Blog Subscription via Follow.it

October 18, 2011

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - ,,,,, 3 comments

The Collecting History of Stolen Art: the Capitoline Museums’ krater of Mithradates VI Eupator the Great, king of Pontus

Bronze krater of Mithradates the Great
by Catherine Schofield Sezgin, ARCA Blog Editor-in-chief

A large bronze vase, crafted under Mithradates the Great of Pontus, was stolen from Asia Minor during one of the Mithradatic Wars by either Sulla or Pompey; displayed in the seaside villa of a Roman Emperor; and owned by a pope before it entered the collection of the Capitoline Museum in Rome. This summer it visited Amelia.

According to the Archaeological Museum in Amelia, the krater may have been a gift to a school, a gymnasium, on the Greek Island of Delos for the inhabitants' support of Mithradates, the Greco-Persian ruler from the Black Sea kingdom who expanded his territory into Anatolia and Asia Minor to protest the occupation of the Romans and their taxation policies. The krater was likely shaped to mix wine with water and honey, and linked to Dionysus -- it is likely that the original vessel loops were decorated with branches and brunches of grapes (Museo di arcaeologico, Amelia).

In 87 BC, Mithradates’ generals fought for Roman-controlled Delos. “The destruction was devastating: the city was sacked and burned to the ground,” Adrienne Mayor writes in The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithradates, Rome’s Deadliest Enemy (Princeton Press, 2009). “Thousands of able-bodied slaves, suddenly freed from Roman chains, joined the Greek liberation army. Mithradates’ generals killed virtually all the unarmed Italian merchants of Delos and sold their wives and children into slavery.”

On Delos, Mithradates’ generals looted the treasures from the great Temple of Apollo, then after storing most of the plunder on the island of Skiathos, moved the treasure to Aristion in Athens. The treasure was then used to finance Athens’ fight against Rome.

Mayor shows an image of this first century BC krater in The Poison King.  “During the First Mithradatic War,” Mayor writes, “this krater was apparently plundered by Sulla and taken to Rome.” [Mayor sites her information from a book by Deniz Burcu Erciyas, Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids in the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey. Colloquia Pontica 12. Leiden: Brill).

Whilst Mayor figures Sulla took the krater from Athens, information posted from the Archaeological Museum in Amelia this summer claims it was Pompey the Great who brought the krater from Greece to Rome with the spoils of war after the defeat of Mithradates. Regardless, both of these men looted from Mithradates.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla was dispatched by Rome to avenge the 88 BC massacre of Romans and Italians instigated by Mithradates the Great. Unfortunately, as soon as he left Rome, the 50-year-old Sulla (the name meant “Pimples” and referred to his complexion) suffered an upset by a political rival who declared Sulla “Public Enemy of Rome” and cut off his supplies and funds for 30,000 men. Before he could reach the Province of Asia, Sulla landed in Greece and began demands for money and fought for supplies. He eventually, as Mayor writes in The Poison King, “seized the sacred treasures of Greece, plundering the temples of Zeus at Olympia and Asclepius in Epidaurus. Selecting the most beautiful, precious art for himself, he melted down massive amounts of silver to pay his men and buy supplies.” Sulla destroyed Athens and then went on to the Province of Asia to win the First Mithradatic War.

Pompey the Great won the third and last of the Mithradatic Wars. In late 65 BC, the victorious Pompey, searching for Mithradates who had crossed to safety over the Caucasus Mountains, seized fortresses and treasures in Pontus. “The vaults at Talaura yielded cups of onyx and gold, splendid furniture, bejeweled armor and gilded horse bridles, Persian antiques, and the treasure from Cos – including the precious cloak of Alexander the Great,” Mayor writes.

The krater eventually reached the Italian peninsula:

"Two hundred years later, the krater belonged to the emperor Nero, who kept it at his luxurious seaside villa at Antium," Mayor writes.  "Unearthed from the villa’s ruins by Pope Benedict XIV in the eighteenth century, the bronze krater is now a centerpiece in Rome’s Capitoline Museum."

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus was the grandson of Germanicus whose bronze image ended up in Amelia’s archaeological museum.

