Featured News story about antique dealer, lawsuit over African mask

Antiques dealer who bought African mask for £130 then sold it for £3.6million WINS legal battle with previous owners after judge rules the elderly French couple failed to appreciate its true worth (msn.com)

Interesting news story. It is sad that the elderly couple lost out on a big chunk of money, but I tend to agree the point of view of the dealer. I doubt he had any clue of the final value either, initially. It doesn't sound like the couple were asking for an in-depth appraisal, they were trying to get someone to do a cleanout and earn some quick cash. The dealer should benefit monetarily if they are digging around a bunch of junk and stumble upon a gem in the rough using their decades of knowledge.

 

Apparently, (and presumably after the auction), the dealer offered the couple the amount of the original auction estimate - 300,000 euros. The estimate indicates that the experts at the auction house had no idea what it would sell for, either, and seems like a very fair offer to the original owners. The offer was retracted after they sued the dealer.

 

someone got lucky....someone else did not..

 

The American TV news magazine "60 Minutes" did a report last weekend about antiquities looted from Cambodia in the 1980-90's and now being returned to the government of Cambodia.



A curator at the MET, which purchased some of the statues from a shady dealer, weakly offered that, at the time, it was argued that in politically unstable countries, precious artifacts could be destroyed and 'expatriating' them was akin to preserving them. I thought that was interesting-- there's a lot to unpack in that statement.

The American lawyer organizing the project used the term 'blood antiquities.' I also thought that was interesting, as something like this mask no doubt has a complicated colonialist history.

 

an ongoing discussion .........

 

The representative of the Met looked deeply uncomfortable during that interview. The situation is a legacy of over a century of colonial minded, privileged entitlement felt by many institutions (and individuals) in the west. The "preservation" argument has been frequently cited, though I doubt it was the primary motivation in most cases. More a justification after the fact. But it might have been nice if the Bamiyan Buddhas could have been magically transported to a museum.

 

I thought of those dynamited Buddhas too-- who knows what else the Taliban have destroyed in their zeal.

This same 'preservation' argument comes up during and immediately after wars, as was the case in Cambodia. And China. And Iraq. And...

 

Ethnic tribal art/artifacts are probably some of our favorite objects,and the genuine,older ones have an extraordinary presence. Sadly-the history of so many of these pieces are tainted,in a way like 'blood diamonds'.
Where the perfect home is for them,culturally & quite importantly for safekeeping's beyond me.
I'm still not totally clear how historically important provenanced pieces can be legally bought and sold outside of their cultural point of origin ?
Sotheby's,Christies,etc,seem to have the answer-so far anyway,

 

what else the Taliban have destroyed in their zeal.

oh, I dunno......a COUNTRY maybe ???

 

Re: elderly couple vs. antiques dealer
IMHO, I think it is always the seller's responsibility to learn about their item and have it appraised, if they feel it necessary, and decide what price is acceptable to them when they sell. "Seller's remorse" because an item ends up being worth more than they thought it was just doesn't cut it.
A sad story for the couple, indeed, but not something the dealer should have to pay for. The dealer was already being (unnecessarily, but kindly) generous by offering the couple a payment of the estimated auction price.
This statement/opinion is based on my impression that in this story, the dealer was simply buying an item that was for sale, and was not hired to sell or appraise for the couple... and then pricing and buying the item him/herself.

 

Western countries and museums are not immune. WW2, of course. So there is the argument it is a colonial mindset...and an infantilization of other countries. Egypt just built the most state of the art museum ever, but certainly their artifacts are wide-spread, and not through mutual agreement on all.

There's also the question of who is profiting from these sales. Terrorists, black market grave robbers, conquering armies, etc. and what that finances. The people of those cultures bearing the loss of culture, community learning, tourism economy, and the actual cash, etc.

If the protection of the works were the point, then cultural institutions and their stewards would be making deals for transport and storage, with agreements on return of artifacts. Ongoing repatriation is important.

For the Taliban, there was the news they pledged not to hurt cultural artifacts and were protecting the National Museum. But as in this NPR article, they were also consulting with Chinese companies on exploiting copper at a historical site. I don't know how that played out, except to say that Chinese companies did sign a multi-billion agreement to mine for an array of ores in different places in the country, this year.

 

And we all know how far you can trust terrorists. Yeah well.

Sometimes things really would be destroyed if left in place. That said, I saw part of that Met person's spiel and all I could do was cringe.

 

The even older member of the old couple who inherited the mask wa a former French district officer in colonial Ghana. The court also turned down a plea from Ghana to stop the auction, pending talks on its return to Ghana.

 

IOW he shouldn't have had the mask in the first place.

 

According to the reporting, "The 19th-Century wooden mask was probably acquired "in unknown circumstances" around 1917 by René-Victor Edward Maurice Fournier, a French colonial governor and the plaintiff's grandfather."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67759639

It is difficult to know the actual circumstances of the transaction. In the late 19th and early 20th century there was often significant pressure on traditional societies to "modernize", including converting to Christianity. Some groups chose to deliberately dispose of objects used in their previous religious beliefs.

The particular mask in this case was from the Fang people, located in the French colonial areas of Gabon, Cameroon and Guinea. It is an "Ngil" mask. "The Ngil were a secret male society tasked with protecting and administering justice, as well as keeping peace between clans and villages. The Ngil society took part in rituals and ceremonies that were intended to discourage people of the community that might have evil intentions and fight off witchcraft."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngil_mask
French colonial authorities and associated religious missions banned the Ngil societies in the period between 1910 and 1920 (depending on the region), to discourage the competing traditional systems of belief and control. This would correspond with the time that Fournier likely acquired the mask in question.

Here is information on a similar mask sold at Sotheby's -
https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/african-oceanic-n09347/lot.100.html

And the one that the court case was about -

 

yet another underpaid artist...

 

And then there's "Children under a Palm" by Winslow Homer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Under_a_Palm

I remember there was an "expert" on the eBay boards who I always suspected of dealing pilfered pieces from Southeast Asia. He was an American living over there (in Thailand as I remember), and I got the impression that he had managed to ingratiate himself to high ranking officials and was acting as intermediary between them and western dealers for items stolen from what should have been archeological sites.

On these boards we just saw that story of the $100,000 vase found for pennies in a Goodwill. Does Goodwill have a claim? Do the people who donated it have a claim?

Don't we all want to buy things for pennies at garage sales and sell them for thousands? Would we owe anything to the people who sold them?

Is possession nine tenths of the law?

 

The Winslow Homer show was fascinating & shows how industrious the 'Landed Gentry' are- squeezing a free painting out of Homer ! 'Takes money to make money'.
It's remarkable that some of these Lords & Ladies kiss a kings rump in the 1400's and keep the land & loot in their clutches for six-odd centuries.
PS- MOS,I'd guess pennies for wealth & glory's a goal .Could be a smidge of Us dream about returning St. Paul's toe bone back to The Vatican ? Prob more here hoping to stretch the old pension.

 

Easy answer for me: YES!

I say legally, no. Surrendering rights and claims is an implicit part of a financial transaction. (That might differ from country to country.)

But morally, maybe. If I found a hugely valuable object, I would consider how I might fairly compensate the seller, depending on who the seller was and the circumstances of the sale.

But those considerations would be mine to make.

 

case by case basis......... there's no one size fits all !