or portraits doctored to look Russian—flooded galleries and antique dealerships in Moscow and made their way to the West, appearing even at major auctions. But it has been Russian modernism—art from the first three decades of the 20th century—that has attracted the most Western collectors and consequently the most forgeries.

Hundreds of works have appeared in recent years at auction houses and in galleries all over Europe, from Munich to Madrid. These works have very sketchy provenances in which certain assertions are repeated again and again: the works are said to have come from hitherto unknown private collections or to have been smuggled to Israel by immigrants in the ’70s or to have been deaccessioned by provincial museums in the former Soviet republics—although this practice was strictly forbidden—or to have been confiscated and hidden for a half century by the former KGB (the secret police), although experts say there is not a single documented case of avant-garde works emerging from KGB vaults.

The means with which these forged works are given clean histories are familiar: publication in academic works or exhibition catalogs; previous owners who have suddenly disappeared or are unavailable to corroborate their story; questionable certification by Russian art historians, and a general lack of sufficient documentation. Again, it appears as if a segment of the art trade continues to skirt the rules. As I’ve argued elsewhere, we need a renewed emphasis on the means by which buyers of art acquire good faith status.

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

Interpol Makes Stolen Art Database Available

InterpolINTERPOL has announced it will put its database of stolen art online to try to limit the illicit trade in cultural objects.  The new site has photographs of 34,000 stolen works.  The site is free of charge, though registration is required.  The database is here, while the registration form is here.  Previously, the stolen works database was available only on DVD, while the new database will be updated in real time.

Karl Heinz, the co-ordinator of the Works of art department says the new database is “an important tool to counter the traffic in cultural property effectively”.   He also encouraged increased reporting by INTERPOL member nations:

“Accessibility to stolen art information is a vital contribution to creating public awareness on the protection of cultural property,” said Mr Kind. 
“The inclusion of a stolen cultural property item into INTERPOL’s stolen works of art database, and extensive online access to the database, therefore represent an important barrier to the illicit trafficking of a stolen cultural object by making its sale more difficult,” added Mr Kind.

This is a remarkable development in a number of ways, and makes it possible for anyone to search.  This means it will be far more difficult for a buyer to claim he or she did not have the resources to check into a work’s history.  Though the database will likely be of limited use for the antiquities trade, it is an important development. 

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

Roerich Sketch Returned

Mark Durney reports that one of the sketches stolen from the Nicholas Roerich Museum has been returned in an “ordinary yellow, padded envelope, with a Brooklyn return address.”  He’s got a number of questions:

Was the sketch stolen to simply illustrate the need for the museum to improve its security measures? Were those who were in possession of the stolen art thwarted by the recent publicity the thefts have received? Should one expect the second sketch to turn up in tomorrow’s mail? And, what does one make of the Brooklyn return address?

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

My Chapter on Archaeological Context

I have posted on SSRN my chapter on archaeological context, titled:  The Fundamental Importance of Archaeological Context it appears in ART AND CRIME: EXPLORING THE DARK SIDE OF THE ART WORLD, pp. 3-12, (Noah Charney, ed., 2009).  

It is a short piece, which was quite pleasurable to write.  I tried to account for why so much law and policy has been erected to protect this context.  And though there are disagreements by a number of cultural policy makers about the laws and policies which should apply; everyone agrees in principle that archaeology is an import discipline and the illicit trade damages our understanding of the past.  

 There are a number of other excellent chapters in the book which I can recommend, including David Gill’s piece on the return of antiquities to Italy; a piece by Kenneth Polk and Duncan Chappell on Fraud in the art trade; and Judge Arthur Tompkins’ proposal for an International tribunal to handle art disputes.


It is an excellent collection of essays, many of which are quite lively; which should help to increase the awareness devoted to the problem. 

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

The Journey of the Euphronios Krater

The site of the tomb near Cerveteri where the Euphronios vase was foundSylvia Poggioli has more on the looting and eventual return of the Euphronios Krater to Italy.  In sharp contrast to Michael Kimmelman, Poggioli states “In its new home, Rome’s Villa Giulia museum, the Euphronios vase has been given a place of honor in a glass case with special cool lighting.”  Poggioli takes us to the tomb complex where the krater was looted.

Vernon Silver has written a forthcoming work, The Lost Chalice, detailing the illegal journey of the famous “hot pot”: 

“They started coming out and poking the ground with a spillo, a long pole, that could probe into the ground until they found something,” he says.
Silver says the ancient Etruscans bought and collected imported Greek vases. Euphronios was among the artists in Athens who made many of those objects specifically for export. 
Silver says that when the tomb robbers carted off the Euphronios masterpiece, they destroyed many clues that would help archaeologists understand the history and culture of the people buried in the Cerveteri tomb. “It’s like a page being ripped out of a book of Etruscan history and Greek history and world history, when you have the opportunity to see what was buried with what, and who those people were, and who they were friends with, and who they traded with, and you don’t have that anymore,” Silver says. “It’s a finite resource; there aren’t an infinite number of these tombs sitting around.”

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

Fractional Gifts May Return?

Donn Zaretsky gives some helpful background on the potential return of fractional gifts of works of art to art museums.  The end of the practice sharply curtailed the donations received by museums, and were just one in a number of recent measures which has made it difficult for museums to find traditional revenue streams. 

He notes:

The new bill focuses on these two issues [that the gift be completed in 10 years, and ensuring donors cannot unfairly use the increase in value of a work of art after the initial contribution], and basically tracks the “agreement in principle” among members of the Senate Finance Committee that was described in a New York Times article in July of last year:

First, it was reported that “amendments hammered out by aides to Mr. Schumer and Mr. Grassley would lengthen [the 10-year donation period] to 20 years” — and that’s exactly what the new bill provides.

And second, it was said that Grassley appeared “willing to allow donors to claim deductions for subsequent donations that reflect increases in the value of the portion of the artwork they still own.” That is also now reflected in the bill.

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

Technical Update

My continued apologies—it seems the technical difficulties on the blog may continue.  I understand a number of google blogs are having this difficulty, and it may be attributed to a sustained attack on one prominent Georgian blogger.  It seems crazy that the attack on one writer would be possible; and that it would disrupt so many others.  In any event I may have a very nice idea for a future article on international freedom of speech. 

I’m not sure why my blog would be affected but not others, I did post some thoughts on the Russia/Georgia dispute last year.  In any event, please be patient; I’m still trying to sort out the difficulty.  It appears that I can still post new material, and in the event things are not fixed I have saved the blog archives. 

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

Mona Lisa hit by mug, no harm done

Mona LisaIt is certainly an iconic painting, and an important work of art, but it can be a real paing fighting the crowds and amateur photographers trying to catch a glimpse.  But do you really need to start throwing things at it?

One woman felt compelled to do so, as the Mona Lisa was attacked by a Russian woman last week who threw a mug at the painting, but it only smashed on the bullet-proof glass with no harm done.  The woman was apparently “unhinged” according to a Louvre spokesperson.  This isn’t the first time the painting has been the target of vandals.  It was of course stolen for a few years in 1911; doused with acid in 1956; and hit by a rock later that year by an angry Bolivian. 

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