THE TRIBAL BEAT

ARTICLE FROM LOS ANGELES TIMES

2012-01-16T11:28:00.000-08:00

CODE BREAKER AT MUSEUM
A Scripps College exhibition's art-dealer partnership conflicts with ethics guidelines
By Mike Boehm. Los Angeles Times: Saturday, January 14, 2012

For the direct link to the article on line, please go:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-ceramics-show-dealer-20120114,0,2400795.story

After reading this article, please see the comments below:
I have been a dealer of Ethnographic Art from Asia for more than 35 years. On numerous occasions, I have generously loaned objects, expertise, and precious time to museums without any compensation and often with little recognition. It is not uncommon for museum staff to rely on art dealers for information and material for exhibitions. Why shouldn't they? Dealers often know more about the material than the curators and certainly have important additional contacts when it comes to acquiring objects. It is a ridiculous and prejudicial argument that dealers are not qualified or ethical enough to server as curators for museum exhibitions.

I take offense when others regularly characterize dealers as motivated purely by profit. In fact, virtually every art dealer I know has as much passion for the arts as any collector, curator, or critic. When buying art, a professional dealer's primary concerns are the authenticity, aesthetics, quality, and condition of the piece, not the value.

Of course, dealers have a financial stake in the art market and in the success of related exhibitions, but so does everyone else involved. Dealers make money when they sell a work of art. Collectors make money with their art investments, either by reselling pieces or by taking a tax deduction when they donate pieces to museums. Museums make money, in part, by charging to view their collections. Curators and museum staff receive regular paychecks and perks, and unless Christopher Knight is writing for the LA Times out of the goodness of his heart, he has been paid (some would say overpaid) to critique the art world.

Dealers have to play all roles: acting as critic when evaluating quality and aesthetics; academic when researching to properly identify and classify objects; and collector when making choices that fuel the passion. You can add in conservator, photographer, display and lighting specialist, as well as packing, shipping, and storage agent.

It might come as a surprise that most dealers are not getting rich in this business. It is possible to make a good living, like any other profession, but only after putting in years of hard work with the hope you gain enough experience, knowledge, and reliable contacts to find those few great pieces. Dealers regularly have to sort through piles of lesser quality pieces, as well as fakes and reproductions, spending considerable amounts of time and money out of pocket, before ever seeing any profit.

One last note: I was the guest curator for the 1990 exhibition of Indonesian tribal art at the San Diego Museum of Man. The museum staff was pleased with my involvement, the exhibition was well received by the viewing public, and the art world did not implode.

ARTICLE FROM NEW YORK TIMES

2012-01-16T10:51:00.000-08:00

ONCE HIDDEN BY FOREST, CARVINGS IN LAND ATTEST TO AMAZON'S LOST WORLD
A Scholarly and Environmental Reappraisal
By Simon Romero. New York Times: Sunday, January 15, 2012

For direct link to article on line, please go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/world/americas/land-carvings-attest-to-amazons-lost-world.html?_r=1&ref=simonromero

PRESS RELEASE FROM LACMA

2011-12-05T10:23:00.000-08:00

LACMA APPOINTS CURATOR FOR AFRICAN ART PROGRAM

(Los Angeles, December 1, 2011)—The Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) has named Dr. Mary (Polly) Nooter Roberts Consulting Curator of African Art to help launch a program and establish a gallery dedicated to the arts of Africa. Dr. Roberts is Professor of World Arts and Cultures at UCLA, and will continue her full-time teaching position while consulting for LACMA. She was Senior Curator of the Museum for African Art in New York from 1984–1994 and Deputy Director and Chief Curator of the Fowler Museum at UCLA from 1999-2008. Additionally, she was a guest curator at LACMA for the 2008 exhibition Tradition as Innovation in African Art. The goal of Dr. Roberts’s appointment is to bring greater visibility to African arts in Southern California, while creating programmatic linkages between LACMA and UCLA. As LACMA CEO and Wallis Annenberg Director Michael Govan states, “We have looked forward to launching a program for African art for several years and the timing seems right. We are excited to work with Polly Nooter Roberts as we explore new ways of understanding and presenting the richness of African artistic expression.”

Dr. Roberts has conducted research in a number of African countries and many European and American museums and private collections. She has curated such major exhibitions as Secrecy: African Art that Conceals and Reveals (1993) and Memory: Luba Art and the Making of History (1996), both at the Museum for African Art, and A Saint in the City: Sufi Arts of Urban Senegal (2003) at the Fowler Museum. All three shows traveled to several museums, and the latter two received major book awards. Her more recent exhibitions include Inscribing Meaning: Writing and Graphic Systems in African Art (Fowler Museum, 2007); Tradition as Innovation in African Art (LACMA, 2008); and Continental Rifts: Contemporary Time-Based Works of Africa (Fowler Museum, 2009). In 2007, Dr. Roberts was decorated by the Republic of France as a Knight of the Order of Arts and Letters for her promotion of francophone African artists. She holds a PhD in Art History from Columbia University.

African Art at LACMA

LACMA’s growing collection of African art is diverse in form, material, and purpose. Works include masks and figures of wood and ivory, textiles, metalwork, beaded crowns, stools, and body adornments. Notable in the collection are a bronze plaque depicting a seventeenth-century official of the Benin Kingdom; a boli figure from Mali; and a selection of works from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Explore the collection online at: www.lacma.org/art/collection/african-art

VARIOUS ON LINE ART ARTICLES OF INTEREST

2011-12-05T10:16:00.000-08:00

The Dot.Com Art Boom. It's Here. It's Now. Should You Pay Attention?
Forbes on line magazine. August 8, 2011. By Abigail R. Esman.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/08/08/the-dot-com-art-boom-its-here-its-now-should-you-pay-attention/

Sacred Carves.
Asian Art Newspaper. By Lucien De Guise.
http://www.asianartnewspaper.com/article/sacred-carves

Mirror Images and Insight.
Pieces in "Ancient Chinese Bronze Mirrors from the Lloyd Cotsen Collection" reflect cultural mores.
Los Angeles Times. November 25, 2011. By Suzanne Muchnic.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-chinese-mirrors-20111125,0,6360578.story

Guiding Getty.
Los Angeles Times. December 3, 2011. OP-ED, Patt Morrison asks James Cuno.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-morrison-james-cuno-20111203,0,6400722.column

ARTICLE FROM LOS ANGELES TIMES

2011-10-25T10:16:00.001-07:00

Prehistoric Art Studio Found
Scientists unearth 100,000 year-old tools for making and using paints in a South African cave.
By Amina Khan. 8/14/11

For the direct link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-ancient-paint-20111014,0,553090.story

FORBES MAGAZINE ARTICLE: ON LINE ART SALES

2011-10-25T09:07:00.000-07:00

The Dot Com Art Boom, Its Here, Its Now, Should You Pay Attention?
By Abigail R. Esman 8/8/11

Direct link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/08/08/the-dot-com-art-boom-its-here-its-now-should-you-pay-attention/

ASIAN & ISLAMIC ANTIQUES AS AN INVESTMENT

2011-09-09T10:27:00.000-07:00

REPRINTED BY PERMISSION FROM MICHAEL BACKMAN. ALTHOUGH THE FOCUS OF THIS ARTICLE IS ON ASIAN AND ISLAMIC ANTIQUES, THE INFORMATION IS RELEVANT FOR THOSE COLLECTING AND INVESTING IN TRIBAL ART.

Asian & Islamic Antiques as an Investment

By Michael Backman

Art for art’s sake is a virtuous thing. But antiques and other forms of art also can be treated as a distinct investment class. It’s an investment category that is booming – the international art and antiques market is worth around $50 billion annually. This when many other investment forms are under-performing.

The antiques and art market is undergoing an unprecedented restructuring as investors from new regions flood in. And with other economic developments such as rising inflation and commodity process, the market especially for Islamic and Asian antiques, offers an extraordinary investment opportunity.

This was apparent during the recent Islamic and Indian auctions at Christie’s, Sotheby’s and Bonham’s in London in April. A total of £44.5 million was raised from four auctions over a four-day period. Records were set but arguably what was more interesting was the breadth of the high results across item types and price ranges. An Indian brass hookah base that hitherto might have sold for £800-£1,200 realized £10,000. Good but not exceptional items of Indian bidri ware sold for £25,000. There were dozens of similar examples.

More generally, prices for many different categories of items within the Asian and Islamic antiques sphere have risen dramatically in the last eighteen months. For example, price rises for antique Burmese silver items, colonial Indian silver and Chinese export silver has far outstripped the rise in the silver price and perhaps has doubled or more in the last eighteen months. Why is this happening?

Demand & Supply

The supply of antiques is fixed by definition. More cannot be produced in response to rising prices. This is not so for contemporary art, or indeed for many other classes of investment products such as stocks, real estate, commodities. Even the supply of land is not fixed – land can be cleared and reclaimed. More stock can be issued, more diamonds can be mined. The fundamental problem which the Dutch tulip bubble of the seventeenth century was that more bulbs could be grown. This is not the case with antiques.

But on the other side of the equation, the demand for antiques grows constantly. Each year millions more people move into income categories for which the acquisition of antiques feasible. And the number of very wealthy individuals who can buy high-end antiques has grown exponentially.

So with fixed supply and rapidly rising and broadening demand, the price for antiques can only rise. Within the broad rubric of ‘antiques’ demand shifts and some categories fall from favour. But antiques still are very much a growth story as an investment class, particularly antiques that appeal to those in newly wealthy economies: India, China, Southeast Asia and the Middle East, and even South America where large fortunes have been amassed quickly and increasingly broadly. By 2030, China’s GDP per capita will be seven times what it is today but already it is home to at least 500,000 US dollar millionaires for example.

The demand for Islamic and Asian art items is relatively new. Such demand until recently was scholarly. This means that there is no well-established history of prices and trends. New prices are quickly accepted as precedents by the market. And so auction estimates often are meaningless. Christie’s New York offered in 2009 a Chinese inkstone stand and cover dated 1778 with an estimate of $20,000-$30,000. It sold to an Asian buyer for $1.4 million. A small silver snuff box thought to have come from the Summer Palace near Beijing and with a pre-sale estimate of £300-£500 sold at a regional UK auction house in May 2011 for £20,000.

A MORE RECENT EXAMPLE?

Japanese antiques are an exception among Asian and Islamic antiques as a class. The market for them has faltered. Japanese buyers tend to underpin the market for Japanese art. Japan’s economy is flat, its population is among the world’s most rapidly ageing - more than 25 million Japanese are aged over 65 but only 18 million are under 15 - and with almost no immigration, Japan’s population has now started to fall in absolute terms. By 2030, there will be around 20 million fewer Japanese compared with today. The market for Japanese antiques, like Japan’s economy, probably will never recover.

China, Indian, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and South America do not have this problem. They have large, young and increasingly affluent populations.

Monopoly Power

What other factors drive the relative attractiveness of Asian and Islamic antiques as an investment class?

Many art objects are unique; particularly items from Asia and the Middle East for which production rarely reached the factory-like production levels of say English silver or English period furniture. The relative uniqueness of an object confers on its owner something akin to monopoly power and the ability to set its price.

The more unusual the item, the more this is true. Truly unique items have few reference points when it comes to a market value and the market value becomes the asking price: the item becomes worth what the owner says it is worth, subject only to a buyer’s willingness to pay.

Antiques and art do not produce an income stream by and large so it is not possible to price them today according to the net present value (NPV) of their future income stream. In many respects this helps to generate high values because such values cannot be pinned down to expected future earnings. What price is ‘too much’ for a rare antique? Who can say? But we can all point to an over-valued stock.

Ironically, whilst art cannot be valued in NPV terms, it does represent a tangible asset and so does have an inherent value unlike many classes of financial assets such as derivatives, which are intangible. An antique can be ‘enjoyed’; a stock or a derivative cannot. The ‘tangibleness’ of art and antiques is appealing to many investors particularly those from cultures (Chinese and Southeast Asian cultures for example) where intangible assets tend to be undervalued. The inherent value of art helps it to retain its value during financial crises and periods of uncertainty.

Imperfect Markets and Arbitrage Possibilities

Another important characteristic of the market for antiques is asymmetric knowledge: items routinely are offered to the market by sellers who are only vaguely aware of the value of the items they are selling. (The contrast with the stock market here is very stark – where teams of competing researchers analyze stocks in the search for hidden value thereby largely ensuring that there is none.)

This relative lack of knowledge allows for plenty of opportunities for gain: antiques can be bought at one price, be identified and researched and then re-offered at a higher and more appropriate price. The more research and context that can be provided for an antique, the greater becomes its intrinsic value. Collectors are able to enhance the value of their collections with their own research. This research has the effect of transforming the object and adding value to it. For the true collector, the investment is not passive. One does not ‘buy and hold’ an antique in the way that one ‘buys and holds’ stocks. The true collector interacts with it and with research, enhances it.

Antiques as a Convenient Store of Wealth

Antiques generally are portable. This is one reason why the newly rich in South America, China and Russia prefer them. They are relatively easy to ship should a quick exit be necessary. In this way they are comparable to other forms of wealth such as gold, jewelry, diamonds and even human capital much favoured by commercial minorities (education is a portable store of wealth which is why persecuted minorities have long preferred it as an investment – no-one ever escapes with only their clothes.)

The value of antiques is also unclear to the non-expert which makes antiques a useful means of hiding wealth in the face of voracious government, customs officials and so on. What is an antique worth as it moves across borders? Chinese customs officials are not very expert at valuing porcelain. This has helped drive the price of Chinese porcelain on international markets in the face of tighter reporting requirements when it comes to international cash movements in the wake of 9/11. It also makes antique porcelain a useful gift for government officials. Anti-graft agencies find it difficult to value but everyone knows the value of a Mercedes Benz.

Low Minimum Investment

Antiques have a low minimum investment, usually starting in the hundreds rather than thousands of pounds or dollars for the novice investor. This allows the ‘investor’ base to be enormous – most households possess at least a few treasured ‘old’ items. And as many individual’s income grows so does their allocation to antiques having had an early exposure.

Prudent Diversification

Quality art and antiques largely are insulated from the volatility of investment markets providing prudent diversification particularly when investment markets are falling. Numerous studies have shown that when part of an investment portfolio, art and antiques show little or no correlation with other classes of investment items, thereby acting to lower the overall riskiness of the portfolio. This means that allocating a proportion of an investment portfolio to antiques is not speculative, it’s prudent.

Growing Liquidity

Antiques as an investment are relatively illiquid. But that illiquidity is lessening. Broadening and deepening of the antiques market has occurred with more auction houses and major antiques fairs. But the most important development has been the Internet, which has allowed the antiques market to become truly global. The Internet has revolutionized the market for antiques.

