Blog Subscription via Follow.it

July 26, 2011

Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - ,,, No comments

South African Lawyer Specializing in art law, shares his experiences with conferences in Milan and Amelia

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

The ARCA blog has been running a series of posts about the speakers who presented at ARCA's third annual Art Crime Conference on July 9th and 10th. Toby Orford, a lawyer specializing in art law in South Africa, attended ARCA's conference in Amelia this year. He also attended a conference in Milan. We decided to share his experiences with readers of our blog. During the conference, Mr. Orford stayed at Palazzo Farrattini, a Renaissance building within the walls of this medieval town.

ARCA Blog: Toby, what conference did you attend in Milan and what was your perception?
Toby: Speakers at Christie's Holocaust Art Looting and Restitution Symposium included eminent international lawyers, academics and activists. The choice of Milan was deliberate. Italy's inconsistent track record of restitution "requires a more extensive explanation" and some of the speakers - notably Charles Goldstein from the Commission for Art Recovery - pointed out inter alia that missing art works taken from Italian Jews is probably still in Italian museums, institutions and private collections. The lack of serious research or restitution in Italy (and indeed instances where restitution has been revoked and export licenses blocked) is in contrast to Italy's recent campaigns for the recovery of its own cultural property. Other countries have made greater efforts. Norman Palmer spoke about the work of the UK's restitution commission - the Spoliation Advisory Panel. He and the other experts highlighted the on-going and unresolved moral and legal aspects of restitution - as well as changes in government policy and (post the Washington Conference) the development of changing legal principles and claims procedures. All in all the Milan conference was a thought-provoking precursor to ARCA's Amelia conference.
ARCA Blog: This is the first time you attended the ARCA art crime conference. What had you expected and did the conference meet your expectations?
Toby: The focus of ARCA goes beyond World War II restitution. The conference dealt with all kinds of present-day threats to cultural property, including looting, theft, fraud and destruction. Not surprisingly, as a lawyer I appreciated the legal discussions. I think that there is scope for some more "law" next time - with reference to the achievements noted during the Milan conference. But the other disciplines created new insights into the practical and theoretical aspects of heritage protection. The more academic topics were usefully balanced at the end of the proceedings by Chris Maranello's matter-of-fact talk on the day to day work of the Art Loss Register. He reminded us that it is vital to translate words into action. So, yes, the conference met all of my expectations and expanded my understanding considerably. I am also finding the ARCA blog's talk summaries very useful.
ARCA Blog: What do you think will most be carried back with you to South Africa as far as knowledge and experience?
Toby: Restitution is much talked about in Africa but in a confused and undisciplined way. This is mostly due to misunderstanding and misinformation. And, thanks to colonial complications, frustration. The hard won and piecemeal progress, and the on-going challenges in other parts of the world, explain the nature and scope of the problem - and identify some of the solutions. And so both of these disciplined and focused conferences - in their different ways - helped me to understand what has happened, and what still must happen. Others should benefit too and, for example, I am recommending the work of ARCA to the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA). Perhaps ARCA will benefit from closer ties with similar agencies in other countries?

July 25, 2011

Monday, July 25, 2011 - ,, No comments

ARCA Award for Art Policing & Recovery Given to Paolo Ferri at International Art Crime Conference

Paolo Ferri and Noah Charney (Photo by Urska Charney)
By Catherine Schofield Sezgin

Paolo Giorgio Ferri received ARCA’s Award for Art Policing and Recovery for his work as a former Italian State Prosecutor and his role in the return of many looted antiquities from North American public and private collections. He was the lead attorney in Italy’s cases against The Getty Museum, Marion True, and other American museums for the return of looted antiquities. He now serves as an expert in international relations and recovery of works of art for the Italian Culture Ministry.

Dr. Ferri told the audience, in Italian and through the use of an English translator, that he was delighted to receive the ARCA award, his first major award recognizing his professional accomplishments.

