Blog Subscription via Follow.it

June 15, 2015

Monday, June 15, 2015 - ,,,, No comments

Pissaro's "Rue Saint-Honore in the Afternoon, Effect of Rain" and the laws applied to art restitution

by Judge Arthur Tompkins

In 1897 Camille Pissarro painted Rue Saint-Honore in the Afternoon, Effect of Rain.  Forty years later, in 1939, Lilly Cassirer Neubauer, a member of the prominent Jewish publishing family that had owned the painting since it was created, was faced with a stark choice: hand the painting over to a Nazi art dealer and be given, in return, an exit visa to leave Germany with her husband and young grandchild, or remain in Germany amid the swirling and deadly storm engulfing Germany’s Jews. 

She chose the former:  Lilly, her husband Otto, and grandson Claude fled Germany; the painting disappeared; and the ridiculously low sum that Lilly had been promised as the “price” of the painting was locked in an inaccessible German bank account.

After the war, Lilly sought and was granted partial financial compensation, but without foregoing her claim to the painting. In 1958 she was recognised as the rightful and legal owner of the painting.  But the Pissarro was lost.

Or so she thought. In fact, in 1951 it had been sold to a collector in Los Angeles, with the Frank Perls Gallery earning a commission on the sale.  Less than 12 months later, it was sold again, this time through the New York dealers M Knoedler & Co, to a St Louis, Missouri, collector.

Two decades later, in late 1976, the Baron Thyssen-Bornemisza, of Switzerland, purchased it through another New York dealer, Stephen Hahn. In 1998 the Baron lent his entire collection of over 700 paintings to Spain, who established a non-profit state-owned Foundation to own, house and display the collection, and redesigned and rebuilt the Villahermosa Palace in Madrid for the purpose.

Then in 1993 the Spanish Government purchased the Baron’s collection, for over $300 million. Apart from two short periods when it was on loan elsewhere, the Pissaro has been on public display at the Foundation’s museum, the Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza (http://www.museothyssen.org/en/thyssen/home), in Madrid ever since.

Lilly Cassirer died in 1962. Her heir, her grandson Claude, discovered that the painting was on display in Madrid in 2000. Since then he, and after his death in 2010 his heirs, have been trying to recover the painting, through an extended and complicated series of court cases in both Spain and California.

The most recent twist in this ongoing saga happened on 4 June 2015.  A California Court ruled (available at http://www.artlawreport.com/files/2015/06/Cassirer-District-Court-Summary-Judgment-June-4-2015.pdf) that Spanish law, and not Californian law, was the governing law of the merits of the dispute, and that under Spanish law the Foundation is the owner of the painting, despite the acknowledged theft from Lilly.

Many aspects of this case, and its still-distant final outcome, are noteworthy (some are discussed by Nic O’Donnell at http://www.artlawreport.com/2015/06/11/cassirer-and-the-state-of-restitution-takeaways-and-next-steps/), but two stand out. 

First, this result highlights the irreconcilable and unbridgeable gulf between, in very general terms, common law and civil law systems when it comes to dealing with the later ownership of property that has been stolen.  In very broad terms in common law countries (those who derive their legal systems from the English common law, including the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others), a thief can give no better title down the chain of ownership than the thief had. Which is none. So, if and when the original dispossessed owner or their heir, turns up and claims the property back, then that claim will prevail.

This principle can be traced back to the Byzantine Emperor Justinian’s mid-6th century Digest:

“"Nemo plus juris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse haberet."[1]

Which translates to: "No-one can transfer to another greater right than he himself has." The principle is known in the common law, from this rule, as the Nemo dat rule.

In stark contrast, in civil law countries, predominantly but not exclusively those who derive their legal systems from the 1804 Napoleonic Civil Code and in particular Article 2262 of the Code,[2] a bona fide purchaser (and in some cases, it turns out Spain is one, even the successor in possession of a purchaser who purchased knowing of the theft) can acquire good title to even originally stolen property, after the expiration of a specified period of time. 

The great English jurist Lord Denning put the conflict this way:

“In the development of our law, two principles have striven for mastery. The first is for the protection of property: no one can give a better title than he himself possesses. The second is for the protection of commercial transactions: the person who takes in good faith and for value without notice should get a good title.”[3]

In the ruling on the Pissarro, the judge explicitly recognised the competing policy decisions underlying the legislative choice between the two approaches:

“Generally, [the civil law approach] serves the important interests of certainty of title, protecting defendants from stale claims, and encouraging plaintiffs not to sleep on their rights. 
…
[The common law approach] recognizes the difficulties faced by owners in discovering the whereabouts of personal property even when held openly and notoriously, and serves to protect the interests of “the rightful owner” over subsequent possessors. It also serves to encourage subsequent purchasers to determine the true owner of property before purchasing that property.”[4]

An ultimately unsuccessful attempt was made by UNIDROIT in the 1960s through to 1989 to secure a convention which would have seen the adoption of a Uniform Law on the Acquisition in Good Faith of Corporeal Movables,[5] but the tension remains, at least in the international context, presently irreconcilable.

One attempt has been made to, as it were, agree to disagree on this fundamental issue, and to reach a pragmatic solution. That effort is encapsulated in The UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995[6].  This was negotiated as a compatible and complementary agreement to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, which deals primarily with cultural property stolen in peacetime.  

Article 3 of the UNIDROIT Convention states, simply:

“The possessor of a cultural item that has been stolen shall return it.”

That somewhat stark requirement is modified to an extent by the Convention’s provision to the effect that, if a State provides to this effect, compensation to the final owner can be paid if the final possessor has made appropriate enquiries. Article 4 of the Convention states:

“(1) The possessor of a stolen cultural object required to return it shall be entitled, at the time of its restitution, to payment of fair and reasonable compensation provided that the possessor neither knew nor ought reasonably to have known that the object was stolen and can prove that it exercised due diligence when acquiring the object.”

But note the immediately following clause:

“(2) Without prejudice to the right of the possessor to compensation referred to in the preceding paragraph, reasonable efforts shall be made to have the person who transferred the cultural object to the possessor, or any prior transferor, pay the compensation where to do so would be consistent with the law of the State in which the claim is brought.”

This is a clear attempted compromise between two conflicting stances, which were both apparent and conflicting during the 6 or so years of negotiations that lead up to the signing of the Convention in Rome in 1995.

So, if the Baron had chosen a common law country as the final resting place of his collection, the outcome would most likely have been quite different. But he did not.

