Most people who have spent any time surfing the web in the last few years have heard about crowdfunding.   Newspapers are full of feel-good stories of individuals raising thousands of dollars for uplifting causes.  Some, like last summer's campaign, which raised $130,000 for the family of Abdul Halim Attar -- a displaced pen-selling Palestinian-Syrian refugee from Yarmouk in Syria, help struggling families when life throws them a curve ball.  Others give inventors much-needed start-up capital to carry a drawing board concept through to market fruition. 

Donation-based crowdfunding is pretty self-explanatory. Almost anyone can post a cause or an idea on a relevant crowdfunding platform and ask for donations to help make something happen.  Sometimes, but not always, those who donate receive a special perk in exchange.  In the case of start-up companies, project backers sometimes receive beta-release versions of the product under development; an incentive that works well for cash-strapped technology-entrepreneurs. 

With the onset of internet based crowd funding its now easier and relatively hassle-free for anyone to ask a large number of people each for a small amount of money.  That in turn has made crowdsourcing an appealing tool for museum organizations.  Instead of writing a lengthy 100 page grant proposal or fronting the money for expensive charity dinners in the hopes of attracting wealthy philanthropists, art and museum administrators and fundraisers can now turn to crowdsourcing as a means of generating much-needed cash to carry out missions and projects. 

The Power of the Crowd

Turning to the internet, flamboyant cartoonist Matthew Inman launched a crowd-funding campaign via the Oatmeal to buy the property of Nikola Tesla’s former laboratory, located in Shoreham, New York.  His campaign needed $850,000 and raised $1.37 million in six days with the help of 33,000 Tesla-loving backers.   Further assisted by a grant approved by the state of New York for an additional $850,000 the fundraisers were able purchase the inventor's lab property, yet still needed more capital to accomplish their goal of building the museum in honor of the savvy engineer.

Not to be discouraged, Inman publicly asked Canadian-American business magnate Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla Motors, to donate one million dollars in a Tweet.  Accepting the gauntlet thrown down, Musk accepted and challenged Tesla-loving Oatmeal followers to again dig into their own pockets to raise the difference needed in order to make the museum a reality. 

Using the Indiegogo platform Inman started a Buy a Brick, Build a Museum campaign spurring internet-savvy donors to come up with the additional funds.  The result?  He raised a whopping $518,566 towards the Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe, a sum more than two and a half times his original goal.

The power and value of crowdfunding, as these examples clearly illustrate, has changed the speed as well as the way individuals charitable contributions can be accessed.  

Organizations now have the ability to quickly and easily raise necessary funding in safe, secure crowdsourcing portals and at nominal costs to the fundraiser.   Some organizations have even gone so far as to build professional grade crowdfunding platforms into their own websites circumventing the overhead fees charged by most crowdsourcing portals.   

Anyone and virtually any cause, anywhere, can now tap into this type of funding.  No project is too big or too small.

But while giving small dollops of money to help someone who is less fortunate or to a good cause, like the development of a new museum, is commendable, people should carefully consider who they are funding and make sure that they donate responsibly to reputable persons and organizations so as not to fall prey to fraudulent or irresponsible fundraisers.

Just because a group is a bona fide charity doesn't always mean that a contributors' funding will be used wisely or in line with the donor's wishes or ethics. 

On October 7, 2015 the Museum of the Bible started its own in-house “One Million Names, Be One in a Million” campaign asking one million donors from around the globe to declare their belief that the bible should be celebrated by contributing to the funding of the yet-to-open Washington DC museum. With a crowdfunding campaign embedded into the Museum's own website with a matching video campaign on Youtube donors are being asked to contribute $20, $50, or $100 to the museum "where needed most."  

The Museum of the Bible's fundraising webpage states that donations "will become part of your personal legacy … a perpetual testimony of your commitment to this great Book." In appreciation, the fundraiser declares that the museum will permanently memorialize the donor's name on a wall in the museum, which is scheduled to open to the public in 2017. 

