by ADA | Sep 23, 2026 | Views |
For years now, the art market’s trade associations and campaign groups have looked on with frustration and horror as the Manhattan District Attorney’s office has set about dismantling much of the New York trade. Collectors, dealers and museums within the city and far beyond have also lost their property and faced the intimidatory tactics of Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos and the Antiquities Trafficking Unit (ATU) in their crusade to seize cultural objects and hand them back to their countries of origin.
Much of the time, these seizures and handovers have shared a single feature: the lack of proof that the objects in question were illicit. What evidence may have been available to the authorities has seldom been shared with the public who pay for the ATU, even on request.
Instead, the threat of criminal prosecution, together with the knowledge that even if they prove their innocence they must still pay all the substantial costs involved, have persuaded those targeted to yield up their possessions to the authorities, leaving the ATU’s tactics unchallenged.
Beyond the seizures themselves, further concerns have arisen over the fate of artefacts, such as when the DA’s office proudly handed back a series of Tibetan items – not to Tibet but to its occupying oppressor, China.
Now, as the New York Times and expert cultural property lawyers have reported, the ATU’s inquisition may be over – at least for the moment.
Art Institute of Chicago proved the vital catalyst
The catalyst was the Art Institute of Chicago’s (AIC) decision not to cave in to the ATU’s demands but to fight back instead.
It went to appeal over a 2023 court decision to allow the seizure of a drawing by the artist Egon Schiele from its collection as a suspected Nazi-looted artwork.
The seizure was not based on proof of the drawing being illicit, but on claims from the heirs of the original owner coupled with what has been an effective legal loophole that paved the way for more than 100 such seizures by the ATU under Bogdanos.
The New York Intermediate Appeal Court gave no view as to whether the drawing was illicit or not but ruled that the ATU’s means of justifying the seizure – the legal loophole – were not valid.
That loophole is New York Criminal Procedure Law § 690.10 and New York Penal Law § 450.10. Law § 690.10 requires reasonable cause to believe the item under question is stolen or otherwise unlawfully possessed to justify seizure, which did not apply in this case, according to the Intermediate Appeal Court. As Cultural property lawyer Nicholas M. O’Donnell, who spoke to the NYT on the matter, explained in his nicksartlaw substack article, “Section 450.10 concerns property seized in connection with a criminal proceeding where ‘satisfactory proof of title’ can be shown”. In this case, such undisputed title could not be shown, and no criminal proceedings were involved.
Ownership rights disputed in the Schiele case
“The ATU and DA have long taken the view that ‘a civil-like proceeding’ may be carried out—with or without a pending criminal case—in order to ‘return’ the paintings to the ‘rightful owners’,” writes O’Donnell. “To do so, the ATU would apply to the criminal court for a turnover order, usually supported by a waiver by the current owner.”
Although the definition of ‘rightful owners’ can be highly subjective, this tactic has worked until now because, as explained above, the ATU’s targets have rolled over when faced with the possible prospect of criminal proceedings, leaving that prospect untested. The AIC effectively called Bogdanos’s bluff, and the Intermediate Appeal Court ruling is the result.
In the case of the Schiele, ownership rights are disputed, and the justification for its seizure and return to the heirs of the original owner is not clear, because it is claimed that title was transferred legally to the owner’s sister-in-law, and the drawing was disposed of later.
As O’Donnell goes on to explain, “The DA is wrong about the scope of Section 450.10. As the Appellate Division notes, ‘Penal Law § 450.10(5) was designed to provide an expedient means for the return of stolen property to the readily identifiable owner of that property; it was not designed to address complicated, disputed issues of ownership. Thus, Penal Law § 450.10 does not provide for adjudication of disputed property rights.’ This eliminates the vast majority of the ATU’s activity.”
O’Donnell also notes that with no associated criminal case (as well as the doubt over dispute over legal ownership) no criminal justification exists for the seizure.