The second aspect worthy of note in the Pissarro ruling is the Judge’s closing exhortation to the parties:

“Although the Foundation has not prevailed in this prolonged and bitterly contested litigation, the Court recommends that, before the next phase of litigation commences in the Ninth Circuit, the Foundation pause, reflect, and consider whether it would be appropriate to work towards a mutually-agreeable resolution of this action, in light of Span’s acceptance of the Washington principles and the Terezin Declaration, and, specifically, its commitment to achieve “just and fair solutions” for victims of Nazi persecution.”

The reference to the Washington Conference is a reference to The Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets, hosted by the U.S.’s Department of State and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, held in over four days from 30 November to 3 December, 1998[7]. The Terezin Declaration came out of the European-Union sponsored Holocaust Era Assets Conference in Prague and Terezin, held on 26-30 June, 2009[8].

These are some of the Washington Principles[9]:

“In developing a consensus on non-binding principles to assist in resolving issues relating to Nazi-confiscated art, the Conference recognizes that among participating nations there are differing legal systems and that countries act within the context of their own laws.

1.   Art that had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted should be identified.
4. In establishing that a work of art had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted, consideration should be given to unavoidable gaps or ambiguities in the provenance in light of the passage of time and the circumstances of the Holocaust era.
5. Every effort should be made to publicize art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted in order to locate its pre-War owners or their heirs.
8. If the pre-War owners of art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted, or their heirs, can be identified, steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution, recognizing this may vary according to the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific case.
11. Nations are encouraged to develop national processes to implement these principles, particularly as they relate to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving ownership issues.”

The Terezin declaration[10] from 30 June 2009 is to like effect.  Both encourage the resolution of claims not on the basis of legal technicalities, but rather “on the facts and the merits”[11].

It seems clear from his closing remark that the Judge in the Pissarro case was frustrated by his inability to decide the aspect of the case by reference to “the facts and the merits”. 

In this respect, the hybrid jurisdiction granted by statute to the United Kingdom’s Spoliation Panel has much to recommend it.  

The Spoliation Advisory Panel was established in 2000 as a direct result of the Washington Conference in December 1998[12]. It is chaired by a senior UK Judge, a retired Lord Justice of Appeal.  The Panel is a group of expert advisers who can be asked to consider claims for the return of an object plundered or lost during “the Nazi era” – 1933 to 1945. Once it has heard a case, the Panel makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who (to date) has always followed the Panel’s recommendations as to how a “fair and just” solution might be achieved.

The governing instrument which directs the Panel’s function is its Constitution and Terms of Reference.  This permits the Panel to consider claims “from anyone (or from any one or more of their heirs) who lost possession of a cultural object during the Nazi era, where the object is now in the national collection or in a museum or institution established for the public benefit.”[13]  

Whilst the Panel can consider legal issues, it does not decide as to legal rights, including title. The Panel’s process is explicitly an alternative to litigation. It must give “due weight to the “moral strength of the claimant’s case”, and consider whether any moral obligation rests on the institution. It is required to seek a “fair and just solution”.

Thus, if the baron had chosen the United Kingdom as the final resting place for his collection, it seems likely that a claim to the Spoliation Panel would have resulted.  This would have seen the Panel encourage the parties to try to find a win-win solution themselves, or, failing that, could have (assuming that the collection had ended up, as it did in Spain, as part of the UK’s “national collection or in a museum or institution established for the public benefit,”) recommended the return of the painting, given the reasonably clear moral claim stemming from its original theft, in appalling circumstances, from Lilly Cassirer.

Such are the accidents of history.

[1] Justinian’s digest 50.17.54, cited in Benjamin’s Sale of Goods (7th Ed, 2006) Para7-001, note 1.
[2] French Civil Code, BOOK III. (Of The Different Modes Of Acquiring Property), TITLE XX: OF PRESCRIPTION.
Chapter V., Section II, Article 2262.
Decreed the 15th of March, 1804. Promulgated the 25th of the same month.
[3] Bishopsgate Motor Finance Corpn Ltd v Transport Brakes ltd [1949] 1 KB 322, 336-337
[4] At p.8 of the judgment.
[5] UNIDROIT 1989 - Study LXX - Doc. 9: “The International Protection of Cultural Property. UNIDROIT draft Convention providing a Uniform Law on the Acquisition in Good Faith of Corporeal Movables” (LUAB, 1974) – Rome, January 1989, available at http://www.unidroit.org/english/studies/study70/main.htm. For an overview of the unsuccessful attempt see J H Merryman, ‘The Good Faith Acquisition of Stolen Art’ , in J H Merryman (Ed.), Thinking about the Elgin Marbles (2nd Ed, Kluwer Law International; 2009) at page 525ff.
[6] An Overview of the UNIDROIT Convention, and links to the official and unofficial translations, are available at http://www.unidroit.org/english/conventions/1995culturalproperty/main.htm
[7] The Conference materials are archived at: http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/wash_conf_material.html
[8] Conference materials are available at http://www.holocausteraassets.eu/
[11] Terezin Declaration, para 3 under the heading ‘Nazi-Confiscated and Looted Art’.
[12] Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Bill: Committee Stage Report, Research Paper 09/59, 23 June 2009, section 2.2, page 3. Available at www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2009/rp09-059.pdf. 
[13] Clause 3.

June 8, 2015

Monday, June 08, 2015 - ,,,,, No comments

Spring 2015 Issue, The Journal of Art Crime: New issue examines archaeological looting and art theft

The Spring 2015 issue of The Journal of Art Crime edited by Noah Charney, founder of ARCA, includes articles, reviews, and columns on the interdisciplinary field on the subject of art theft, authentication, fakes and forgeries, and looted antiquities. Here's the table of contents for the latest issue of this bi-annual publication:

ACADEMIC ARTICLES

The Multifarious Nature of Art Forgery in France: 
Four Case Studies of Belle Époque Fakes and Forgeries
by Carolyn EmBree and David A. Scott

Rekindling the Flame:
The Role of Hawaii’s Museums in Resurrecting Hawaiian Identity
by Suzette D. Scotti 

Analyzing Criminality in the Market for Ancient Near Eastern Art
by Ryan Casey

Damaging the Archaeological Record: The Lenborough Hoard
by David Gill

“But We Didn’t Steal It:”
Collectors’ Justifications for Purchasing Looted Antiquities
by Erin L. Thompson

REGULAR COLUMNS

Lessons from the History of Art Crime
“Napoleon: Emperor of Art Theft”
by Noah Charney