What is missing on the fundraising page though is a statement on just how the Museum of the Bible's "where needed most" funds might be utilized.   Will they go towards building the museum itself? Will they fund the employment of highly trained museum staff so that the MoB can avoid any more unpleasant surprises when importing antiquities without proper import documentation for the museum's collection?  Or will "One Million Names" donors contribute to sponsoring "hundreds of Christian student leaders to Israel" as part of the Covenant Journey project Tim Smith, the Museum of the Bible's Chief Development Officer, writes about here.    

Smith's blog post says, in part, that (the)

"Museum of the Bible is a founding sponsor of Covenant Journey because it furthers the Museum’s goal of inviting all people from across the world, from all backgrounds and religious affiliations, to engage with the Bible."    

What exactly does being a founding sponsorship entail?  

If one looks a little closely, Covenant Journey seems to be established and run through Liberty Counsel or at least the website URL registration and contact telephone numbers are the same for both groups.  Liberty Counsel is managed by Mathew Staver and the business in Florida is listed as "a legal organization that specializes in evangelical Christian litigation and public relations."  In contrast, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has listed Liberty Counsel as an anti-LGBT and hate group.  How does the Museum of the Bible relationship with the founders of Liberty Counsel support Covenant Journey's own mission?

In the last three years, the Museum of the Bible is reported to have received more than $230 million in tax-deductible donations.

The ethics of charitable giving in a time of crowdsourcing

The NonProfit Times, a business publication for nonprofit management has reported that crowdfunding has hit $5 billion US dollars annually, with close to a third of that funding going towards potentially worthy charitable causes.  According to their estimate, that's a substantial $1.5 billion per year, much of it managed through major portals like Causes, Kickstarter, Razoo and Indiegogo. 

As crowdsourcing gains traction the benefits of reaching individuals via the internet as a tool for funding in art and heritage projects are easy to see.  But before hitting the donate button, contributors should be sure that the organization they intend to contribute to actually does the things that it tells its supporters it does in its donation solicitation. 

By adopting a “truth in advertising” approach, potential donors who love science and modern alternating current electricity or religion and the bible should not be afraid to demand a breakout of how their donations will being put to use.  Charitable organizations have administrative costs, but those who subscribe to the basic tenet of ethical fundraising and accountability should be willing to provide their donors with a breakdown of how much of their donation will be used for the specific cause advertised and how much will be used for other ancillary things. 

Before giving even small sums, donors should start out with a healthy dose of skepticism and look for signs that the organization dedicates its funding in ways that are consistent not just with the museum's fiscal needs but with the donor's own ascribed ethics.  If a donation request comes from a group claiming to care about heritage or the world’s cultural history, a first and simple step might be to spend some time searching the internet to see what the group represents itself to be and who it is affiliated with.  

If your search turns up concerns or questionable ties, and if there is a chorus of people saying there are problems with the organization that need to be addressed then it's probably best for the donor to give his or her $10 to someone they know is truly needy and not just harnessing the potential of the web. 

By: 

Mairead McAuliffe

Wellesley College

Class of 2016

Wellesley-ARCA 

Global Engagement 

Intern 2015

On September 24, 2015, Wellesley College hosted a conference entitled, Erasing the Past: Da’esh and the Crisis of Antiquities Destruction. Jointly sponsored by the College’s History and Religious Studies departments, the conference hosted a group of international scholars, cultural heritage specialists and journalists who reflected on the scope of the continuing crisis in Iraq and Syria. The conference participants provided grounded and informative commentary on the Islamic State’s use of social media to circulate messages of violence, power and ruthlessness. The topics of the conference sessions provided attendees with a sense of the regions’ cultural devastation and ideas as to how the identities of these peoples can be protected and restored. 

I had the opportunity to attend two of the conference’s sessions. Professor Morag Kersel of DePaul University’s Anthropology Department presented on the topic of antiquity looting. She ultimately argued that preventing antiquity looting in the future would require behavioral change, as opposed to continued law enforcement. Kersel contended that advocacy campaigns have been successful in the past, such as the campaign to shame individuals who fashion animal skins and furs or collectors of ivory objects. She believes that society at large should render looting as antisocial behavior. According to Kersel, encouraging the general public to actively engage in this type of moral marketing would corrode the attractiveness of and participation in this trade. 