Most auction houses list their lots on-line and many now broadcast their auctions live on the Internet. This has dramatically increased options for the rapid disposal of antiques in front of a wide if not global audience. Most Christie’s and Sotheby’s auctions are now live on the Internet for example and the auctioneer now can take bids from the room but also from anywhere in the world be it Mongolia or Peru in live-time as the auction progresses. This has helped make buyers comfortable to buy antiques from the Internet.

Increasingly, commercial galleries sell via the Internet. Michael Backman Ltd has premises in central London that are open to visitors each business day but most clients are based overseas (United States, Singapore, Australia – in that order - and then a myriad other countries) and most clients first view the gallery’s stock via the Internet. Ten years ago this barely would have been possible.

Antiques a Hedge against Inflation

The world is entering an inflationary period driven by higher commodity policies and a period of loose fiscal and monetary policy regimes run by Western governments.

Antiques are a hedge against inflation. The real value of antiques tends to stay either constant or rise. And with negative real interest rates in many Western markets currently, the imperative to reduce cash and bank deposit holdings is even greater.

Certainly in high-inflation economies such as Argentina, the conventional wisdom long has been that in periods of high inflation, individuals with wealth should invest in tangibles – real estate for example, and art and antiques.

With growing inflation but with new wealth, investors in economies such as Argentina, Brazil, Russia, and so on are even more disposed to acquiring art and antiques as a way to avoid holding cash. But as inflation becomes more apparent in the West and China too, the incentive to dump cash for antiques and other tangible investment classes rises.

Commodity Prices

Rising commodity prices are likely to have a negative impact on the broader economy but they also have an important distributional impact. Consumers generally lose as they must pay more, but what must be remembered is that commodity producers gain. Huge amounts of wealth are being generated in new areas: China, Russia, the Middle East, South America, Kazakhstan, Australia and even parts of Africa. Rising gas prices for example have turned the Qatar Royal family into the world’s wealthiest family but it has also allowed them to become probably the single biggest acquirer of antiques and artworks in the world. New and big collections are being formed in Mexico, China, Australia, India, Kuwait, Indonesia and so on. Not only are these collections being formed, they are being formed quickly.

As the price of coal has increased (the price increased five-fold between 2002 and 2008) hitherto unknown coal mine owners in China have emerged with great wealth and subsequently have become very important on the international art scene. Many buyers come from Taiyuan in China’s Shanxi province, which holds around 80% of China’s commercial coal deposits. The Taiyuan buyers emerged only in 2009 as major buyers of Chinese art on the international art scene, and quickly gained a reputation for fierce bidding at auctions and for having deep pockets.

Taiyuan-based coalmine owner Zhao Xin is an example of the new breed of buyers. Ten years ago no-one in the art world had heard of him. Probably today he is the world’s most important private collection of ceramics provenanced to the Qing Emperor Daoguang (reigned: 1820-1850).

Hundreds of new collectors have quickly emerged onto the art market in a short period and from regions that never before have been prominent in the international market for art. It is an unprecedented structural change for the market. The market is broadening and deepening like never before. It’s worth repeating that all this interest is for items that are in fixed supply – it doesn’t matter how high prices rise for genuine antiques, more cannot be produced to meet additional demand. The demand now is for Asian and Islamic antiques and art because of fast-changing wealth and demographic patterns. And so as an investment opportunity, this puts such antiques in a class of their own.

No part may be copied or reproduced without the written permission of the author.

____________

Michael Backman is a collector and gallery owner. He is the author of five books on business in Asia published by Palgrave-Macmillan and John Wiley & Sons. He holds a First Class Degree in Economics.

Website: www.michaelbackmanltd.com

OCEANIC ART EXHIBIT AT THE MENIL COLLECTION

2011-07-29T11:32:00.000-07:00

ANCESTORS OF THE LAKE:
Art of Lake Sentani and Humboldt Bay, New Guinea
May 6 to August 28, 2011
The Menil Collection, Houston, TX

Features 50 objects, including a group of highly stylized and abstracted wooden sculptures and decorative bark cloths. Many of these works of art were acquired by two pioneering visitors to the region: Swiss explorer, ethnologist, photographer, and collector Paul Wirz and French adventurer, art dealer, photographer, and author Jacques Viot, both active during a notable period of research and collecting that began in 1921.

Curated by Virginia-Lee Webb, an art historian specializing in non-Western art and a former curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, Ancestors of the Lake juxtaposes selections from the Menil's permanent holdings with pieces borrowed from public and private collections in Australia, Europe, and the United States.

Ancestors of the Lake is accompanied by an extraordinary catalogue, edited by Virginia-Lee Webb, including essays by leading scholars as well as historical photographs of Lake Sentani and Humboldt Bay. The 128-page volume features new scholarship on Western explorations of northern New Guinea, including Viot's journey as well as stills by Man Ray.

For details, please visit The Menil Collection's website: www.menil.org.

LACMA ROLLS OUT MAGICAL ARDABIL CARPET

2011-07-29T11:05:00.000-07:00

Rare 16th Ardabil Carpet on Display at LACMA

This amazing carpet, the center piece to the "Gifts of the Sultan: The Arts of Giving at the Islamic Courts", is on display until Labor Day, 2011. One of the two greatest Persian carpets ever woven (its twin is in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London), this is only the 5th time it has been shown since its debut in 1965. Don't miss this chance to view a true "magic" carpet as well as the stunning display of Islamic art in the rest of the exhibition.

For details, please go to: www.lacma.org.

TRIBAL ART MARKET IN LOS ANGELES

2011-06-22T14:51:00.000-07:00

Where are the serious tribal art collectors in Los Angeles? Or more to the point is there or will there again be a serious market for tribal art in Los Angeles?

For the last couple of decades, local dealers and show promoters have pondered this question. The assumption has been there is a market for tribal art, perhaps even a big one, we just have to create the proper set of circumstances to develop it: the right show venue, the right PR campaign, the right ad placement, the right opening night beneficiary, and so on.

In part, to tackle this issue, I helped found LA TRIBAL, an association of dealers in the Los Angeles area, specializing in the tribal arts from Asia, Africa, Oceania, and the Americas. The primary goals were to promote cooperation within the existing tribal art community (other dealers, collectors, and museum specialists), as well as finding creative ways to cultivate new collectors.

LA TRIBAL members have joined local collectors’ organizations, such as the Ethnic Arts Council (EAC) and other museum support councils, with some members becoming quite active within these groups. We participated in the primary tribal art show produced by the Caskey Lees organization, produced our own “mini” shows, offered appraisal services, and ran ads in a variety of magazines. We tried bringing in new faces by supporting their favorite charity as a beneficiary on opening night. We made sure to invite museum staff, local collectors’ groups, and other individuals known to have a specific interest in tribal art.

Despite these efforts, there are ongoing problems with the tribal art market in Los Angeles. A case in point was our most recent show (held in early June); arguably the best show LA TRIBAL has ever produced. It certainly was the show we worked the hardest on to promote. We could not have a found a more perfect venue: a large empty space directly across from the LA County Museum of Art. We hung a massive banner on the front of the building, easily seen from Wilshire Blvd. (one of LA’s most traveled streets) and the entrance to the museum. We sent out nearly 18,000 mailers (five times more cards than any previous mailer), all to a well-targeted list of individuals with an interest in art. We paid for PR and got several listing in local publications. We sent out numerous email blasts. We specifically invited individual collectors, museum specialists, and support council members. We added an appraisal clinic and yet another beneficiary group, one known for its activism and support of fundraising events. The show was beautifully set up with a full range of material: pieces priced for the beginning collector to those looking for only the highest quality items. We had the opening night catered with a wonderful selection of Vietnamese food (a crowd favorite). Our members made a considerable expenditure of money, labor, and time to make these preparations.

Almost no one came. The beneficiary group promised 75 to 100 members of their group would make it to opening night, so we paid for food and drinks to make sure we accommodated their needs. I’d be surprised if 10 people from that organization showed up. We had about 30 others come by that evening, after expecting at least 150. Over the next three days we had perhaps another 100 to 150 visitors. Only four museum specialists came through: two from the Bowers Museum in Santa Ana and two from the South Asian Art Department at LACMA (I would like to personally thank Peter Keller, director at the Bowers for his continued support of all of the tribal art events in California). The Fowler Museum was missing in action, as well as all of the other local museums. The EAC, Los Angeles’s premier tribal art collectors group with close to 200 members, once again barely showed (20 or so came through over the weekend). Virtually no one came from the Bower’s Museum Collectors Council. The few known collectors of tribal art in the Los Angeles area were mostly no-shows.

Despite my disappointment, it was easier to accept that our efforts were not dazzling enough to attract new people. But, what really surprises and continually vexes me is that people who are actually collectors of tribal art, have even a remote interest in tribal art, as well as local museum staff that owe their jobs to the interest in tribal art, did not bother to come to the one tribal art sales venue left in Southern California.

I have two questions: why is there so little support or interest from the existing local tribal art community and why are we unable to attract new collectors? I have my own theories and will address the two issues separately.

At one time, Los Angeles was an important location for collectors of tribal art. This was especially true in the 1970s and 1980s when there were several active collectors of African art, most notably the Wallaces, the Baums, the Silvers, the Kuhns, the Dimondsteins, the Franklins, the Goldenbergs, and Jerome Joss, to name a few. Pre-Columbian art has always had a strong following and at one time LA was the most important center for the emerging Indonesian tribal art market. These collectors were also responsible for founding and growing the EAC, which in the past was actually dominated by a core group of serious collectors.

What happened? To be fair, most of this original core base has aged, with many having passed away. It is understandable why this generation is no longer as active, because their houses are full of art and today their primary concern is the disposition of their collections. Unfortunately, with very few exceptions it does not appear this “old guard” spawned a new generation of tribal art fanatics to carry on their passion.

There has always been a mid-range collector base that still survives, but no longer thrives in Southern California. This group consists of passionate collectors of more modest means (god bless them for hanging in there!), non-serious collectors who focus on bargains (which often means objects of lower quality and reproductions), and so-called “tribal art tourists”, non-collectors who like to view and talk about tribal art, but rarely if ever actually purchase anything. We always keep hoping that the first group will win the lottery or inherit money from a rich relative, that the second group will suddenly realize the error of their ways and buy quality over quantity, and that the last group will finally fall in love with the art and step up to the plate. Unfortunately, this rarely happens.

We keep imagining that fabulously wealthy contemporary art patrons, known to pay fortunes for squiggles of paint on canvas, a whirling mobile made of soup cans, or a metallic sculpture of a balancing bear with a bottle stuck in its behind (actually seen a recent contemporary art show in LA!), will finally see the light. We are sure that, once exposed to our magnificent tribal artifacts, they will divert most of their expendable income in our direction. Certainly, the scholars that have written numerous books on the links between so call primitive art and the roots of modern art are practically begging these collectors to pay attention to us! Well, so far we have not significantly benefited from this potential metamorphosis.

We also have banked on getting in that big celebrity client, who will fall in love with tribal art and go around Hollywood promoting how cool it is, thus bringing in yet more celebrity buyers. LA TRIBAL, the Caskey-Lees shows, and nearly every private dealer or gallery has tried to open that door. Some of the public art galleries in the Beverly Hills area will get celebs in for a while, but with few exceptions they rarely become long-term clients and when they do, it is nearly always for contemporary art.

So we are left finding new collectors from a different pool of potential art enthusiasts in Los Angeles. I am sure we all assume that under the right circumstances, by exposing this new, presumably younger crowd to the wonders of tribal art, we will finally find our market. Following are my hypotheses for believing otherwise.

Los Angeles is a relatively new city that barely came into itself until the 1940s. Most people here seem uninterested in history or tradition. There is barely an awareness of the Spanish mission period let alone anything before that time. Nostalgia for an earlier era in their own lives is about as far back as they will go. Second-generation immigrants quickly shed their ethnic identities to blend in and have little interest in their own cultures. People came here to break free from the past, to make their own future, to reinvent themselves. Angelenos tend to look forward, more concerned about what will happen next, not what happened before.

Because of this lack of interest, they have no connection to the past, including old world cultures or so-called primitive societies. And art buying, even for decoration, is not high on their must-do list. This is especially true with younger people, who disdain “antiques” as useless old dusty things their grandparents owned.

Additionally, wealthy Angelenos do not appear to be very sophisticated when it comes to art. There is a lot of new money that often comes without a background in the trappings of wealth. They know they have to buy a big house and an expensive car (or two). They are aware they need to fill their house with some stuff, but art and antiques are not something they know much about and perhaps find a bit intimidating, so they tend to follow commercial trends or the recommendations of their friends or decorators.

In my experience, collectors in Los Angeles buy contemporary art, classic cars, photography, retro furniture, and pop cultural artifacts because it is modern, hip, accessible, and comfortable. Everyone knows that paintings are real art, that a movie poster is cool, and so are those chairs that look like 1950s rocket ships! ;-)

The few exceptions are those people who have traveled abroad, say to Bali on vacation or to India to visit their guru. But, even that group tends to be satisfied with the collection of souvenirs, purchased on their trip.

Lastly, people in Los Angeles tend to be outdoor oriented. Their homes are larger and so are their yards. It is warm, sunny and bright, forcing you outside. We have beaches, mountains, and deserts to visit and lots of cars to get us there. Angelenos just don’t worry about getting stuck indoors and therefore think less about what is in their house to entertain them.

In contrast, those living in older cities, like NYC or Paris, even an office worker or mid-level bureaucrat will own art. Most urban residents on the East Coast and in Europe are focused indoors because of colder weather, closer neighbors, and louder street noise. An indoor lifestyle encourages you to think about what you have in your house. You need art to dress up that dark and dreary apartment!

There may be some hope from the growth of the local museum scene in Southern California. The LA County Museum of Art purchased a major collection of Oceanic art a couple of years ago and have expressed interest in building an African art collection. The Fowler Museum at UCLA is more active under the direction of Marla Berns. Outside of LA, the Bowers Museum in Santa Ana, the Museum of Art in San Diego, and the Mingei Museum of International Art, also in San Diego, have good collections of tribal art. Important, regular exhibitions, especially at LACMA may encourage existing art patrons to take tribal art more seriously.

Otherwise, in my opinion the above factors make Los Angeles an unlikely place to find new, serious collectors for traditional antiques of any kind, let alone tribal art. Is it time to throw in the towel and re-focus our efforts elsewhere? Perhaps, but I am still hopeful there may be a few more angles to try before we completely give up on my favorite city.

OBIT IN LOS ANGELES TIMES

2011-06-22T13:57:00.000-07:00

VIRGINIA FIELDS, 1952 - 2011

MESOAMERICAN SCHOLAR AT LACMA

By Suzanne Muchnic, LA Times, June 20, 2011

Virginia M. Fields, a leading scholar of early Mesoamerican art and archeology who joined the Los Angeles County Museum of Art's curatorial staff in 1989 and devoted 22 years to making the museum a vital center of Latin American culture - partly by organizing major exhibitions such as last year's "Olmec: Colossal Masterworks of Ancient Mexico" - had died...

