Derek Fincham

Italian Authorities Showcase Recovered Antiquities

Italian authorities yesterday displayed two medieval frescos and other objects recovered during antiquities investigations reports the AP and ANSA. The medieval frescos were recovered as a part of the investigation into Marion True, which were found at the home of a Greek woman, Despoina Papadimitriou on the island of Schoinoussa in 2006. Also displayed were some of the objects recovered from Operation Phoenix in which “goods were handed over to Italian authorities by two Lebanese brothers who operated a Geneva antiquities gallery.”

More impressive work from the Carabinieri, but will there be an end to the cycle of looting, seizures and arrests?

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

Paper On Underwater Cultural Heritage and Investment Law

Valentina Sara Vadi, a Ph.D candidate at the European University Institute has an article in the recent edition of the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Investing in Culture: Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Investment Law. Here is the abstract:

Underwater cultural heritage (UCH), which includes evidence of past cultures preserved in shipwrecks, enables the relevant epistemic communities to open a window to the unknown past and enrich their understanding of history. Recent technologies have allowed the recovery of more and more shipwrecks by private actors who often retrieve materials from shipwrecks to sell them. Not all salvors conduct proper scientific inquiry, conserve artifacts, and publish the results of the research; more often, much of the salvaged material is sold and its cultural capital dispersed. Because states rarely have adequate funds to recover ancient shipwrecks and manage this material, however, commercial actors seem to be necessary components of every regulatory framework governing UCH. In this context, this Article aims to reconcile private interests with the public interest in cultural heritage protection. Such reconciliation requires that international law be reinterpreted and reshaped in order to better protect and preserve UCH and that preservation of cultural heritage be recognized as a key component of economic, social, and cultural development.

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

The Theft of Public Statues

Sad story via Bloomberg on the probable fate of this Henry Moore statue, valued at as much as 3 million pounds which may have been stolen and melted for scrap for a mere 2,500 pounds.

U.K. detectives had first worked on the theory that the piece, “Reclining Figure,” was stolen three years ago at the request of an art collector. It has never been found. Hertfordshire officers said they now believe the 2.1-ton work was sold for its metal, highlighting the security risks facing high-value sculptures shown in public.

“There was a wave of thefts of statues around the time the Moore was stolen,” Dick Ellis, director of the Art Management Group, a U.K.-based company that advises art collectors on security issues, said in an interview. “There is an increase in the theft of statues at the moment,” said Ellis, a former head of Scotland Yard’s art and antiques squad.

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

Iraq Regains Control of Ur

AFP reports on the return of Ur to Iraqi control last week:

The US military on Wednesday handed control of ancient Ur, the biblical birthplace of Abraham, back to Iraqi authorities, who hope now to relaunch it as a major tourism site.

“We officially announce the taking over of Ziggurat of Ur from our friends the Americans,” Talib Kamil al-Hassan, governor of Dhi Qar province, said at a ceremony to mark the return of the site six years after the American invasion.

“We are pleased with this great success for the nation,” he added while the Iraqi flag was hoisted atop the temple.

“Abraham, peace be upon him, was born here, the father of prophets and religions,” he said.

The site is renowned for its well preserved stepped platform or ziggurat, which dates back to the third millennium BC.

It lies near the US air base of Talila, outside the southern city of Nasiriyah, and has been closed to the public since the US-led invasion of 2003 that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein.

On a similar note, Larry Rothfield was interviewed by Chicago Public TV station WTTW which gives a slightly different view. He describes many of the failures which led to the destruction of Iraqi heritage in recent years.

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

More on the Admissions Prices at the Art Institute Chicago

Tyler Green noted last week that the Art Institute Chicago has decided to scale back some of its admissions prices for certain groups of Chicago residents. In doing so he draws some connections between this policy, and the arguments James Cuno has made about the proper place for art and antiquities. I made a similar kind of point last week, and Green argues the rate reductions don’t really sit well with this Cosmopolitan view of heritage:

All of these rollbacks are for Chicago (city) residents only. In other words: For the AIC, providing access to the cultural treasures in its store isn’t a priority… but a quick-sorta-fix for the sake of narrow political expediency was.

That’s kind of ironic given that AIC director Jim Cuno is well-known for arguing that it really doesn’t matter where antiquities are because they’re part of our shared, global cultural heritage. Well, there are tens of thousands of other objects at the AIC that are part of our shared cultural heritage too. It’s too bad that the AIC refuses to make broader public access to those treasures a priority . . .

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

Student Note on Restricting the Import of Cypriot Coins

Derek Kelly has written a note Illegal Tender: Antiquities Protection and U.S. Import Restrictions on Cypriot Coinage, 34 Brooklyn Journal of International Law (2009). He argues one of the reasons the United States protects antiquities is because they may be used as a kind of “political” bargaining chip, particularly on the international stage. The author does a nice job discussing the imposition of restrictions on Cypriot coins, and he even digs deeply into many related blogs and other sources highlighting the competing views.

It is a thought provoking piece, and a nice student note. Here’s an extract from the introduction.

In one of the Bush administration’s final acts before leaving office, the United States concluded an agreement with China that banned the import of Chinese antiquities into the United States. This agreement, known as a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), was the most recent of fourteen bilateral accords the United States has signed with other countries for the avowed purpose of protecting cultural heritage. One important aspect of the new agreement with China is the inclusion of a number of ancient coin-types among the protected materials. This is significant because it is only the second time that an MOU has included coins and demonstrates the increasing breadth of these agreements as the United States attempts to use cultural heritage protection for politicalgain.