I also attended the presentation of Professor Patty Gerstenblith of DePaul University’s College of Law regarding the abilities and limitations of international law in the context of cultural heritage preservation  first multilateral treaties that addressed the conducts of warfare 

.  Professor Gerstenblith discussed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907,  the first multilateral treaties that addressed the conducts of warfare negotiated at two international peace conferences at The Hague in the Netherlands.  The 1863 Lieber Code, signed by President Abraham Lincoln during the United States’ Civil War, guided these conventions and ultimately yielded regulations for wartime conduct that prohibited both the pillage, seizure and damage of cultural heritage and the requirement that sites be marked with a distinctive sign. 

Professor Gerstenblith highlighted, however, that the ratification of these treatises is voluntary, therefore many of these regulations are useless when not enforced, and war crime tribunals are only applied to the defeated – not to the victors. Professor Gerstenblith argued, therefore, that the most successful approaches to cultural heritage preservation involve the training of local people in the logistics of protection and the training of the military. 

I also had the opportunity to speak with some of the panelists during the conference lunch break. I asked the presenters what they believe to be missing from the mainline news outlets regarding the topic of cultural heritage protection in the Middle East. Professor Patty Gerstenblith and Charles Jones of Penn State University both agreed that accuracy and precision were missing from the discussion.  Jones lamented the fact that much of the looted material is undocumented, therefore the world will never know, nor will it see, objects that have been stolen or destroyed. He highlighted that such devastation negatively affects education and scholarship. 

Prof. Gerstenblith observed that the media is only interested if such devastation is linked to ISIS and its ruthless behavior. She stated that little emphasis is placed on art in times of war and oftentimes its destruction is excused for military purposes. She argued that the actions of ISIS in the Middle East constitute cultural genocide. The group’s leaders seek to “tear down reminders of the Assad Regime,” that is, their tangible national symbols. Dr. Salam al-Kuntar of the University of Pennsylvania’s Anthropology Department, offered similar sentiments saying that the media’s largest focus is on ISIS and its brutish behavior, as opposed to the state of Aleppo because its stories are “more of the same, there is nothing new to report.” 

I also asked what they would say if they had the ability to relay one thing about the Erasing the Past conference to the greater public. Professor Gerstenblith said that, if anything, this conference, with its abundance of panelists and sessions, highlights that this topic is “more complicated than we realize.” Charles Jones also commented on the variety of speakers saying that these events and discussions attract “new people each time” indicating a “raised consciousness” and the positive power of PR in escalating issues of cultural heritage protection. Finally, Dr. al-Kuntar said that this conference, among others, demonstrates the “efforts of academics and scholars in understanding the complexities of cultural heritage preservation.” 

Ultimately, the conference yielded productive conversation regarding all aspects of the intricacy of cultural heritage protection during times of crisis. The conference also exhibited the lack of clear protocol regarding actions that can be taken to achieve successful preservation. However, the passion, interest and intellect of the conference participants provide hope in the creation of such a protocol that would coordinate the protection not only of the material objects and symbols of a people, but also of the physical markers of culture, nation and identity. 

One year ago, October 21, 2014 to be precise, Casey Schreiner, founder and editor-in-chief at Modern Hiker, broke the news of a New York hiker who was the primary suspect in a string of vandalism cases defacing rock outcrops at national parks in the western United States.  The woman under investigation by the National Parks Service, Casey Nocket, went by the pseudonym tag "Creepytings" and had documented her travels in acrylic paint, creating what is known in street art terms as "a character".  

A character is a writer's signature or visual shorthand often used to immediately identify the creator of the image. Nocket memorialised her trip out west by applying her signature character on surfaces in many federally protected locations along with a bathroom toilet or two along the way.  She then shared photographs which depicted her handiwork to followers on her Instagram and Tumbler accounts. 

As word spread through the hiking community, activists began documenting the damages either at the historical sites themselves or through electronic traces Nocket had left behind on her social media accounts. According to the US Code of Federal Regulations, it is prohibited to destroy, injure, deface, or damage national park property. Vandalism of national parks in the United States is generally categorised as a federal misdemeanour, and is punishable by three to six months in prison and a modest fine of up to $500.

