I have been following this story since it appeared in the local Baltimore News a couple of weeks ago, and have since seen it evolve into a matter of Cultural Heritage ownership. Perhaps it was always so, and I was just not as aware of it as I am now. Anyway, today I saw an article about this story on the Illicit Cultural Property Blog and this prompted me to write a little bit about it.
What's the story you might ask?
A lady went to a flea market and bought a framed painting for 7 USD. The painting was later identified to be one of the works of the famous Pierre-Auguste Renoir, most commonly known by just his surname.
It was estimated to be worth between $75,000 and $100,000, and was set to be auctioned off, but the auction has since been cancelled due to reports that the work was stolen from the BMA, the Baltimore Museum of Art. The BMA had the Renoir on loan from famous benefactors Herbert L. May and Sadie Adler May, who purchased the painting in 1926 and bequeathed their collection (over 100 items) to the BMA in 1951, the same year the painting was stolen. The irony of the story is that the woman bought the painting simply for the frame, which one might argue most definitely belongs to the BMA.
It is also quite remarkable that the anonymous lady who bought it at the flea-market, although disappointed that she may not get that big paycheck, has cooperated fully from the start with the FBI.
The reason this story captivated me, apart from my familiarity with the BMA, is the many issues of ownership it has raised. It is clear to me that artwork is not treated in the same way as other cultural artifacts. The provenance of the painting was completely unknown at the time of the auction, and yet, all the auctioneers needed to legally continue with the sale was proof of the authenticity of the work.
Now that the painting's provenance has come to light, who does it belong to? Does it belong to the BMA, who was the legal owner prior to the UNESCO convention of 1970? Does it belong to the woman who found it and purchased it (after the 1970s convention) for the bargain price of seven dollars?
How is this case any different from other cases where a clear provenance is known, but the object was exported from the country of origin before 1970?
Let's compare it to the Pergamum altar at the Berlin Museum. We know it came from Pergamum, and therefore, having come from Turkish soil, belongs to Turkey. But the Berlin Museum "purchased" and exported it before the UNESCO convention in 1970, and therefore it, too, is a rightful owner. Likewise, the benefactors bequeathed the Renoir to the BMA in 1951, therefore it belongs to the BMA. But the woman legally purchased it from a flea market and therefore, she, too, is the rightful owner. A third claimant may be the insurance company which paid for the lost property in 1951.
The question I have to ask myself to determine if these statements have any validity is simple: Can something which has been stolen be legally bought? I would say no, but would also advocate that a buyer or seller, who did not know the artifact was stolen, should not be penalized. Seven dollars is not much, but let's say the woman had paid 4,000. Does she get her money back? Does the state pay her? Does the seller have to return the money? Should the BMA have to "buy back" its own stolen painting? For classical artifacts, this is a little different, as the buyers and sellers ARE held responsible for this knowledge. But how often do these rare artifacts end up in garage sales and are purchased for any other purpose other than collecting? Therein lies the difference: collectors must be held accountable for what they purchase, whereas the layman who comes across an extraordinary find may not need to be.
Clearly, at this stage in my knowledge of these ownership laws and procedures, I have more questions than answers.
For this particular case, I would say that if it was stolen from the BMA, it should be restored to the BMA, but the woman who bought it should receive some sort of commendation (a plaque of honour? a lifetime membership?)
What's the story you might ask?
A lady went to a flea market and bought a framed painting for 7 USD. The painting was later identified to be one of the works of the famous Pierre-Auguste Renoir, most commonly known by just his surname.
 |
| Renoir's Paysage Bords de Seine |
 |
| A police report (middle) from 1951 details the theft of a landscape by Renoir from the Baltimore Museum of Art. (Courtesy of the Baltimore Police Department.) |
The reason this story captivated me, apart from my familiarity with the BMA, is the many issues of ownership it has raised. It is clear to me that artwork is not treated in the same way as other cultural artifacts. The provenance of the painting was completely unknown at the time of the auction, and yet, all the auctioneers needed to legally continue with the sale was proof of the authenticity of the work.
Now that the painting's provenance has come to light, who does it belong to? Does it belong to the BMA, who was the legal owner prior to the UNESCO convention of 1970? Does it belong to the woman who found it and purchased it (after the 1970s convention) for the bargain price of seven dollars?
How is this case any different from other cases where a clear provenance is known, but the object was exported from the country of origin before 1970?
Let's compare it to the Pergamum altar at the Berlin Museum. We know it came from Pergamum, and therefore, having come from Turkish soil, belongs to Turkey. But the Berlin Museum "purchased" and exported it before the UNESCO convention in 1970, and therefore it, too, is a rightful owner. Likewise, the benefactors bequeathed the Renoir to the BMA in 1951, therefore it belongs to the BMA. But the woman legally purchased it from a flea market and therefore, she, too, is the rightful owner. A third claimant may be the insurance company which paid for the lost property in 1951.
The question I have to ask myself to determine if these statements have any validity is simple: Can something which has been stolen be legally bought? I would say no, but would also advocate that a buyer or seller, who did not know the artifact was stolen, should not be penalized. Seven dollars is not much, but let's say the woman had paid 4,000. Does she get her money back? Does the state pay her? Does the seller have to return the money? Should the BMA have to "buy back" its own stolen painting? For classical artifacts, this is a little different, as the buyers and sellers ARE held responsible for this knowledge. But how often do these rare artifacts end up in garage sales and are purchased for any other purpose other than collecting? Therein lies the difference: collectors must be held accountable for what they purchase, whereas the layman who comes across an extraordinary find may not need to be.
Clearly, at this stage in my knowledge of these ownership laws and procedures, I have more questions than answers.
For this particular case, I would say that if it was stolen from the BMA, it should be restored to the BMA, but the woman who bought it should receive some sort of commendation (a plaque of honour? a lifetime membership?)
No comments:
Post a Comment