Welcome check on reversing the burden of proof
“As a result, many of the kinds of retrievals the DA has secured in the past where he alleged only absent ‘conspirators’ or gaps in provenance information can no longer be brought.”
From the Antiquities Forum’s (IADAA and the Antiquities Dealers’ Association) perspective, the ruling is particularly important because it acts as welcome check on the spread of the reversal of the burden of proof, an insidious and highly questionable ‘ethical’ trend to assume guilt unless innocence can be proved. This may be convenient for the authorities in cases involving property where provenance is very often incomplete, such as with ancient art, but it has frightening implications for the long term interests of justice and human rights.
The DA’s office is currently keeping its own counsel on what to do next, and the Intermediate Appeal Court ruling may be subject to appeal itself – cultural property lawyer Michael McCullough also posting on Linked In sees this as inevitable.
O’Donnell is clear on the current outcome, calling the ruling “a deserved rebuke in a case that should never have been brought” that “may spell the end of the Manhattan District Attorney’s so-called Antiquities Trafficking Unit as we know it”.
Having said that, ADA Bogdanos is a highly determined individual, and it would be foolish to underestimate his resourcefulness. Nevertheless, this decision has been a sorely needed reassurance that museums, collectors and the trade do have rights under the law, and the courts will back them where justified. As McCullough posted: “The court was particularly concerned that AIC had been deprived of the protections ordinarily available in a civil action.”
by ADA | Aug 12, 2026 | Views |
Scotland has published the 2024 review of its treasure trove system. A new scheme that promises a constructive way forward for preservation and record keeping, enthusiasts and the art and antiques industry, is the result.
One of the most important developments for collectors, dealers and auctioneers, concerns the treatment of what are now termed ‘Legacy Finds’.
For the purposes of the new policy, ‘Legacy Finds’ are archaeological objects recovered in Scotland on or before 31 December 1999 that may never have been assessed or recorded under the modern treasure trove system.
Archaeological finds discovered in Scotland are subject to a different system from that operating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Under Scots common law, archaeological finds do not automatically belong to either the finder or the landowner. Instead, they fall to the Crown as ownerless property (bona vacantia).
It is essential to remember that under Scottish rules Treasure is not limited to precious metal or stones; it can include a very wide range of artefacts, including wood, glass and textiles, and even worked human and animal bones. Most finds that come under the rules will be over 100 years old, but more modern finds may also qualify.
Ownerless status of finds
In Scotland, finds by metal detectorists and others are not the property of either the finder or the landowner. Instead, they are considered ‘ownerless’ (bona vacantia) pending assessment by the authorities and a possible claim by the Crown.
Responsibility for managing ownerless property in Scotland rests with the King’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer (KLTR), while archaeological finds are administered specifically through the Treasure Trove Unit (TTU), based at the National Museum of Scotland, which operates on the KLTR’s behalf.
If the Crown does not claim the item, it is disclaimed and returned to the finder with a Certificate of disclaim, which forms part of its provenance.
Where the Crown does claim the find in the public interest, any museum wishing to acquire the object must raise the Finder Reward, from public funds, reserves or private donations.
Where a find is not claimed for a museum collection, it is recorded and returned to the finder together with a disclaim certificate, which confirms that the Crown will not exert its right to claim the find for the nation.
Compensation for finders
The Finder Reward is an ex-gratia compensation payment linked to the market value of the object. That value will be decided by the Treasure Trove Unit (TTU), a panel of experts comprising a team of archaeologists and finds specialists based at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh; it is thought that the panel will include a commercial valuer from the industry. Like the PAS in England, it is thought the value will be based on the hammer price of a similar piece being sold at auction, although this is not expressly stated. Commercial expertise will be of particular importance where similar items have not yet or rarely appeared on the market.