As Nocket became aware of the spreading community outrage against her, she quickly removed her incriminating photos from the social media sites, but not before numerous screen shots of her character or photos of herself in action defacing federal lands had been captured and published on Modern Hiker at numerous historic locations, including

On October 29, 2014 t

Why has Nocket's tagging history for posterity case been dragging along so slowly?

The answer may lie with the fact that Nocket chose to leave her indelible footprint on rocky outcrops in national parks, whose territories cover Utah, Colorado, Oregon, California and Nevada. The cost-benefit calculus of prosecuting a misbehaving tourist for misconduct on federal land is complicated by the multiple jurisdictions where her misdeeds occurred.  For the last decade, cases involving immigration, drugs, fraud, or firearms in the United States have been the dominant federal criminal cases and make up the vast majority of felonies and Class A misdemeanours prosecuted at the federal level.  It may not ultimately be worth an assistant US Attorney's time or the governments financial resources to scrutinise a single offender with a minimal likelihood of recidivism when the costs outweigh any punishment they could possibly impose given the limitations of existing laws.  If this case does prove to be worth pursuing, the government and US Park Service will likely need to rely on experts in multiple states who can quantify the damages to all the sites involved, including the remote ones.

Image Credit: Modern Hiker

And example of a faster moving case, perhaps because it was restricted to a single location, or in light of the tagger's notoriety, is the recent vandalism case of Andre Saraiva, a Swedish-Portuguese street artist once featured in Banksy's documentary Exit Through The Gift Shop.  Saraiva's signature character normally consists of a stick-figure with a top hat, known as Mr. "A". In February 2015 he tagged a boulder in Joshua Tree National Park with an “OX”, the street artist's shorthand, reprsenting his trademark “Mr. A's” eyes.  The tag, or signature, stood for his initials.  Two months later, the piece had been removed and to put the case behind him Saraiva quickly paid the government's $275 fine for defacing the geology of a national park.  

In another recent case former Boy Scout leaders, Glenn Tuck Taylor and David Benjamin Hall, known as Utah's goblin topplers, pushed over a 20 million year old rock formation in Goblin Valley State Park. Without considering the repercussions the two brazenly videotaped their antics and uploaded a copy of the film for posterity on Youtube.  

Caught red-handed, and again in one single jurisdiction, the muscle men were quickly charged and just as quickly agreed to pled guilty.  Ordered to pay $925 in court costs, $1,500 for the cost of the investigation and an undetermined amount to erect signs in Goblin Valley warning visitors not to abuse rock formations, Taylor and Hall's legal records will be expunged upon completion of their probation.  Too bad their video will remain in perpetuity.  

But has the publicity of cases such as these reduced this type of heritage crime? Apparently not. 

September 5, 2015 Julio Perez was charged with second degree felony and criminal mischief after starting to carve his name with a car key into a 250-year-old wall in the Monks' Burial Room at the Alamo, a recently designated World Heritage site. The tag is reported to be about three inches long and one inch wide and is likely to be costly to repair. The Alamo being just one of the many historic sites damaged by tourists annually who somehow feel adding their name to the property adds to the site's aesthetic. 

October 23, 2015 It was announced that Christopher James Harp was indicted by a federal grand jury for depredation of public lands and resources under 18 U.S.C. § 1361 for damages at Rabbit Island to a large rock outcropping in the Sequoia National Forest, once home to a large Tubatulabal Indian village. An archaeologist with the United States Forest Service detected Harp's handiwork, a graffiti sprayed with black asphalt sealer over a extensive area which in addition to defacing the physical terrain had also damaged a prehistoric petroglyph of a bighorn sheep.  In committing the offence, Harp told investigators that he wanted revenge against his boss, who had talked to him in a condescending manner. The graffiti, sprayed in drunken outrage, included a phone number inviting people to call his colleague for a sex act.   Native American rock art is protected by NAGPRA, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.  

The boundaries of street art: history or vandalism or when a tag becomes one or the other.

Street art is an ephemeral and amorphous form of art, usually in urban settings, that has developed a flourishing sub-culture all its own. Considered by some a nuisance or vandalism, for others it is a tool for communicating views, asking difficult questions or expressing one’s personality or political concerns.  

