18 February 2016
About due diligence
by Marc Masurovsky
An art object cannot exist unless someone has created it. That is a self-evident truth. Once the object becomes the subject of a commercial transaction, an exchange, a transfer, a gift, its ownership shifts from the creator to someone else. Its essence, however, does not change over time. It is timeless. We leave it to critics, curators and art historians to haggle over its meanings.
After the object changes hands and moves from one owner to the next, the ownership of the object can be either licit or illicit, it cannot be both or neither. That should be as plain as day.
The provenance of the object is (in theory) the public face of the transactions (licit or not) which occur along the itinerary, however brief or long, of the object. The ownership history of the object can also be viewed as a source of evidence as to who owned, possessed, or held the object when, where, and sometimes, how. This might explain why provenance information generally tends towards the elliptical or extreme minimalism to such an extent that you can justifiably argue that the provenance is a work of fiction. History as fiction. Historical revisionism disguised as art market opacity?
Any attempt to hide, modify, or otherwise obscure the ownership trail of an object should be considered as aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime, which can include theft and misappropriation in contexts ranging from simple burglaries, fraudulent property transfers to confiscations and seizures resulting from racial and religious persecutions and/or genocide that have been routinely denounced and condemned by the community of nations.
Potential buyers, sellers, donors or recipients of cultural objects should make sure that the provenance of the object does not hide an unsavory past which could threaten good title to the object under discussion. This involves exercising one’s due diligence. The big question is: how much due diligence is acceptable?
The answer to that question varies from place to place and can be truly disarming. From checking databases to making several phone calls (much like calling references submitted by an applicant) and checking a catalogue raisonné, people exercise “due diligence” in the darndest ways. A reasoned approach, however, might compel a potential buyer or recipient of a gift to demur and reject the object because the provenance simply is too skimpy for words (elliptical/minimalist/or absent) or there are too many unanswered questions that, in due course, would come back to haunt the new owner of the object. More often than not, those who apply such circumspection and reasoned judgment when faced with the prospect of owning a beautiful and rapturous object are few and far between, although anecdotal evidence indicates a recent uptick in ethical behavior amongst art market players and professionals working in cultural institutions. Let’s hope this trend continues.
Invariably, the flawed provenance is justified by the imperfections of Time and the vagaries of History. Those who “drank the kool-ade” express their utter delight at the prospect of embellishing their collection with such a fine new acquisition, regardless of how tainted its history is.
Let the chips fall where they may.
15 February 2016
Research from the bedroom
by Marc Masurovsky
Prerequisites:
Prerequisites:
Internet connection within reach.
Sufficient battery time in your laptop to last at least 3 hours.
And some tea…or coffee.
Nowadays, if you want to launch into a research project involving the history of art objects, known as “provenance research,” you can get do so without having to get up, except to make yourself a cup of tea or for most of you out there, a cup of java.
Let’s get started….
I have to assume that you have not registered for any paying online database like the premium version of MutualArt, artnet, artprice, etc…which we will not discuss today.
You will only rely on freely accessible databases. No questions asked…Your focus will be on Nazi-era cultural losses. That means the start date is January 30, 1933, Hitler’s rise to power. Not September 1, 1939, not March 10, 1938, not the fall of 1935. January 30, 1933.
The databases that are mentioned in this article are by no means the only ones in existence. They are some of the more important tools at our disposal to engage in critical historical and forensic research into the history of art objects that crossed through the grinder of the Third Reich, the Holocaust and the Second World War, combined.
Sufficient battery time in your laptop to last at least 3 hours.
And some tea…or coffee.
Nowadays, if you want to launch into a research project involving the history of art objects, known as “provenance research,” you can get do so without having to get up, except to make yourself a cup of tea or for most of you out there, a cup of java.
Let’s get started….
I have to assume that you have not registered for any paying online database like the premium version of MutualArt, artnet, artprice, etc…which we will not discuss today.
You will only rely on freely accessible databases. No questions asked…Your focus will be on Nazi-era cultural losses. That means the start date is January 30, 1933, Hitler’s rise to power. Not September 1, 1939, not March 10, 1938, not the fall of 1935. January 30, 1933.