The author makes some interesting points, and I think he is certainly right in a sense that many nations use antiquities and heritage policy as a political issue, but of course we could say that about every issue confronting every representative form of government. He takes up James Cuno’s argument that these objects “have political meaning.” I think one aspect of the argument which I would have liked to have seen expanded perhaps is the idea that the U.S. does not really unilaterally impose these restrictions. A nation makes a request, and they have always been granted.

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

Presentation at the University of Chicago Cultural Policy Center

The Cultural Policy Center at the University of Chicago has had a terrific speaker series on the antiquities trade this Spring, and I’m excited to get a chance to present a bit of my own work there next Thursday. Here are the details:

Thursday, May 14
3:30 – 5:00 p.m.
Harris School of Public Policy Studies, 1155 E. 60th Street
Room 140C

Ideally, before an individual or institution purchases an antiquity or a work of art, a diligent enquiry into its origins can confer “good faith” status. This allows the buyer to acquire good title and provides the legal right to seek compensation if the seller proves unscrupulous. Despite these important advantages, good faith has been used to promote commercial convenience and economic efficiency at the expense of public enjoyment and understanding of the world’s cultures. Though an existing body of law prohibits and punishes a variety of activities which further the illicit trade, these measures are severely hampered by the mystery surrounding antiquities transactions. At present, details regarding authenticity, title, or even more basic questions such as the origin of an object are intentionally hidden and disguised from public view.

How did a family of art forgers fool both Sotheby’s and the Art Institute of Chicago into believing that they had purchased a work by Paul Gauguin?
Should we hold museums to a higher standard when they acquire works of art and antiquities?
Do countries that over-regulate the export of antiquities actually harm our common cultural heritage by exacerbating the demand for stolen and looted pieces?
Should economic models of art markets account for the preservation of heritage and context?

In order to decrease the theft of antiquities and looting of archaeological sites and increase the effectiveness of existing legal measures, we need a new theoretical foundation for increased scrutiny of the antiquities trade. When an object is acquired without a rigorous due diligence process, that acquisition defrauds our heritage by distorting the archaeological record; harms the legitimate acquisition of antiquities; perverts the important role museums play in society; and ultimately warps the understanding of our common cultural heritage.

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

Another Recovery for the Stern Estate

The AP reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have returned this work, St. Jerome by Ludovico Carracci (1595) to the estate of Max Stern. The work was owned by art dealer Max Stern, and he was forced into selling the works in 1937 in Cologne, Germany. The work had been hanging in the home of art dealer Richard L. Feigen. Feigen had read about the other recent return to the Stern estate, and discovered the work had been missing after checking with the Max Stern Art Restitution Project.

This voluntary return follows soon after another recent return, and the recent decision by the First Circuit, Vineberg v. Bissonette.

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

Fakes Uncovered in Russia

John Varoli for Bloomberg has the story of this work, sold by Christie’s International for $3 million which may be a fake. The work, purportedly made to appear as a work by Boris Kustodiev is included in a list of 100 alleged fakes by Russian masters which have been sold over the past decade.

For the past 18 months, Russia’s art market has faced its worst crisis of confidence in the post-Soviet era as five volumes of “The Catalog of Fraudulent Art Works” were published, said dealers. Some experts say that fakes now comprise the majority of artworks they are asked to evaluate.

“Every month I’m asked to look at 10 paintings and nine are fakes,” said London-based Russian art dealer James Butterwick. “Many Russian collectors buy without asking competent experts. If a work is credible then it has a provenance that can be easily checked out.”

Prices have also tumbled as the financial crisis cuts collectors’ appetite for art. Combined sales at Russian art auctions in New York at Sotheby’s and Christie’s in April were about 40 percent of the volume sold in 2008.
Rosokhran-Kultura, the government’s cultural watchdog, released the latest issue of the fakes catalog last month. It contained the most expensive item sold at Christie’s November 2005 auction of Russian paintings in London. It was listed as “Odalisque,” painted in 1919 by Kustodiev.

“There’s no doubt ‘Odalisque’ is a fake, and that’s why we included it,” said the catalogue’s co-author Vladimir Roschin.

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

Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge

Stephen R. Munzer and Kal Raustiala have posted The Uneasy Case for Intellectual Property Rights in Traditional Knowledge (Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 37-97, 2009) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Should traditional knowledge – -the understanding or skill possessed by indigenous peoples pertaining to their culture and folklore and their use of native plants for medicinal purposes – receive protection as intellectual property? This Article examines nine major arguments from the moral, political and legal philosophy of property for intellectual property rights and contends that, as applied to traditional knowledge (TK), they justify at most a modest package of rights under domestic and international law. The arguments involve desert based on labor; firstness; stewardship; stability; moral right of the community; incentives to innovate; incentives to commercialize; unjust enrichment, misappropriation and restitution; and infringement and dilution. These arguments do, however, support “defensive” protection for TK: that is, halting the use of TK by nonindigenous actors in obtaining patents and copyrights. These arguments also support the dissemination of TK on the internet and via other digital media and the selective use of trademarks. The force of these conclusions resides in the importance of a vibrant public domain, and the absence of any plausible limiting principle that would allow more robust rights in TK for indigenous groups without permitting equally robust rights for nonindigenous groups.

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