Before the modern reporting regime became widely established, some Scottish archaeological finds entered private collections and the art market without ever being formally assessed or recorded. While there is no statute of limitations on treasure trove in Scotland, the Review has provided a pragmatic way of dealing with these historic finds.
The ‘Legacy Finds’ concept addresses this and covers certain categories of Scottish archaeological finds found before 31 December 1999.
The aim is not simply to determine ownership but also to improve the archaeological record. Collectors, dealers and auctioneers who encounter finds that seem to come under Scottish treasure trove, but are not accompanied by a disclaim certificate, are encouraged to contact the Treasure Trove Unit (TTU) and provide information that will allow the object to be assessed and, where appropriate, recorded.
The TTU will usually require:
- Clear photographs;
- Dimensions and a brief description;
- Known provenance;
- Details of previous ownership, sales or publication history
The Review adopts a pragmatic approach to many older finds. In general, the KLTR will not normally seek to claim finds recovered in Scotland on or before 31 December 1999 where there is evidence that:
- Finds that were bought or sold before 31 December 1999;
- Finds that have demonstrably been outside of Scotland since before 31 December 1999;
- Finds assessed by the Treasure Trove Unit to have been public knowledge before 31 December 1999, whereby the Crown had already had an opportunity to exert its claim.
“Legacy Finds reported to the Treasure Trove Unit are assessed and recorded, with consideration given to their archaeological significance,” the review explains. “In most cases falling within the Legacy Finds policy, the KLTR will not normally seek to claim the object. However, where a find is claimed for a museum collection, the Treasure Trove system provides for the payment of a Finder Reward award, normally reflecting its market value. This helps ensure that significant objects can enter public collections while providing reassurance to collectors, dealers and auctioneers who come forward with previously unassessed material.”
What to do with a Find
Dealers wanting to sell a Legacy Find should first contact the TTU at least a month before the proposed sale to allow for the assessment to be conducted. Having said that, the review also states: “While the treasure trove system is not simply a service for finders, in our judgment the target of 12-month average completion times for straightforward cases, which is referenced as the norm in the Code of Practice, is a reasonable basis for expectation and delivery. It is understood that complex cases require more time.”
Where appropriate, the TTU may issue a Certificate of disclaim confirming the Crown has chosen not to exercise its rights over the finds.
For the trade, this potentially offers a route to obtaining greater certainty regarding provenance while also contributing valuable information to Scotland’s archaeological record.
The Treasure Trove Review, which includes additional investment in the system, hopes that before too long it will be possible to upload all this information via an app.
Currently, the system does not provide a detailed breakdown of reasons either for a claim or a disclaim, but this will be reviewed further.
A balanced system
“While participation in the treasure trove system is not voluntary, the Review recognises that the system benefits from meeting reasonable expectations on the part of those who experience it,” it concludes.
For museums, finders and the trade, the new approach to Legacy Finds seeks to balance protection of Scotland’s archaeological heritage with a practical recognition that many objects have circulated openly for decades. By encouraging their assessment and recording, the reforms should improve the archaeological record while providing greater certainty for collectors, dealers and auctioneers.
“We have come to the clear view that the resources available to the treasure trove system, specifically for operational funding of the Treasure Trove Unit, have not kept pace with the growth of the workload over the last 20 years, and that under-resourcing has had a negative impact on resilience in the system, confidence and participation,” the review explains. “Taken together, all our recommendations for reform rely on, and contribute to, a realistic plan for sustaining the system financially.”
In summary, the proposals are impressive and designed to improve consistency and transparency in rolling out the new regulations, thereby instilling increased confidence in the system among museums, the public and the trade.
More information can be found in the Treasure Trove Scotland: Code of Practice
Caption to the image shown above:
Artefacts covered by the new Scottish treasure trove rules can be of any age, from ancient to modern, and almost any material. Here are some examples. Clockwise from top left:
– An enamelled coppery alloy Roman Iron Age harness fitting, 1st or 2nd century AD.