Years ago, Ferri said, exporting of looted antiquities was a fiscal misdemeanor and assisted by the ease with which the items could be cleared through Switzerland. He credited the work of Peter Watson, the author of The Medici Conspiracy, for his investigation into Giacomo Medici that enabled the return of many objects. In addition, the subsequent media coverage increased awareness of the problem of selling cultural heritage.

Regarding resolution of these matters of allegations of stolen antiquities, Dr. Ferri would prefer an international court that would provide more uniform judgments. “This court could possibly be under the offices of UNESCO which recently started offices for mediation and restitution,” Dr. Ferri told the audience.

He proposes that arbitration would expedite these matters and that inexpensive working groups in each state could provide spontaneous information that could ease the return of cultural objects. “The Washington Agreement should help people who hold title in ‘good faith’ and return objects to the original state,” Dr. Ferri said. “The necessity of proof should come from the buyer of good faith.”

The object should be returned to the country of origin who claims it if there is any doubt, Dr. Ferri said. “Cooperation in marco-regions is of extreme importance,” he said.

July 24, 2011

Sunday, July 24, 2011 - ,,, No comments

Elena Franchi on “Under the Protection of the Holy See: The Florentine Works of Art and Their Moving to Alto Adige in 1944”

Elena Franchi
Update: This is post has been republished with corrections.

On July 9, at ARCA's International Art Crime Conference, Elena Franchi presented her latest research on the protection of art in Florence during the Second World War, "Under the protection of the Holy See": the Florentine works of art and their moving to Alto Adige in 1944."

Ms. Franchi is the author of two books on the protection Italian cultural heritage during the Second World War: I viaggi dell’Assunta: La protezione del patrimonio artistico veneziano durante i conflitti mondiali, and Arte in assetto di guerra: Protezione e distruzione del patrimonio artistico a Pisa durante la seconda guerra mondiale. She has also been involved in a project on the study of the “Kunstschutz” unit. In 2009 she was nominated for an Emmy Award – “Research” for the American documentary The Rape of Europa, 2006, on the spoils of works of art in Europe during the Second World War.

"In Italy, at the beginning of the war in 1940, the movable works of art were subdivided into three classes of importance and sent to castles and villas in the countryside to protect them from the only danger to be expected: the air raids," Ms. Franchi told the audience. "The most important Florentine works of art were gathered in three deposits: Villa reale in Poggio a Caiano sheltered masterpieces from the Uffizi Gallery and Palazzo Pitti; Villa reale della Petraia housed precious sculptures; and Palazzo Pretorio in Scarperia protected the main works of art coming from churches and private collections."

At the end of the first year of the war, Ms. Franchi said, Poggio a Caiano was filled up and other deposit sites needed to be set up to shelter the important works. By 1943, Florence's mobile patrimony resided protectively in more than 20 storage sites.

On July 10, 1943, the Allied Forces landed in Sicily in "Operation Husky", and launched the Italian Campaign. "A frenetic moving of works of art from one deposit to another suddenly started, under heavy bombardment, even though fuel and means of transportation were hard to find," Ms. Franchi said.

Fifteen days later, Benito Mussolini was dismissed and Marshal Pietro Badoglio was appointed to head the government in his place. After the Armistice declared on September 8th between Italy and the Allied armed forces, the situation of the deposits became increasingly risky, Ms. Franchi said. In those days two military units began to operate in Italy for the protection of cultural property: the Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Sub-Commission (MFAA) by the Allied Commission for Italy and the German Kunstschutz. Frederick Hartt, responsible for the MFAA in Tuscany, declared at the end of the war: "Italian authorities had done almost everything possible to protect their country's treasure against bombardment."

According to Franchi, and contrary to what many believe, the Nazis did not always steal the art work around them. Franchi argued that in the case of Florence, the Kunstschutz unit, the German military unit created to protect cultural property, worked with Italians Carlo Anti, the General Arts Director in the Ministry of Education, and Carlo Alberti Biggini, the Minister of Education, to move as much as possible to the north of Italy (controlled by the Italian Social Republic with Mussolini and the German occupation).

In June 1944, Biggini ordered to move the main works of art of Florence and Siena to the north of Italy, far from the battle line. But the difficulties of his journey made it clear that it was impossible to carry such precious shipment to the north.