The legal distinction between destructive permanent graffiti and art is permission, something Creepyting didn't have when she defaced federal park lands, nor was she likely to get. The same for Saraiva, Perez, and Harp  But the topic becomes even more complex as contemporary unauthorised works of street art receive greater social approval and become prized in spite of, or in some cases because of, the unauthorised setting where the work is placed. Often, when the work is perceived as "not hurting anyone" or when the work in question is aesthetically pleasing, as is the case with street artists like Banksy, Blu,  or C215 the longstanding public approval of their artwork trumps arguments on legality or unconventional presentation. 

But by extension, both street artists or common graffiti doodlers do not necessarily believe what they are doing is wrong, even as they know that they are engaging in an illegal act of vandalism.   They may see or in many cases justify their expressions as explorations in identity, place and becoming and hope that they will be overlooked or with a little luck, be immortalised.

In other cases, those scratching their names into sites see merit in their graffiti comparing their added touches as something akin to the spirituality of rock art like the petroglyphs at places like Columbia River Gorge or the documentation of "being there" like the writing of early settlers at Willamette Valley who chronicled their time on the Oregon Trail by marking their passage on a hemlock stump in 1867.

Alamo historic tag Image Credit: The Alamo Shrine in San Antonio

Ironically, incised historic graffiti, was uncovered at the Alamo during restoration tests the theory of when tagging a building is perceived as damaging and a punishable offence versus when it is celebrated as providing us with a window into our historic past. In 2011, during an extensive cleaning, plaster and paint conservators found “1802,” “WVANCE,” “TEX” and either “54” or “SA” under layers of historic grime on a wall facing just above the main entrance to the site's church. Press conferences were held and academics researching the site used the markings to try and attribute who the tagger may have been and when he may have left the marks.  Was the date the time of his posting or the year of his birth?

Examples like these underscore how today's taggers draw similar comparison's, justifying rightly or wrongly, their similarity to, or borrowing from, the examples of public scribbling done by their forefathers. What often gives today's vandal's "permission" though, often is more simple; the low probability of being detected and therefore prosecuted and convicted.

The effects of copycats. 

But the fine line between street art and wrongdoing isn't always worthy of philosophical debate. Sometimes its fairly easy to judge when something should be avoided or is just plain wrong. A quick glimpse at the handiwork by Nocket, the goblin topplers or the hundreds of tourist names inscribed on the rockface below will demonstrate that some people just don't get the idea of leaving a place better than when you found it.

By: Lynda Albertson

Thursday October 29, 2015 U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby heard statements in a court hearing to decide whether a United States Bureau of Land Management agent, Dan Love, had violated a Blanding doctor's rights when arresting him during an artifact trafficking sting operation into the sale of looted Native American objects.  In an earlier ruling, the judge dismissed four of the five claims alleged by the family of Dr. James Redd, but had indicated there were sufficient facts to warrant a formal hearing to review the evidence on the final accusation before determining if the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. 

This case garnered the general public's attention last year when the event was highlighted in a LA Times long-form article by award-winning journalist Joe Mozingo.  In his news report, Mozingo retold the story of the prominent physician, who had been charged in 2009 with one felony count of unlawful receipt of property stolen from an Indian tribal organization (18 U.S.C. 1163) during Operation Cerberus Action, named after the three-headed dog in Greek mythology.

James Redd, the town of Blanding's only doctor for almost 30 years and his wife Jeanne were two of the 24 suspects in Utah, Colorado and New Mexico charged with felonies for allegedly trafficking in archaeological artifacts from the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.  On the day after his arrest, Dr. Redd was found dead from carbon monoxide poisoning.  Apparently distraught over the charges against him and the members of his family, Redd had asphyxiated himself by rigging a garden hose to the exhaust pipe of his Jeep.  A week after Redd's death, a second defendant indicted in the case, Steven L. Shrader, of Santa Fe, N.M., also killed himself, dying of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on the same day he was scheduled to appear in federal court in Salt Lake City.