Context Matters
“From Palmyra to Mayfair: The Movement of Antiquities from Syria and Northern Iraq”
by David Gill

Nekyia
“Duplicates and the Antiquities Market”
by Christos Tsirogiannis

EDITORIAL ESSAYS

The Grape War of China: Wine Fraud and How Science is Fighting Back
by Toby Bull

New Archaeological Discoveries and Cultural Ventures beyond War Threats:
A Model of Excellence Stemming from Iraqi-Italian Cooperation
by Francesca Coccolo

REVIEWS

Cultural Heritage Ethics: Between Theory and Practice 
Edited by Constantine Sandis
Reviewed by Marc Balcells

America and the Return of Nazi Contraband: The Recovery of Europe’s Cultural Treasures
Written by Michael J Kurtz
Reviewed by Kirsten Hower

The Napoleon of Crime: The Life and Times of Adam Worth
Written by Ben Macintyre
Reviewed by Catherine Schofield Sezgin

EXTRAS

ARCA 2015 Award Winners

JAC Essay Collection

Acknowledgements

Contributor Biographies

Design and layout is by Urska Charney.

This link to ARCA publications provides information about subscribing to the issues of The Journal of Art Crime.

June 4, 2015

Thursday, June 04, 2015 - , No comments

Unfiltered: An email from Mark Forgy on supporting "The Forger's Apprentice - The Musical"

by Catherine Schofield Sezgin, ARCA Blog Editor-in-Chief

I recently received this email and I pass it on to you:

Dear Friends,

I'm proud to share this with you. The Forger's Apprentice - The Musical will soon have its world premiere at Sabes Jewish Community Center in St. Louis Park, MN with eight performances from June 11 - 21. We invite your cherished support. Please see our GoFundMe page (http://www.gofundme.com/forgersapprentice) This is a story that has garnered media attention in the New York Times, Boston Globe, ARTnews, NPR's Snap Judgment, and Orson Welles's F for Fake. We believe musical theater is the perfect venue for this compelling saga. For more information and tickets, go to http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/1577926.

Best always!

Mark Forgy

June 2, 2015

Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - ,,,,, No comments

Arthur Brand’s Art Investigation Uncovers Nazi Art Hoard — A treasure of propaganda

Two bronze horses recovered in Germany
by Catherine Schofield Sezgin, 
  ARCA Blog Editor-in-Chief

Dutch Art Investigator Arthur Brand’s work over the past 1 1/2 years to recover, amongst others, two bronze statues commissioned by Adolph Hitler and once thought destroyed is well-documented in the English media in an interview by NPR (“An Epic Art Tale: Commissioned By Hitler, Recovered by German Police”, May 30, 2015); in Spiegel Online (“The Quest for Hitler’s Lost Treasures” by Konstantin von Hammerstein, May 26, 2015); and in The Wall Street Journal (“A Dark Niche Emerges in German Market: Nazi Art”, by Harriet Torry and Andrea Thomas, May 26, 2015).

On Monday, June 1, I spoke with Arthur Brand via Skype and asked him if the information in the Spiegel Online article was accurate. Brand confirmed that he had worked with the journalist, Konstantin von Hammerstein, who not only has an excellent reputation, Brand said, but worked with him throughout the investigation.

“It’s good to be backed by a journalist,” Brand said. “What if the police don’t believe you? Konstantin did a lot of research. I really owe him. We did it together, and at some point we joined with Renee Allonge of the Berlin police. We worked secretively and well together.”

I asked him why a former art dealer with no money had been approached in 2013 about the sale of the two bronze horses sculpted by Josef Thorak as propaganda for Nazi ideals.

“The market for Nazi memorabilia for high-end stuff is very small, secretive, and you must have money,” Brand said. “These statues were only moving within 3-4 families. Not only Nazis but art historians and even some Jews are interested in these pieces because they are a part of history.

“The people who were trying to find a buyer didn’t actually have access to the horses,” Brand said. “They were trying to offer buyers to the owners. This woman (the former art dealer) walks around well-dressed and pretends to be rich although she lives in a small apartment in a poor neighborhood in Berlin. She had neither access to the horses, nor could she provide a buyer. Although she passed on the information to the police, she could not go forward.

“Michel van Rijn was approached by a Stephen from Belgium who offered two bronze horses for sale. Michel is half Jewish and retired so he contacted me to give it a try,” Brand said. “It took me 1 1/2 years to infiltrate and gain confidence because I was going through middlemen. I told Stephen that I had an oil baron from Dallas who would be interested in purchasing unique pieces with a story attached. Stephen then offered the two bronze horses by Thorak but that was only the first step. Finally, I gained his confidence and we had meetings that I filmed for hours and he made a few mistakes that provided information about the men he was working for, the owners of the horses. Konstantin and I arranged satellite photos of the garden of one of these men and we saw the bronze army known as “Die Wehrmacht” — the most famous statue of Nazi propaganda which was shown in Nazi films as standing in the Reichs Chancellery. We couldn’t believe our eyes.

"Then in another conversation, Stephen slipped and finally we gave rumors to German police and with this witness statement they could do these raids. So many places, so many policemen had to be coordinated. If it had gone wrong, I could be able to speak to the press today. One of the police officers told me and Konstantin that when they entered one of the warehouses, they stood there for 5 minutes to just look at the horses, the 40,000 kilo statue, and the other Reichs Chancellery statues that we recognized from old films. They said it was more than they could have imagined.”

This recovery of cultural property and lost art is not art stolen by the Nazis but art commissioned by Hitler between 1933-1945. I asked him what it’s like to recover such art from such a difficult period of history.

“It’s a dual feeling. Nazi art, you can ask every historian, is part of history and should be preserved,” Brand said. “Art itself does not kill. It was art created by artists who were famous before and after the war although the art was used as propaganda to demonstrate what the perfect human being should be. These pieces can teach us that totalitarian regimes are not that far apart — Hitler’s statues were procured during Stalin’s reign and hidden on a Russian army base. You can look at art and recognize the elements that reflect totalitarian regimes — art can show us what is behind certain ideologies such as those repressive governments in Eastern Europe or Africa.”

One of the downsides of recovering lost art, Arthur Brand said, is the impact it has on other people. In this case, Brand is going to drink a beer with one of the art dealers involved in this case. “It was not my intention, when these horses were found, to get these art dealers who are in their 70s in trouble," Brand said. "The owners of this Nazi art wanted to sell them because their children had threatened to destroy the art as a way of erasing their family ties to a Nazi past.