Despite this order, at the beginning of July, the German Army evacuated the precious works of art belonging to Florentine Galleries from the deposit of Montagnana, since the battle line was approaching. The German Army also evacuated the deposit of Oliveto, unbeknownst to the Kunstschutz, the Italian Ministry and the Superintendency.

Kunstschutz got on the trail of the missing works of art and removed the works of art from the deposit of Poggio a Caiano, that was under the protection of the Holy See.

At the end, the Florentine works of art removed by German Army and Kunstschutz were all moved to two deposits to Alto Adige, that were entrusted to the local Superintendent and to German Kunstschutz until the arrival of the Allies in 1945.

July 23, 2011

Saturday, July 23, 2011 - ,, No comments

Annika Kuhn on “The Looting of Cultural Property: A View from Classical Antiquity”


Update: This post has been republished with corrections.

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

Annika B. Kuhn, currently a Fellow of the Mercator Kolleg on International Affairs (German Academic Foundation / Federal Foreign Office), conducting research on the illicit trafficking and repatriation of antiquities, presented “The Looting of Cultural Property: A View from Classical Antiquity” at ARCA’s Third International Art Crime Conference in Amelia on July 9, 2011.

Dr. Kuhn, who holds a PhD in Ancient History from the University of Oxford, discussed how the destruction and pillage of cultural property in times of war and peace reach far back in history to the Greek and Roman periods. She selected several historical examples and examined the different forms of ancient responses to the loss of significant religious and cultural artifacts, which ranged from the diplomatic negotiation of returns, the repatriation of looted property as symbolic political acts, or the restoration of the religious and cultural order by the use of replicas.

Dr Kuhn referred to cases of plunder during the Persian Wars (e.g. Xerxes’ looting of the statue group of the Tyrannicides Harmodius and Aristogeiton after the sack of Athens in 480 BCE), the capture of war booty by Roman generals and soldiers, which was displayed in the triumphal parades at Rome, as well as excessive art thefts committed by provincial governors and emperors. Thus, the Sicilian governor C. Verres, one of the earliest art thieves, conducted “forced sales” in the province and used slaves to rob residences and temples in a systematic theft of art. Verres looted statues, furniture, vases, jewelry, carpets and paintings from sites throughout Sicily. The Julio-Claudian emperors Caligula (37-41 CE) and Nero (54-68 CE) were art thieves on the throne and plundered statues to decorate the rooms of their palaces. However, Greek and Roman contemporaries not only criticized the plunder of art, but actively tried to protect or recover commemorative artifacts, and there are already antecedents of the ‘codification’ of norms to respect the inviolability of religious and cultural sites and prohibit the illicit appropriation of art.

July 22, 2011

Friday, July 22, 2011 - ,, No comments

Laurie Rush on "Art Crime: Effects of a Global Issue at the Community Level"

by Mark Durney, Founder of Art Theft Central

At ARCA’s third annual international art crime conference in mid-July, Dr. Laurie Rush, the Booth Family Rome Prize Winner in Historic Preservation at the American Academy in Rome, presented on “Art Crime: Effects of a Global Issue at the Community Level.”

Dr. Rush’s lecture featured discussions of the role of military archaeologists in preventing the inadvertent damage and destruction of cultural heritage as well as limiting the illicit traffic in antiquities during the most recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt. For example, academic archaeologists in cooperation with military and NATO personnel were able to develop a 'no strike list' of 'at risk sites' in Libya within 36 hours after US participation was announced.

During the most recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt, Dr. Rush worked with the Legacy Resource Management Program to create decks of playing cards inspired by the US military’s tradition of using playing cards as educational tools. However, rather than depict images of the most-wanted Iraqis like a previous deck, the Heritage Resource Preservation playing cards depict the challenges of preserving heritage during military operations as well as provide useful archaeological site preservation advice.

