A new website has appeared in the blogosphere called "Art You Will Never See." The website highlights the "orphan artifacts" problem created by the AAMD's recently adopted 1970 Rule for acquisitions.
According to the website,
ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE seeks to advance public education and understanding of issues affecting museums with particular respect to the collecting, conserving, displaying and publication of cultural artifacts. It is the specific purpose of this website to help the public understand what the AAMD�s rule-making means, It is the hope of ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE that the objects shown on these pages will underscore the importance of the orphans issue and point the way toward change in guidelines that were enacted by an organization with little understanding of their consequences.
The objects shown here need few words. The images speak for themselves. Historically or artistically, all are of exceptional importance. If they were offered today, however, even as a donation, the AAMD says they should be rejected by the art museums of America. They are only tip of the iceberg, however: beneath them lies an extraordinary depth and breadth of material in private hands that you will, now, never see in an American museum.
Showing posts with label AAMD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AAMD. Show all posts
Object Registry Fragment Foolishness
Archaeo-Blogger David Gill wants more details of the Met�s 10,000 or so vase fragments placed en masse on the AAMD�s object registry. Presumably Gill wants each pictured separately to facilitate detailed study of their potential origin so additional pieces can be repatriated to Italy or perhaps Greece or Turkey. But why should the AAMD�s procedures be the same for the $10,000,000 artifact as for the $10 artifact? Gill�s confidant Nathan Elkins has already recognized that coins�given the sheer numbers that have survived-- should not be treated as the AIA treats other artifacts. Gill should give vase fragments the same break.
Cooperation Fails to End Confrontation
For more evidence that American Museums' efforts to cooperate with the cultural bureaucracies of source countries like Italy has not bought them the peace that was promised, read Jason Felch's blog about the latest efforts to send the "Getty Bronze" to Italy. See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/05/04/the-gettys-bronze-italian-court-upholds-order-to-seize-a-getty-masterpiece/
He states,
Since 2005, the Getty has voluntarily returned 49 antiquities in its collection, acknowledging they were the product of illegal excavations and had been smuggled out of their country of origin. Hundreds of other objects were returned by other American dealers, collectors and museums. In the wake of those returns, several American museums struck cooperative deals with Italy and Greece that allow for long-term loans of ancient art.
But such agreements have not shielded American museums from further claims that ancient art in their display cases are the product of a black market responsible for the destruction of archaeological sites around the world. In March, Turkish officials revealed they were seeking the return of dozens of allegedly looted antiquities from the Getty, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Cleveland Museum of Art and Harvard�s Dumbarton Oaks.
It's high time for American Museums to rethink their efforts to appease source countries and the AIA. Such appeasement does little in the end, but encourage other, ever more aggressive claims.
He states,
Since 2005, the Getty has voluntarily returned 49 antiquities in its collection, acknowledging they were the product of illegal excavations and had been smuggled out of their country of origin. Hundreds of other objects were returned by other American dealers, collectors and museums. In the wake of those returns, several American museums struck cooperative deals with Italy and Greece that allow for long-term loans of ancient art.
But such agreements have not shielded American museums from further claims that ancient art in their display cases are the product of a black market responsible for the destruction of archaeological sites around the world. In March, Turkish officials revealed they were seeking the return of dozens of allegedly looted antiquities from the Getty, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Cleveland Museum of Art and Harvard�s Dumbarton Oaks.
It's high time for American Museums to rethink their efforts to appease source countries and the AIA. Such appeasement does little in the end, but encourage other, ever more aggressive claims.
The Future of the Past - Collecting Ancient Art in the 21st Century
The transcript of the program, The Future of the Past - Collecting Ancient Art in the 21st Century, has been posted here: http://www.cprinst.org/lecture-services/the-future-of-the-past---collecting-ancient-art-in-the-21st-century
The program sponsored by The Asia Society and the American Committee for Cultural Policy largely focuses on Asian Art, but in so doing, raises serious concerns about how the United States Department of State and US Customs makes and enforces import restrictions on cultural goods. Kate Fitz Gibbon, a former CPAC member who now practices as an attorney in New Mexico, set the tone of the event:
We had recently very dramatic, highly publicized raids of California museums accusing them back in 2008 of accepting donations of so-called stolen art from Thailand. These made the front pages for weeks, though it later turned out that bad law and bad facts resulted in a lot of dropped cases.
