Saturday, October 3, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The steady transformation of the big international fine art auction houses into private dealerships continues apace. The process has been going on for some time with the acquisition by auction houses of leading dealerships in the fields of Old Masters and Contemporary Art. But the fall of Lehman Brothers last year has punched a hole the size of the Grand Canyon into vendor consignments, forcing the auctioneers into conducting more and more private transactions. How this will affect the future of art price databases, which rely on the steady availability of public auction prices?
This morning, Bloomberg calculates that the forthcoming London contemporary art auctions, to be held by Christie's and Phillips de Pury during the week of the Frieze fair, are estimated to realise £20.8 million ($33.1 million). That contrasts with the equivalent sales last year, which carried a low estimate of £107 million, in other words around 80% down.
But interestingly, Bloomberg also reports that private sales transacted by Christie's outstripped its auction sales in the first half of 2009. "Christie’s had £133.1 million in private sales in the first half of 2009," writes Bloomberg's Scott Reyburn.
An artist friend asked me recently why Christie's had bought the London dealership Haunch of Venison. There's the answer. Foreseeing the imminent decline of the public auction market and knowing the extent to which buyers and sellers privilege discretion over transparency, the auction houses have steadily strengthened their foothold in the lucrative private sales arena. The risks of consigning works to public auction have multiplied in just a matter of months. The discreet private alternative starts to look very attractive.
Art market analysts have been predicting the seismic shift of power from seller to buyer for some time. It will be interesting to see how it shakes down during Frieze week and beyond.
The days when one could look to the auction arena for a relatively reliable indication of market activity are drawing to a close. What this says about the future of art price databases — hitherto the main source of data for market analysts — is another matter.
Market transparency recedes even further into the distant horizon. Does that matter?
Li Songsong (b. 1973) Cuban Sugar (2006)
To be offered by Christie's in London on 16th October 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
My friend Kwame Opoku writes to tell me that Julien Anfruns, Director-General of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), recently told the Spanish journal La Nueva España that the Parthenon Marbles held by the British Museum should remain in London. This has understandably upset those who expect impartiality from ICOM and its officers over matters of delicate cultural diplomacy.
It seems that Anfruns believes that had Elgin not hacked the Marbles from the Parthenon, there would be no Parthenon Marbles left for any of us to enjoy. "Had the transfer never happened," Anfruns is quoted as saying, "who knows if we would be able to see these pieces today at all." Transfer. I like that.
This is patent nonsense, of course, and prompts me into a summary refutation of Anfruns's observation and the other spurious arguments frequently put forward to keep the Marbles in London.
Lord Elgin "rescued" the Marbles by removing them to safety in Britain
In fact, the Marbles that Lord Elgin did not bring back to Britain and which remained in Athens, survived remarkably well and have recently benefited from responsible cleaning by Greek conservators using state of the art laser technology. In contrast, the Marbles retained by the British Museum were scrubbed with wire brushes in the 1930s by British Museum staff in a misguided attempt to make them whiter.
Lord Elgin "legally" acquired the Marbles and Britain subsequently "legally" acquired them from him for the British Museum
In the absence of unequivocal documentary proof of the actual circumstances under which Lord Elgin removed the Marbles, the legality of Britain's acquisition of them will always be in doubt. More importantly, the fact that permission to remove them was granted not by the Greeks but by the Ottoman forces occupying Greece at that time undermines the legitimacy of Elgin's actions and thus by extension Britain's ownership.
Lord Elgin's removal of the Marbles was archaeologically motivated
Lord Elgin's expressed intention was always to transport the Marbles to his family pile in Scotland where they would be displayed as trophies in the tradition established by aristocratic collectors returning from the Grand Tour. Nobody with genuine archaeological interest in ancient Greek sculpture would ever have countenanced the disfiguring of such a beautiful and important ancient monument in the way Lord Elgin did. For archaeologists, an object's original context is paramount.
The Greeks are unable to look after the Parthenon Marbles properly
The New Acropolis Museum in Athens is a world-class museum with first-rate conservation and curatorial expertise. It is the most appropriate place in the world in which to display the Parthenon Marbles. Its proximity to the ancient monument would return to them some measure of their architectural significance. While they remain in London, this aspect of their importance is steadily being erased from the cultural memory.
It is impossible to restore the Parthenon and thus the aspiration towards 'reunification' is a false one
Restoration of the structural fabric of Parthenon temple continues apace. However, the aspiration has never been to return the frieze, pediment and metopes to the original building but rather to reunify them within the New Acropolis Museum where they can be properly appreciated and understood, and preserved for posterity.
The Marbles are better off in London where they can be seen in the context of other world cultures
Research on museum visitors has concluded that the average visitor does not make meaningful connections between the randomly acquired objects held and displayed by encyclopedic museums. Indeed, given the choice between viewing the Parthenon Marbles within the artificial contexts applied to them by British Museum curators and experiencing them in the city of Athens from which they originate, polls demonstrate that the majority of the public would prefer to see them returned to Athens.
The Marbles belong to "the world", to all of us, and should therefore be left where "everyone" can enjoy them
Now that Athens has a world-class, state-of-the-art museum in which to house the Marbles, there is no longer any justification for assuming that London is the best place for the people of the world to enjoy them. Since its opening, the New Acropolis Museum has enjoyed huge visitor numbers. It is therefore reasonable to assume that visitor numbers would increase still further were the Parthenon Marbles to be reunited in the New Acropolis Museum.
If the British Museum agreed to return the Marbles to Athens, it would set a dangerous precedent that would "open the floodgates", leading to the denuding of the world's encyclopedic museums
For European and North American museums to suggest that they would be denuded is tantamount to admitting that the majority of their collections were dubiously acquired, which is not the case. It is therefore nonsense to suggest that museums would be denuded. Every request for repatriation should be treated on its own merits. The great encyclopedic or 'universal' museums in London, Paris, Berlin, New York and elsewhere are all subject to the laws laid down within internationally agreed legal instruments such as the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the safeguarding of cultural property. Refusing to return the Marbles sends the wrong message at a time when a more ethical approach is required over disputed cultural objects.
The Marbles are too important a part of the British Museum collection to allow them to be given up
The most important part of the British Museum's work in the future will be the fostering of creative cultural partnerships with other nations. These can lead to groundbreaking exhibitions such as the Terracotta Army from China and Moctezuma from Mexico. Returning the Parthenon Marbles would open a new chapter in cooperative relations with Greece and enable visitors to the British Museum to see new objects loaned by Greek museums. Refusal to return the Marbles is hampering this process. The Parthenon Marbles display in the Duveen Galleries at the British Museum could be reconfigured using high-quality casts. The decision to return the Marbles to Athens would be seen as the British Museum leading the way in enlightened cultural diplomacy, the benefits of which would be diverse, long-term, and far-reaching.
The Marbles can only be "loaned" to Athens if the Greeks agree to concede Britain's legal ownership of the sculptures
Attaching such a precondition to a dispute over cultural property has been widely viewed as insulting and condescending and reminiscent of colonialist approaches to international relations. Seemingly intractable cultural disputes require both parties to adopt a spirit of open-minded generosity and to enter into discussions on equal terms and with no preconditions.
"The Elgin Marbles are no longer part of the story of the Parthenon. They are now part of another story." (Neil MacGregor, Director, British Museum)
It is not the role of museums to rewrite history to further their own nationalistic ends. As their correct name makes clear, the Parthenon Marbles are, and will always be, integral to the story of the Parthenon, one of the finest cultural achievements bequeathed to us by the ancient Greeks.
Have I missed anything? Ah, yes, the sun shines more frequently in Athens. Case closed.