Guest blogger: JL of Modern Kicks
Speaking of fairs, the International Herald Tribune ran an overview of the recent concluded Asia Week in New York, offering plenty of details on sales and the state of the business. Probably not anything those who follow such matters closely don’t know already, but a good read nonetheless. Some points: the Asian art market, like the broader one, shows no sign of cooling off as of yet; the Chinese are buying up an increasing amount of available Chinese art, keeping it at home and sending prices up; but in terms of relative availability and prominence, China still far overshadows the growing market in Indian art. The latter did see strong growth in the modern sector, reflecting increased interest in the field as well as realities of availability. So says the Herald Tribune:
Seen from a broader perspective, that scarcity [of older Indian art] is laudable. India bans the export of antiquities that are part of its cultural heritage; in recent years, it has had greater success in implementing the law than countries like Cambodia or Nepal.
The day may not be far away when it will be impossible to buy or sell Indian sculptures without documentation to prove its exit from the country before the 1970 Unesco convention. That scarcity leads to sky-high prices, but those spending vast amounts now may be unable to recoup their outlay in the not-too-distant future - to say nothing of the risk of possible legal action.
Which echoes the gist of what Reason magazine takes on in this article, without the funhouse mirror distortions their ideology supplies. I’m not about to say that the current arrangements governing the export and sale of antiquities is perfect. Enforcement is difficult, and some illegal activities will always evade the law. I’m not sure anyone outside of Reason (and probably not even there) would want to return to the old days of colonial appropriation, but that doesn’t mean I’m not very grateful for those antiquities that flowed into American museum collections during the past century. And I can well imagine that the mass of laws and international agreements that govern the field might need some clarification, nor is every claim equal (China, for instance, seems to have a number of unresolved issues regarding enforcement.)
But the article we get on the topic can be summarized as follows: journalist meet trade representative, decides he seems nice. Along the way we are offered a rather flattened view of the different parties arguing over the export and sale of antiquities, from dealers (reasonable! good!) to archaeologists (extremists! bad!). As for the immense amount of destruction caused by illegal excavations . . . it’s not that the author doesn’t know about it, it’s just that he doesn’t care. After all, efforts to do something about it are obviously wrong because they interfere with individuals’ “natural right” to, well, steal things. My favorite moment:
If the farmers cannot sell what they discover in a legitimate market, and if their government will not buy such artifacts from them, they have two choices (aside from simply letting the state appropriate the finds): destroy the objects or sell them illegally.
How much work can be done by parentheses! We might rephrase that clause just so: “they have two choices (aside from obeying the law).”
It’s instructive that this last little elision happens when discussing the far more clear-cut area of the status of antiquities within their nation of origin. What the author carefully avoids touching upon, lest he disturb the sensibilities of his domestic audience, is the looting and sale of artifacts from the U.S. It’s easy to argue away the laws and even the dignity of a foreign land; bring the subject back home, people might begin see it a little differently.
Posted by JL at April 28, 2005 6:57 AM