To read the complete article online, please go to:

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/scimedemail/la-me-virginia-fields-20110619,0,2643406.story

ARTICLE FROM BARRON'S MAGAZINE

2011-03-21T09:01:00.000-07:00

SATURDAY, MARCH 5, 2011

Tribal Art: Magical Pieces, Sensible Prices

Build a museum-quality collection for under $100,000.

By RICHARD C. THOMPSON

Nearly 50 years ago, a young, bespectacled man named Michael Rockefeller went looking for tribal artifacts in the swampy coastlands of New Guinea. He was never seen again. He may have been attacked by sharks; he may have drowned; he may have encountered cannibals or headhunters. To this day, no one knows. Michael Rockefeller's memory, however, has lived on in a novel, a rock song, at least two plays and, spectacularly, the tribal-art wing of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. The wing is named after him, and many of its 1,600 pieces came from his father, former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, the most voracious collector of such art the world has ever seen. For today's growing number of tribal-art fans, Rocky did good.

Luckily, you don't have to risk your own life to start collecting. You don't even need a giant bank account. Museum-quality objects from Africa, the Pacific and the Americas can be had for as little as $5,000. Though prices have been rising lately, with some sales setting records, you can still build a striking collection of masks, figures, textiles and other tribal pieces for well under $100,000. The works can lend an air of the exotic to any home; they show especially well in minimalist settings.

Kevin Conru Gallery

Collectors' interest in tribal art was on full display in San Francisco last month at the 25th annual Tribal and Textile Art Show. Some 7,000 patrons buzzed through a veritable city of booths on an enclosed, antiquated pier. Sunlight from the windows above brought the objects to life. A highly rare, seventh-century turquoise and gold mosaic piece from Mexico, which served as an elite's funerary mask for transcendence into the afterlife, reflected piercing hues of blue and green. Dark wood and ivory handles of Indonesian daggers practically glowed, revealing intricate carvings.

Renowned tribal-art collector Bill Jamieson, who was followed by a television crew, purchased a coveted late-19th-century mask from the Ivory Coast for $40,000. The mask, shown by the Milan-based Dalton Somaré gallery, is from the African tribe of the Dan People and was used in rituals to head off fires in the dry season. The wooden mask has wonderfully high cheekbones and an ultra-narrow chin. It has been unusually well preserved and boasts an impressive pedigree: It previously belonged to three leading collectors in Paris and Barcelona. Jamieson figures he got not just a striking piece of art but an entirely respectable investment. "I'm going to make more money on this mask than the same money would make sitting in a bank," he said.

Huber Primitive Art

If the label "tribal art" seems vague, it's because it is. An umbrella term that covers more than three continents, it encompasses thousands of vastly different cultures. During the late 19th century, European colonists in Africa whet the appetite of artists and art collectors when they returned with colorful "curiosities" that flouted realism. Even early modernist painters like Picasso and Matisse collected the art themselves and were quick to incorporate the exotic aesthetic into their own masterpieces.

However, the prices of modern art and tribal art remain worlds apart. While a Picasso sold last year for $106.5 million, the highest price ever for a painting sold at auction, the top level for African art is about $7 million. Only two pieces are known to have hit that level, including a stool from the Luba tribe in the Republic of the Congo that went for $7.1 million at Sotheby's last year. Made in the 19th century by an artist known as the Buli Master, the stool is held up by an intricately carved woman who is leaning forward to bear the weight. With her eyebrows arched high on her elongated face, she seems both surprised and bemused to be lifting a leader, typically the users of such stools.

Demand for the best pieces of tribal art is almost always strong, reflecting the relatively limited supply of art and artifacts from these cultures. "I sold a very nice Easter Island figure 15 years ago for about a $100,000 and now you couldn't buy one for under half a million," said dealer Kevin Conru, who operates out of Brussels.

Amyas Naegele Gallery

But you do have to watch out for the traps: forgeries and smuggled items. The best defense is to find a dealer who is trusted and well regarded by others. Scientific technologies such as carbon dating can work with older pieces but are imperfect and expensive. Amyas Naegele, a top dealer based in Manhattan, advises collectors to carefully study museum pieces before buying similar objects. Shows like the one in San Francisco are also great places to learn more, and they often have committees that vet pieces and ensure authenticity.

Cultural patrimony laws have put a limit on the number of items that can be taken out of a country. The law is especially strict in Peru and other countries with art from the Pre-Colombian period -- early 15th century and older. Until recently, Yale University and Peru had a long-running feud over a collection of pieces that were obtained in 1912 by Yale archeologist Hiram Bingham III. Now, almost a century later, a resolution has been reached. Yale will send the pieces to a newly created center at Machu Picchu, a 15th-century Inca site in Peru, and the university and the country will run the center jointly.

Pre-Columbian objects from the Americas still surface from long-held private collections. Africa's laws are somewhat looser, meaning more new items are making their way to dealers. Naegele has been showing some new pieces from the less-collected Cameroon grasslands of Africa, including a vibrant blue and red headdress and an accompanying whisk that's topped off with a grinning feline figure. The beaded set would have been used by dancers at initiations, weddings and other ceremonies. The headdress is priced at $15,000, the whisk at $20,000.

Mark A. Johnson Tribal Art

Material from Indonesian cultures drew heavy attention at the show in San Francisco, partly because the region is yielding the most new finds. A mask from the Dayak tribe of Borneo, offered by the Mark A. Johnson Gallery, featured a captivatingly morphed face of a pig, dragon and bird, painted in red and black and adorned with a plume of feathers. Used during harvest ceremonies in the 1940s-50s, it's on the market at $6,500.

Oceanic art like this is on prominent display at the Met. Items collected by Michael Rockefeller before that final trip are displayed in a stunning, slope-walled glass room. The de Young Museum in San Francisco also has a large collection of Oceanic works. But enjoyable as it is to look at all that, there is something even better: admiring great tribal art outside glass cases and inside your home.

REVIEW OF SAN FRANCISCO TRIBAL & TEXTILE ARTS SHOW 2011

2011-03-02T11:26:00.000-08:00

Horse Bridle from Timor Island

San Francisco Tribal & Textile Arts Show

February 11-13, 2010

Nearly 100 international dealers of tribal arts from Asia, Africa, Oceania, & the Americas exhibited at the 25^th annual Caskey/Lees show at the Fort Mason location in February. Over the last 10 years, this show has evolved into the most important and interesting tribal art fair in the US and in my opinion the world, based on the breadth and depth of the objects offered. The quality of the material ranges from modestly priced pieces perfect for new collectors to museum masterpieces, thus attracting buyers from all economic levels.

Due to the economic downturn starting in 2008, sales at this venue were tepid in 2009 and anemic in 2010. Expecting another slow year, several dealers, mostly Europeans, dropped out. However, it took no time to fill these open slots with other dealers (mostly American), eager to take advantage of the opportunity.

The good news is sales were up over last year. Most were in the mid price range, of course, but some important pieces were sold by shows end. Perhaps because expectations were low, the usual complaints by dealers were down and most were even cautiously optimistic about the future of the market. Attendance was up and collectors were in a buying mood after two years of holding back.

Another indicator of a healthier market is sales amongst exhibitors, and it was clear that several of my colleagues were making deals and re-investing into new inventory. I picked up a few pieces, including a rare old painted bark cloth vest from Borneo Island.

I really can’t think of any bad news. The weather was fantastic with clear, blue skies. The City was beautiful, as always. Everyone was cooperative, friendly, and up beat.

Because my interest is with tribal art from Asia and the western Pacific, I was aware of a considerable increase in objects from that region, especially Indonesia. Regular exhibitors of this material: including myself, Tom Murray, Bruce Frank, Jack Sadovnic, Miranda Crimp, John Ruddy, Erik Farrow, and Rudolf Smend, were joined by Frank Wiggers (after a long show hiatus), returning exhibitors Louis Nierijnck and Curtis and Margaret Keith Clemson, and new exhibitors Bill Sutterfield and James Barker. Fortunately, each of these dealers had their own style and material, allowing for a wide range of sculptures, masks, textiles, beadwork, and jewelry with very little duplication. To my surprise, a wide variety of stone sculptures were on display in many of these booths, with unique examples from Sumba, Sulawesi, Nias, and Sumatra.

Highlights: An exciting collection of Javanese batik cloth, curated by batik expert Rudolf Smend, was on exhibition in the lobby, Tom Murray sold his large collection of Neolithic stone blades, Bruce Frank exhibited a rare Dayak ironwood sculpture and an archaic style Tau-Tau ancestor figure from Sulawesi Island (sold), Frank Wiggers also sold his rare tattooed Tau-Tau, Jack Sadovnic offered a beautiful Nias Island coconut scrapper and a pair of throne supports with carved serpent figures, from Sumatra Island (also sold), Louis Nierijnck displayed a Mentawai Island painted wall carving, and Bill Sutterfield offered a collection of Dayak shields and weapons, several of which he sold. I showed a large old stone figure from Sulawesi Island (sold), a decorated horse bridle from Timor Island (sold), a collection of masks from the Lampung area of Sumatra Island, and an unusual ritual post from Borneo Island, with hermaphrodite features.

Although outside of my immediate area, but definitely worth mentioning: Michael Hamson offered and sold several pieces made by the Boiken people of New Guinea. In addition, Michael produced an important new catalog of this material that includes an outstanding selection of masks, sculptures, bowls, and drums from major private collections from around the world. Opening this publication is a series of wonderful field photos recently taken by noted Bay Area photographer Mike Glad.

As always, I want to thank the Caskey Lees team for their hard work in producing this show. They make every effort to accommodate the needs of at least a 100 semi-stressed out individuals. I look forward to participating next year!

RECENT RELATED ARTICLES IN THE LA TIMES:

2011-03-02T11:18:00.000-08:00

LUCY WALKED ERECT, FOSSIL SHOWS
Humans likely hit their stride 3.2 million years ago, a bone rom Ethiopia suggests.
LA Times, February 12, 2011. By Thomas H. Maugh II.
"A fossilized foot bone from Ethiopia indicates that human ancestors had largely abandoned swinging from trees by 3.2 million years ago and were spending virtually all of their time walking upright, researchers said this week..."
For a direct link to the story on the LA Times website, please go to:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-foot-bone-20110212,0,5062313.story

CHILD REMAINS SHED LIGHT ON FIRST AMERICAN IMMIGRANTS
The 3-year old died 11,500 years ago and was apparently buried in the family home.
LA Times, February 26, 2011. By Thomas H. Maugh II.
"Alaska researchers have found the cremated remains of a 3-year old child whose parents were among the first immigrants to North America, crossing over the then-existing land bridge from Asia to the New World through the region known as Beringia..."
For a direct link to the story on the LA Times website, please go to:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-oldest-burial-20110226,0,4017312.story

TRIBAL ART SHOW IN FEBRUARY-San Francisco

2011-02-02T08:32:00.000-08:00

San Francisco Tribal & Textile Arts Show

February 11-12, 2011.

Preview Opening: February 10, 6pm to 9pm.

Fort Mason Center, Festival Pavilion, San Francisco.

The San Francisco Tribal & Textile Arts Show (SFTTA) celebrates its 25th anniversary this February at the historic Fort Mason Center. Taking place February 11‐13, 2011, the SFTTA is considered the best tribal art event in the world. The show features an elite roster of the world’s most respected Tribal & Textile arts dealers and more than 15,000 museum‐quality art and antiques from the Oceanic Islands, the Middle East, Central, and South America, Africa, Polynesia, Indonesia and the remote tribes of Asia.

The SFTTA has consistently received outstanding reviews from reputable arts and cultures media, including Art & Antiques, Art + Auction, Antiques Roadshow, and the San Francisco Chronicle which in 2010 stated that, ‘for those taken with the finest examples of antique ceramics, sculpture, fabric, paintings and jewelry, the SFTTA Show is the place to be.” Both seasoned and novice art collectors have been drawn to the Tribal & Textile Show to find pieces they love, and / or develop art investment collections.

The very nature of the Tribal & Textile buying world almost ensures that the pieces increase in value through time because authentic pieces are in such short supply. An ever‐growing demand for what is becoming a ‘disappearing art’ has created a demand for particular pieces and collections. Yet, many pieces are still quite affordable for the new collector. As the modern world becomes smaller, fewer and fewer people living within tribal communities are continuing their traditional art forms. The SFTTA Show is a nexus point where these disappearing arts can converge with the public.

The 2011 Show will feature a special exhibit of Batik textiles from Indonesia. Curated by Rudolf G. Smend of Germany, Donald J. Harper, Java and Vietnam, and titled, Batik – An Enduring Heritage, the exhibit will be on view and for purchase throughout the show. All pieces on display were woven using the traditional wax‐resist dyeing technique.

The Show opens with a preview gala on Thursday, Feb. 10,2011 from 6:00pm‐9:00pm to benefit the galleries for Art of Africa, Oceania and the Americas and the Textiles galleries in the de Young Museum in Golden Gate Park. The gala offers a ‘first look’ at the batik textile exhibit as well as the thousands of art and antiques on display.

General admission for the Tribal & Textile Show is $15 per person. To purchase tickets for the Opening Night benefit, please call 415‐750‐7656 or email: dcappannelli@famsf.org. The Opening Night benefit takes place Thursday, Feb. 10,6:00pm‐9:00pm. This event is open to the public on Friday Feb. 11, 11:00am‐7:00pm, Saturday February 12, 11:00am‐7:00pm and Sunday Feb. 13, 11:00am‐5:00pm. There will be no admittance on Sunday after 4:30pm.

For more information, please call (310) 455‐2886, or go to website: http://www.caskeylees.com/SF_Tribal/SF_Tribal.html

TRIBAL ART EXHIBITION IN FEBRUARY-Los Angeles

2011-02-02T08:27:00.000-08:00

Central Nigeria Unmasked: Arts of the Benue River Valley
February 13 – July 24, 2011.
Preview Opening: February 12, 6:30pm to 9pm

Experience some of the most abstract, dramatic, and inventive sculpture in sub-Saharan Africa in this groundbreaking exhibition that “unmasks” the history of Central Nigeria by examining the dynamic interrelationships among its peoples and their ritual arts. On hundred figurative wood sculptures, masks, and ceramic vessels, as well as elaborate bronze and iron regalia reveal borrowing, adaptations, reinventions, and permutations that are varied and complex as the vast Benue River Valley itself.

For further information, please visit the Fowler Museum website at: www.fowler.ucla.edu

TRIBAL ART SHOW IN FEBRUARY-Marin County

2011-02-02T08:24:00.000-08:00

Marin Show: Art of the Americas

February 26 - 27, 2011

Preview Opening: February 25, 6:30pm to 9pm.

Marin Center & Embassy Suites Hotel, San Rafael, CA.