“The art idealized the masculine and feminine. Art was an important propaganda tool for the Nazis and continues to be so for other totalitarian regimes. Art is a warning sign of the intentions of certain governments. Showing Nazi art can be an educational tool. Exposing these pieces can show people and help explain why they did this — the propaganda art was meant to prepare people’s minds to dehumanize others who were sent to concentration camps. This Nazi art was used to support their ideology.

“You cannot erase history by destroying art you don’t agree with. Hitler tried it. Stalin tried it. We need to show it, teach it, and explain it so that we recognize totalitarian and repressive regimes when they emerge."

References:




Other articles may be found through Arthur Brand's Facebook page.

 Brand also worked on the recovery of art in a theft at the Museum van Bommel van Dam.



Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - ,, No comments

Countdown to ARCA's 7th Interdisciplinary Art Crime Conference in Amelia, Umbria

Here's a link to ARCA's website for information on the 2015 Interdisciplinary Art Crime Conference in Italy to be held in Amelia, Umbria, the last weekend of June. The list of speakers includes:

“A View on Heritage Protection from Southern Iraq”
Franco D’Agostino, PhD. Professor of Assyriology
Director Iraqi-Italian Mission at Abu Tbeirah
Sapienza Università di Roma
Licia Romano, PhD
Co-Director Iraqi-Italian Mission at Abu Tbeirah
Sapienza Università di Roma
“So How Did We Get Here? Trying to Understand the Reasons Behind the Unprecedented Destruction of Archaeological Heritage”
Joanne Farchakh Bajjaly, MA Archaeology, MA Journalism
Biladi: Heritage for Peace Building (Lebanese N,G.O)
“The INTERPOL Expert Group’s Role in Safeguarding the World’s Cultural Heritage from Crime and the Dangers of Conflict”
Françoise Bortolotti, Criminal Intelligence Officer
INTERPOL General Secretariat (Lyon, France), Sub-Directorate -Drugs and Organized Crime- Works of Art Unit
“Future without a past: the extinction of the cultural heritage in Syria and Iraq”
Paolo Brusasco, PhD., Professor of Archaeology and Art History of the Ancient Near East
Scuola di Scienze Umanistiche
Università degli Studi di Genova
“One Culture, Two Systems : Changing Attitudes to Cultural Heritage Protection and Illicit Smuggling in Hong Kong and China”
Toby Bull, MSc.,
Founder, TrackArt – Art Risk Consultancy
Steven Gallagher, Barrister
Faculty of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
“The Italian Carabinieri and the Evolution of its Art Crime Databases”
Salvatore Rapicavoli, Captain
Data Processing Unit Deputy Commander
Carabinieri Headquarters for the Protection of Cultural Heritage
“Connoisseurship in a Globalized Art Market: Reconciling the Conflict Between Artistic and Economic Values”
Clare Diamond, PhD., candidate
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
“Mediation, as an Alternative to the Court for Resolution of Art and Cultural Heritage Disputes”
Pierfrancesco C. Fasano, Attorney-at-Law
FASANO – Avvocati
Ivett Paulovics, Attorney-at-Law
FASANO – Avvocati
“EU = 28 Countries + 28 Legislations = 1 Million Problems”
Martin Finkelnberg, Head of the Art and Antique Crime Unit of the Netherlands
Dutch National Police
“Protecting China’s Archaeological Artefacts Against Looting and Illicit Art Trafficking”
Stefan Gruber, PhD.,
Associate Professor, Kyoto University
“Art Fraud in Germany or How Criminals Become Celebrities”
Saskia Hufnagel, PhD., Accredited Specialist in Criminal Law
Queen Mary University of London
“Siena, Dunedin, Rome: the Tale of Five Macchiaioli School Paintings”
Penelope Jackson, M.Phil
Trustee of the NZ Art Crime Research Trust
“Dealer Conversion of Consigned Art: When Drugs and Greed Make the Art Disappear”
Dorit Straus
Fine art Insurance Expert and ARCA Lecturer
Thomas R. Kline, J.D.
Of Counsel Andrews Kurth, LLP and Professorial Lecturer, George Washington University
Victor Wiener, Ph.D.,
Victor Wiener Associates, LLC, Adjunct Assistant Professor, New York University
“Give and Take: Museum Professionals’ Attitudes and Ethics Toward the Acquisition and Repatriation of West African Cultural Objects”
Meg Lambert, PhD Candidate
University of Glasgow
“A Collection of Thefts: What One Museum’s Responses to Five Incidents Can Teach Us About Ideal Resolution”
Katherine Luer, ARCA alumna and future MLS graduate
Independent Researcher
“Opining on the Authentic”
Philippa Malas, Barrister, England and Wales
Law Lecturer, University of Glasgow and author of the MSc Art, Law and Business at Christie’s Education, London
“The Opaque Market of Egyptian Papyri in a Globalised Context: Sellers, Buyers, Prices and the Role of Academics”
Roberta Mazza, Dr
Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, University of Manchester
“Uncovering the Illicit Traffic of Russian Ancient Icons”
Laure Coupillaud Szustakowski, PhD Candidate
Chief Operating Officer at CAPABILIS
“Perspectives on Crime and Crime Control Policy from the Trafficking Culture Project”
Neil Brodie, PhD
Simon Mackenzie, PhD
Donna Yates, PhD
Trafficking Culture, SCCJR, University of Glasgow
“Sentencing the Art Thief: Deterrence, Responsibility, Protection, Reparation and Restoration – Uneasy Bedfellows in a Courtroom?”
Arthur Tompkins, Judge
New Zealand Ministry of Justice
“Discovering and Visualising the Criminological Value of The Medici Conspiracy”
Christos Tsirogiannis, PhD.,
Research Assistant, Trafficking Culture, SCCJR, University of Glasgow
“Art CSI: When Science Solves the Puzzle of Forgery. The Case Study “Vase of Flowers”, Painting Attributed to Filippo De Pisis (1896-1956)”
Lisa, Volpe, PhD.,
Research Fellow, Conservator Scientist, TekneHub – University of Ferrara, Italy
Marilena Leis, PhD.,
Research Fellow, Conservator Scientist, TekneHub – University of Ferrara, Italy
“Libya and Heritage Protection in the Absence of Security”
Hafed Walda, PhD.,
Research Fellow. King’s College London
Pending Deputy Ambassador to the permanent Libyan delegation at UNESCO
“Art Crime in Relation to Museum Security in the United States: A Survey of Recent Security Measures and Criminal Trends Within Accredited Art Museums”
Christine A. Weirich, PhD Candidate
School of Social and Political Science University of Glasgow
“Europol’s Involvement in the Fight Against Cultural Goods Crime”
Michael Will, Manager
EUROPOL, Organised Crime Networks Group – Focal Point Furtum