– A late Medieval gilded silver heart-shaped brooch, c.1300-1500 AD.
– A Bronze Age tanged arrowhead of flint, set in a silver bezel, so-called ‘elf shot’ amulet charm, reuse in 17th/18th century.
– A gold zoomorphic annular Castellani brooch in the form a ram’s head, in the archaeological revivalist style, 19th/early 20th century.
– A gilded and enamelled copper alloy National Association of Women Workers badge, early 20th century.
by ADA | Jun 24, 2026 | Uncategorized |
Out now for almost six months, the World Customs Organisation’s latest Illicit Trade Report (ITR) covers the year 2024. The introduction hails the report as offering “a comprehensive analysis of the dynamics and evolving trends of illicit trade. This edition underscores the complexity and adaptability of transnational criminal networks, highlighting impacts on public safety, global security, and sustainable development.”
So what does the highly detailed and analytical 305-page report have to say about cultural property crime?
Very little indeed.
On page 23, a bar chart provides The Number of Responses to the WCO Seizure Statistics. These appear to refer to the number of customs forces who have replied to a WCO survey asking for the number and volume of seizures in their jurisdiction. Responses concerning cultural goods rose from around 29 to 33 year-on-year to 2024.
A bubble chart on the following page appears to show a 75% rise in the number of cases involving cultural goods with a rise in the volume of goods seized somewhere below 5%. However, it also shows that the volume is tiny compared to any other form of illicit activity except for Explosive Precursors – chemicals that can be used in the creation of explosives.
On the following bubble chart showing year on year trends, cultural goods do not appear at all.
Chart 4 on page 26 illustrates priorities by commodity, with Cultural Goods listed as an Essential priority for around four out of 70 Customs administrations – the lowest score for any commodity. Around another eight administrations see it as a High priority, again the lowest score, and by some distance compared to most other commodities. These ratings remain almost unchanged from 2023, as the next bar chart shows us on page 27.
The attraction of fungible items
A key consideration making commodities attractive for money laundering is their fungibility, according to the introduction to the chapter on ML on page 37: “…the majority of these cases involve the illicit movement of bulk cash, but also include significant quantities of gold, rhodium, silver, and precious stones, including diamonds. These materials, due to their high value-to-weight ratio, fungibility, and ease of transport, remain attractive to criminal networks seeking to transfer or launder proceeds across borders while evading detection.”
As readers will know, a distinctive feature about artworks and antiquities is that they are not fungible.
Much of the Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing chapter is dedicated to currency and gold smuggling – by far the biggest problem it identifies when it comes to ML, with an additional issue involving agricultural equipment in Brazil.
Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh and India reported the most cases, with Japan, Turkey and Sri Lanka next. All countries on the list are in the Middle East, Far East, Balkans and eastern Mediterranean. On page 68, the report concludes re ML: “The consistent involvement of departure points like UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Hong Kong-China, and destination corridors into India, Türkiye, Japan, and Bangladesh, suggests entrenched regional laundering networks that demand multi-jurisdictional enforcement.” Note: ‘regional’.
Jewellery and the high-risk traveller
On page 63, it reports: “Jewellery smuggling via couriers remains a key modality: The high number of pieces seized in Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Japan indicates frequent interception of concealed jewellery worn or carried by passengers, underlining the importance of profiling high-risk travellers and body-worn concealment detection.”
Overall, the ITR is extremely detailed, providing numerous graphs, data sets, case studies and photographs of seizures on extensive chapters concerning ML and terrorism financing, drug trafficking, environmental crime, intellectual property rights, health and safety, revenue fraud and smuggling, and security breaches.
Cultural goods had their own chapter – albeit revealing just how small the problem is – for several years until the early 2020s. No more, however.
Considering the level of intelligence in every other sphere of interest across such a wide number of jurisdictions, it is hardly credible that the dearth of data when it comes to cultural goods can be explained entirely by under reporting. At no point in any past WCO report have cultural goods ever shown any significant contribution to illicit trade on a global scale in comparison to other spheres. Now they show even less, despite all the lobbying claims to the contrary.