The annual Marin Show: Art of the Americas celebrates its 27^th year as the most substantive and extensive ongoing showcase focused on antique American Indian, Pre-Columbian, Spanish Colonial and contemporary American Indian art. The show brings together top dealers, collectors, artists, and academia from across the world. The show’s main floor offers antique material, with the adjacent Embassy Suites Hotel ballroom, offering contemporary Native and Latin art and artists.

The exhibited art includes pottery, textiles, sculpture, jewelry, beadwork, baskets, paintings, photography and more, offering quality material for first time buyers and seasoned collectors. A lecture on California Indian Baskets will be held on Saturday, February 26 at 9am, with a second lecture on Navajo Blankets of the Classic Period to be held on Sunday, February 27 at 10am.

Some exceptional pieces available on the market are expected at the show, including a 3^rd Phase, Classic period Navajo Chief’s Blanket c. 1860-65. And award-winning Native American artist and professional demonstrator Daniel Ramirez chose this show to launch a new art project called “The World’s Longest Native American Painting”. The Marin Show: Art of the Americas is part of the 2^nd annual Arte Du Monde SF, which runs throughout the month of February, and is a celebration of the Bay Area’s influential cultural arts scene.

The Opening Night Preview on Feb. 25 ($25) will feature recipes from top local Chef Scott Howard (FIVE, SCOTT HOWARD, Brick & Bottle), who will be in attendance, and will benefit the renowned charity Homeward Bound of Marin.

For further information and tickets, please visit the Art of the Americas website: www.marinshow.com.

RECENT ART RELATED ARTICLES IN THE LA TIMES:

2011-02-02T08:08:00.000-08:00

Los Angeles is primed: Art fair, please step up

Many in the art community believe the city could sustain a major fair. Shows lined up for the year, including this weekend's Art Los Angeles Contemporary and a new one in September, aim to make it happen.

LA Times, January 27, 2011. By Jori Finkel.

Direct link: LA seeks its fair share in art world

Ancestors may have left Africa earlier than thought

Tools suggest humans may have wandered far from Africa as early as 125,000 years ago, 60,000 years sooner than previously believed.

LA Times, January 28, 2011. By Amina Khan.

Direct link: Ancestors may have left Africa earlier than thought

Folk, Native American arts could gain millions from M.A.C. Foundation

The Margaret A. Cargill Foundation, with potentially $4 billion in assets, is gearing up a hefty grant to help raise the profile of folk and Native American art forms.

LA Times, January 31, 2011. By Mike Boehm.

Direct link: Folk, Native American arts could gain millions from MAC Foundation

ART PRICES MAKE A COMEBACK

2011-01-10T14:18:00.000-08:00

ART PRICES MAKE A COMEBACK

The high end of the market recovers from the downturn. The top 10 items sell for almost $700 million.

Bloomberg News, December 31, 2010.

Excerpts from article below:

The value of the world's most expensive items sold at auction more than doubled in 2010 as the top end of the market bounced back from the financial crisis.

The priciest 10 lots amounted to $698.6 million, compared with the combined $326.1 million of 2009, according to Bloomberg calculations.

Buyers around the globe snapped up works by trophy-named 20th century artists, and historic Chinese art ousted European Old Masters as the other main contributor.

Here are the year's 10 most valuable artworks at auction:

1) Pablo Picasso's 1932 painting of his mistress Marie-Therese Walter, sold for $106.5 million.

2) Alberto Giacometti's 1961 bronze "Walking Man I", sold for a record $103.4 million.

3) A Qianlong Dynasty vase sold for $83.2 million.

4) Amedeo Modigliani's 1917 pink-fleshed nude sold for $68.96 million.

5) A Song Dynasty scroll painting sold for $65.9 million.

6) An Andy Warhol black and white silkscreen sold for $63.4 million.

7) Alberto Giacometti's bronze of a flattened head sold for $53.3 million.

8) A Modigliani modernist limestone head sold for $53 million.

9) Pablo Picasso's 1903 portrait of the artist Angel de Soto sold for $52 million.

10) Henri Matisse's bronze relief of a nude woman sold for $48.8 million.

FOREWORD BY BERNARD SELLATO WITH COMMENTS FROM MARK JOHNSON

2010-10-11T11:42:00.000-07:00

Following is the English translation of the Foreword by Bernard Sellato in the Italian language publication "Patong, La grande scultura dei popoli del Borneo", for the 2008 exhibition of Borneo wood sculpture in the collection of the Museo delle Culture di Lugano. Bernard kindly asked me to review his statements on the current art market and identification of Borneo art and to make comments if needed. His original text is in black. My comments are in red and his replies are in blue. I have decided to just let the material flow naturally with comments made at specific points in the Foreword.

Bernard Sellato, a geologist and anthropologist working in Borneo since 1973, is the author of the must-have book on Borneo art: "Hornbill and Dragon" as well as several other publications and articles. His latest publication: "Plaited Arts from the Borneo Rainforest", is richly illustrated and offers a comprehensive look at the woven masterpieces created by Borneo's rain forest artists. Available in January 2011.

FOREWORD

Bernard Sellato

(Published in Italian translation as: "Un inatteso giacimento," in Patong. La grande sculptura dei popoli del Borneo dalle Collezioni del Museo delle Culture di Lugano, Paolo Maiullari & Junita Arneld (eds), Milano: Ed. G. Mazotta, 2008, pp. 51-57)

Had it not been for the Galleria Gottardo’s and the Museo delle Culture Extraeuropee’s most welcome initiative to stage this important exhibition, I would never have imagined that the beautiful city of Lugano, which is rightfully famous for several other reasons, held such an outstanding Borneo collection. We may never know why, some day, one Lugano resident, the artist Serge Brignoni, decided to bequeath his collection to the Museo. Yet, unfortunately, for over twenty years, that collection remained in the Museo’s depot, leaving us, Borneo aficionados, totally unaware of its existence.

This sort of chance occurrence of private persons’ bequests and donations, of course, must lead one to suspect that other museums, in other Western towns and cities, with no special historical connections to Borneo, or to Asia more generally, might hold similar treasures, awaiting an opportunity to be “discovered” and exhibited. Therefore, Professor Francesco Paolo Campione’s present endeavor is to be highly commended. Also, I would like here to acknowledge Junita Arneld’s and Paolo Maiullari’s dedication to and expertise in the arduous task of identifying and making sense of the pieces of this collection.

On Collecting

Indeed, one major problem with such collections is with the almost total dearth of information regarding the pieces’ origins and functions. Serge Brignoni’s is an artist’s collection, based on an artist’s unique approach and specific criteria. It is a very personal selection of pieces that appealed to him, presumably for aesthetic reasons having little to do with an ethnographer’s or an anthropologist’s concerns. Serge Brignoni was not, we may expect, particularly eager to investigate which ethnic group of which region of Borneo had manufactured them and for what reasons, or what functions they served or what meaning they carried. Moreover, such information probably was not forthcoming, as these pieces were procured, along the years, from primitive art galleries and public auctions in European capital cities. Why Serge Brignoni collected Bornean statuary and, more broadly, Indonesian and Oceanic art, rather than, say, African art, as quite a few other famous artists did, may remain a matter for conjecture.

Although no information as to the places of origin of these carvings came with them, it is clear that Serge Brignoni had an artist’s sure eye for and fine taste in Bornean art. The 1920s and 1930s, when he gathered his collection, saw several exhibitions, held in Banjarmasin and Batavia (Jakarta), of Borneo artefacts made for the already blooming antique trade (see, e.g., Schophuys et al. 1939), and it is not that uncommon to find “old fakes” in pre-war (and even older) collections (I would question this report. I find it difficult to believe there was much of a demand for Indonesia art at this time, other than from Dutch colonists, especially for “primitive” material such as Borneo artifacts. Considering the amount of available authentic pieces at that time, it seems unlikely there was a need to create “fakes” of the same types of objects. I would really like to see proof that convincing reproductions of traditional Borneo objects were made in the 1930s. It has been my experience that objects made for sale, regardless of the skill level of the artist, rarely if ever reach the level of quality of objects made for personal or traditional use. Collectors in the field before WWII probably seldom could remove and take away old statues, for reasons of local beliefs, and no “runner” at that time would have taken the risk of stealing one, even with local complicity, so collectors sometimes commissioned work by local carvers, and so did, probably, the early local “antique dealers”. Such statues would have just the same quality. Now, would they be “authentic” of “fake”? Regarding basketry, which is more in my area of expertise, one found in the late 1940s in Kalimantan souvenir shops all sorts of “ritual” sun hats of the Ngaju, Ot Danum, and related people, except that these hats carry geometric patterns, because local craftspeople did not dare display their usual sacred patterns of godly beings on artefacts meant for sale. Those hats, therefore, were different from the “authentic” hats, though not of a poorer quality.), yet Serge Brignoni’s flair did not fail him, and his collection clearly does not include such made-for-the-trade pieces. One thus may assume that he exercised the same discrimination in selecting objects from the wider Indonesian and Oceanic area for his vast collection, and one would just hope that those objects are also presented to the public soon.

This Bornean collection, however, does reflect a few standard features, which to this day have remained widespread among collectors of and dealers in primitive art, be it African or Bornean. Firstly, most often these persons are partial to “noble” materials – metal, stone, and hard wood. Art works made of such materials are readily recognized as art; otherwise, they often barely qualify as handicrafts (see Sellato 1995). Among carved hard wood works, anthropomorphic figures are generally favored, and even more so when they come in large sizes (I am not sure I agree with this, as I have found it very difficult to sell larger hard wood sculptures. Most collectors I know tend to purchase smaller to medium size objects and rarely buy a large scale sculptures. I wish this was true! I guess you are right on this, but I would say that this trend is recent. In the 1970s in Jakarta, medium-size statues were quite cheap, and the smaller ones (up to 10cm) sold by the dozen, and even by the weight, while large hard wood sculptures were already very much sought after.). Serge Brignoni’s Borneo collection comprises principally large-sized anthropomorphic figures made of hard wood – along with the occasional war shield or baby-carrier.

Secondly, collectors and dealers have a marked bias towards the “antiquity” of primitive art pieces. While it is well known that wooden artefacts, even those made of hard wood, or the imputrescible iron wood, usually do not survive very long in the humid tropics (New evidence contradicts this view. The majority of carbon date tests, conducted in the last decade, of ironwood sculptures from Borneo, especially figures found in dry caves or recovered from river mud, are showing much older dates than expected: 300 years, 500 years, 1000 years, 1500 years old, etc. There are some sculptures carved from softer woods, again usually found in dry caves, that have also dated back as old as 500 years. Considering that is not uncommon to find intact wooden artifacts, none made of durable ironwood, that date back 2000 to 4000 years in dry tombs in Central Asia, China and Egypt, this data should not be shocking. Even wet tomb sites in China have produced soggy, but intact 2500 year old wooden objects. Indeed, in reducing contexts, like black river mud or peat bog, even skin or hair may survive, and very old carved objects may be found in such environments. But Borneo is not Egypt, and so-called “dry” caves are not that dry, I know that from experience. I was actually referring principally to hardwood statues showing “traces of age”, such as weathering or lichen, which collectors are keen to check on, and which only occur with items standing in the open, not with items in caves. And a very weathered statue may just be fifty years old, not necessarily “mid-19^th century”. -I still think solid ironwood sculptures can last considerably longer than fifty years in the open without getting too much erosion. There may be many examples that do not, and it is likely that sculptures carved from lesser hard or medium woods would not last very long in the open, especially in harsh wet environment. But, I have one very eroded Ngaju sculpture that was carbon dated to 200 years old and I know other's that have been able to get 100-400 dates on outdoor pieces they own. In addition I have owned a few outdoor pieces with good information that were more than fifty years old, that really did not show much erosion on the surface. A little bit around the top of the head and some flat areas, but the pieces were generally intact-), collectors and dealers are always quite eager to convince themselves (or their customers) that a given object can be ascribed to the “late 19^th century” – and the earlier, the better – as if the label “mid-20^th century” would lessen its artistic value (it would, I suspect, somewhat moderate its market value) (I completely agree with this point and I discussed this in an earlier posting on my blog. Nearly always, the very first question asked of me by collectors is “how old is it”! Never how good is it! No matter how fantastic the quality of a piece is, as soon as a date later than early 20^th century is mentioned, the vast majority of collectors lose interest. It is true that most dealers will over emphasize early dates, true or not, to collectors to boost sales, but I keep trying to lead in another direction, hoping to convince collectors to look past this point and pay more attention to the art. Unfortunately, it seems to be a losing battle and I rarely am able to convince anyone to do so. I am not sure who is more responsible: the collectors who demand early pieces or the dealers that promoted this idea in the first place.). Ideally, art pieces should be “pre-contact”, that is, with Westerners, based on the assumption that they would then be more authentic, as if no other contact, or cultural influences, had ever occurred prior to Western interference. In turn, I believe, this rests on some vague notion that “primitive” cultures have somehow remained static till the arrival of their Western “discoverers” (I have also tried to make this point and agree that purity of culture is a ridiculous concept promoted by many dealers and latched onto by most collectors. With very few exceptions, most tribal cultures have had contact with others, trading for materials not found locally and borrowing ideas. Dayak groups on Borneo had contact with traders from China, Philippines, Indochina, India, and parts of the Arab world, long before they met a European. It was and still is common for people to adopt positive outside influences. In fact many Dayak aristocrats believed that owning and using materials found outside the local area added to their status. An important example of this influence is the trade in uniformly mass-produced glass seed beads from Europe had on virtually every tribal culture around the world in the 19^th and early 20^th century. I actually like pieces that have odd cross cultural connections and find that movement of ideas and materials fascinating. I have had better luck convincing a few collectors to get over this issue and appreciate these artistic connections. It is still a good point to make, for example, if an airplane flying over Borneo drops a milk cartoon onto the ground and a Dayak picks up, cuts some holes into it, adds some wood ears, and then wears it on his head like a mask I would absolutely consider that a piece of authentic Dayak tribal art! Do you know this movie, The Gods Must Be Crazy, in which the main character is a bottle of Coke? Absolutely!). Furthermore, one must be aware that such period ascription very often is more a matter of marketing strategy than of scientific analysis.