May 28, 2015

Thursday, May 28, 2015 - ,,,,,,, No comments

Associated Press: Rome ceremony welcomes return of looted art recovered from museums and auction houses in the United States

by Catherine Schofield Sezgin, ARCA Blog Editor

Nicole Winfield reported for The Associated Press on May 26th about the ceremony in Rome where American officials returned stolen art to Carabinieri officials (Rome: US returns 25 looted artifacts to Italy; Vases, frescoes):
The items returned Tuesday were either spontaneously turned over to U.S. authorities or seized by police after investigators noticed them in Christie's and Sotheby's auction catalogues, gallery listings, or as a result of customs searches, court cases or tips. One 17th-century Venetian cannon was seized by Boston border patrol agents as it was being smuggled from Egypt to the U.S. inside construction equipment, police said. 
U.S. Ambassador John Phillips joined Italy's carabinieri art police to show off the haul. It included Etruscan vases from the Toledo Museum of Art and the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, 17th-century botany books from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and a manuscript from the 1500s stolen from the Turin archdiocese in 1990 that ended up listed in the University of South Florida's special collections. 
Winfield reported police assertions that many of the objects had allegedly reached the market through  "Italian dealers Giacomo Medici and Gianfranco Becchina, both convicted of trafficking in plundered Roman artifacts." You may read more about Medici's activities in the 2007 nonfiction book, The Medici Conspiracy by Peter Watson and Cecilia Todeschini. (Watson spoke at ARCA's art crime conference in Amelia in 2011).

 Here's a link to a 2012 ARCA Blog post by ARCA CEO Lynda Albertson on the 90 formerly looted objects displayed at the Villa Giulia in Rome that had also been returned (with an explanation about the history of the Etruscan black-figure kelps attributed to the Micali painter or his workshop).


Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2015/05/26/3809612_us-returns-25-looted-artifacts.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

May 19, 2015

Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - ,,,, No comments

Ex-Art: a review of the Salvage Art Institute’s "No Longer Art" exhibit

By Hal Johnson, 2014 ARCA student and DNA Consultant

“WE NOW ENCLOSE HEREWITH PROOF OF LOSS.”

This fateful declaration greets visitors at the door to No Longer Art, an exhibit presented by the Salvage Art Institute (SAI) and Columbia University with the cooperation of AXA Art. In fact, the exhibit wouldn’t even be possible without the help of the insurance firm AXA because every piece on display is the remnant of an insurance claim. SAI, a non-profit organization, has accumulated a collection of damaged artworks deemed total losses by AXA after owner's claims are paid. The objects themselves are then consigned to a sort of purgatory by the insurer. Physically speaking they are still sculptures, drawings, photographs and painting; but their status as "art" has been officially revoked.

Or has it …? How was this exhibit like and yet unlike viewing “real” art? The show space itself is a small meeting room at the University of Chicago’s Neubauer Collegium for Culture and Society. Dozens of ex-artworks cluttered the room on wheeled carts as if they had been pulled directly from storage. But this is not careless curation. Each numbered piece comes with corresponding documentation of the original insurance claim (with specific details appropriately redacted) in  booklets mounted on small shelves against the walls of the room. I found myself trying to match up claims with the carts that had been shuffled around by previous visitors. The stories of damage and destruction are on display as much as the objects themselves. Unlike the shattered “Balloon Dog” by Jeff Koons, some damage (as described) wasn't readily apparent to me. More than once I had to look hard for it -- I had no luck spotting the "mold contamination" on one drawing.

Viewers can handle everything on display which was definitely the best part of the experience. "When else will you touch a Jeff Koons?" said a visitor as she and her friend attempted to fit the broken pieces of shiny red ceramic back in place. A certain reverence has been removed by no longer calling these objects "art" and declaring them void of all monetary value. This change carries with it an immunity to further harm. I ran my hand across a graphite/paper diptych by Linda Bond and came up with smudged fingers. I would never do such a thing in a traditional gallery or museum! And yet being able to touch this “stuff” that was made by accomplished, even famous, artists somehow made them seem more real. I didn’t revere these objects but still respected them and their creators.

It’s one thing to damage an artwork irreparably. To actually rescind an object’s identity as "art" requires some clever wordplay. An exhibit like this comes with its share of rhetoric. According to SAI, “the signature of the adjuster meets and cancels the signature of the artist.” “Salvage art,” “total loss” and “transformation” are a few more tools in their lexicon. In her Chicago Tribune review, columnist Lori Waxman perceives the salvaged art as "invisible" pieces "hidden in plain sight".

I felt like I had walked into an haute version of the Island of Misfit Toys. Rather than cast their collection as misfit art, SAI chose to curate No Longer Art with empowering rhetoric – freedom! Through damage and destruction, these pieces have been “liberated from the obligation of perpetual valuation and exchangeability.” The mercurial art market is implied to be a source of oppression. And that cluttered, moveable layout? It is an intentional statement of democracy – no art historical hierarchy or classification system governs this exhibit. The order of the pieces can be changed at will by the viewers themselves.

SAI is actively developing plans for a permanent exhibit space in New York City. In the meantime, No Longer Art is open at the Neubauer Collegium for Culture and Society and runs through June 26, 2015. The University of Chicago will present a special symposium in conjunction with the exhibit on June 5 from 3-6 pm. The event is called Salvage Art 2.1 (2.0 took place last month) and will be led by Dr. Christine Mehring, chair of the university’s Art History Department.