October 17, 2011

Monday, October 17, 2011 - ,,, 1 comment

The Collecting History of Stolen Art: Amelia’s Bronze Germanicus

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

One of my reasons for writing about art crime is the history behind the objects stolen; artifacts in galleries and museums that physically tie us to the past. The collecting history of an object brings a historical context and a relevancy, a narrative from which we can differentiate some objects from the other hundreds or thousands on display. In this series on The Collecting History of Stolen Art, all of these objects can be found on display or in the collections of art or archaeological institutions. We can start with the bronze statue of Germanicus found in Amelia, the home of ARCA’s International Art Crime and Cultural Heritage Protection Studies program.

Amelia’s bronze Germanicus is the combination of different parts, according to scholar Giulia Rocco, author of La Statua Bronzea con Rittratto di Germanico da Ameria (Umbria) (Roma 2008, Bardi Editore Commerciale). Rocco’s book is a detailed examination of the restoration of the bronze statue found outside the historical center of Amelia in 1964 while workers were excavating a mill.

In the English translation of her abstract, Rocco writes:
The thorax belongs to the Hellenistic Age, around the beginning of the first century BC and can be attributed to a Greek, perhaps Pergamene workshop…. The statue, which the cuirassed torso belonged to could represent Mithradates VI, king of Pontus, because of the myth on the chest of the breastplate, which Achilles killing Troilus, perhaps an allegory of the wished destruction of the Romans as descendants from the Troians. It could be one of the numerous objects brought to Rome as booty in the age of the Mithridatic wars.
Adrienne Mayor, an independent scholar, published a new biography of Mithradates under the title, The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithradates, Rome’s Deadlinest Enemy (Princeton, 2011).

Mithradates the Great, of Greco-Macedonian-Persian descent and culture, objected to the Roman presence and subsequent onerous taxation policies in Asia Minor and Anatolia (now present day Turkey). In 88 BC, Mithradates organized the slaughter of 80,000 to 150,000 Romans and Italians living in the region. Then he established his headquarters in Pergamon, the kingdom bequeathed to the Romans in 133 BC and delivered a speech decrying his unification of the region against the Romans. Shortly thereafter, in the Theatre of Dionysus in Pergamon, he oversaw the execution of his Roman nemesis Aquillius, by melting gold and pouring it into the general’s mouth in front of an audience of 10,000 people.

It is probably at this time that the workshop in Pergamon made the cuirass that is now part of the Germanicus statue in Amelia. A cuirass is a piece of armor consisting of a breastplate and backplate fastened together.

Sulla, a ruthless Roman patrician commander dispatched to avenge Mithradates massacre of Romans and to recover Greece, according to Mayor in The Poison King, looted art from Greece to Asian Minor. It is possible that after the First Mithradatic War that he obtained the thorax that is now part of Amelia’s bronze Germanicas.

Rocco continues in her abstract:
It was subsequently transformed as an image of a Roman general speaking to his troops, probably one of the imperatores who fought against the king of Pontus. The provenance of the cuirassed bust and the chronology of the added parts, so as the fact that it has been found in Ameria, suggests that the bronze was transformed into a statue probably representing L. Cornelius Sulla, in whose honour monuments were erected in several municipia. 
Many years later, wishing to commemorate Germanicus, the monument was reused as iconic statue of the young prince, with a new head. This probably happened in the age of Caligula.
Germanicus was the father of the Roman Emperor Caligula.

The next post in this series will discuss more objects stolen by Sulla, including the krater on display in the archaeological museum in Amelia while Germanicus was displayed in Rome this year.

October 16, 2011

Sunday, October 16, 2011 - ,,,, No comments

The Journal of Art Crime, Spring 2011: Q&A with the Québec Art Crime Team

Québec Art Crime Team
ARCA Blog Editor-in-Chief Catherine Schofield Sezgin interviews the Québec Art Crime Team in the Spring 2011 issue of The Journal of Art Crime. In 2008, the Sûreté du Québec, in collaboration with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, created Canada's first national art crime enforcement unit now consisting of Jean-François Talbot and Sergeant Alain Dumouchel (both of the Sûreté du Québec) and Sylvia Dubuc, RCMP, and Sergent Superviseur Alain Gaulin (Sûreté du Québec).