Customs administrations have consistently ranked it as their lowest priority. Could this be because it is the smallest issue that they face in this context?
by ADA | May 21, 2026 | Uncategorized, Views |
In 2025 a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators pushed for new anti-money laundering regulation of the art market under the Bank Secrecy Act.
Already in force in the UK and Europe, AML laws as they apply to the art market may help fight crime and deter wrong doers, but the burden of compliance can come at a significant cost in terms of money and time.
A serious study of AML impact on the art market in the UK, which leads the world with regards to these measures in this sector, has yet to take place, but anecdotal evidence indicates that at least some would-be buyers are being put off by the requirements of compliance on their part, and by the intrusion into their privacy. This is not because they have something to hide but because the hassle has spoiled their enjoyment of the process of acquisition and they simply can’t be bothered to go through with it.
How do you balance the interests of crime prevention with those of the market?
The most obvious way would be to raise what appears to be an arbitrarily low value threshold for compliance: set at €10,000 for a single transaction or group of linked transactions (not always clearly defined), in the UK that is changing to £10,000.
Take a risk-based approach
Raising the threshold significantly can be argued from taking that vital ‘risk-based approach’ when one considers reporting in France, the European Union’s largest art market. The latest figures, as published in the Ministry of Economy & Finance’s 2024 report, show a total of 12 Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) relating to art and antique dealers and intermediaries from 2022-2024 inclusive. For auction houses the number rises to 426 for the same period. Respectively, those figures account for 0.1% and 2.0% of reports across all sectors. No information is forthcoming about how many of those reports proved valid.
Some have argued that the low figures for the art market are the result of under reporting. Effectively, the logic of this argument is that art-related ML must be high under any circumstances, regardless of reporting, a standpoint that is simply not credible. If the reports are misleading, don’t publish them.
Another issue that has arisen in the UK is that although expert support from compliance companies has made things easier, interventions from enforcement teams working for HMRC have not where enforcement officers have not understood the law properly. Again, anecdotal evidence relates episodes of overreach, intimidation and damaging interference to legitimate business at inappropriate times.
Also challenging is the fact that after more than five years of enforcement in the UK, aspects of what is proving to be a complex regulation are still not clear. If the compliance companies and HMRC are still debating them, what hope have Art Market Participants (AMPs) of complying fully?
What Congress needs to consider
These factors must all be considered in the United States as Congress considers the proposed Art Market Integrity Act.
Some have argued that the art market is not bound by the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing standards set by the Bank Secrecy Act. However, their qualifying transactions are already subject to these standards via the banking process.
The Senate voted down a previous attempt at regulation in 2022. The proposed Enablers Act risked undermining fundamental principles of the rule of law and citizens’ rights, argued the American Bar Association.
Such fears are justified because these rights are already being extensively undermined in relation to the art market by the plethora of bilateral agreements (also known as Memoranda of Understanding) with third countries that effectively give them a veto on cultural property imports that belong to U.S. citizens. Article 1 of the MoU with Egypt, for example, demonstrates this clearly. The seizure and return of items for which no proof of illegality is forthcoming has become commonplace. The reversal of the burden of proof to ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is all but standard in this sphere today. Such arbitrary interference with citizens’ property is in direct contravention of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article 17.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Current proposals under the Act are unworkable
Current proposals under the Art Market Integrity Act would be unworkable because they are far too wide in scope. Defining an AMP as “a person engaged in the trade in works of art, including a dealer, advisor, consultant, custodian, gallery, auction house, museum, collector, or any other person who engages as a business as an intermediary in the sale of works of art”, it allows for certain very limited exclusions. The key exclusion is someone who “has not, during the prior year, participated in total transactions valued at $50,000 that involved a work of art”.