Other cases that never make the paper come as unpleasant surprise to ordinary folks. An elderly lady from Los Angeles puts some ceramics that she bought at a flea market up for sale on the internet, and then finds four Homeland Security agents on her doorstep. They have a letter from the Minister of Culture of Mali claiming her artifacts were stolen.
A probate lawyer in Albuquerque calls US Customs when he discovers some Pre-Columbian art in an estate. "Any problem?" He asks. "No problem," they say, "it's all stolen. Agents will be by to collect it."
These kinds of actions don�t reach the papers. Most of the time the people involved don�t even realize they have been the victim of a misinformed or overzealous agent, but if we allow a declaration of blanket ownership by a source country to trigger a violation of our National Stolen Property Act, and we assume that lack of documentation is proof of guilt, then we have an end to art collecting, sooner rather than later.
When art becomes stolen through an administrative declaration, a flourish of the pen, then all art collecting is at risk. This applies not only to antiquities but to the myriad of other objects that are claimed as national cultural heritage in many countries: photographs, paintings, sculpture, documents, coins, textiles and costumes. We'll be hearing later today about the Association of Art Museum Directors' decision not to purchase or accept for donation artworks that cannot be proven to have come into the United States before 1970. To my mind this rule is a self-administered slow poison, completely illogical and not required under any law.
There are already hundreds of thousands of objects, mostly minor, that cannot be donated under these rules. In another ten years, there will be many thousands more as owners pass away.
If art collecting is no longer honored, then the benefits to institutions of art collecting will end. If institutions aren't exciting places for collectors, collectors will stop supporting institutions. Archeology, which is supported by this enthusiasm and by the museum system, will suffer in turn.
This should be sobering stuff for anyone interested in the preservation of the past.
The program sponsored by The Asia Society and the American Committee for Cultural Policy largely focuses on Asian Art, but in so doing, raises serious concerns about how the United States Department of State and US Customs makes and enforces import restrictions on cultural goods. Kate Fitz Gibbon, a former CPAC member who now practices as an attorney in New Mexico, set the tone of the event:
We had recently very dramatic, highly publicized raids of California museums accusing them back in 2008 of accepting donations of so-called stolen art from Thailand. These made the front pages for weeks, though it later turned out that bad law and bad facts resulted in a lot of dropped cases.
Other cases that never make the paper come as unpleasant surprise to ordinary folks. An elderly lady from Los Angeles puts some ceramics that she bought at a flea market up for sale on the internet, and then finds four Homeland Security agents on her doorstep. They have a letter from the Minister of Culture of Mali claiming her artifacts were stolen.
A probate lawyer in Albuquerque calls US Customs when he discovers some Pre-Columbian art in an estate. "Any problem?" He asks. "No problem," they say, "it's all stolen. Agents will be by to collect it."
These kinds of actions don�t reach the papers. Most of the time the people involved don�t even realize they have been the victim of a misinformed or overzealous agent, but if we allow a declaration of blanket ownership by a source country to trigger a violation of our National Stolen Property Act, and we assume that lack of documentation is proof of guilt, then we have an end to art collecting, sooner rather than later.
When art becomes stolen through an administrative declaration, a flourish of the pen, then all art collecting is at risk. This applies not only to antiquities but to the myriad of other objects that are claimed as national cultural heritage in many countries: photographs, paintings, sculpture, documents, coins, textiles and costumes. We'll be hearing later today about the Association of Art Museum Directors' decision not to purchase or accept for donation artworks that cannot be proven to have come into the United States before 1970. To my mind this rule is a self-administered slow poison, completely illogical and not required under any law.