According to Dr. Rush, the constant rotation of military officers and the flux in standard practices that it creates can make it difficult to effectively maintain efforts to protect cultural heritage sites and institutions during conflicts. During the US-led military invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Garrison Commander  at the military base in Talil developed a strategy to protect Ur, the biblical birthplace of Abraham, by incorporating it within the installation fences. While it was a simple risk mitigation strategy, it enabled the US to effectively secure the site and protect it from potential looting. In 2009, the US returned control of the ancient site, which had been preserved in pristine condition, to the Iraqi authorities.

Rush believes that the Comando Carabinieri Tutela Patrimonio Culturale, which has been sent into numerous conflict zones in order to train local leaders and military personnel in the protection of cultural sites and institutions, should serve as a model for other countries that seek to develop similar cultural heritage preservation efforts. Currently, while based in Rome, Rush is working closely with the Carabinieri and examining their best practices. In addition to working with the military to protect sites during conflict, Dr. Rush stressed the need to focus attention and resources on developing strategies to maintain cultural heritage sites in the immediate aftermath of conflicts. Managing sites as community assets and rebuilding tourist attractions are critical to attracting local and international investment and attention. Dr. Rush believes that such efforts can be spearheaded by partnerships between academic institutions and government organizations.

July 21, 2011

Thursday, July 21, 2011 - ,, No comments

Judge Arthur Tompkins on Gustav Klimt's "The Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer"

by Judge Arthur Tompkins

The luminous Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer now hangs in the Neue Galerie, on New York’s Fifth Avenue. How it got there is quite a story.

The dispute over this portrait, together with others owned originally by Ferdinand Bloch and his wife Adele Bloch-Bauer, and in keeping with many similar private law restitutionary struggles, was resolved only after a long, tortuous, expensive and emotionally draining process. It involved, over many decades, the Austrian national courts, the United States courts all the way to the United States’ Supreme Court, and finally an Arbitration Panel agreed to by both sides. Some 65 years passed between the unlawful passing of the painting to the Austrian National Gallery in 1941 and the return of the paintings to Maria Altmann in early 2006.

Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer was, before World War II, a wealthy Czech industrialist, and president of the Österreichische Zuckerindustrie AG, a major sugar company. He commissioned a portrait of his wife from Gustav Klimt, and after about a year’s work, the golden, shimmery portrait was delivered in 1907. Adele died in 1925, from meningitis, and in her will, “requested” Ferdinand to leave the Klimt paintings the couple owned to the Austrian National Gallery.

Ferdinand fled Austria in 1938, and the invading Nazis confiscated both his businesses and the Bloch-Bauer’s home, containing the portrait and the other Klimt paintings. They assessed spurious “taxes” as being owed, thus triggering liquidation of the assets. An attorney was appointed, and unlawfully he sold or swapped the paintings, with three, including the Portrait, ending up with the Austrian Gallery.

Ferdinand died in Switzerland in 1945, and, understandably, by his will he did not leave the Klimt portraits to the Gallery. Two nieces and a nephew, including Maria Altmann who by that time was living in the Los Angeles, were his heirs. His estate consisted mainly of claims to seized property.

The Case Summary prepared for the later Arbitral proceedings recorded:
In January 1948, the heirs’ attorney, Dr. Gustav Rinesch, attempted to recover some of the Klimt paintings from the Austrian Gallery. The Austrian Gallery responded by taking the position that the paintings were donated by Adele Bloch-Bauer in her will of 1923, which designated her husband as her universal heir and requested that he donate six Klimt paintings to the Austrian Gallery after his death.
However, according to the legal proceedings which followed Adele’s death in 1925, Ferdinand stated that the paintings were his, and not his wife’s, property and that he was not legally obligated to fulfill the wishes expressed in her will, although he allegedly promised to do so.