The databases that are mentioned in this article are by no means the only ones in existence. They are some of the more important tools at our disposal to engage in critical historical and forensic research into the history of art objects that crossed through the grinder of the Third Reich, the Holocaust and the Second World War, combined.
These databases are all works in progress due to the mountains of information that exist which must be reconciled before being entered and made available to the public at large.
The obvious places to consult are:
1/ the database of the Koordinierungsstelle Magdeburg, which is under the aegis of the German Ministry of Culture and which has been recently absorbed into a reorganized “German Lost Art Foundation. The objects listed in the database were, for the most part, “lost” within the borders of Germany between 1933 and 1945, either through forced sales or outright confiscations and aryanization measures. The information can be very sparse or rather well fleshed out. Whenever an object’s claimant has retained a lawyer, you will find the name of the law firm that represents the interests of that claimant on the bottom of the dataset that you are exploring. Sometimes, there are intriguing details that make you wonder whether the object has ever been restituted.
Clicks: four clicks away from retrieving individual datasets.
Clicks: three clicks away from retrieving individual datasets.
3/ Object database of the European Commission for Looted Art (ECLA)
The datasets cover losses throughout Axis-controlled Europe. There are overlaps between this database, lostart.de and the ERR database. There are substantial data on Hungarian Jewish losses. The provenance information can be skimpy.
Clicks: three clicks away from retrieving individual datasets.
4/ “Entartete Kunst” database at the Free University of Berlin
This database focuses exclusively on works of art which were de-accessioned and confiscated in Nazi Germany for being “degenerate”, thematically objectionable or the artists producing these works being undesirable for a host of reasons defined by the Nazi authorities. The provenance information can be skimpy on many of the objects, but, as with all databases, it’s best to have the objects on display.
By checking these sites, you are exercising multi-source due diligence. A detailed consultation of these online databases can sharpen your research strategy for an actual visit to a physical archive and/or an art historical library with documents that you have to consult, yes, the kind that you touch with your fingers and that are made out of paper or the microfilms and microfiche which hold photographic images of the documents that you need.
The database checking process is not lengthy, although it can be addictive. So beware.
The obvious places to consult are:
1/ the database of the Koordinierungsstelle Magdeburg, which is under the aegis of the German Ministry of Culture and which has been recently absorbed into a reorganized “German Lost Art Foundation. The objects listed in the database were, for the most part, “lost” within the borders of Germany between 1933 and 1945, either through forced sales or outright confiscations and aryanization measures. The information can be very sparse or rather well fleshed out. Whenever an object’s claimant has retained a lawyer, you will find the name of the law firm that represents the interests of that claimant on the bottom of the dataset that you are exploring. Sometimes, there are intriguing details that make you wonder whether the object has ever been restituted.
Clicks: four clicks away from retrieving individual datasets.
2/ The ERR/Jeu de Paume database (formal title: Database of Art Objects at the Jeu de Paume) documents cultural losses, mostly in German-occupied France, but also contains objects taken in Belgium and the Netherlands. The period covered by the database is 1940-1945. No need to search in this database for objects misappropriated in Germany or Austria. The database provides as much information about the object from time and place of confiscation to the postwar if at all possible, based on archival records in the US, France, and Germany. You can get the total number of datasets fairly quickly by clicking on “search” without filling out any field in the “advanced search” function of the ERR database. As of 15 February 2016, there are 28849 datasets representing about 30,000 objects.
Clicks: three clicks away from retrieving individual datasets.
3/ Object database of the European Commission for Looted Art (ECLA)
The datasets cover losses throughout Axis-controlled Europe. There are overlaps between this database, lostart.de and the ERR database. There are substantial data on Hungarian Jewish losses. The provenance information can be skimpy.
Clicks: three clicks away from retrieving individual datasets.
4/ “Entartete Kunst” database at the Free University of Berlin
This database focuses exclusively on works of art which were de-accessioned and confiscated in Nazi Germany for being “degenerate”, thematically objectionable or the artists producing these works being undesirable for a host of reasons defined by the Nazi authorities. The provenance information can be skimpy on many of the objects, but, as with all databases, it’s best to have the objects on display.
Clicks: three clicks away from retrieving individual datasets.