There are already hundreds of thousands of objects, mostly minor, that cannot be donated under these rules. In another ten years, there will be many thousands more as owners pass away.
If art collecting is no longer honored, then the benefits to institutions of art collecting will end. If institutions aren't exciting places for collectors, collectors will stop supporting institutions. Archeology, which is supported by this enthusiasm and by the museum system, will suffer in turn.
This should be sobering stuff for anyone interested in the preservation of the past.
Lobbying Effort Against Immunity Bill Raises Questions About Funding and Consistency with Prior Stances
The Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation and Saving Antiquities for Everyone have joined in the effort to scuttle S.2212, legislation aimed to immunize art brought into the United States for museum exhibitions. See http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/S2212 and http://www.savingantiquities.org/say-no-to-senate-bill-2212/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=say-no-to-senate-bill-2212
This lobbying campaign raises questions about the funding of both organizations.
It appears law firms that have made considerable money from repatriating art and artifacts are funders of both organizations.
If both groups are going to lobby against S.2212, they should be more transparent about their funding sources.
Meanwhile, other voices that have been generally supportive of repatriation efforts have raised serious questions about the consistency of these groups' opposition to S.2212 compared to their prior stances before CPAC. See http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/2012/04/immunity-from-seizure-act-and-proposed.html
To that, I would add that these groups were also previously opposed to an effort to seize Iranian artifacts at the Oriental Institute to satisfy a judgment awarded to victims of terrorists with ties to to the Iranian government. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/21/MNSH160AQH.DTL&ao=all
Both groups should explain their positions better in light of their prior stances and provide more information about their funding sources.
This lobbying campaign raises questions about the funding of both organizations.
It appears law firms that have made considerable money from repatriating art and artifacts are funders of both organizations.
If both groups are going to lobby against S.2212, they should be more transparent about their funding sources.
Meanwhile, other voices that have been generally supportive of repatriation efforts have raised serious questions about the consistency of these groups' opposition to S.2212 compared to their prior stances before CPAC. See http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/2012/04/immunity-from-seizure-act-and-proposed.html
To that, I would add that these groups were also previously opposed to an effort to seize Iranian artifacts at the Oriental Institute to satisfy a judgment awarded to victims of terrorists with ties to to the Iranian government. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/21/MNSH160AQH.DTL&ao=all
Both groups should explain their positions better in light of their prior stances and provide more information about their funding sources.
More Evidence 1970 No Safe Harbor
Turkey's demand that the Met return artifacts from a collection formed as far back as the 1960's again demonstrates that 1970 is no safe harbor for museums as the AIA claimed to induce the AAMD to accept a 1970 provenance rule for new acquistions. See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/03/20/exclusive-turkey-seeks-the-return-of-18-objects-from-the-metropolitan-museum-of-art/
Will the AIA support the AAMD or Turkey in this dispute?
Will the AIA support the AAMD or Turkey in this dispute?
Artificial Deadlines
The archaeological leaning blogs are taking the new Getty Museum chief, Dr. Timothy Potts, to task because he was one of the AAMD principals behind adoption of the prior 10 year rolling "provenance" date for accessions. See http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2012/02/timothy-potts-problem-hasnt-gone-away.html
and http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2012/02/culturegrrl_qa_with_incoming_g_1.html
Yet, the recently adopted 1970 date is an artificial construct solely based on the vintage of the UNESCO Convention. The only reason the AAMD adopted it was due to pressure from the archaeological lobby.
But what has the AAMD and its members received in return? Long term loans? Not without paying the substantial costs associated with them, including transportation, insurance and restoration fees.
And how does this really fit with the mission of museums to preserve artifacts for future generations if they are not able to accession many artifacts just because they lack a documentary history stretching back to 1970?
And has adoption of this rule staunched looting in source countries? As Potts suggests, of course not.
and http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2012/02/culturegrrl_qa_with_incoming_g_1.html
Yet, the recently adopted 1970 date is an artificial construct solely based on the vintage of the UNESCO Convention. The only reason the AAMD adopted it was due to pressure from the archaeological lobby.