May 9, 2015

Saturday, May 09, 2015 - ,,,,,,, No comments

Art Restitution: Van Dyck’s Triple Portrait of King Charles I stolen from Castle Kronberg during World War II by American servicemen to be returned to Frankfurt

From The New York Times: Brandon Thibodeaux's photo of
King Charles I in Three Positions
by Judge Arthur Tompkins

The New York Times’ Tom Mashberg is reporting the return of five artworks, originally brought by US servicemen back to the United States after World War II, to the Anhaltische Gemäldegaleriem, in Dessau. Included in the five works is one described as “an unattributed copy of a triple portrait of King Charles I of England, originally painted by Anthony van Dyck in 1636 to help Bernini create a sculpture of the king”. Mashberg reports that this work was stolen from Castle Kronberg outside Frankfurt, and was being returned by:
“Michael R. Holland, a retired house builder from Montana, who said he found them in the safe deposit box of his aunt, Margaret I. Reeb, after her death. A note in the box from Mrs. Reeb, a member of the Women’s Army Corps who had served in Germany, said she bought them there just after the war. Family lore, Mr. Holland said, has it that Mrs. Reeb, who died in 2005 and was a wartime acquaintance of Eleanor Roosevelt, bought the works from American soldiers who approached her in a Nuremberg hotel for some quick cash.”
The story caught my eye because the original painting, which is now in the UK’s Royal Collection  has a fascinating story all of its own:

Sir Athony van Dyck (1599-1641) - Charles I (1600-1649)
The Royal Art Collection, oil on canvas
Queen's Drawing Room, Windsor Castle
In the early 1630s, King Charles I was busy cementing his place as omnipotent English monarch. He had been crowned King of England in a sumptuous ceremony, and in June 1633 he was likewise crowned King of Scotland. His queen -- a quiet but persistently devout Catholic -- Henrietta Maria, so memorably portrayed by Van Dyck in such overtly political family portraits as The Great Place and in intimately affectionate portraits such as his Charles I and Henrietta Maria, was carefully trying to strengthen ties between England and Rome, and to prepare the ground for the arrival in London of the first Papal envoy since Henry VIII’s time.

As so often happened during Charles’s reign, the delicate diplomatic dance was executed, in part, by artistic means. In mid 1635, Charles and his queen commissioned Van Eyck, now firmly ensconced as Charles’ favourite painter, to prepare a portrait that they would send to Pope Urban VIII in Rome. Thus would then able the Pope to commission his own favourite sculptor, Gianlorenzo Bernini (memorably labelled by Robert Hughes as the “marble megaphone of the Renaissance”), to carve a life-size bust of Charles, which the Pope would then give as a gift to Queen Henrietta Maria, symbolizing (so the Pontiff hoped) closer ties and perhaps heralding the ultimate submission of the English Crown to the throne of St Peters.

Drawing inspiration from Lorenzo Lotto’s Portrait of a Man in Three Positions, then in the Royal Collection (now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna), Van Eyck executed the sublime triple portrait of King Charles, both embodying his character and pensive but unshakeable hope for the future, and giving Bernini everything he needed to create his marble bust.

The Portrait was sent to Rome. Bernini wove his sculptural magic. The result arrived back in England in the summer of 1637, but not without significant travails and perils: the bust was packed into a wooden case, and one Thomas Chambers spent three remarkable months bringing it across Europe on boats, horses and mules, besting pirates, robbers and corrupt border guards en route.

It received a rapturous welcome when it was unpacked, and drew a promise from Queen Henrietta Maria that a fabulous diamond ring would immediately be sent to the Pope’s nephew, and which would end up being given to Bernini himself. Suspicious and opportunistic Puritans encouraged a forlorn and probably spurious rumor that the bust was stained, and would only become pure when Charles converted to Catholicism. Much later, an opportunistic broker who had profited as Charles acquired his magnificent collection, but who was then keen to rewrite history and curry favour with the Puritans, invented a fantastical prediction of the coming execution, by the bust being stained with miraculous blood:
“ … his own statue graved in Marble, which was newly brought from Rome … being set forth three drops of blood fell on the face of it … though the stains of the same could never be gotten off since.”
In the meantime, and despite any such divine imperfections or portents, Charles was delighted with the bust, especially given that it was created by the Pope’s favoured sculptor, who would otherwise have been inaccessible to the increasingly artistically astute and sophisticated but still resolutely Protestant, Charles.

And then it all came crashing down.

On a chilly January morning in 1649, and wearing two shirts so that any shivers brought on by the cold would not be mistaken for fearful trembling, Charles was executed, under authority of a Death warrant signed by the 59 men who would become known to history as the Regicides. It is unclear whether the irony of the execution taking place outside The Banqueting House in London, whose ceiling was (and is) adorned by magnificent, and politically powerful, paintings by Rubens commissioned by Charles over a decade earlier, was noted at the time.

Following his death, the Commonwealth set about valuing and selling off “the Late King’s goods” to raise funds for a severely cash-strapped Treasury. And amongst the art works sold during a chaotic, corrupt and ultimately largely unsuccessful asset sale process, was Bernini’s bust. By 1651 it was in a slightly down-at-the-heel and crowded impromptu dealership owned by one Emmanuel de Critz, one of many that sprung up all over London as the King’s art flooded onto the newly created, and never before seen, open art market. “The King’s head in white marble done by Bernino at Rome” was on display in a cramped house in Austin Friars, with a price tag of £400.

That asking price must have been too high. In May 1660, following the unforeseeable (in 1651) lurch of history that saw Charles II restored to the English Throne following years spent wandering Europe in beggarly exile after his defeat in battle by Oliver Cromwell in September 1651, Charles II set about swiftly and ruthlessly reclaiming his father’s art. In a staggeringly audacious lie, de Critz petitioned the new King for back pay of £4000 and, amazingly, £1200 for costs incurred in acquiring and looking after the late King’s art, including the Bernini bust. History does not record what response this petition triggered. De Critz himself died of the plague in 1665.

On 5 January 1698, the novelist and diarist John Evelyn noted in his diary: “Whitehall burnt! Nothing but walls and ruins left.”

That day the bulk of what had been the largest palace in Europe, exceeding both Versailles and the Vatican in size, and at its zenith, comprising 1500 rooms, was destroyed. Only the Banqueting Hall remains more or less intact, but Bernini’s Bust of Charles 1 disappeared.

As for the portrait? Bernini kept hold of it, but eventually it ended up back in the Royal Collection, returning to the fold in 1822. The Royal collection’s Provenance Statement records:
Painted for Bernini about 1637 from which he was to execute a bust and sent to Rome. Collections: Bernini family; Mr Irvine: Walsh Porter; Mr Wells. Purchased by George IV in 1822 from Mr Wells for 1000 guineas. 
Judge Arthur Tompkins of New Zealand will return to Amelia this summer to teach "Art in War" for ARCA's 2015 Postgraduate Certificate Program in Art Crime and Cultural Heritage Protection. 

May 3, 2015

Sunday, May 03, 2015 - ,, No comments

ARCA's Annual 2015 Interdisciplinary Art Crime Conference in Italy - Confirmed Speakers Announcement

The Association for Research into Crimes against Art  (ARCA) will be hosting its 7th annual interdisciplinary Art Crime conference in Amelia, Italy the weekend of June 26-28, 2015. 