5/ Getty Provenance Index
This art historical database, emphasis on art historical, is hosted by the Getty Research Institute in Los Angeles, CA. It provides a different point of entry into the search for and identification of misappropriated objects throughout the duration of the Third Reich. Sales information from German catalogues can provide critical information to show one of the many paths borrowed by looted objects.
5/ Getty Provenance Index
This art historical database, emphasis on art historical, is hosted by the Getty Research Institute in Los Angeles, CA. It provides a different point of entry into the search for and identification of misappropriated objects throughout the duration of the Third Reich. Sales information from German catalogues can provide critical information to show one of the many paths borrowed by looted objects.
Clicks: four or five depending on how you enter into the Getty Research Institute.
This link gives you access to the Getty Provenance Index Databases.
5/ RKD website of the Rijksbureau v. Kunsthistorische Documentatie
Clearly one of my favorite websites, which specializes on Dutch artists. The search process takes you through artists, and their works. The information supplied on each work can provide a gold mine of information about the history of art objects. This website is invaluable.
Clicks: three if you start from the main site.
This link gives you access to the Getty Provenance Index Databases.
5/ RKD website of the Rijksbureau v. Kunsthistorische Documentatie
Clearly one of my favorite websites, which specializes on Dutch artists. The search process takes you through artists, and their works. The information supplied on each work can provide a gold mine of information about the history of art objects. This website is invaluable.
Clicks: three if you start from the main site.
6/ Musées nationaux récupération database of unclaimed objects listed as being in French museums.
This is a hybrid website with an index of objects, known as MNR, and is hosted by the French Ministry of Culture. Searches can be deceptive and all-inclusive, meaning that you might collect information about objects that are not directly connected to your search. But, it’s a minor inconvenience. The historical information about each MNR object is quite detailed. One advantage with the MNR site is that you can correlate objects with dealers’ names, like Fabiani or Gurlitt. From that standpoint alone, the search can be instructive. It's best to use the MNR database with the ERR database (above) and the MCCP database (below).
This is a hybrid website with an index of objects, known as MNR, and is hosted by the French Ministry of Culture. Searches can be deceptive and all-inclusive, meaning that you might collect information about objects that are not directly connected to your search. But, it’s a minor inconvenience. The historical information about each MNR object is quite detailed. One advantage with the MNR site is that you can correlate objects with dealers’ names, like Fabiani or Gurlitt. From that standpoint alone, the search can be instructive. It's best to use the MNR database with the ERR database (above) and the MCCP database (below).
Clicks: at least two depending on how you start.
7/The Division for Looted Art of the Polish Ministry of Culture
This site provides you a digital version of objects by type which disappeared from Poland after the German Army overran its territory in September 1939. Losses are mostly from public collections but also include registered losses from some of Poland’s best known aristocratic families whose estates were thoroughly plundered.
8/ the Munich Central Collecting Point database is a digital representation of the index cards that the American personnel from the Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives (MFA&A) section of the US Occupation Military Government in Germany (OMGUS) compiled to document the entry and exit of looted objects that fell into the hands of American troops in the closing months of WWII.
7/The Division for Looted Art of the Polish Ministry of Culture
This site provides you a digital version of objects by type which disappeared from Poland after the German Army overran its territory in September 1939. Losses are mostly from public collections but also include registered losses from some of Poland’s best known aristocratic families whose estates were thoroughly plundered.
8/ the Munich Central Collecting Point database is a digital representation of the index cards that the American personnel from the Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives (MFA&A) section of the US Occupation Military Government in Germany (OMGUS) compiled to document the entry and exit of looted objects that fell into the hands of American troops in the closing months of WWII.
From the main website of the German Historical Museum which hosts this database, it requires at least four clicks to gain access to the main page of the MCCP database. From there, you can maneuver by artist, type of work, title, and owner or thief, depending on what kind of information you have. You will need to use variant spellings because there are many misspellings in this database. However, it is an important tool for research because of the information contained on the cards which complements what you can find in other databases. Oftentimes, as in the case of paintings, markings from the backs of the paintings will be indicated on the MCCP index cards. Therefore, you will need to click on the cards themselves and read the information extracted from the backs because sometimes it has been badly transcribed in the database.
Well, that’s it for today.
Well, that’s it for today.
These eight databases, when combined, will provide you with information about cultural losses in Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, as well as a smattering from Austria, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia.