To be clear, this is not a threshold of $50,000 for a single work of art, but a total sales value for all artworks sold over a period of 12 months of $50,000. This ‘mom and pop’ level of trade would not have the time and money to pay for compliance, meaning that the new regulation would simply put them out of business.
If Congress is to proceed with the Act, this section must be struck out or the result would be a disaster for ordinary U.S. citizens.
by ADA | Apr 15, 2026 | Views |
Academic and cultural institutions, as well as governments, continue to look down on the art market – it’s unfair and is in no one’s interest
Provenance and Due Diligence have become the critical factors in assessing cultural goods in recent years. Theft, trafficking, unethical acquisition in colonial times, suspected links to money laundering and terrorism financing have all been presented as arguments for tighter controls and reversing the burden of proof so that items and people are deemed ‘guilty’ unless they can demonstrate their innocence.
The ardent pursuit of this ‘solution’ has brought its own problems: an embarrassing dearth of reliable evidence – hence the reversal of the burden of proof (initially under UNIDROIT 1995) – false data and fake news, failure to check facts and sources, overreach that risks breaching human rights and brings other ethical issues. The exploitation of the cultural sphere for soft power diplomacy includes further exploitation by those who wish to harness it for financial gain or political influence. State-backed programmes and institutional interests are where the real power lies: funding and ‘capacity building’ the self-interests at its core.
This is the environment in which the international art market finds itself the useful whipping boy of those who wish to justify their actions and budgets.
For many on the institutional side of the argument, however, the market really is the problem; they see themselves as being in conflict with – and better than – the trade, while positive actions on the part of the market are deemed merely incidental.
A conversation on…Provenance Research and Due Diligence in the Art and Antiquities World: Distinctions, Connections, Synergies, Challenges, held online on April 8 as part of the International Art Market Studies Association Law & the Arts course 2025–2026, attracted more than 140 attendees.
It addressed the increasing relevance of provenance research and the reasons for this, from the social responsibility of institutions, via the Washington Principles relating to Nazi-looted art to a wider moral responsibility to society and history.
Defining the difference between due diligence and provenance research
Attempts to define the difference between provenance research and due diligence were most usefully summarised as the following: due diligence is the checking of provenance to the extent of what a reasonable person should be expected to carry out related to a specific event, such as a sale or acquisition, whereas provenance research is a wider, ongoing investigation into the history, origins and circumstances of an object.
A higher standard of diligence should be expected from art market professionals as they have more knowledge of objects, it was argued. Presumably such a standard would also apply to museum experts for the same reason, but this was not mentioned.
An overwhelming number of attendees to the session work in the public or academic sphere, as curators, provenance researchers attached to institutions or as officials linked to museum organisations. This resulted in a largely uniform perception and opinion.
Despite this being a course staged by the Art Market Studies Association, art market representatives were extremely thin on the ground. None were included as speakers.
This is a chronic issue with much of the debate over ethics, standards and the law relating to the market. A good example came early on, when Sofia Bollo of the Ethnographic museum at the University of Zurich, who also serves on the Chair of the ICOM Italian section, discussed the working group on provenance research at ICOM. Set up in 2023, it includes more than 100 members: anthropologists, archaeologists, art historians, unemployed people, museum and research interest – but apparently no one from the international art market. This means that we have a body proposing a set of stringent rules for a market that it has not consulted and about which it has a limited understanding. While this may be fine for setting common standards among institutions such as museums, it is unfortunate when it is quite clear that for any measures to be effective in the market, they must address the market from a practical standpoint.
A useful summary of post Second World War initiatives addressing ethics and behaviour covered UNESCO (1970), UNIDROIT (1995), and various EU Directives. As market professionals have found, however, States Parties to the UNESCO Convention tend to cherry pick the articles that suit them, which means that most, if not all, have yet to submit essential lists of goods of national importance, and few are keen to offer the compensation they are committed to when reclaiming items from honest purchasers.