After his death, Redd's wife Jeanne plead guilty to three felony counts of unlawful receipt of property stolen from an Indian tribal organization (18 U.S.C. 1163), two felony counts of violation of ARPA (16 U.S.C.470ee (b)) and theft of Government property (18 U.S.C. 641) admitting that she owned and sold valuable Native American seed jars, pottery and jewelry. The couple's daughter, Jericca Redd, also plead guilty, admitting to one felony count of unlawful receipt of property stolen from an Indian tribal organization (18 U.S.C. 1163) and two felony counts of violation of ARPA (one count each of 16 U.S.C.470ee (a) and (b)).

On September 16, 2009, citing consequences suffered and the seriousness of the crime that had impacts felt by her and the community, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups bypassed federal sentencing guidelines and sentenced Redd's wife to to a lighter sentence of 36 months of probation. Redd's daughter received 24 months probation. In addition, the family members were ordered to pay a fine and forfeit 812 archaeological objects, including human remains, they had once had in their possession. 

In May 2011 Jeanne Redd filed an excessive force lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, claiming that the Bureau of Land Management and the FBI had pushed her husband, James Redd, to suicide through “"excessive, overreaching and abusive treatment"” at the time of his arrest. Approximately eighty federal agents were reportedly deployed in the city of Blanding on June 10, 2009 as part of Operation Cerberus Action, tasked with executing warrants on the Redds and 14 other individuals.  

As arrest warrants were being served, a large but disputed number of officers, some wearing flak jackets and some carrying assault rifles arrived at the Redd’s home just after sunrise.  They detained Mr. Redd for several hours after he had returned home following early morning rounds at the health clinic, questioning him extensively in his garage. 

Family members have reported that a BLM special agent interrogated Redd for four hours before taking him into custody,  During the questioning one agent reportedly taunted him by pointing to garden tools in the garage and asking him “Which shovel do you like to dig bodies with?”  The family also indicated that officers had hinted that Dr. Redd might lose his medical license for illegally removing native american artefacts from Navajo territory. 

Le marché de l’art n’est pas épargné par les questions de blanchiment d’argent. L’actualité en a fait la démonstration. Les nouvelles recommandations du GAFI en matière de blanchiment qui seront mises en oeuvre en Suisse à compter du 1er janvier 2016, le phénomène malheureux du financement de l’État islamique par la vente de biens culturels et les réflexions entourant la règlementation des ports francs soulèvent des questions importantes pour le domaine de l’art sous l’angle de son exposition aux risques de blanchiment d’argent. Alors, mythe ou réalité: l’art est-il un moyen de blanchir des avoirs criminels?

Le but de cette journée est de faire un panorama de la problématique, d’exposer les règles qui s’appliquent au blanchiment d’argent dans le marché de l’art et d’esquisser des solutions pour prévenir les risques correspondants.

La professeure:

Ursula Cassani (Université de Genève), Jean-Bernard Schmid (procureur), Thomas Seydoux (Connery Pissarro Seydoux), Solange Michel (Interpol), le professeur Xavier Oberson (Université de Genève), Yan Walther (SGS Art Services) et Laurent Crémieux (Inspection fédérale des finances) comptent parmi les intervenants à cette journée.

Cet événement est organisé par la Fondation pour le droit de l'art et le Centre du droit de l'art.

Programme

Carton de réponse

Location: The Society of Antiquaries of London

Burlington House, Piccadilly, London

Program Date: 

Tuesday, 01 December 2015

Topic: 

Art, Law and Crises of Connoisseurship

Conference in English

Programme and Registration:

Early Bird Rate until 15 November 2015

In the public realms of law and the art world, a ‘connoisseur’ must be recognised as being an expert, as being capable of giving credible testimony regarding the subject, and as remaining actively engaged with the world in which attributions and authentications are made. This public recognition takes years of work and is hard-won.

Yet, does this public recognition of expertise signify accuracy or truth in the claims that a connoisseur makes about art? This one-day conference investigates the always-interrelated and often mutually-troubled processes by which connoisseurship is constructed in the fields of art and law, and the ways in which these different fields come together in determining the scope and clarity of the

connoisseur’s ‘eye’.