Despite efforts by and on behalf of the heirs over the years, the three paintings, by now held by the Belvedere Gallery in Vienna, remained there through until the late 1990s, and as Simon Houpt notes,
“ ... became synonymous with Viennese culture and Austrian pride, especially Klimt’s Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I, which has been reprinted endlessly on T-shirts, postcards, and dormitory room posters. It seemed fruitless to Maria Altmann [Ferdinand’s niece] and the other Bloch-Bauer heirs to put up a fight.”
But the legal landscape changed in 1998. The Austrian Parliament passed legislation,
“ ... requiring all federal museums to ensure their holdings were free of art illegally seized during the war.”
As a resident of California, and frustrated by procedural and technical delays and obstacles which had stalled her Austrian legal proceedings, Altmann sued in the US Courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court held that she was not barred from suing the Austria by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. However, the case did not proceed to trial in the US as in May 2005 the family and Austria agreed to arbitration in Austria.

Thus the case came to be decided before an Austrian arbitral tribunal, governed by Austrian law and procedure. The Tribunal concluded:
1. The Republic of Austria acquired ownership of the paintings by Gustav
Klimt, Adele Bloch-Bauer I, Adele Bloch-Bauer II, Apfelbaum,
Buchenwald/Birkenwald, and Häuser in Unterach am Attersee by virtue of
the settlement with the representative of the heirs of Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer,
Dr. Gustav Rinesch, in 1948. 
2. The conditions of the Federal Act Regarding the Restitution of Artworks
from Austrian Federal Museums and Collections dated 4th December 1998,
... for the return of the five paintings indicated above without remuneration to the heirs of Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer are fulfilled.
The Tribunal accepted that Adele’s will, by which she left the paintings to her husband, with a wish that after his death, they be left to the Austrian nation, was a non-binding request :
“I ask my husband after his death to leave my two portraits and the four landscapes by Gustav Klimt to the Austrian State Gallery in Vienna and to leave the Vienna and Jungfer, Brezan library, which belongs to me, to the People’s and Workers’ Library of Vienna."
Therefore, Austria could not have acquired title to the paintings via her will. Title was not acquired through other available means, and given that the requirements of the Austrian statute were fulfilled, the paintings should be, and were, returned.

Although the ruling was initially greeted with some concern as to its narrowness of application, it was subsequently viewed:
“ ... as a pivotal Holocaust reparations case, ... Having litigated all the way to the Supreme Court prior to arbitration, Altmann established the United States civil litigation system as an acceptable platform for Nazi looted-art cases.”
Left, Neue Galerie director Renee Price.
 Seated, Maria Altmann,
Adele Bloch-Bauer's niece.
"These paintings stolen from Jewish homes are the last prisoners of World War II. I believe more art will be returned to its rightful owners," said art collector and Neue Galerie founder Ronald Lauder, who purchased "Adele Bloch-Bauer II" in June for the museum. 

Maria Altmann sold the Adele Bloch-Bauer I portrait in 2006 to the Neue Galerie Museum in New York, founded by Ronald Lauder and dedicated to German and Austrian Art, and which plays a prominent role in provenance research, including issues relating to “Jewish life and post-Nazi restitution issues.” The portrait is a centre piece of its collection.

The carefully worded provenance statement from the Museum’s website hints at the storied tragedies of the painting’s history:

“Provenance
Adele and Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer, Vienna (Acquired from the artist).
Seized by the Viennese Magistrate (following the Nazi Anschluss, March 1938).
With Dr. Erich Führer, Vienna (the state-appointed administrator for Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer).
Österreichische Galerie Belvedere, Vienna.
Restituted to the heirs of Adele and Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer by the Republic of Austria. Neue Galerie New York.”
The Neue Gallery
The Gallery’s website is at: http://www.neuegalerie.org/

July 20, 2011

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - ,,, No comments

ARCA's 2011 IACC: Charlotte Woodhead on “Assessing the Moral Strength of Holocaust Art Restitution Claims”

By Molly Cotter, ARCA Intern

At ARCA's third annual International Art Crime Conference in Amelia on July 9, Charlotte Woodhead, Assistant Professor at the University of Warwick, shared her analysis of the numerous moral considerations of the United Kingdom’s Spoliation Advisory Panel, which hears claims relating to World War II thefts of cultural objects.