This trampling of a long-established moral right by a new and questionable ‘ethical’ standard is the whole cultural heritage debate in microcosm.
Bilateral agreements and the creeping recognition of domestic laws internationally (not all of them reasonable, notably US vs McClain – 1977) is increasingly creating a situation where honest owners are deprived of the valid title to their belongings. This trampling of a long-established moral right by a new and questionable ‘ethical’ standard is the whole cultural heritage debate in microcosm.
The Australian academic and specialist in cultural heritage law, Lyndel Prott, argued for ‘required diligence’ rather than ‘due diligence’, but that would also require very clear, globally adopted parameters that have yet to be defined. She took a realistic approach to historical norms, acknowledging that provenance standards today could not be applied retroactively to purchases of decades ago.
Alyssa Thiel, of the Penn Cultural Heritage Center, one of several attendees who have worked in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Antiquities Trafficking Unit (ATU), also considered historic norms. She noted the pressure on museums to acquire the best pieces at a time when their context was seen as more important than their history of ownership.
An enlightened approach, it is not shared by the head of the ATU, Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos, who has seized many such items.
Prott also argued that private sellers were now more of a problem than market professionals because the latter were subject to greater regulation, including anti-money laundering laws, and many have professional compliance departments.
It is almost as though anyone outside the market refuses to believe that market professionals can act with anything other than dishonest or dishonourable intent.
Absent from the debate, however, was any recognition that just as museums and other institutions don’t want to find themselves handling illicit material, neither do auction houses or dealers – and for the same reasons. It is almost as though anyone outside the market refuses to believe that market professionals can act with anything other than dishonest or dishonourable intent.
The webinar also set out the list of checks that should be undertaken when carrying out due diligence, from checking stolen art databases and ICOM red lists to requiring sellers to provide written evidence and supporting paperwork or, in their absence, a notarised statement. While much of this is already the norm, how much would it cost to pursue all the avenues set out and how long would it take? If such checks are essential for all transactions, how much of the market would survive for lesser, cheaper objects?
As Daniel Healey, a Provenance Research specialist at Worcester Art Museum, Massachusetts (and another former ATU staffer) noted, the work of provenance research can become very expensive for museums – sometimes they have to travel to check sources. It is a challenge to museums to fund such provenance research and it requires ongoing support, he advised. They have to rely a lot on colleagues in other institutions.
Again, attendees seemed to apply a double standard here: while Healey complained of the lack of time and resources facing museum curators as they tried to assess items coming up for auction – and blamed auction houses for this – no one considered that auction house specialists themselves, and dealers, faced the same challenges. Why should special consideration be given to one set of professionals but not the other?
Export certificates were another consideration. Now vital under the EU import licensing regulations, the fact that they rarely survive in any useful form continues to be overlooked.
Despite this, the UNIDROIT working group on cultural objects with significant gaps in provenance (usually known as Orphan objects) has been able to make some sensible contributions. Due Diligence is not just about compliance, it’s also about reducing costly mistakes and sustaining public trust.
France is attempting to standardise provenance research
A move in France to nationalise how provenance research is carried out includes a mandatory eight-page provenance form for any public acquisition that is already in place. How would this apply to the market? Who would pay for the compliance? Again, no consideration of the practicalities. Nonetheless, as with every forum of this type, a common complaint was the lack of resources and funding to support their work. Yet no one considers that market professionals face identical issues.
Engaging with the art market is an oft-quoted objective to justify what are usually predictable anti-market outcomes of projects and research. In practice, however, such ‘engagement’ is ignored, ineffectual or simply a fig leaf to cover an ideological approach. Until those in the public sector, together with those in the private institutional sector, recognise that the market faces identical challenges to them, it will be hard to move forward. You cannot expect to apply impossible rules to others while giving a free pass to yourself in the same context.
Recent Comments