By checking these sites, you are exercising multi-source due diligence. A detailed consultation of these online databases can sharpen your research strategy for an actual visit to a physical archive and/or an art historical library with documents that you have to consult, yes, the kind that you touch with your fingers and that are made out of paper or the microfilms and microfiche which hold photographic images of the documents that you need.
The database checking process is not lengthy, although it can be addictive. So beware.
The very existence of these databases makes it more difficult to argue that “you did not know” that an object in your care or that you wish to purchase or exhibit had a complicated history mired in theft and genocide where the victimized owner was never reunited with her property. That’s when all the trouble begins.
12 February 2016
Why oppose the physical restitution of looted cultural objects?
by Marc Masurovsky
When a claim is filed for the return of an object that was allegedly misappropriated during the Nazi/Fascist era and especially as a result of anti-Jewish persecutions, the current possessor who receives the claim can either be an individual, a private entity, an entity controlled or owned by a public agency, and/or the public agency itself and its overseer (usually referred to as “the government”).
Individual possessors are mostly private collectors who have invested in the art market and whose main occupation is not necessarily the buying and selling of art. Objects in private collections are, by definition, the most difficult to trace because, unless there is a public record of all private transactions involving art objects of any kind, the chances are close to nil for a victim of cultural plunder or his/her heirs to locate the object unless several conditions are met:
1/ the person who took possession of the looted object dies and his/her estate is put up for sale. In this instance, the catalogue will list the item being claimed. If it is not deemed as important or “interesting” (whatever that actually means), there may not be a reproduction of the object in the sales catalogue, only a description. But if the object rises to the occasion and is worthy of being photographed, the process of identification is facilitated by the publication of a photograph. This does not mean that the claimant remembers what the object looked like but he/she might have a photo of it hanging or displayed in a room of the residence from which it was wrongly removed.
2/ the looted object is featured in a catalogue of a particular artist’s production. For instance, if you have lost a work by Degas, chances are that you will consult major publications pertaining to the artist who loved to paint young ballerinas and race horses. Catalogues raisonnés, exhibition brochures, specialized monographs, are all part of the arsenal of the claimant to locate the lost item. That does not imply that victims of cultural plunder spend eight hours a day, five days a week, looking for their stolen property. This should be a shared burden, whereby the current possessor should exercise reasonable multi-source due diligence before acquiring or displaying an art object. In all cases, the onus is placed on the claimant to do her "homework" and search, and search. Thankfully, judges have weighed in favor of victims when harassed by the current possessor's lawyers for not consulting art historical sources on a regular basis to prove that they were being diligent in the search for their lost property.
3/ the unimaginable: a claimant or a friend of hers walks into a residence, or a museum, or any building harboring works and objects of art, and recognizes (or thinks she recognizes) the lost item. It does happen, it has happened, and once over the shock, with some time elapsing from the initial (re)viewing of the lost object, the claimant initiates the process of confirming that it is in fact the same object and must decide whether to ask for its restitution. That can be the hardest decision to make. Since no statistics are kept about art claims resulting from Holocaust-era and Nazi/Fascist misappropriations, it is impossible to know how many individuals have mulled the idea of filing a claim and decided not to, in the end, because of financial and emotional cost associated with a long and burdensome legal entanglement.
Looted objects also end up with privately-held businesses whether or not these businesses base their commercial activity on the trade in cultural objects. Private entities that are most likely to hold and display works and objects of art are corporations, professional services firms which dispense legal, financial, and other types of specialized counsel for a fee and whose office spaces (including but not limited to hallways, lobbies, atria, enclosed gardens, and meeting rooms) are adorned with objects of art from all corners of the world. The theory goes that a visitor feels at ease in the presence of so much beauty on display and can only surmise that he/she will be encountering “cultured” individuals.
And of course, art and/or antiquities galleries, auction houses, flea markets, bric a brac stores, emporia.
Amazingly so, government offices do get decorated with important works of art and decorative objects either borrowed from state-owned museums or from government-run warehouses and storage depots where untold numbers of objects belonging to identifiable and heirless victims sit in limbo, the playthings of government-appointed civil servants and cultural officials.
When faced with a claim, there are numerous defensive postures that are used to repel the attempt to recover. What you will read below has been told to claimants more than once:
1/ you must be confused, it’s not the same object;
2/ do you have any proof that it is actually yours to claim?