Associated, to some extent, with age is, for collectors and dealers, the “patina factor”, one which is obviously of no relevance to the people who created the objects. The patina, usually amply described in catalogues, seems to bear heavily on an object’s market price (This can be true, but in my experience, the emphasis on patina is more about understanding the use of the piece which can also help with determining authenticity and possibly age. The richer the patina or the more eroded the surface, the more likely that it was used regularly and therefore more likely an authentic and older object. There can be added value in good patina, of course, but I think there is nothing wrong with that as natural wear, erosion, and continual use adds it own unique features. I believe the notion of “patina” in primitive art may have emerged from the African art market, whereby patina was supposed to derive from repeated rubbing or offerings of blood and/or egg yolk). Therefore, it is often made to undergo a delicate process of cosmetic “improvement” at the hands of experts, which is quite difficult to detect (I am sure this is true in some cases, however I find this the exception rather than the rule. In my experience, most fake patinas are produced in the source countries and meant to fool everyone in the chain of sales. The vast majority of professional western dealers would not knowingly manufacture fake patinas to enhance sales, as to be caught doing so would be a major faux pas, regardless of the ethical considerations. Frankly, it is not as easy to do successfully as many people seem to believe. I have seen many examples of carvings with faked surfaces and they are rarely ever convincing and under close examination can usually be detected. It is has been said that whatever man can make, man can reproduce, but in the case of authentic patinas nature and regular use, over long periods of time are the creators. It is more common, if needed, for western dealers to repair pieces and touch up patinas in damaged areas.). Such sophisticated doctoring is performed not only by primitive art specialists in European capitals, but nowadays also by manufacturers of fake Dayak statues in Borneo’s coastal cities, as well as in Bali and other places (This does happen, but the vast majority of professional tribal art dealers that I know would never do this knowingly or pass on pieces that they believe are fakes. What is more typical is that a dealer may also be fooled and unknowingly re-sells a fake. If this is discovered, legitimate dealers will take back the piece and refund the buyer. The majority of fakes sold in Bali are purchased by amateurs or tourists, while professional dealers go out of their way to avoid these pieces and concentrate on finding only authentic, traditional artifacts.).

Finally, another factor, and a crucial one on the primitive art market, is the aesthetic value credited to a given object. Let me, at this point, remark that this value, in principle, should be independent of the object’s absolute antiquity or the material used, and even, to some extent, its size, but in practice it is not (Without question values are subjective and even change over time. Thankfully, there are a variety of opinions on values and what is valuable; otherwise we would all want to collect the exact same thing at the exact same price. The main reason the market functions because there is no universal agreement on aesthetics or value. One of the things that makes collecting interesting is discovering objects not yet accepted as valuable in the mainstream marketplace. I completely agree on this). While this is not the place to discuss the legitimacy of the process by which Westerners project their own grid of aesthetic values upon artefacts created by other cultures, which has been viewed by some as a new form of colonialism, I should at least stress the very subjective and culturally biased nature of such an aesthetic evaluation

(Of course Westerners project their own gird of aesthetics, just as tribal societies project their aesthetics on items found outside their culture. Dayaks were attracted to ceramic jars traded from China, brass wares from Brunei, trade beads from Europe, machine spun yarns and dyes, and so on, easily incorporating them into their material culture. They discovered their own ways to appreciate and value these items outside the context of their origin. Is it right to criticize only Westerners for doing the same thing? I was not criticizing anyone. But see the post-modern position about this).

Likewise, a subjective assessment of an object’s “power” partakes in this evaluation. In a “powerful” object, this encompasses, in a strange mix, both the aesthetic strength that it possesses to trigger emotions, and the magical potency that it is supposedly endowed with. Minute traces of blood (or egg yolk) as could be detected – or imagined, or carefully added – are viewed as testifying to the object’s use in ritual sacrifices and, consequently, to its accommodating some sort of supernatural entity, which, in turn, is viewed as guaranteeing its authenticity. Supposed supernatural attendance in a carved figure may be regarded at will by its owner as either benevolent, and thus bound to ensure the protection of the home, or malevolent, and liable to radiate danger – only slightly so, because the owner only half believes in it, but a little shudder is always so pleasurable. And, of course, a spiritually laden object generally can command a higher market price (This is true to some degree, but I believe is missing the point. Dealers and collectors that love tribal art appreciate this aspect, which is one of the main reasons we collect these pieces. Real or imagined, it is something we all look for in a piece and often is what attracts us in the first place. Frankly, if you look at most tribal art objectively, in this case Dayak objects, there is very little that is beautiful about them, at least in the normal Western sense of art (I would disagree. Which/whose objectivity are you talking about, anyway? Are you projecting something?-it has been my experience that the average Western viewer does not understand or appreciate Dayak art-). You have to have a skewed sense of artistic appreciation and at least some ability to understand the abstract and mystical in the first place to find some Dayak monster attractive! We love these pieces precisely because they are supposed to be emanating menace, power, and protection! That said, are the descriptions accurate? Possibly not and certainly dealers and collectors should do more “homework”, but most of this is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Without saying anything to a client, they can either “feel” this or they don’t. Since this is a major part of the collecting/buying mentality for tribal art, it would be natural and expected to make this part of the “sales pitch”. Dealers did not invent this concept, nor can they force collectors to sense a “presence” in an object.).

In this process of evaluating an artefact’s aesthetic quality, near-total ignorance of its cultural context is nowadays trendy (I would disagree with this, at least in my experience. Most dealers and collectors I know would like to know this information and make every effort to obtain it. Unfortunately, all too often the correct information it is not available). Everyone has heard certain self-styled primitive art experts discoursing ad nauseam, with the appropriate emphatic gesticulation, on an object, with complete disregard for its significance in the culture that produced it (I don’t see this very often or at least in the way expressed in this statement. Most dealers and collectors I know do not deliberately pass on fake or overly exaggerated information. They may over emphasize some point out of passion, but not in an attempt to deceive. I was referring to particular individuals in my home country, whose sole focus is aesthetics. -in case this is not clear, Bernard is from France-). Fortunately, the present exhibition pays no heed to what for some is now the cool thing to do, and serious efforts have been made to restitute, when possible, the objects’ cultural context, particularly regarding their identification and interpretation.

On Identifying

Unless an artefact has been collected in the field, in its traditional cultural context, and information relative to its name, use, function, and meaning has also been gathered through interviews with knowledgeable participants in that particular culture, the tasks of identifying and interpreting this artefact seldom are easy ones. The first problem is with identifying its region of origin and the ethnic group that produced it. In this process, one must deal with the notion of “ethnic styles”, actually a rather hazy one. In turn, through a study of the available scientific literature, this identification may allow for a tentative interpretation of the artefact (It is rare for objects on the market to come with such precise field collection data, so dealers can only provide the best information they have available.).

Ethnic styles, however, are not unambiguously recognizable. Insofar as Borneo is concerned, only a small number of significant ethnic groups have become familiar, in terms of their “styles”, to collectors and dealers. The epithet “significant” here refers, obviously, to their prominent position on the primitive art market, not their population numbers or their political importance. These groups include, e.g., the Bahau, the Modang, the Ngaju. This is so, principally, because these groups, among lesser known others, have produced large-sized carved figures in hard wood, in which collectors and dealers recognize an (aesthetic) strength and/or (spiritual) potency comparable to that recognized in the carved works of certain African, Melanesian, or Pacific groups, and also because their respective productions, in terms of ethnic styles, seem relatively easy to identify (I agree with this statement on identification. Because there is often so little information available on the various sub-groups, dealers will tentatively identify an object with a related, but better-known group).

Collectors and dealers, therefore, have been prone to, first, view these few, particular ethnic styles as “boxes”, strict and discrete categories, and, second, include in these boxes, that is, identify to these recognized styles, all sorts of artefacts of diverse, more or less unrelated origins. One reason for this stance is commercial, as an object qualified as Modang fetches a higher price on the market and, concomitantly, this contributes to strengthening the position of Modang art, which therefore becomes increasingly sought after. In fact, a substantial part of the authentic pieces labeled as Modang are not Modang, while there are many more fake Modang than there are fake Rembrandt. (This problem arises from the fact the very little specific information is available to dealers, and therefore collectors, about the specific sub-group that produces each object. Also getting specific information about the origins can be complicated by how an individual Dayak may identify himself. Bernard makes this point in his book: “Innermost Borneo, Studies in Dayak Cultures” on page174, that Dayaks from the Aoheng group may identify themselves from their specific village amongst other Aohengs, then as Penihing to the nearby Busang or Kayan, and then as Busang as they move farther down the river, then Bahau, and then eventually just Dayak when they encounter coastal peoples. Certainly artifacts coming down this same chain, may suffer the same misidentification. Another problem is that most of the objects coming from the field start with a chain of local runners and dealers that eventually make their way to the markets in Bali. The self-interest of these runners often prevents them from telling the truth about the origin of the pieces they offer, primarily to keep others from going around them and then obtain more pieces from that area. Frankly, they may not care enough about this issue to pass on the correct information. Lastly, there are always problems with memory, personal interpretation of the data, and translation. (All this is certainly true.)

Personally, I make a point to obtain this information and beg my sources to produce accurate collection data: origin, use, etc, but this almost never happens no matter how much I plead! Because it is nearly impossible to guess or know if a particular object is from the Modang, Bahau, or one of the many subgroups, we are often forced to pigeon hole a piece into one of these basic “style” groupings. The reality is that we do this out convenience, not to deceive or enhance value. It is true that at the moment Modang and Bahau objects are more desirable on the market and therefore more valuable, but that is because they deserve to be. This “style”, again regardless of precise origin, is fantastic, archaic, and rare. I am one of the biggest promoters of this area and their value and do so with no shame, because I honestly believe it! Virtually all of the other collectors and dealers that I know, that appreciate this style, feel the same way and we are doing this NOT because of the potential “value” issue but out of true passion for these forms. Most of the false info for strictly value sake comes from the runners and dealers in Indonesia that are now aware that this market is hot. Usually, the legitimate dealer crowd steps in and generally corrects the obvious errors in identification before they reach the collectors. Somehow, this focus (or should we call it obsession?) with certain “styles”, which creates an upward spiraling interest in them, at the same time prevents the “discovery” or recognition of other styles, which might be just as fascinating, but never make it to the market -you are right and the origins of other, similar styles should not be dismissed-).

Ethnic styles, like ethno-cultural groups, are not tight, foolproof categories (Most of us know this, but as mentioned before precise information is not easily obtainable). Along with objects, techniques, and ideas, styles have circulated widely, from time immemorial, and reached far away across the island. For example, the area of diffusion of parang ilang, the peculiar straight sword of the Kayan, has spread out to many other groups, cutting across mountain ranges and ethnic boundaries, to reach even the Iban, who have a tradition of curved swords. And Kenyah dances, and especially their inspiriting lute music, have become popular across large portions of the eastern Kalimantan and Sarawak regions.

Inter-ethnic contact, intermarriage, and trade have induced cultural exchange and cross influences, and created broad buffer zones straddling ethnic limits, where styles are typically métis. Among the Iban, one may find straight-bladed parang ilang fitted with an Iban-style hilt and sheath. And Kenyah dances, as rendered by other, neighboring groups, no longer are truly Kenyah. Styles, therefore, are not discrete categories, but rather form a constellation of continuous variations overlapping ethnic boundaries. Stylistic continuum is the norm, while stylistic isolate is an exception. And in many cases, ascribing with precision a given artefact to a given ethnic group is found to be mission impossible (I could not agree more!).

Moreover, within a given ethnic group and notwithstanding outside influences, there is broad local variability in space and time. From one village, and from one generation, to the next, local styles change or evolve. Within one single village, wood carvers have each their own personal manière, and the spectrum of idiosyncrasy at village level may be found to be just as broad as it is at the ethnic group level. Apart from this, specific technical constraints – for instance, a strangely shaped piece of wood – may give birth to a largely unconventional object out of line with the local style. Finally, impromptu local innovation may also lead to strikingly outlandish types of art work. So, identification is all but an easy task (Bingo!).

On Interpreting

Once an artefact has been identified with a high enough degree of reliability – let us note here that standards of reliability vary widely – interpreting it poses another challenge. When it comes to interpretation, it appears that collectors and dealers have consistently displayed a marked propensity to label virtually any anthropomorphic figure as an “ancestor figure” (I’ll admit to doing this all of the time, but not because I am trying to deceive or add value. When I am not sure what a piece really represents, and again the variety of possibilities is endless, I fall back on this generic interpretation. Often I use “ancestor figure, because just saying ‘statue’ or “sculpture’ is boring and repetitive. I suspect others do it for the same reasons or out of laziness, but I really don’t think dealers are specifically using this term because it adds value to the piece. n the end, most value comes from quality and rarity and not the terminology used. Right, but then, it contributes to disseminating wrong information on the object’s cultural background. -I agree and would appreciate getting the correct information whenever possible-). Whereas this may, to some extent, be true of such figures from other Southeast Asian islands, it is a gross oversimplification regarding Borneo (see, e.g., Sumnik-Dekovich 1985, Feldman 1994; see also Sellato 2002). Some such figures, as among the “Kayanic” groups (Kayan, Bahau, Modang, Kenyah, and related groups), are not ancestor figures at all and have no connection whatsoever with the dead and funerals. Furthermore, although many large anthropomorphic statues, especially in the set of ethnic groups described as the “Barito Complex” (Ngaju, Ot Danum, Luangan, Benua’, Tunjung; see Sellato 1989 and 1992), were indeed erected in the course of funerary rituals, they do not necessarily represent ancestors. Generally, as Nicole Revel (1988: 70) rightly noted: “[...] these large anthropomorphic statues found on Borneo have many and diverse functions [...]”.

I tend to believe that the word “ancestor” has a certain appeal to collectors and dealers, and this for several reasons. It is evocative of traditional, “pagan” rituals and, as such, it suggests that the figure dates back to pagan times, that is, prior to the period of Western contact and/or Christian conversion, and at the same time, that it may be inhabited by some potent spirit. All of this, evidently, should grant it extra (market) value. (As mentioned above, I am not sure this is an accurate read of why the term is used. Certainly it can mean all of those things, but the concepts mentioned are really the basics of what most collectors understand “authentic tribal art” to mean anyway. I believe we are past this point when presenting pieces in the first place, so the ultimate value will be determined by other criteria and not the terminology used.).

Therefore, as regards the functions and meanings of the large carved figures from Borneo, a brief cautionary note is compulsory. Over-interpretation and “wild” speculation have long plagued otherwise interesting exhibition and public auction catalogues, as well as some other publications. This is, I believe, quite a natural inclination. For sentimental reasons, a collector wishes to have an appealing story attached to, for instance, a carved figure. An object with a (his)story is always more engaging and, thus, closer to the collector’s heart, as well as more liable to be attractive to his visitors, than an object with no such elaborate background, which somehow, being “silent”, remains remote (This is true, of course, but frankly endearing to me! Everyone loves a good story. And I do, too!). Dealers, too, are tempted to make up such a story, for commercial reasons (Unfortunately this is true in many cases, but I still hold the position that the majority of professional dealers tell these stories out of passion for the art/culture and actually believe what they are saying. I should make the point that most dealers I know are at heart collectors and have the same passion for the objects that others have. It is a long-standing prejudice against dealers that all of our motivations are strictly commercial! Of course dealers have to make a profit, because they have invested so much time and money into their work and need to pay their expenses, just like everyone else. But, if money were the only factor, no one would be an art dealer as there are much better ways to make a profit than selling art, especially tribal art. Most dealers are generous with their time, experience, expertise, and inventories (such as loans and donations to museums) and do a lot more work than they get paid for. With a very few exceptions, most tribal art dealers I know make a good living at best, but rarely get rich.