Speakers Include:  

Martin Eidelberg (Rutgers University), Charles Hope (Warburg Institute), Nicholas Eastaugh (Art Analysis and Research Ltd.), Irina Tarsis (Center for Art Law), Brian Allen (Hazlitt Ltd.), Tatiana Flessas (LSE), Megan E. Noh (Bonhams) and Michael Daley (ArtWatch UK).

This event is organised at the The Society of Antiquaries of London by ArtWatch UK, the Centre for Art Law, and the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Program

Registration

Colette Loll, Art Fraud Insights

One method is being developed at the Global Center for Innovation at the State University of New York at Albany. The school said it had received $2 million in funding from the ARIS Title Insurance Corporation, which specializes in art.

“The i2MStandards initiative offers a systemic approach to fighting the prolific problem of fakes and forgeries in the art market. We have been talking about the problem for a long time, it’s wonderful to participate in a very real solution.”

COMCOL is the International Committee for Collecting of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) which aims to deepen discussions, and share knowledge on the practice, theory and ethics of collecting and collections development.

By Virginia Curry

This year ICOM Council on Museum Collecting (COMCOL) is hosted by the National Folk Museum in Seoul, Korea.  

The call for papers for this conference invited papers is “Collecting and Collections: The Politics and Praxis of Social, Economic and Intellectual Sustainability”

Speakers participating in this conference have gathered from as far away as the Netherlands, Zambia, Brazil, England and myself, from the United States.

On our first day of this conference, we toured the Gyeongbokgung Palace, and were welcomed by an extremely knowledgeable docent at the National Folk Museum in the same complex as the Palace before beginning our conference schedule for the day.  The group also received the Gyeonggido Dodanggut, which is a shamanic ritual of community, designated as Korea’s Important Intangible Heritage #98, held in Suwon, Incheon and other areas of Gyeonggi provence to wish for the well-being and prosperity of a village.  This particular ritual consists of two parts: telling the origin and history of village guardians and praying for safety and longevity of the village and its residents.

The President of COMCOL, Léontine Meijer-van Mench (Germany) , Deputy Director at Museum Europäischer Kulturen (Museum of European Cultures) Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz initiated session one with a presentation, “What does sustainability mean for institutional collecting?” 

Keynote speaker Kidong Bae (Korea), ICOM chair of the National Committee of Koreaand former President of the Korean Museum Association; now, Professor of Archaeology in the Department of Anthropology, Hanyang University and Director of the Jeongok Prehistory Museum, Gyounggy Province; Seoul spoke about the History of Collections and Museum Development in Korea.

In the afternoon session Yukiko Shirahara (Japan) Chief curator at the Nezu Museum presented a thought provoking paper on “Addressing the Dilemma of Sustaining Museums and Collections in an Economic Downturn”. The final paper presented by Ho Seon Riw (Korea) concerned the “Future-Oriented Collecting Policy of the National Hangeul Museum.  “Hangeoul” is the unique writing style of Korea.

In the closing of the first day of the conference, students of “Gayatori” performed Gayageum byeonchang, folk songs accompanied by the traditional Korean zither-like instrument the Gayageum.  These students are officially appointed to maintain this important intangible cultural property.  Maintenance of “intangible cultural property” is ICOM’s priority #23.  Gayatori plays Korean traditional musical instrument which includes both 12 stringed and 25 strings in performance, accompanied by flute and choral voices of the players.

This reporter will present in the next day’s session a paper titled, “Renaissance at the Academy: The Rebirth of Connoisseurship and the Examination of the Object”  

For years various academics have questioned the collecting and conservation practices of billionaire collector Steve Green, the philanthropist behind the $800 million, eight-story Museum of the Bible.  Slated to open in 2017, the museum will occupy a historically protected warehouse built in 1923 just minutes away from the National Mall and the US Capitol in Washington DC.  But Green's collection raises more questions than it answers.

Where are the thousands of antiquities coming from that have been purchased to supply this expansive museum?   And as a private museum, has the largest evangelical benefactor in the world cut corners in formulating his museum's acquisition policy, forgoing the standards propounded by museum associations and those dictated by international treaties?