But what has the AAMD and its members received in return? Long term loans? Not without paying the substantial costs associated with them, including transportation, insurance and restoration fees.
And how does this really fit with the mission of museums to preserve artifacts for future generations if they are not able to accession many artifacts just because they lack a documentary history stretching back to 1970?
And has adoption of this rule staunched looting in source countries? As Potts suggests, of course not.
Italian Justice on Trial: Bob Hecht Vindicated?
Well, that is one way this sorry tale can be spun: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/01/italian-antiquities-robert-hecht-case-ends.html
After all the headlines, Bob Hecht, the alleged middleman at the center of an international conspiracy to launder looted art, has been freed because the statute of limitations has run under Italian law.
Paolo Ferri, Hecht's prosecutor, points the fingers at the "system." but presumably Ferri was responsible for moving the case forward, and with a little less show boating, perhaps that might have actually happened within the allotted time.
In any event, without a conviction in such a high profile case, perhaps Hecht can feel vindicated, at least to some extent.
The Italian show trial did convince US Museums to repatriate significant pieces to Italy. I wonder though, whether any have any nagging doubts about that now, at least with respect to some pieces. Also, the trial likely helped convince the AAMD and others to adopt a 1970 provenance rule. The foolishness of that decision is only now being felt, but nagging doubts about that one will grow too as fewer and fewer items become available for accession under these rules.
After all the headlines, Bob Hecht, the alleged middleman at the center of an international conspiracy to launder looted art, has been freed because the statute of limitations has run under Italian law.
Paolo Ferri, Hecht's prosecutor, points the fingers at the "system." but presumably Ferri was responsible for moving the case forward, and with a little less show boating, perhaps that might have actually happened within the allotted time.
In any event, without a conviction in such a high profile case, perhaps Hecht can feel vindicated, at least to some extent.
The Italian show trial did convince US Museums to repatriate significant pieces to Italy. I wonder though, whether any have any nagging doubts about that now, at least with respect to some pieces. Also, the trial likely helped convince the AAMD and others to adopt a 1970 provenance rule. The foolishness of that decision is only now being felt, but nagging doubts about that one will grow too as fewer and fewer items become available for accession under these rules.
Immediate Past President of the AIA to American Museums: Stop Collecting!
Brian Rose, the AIA's immediate past president, has been quoted as telling America's museums to stop collecting antiquities. According to the report,
Rose said he felt the era in which American museums can collect antiquities is coming to a close.
Source countries are becoming more aggressive in pursuing traffickers and enforcing laws against looting, he said.
....
Buying antiquities could alienate foreign governments and prevent the cooperation necessary for international loans of individual objects or traveling exhibitions, Rose said.
�You�ll end up in litigation, and you won�t be able to enter into collaborative projects,� he said. �It�s all about collaboration now.�
Rather than collect, museums ought to forge agreements with source countries to share cultural riches, Rose said.
See http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2011/12/conference_at_the_american_aca.html
Despite such quotes, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford continues to claim that the AIA is really not against collecting. But if so, where are quotes from the AIA's leadership indicating that they support the rights of ordinary Americans to collect minor portable antiquities, such as coins, let alone more significant items?
Addendum: For more on the AIA's anti-collecting stance, see http://www.archaeological.org/sitepreservation/faqs
Q: Isn�t this disagreement between collectors and archaeologists really the work of a bunch of radical archaeologists who have lost touch with the public?
A: No, in fact, the stand taken by the AIA, the oldest and largest archaeological organization in North America, is representative of the point of view of all the mainstream archaeological organizations in the U.S. including the Society for American Archaeology, the Society for Historic Archaeology, the American Schools of Oriental Research and others. It�s also the stance of other major international archaeological groups. In fact, in January, an unprecedented agreement will be signed among the AIA, the German Archaeological Institute and the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences to battle the scourge of looting. A Harris interactive survey published in 2000 also showed that public opinion agrees with the position of the AIA�the main value of archaeological sites is scientific and educational and U.S. museums should not acquire illegally exported artifacts.
