Purchasing a Major Work of Art for the Collection – part VI

The very best way to determine that an object has not been stolen, looted, or removed illegally from its country of origin is to examine its history of ownership. For European and American paintings, that history can often be traced back to the moment when the artist made the painting. For antiquities and non-Western art of all types, the history is never that complete. The very best way to acquire an antiquity is to excavate it scientifically in a government-authorized dig. This is how many of the older Western museums acquired great collections of Egyptian and ancient Near Eastern art. But today, governments rarely allow removal of excavated artifacts to another country, and properly excavated materials almost never enter the market.

As much as it pains me to admit it, most antiquities that have entered the market (ever!) were unscientifically removed from the ground or from ruins, with no documentation of a find site or of the other objects that may have accompanied them. The responsible collector’s role today is to discourage further looting by refusing to buy anything that appears to have left its country of origin in recent years. The longer an object has been out of the ground, the better. Most countries passed laws in the early 1970s that made it illegal to export any object that was more than 100 years old. Museums aim to acquire objects that were exported before the laws were passed.

For museums, the ideal objects on the market are those that we know have been residing in a living-room or gallery since the mid-20th century or earlier. Ideally, one can get written documentation of the object’s recent history: the original bill of sale, maybe, or an old exhibition catalog with an image of the piece. Unfortunately for museums, this sort of documentation adds enormously to an object’s monetary value, and sometimes one sees rather ugly works of art selling for high prices because they have really good provenance. But aside from offering the collector a rare opportunity to acquire an antiquity without too great a dose of guilt, good provenance also offers a degree of reassurance about the authenticity of the object, because people weren’t making as many forgeries in the early 20th century as they are today (they were making some, but often not very well).

So all of this brings up the question of the provenance of our new Shiva. We were definitely looking for an object with an unimpeachable history of ownership, and the Shiva image satisfied our requirements. I can’t tell you the precise details, because some of the people involved are still living and have asked to remain anonymous. But suffice it to say that Brooklyn’s Shiva has provenance back to the mid-1960s, when a very well known Asian art collector purchased the piece from a reputable New York dealer. The bronze was in his collection for a short time, and then he gave it to a friend and colleague, who kept it in her apartment for more than 30 years before a prominent dealer finally talked her into selling it to the Brooklyn Museum.

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

5 comments on this post.
  1. Tommy:

    Great article, can’t wait for the next one.

  2. www.bestretirementadvisor.info » Purchasing a Major Work of Art for the Collection – part VI:

    [...] Joan Cummins wrote a fantastic post today on “Purchasing a Major Work of Art for the Collection â

  3. Brooklyn Museum: Community: bloggers@brooklynmuseum » Purchasing a Major Work of Art for the Collection - part VII:

    [...] can’t believe that it’s been more than a year since my last posting on this topic. I guess I got distracted by other tasks. I was recently asked to “wrap it up,” [...]

  4. grace paramaspry:

    Does this Siva has any history of passing through
    Mr Subhash Kapoor in New York , any part of the provenance history from UK

  5. Joan Cummins:

    We know the Shiva’s history since the late 1960s, and in that time it was not in the UK, nor did it come through Subhash Kapoor.

Leave a comment