Frankly, the most money made in tribal art (and probably most other art fields) is ultimately by the collectors who eventually sell or donate their pieces. And of course museums make money on art and so do academics, researchers, and anthropologists. And don’t forget that locals in source countries also make money off the items (admittedly not much) that help pay for medical care, school, food, debts, etc that would not have been possible without a financial demand for these pieces. Outside of personal heirloom objects, most tribal artifacts would ultimately be discarded or lost, un-appreciated by anyone outside the immediate area. Without art collectors and dealers, there would be virtually no one (other than some other academics and students) that would care who published or exhibited anything. I do agree with you on all this.).

The collector, then, may either buy the story, at a price, with the object, or choose to construct one for himself, post facto (I rarely see this.). Therefore, through this process, otherwise “silent” objects are made to talk (Most art is silent until someone interprets its meaning. Art does speak to the beholder, which is why people are attracted to a specific object. Most art may be silent, but those objects, in their home context, are very talkative, even though they might not be “art”). And “talking” objects are more valuable, sentimentally or commercially, even more so if their story endows them with assumed spiritual or magical potency (I think this statement over-emphasizing this point as if it is separate from the primary reason to collect tribal art. Tribal art is valuable in the first place because of this perception, but not MORE valuable because of it. Really?). Interestingly, this penchant runs counter the aestheticist trend of disregarding the object’s cultural context, as observed in certain museums. However, it brings on a situation that parallels, somehow, that of a ventriloquist and his puppet.

Whenever identification of an artefact’s origins (area and ethnic group) is too indecisive and its ethnographic context is too poorly known, such a ventriloquist act amounts to wholesome fiction, and even allegedly “informed” speculation as to function and meaning may prove ill-advised (I am not sure people are doing this specifically to be deceptive, but because they believe the information, even if it turns out to be incorrect.). The figure’s “persona”, then, is but that fancied by its owner. Anyone has the right to indulge in his/her own “interpretation” of a favorite object; nevertheless, s/he certainly should refrain from peddling it to customers or proposing it to the public (I would agree if it is done deceptively, but that may be a big leap to say this is common practice or that the dealer knew his information was incorrect. In my opinion, interpretation of art is one of the things that makes collecting so much fun and is done all of the time in the contemporary art market, but I agree in the tribal art market, people should try to stick to the facts as much as possible.).

In the most favorable cases, a thorough review of the relevant literature, along with meticulous comparisons with other, properly documented artefacts, may permit a reasonably reliable interpretation of an object’s function and meaning. In other cases, with inconclusive evidence, exercising scientific vigilance should lead one to admitting one’s ignorance – and there is no shame to be attached to this – instead of building up a fairy tale (It is my policy to tell clients when I am not sure about my information, but I’ll admit this is not common. I agree that some dealers, as well as some collectors, believe that to admit any ignorance could be seen as a lack of expertise and experience. Personally, I always appreciate additional insights and data. Everyone, including dealers, collectors, curators, and academics should be promoting co-operation and the exchange of information whenever possible. Let’s all promote co-operation! The more information circulates, the better). I am happy to congratulate Junita Arneld and Paolo Maiullari who, with appropriate circumspection, have done a magnificent job of presenting as much information as was convincingly possible.

References

Derlon, Brigitte, & Monique Jeudy-Ballini, 2006, “Collectionneur/collectionné. L’art primitif, le discours de la passion et la traversée imaginaire des frontières”, L'Homme, 177-178: 349-372. http://lhomme.revues.org/document2194.html

Feldman, Jerome, 1994, Arc of the Ancestors. Indonesian Art from the Jerome L. Joss Collection at UCLA, Los Angeles: UCLA Fowler Museum of Cultural History.

Revel-Macdonald, Nicole, 1988, “The Dayak of Borneo. On the ancestors, the dead and the living”, in Islands and Ancestors. Indigenous Styles of Southeast Asia, Jean-Paul Barbier & David Newton (eds.), Munich: Prestel Verlag, pp. 66-85.

Schophuys, H.J., Siti Roesiah Hinting, & A.D. Ismaël, 1939, Lalampahan ka Poelo Kalimantan. Gids bij de verzameling nijverheidsartikelen uit Borneo, tentoongesteld op de Pasar Gambir 1939. Kata pengantar tentang barang-barang berasal dari Kalimantan jang dipertoendjoekkan di Pasar Gambir 1939, Batavia: Balai Poestaka, Series No. 1354.

Sellato, Bernard, 1989, Hornbill and Dragon (Naga dan burung enggang). Kalimantan, Sarawak, Sabah, Brunei, Jakarta: Elf Aquitaine; second edition: Hornbill and Dragon. Arts and Culture of Borneo, Singapore: Sun Tree, 1992.

Sellato, Bernard, 1995, review of Beyond the Java Sea. Art of Indonesia's Outer Islands, by Paul Michael Taylor & Lorraine V. Aragon, Washington, DC: National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, & New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1991, in L'Homme, 135 (XXXV, 3): 150-152.

Sellato, Bernard, 2002, “Castrated Dead. The making of un-ancestors among the Aoheng, and some considerations on the dead and ancestors in Borneo”, in The Potent Dead: Ancestors, Saints and Heroes in Contemporary Indonesia, Henri Chambert-Loir & Anthony Reid (eds.), Crows Nest, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin; and Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, pp. 1-16.

Sumnik-Dekovich, Eugenia, 1985, “The significance of ancestors in the arts of the Dayak of Borneo”, in The Eloquent Dead. Ancestral Sculpture of Indonesia and Southeast Asia, Jerome Feldman (ed.), Los Angeles: UCLA Museum of Cultural History, pp. 101-128.

EXHIBITION AND CATALOG ON SOUTHEAST ASIAN ART

2010-09-07T08:48:00.000-07:00

"LIFE, DEATH, & MAGIC:
2000 Years of Southeast Asian Ancestral Art."
By Robyn Maxwell.

Catalog for the current exhibition at the National Gallery of Australia. This important exhibition runs from August 13 to October 31, 2010.

Catalog and information on this exhibition is available directly on the NGA website: www.nga.gov.au

BOOK RECOMMENDATION

2010-09-07T08:38:00.000-07:00

"Finders Keepers,
A Tale of Archaeological Plunder and Obsession."
By Graig Childs.

"...a fascinating book, full of swashbuckling pothunters, FBI raids, greasy museum curators...
Susan Salter Reynolds, Los Angeles.

NEW DISCOVERY OF OLDEST HUMAN IN THE PHILIPPINES

2010-09-07T08:29:00.000-07:00

"CALLAO MAN Could Redraw Filipino History:

A foot bone from a human that lived 67,000 years ago suggests that settlers first arrived earlier than once thought."

The discovery suggests that raft- or boat-building crafts would have been around at that time.

For the direct link to the full article, please go to:

http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/callao-man-philippines.html

STORY ABOUT ART FORGERY IN THE NEW YORKER

2010-09-07T08:21:00.000-07:00

"The Mark of a Masterpiece:

The man who keeps finding famous fingerprints on uncelebrated works of art."

Well written story about the art world, with interesting insights on connoisseurship, authentication, & forgery. There are many parallels to the tribal art market.

By David Grann, A Reporter at Large, The New Yorker magazine, July 12 & 19, 2010

For direct link to the story on The New Yorker website, please go to:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/07/12/100712fa_fact_grann

DISCUSSION ON CULTURAL PATRIMONY

2010-06-08T08:01:00.000-07:00

Strategy for Responses and Proactive Offense on Issues of Cultural Patrimony:

*THIS IS A ROUGH DRAFT, MEANT TO SOLICIT SUGGESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

We are losing the PR war on issues relating to Cultural Patrimony. We have neither a cohesive response nor strategy that properly and pro-actively states our side of the story. The government, media, archeological groups, and others believe or may eventually believe that all dealers, collectors, and institutions that buy, sell, and own tribal art or other cultural objects are basically criminals, “trafficking” (a term that already denotes illegal activity) in illegally obtained artifacts.

Those opposed to our activities are trying to characterize individuals that market artifacts legally obtained from private lands, acquired directly from the lawful owners (including families or villages), or acquired prior to current laws restricting this trade in the same category with individuals that market artifacts and human remains dug up illegally on Federal land and other protected sites worldwide, or items clearly stolen from others. This also applies to those items traditionally adorned with animal parts in antiquity by the original native peoples with items using newly acquired animal parts.

Most often, when I read articles on this subject, I rarely hear a direct response that clearly separates one group from the other or makes any point about the costs to the public of investigating and persecuting individuals engaged in legal activity.

We need to take a page from the conservative political playbook and go on the offensive. When they have an issue they want to bring to the public, they create and disperse a few very simple buzzwords or phrases that are repeated (in lock-step) over and over again, until the message sticks.

I believe that we need to use the same methods to get our message across to the general public, as well as ill-informed legislators, who at this point have no reason to disagree with the government and media versions of our business activity. Generally the public and most legislative bodies really do not understand the full extent of the issue. They automatically assume that the negative version of events is likely true and therefore would side with law enforcement when they open investigations, harass individuals, search museums, galleries and residences, confiscate goods, and make arrests.

What I propose is a clear set of prepared responses and eventually a more direct offensive on the forces that oppose our activities. We have to keep statements simple, to the point and include a mention of costs, so the general public and undecided legislators realize they do have a potentially negative financial stake in this debate.

Prepared responses should include statements, such as these listed below:

As individuals interested in cultural material, we strongly oppose those who violate laws relating to illegal removal of artifacts from government or tribal lands.

We do not purchase stolen artifacts and agree with the rights of individuals and native cultures to use and protect their own property.

When buying cultural property directly from indigenous sources, we only buy material legally obtained from individuals, families, and villages that willing agree to sell these artifacts.

That these sources are often people who no longer use these artifacts, because of changes to their traditional lifestyle (perhaps due to conversion to a “modern” religion, entering the cash economy from a barter system, radical environmental changes to traditional lands, restrictions or interference from local governments, or other influences from outside the local culture.

That these sellers directly benefit from the sale of artifacts, generally no longer in use, because they use the funds to purchase medicine, food, clothing, home repairs, farm improvements, or pay for educational and other work opportunities.

Those artifacts purchased from non-indigenous sources, such as other dealers, collectors, or institutions, were also legally obtained with full title or acquired prior to any recent changes in the law.

That the buying and selling of cultural objects benefits the public through the payment of sales and income taxes as well as providing materials for the education and understanding of these formally traditional societies and cultures.

That the persecutions of the dealers, collectors, and institutions, the vast majority who buy, sell, and own legal artifacts costs the public millions in wasted tax dollars.

Other important points:

1) It is patronizing to indigenous peoples when claiming they need western governments to protect them from willingly selling their own cultural property. I hear this argument all too often, along the lines of “unscrupulous western dealers take advantage of simple village folk when negotiating prices for artifacts”. It is unfair to state that tribal peoples, who have been trading, bartering, and selling for generations, are not capable of making a fair deal that satisfies their needs. I have always found that the people I am doing business with overseas are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and making clear decisions.

On another angle, does an artist in New York have more rights to sell his art to a foreign buyer, than does a villager in Africa? Further, do this artist’s heirs have more rights to sell their art to a foreign buyer than the villager’s heirs?

The second part of the argument is the gap in prices paid in third world countries to the prices realized in first world countries. The counter argument to this is the cost of living is equal to or more than that price gap. For example, in an extreme hypothetical situation where a western dealer might pay $100 for an object that is resold in the West for $5000, one must keep in mind that the indigenous person probably has an average monthly cost of living of $100 while a westerner has a monthly cost of living of $5000 or more.

*A side note on this subject: the average sale of a cultural object often comes from decendants of the original owner. The seller in fact exerted no labor or expense in the creation of the object, normally something that was handed down through the generations. In a sense any money realized is a gift, exactly like wealth handed down from to heirs in our own country.

2) This argument has been used before, but worth stating again and that not all source countries are in control politically to protect their own cultural property. The example of the Taliban’s destruction of Buddhist statues is a point to be emphasized. The fact that many artifacts were sold into the world marketplace is what protected many objects that otherwise would have been destroyed.

It makes more sense, in any event, to have wider distribution of cultural property around the globe, thus preventing total destruction due to political upheavals, environment damage, and natural disasters.

It is important to note, that many artifacts would have been discarded and eventually lost to the elements, if no art market existed. The fact that buyers are willing to pay money for artifacts is what has kept many of these pieces intact and appreciated. It also puts money directly into the hands of others, especially the villagers, who otherwise would not have benefited financially for these discarded or abandoned objects.

3) Who really owns world culture? For example, do the Italians own everything found within their current political boundaries? What about Greek artifacts found in Italy? Are they Greek or Italian? Are the decendants of former cultures, now dominated by new cultures the true owners or are the decendants of the current culture. Another example: who owns Moche artifacts in Peru, their decendants or the Spanish decendants that conquered them? The changing of boundaries over time and the coming and goings of cultures blur this line.

Or objects found in International waters (ex: Italy demanding the return of Getty bronze statue, found outside of Italy. This bronze statue was originally stolen from the Greeks by Roman soldiers and was not from Italy).

Which leads to the point of how far does repatriating cultural property go? Should ALL American art, including Native American artifacts, 19^th century folk art, 20^th century modernist paintings, and so on be brought back to the USA, never to be seen or appreciated outside our borders? Should ALL French impressionist paintings be returned to France?

*I say we draw the line at keeping all indigenous earth art on our planet and leave it at that.

REVIEW OF THE NY TRIBAL WEEK: MAY 2010

2010-06-08T07:35:00.000-07:00

For more years than I can remember, the focal points for tribal art sales in New York in May have been the Caskey/Lees Tribal Art Show and the Sotheby’s auction. That changed dramatically this year, when the Caskey/Lees group cancelled their show. But nature abhors a vacuum and within 24 hours a new set of players attempted to fill the void.

It should be noted that Bill Caskey and Liz Lees were forced to cancel their long running show, because so many dealers opted out this year. I would assume that most dropped out because show sales in general have not been as strong these last two years and the NY show in particular has its own set of problems.

The show was originally at the downtown armory, then it moved to the uptown armory, then back downtown, and this year it was to move again to the l1th floor of some art mart (or something like that). It is by far the most expensive tribal art show for sellers in America, more than double the costs of San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Santa Fe, a big consideration even in the best of times. Before 9/11 it was a strong, well-attended show, especially attracting European buyers and sellers. But, after 2001, show attendance and enthusiasm dropped off considerably and never really recovered.

I will digress for a moment and admit to being one of those dealers who opted out this year. I had actually intended to drop this show prior to 2010 because I rarely made any money at this venue, often just barely covering expenses. And I was bothered by the high costs, shipping problems, awkward set up, and poorly attended openings. Personally, I just wasn’t connecting with buyers in the same way I regularly do in SF, LA, & SFe. I hung in there far too long, still hoping for the new super client to walk in the door.