Q: What about the orphaned object that is out of the ground and circulating in the market with its context already destroyed and it provenance uncertain? Shouldn�t this object be acquired and given a good home?
A: The acquisition of these objects encourages looting. Objects like this are likely stolen. When confronted with an object like this, the best thing to do is to contact the authorities. You would not buy a hot car or a diamond watch from a disreputable source -- why buy an antiquity from a disreputable salesperson?
Q: In many cases there are multiple copies of certain antiquities, some with so many duplicates that they cannot all be displayed. What is wrong with the trade in multiples?
A: Some countries do allow trade in duplicates, including Israel. But it is difficult to identify a duplicate from a country that allows trade, and it�s difficult to prevent the sale of new objects as duplicates. Furthermore, most museums and private collectors are interested in high-end, unique objects, not �duplicates.� It�s primarily the trade in expensive, unique artifacts that drives the illegal market.
I would note the AIA also describes what constitutes a "licit artifact" according to its view of the law, but that is hardly an endoresment of collecting.
Rose said he felt the era in which American museums can collect antiquities is coming to a close.
Source countries are becoming more aggressive in pursuing traffickers and enforcing laws against looting, he said.
....
Buying antiquities could alienate foreign governments and prevent the cooperation necessary for international loans of individual objects or traveling exhibitions, Rose said.
�You�ll end up in litigation, and you won�t be able to enter into collaborative projects,� he said. �It�s all about collaboration now.�
Rather than collect, museums ought to forge agreements with source countries to share cultural riches, Rose said.
See http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2011/12/conference_at_the_american_aca.html
Despite such quotes, archaeo-blogger Paul Barford continues to claim that the AIA is really not against collecting. But if so, where are quotes from the AIA's leadership indicating that they support the rights of ordinary Americans to collect minor portable antiquities, such as coins, let alone more significant items?
Addendum: For more on the AIA's anti-collecting stance, see http://www.archaeological.org/sitepreservation/faqs
Q: Isn�t this disagreement between collectors and archaeologists really the work of a bunch of radical archaeologists who have lost touch with the public?
A: No, in fact, the stand taken by the AIA, the oldest and largest archaeological organization in North America, is representative of the point of view of all the mainstream archaeological organizations in the U.S. including the Society for American Archaeology, the Society for Historic Archaeology, the American Schools of Oriental Research and others. It�s also the stance of other major international archaeological groups. In fact, in January, an unprecedented agreement will be signed among the AIA, the German Archaeological Institute and the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences to battle the scourge of looting. A Harris interactive survey published in 2000 also showed that public opinion agrees with the position of the AIA�the main value of archaeological sites is scientific and educational and U.S. museums should not acquire illegally exported artifacts.
Q: What about the orphaned object that is out of the ground and circulating in the market with its context already destroyed and it provenance uncertain? Shouldn�t this object be acquired and given a good home?
A: The acquisition of these objects encourages looting. Objects like this are likely stolen. When confronted with an object like this, the best thing to do is to contact the authorities. You would not buy a hot car or a diamond watch from a disreputable source -- why buy an antiquity from a disreputable salesperson?
Q: In many cases there are multiple copies of certain antiquities, some with so many duplicates that they cannot all be displayed. What is wrong with the trade in multiples?
A: Some countries do allow trade in duplicates, including Israel. But it is difficult to identify a duplicate from a country that allows trade, and it�s difficult to prevent the sale of new objects as duplicates. Furthermore, most museums and private collectors are interested in high-end, unique objects, not �duplicates.� It�s primarily the trade in expensive, unique artifacts that drives the illegal market.
I would note the AIA also describes what constitutes a "licit artifact" according to its view of the law, but that is hardly an endoresment of collecting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)