3/ how dare you? I am insulted.
4/ I bought it fair and square.
5/ my parents gave it to me.
6/ I inherited it.
7/ I didn’t steal it. And in any case, even if it was stolen, it happened a long time ago. So go away…
8/ finders keepers losers weepers. In any event, we won the war. [the trophy art argument ad reductionem]
9/ It belongs to our museum. It will never leave.
and many more…
None of those responses are particularly inviting. They discourage moral and ethical solutions leading to restitution so that the claimant can close the book on a very upsetting moment in history which affected her and her family very deeply. The knowledge of the presence of the un-restituted object reopens old wounds, brings back memories left to be forgotten, re-awakens ancient emotions that no one wanted to “feel” again. The process of restitution can be a very jarring emotional experience.
To make matters worse, most often, the claimant is forced to press her claim through a body of laws and legal theories that are better suited for recovering a stolen car. How do you compare a stolen car to a painting looted by Nazi henchmen? Unfortunately, the law is highly reductionist and lawyers retained to represent claimants or to defend against them, must take a traumatic historical event, shove it through a sieve, and reduce its complex components, to a simpler distillation of facts that can match one or more legal theories or strategies which were not designed to incorporate extraordinary human failures resulting in mass death and genocide.
After half a century of litigation involving Nazi thefts of art owned by Jewish victims, no country has frayed a clear path to aid victims and survivors of genocide recover their property without the humiliation and stress associated with years of litigation that might lead to defeat and huge costs.
When a claim is filed for the return of an object that was allegedly misappropriated during the Nazi/Fascist era and especially as a result of anti-Jewish persecutions, the current possessor who receives the claim can either be an individual, a private entity, an entity controlled or owned by a public agency, and/or the public agency itself and its overseer (usually referred to as “the government”).
Individual possessors are mostly private collectors who have invested in the art market and whose main occupation is not necessarily the buying and selling of art. Objects in private collections are, by definition, the most difficult to trace because, unless there is a public record of all private transactions involving art objects of any kind, the chances are close to nil for a victim of cultural plunder or his/her heirs to locate the object unless several conditions are met:
1/ the person who took possession of the looted object dies and his/her estate is put up for sale. In this instance, the catalogue will list the item being claimed. If it is not deemed as important or “interesting” (whatever that actually means), there may not be a reproduction of the object in the sales catalogue, only a description. But if the object rises to the occasion and is worthy of being photographed, the process of identification is facilitated by the publication of a photograph. This does not mean that the claimant remembers what the object looked like but he/she might have a photo of it hanging or displayed in a room of the residence from which it was wrongly removed.
2/ the looted object is featured in a catalogue of a particular artist’s production. For instance, if you have lost a work by Degas, chances are that you will consult major publications pertaining to the artist who loved to paint young ballerinas and race horses. Catalogues raisonnés, exhibition brochures, specialized monographs, are all part of the arsenal of the claimant to locate the lost item. That does not imply that victims of cultural plunder spend eight hours a day, five days a week, looking for their stolen property. This should be a shared burden, whereby the current possessor should exercise reasonable multi-source due diligence before acquiring or displaying an art object. In all cases, the onus is placed on the claimant to do her "homework" and search, and search. Thankfully, judges have weighed in favor of victims when harassed by the current possessor's lawyers for not consulting art historical sources on a regular basis to prove that they were being diligent in the search for their lost property.
3/ the unimaginable: a claimant or a friend of hers walks into a residence, or a museum, or any building harboring works and objects of art, and recognizes (or thinks she recognizes) the lost item. It does happen, it has happened, and once over the shock, with some time elapsing from the initial (re)viewing of the lost object, the claimant initiates the process of confirming that it is in fact the same object and must decide whether to ask for its restitution. That can be the hardest decision to make. Since no statistics are kept about art claims resulting from Holocaust-era and Nazi/Fascist misappropriations, it is impossible to know how many individuals have mulled the idea of filing a claim and decided not to, in the end, because of financial and emotional cost associated with a long and burdensome legal entanglement.