That said I did not want to see this show fail just because it wasn’t working out for me. I know some sellers have done very well at this show and I would hope that would continue. If for no other reason, it just doesn’t feel right that NYC should lack a great tribal art venue. And I was actually looking forward to attending this year as a visitor, perhaps finding a nice piece of art to buy, using the money I would have saved on booth costs!

Without the Caskey/Lees show anchoring the week, what next? The auction houses were moving forward with Sotheby’s offering a range of high-end (and expensive!) material, including several very special Oceanic pieces from the John Friede collection and with Bonhams offering more modest, but reasonably priced items. It would be assumed that the local NYC dealers would have their galleries open, perhaps setting up special exhibitions on their own. But, would that be enough to attract a large out of town crowd?

For several years prior, it was discussed amongst some of the dealers and collectors that the Caskey/Lees type of venue was not working in NYC, but a BRUNEAF or Paris style event might. Ideally, a group of dealers would take over several ground-floor galleries, grouped close together in an existing art district, with plenty of nice restaurants, etc. I was one of those people who agreed with this assessment, waiting to see if someone with the right resources would pull this idea together. I do know that at least two potential alternate show organizers were considering this concept, but were not yet willing to go up against Caskey/Lees existing venue.

As soon as Caskey/Lees announced the cancellation of their show, one group did leap into the fray. David Cassera, producer of Art Tribal Newsletter, with the backing of a few of the NYC dealers, most notably the Tambaran Gallery and Nassar & Co. created “Madison Promenade”, a proposed art walk of tribal art galleries and guests along and near Madison Avenue.

I know the organizers were hopeful that they would draw in a much larger group of dealers, but in the end they were only able to recruit a few local galleries such as Pace Primitive, Arte Primitivo, Alaska on Madison, Throckmorton Fine Art, and Gail Martin (who took a temporary space in the Tambaran Gallery) and a couple of European dealers: Joris Visser and John Giltsoff. Adding in Huber Primitive Art and David Bernstein, the “Promenade” amounted to an important, but anemic group of only 11 participants. To their credit, they were able to pull this together with a website, flyers, and catalog/guidebook in a very short period of time.

I know some of the other NYC dealers were not on board because of issues concerning costs and management. With such short notice and lead-time to properly prepare, others, especially those of us who do not live in NYC, were not convinced the concept was going to work out this year and didn’t want to take the financial risk. I definitely took a wait and see attitude.

Not unexpectedly, several of the other NY galleries put together an alternate version, titled “Tribal Art Week New York.” Participants included Bruce Frank Primitive Art (with guests Craig Delora and Michael Oliver), Art for Eternity (with Howard Nowes and guests Dave Deroche, David Zemanek, and Sebastian Fernandez), Michael Rhodes African Art, John Molloy Gallery, Mark Eglinton Gallery, and the AKA group (Jo De Buck, Peter Michael Boyd, Kellim Brown, Amyas Naegele, and James Stephenson) who set up shop in two adjacent hotel rooms in the Sutton Place Hotel. I was surprised that Joe Gerena, one of my favorite NY dealers, did not appear to have a special showing this time.

With two auctions and approximately 25 dealers showing at various locations (not counting any that may have set up in other hotels), NYC suddenly had a tribal show!

Please excuse me for not having the time to visit every location, as I only had two full days in Manhattan and I had to cram in a few private appointments as well. I tried at least to get by the temporary set-ups. Also, my focus is on Asian tribal and Western Pacific tribal art, so I really am not the best judge on the overall merits of material from Africa, other areas of Oceania, and the Americas.

My favorite venue on this visit was the Tambaran Gallery. It is a relatively spacious and attractive space and I liked the way Joris Visser and Gail Martin integrated their material in the lower gallery. Gail, as usual, has amazing textiles, included feather pieces and ikats from Central Asia. Joris had a very nice group of objects, including a beautiful mask from New Britain, which I believe he sold rather quickly. Joris reported good sales, including some pieces to new buyers. In the main upstairs gallery, there was a very unusual archaic Tau-Tau figure with long legs, which has to be the tallest example I have ever come across. I also like the South Sumatra throne back, somewhat hidden, near the office.

Although completely out of my normal area of interest, I really enjoyed the group of African pieces for sale at the AKA group show at the Sutton Hotel. Another highlight, was visiting the Bruce Frank gallery, because he has the best Indonesian pieces in town. Of special note were a small, archaic style Dayak ossuary fragment and a Dayak “knocked knee” post figure. Bruce also had a wonderful small, somewhat colorful, New Guinea figure, I believe from the Sepik area. At John Giltsoff's temporary location on Madison, I particularly loved a simple, but elegant Inuit mask he had on display.

All of the galleries I visited had wonderful objects for sale, but obviously some stood out over others. It was enjoyable to walk around the upper part of Madison and visit a few places in one loop.

On the downside, there were really only a handful of galleries in the upper Madison area, so most of the other venues required a taxi or ride on the subway. It isn’t that big of an issue in NYC, but it really didn’t feel like a “promenade” with so little concentration of galleries in any one area. Another issue was nearly everyone had a Wednesday evening opening, when considering the actual distance from place to place, made it impossible to attend each one.

Because events were spread out across town, I have no idea how many people showed up for all of this. I did see some familiar faces coming in and out of the galleries and there were crowds at the auctions, of course. From the few sellers I did talk to afterwards, sales were generally modest and attendance was concentrated around the first day or two.

The auctions were a real contrast. I was able to attend most of the Bonhams sale, which appeared to not go well. Way too many lots went unsold and what items did make the cut, generally went for less than expected. There was just no energy in the room. Clearly, there were few significant pieces offered, especially in comparison to Sotheby’s sale but in my opinion there were plenty of solid modest quality pieces that could have been picked up with reasonable bids. And in this economy, I would have expected more sales in this price range.

On the other hand, the Sotheby’s sale was insane! Several pieces went for very high numbers, in particular a fantastic and rare New Guinea flute stopper and a multi-faced Lega sculpture that each sold at around two million dollars. The Friede provenance and Sotheby’s hype machine, certainly helped, but with the exception of the flute stopper (which really is a masterpiece and a rare buying opportunity) it still amazes me how many buyers are willing to pay much, much more for similar items at auction than they would directly from a dealer, gallery, or private party.

The bottom line is I am happy to see that the tribal art banner is still flying high in NYC. I hope there was enough momentum to make this happen again next year. I would like to see more galleries and guests participate, especially if they can find some way to concentrate the venues. It might be helpful if there were a few “anchor” locations, with more than just a few dealers (but not too many, because I like the intimacy of smaller venues) at each end of Madison or perhaps in other prime locations around the city. I still love the idea of a larger group of dealers taking over part of an art district, like Chelsea. With a much longer lead-time and more cooperation amongst the various factions, at least for advertising and marketing purposes, it may be possible to re-energize the tribal art scene in NYC.

BOWERS MUSEUM EXHIBITION: SECRETS OF THE SILK ROAD

2010-04-19T13:57:00.000-07:00

SECRET OF THE SILK ROAD

Through July 25th, 2010

Bowers Museum

2002 N. Main St. Santa Ana, California

www.bowers.org

I just visited the Bowers and it is well worth the trip to Orange County, CA to see this important and exciting exhibition. This is the first time these rare mummies and related artifacts have been allowed to travel to the US, another major coup for museum director Peter Keller.

Grave sites unearthed in the Tarim Basin of northwest China have revealed a fascinating past: a 4000 year old civilization of farmers and herders with European ancestry. Included in this exhibition is the complete mummified remains of female, nicknamed the "Beauty of Xiaohe", a mummified infant, a boat shaped shrine with phallic markers, rare textiles, gold masks, jewelry, bronzes, and wooden effigies.

For a review in the LA Times, by Scarlet Cheng, please go to:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-silk-2010mar28,0,7408004.story

LA TIMES STORY ABOUT ANCIENT CITY IN MEXICO

2010-04-19T13:50:00.000-07:00

Ancient City Yields New Clues About a Rival to the Aztecs

U.S. researchers in Mexico find an 'urban center' occupied by the Purepecha.

By Thomas H. Maugh II, April 13. 2010.

For direct link to article, please go to:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-mexico13-2010apr13,0,1360313.story

ART RELATED ARTICLES IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

2010-03-24T14:53:00.000-07:00

Arts of Ancient Vietnam

The expansive exhibition of artifacts from the land's historical cultures is on view at the Asia Society in New York.

By Louise Roug, Feb. 21, 2010.

For the direct link:

www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-viet-art21-2010feb21,0,2665178.story

Ernst Beyeler, Swiss art collector, dies at 88

He assembled one of Europe's most famous art collections out of his sprawling gallery of masterpieces, which eventually grew to an estimated value of at least $1.85 billion.

For the direct link:

www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-ernst-beyeler27-2010feb27,0,1955847.story

Suicides complicate Native American artifact looting case

FBI informant Ted Gardiner's death last week is the third. Critics say the federal government has been overzealous in its prosecutions and that his videotaped testimony should not be allowed.

By Nicholas Riccardi, March 20, 2010.

For the direct link:

www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-artifacts10-2010mar10,0,716408.story

The Aztecs, through old-world eyes

A Getty Villa exhibit explores how Europeans looked to ancient Rome to understand the Mexican empire.

By Suzanne Muchnic, March 21, 2010.

For the direct link:

www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-aztecs21-2010mar21,0,6456017.story

REVIEW OF SAN FRANCISCO TRIBAL ARTS WEEKEND 2010

2010-02-26T15:04:00.000-08:00

The week of February 11th through 14th , 2010 brought to San Francisco the first Tribal Arts Weekend, combining the regular SF Tribal & Textile Arts show with the Marin Show: Art of the Americas, usually scheduled a week or two later. The show organizers, Bill Caskey, Liz Lees, and Kim Martindale, along with their PR teams, put together this concept, with the intention they would create a bigger and better experience for the tribal art market. In addition, Tribal Arts Weekend was part of an even larger concept: Arte Du Monde SF, which included the Arts of Pacific Asia show, held on the previous weekend and the Bonhams & Butterfields auction on Friday, the 12th.

Arte Du Monde SF and the Tribal Arts Weekend partnered with the Asian Art Museum, the Marin Museum of the American Indian, SF Tribal (a local dealer organization), and ATADA (Antique Tribal Art Dealers Assoc) to offer special programs within the larger framework. There were lectures on a Kiowa pictorial calendar and on basketry plants of North America, an exhibition of Southwestern pottery at the Marin Museum, and an ATADA sponsored panel discussion on Collecting and the Law. The Tribal & Textile Arts show had their opening on Thursday evening and the Marin Show had their first opening night in many years on Friday. In addition to the official Arte Du Monde SF programs, the De Young Museum sponsored a mini-symposium on Scientific Testing of Art and Textiles and held a lecture on Turkmen carpets. There were also the usual openings at Michael Hamson’s gallery and at Dave DeRoche’s home gallery, as well as two special previews at the new Tribalmania gallery in Half Moon Bay (with transportation provided by limo from the Fort Mason Center).

I don’t have the exact count of participants at each event, but it appeared all were well attended and well received, especially considering that several events conflicted with others. I am not sure at this time how to gauge the effectiveness of so many events scheduled during that week, but personally I found it difficult to make the rounds, missing out on several openings and lectures that I would like to have attended. As much as I appreciated the effort, it may have been too ambitious to have so things going on in such a short time.

My impressions of the events I participated in:

The mini-symposium on Scientific Testing at the De Young was a big hit for me, although I had to duck out half way through to make it in time to sit on the panel on Collecting and the Law across the bridge at the Marin Center. I am fascinated by the use of science in helping institutions, dealers, and collectors with the process of determining authenticity and possible antiquity of tribal art artifacts. Expert discussions were provided on the use of X-Rays, Radiocarbon, visual examination, and conservation. What was made clear is that science, while extremely helpful, is only one tool in making these determinations and that additional scholarship and research was needed to confirm testing data.

I was asked to participate on the panel discussion concerning Collecting and the Law. Frankly, I had no idea what to expect and if there would be an opportunity to discuss issues I was most concerned with. The other panel members were: Kate Fitz Gibbon, a former dealer in Central Asian art, she served on the Cultural Property Advisory Committee to the President, and is currently a lawyer specializing in cultural property issues; Steven F. Gruel, a former prosecutor, now defense attorney; and Ann-Marie Holmes, supervisory wildlife inspector for the Fish and Wildlife Service. Attempts to include archeologists and other government officials for counter points to the cultural patrimony issues were not successful.

The primary discussion focused on the law as currently enacted and examples of recent enforcement were mentioned. What was obvious is the law is very complicated and several overlapping and occasionally contradictory laws apply. For example under Fish and Wildlife, you may have to deal with CITES (Convention on International trade in Endangered Species) if animal parts are imported, the Endangered Species Act if transported across state lines, and state law for sales within the state. One law may allow the sale while another one would not. On a hopeful note, Inspector Holmes, made it clear that their department was more than willing to answer any specific questions and to assist with advice and paperwork to make transportation and sales of permitted animal parts as easy as possible. Just give them a call!

My participation was negligible, because frankly I support the intended goals of the Endangered Species Act and other laws meant to protect threatened flora and fauna. My position is that the tribal art community should do everything possible to comply with these laws while finding ways to still possess and trade in authentic or antique cultural objects that may include animal parts, acquired legitimately and used by indigenous peoples. As far as the issues with cultural patrimony, there were no participants present opposed to our activities, therefore no debate was needed at this time (I will include a paper on my views on this subject in a separate posting on my blog in the near future).

I did preview the Bonhams and Butterfields auction, but was not able to attend the actual day of sale, as I was attending my own booth at the tribal art show. I don’t have a lot of details, but it is my understanding that Oceanic material sold well, but African art sales were flat. I believe about 60% of the lots were sold.

The SF Tribal & Textile Arts show brought out the usual suspects: most of the top dealers from around the world; many high end collectors; buyers of more modest means; academics; and the simply curious. As the premier tribal art show in America and arguably the world (because of its depth and breadth of material) most of the sellers go all out to offer their best pieces. I am always impressed by the quality of this show and certainly do my best to make an important presentation. The lobby held a well received showing of tribal themed photography, titled: “Other Worlds” by Bay Area resident and collector Mike Glad. Attendance was actually quite high, with a good showing at the opening, Friday, and Saturday.

Unfortunately, sales were low, generally less than last year and certainly down from two years ago. Very few exhibitors reported sales of any significance. Most sold modestly, with some reporting they barely covered expenses. There did seem to be a general malaise with most attendees, either due to perceived sticker shock or reluctance to spend because of continuing economic issues. I had several collectors comment that they could not find anything they liked that they could afford. Sure, there were many important pieces offered with big numbers, but I found plenty of material that I thought was more than reasonably priced. Certainly the last two years of economic downturn has kept a lid on price increases on all but the very best pieces, so this should have been a good buying opportunity. I guess most buyers are still nervous about spending any serious money until they see a major upturn to the economy.