Founded only in the year 2000 and keeping in mind the time bars involved in civil suits, the panel assesses and resolves claims from people, or their heirs, who lost property during the Nazi era which is now held in UK national collections. Members of the panel, including lawyers, judges, professors, an art dealer and a baroness are appointed by the Secretary of State and consider both legal and non-legal obligations, such as the moral strength of the claimant’s case, and whether any moral obligation rests on the holding institution. In cases where the claimants received post-war compensation, the panel also considers any potential unjust enrichment were the object to be returned or a monetary reward offered. The public interest of a piece is also a factor in deciding whether to simply return the item or offer a reward.

The panel’s proceedings are an alternative to litigation, and its recommendations are not legally binding on any parties. However, if a claimant accepts the recommendation of the Panel, and the recommendation is implemented, the claimant is expected to accept this as full and final settlement of the claim.

Woodhead also discussed the difference between UK claim resolution and those of the Restitution Committee of the Netherlands. The British panel seeks restitution for art lost or stolen during the Nazi era (1933-1945) whereas the Dutch committee focuses on art lost in direct relation to the Nazi regime. Regardless of their differences, Woodhead stressed the importance of the existence of these panels saying “Nazi stolen art is different from stolen art as there is a wider cultural goal to right the wrongs of the past.”

July 19, 2011

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - ,, No comments

Maria Elena Versari on “Iconoclasm by (Legal) Proxy: Restoration, Legislation and the Ideological Decay of Fascist Ruins”

Update: This post has been republished with corrections.

By Kirsten Hower, ARCA Intern

Maria Elena Versari, the Assistant Professor of Modern European Art and Architecture at the University of North Florida, spoke about the perception of and reaction against  Fascist architecture in Italy. Her presentation, titled “Iconoclasm by (Legal) Proxy: Restoration, Legislation and the Ideological Decay of Fascist Ruins,” examined the conflicting modern views of Fascist architecture and, particularly, what to do with what remains of it. The debate that Versari highlighted centers on those historians who wise to preserve the architecture of the past for its part in history, and those who wish to wipe away the memories of Fascism and its place in Italian history.

Versari’s main focus concerned iconoclastic acts towards remaining Fascist architecture: both destructive and in terms of conservation. In specific reference to the Mancino Law of 1993—which punishes acts that incite violence—she referred to people who had been prosecuted for publicly endorsing Fascist symbols. In addition, Versari referenced the application of Hans Belting’s division of symbols and how that can apply to the iconoclastic actions against Fascist art and architecture—an attempt to destroy the collective mental symbol by destroying the physical symbol. However, as Versari pointed out, Mussolini  appropriated past symbols and images, using them for his own purposes and changing their meaning—making the selective destruction of Fascist iconology within the Italian public space a particularly compelling enterprise.

Versari focused on the other form of iconoclasm found in the action or inaction of conservation on the part of governmental bodies. She specifically pinpointed the legal complexities that led to the inaction on the part of several offices to allocate the funds to properly preserve architecture built during the Fascist period, allowing these buildings to decay and crumble rather than preserving them for their historical purposes. Versai concluded by comparing recent practices of local administrations in dealing with Fascist art and architecture. While some will give money to alter or ‘cover up’ the symbols of Fascism in certain architecture—whitewashing plaques and the like, others, as in the case of Forlì, are pursuing a more subtle critical practice, suggesting the visual historicization of Fascist remains and of their subsequent iconoclastic history.

After graduating with her PhD from Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, Versari has taught in both Italy and the United States and published many scholarly works, including Constantin Brancusi (Florence: Scala Group/Rome: L’Espresso, 2005) and Wassily Kandinsky e l’astrattismo (Florence: Scala Group, 2007). In addition to teaching, she is currently a member of the Advisory Board for the online journal Art in Translation.

July 18, 2011

Monday, July 18, 2011 - ,, No comments

Duncan Chappell on “Forgery of Australian Aboriginal Art”

Duncan Chappell
by Molly Cotter, ARCA Intern

Professor Duncan Chappell, Chair of the Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security International Advisory Board and an Adjunct Professor at the Sydney Law School at the University of Sydney, discussed the moral and monetary corruption of contemporary forgeries in his presentation, "Forgery of Australian Aboriginal Art", at ARCA's International Art Crime Conference in Amelia, Italy.