Most of the general public are more familiar with the Green family via their landmark case against the US government objecting to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which required that corporations above a certain size provide medical insurance benefits to their employees, including coverage for certain contraceptive methods.  In approving an exemption as a result of the case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. (2014), the US Supreme Court decided in Hobby Lobby's favour stating that the Affordable Care Act's mandate requiring that for-profit corporations supply their employees with access to contraceptives at no cost to the insured employee could be opted out of by commercial enterprise owners who are opposed to contraceptive coverage based upon their religious beliefs.

But the Green's success in rulings over contraception has now been overshadowed by a federal investigation into the museum's collection practices regarding antiquities from ancient Assyria and Babylonia, what is now Iraq.

According to the Museum of the Bible website, the Green's purchased their first biblical object in November 2009.   Since that time, their collection has grown to an estimated 40,000 objects including Dead Sea Scroll fragments, biblical papyri, rare biblical texts and manuscripts, cuneiform tablets, Torah scrolls, and rare printed Bibles.   That's 6,666 objects per year or a whopping 18 objects purchased per day. Compare that to the number of employees currently working for the Greens in relation to their new museum and one can surmise that an object's collection history has not been a principle concern among the staff or consultants vetting historic items for inclusion in the museum's collection.

In April of 2014 Italian papyrologist Roberta Mazza, a lecturer in Classics and Ancient History at University of Manchester, pointed out her concerns surrounding a papyri fragment in the Green's collection. Mazza identified a small papyrus codex page containing lines from Galatians 2 in Sahidic Coptic during a visit to the exhibition, Verbum Domini II, organized by the Green Collection in Vatican City, Rome.  As might be expected, the fragment had a less than stellar collection history.

Belonging to the Green Collection, the fragment was first identified back in October 2012 by Dr. Bryce C. Jones, then a PhD student at Concordia University's Department of Religion.  The Galatians 2 papyrus had previously been listed for sale on the online auction site eBay that same year through an irreputable dealer using the name “mixantik”.  “Mixantik”, who also has used the names "ebuyerrrrr" and "Yasasgroup", is/was an Istanbul-based trader with a seemingly inexhaustible supply of ancient Coptic and Greek papyrus fragments from Egypt, all with little or no provenance.  This seller was also someone whom academics like Dr. Dorothy King and archaeologist Paul Barford had openly reported for trading contrary to Turkish and International law.

Excerpt from ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums ©2013

On August 28, 2015 UNITAR’s Operational Satellite Applications Programme - UNOSAT, a technology-intensive programme delivering imagery analysis and satellite solutions to relief and development organisations within and outside the UN system illustrated satellite-detected damage and analysis of the destruction in the city of Aden, Aden Governorate, Yemen. 

Using satellite imagery acquired 10 and 23 September 2015, as well as 15 May 2015, UNITAR-UNOSAT they have now done the same thing for the city of Sana'a, Sana'a Governorate, Yemen. 

As noted in an earlier ARCA blog post Sana'a is the largest city in Yemen and the centre of Sana'a Governorate. Inhabited for more than 2,500 years, Sana'a old city is an UNESCO World Heritage Site (Date of Inscription: 1986) noted for its many-storeyed tower-houses built using pisé de terre, an ancient rammed earth method of construction that dates back to at least 7000 BCE in Pakistan.   Prior to becoming the latest victim of unrest the city of Sana'a hosted 103 mosques, 14 hammams and over 6,000 houses, all built before the 11th century.

The UNITAR-UNOSAT report, published October 15, 2015 identified a total of 652 affected structures within a city.  Detailing their findings the report noted

A copy of the report in its entirety can be found here.  Along with a full-sized PDF version of the site damage map here. 

Another UN group, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has been working in Yemen to document how the conflict has changed the daily lives of a normal citizen. Over a six month period they have been collecting interviews from within six different governorates in Yemen -Sana’a, Taiz, Hadhramout, Hajjah, Sa’adah, and Ibb asking the Yemeni’s they spoke with to speak of their main daily challenges, their future concerns and what ongoing risks they face on a daily basis. 

For a stark look at life for the Yemeni people under such conditions their eye-opening report can be read here. Yemen needs courageous and compassionate people if it is to turn around from these catastrophic realities.

By Lynda Albertson