Beginning in 2003, Jean-François Talbot worked for four years with Alain Lacoursière, an art historian and now-retired Montreal police officer, to develop a new investigative art crime team and Art Alert, an email bulletin sent out to 25,000 members of the art and police communities in 75 countries whenever artworks in Canada are reported stolen.

The team was interviewed in French. In acknowledgement of the international issue of art crime, the interview is presented in both French and in English translation.

A copy of this issue of The Journal of Art Crime may be found through the ARCA website or through Amazon.com.

October 15, 2011

Saturday, October 15, 2011 - ,,, No comments

The Journal of Art Crime, Spring 2011: The Art Loss Register Recovery Update

"Portrait of a Man"
by Sir Henry Raeburn
In the Spring 2011 issue of The Journal of Art Crime, Christopher A. Marinello, Executive Director and General Counsel for The Art Loss Register, answers the question "Is art ever stolen to order?"

Marinello serves as the ALR's chief negotiator and has mediated and settled numerous art related disputes for the world's largest private international database of stolen, missing, and looted artwork. In this editorial essay, he discusses the recovery of a photograph stolen from the Prague Museum; Andy Warhol's Candy Box; and a two-year dispute over Sir Henry Raeburn's 'Portrait of a Man', stolen from Joanne King Herring, who was portrayed by Julia Roberts in the film Charlie Wilson's War.

You may read Marinello's essay by subscribing to The Journal of Art Crime through ARCA's website or purchasing an individual issue through Amazon.com.

October 14, 2011

Friday, October 14, 2011 - ,, No comments

The Journal of Art Crime, Spring 2011: Noah Charney on "The Art We Must Protect: Top Ten Must-See Artworks in New York City"

In the Spring 2011 issue of The Journal of Art Crime, Editor-in-Chief Noah Charney writes "The Art We Must Protect: Top Ten Must-See Artworks in New York City."

Art historian Noah Charney selects works of art from the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Kouros, Edgar Degas' Nude Woman Bathing, Rembrandt van Rijn's Aristotle Contemplating a Bust of Homer); the Brooklyn Bridge; Edward Hick's The Peaceable Kingdom at the Brooklyn Museum; Kazimir Malevich's Untitled Suprematist White-on-White at the Guggenheim Museum; Robert Campin's The Merode Alterpiece at The Cloisters; the Chrysler Building at 42nd Street and Lexington Avenue; Pablo Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon at MoMA; and Bronzino's Portrait of Lodovico Capponi at the Frick Collection.

Find out why you should run all over NYC to see these artworks by subscribing to The Journal of Art Crime through ARCA's website or by purchasing this issue through Amazon.com.

October 13, 2011

Thursday, October 13, 2011 - ,,, No comments

Professor Jennifer Kreder Clarifies Statement Made to The New York Times about a 16th Century Painting on Extended Display in a Nazi-era Looted Art Dispute

Jennifer Kreder, a participant in ARCA's 2010 International Art Crime Conference where she spoke about the issues of Nazi-era looted restitution claims, would like to clarify an opinion of hers that was roughly quoted in the New York Times in the October 12 article, "For Florida Museum, Dispute Over Romano Painting is a Boon".

A U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Florida ordered the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science in Tallahassee to 'hold onto' a 16th century painting by Girolamo Romano,  on loan from the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan at the close of a Baroque exhibition last month. The American Institution "renegotiated its contract to display" Christ Carrying the Cross Dragged by a Rogue (1538) while 'Italian officials in Rome' 'negotiate with the family of Giuseppe Gentili, which says the collaborationist Vichy government in France seize dthe painting and sold it at auction in 1941,' journalist Patricia Cohen reported.

Kreder is Chair of the American Society of International Law’s Interest Group on Cultural Heritage and the Arts and Professor at Salmon P. Chase College of Law in Northern Kentucky University.

According to Jen Kreder, something got lost in translation by the time the article hit the press.  Although Kreder cannot comment on the merits of the claim, she said that it is particularly surprising that no one on the Italian side, which had knowledge of the claim, seems to have insisted that the museum apply for immunity from seizure, which is not available after the object is in the U.S.  Before this incident, Professor Kreder published the following article in the Washington University Law Review discussing the prior Wally, Benningson/Alsdorf Picasso and Jullian Fallat seizures, which may be of interest to readers:  http://lawreview.wustl.edu/commentaries/executive-weapons-to-combat-infections-of-the-art-market/.