Providing an arena for intellectual and professional exchange, this annual art crime conference highlights the nonprofit’s mission and serves as a forum that aims to facilitate a critical appraisal of the protection of art and heritage worldwide. Bringing together international scholars, law enforcement experts, art professionals, the general public and participants in ARCA’s postgraduate certificate program in Art Crime and Cultural Heritage Protection, attendees will have the opportunity to examine contemporary issues of common concern in this important field.

Held in the beautiful town of Amelia (Umbria), the seat of ARCA’s Postgraduate Certificate Program in Art Crime and Cultural Heritage Protection. The conference will include multidisciplinary panel sessions, key note speakers, a Friday evening ice-breaker cocktail reception and an awards dinner on Saturday evening — honoring the 2015 recipients of ARCA’s annual award for outstanding scholarship and professional dedication to the protection and recovery of cultural heritage.

This events opens with an optional icebreaker cocktail on Friday, June 26th at the Palazzo Farrattini. For the first time in the conference's history the event will cover two full days of speakers from Saturday, June 27 and Sunday, June 28, 2015 at the Sala Boccarini, inside the cloister of the Biblioteca Comunale L.Lama adjacent to the Museo Civico Archeologico e Pinacoteca “Edilberto Rosa” in Amelia, Italy. Sessions begin promptly at 9:00 am, with breaks for coffee and optional Saturday and Sunday lunches as well as an optional Italian slow food dinner Saturday evening.

The 2015 conference is open to the public and all are welcome to attend. Registration for the conference is $75 for Saturday’s sessions and $25 for Sunday’s sessions. To reserve a placement for the each day’s speaking sessions, please register at the event’s Eventbrite page here.

Fees for optional networking meals and activities are payable at registration check-in at the venue.

Once registered, attendees will receive an email in March with information on directions to and lodging in Amelia as well as further details on the costs for the optional networking events planned.

Questions about this conference can be emailed to:   italy.conference (at) artcrimeresearch.org 

The annual award winners for previous years have been:

Art Policing, Recovery, Protection and Security

Past winners: Vernon Rapley (2009), Francesco Rutelli (2009), Charlie Hill (2010), Dick Drent (2010), Paolo Giorgio Ferri (2011), Lord Colin Renfrew (2011), Stuttgart Detective Ernst Schöller (2012), Karl von Habsburg and Dr. Joris Kila (Jointly – 2012), Sharon Cohen Levin (2013), Christos Tsirogiannis (2013), Daniel Rizzo and Maurizio Pellegrini (Jointly – 2014)

Eleanor and Anthony Vallombroso Award for Excellence in Art Crime Scholarship

Past winners:  Norman Palmer (2009), Larry Rothfield (2010), Neil Brodie (2011), Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino (Jointly – 2012), Duncan Chappell (2013), Simon Mackenzie (2014)

Lifetime Achievement in Defense of Art Award

Past winners: Carabinieri TPC collectively (2009), Howard Spiegler (2010), John Merryman (2011), Dr. George H. O. Abungu (2012), Blanca Niño Norton (2013), Anne Webber (2014) 

The list of 2015 award nominees will be posted to the ARCA blog later this week.  

Confirmed Topics and Presenters for this year's conference include...

“So How Did We Get Here? Trying to Understand the Reasons Behind the Unprecedented Destruction of Archaeological Heritage"
Joanne Farchakh Bajjaly , MA Archaeology, MA Journalism
Biladi: Heritage for Peace Building (Lebanese N,G.O)

“Activities and Tools of INTERPOL’s Works of Art Unit in the Fight Against Illicit Trafficking in Cultural Property”
Françoise Bortolotti, Criminal Intelligence Officer
INTERPOL General Secretariat (Lyon, France), Sub-Directorate - Drugs and Organized Crime - Works of Art Unit

“One Culture, Two Systems : Changing Attitudes to Cultural Heritage Protection and Illicit Smuggling in Hong Kong and China”
Toby Bull, MSc.,
Founder, TrackArt – Art Risk Consultancy, and
and
Steven Gallagher, Barrister
Faculty of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

“Connoisseurship in a Globalized Art Market: Reconciling the Conflict Between Artistic and Economic Values”
Clare Diamond, PhD., candidate
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

“Mediation, as an Alternative to the Court for Resolution of Art and Cultural Heritage Disputes”
Pierfrancesco C. Fasano, Attorney-at-Law
FASANO – Avvocati
and
Ivett Paulovics, Attorney-at-Law
FASANO – Avvocati

“EU = 28 Countries + 28 Legislations = 1 Million Problems"
Martin Finkelnberg, Head of the Art and Antique Crime Unit of the Netherlands
Dutch National Police

“Protecting China’s Archaeological Artefacts Against Looting and Illicit Art Trafficking”
Stefan Gruber, PhD.,
Associate Professor, Kyoto University

“A ‘Vital Source of Funding': Conflict Antiquities in the Syrian Civil War”
Sam Hardy, DPhil Law Studies 
American University of Rome

“Art Fraud in Germany or How Criminals Become Celebrities”
Saskia Hufnagel, PhD., Accredited Specialist in Criminal Law
Queen Mary University of London

“Siena, Dunedin, Rome: the Tale of Five Macchiaioli School Paintings”
Penelope Jackson, M.Phil
Trustee of the NZ Art Crime Research Trust

“Dealer Conversion of Consigned Art: When Drugs and Greed Make the Art Disappear"
Thomas R. Kline, J.D.
Of Counsel Andrews Kurth, LLP and Professorial Lecturer, George Washington University
and
Dorit Straus
Fine art Insurance Expert and ARCA Lecturer
and
Victor Wiener, Ph.D.,
Victor Wiener Associates, LLC, Adjunct Assistant Professor, New York University

“Give and Take: Museum Professionals’ Attitudes and Ethics Toward the Acquisition and Repatriation of West African Cultural Objects”
Meg Lambert, PhD Candidate
University of Glasgow

“A Collection of Thefts: What One Museum's Responses to Five Incidents Can Teach Us About Ideal Resolution"
Katherine Luer, ARCA alumna and future MLS graduate
Independent Researcher

“Opining on the Authentic"
Philippa Malas, Barrister, England and Wales
Law Lecturer, University of Glasgow and author of the MSc Art, Law and Business at Christie's Education, London