Aboriginal Australians make up only 2% of the nation’s population. Their art is of extremely spiritual nature and works consist mostly of desert sand, rocks, and homemade pigments -- things from the earth. The value of Aboriginal art has soared in recent years with one work selling for a record $2.4 million at auction. The market itself grosses nearly $100-$500 million annually, which makes it a major source of income for many Aboriginal communities and individuals. Because of the swelling demand for Aboriginal art on the market, more and more pieces are being forged and slipped into auction sales. Aboriginal forgeries are mores upsetting than traditional forged works because they undermine the integrity of Aboriginal art, its meaning, and even the original painter’s spirituality.

In one case, a married couple was tried and convicted of selling nearly $300,000 worth of fake Rover Thomas paintings through Australian auction houses. When initially arrested, police seized not only numerous Thomas catalogues, but two unfinished forged canvases. In other cases, criminals forged prints to provenance to entire exhibitions and unfortunately, often suffered minimal consequences.

Authorities have run into issues in trying to protect the cultural heritage of Aboriginal art. Sometimes artists sign blank canvases before beginning work on them or family members aided in the production of thee work; therefore, issues of provenance and authorship becomes more complicated.

The aforementioned examples as well a number of civil suits underscore the need for due diligence of galleries and auction houses not only to defend their reputation but the integrity of the Aboriginal artists and their legacies.

July 17, 2011

Sunday, July 17, 2011 - , No comments

Saskia Hufnagel on “Harmonising Police Cooperation in the Field of Art Crime in Australia and the European Union”

Saskia Hufnagel in Amelia, Italy
by Kirsten Hower, ARCA Intern

Dr. Saskia Hufnagel, a Research Fellow at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security (CEPS) at Griffith University in Queensland, presented “Harmonizing Police Cooperation in the Field of Art Crime in Australia and the European Union,” at ARCA's third annual International Art Crime Conference in Amelia.

Her research project was originally meant to focus on the collaborative effort of Australia and the European Union, but became a project centered more on the need for cooperation in both systems. As Dr. Hufnagel said, she was doing “the dance of presenting a research project that doesn’t exist.” Her project, therefore, became more focused on the comparison between Australia and the European Union concerning perception, priority, policing, and reactions towards art crime.

Dr. Hufnagel demonstrated in her presentation that Australia, in general, does not put a policing priority towards art crime, because of the perception that art crime is a financial matter compensated by the insurance companies.

“Generally there is a lack of recognition which leads to a lack of resources,” Dr. Hufnagel said.

Australia’s nine territories therefore do not allocate funds towards investigation and prevention of these crimes, Dr. Hufnagel said. Accordingly, they also do not feel the need to enhance cooperation amongst the states and territories to combat the problem. It is difficult to generate support for the problem because in Hufnagel’s words, “we don’t know how much art crime is going on in Australia” due to the fact that most crimes are not reported.

Dr. Hufnagel stated that there is not a strong focus on art crime research in Australia and that the last funded research related to art crime from a practical policing perspective was conducted in 1999 by a single individual, who was not granted sufficient resources to finalize his research, which undermined the effectiveness of his conclusions. Art crime is a very sensitive issue and cooperation is not only necessary between different law enforcement agencies, Dr. Hufnagel said, but also between the museums and galleries and police, which is probably even more difficult.  Police cooperation between Australia and neighboring countries concerning drug smuggling is relatively high, but unfortunately, when it reaches the bounds of art crime, the differences in culture seem to impede effective cooperation. Dr. Hufnagel compared this to the European Union, which has divisions of laws to each of the countries that do not aid fellow countries in the fight against art crime.

Speaking passionately about the need for appreciation of art crime, Dr. Hufnagel said, “Art is really important to our lives because our lives are so limited…art allows you experience a vast range of emotions, cultures and situations you could never perceive otherwise.” She intends to continue her research into art crime and to raise the field’s status in the realm of police enforcement with the hope that something will be done to further cooperation and collaboration in Australia and the European Union.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)