October 12, 2011

Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - , No comments

A Dangerous Turn for Rhino Thefts

by Kirsten Hower, ARCA Blog Contributor

Over the course of the summer, museums throughout Europe have been targeted by thieves in search of rhino horns. When I last wrote about this strange series of events in June, the theory that was floating around in the news was that the thieves were looking to make a profit on the black market, selling the horns off to people wanting ivory or the medicinal properties associated with these horns. Museums had been urged to take their horns off display and store them off-site to avoid being added to the growing list of those robbed.

Things have changed since then.

The Ipswich Museum has been added to the list of museums hit by the rhino horn thieves. As the Museum Journal reports, “According to law enforcement agency Europol, the recent spate of thefts is the work of an Irish gang.” The rhino horns are being sold for very large amounts of money to people looking to benefit from the medicinal properties which are rumored to include curing cancer and reversing the effects of a stroke. However, this may not be the case given the new steps that museums are taking to protect their collections: taxidermy heads and cast horns. The problem with taxidermy is that it involves arsenic and could taint the horns which could be harmful if they are digested.

Definitely not the cure for cancer that someone out there is looking for.

Ms. Hower, a former ARCA 2011 Intern, now studying Arts of Europe at Christie's Education in London, also blogs at The Wandering Scholar.

October 11, 2011

Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - ,, 2 comments

Post from Norway: Odd Nerdrum Denied Painting Privileges (Part III)

by Therese Veier

As to the issue of denying Nerdrum to paint, convicts in Norway are usually encouraged to paint or take art classes during their time in prison. The Justice department states to the media, that according to Norwegian laws, it is forbidden to exercise business while in prison. Since Nerdrum makes his livelihood by painting art works, he can possibly make money by selling the works he paints in prison either during or after his sentence is completed.

Nedrum is a controversial person in Norway - many find him provocative and his painting style dated. But personal feelings set aside, is it a lot harder for an artist to be forced not to make art for a limited time period than it is for people in other occupations to be denied performing their occupations?

Is anyone familiar with other similar cases regarding artists and; messy accounting, lack of reporting income, tax evasion, and being refrained from making art for a certain duration of time?

The verdict from the district court has been appealed, and might change in a higher court, but still the verdict is sending a signal to artists and other professionals.

Facts about Odd Nerdum (1944 - ):

Norwegian figurative painter. Some call him a modern classicist.

After studying at the Art Academy in Oslo, Nerdrum later studied with Joseph Beuys, at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf.

His primary influences are Carvaggio, Rembrandt and Tizian. One of his most known works are "The Killing of Andreas Baader" from 1977-1978, where he portraits the terrorist as a victim.

His opinions on art have caused several media debates the past 30 years. About 10-12 years ago Nerdrum stated that his art should be understood as kitsch rather than art as such. "On Kitsch", a manifesto composed by Nerdrum describes the distinction he makes between kitsch and art.
Nerdum suffers from Tourettes syndrome.

In 2002 he officially claimed that he would never again make any comments or statements to the Norwegian press.

Over the years Nerdrum has had several pupils / assistants that have wanted to learn his craft because his approach to painting is based on traditional methods that include mixing and grinding his own pigments, working on canvas he had stretched or stretched by assistants rather than on pre-stretched canvas, and working from live models often himself, and in many cases members of his own family. Several of his pupils have said that they feel like outcasts who are not respected in art circles because they aspire to paint figuratively and are inspired by renaissance and baroque artists.

In December 2003 Nerdrum left Norway and bought a house on Island, a country he had travelled to for several years. The landscape on Island, especially the volcanoes and the color of the soil has been of particular interest to the artist, and often served as backdrop for his paintings. In 2011 the artist returned to Norway, he currently resides at Rødvik farm in the Norwegian city Stavern.