“The Opaque Market of Egyptian Papyri in a Globalised Context: Sellers, Buyers, Prices and the Role of Academics”
Roberta Mazza, Dr
Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, University of Manchester

The “PSYCHE” project,the Comando Carabinieri Tutela Patrimonio Culturale and the Italian stolen W.O.A. database “Leonardo”
Salvatore Rapicavoli, Deputy Commander 
Comando Carabinieri Tutela Patrimonio Culturale

“Uncovering the Illicit Traffic of Russian Ancient Icons”
Laure Coupillaud Szustakowski, PhD Candidate
Chief Operating Officer at CAPABILIS

“Perspectives on Crime and Crime Control Policy from the Trafficking Culture Project”
Neil Brodie, PhD
Simon Mackenzie, PhD
Donna Yates, PhD
Trafficking Culture, SCCJR, University of Glasgow

“Sentencing the Art Thief: Deterrence, Responsibility, Protection, Reparation and Restoration - Uneasy Bedfellows in a Courtroom?"
Arthur Tompkins, Judge
New Zealand Ministry of Justice

“Discovering and Visualising the Criminological Value of The Medici Conspiracy”
Christos Tsirogiannis, PhD.,
Research Assistant, Trafficking Culture project, University of Glasgow

“Art CSI: When Science Solves the Puzzle of Forgery. The Case Study "Vase of Flowers", Painting Attributed to Filippo De Pisis (1896-1956)”
Lisa, Volpe, PhD., 
Research Fellow, Conservator Scientist, TekneHub - University of Ferrara

“Libya and Heritage Protection in the Absence of Security”
Hafed Walda, PhD.,
Research Fellow. King’s College London
Pending Deputy Ambassador to the permanent Libyan delegation at UNESCO

“Art Crime in Relation to Museum Security in the United States: A Survey of Recent Security Measures and Criminal Trends Within Accredited Art Museums”
Christine A. Weirich, PhD Candidate
School of Social and Political Science University of Glasgow

(please watch this space as a few key speakers are still confirming their travel and presentation titles).

April 30, 2015

Thursday, April 30, 2015 - ,,,, No comments

(Sub)Urban Cultural Heritage Protection: Park Forest House Museum in Illinois -- why you should support your local museums

By Hal Johnson, 2014 ARCA alumnus and DNA Consultant

When it comes to protecting and preserving cultural heritage, our focus tends to be on buildings and objects that were created centuries, if not millennia, ago. And with good reason; much of humanity’s finest creations are located in areas still ravaged by war and devastation. The destruction of Near Eastern heritage in Syria and Iraq is ongoing. Attention will soon turn toward Nepal and the damage sustained in the recent earthquake. However, there are also examples of cultural heritage protection to be found much closer to home. Small local landmarks may seem more mundane when compared to colossal Assyrian statues, but they are no less important – especially for the local citizens who care about them. I recently visited the Park Forest House Museum in Park Forest, Illinois. This small museum south of Chicago works hard to preserve the history of a phenomenon that still affects many of us – modern suburbia.

Park Forest, Illinois was the first post-World War II planned community in the United States. Experts anticipated a housing shortage on the home front even before the war’s end, particularly due to the lack of construction during the Great Depression. Private enterprise stepped in to create housing for many thousands of returning American veterans. Planned and financed by American Community Builders, Inc., Park Forest was the largest housing project in American history up to that time. Its effects were felt nationwide; the jobs it helped create and industries it supported were an economic boost to the country. The first planned suburb in the US, Collier’s magazine prominently featured this experiment in American suburbia, calling it a “City to order.” Veterans could move here with their new families and commute to jobs in downtown Chicago, or to nearby employers like Standard Oil, Argonne National Laboratory and the US Fifth Army base. Over three thousand two-bedroom rental townhomes (leased for $75-$99 / month) and an adjacent shopping center were constructed between 1947 and 1949. Move-ins began in 1948. According to local archivist Jane Nicoll, fifty families moved in per week during this time and it was not uncommon to see several moving vans per day on one block! Temporary classrooms were established in empty units until permanent school buildings were finished. In fact, Park Forest grew so fast that it was incorporated as a municipality only two years after breaking ground.  

The Park Forest House Museum is meant to evoke the atmosphere of an American suburban home in the early 1950’s, when tract communities like this were in their heyday. The museum itself occupies an original town home and is entirely furnished with authentic items from that era: furniture, dishes, toys, clothes and household goods. Visitors get a hands-on experience; they are free to open drawers and examine the contents during the docent-guided tour through the house. My favorite artifact was the original 1950’s dosimeter – a home radiation testing kit (no Cold War family should be without one). Rooms are also curated with archival photographs of the community’s early development and scenes of residential life. One photo album on display had been donated by a family that used to live in that very unit! I could turn around and see the same electrical outlet that the Christmas tree in the photo had been plugged into. Few other items connected me to the exhibit space so closely.
Originally intended as a temporary exhibit, the museum was conceived in 1998 as part of the town’s fiftieth anniversary celebrations. Ms. Nicoll (who also serves as the museum’s director) and the local historical society have managed to obtain enough donations in funds and artifacts to keep the museum going since then. They have achieved some measure of success and recognition, even collaborating with the Smithsonian’s “American on the Move” exhibit. Yet like the first occupants of the house, the museum’s space is rented and subject to the whims of a landlord. They already had to move once in 2007 and will move again soon so the space can once more be leased as a residence. My parents and I were the last visitors to walk through before everything was packed into boxes. Sadly, the Park Forest Historical Society has not been able to procure an original home for their next location. Instead they will move into two classrooms at a nearby Catholic school.  

The planned postwar housing tracts were so successful that in just a few generations, suburban life has become woven into the fabric of modern American identity. You may have parents or grandparents who still live in homes like this and who have nostalgic memories of their own from that era. You may have lived in one yourself. American suburbia is still going strong, but its post-war origins are slipping away from us and into the pages of history as our "greatest generation" continues to diminish. What many of us have always thought of as nostalgia is quickly becoming cultural heritage in need of preservation. 

What better way to preserve mid-twentieth century living than an in situ exhibit? This is a great strength of small museums like the Park Forest House. An exhibit showcasing this kind of legacy in a large museum – even with more funding at hand – would have a much tougher time connecting with its audience. Not only would it be shown out of its original context, but it would also have to compete with a big museum’s headliners and blockbuster exhibits. The take home point, dear ARCA Blog readers, is to seek out your local museums! There are many hidden gems out there that need your help. Local support can often have a more immediate impact.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)