Looted objects also end up with privately-held businesses whether or not these businesses base their commercial activity on the trade in cultural objects. Private entities that are most likely to hold and display works and objects of art are corporations, professional services firms which dispense legal, financial, and other types of specialized counsel for a fee and whose office spaces (including but not limited to hallways, lobbies, atria, enclosed gardens, and meeting rooms) are adorned with objects of art from all corners of the world. The theory goes that a visitor feels at ease in the presence of so much beauty on display and can only surmise that he/she will be encountering “cultured” individuals.
And of course, art and/or antiquities galleries, auction houses, flea markets, bric a brac stores, emporia.
Amazingly so, government offices do get decorated with important works of art and decorative objects either borrowed from state-owned museums or from government-run warehouses and storage depots where untold numbers of objects belonging to identifiable and heirless victims sit in limbo, the playthings of government-appointed civil servants and cultural officials.
When faced with a claim, there are numerous defensive postures that are used to repel the attempt to recover. What you will read below has been told to claimants more than once:
1/ you must be confused, it’s not the same object;
2/ do you have any proof that it is actually yours to claim?
3/ how dare you? I am insulted.
4/ I bought it fair and square.
5/ my parents gave it to me.
6/ I inherited it.
7/ I didn’t steal it. And in any case, even if it was stolen, it happened a long time ago. So go away…
8/ finders keepers losers weepers. In any event, we won the war. [the trophy art argument ad reductionem]
9/ It belongs to our museum. It will never leave.
and many more…
None of those responses are particularly inviting. They discourage moral and ethical solutions leading to restitution so that the claimant can close the book on a very upsetting moment in history which affected her and her family very deeply. The knowledge of the presence of the un-restituted object reopens old wounds, brings back memories left to be forgotten, re-awakens ancient emotions that no one wanted to “feel” again. The process of restitution can be a very jarring emotional experience.
To make matters worse, most often, the claimant is forced to press her claim through a body of laws and legal theories that are better suited for recovering a stolen car. How do you compare a stolen car to a painting looted by Nazi henchmen? Unfortunately, the law is highly reductionist and lawyers retained to represent claimants or to defend against them, must take a traumatic historical event, shove it through a sieve, and reduce its complex components, to a simpler distillation of facts that can match one or more legal theories or strategies which were not designed to incorporate extraordinary human failures resulting in mass death and genocide.
After half a century of litigation involving Nazi thefts of art owned by Jewish victims, no country has frayed a clear path to aid victims and survivors of genocide recover their property without the humiliation and stress associated with years of litigation that might lead to defeat and huge costs.
It makes one wonder whether government officials, members of the art trade and their sycophantic allies would just wish "bad" history to go away so that they can enjoy the fruits of cultural plunder. and not have to incorporate THAT history into the retelling of the story of art.
Or is that unfair?
In my view, they are the original revisionists, choosing to omit History from the history of art objects.
About multi-source due diligence
by Marc Masurovsky
Twenty years ago, an attorney in Washington, DC, Lloyd Goldenberg, ran a company called TransArt International, whose purpose was to establish the principle of multi-source due diligence in the art market and among those professionals who worked with the art trade or in the art trade—insurance executives, bankers, lawyers, appraisers, tax experts, civil servants, diplomats, to name a few.
Mr. Goldenberg knew what he was talking about. The idea that you can consult a single source and declare to the world that you did your due diligence by checking a single source was, is and will always be poppycock, illogical, and cannot withstand the most basic scrutiny. And yet, the art world and especially its litigious side have been governed by the idea that one source is all you need to ascertain that you hold good title to an art object. And that unique source in the 1990s ended up being….. the Art Loss Register (ALR), a London-based, commercial outfit organized around a database of stolen art objects to which auction houses, insurance companies and a handful of top tier museums pay an annual subscription fee in exchange for having their objects vetted for sale or for display.
Mr. Goldenberg is still right about multi-source due diligence.
Twenty years later, there are at least two proprietary, commercial databases of stolen art that one can solicit for assistance about lost objects, for a fee—The Art Loss Register and ArtClaim, run by the Art Recovery Group. And there are also databases that one can consult on the Internet without having to pay anything. lostart.de and the ERR database are two of the principal free, searchable databases available for consultation online. All of these databases play a role in the quest for information about an art object that was stolen or misappropriated and needs to be returned to a rightful owner, if unrecovered.