October 10, 2011

Monday, October 10, 2011 - ,, 2 comments

Post from Norway: Tax Evasion or Conservation Repayment? Odd Nerdrum's Troubles (Part II)

by Therese Veier

Odd Nerdrum kept a storage box in an Austrian bank where he stashed $ 900,000. Why he did this is disputed and seems to be at the core of the disagreement. According to the district court, there is substantial evidence that the artist kept the cash in a storage box in a foreign bank in order to intentionally withhold a substantial amount of profit made from the sale of art works from the IRS.

The artist’s explanation as for why he needed to store such a huge amount of cash is the following:
I kept the money in a bank vault in Austria, as an insurance fund against damages, resulting from a period where I used a particular oil paint that after a few years began to “melt” and slide down the canvas on a variety of pictures that had been sold.
The artist states that he has tried to remedy some of the damage by painting new pictures that would replace the old ones, in addition to putting aside funds in a safety deposit box intended to be used as compensation to collectors that had bought damaged works. At the most, the cash amount in the bank box was $ 900,000, according to Nerdrum.

However the district court does not believe the artists explanation about why he needed and kept a deposit box with cash, because the artist has changed his statements and various reasons as to why he kept such a huge amount of cash in a storage box, and the judge does not believe the artist when he claims that the storage box belongs to his American art dealer.

As to the two-year jail sentence, in the past, courts have tended to be stricter in their punishments for white-collar crimes. Should artists be treated differently from other people just because they claim to be no good with numbers? Does the commercial art world and art speculation encourage artists to, perhaps unintentionally, violate rules for reporting sales and keeping correct accounting of their income without really understanding the full consequences of their actions? Like other professionals, artists have to submit to the same laws and regulations regarding taxes as others, and if their financial abilities are limited they should hire help. But up until now I have not heard of other similar cases where the artist has been sentenced to jail for several years and specifically forbidden to make art works in that period.

This story will be concluded in tomorrow's post.

October 9, 2011

Sunday, October 09, 2011 - ,, No comments

Post from Norway: Odd Nerdrum's Accounting and His Tax Problems (Part I)

by Therese Veier

This post could be subtitled "Don't mess with the IRS -- the Norwegian IRS in this case".

On the 17th of August the Norwegian artist and painter Odd Nerdrum was sentenced to two years in prison by the district court in Oslo. The artist was found guilty of consciously having tried to conceal his total income in order to evade taxes. In addition to the prison sentence, the artist will probably not be allowed to paint during his two years of imprisonment. According to the court, Nerdrum has sold paintings for 10,5 million NOK in the period 1998-2002 without reporting this income to the IRS. The income Nerdrum reported to the IRS in 2009 was 2,2 million NOK. The artist is listed with a fortune of 10,3 million NOK. The artist has also been condemned to pay the legal fees. Before the court case started, the artist had paid his outstanding tax amount and settled his debt with the IRS. The amount was not disputed by the artist during the trail.

Nedrum’s defense lawyer, Tor Erling Staff, told the Norwegian paper Aftenposten that the verdict will be appealed immediately because it has been carried out a selective choice of information in the case and that not all issues have been discussed.
My impression is that the district court thinks Nerdrum lacks credibility and instead must prove his innocence, says Staff.
Nerdrum is furious with the court because a prison sentence means he will loose his American visa.
Two years in prison and I lose my visa to the United States. Now I cannot be a guest teacher at Maryland Institute College of Art, the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Art or New York Academy of Art, says Nerdrum.
The artist states to the press that it feels like the Norwegian government is executing a vendetta against him.

Awaiting his appeal the artist is now hiding from the press in his castle, situated in Maisons-Lafitte, a fashionable suburb outside Paris. The estate is registered to his wife, and was recently purchased by her company. It is intended to be used as a family house, with ample room for Nerdrum’s pupils.

About the district courts verdict - the court claims that it had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nerdrum had devoted considerable effort to hide the total sum of his income from Norwegian authorities. It is especially aggravating that the profit from this income has been hidden in such a way that the risk of discovery has been very small.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/08/17/kultur/odd_nerdrum/rettsak/kunst/17710443/, http://www.aftenposten.no/okonomi/innland/article4201363.ece   
 http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/08/19/kultur/kunst/odd_nerdrum/17733719/

This story will be continued in tomorrow's post.

Therese Veier previously contributed to the ARCA blog on the subject of Edvard Munch.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)