The two proprietary databases are located in London. The two public databases focused on losses at the hands of the Nazis are located in Magdeburg, Germany (lostart.de) and in Washington, DC (the ERR database).
Since the end of the 20th century, the Internet has exploded in scope and depth, providing significant additions and opportunities to our ability to exercise “due diligence.” The sheer proliferation of digital archives, which can be consulted either for no money or for a fee, complement these databases. But we all know how complex art transactions can be and how opaque the identities of owners are and the paths borrowed by these works. Despite the sheer number of online sources to consult, you can still be stumped in your quest for information about the history of an object even when it has been produced by a “master.”
Nevertheless, Mr. Goldenberg’s world of multi-source due diligence is closer to becoming a reality than it was twenty years ago. The dirty little secret is that it already did exist in 1995. However, the problem lies in the fact that very few people in the art world or involved with questions of ownership, of provenance, of title ever bothered to systematically consult many sources because they did not feel that they had to. Only one was recognized officially and legally as THE SOURCE, the Art Loss Register. But now, we live in a different world. A world in which we still struggle to assert the fact that multi-source due diligence is a necessity to validate that one has good title to an art object whether it is being offered for sale or it is exhibited in a commercial gallery or a museum, whether public or private. Even today, no legal or political authority has bothered to establish a rule by which multi-source due diligence should be a requirement, a sine qua non condition for handling art objects.
Twenty years ago, an attorney in Washington, DC, Lloyd Goldenberg, ran a company called TransArt International, whose purpose was to establish the principle of multi-source due diligence in the art market and among those professionals who worked with the art trade or in the art trade—insurance executives, bankers, lawyers, appraisers, tax experts, civil servants, diplomats, to name a few.
Mr. Goldenberg knew what he was talking about. The idea that you can consult a single source and declare to the world that you did your due diligence by checking a single source was, is and will always be poppycock, illogical, and cannot withstand the most basic scrutiny. And yet, the art world and especially its litigious side have been governed by the idea that one source is all you need to ascertain that you hold good title to an art object. And that unique source in the 1990s ended up being….. the Art Loss Register (ALR), a London-based, commercial outfit organized around a database of stolen art objects to which auction houses, insurance companies and a handful of top tier museums pay an annual subscription fee in exchange for having their objects vetted for sale or for display.
Mr. Goldenberg is still right about multi-source due diligence.
Twenty years later, there are at least two proprietary, commercial databases of stolen art that one can solicit for assistance about lost objects, for a fee—The Art Loss Register and ArtClaim, run by the Art Recovery Group. And there are also databases that one can consult on the Internet without having to pay anything. lostart.de and the ERR database are two of the principal free, searchable databases available for consultation online. All of these databases play a role in the quest for information about an art object that was stolen or misappropriated and needs to be returned to a rightful owner, if unrecovered.
The two proprietary databases are located in London. The two public databases focused on losses at the hands of the Nazis are located in Magdeburg, Germany (lostart.de) and in Washington, DC (the ERR database).
Since the end of the 20th century, the Internet has exploded in scope and depth, providing significant additions and opportunities to our ability to exercise “due diligence.” The sheer proliferation of digital archives, which can be consulted either for no money or for a fee, complement these databases. But we all know how complex art transactions can be and how opaque the identities of owners are and the paths borrowed by these works. Despite the sheer number of online sources to consult, you can still be stumped in your quest for information about the history of an object even when it has been produced by a “master.”
Nevertheless, Mr. Goldenberg’s world of multi-source due diligence is closer to becoming a reality than it was twenty years ago. The dirty little secret is that it already did exist in 1995. However, the problem lies in the fact that very few people in the art world or involved with questions of ownership, of provenance, of title ever bothered to systematically consult many sources because they did not feel that they had to. Only one was recognized officially and legally as THE SOURCE, the Art Loss Register. But now, we live in a different world. A world in which we still struggle to assert the fact that multi-source due diligence is a necessity to validate that one has good title to an art object whether it is being offered for sale or it is exhibited in a commercial gallery or a museum, whether public or private. Even today, no legal or political authority has bothered to establish a rule by which multi-source due diligence should be a requirement, a sine qua non condition for handling art objects.
For more information, you can go to the following sites:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)