I was able to attend the Marin Show for their Friday night opening and clearly this show is having problems attracting as many dealers as they had in the past. To make up for shortage of booths, the organizers increased the aisle space. Most of the participating sellers cram most of their material onto tables, walls, and display cases, making it look a bit like a flea market, so it would have made more sense to allocate most of the unused space to increasing their booth size and display area. That said it is an interesting show with lots of beautiful baskets, blankets, and jewelry. If you love American Indian art, this is the show for you! Sales were mixed, with one report noting that there were several high end sales and another report indicated overall sales were generally down this year.

Having both of these shows on the same weekend allowed for an interesting culture contrast. This was pinpointed by a good friend, while discussing how to bring the two groups together on the patrimony issue. It was noted (humorously) that the many of the sellers and buyers at the Marin Show, all Americans, selling American art, in America were likely to be conservative Republicans (possibly with some membership in militias and the ‘tea party’) while the majority of participants at the SF Tribal & Textile Arts show were a mix of liberal Democrats, intellectuals, world travelers, and Europeans (most likely all socialists) selling a potpourri of primarily non-American artifacts to an international audience. Despite those possible political differences, we all have at least one thing in common and that is the love of great tribal art!

Generally speaking, I enjoyed the events I could attend. I wish I had time to get to more of them so it would be helpful if next year the event organizers can arrange schedules with less overlap. Did it bring in more buyers? I’m not sure, although I do know that several attendees at the SF show told me they took advantage of the “two shows for one ticket price” and made their way to the Marin show for the first time. I know these things take time to work themselves out and I am willing to give it another chance.

However, if sales remain elusive, what is the future of these shows? The sellers go to great expense to exhibit. Besides the cost to display (including booths, lights, cases, pedestals, & stands) there are travel, hotel, and shipping charges, as well as the cost of goods and the time and money spent sorting through piles of junk to find the few gems that are offered. There is no better buying opportunity then to come to one of these annual shows, where collectors can see, discuss, and purchase so much great material under one roof and in such a short time. I just don’t get why buyers don’t understand the dynamics and importance of these shows. The show producers and the dealers are spending considerable sums of money up front to give buyers a rare chance to make smart decisions and add authentic high quality pieces to their collections. Basically, these shows are underwritten by dealers to bring the tribal art community together, with the intention of benefiting all interested parties. All that the sellers ask; please attend, look at the art, and make every effort to buy at this time.

The bottom line: if collectors are not buying, then dealers can’t afford to pay the expenses to exhibit. If too many sellers drop out, the organizers will have to cancel shows and the best opportunity for buyers to educate themselves and find good pieces will vanish.

TRADING IN ENDANGERED SPECIES

2010-02-02T11:33:00.000-08:00

Two very good stories, recently published in the LA Times, illustrating the extreme ends of the trade in endangered species. In the first story, two men were charged with importing parts illegally taken from poached animals, while in the second story a collector was charged and convicted for attempting to sell a skull from a long ago deceased zoo animal, that he legally obtained and in fact saved from a rendering plant.

Man Indicted on Ivory Smuggling Charges.
Doughnut shop owner Moun Chau, who lives in Montclair, faces federal charges regarding elephant tusks bought on EBay. An alleged accomplice in Thailand also has been indicted.
By Kim Christensen, January 20, 2010.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ivory20-2010jan20,0,2251108.story

Elephant Skull a Big Headache.
When money trouble led a collector to put his prized possession up for sale, he had no idea what lay ahead.
By Thomas Curwen, January 26, 2010
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-skull26-2010jan26,0,3894107.story

SAN FRANCISCO EVENTS: ARTE DU MONDE SF & TRIBAL ARTS WEEKEND

2010-01-19T08:24:00.000-08:00

ARTE DU MONDE SF & SAN FRANCISCO TRIBAL ARTS WEEKEND:

As many of you may be planning to attend the show(s) in San Francisco in February, I wanted to let you know about something new and exciting this year. Debuting this year is ARTE DU MONDE SF, a week-long celebration of the Bay Area's influential cultural arts scene, anchored by the Arts of Pacific Asia show on the weekend of Feb. 5-7, and the TWO tribal art shows on the weekend of Feb. 12-14, The SF Tribal and Textile Arts Show and the Marin Show: Art of the Americas.

The Marin Show, traditionally held a week or two later, has moved up to team with the SF Tribal Show to create the first Tribal Arts Weekend, the most significant gathering of tribal arts dealers and collectors in the world. Tribal Arts Weekend (Feb. 12-14) visitors will gain admission to both shows with the purchase of one ticket ($15) at either show. Tickets are available at the door.

Each show has an Opening Night Preview:

The San Francisco Arts of the Pacific Asia Show
Fort Mason Center, San Francisco, CA
February 5, 6, & 7, 2010
*Opening Preview, February 4, 2010, 6pm-9pm
Benefits the Education Programs of the Asian Art Museum Chong-Moon Lee Center for Asian Art and Culture
Ticket Info: http://www.caskeylees.com/SF_Asia/Preview.html

The San Francisco Tribal and Textile Arts Show
Fort Mason Center, San Francisco, CA
February 12, 13, & 14, 2010
*Opening Preview, February 11, 2010, 6pm-9pm
Benefits the Textiles and the Art of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas in the de Young Museum
Ticket Info: http://www.caskeylees.com/SF_Tribal/Preview.html

The Marin Show: Art of the Americas
Marin Center & Embassy Suites, San Rafael, CA
*Opening Preview, February 12, 2010, 7pm-9:30pm
Benefits Homeward Bound of Marin
Advance Tickets Suggested: http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/91433

These shows are creating the bookends to a week of exciting events, shown here.

Panel Discussion: Collectors, Dealers and the Law
12:00 pm, Thursday, February 11, 2010
Marin Center, San Rafael, CA
Antique Tribal Art Dealers Association (ATADA) sponsored panel discussion featuring members of the judicial, legal, academic and museum communities as well as a representative from the tribal dealer community. Directed toward collectors, dealers and the general public to increase awareness of applicable laws as well as the responsibilities of collectors and dealers. Attendance is free.

Lecture/Book Signing: Basketry Plants of Western North America
12:00 pm, Saturday February 13, 2010
Embassy Suites, San Rafael, CA
Renowned California basket maker, collector and teacher, Justin Farmer will discuss his new book. Mr. Farmer served on the Board of Trustees of the Southwest Museum of the American Indian, The Autry Center, in Los Angeles, and he is a member of virtually every Indian museum in Southern California. Attendance is free.

Lecture: One Hundred Summers: A Kiowa Calendar Record
10:00 am, Sunday February 14, 2010
Marin Center, San Rafael, CA
Dr. Candace Greene, an anthropologist with the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History will give a lecture exploring a pictorial calendar, or "winter count", a rare chronicle of Kiowa history, drawn by the gifted artist Silver Horn, or Haungooah. Dr. Greene will explain how she deciphered the meaning of this history, recorded only in pictures, which traces one hundred years of Kiowa history from 1828-1928. Greene is the author One Hundred Summers: A Kiowa Calendar Record (2009); The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian (2007); and Silver Horn: Master Illustrator of the Kiowa (2001). Presented by Friends of Ethnic Arts.

A Thousand Years of Southwestern Pottery: Marin Museum of the American Indian extends the exhibit through Feb. 2009 as part of Arte du Monde week (www.marinindian.com).

More extensive information on each lecture and event is available at
http://www.artedumondesf.com/pages/calendar.html.

SAN FRANCISCO EVENT: SYMPOSIUM ON SCIENTIFIC TESTING OF ART AND TEXTILES

2010-01-19T08:17:00.000-08:00

Scientific Testing of Art and Textiles - Mini-Symposium

Date: Thursday, 11 February 2010
Time: 09:30 - 12:30
Location: de Young Museum, Golden Gate Park, 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Dr., San Francisco, CA

Scholars from around the globe will speak about some of the major scientific techniques used to analyze works of art and textiles. Their presentations will highlight the advantages and limitations of scientific testing in attempting to answer questions of provenance, dating, authenticity and conservation.

Speakers are expected to include:

Christina Hellmich: Introduction: Curator of Oceanic Art and the Jolika Collection of New Guinea Art, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, will give an introduction.

Dr. Mark Gilberg: Perspectives on Resolving Authenticity and Provenance Issues

Director of the Suzanne D. Booth and David G. Booth Conservation Center at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

Dr. Sonia O’Connor: Toy Stories to Textile Stories: The Benefits of X-Ray Vision

Research Fellow in Conservation at the University of Bradford in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Greg Hodgins: Radiocarbon Dating Museum Objects

Assistant Research Scientist and Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the National Science Foundation – Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

Jürg Rageth: From Visual Guesstimate to Scientific Estimate

Independent Researcher of Oriental Carpets and Textiles based in Riehen, Switzerland.

Dilys Johns: Conservation of pre-European waterlogged organic artifacts and their context in Aotearoa, New Zealand

Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Auckland in New Zealand .

Lesley Bone: Moderator for Q&A: Objects Conservator, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco.

MOCA (Los Angeles) PICKS ART DEALER JEFFERY DEITCH FOR NEW DIRECTOR

2010-01-19T08:10:00.000-08:00

MOCA Says Jeffery Deitch is its new director
Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2010. By Mike Boehm.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2010/01/moca-says-jeffrey-deitch-is-its-new-director.html

MOCA co-chairs say Deitch's contract has safeguards against conflicts of interest
Los Angeles Times, January 12, 2010. By Mike Boehm.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2010/01/moca-cochairs-say-deitchs-contract-has-safeguards-against-conflicts-of-interest.html

MOCA pick: bold or just biz
Los Angeles Times, January 12, 2010. By Christopher Knight.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-deitch-knight12-2010jan12,0,6991797.story

ART NEWS FROM THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

2010-01-19T07:59:00.000-08:00

Far East Treasures in San Francisco
An Exhibition of Siamese and Burmese works reflects philanthropist Doris Duke's taste and foresight.
Los Angeles Times, December 13th, 2009. By Suzanne Muchnic.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-ca-duke13-2009dec13,0,5866116.story

Weaving the Present Into a Tale of Tradition
A survey of Indian baskets from the Southwest Museum comes alive with the first-person perspective of 13 Native American artisans.
Los Angeles Times, January 10, 2010. By Suzanne Muchnic.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-ca-baskets10-2010jan10,0,4388735.story

The Giants of Ancient Mexico Bound for LACMA
Los Angeles Times, January 10, 2010. By Christopher Knight.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2010/01/olmec-lacma.html

2009-11-20T14:49:00.000-08:00

Along with about 50 other dealers, I recently exhibited at the Los Angeles Asian & Tribal Arts Show, held annually in November at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. The show is produced by the Caskey Lees organization, based in Los Angeles. The show is a mix of classic Asian art and tribal art from Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Oceania. My report will focus on tribal art.

A short list of the dealers that exhibited: LA Tribal members: John Strusinski of Primary Source, Ron Normandeau of Anthropos Gallery, Philip Garaway, Joshua Dimondstein, Fily Keita and of course, myself, along with Michael Hamson (CA), John Ruddy (NM), Georgia Chrischilles (Belgium), Joe Loux (SF), Craig DeLora (NJ), Neil Becker (NY), Kip McKesson (Tanzania), Casey Waller of Caravanserai (TX), and first time exhibitor Bill Sutterfield (CA). A complete list of the exhibitors can be found on the Caskey Lees website.

There seemed to be more exhibitors displaying tribal art this year, which in my opinion is a good thing. Tribal art is so much more exciting than boring displays of old Ming vases! Ha! In fact nearly all of the extra public display areas showed tribal art, including a collection of rare wood sculptures from the Central Highlands of Vietnam (in the central garden) and an unusual grouping of Nepali farmer’s rakes fashioned from tree branches (in the lobby). Full disclosure: I contributed these items.

Other notable objects were a collection of Dayak shields and Indonesian weapons brought by Bill Sutterfield, a beautiful female Tau-Tau offered by Primary Source, incredible gold jewelry from Georgia Chrischilles, and a massive log drum in Michael Hamson’s booth. As usual Ron Normandeau had a fantastic array of pre-Columbian and Northwest Coast objects and Phil Garaway offered a very rare and subtle Navajo blanket picturing an unfinished Navajo rug on a loom. In my booth I offered a heavy, weathered Dayak statue of a sitting nobleman and an animated Dayak sculpture of a hunting dog, as well as collection of Naga shields and spears. My apologies to the African tribal art dealers for not paying more attention to their material. Unfortunately I can’t report on any specific special object. My bad.

As expected during this economic downturn, most of the dealers were apprehensive about attendance and sales. Even in the best of times, the LA market is tepid and it seems we rarely have serious clients from out of town paying even a courtesy visit, so expectations have never been high at this venue for big sales.

However, this year attendance in general was solid, especially on Friday and Saturday and I had the pleasure of meeting with at least a few important buyers that made their way from the Bay Area and Europe to check out the goods. I also met with several enthusiastic new visitors to this show.

Although my own sales were modest, as I’m sure it was for most of the dealers, some did experience big sales, especially on opening night. Michael Hamson sold his log drum, Primary Source sold the Tau-Tau, Bill Sutterfield sold very well, as did Jeff Appleby (CA), to name a few. These sales certainly indicate that serious buyers do attend which gives me hope that this show will survive and perhaps flourish.

It is always hard to gauge the success of a show by the amount of direct sales. For example, my sales rarely amount to much during the show, but in each of the last few years, I met at least one very interesting new client that came through with one or more serious purchases within a few months. Regardless, these shows are really the only way for large groups of potential collectors to view and enjoy high quality authentic examples of tribal art, that they can actually own. It also gives dealers a better opportunity to educate potential collectors and to directly discuss the merits of each piece.

I don’t want to forget to thank the show producers and their team: Bill, Liz, Netanya, Filomena, Steven, Clare, Bob, Agnes, and Treanne for all of their hard work putting this together.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON PAIWAN TRIBES

2009-11-08T11:18:00.000-08:00

"Reviving the Way of the Witch"
An indigenous Taiwan tribe aims to preserve its culture by training new mediums.
By Cindy Sui, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 7, 2009.

For the direct link to the article, please go to:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-taiwan-witch7-2009nov07,0,3647247.story

ARTICLE ABOUT ANCIENT ART AND WORLD POLITICS

2009-10-27T16:38:00.000-07:00

When Ancient Artifacts Become Political Pawns
By Michael Kimmelman, New York Times, October 24,2009
For direct link to article, please go to:
www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/arts/design/24abroad.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=when%20ancient%20artifacts%20become%20political%20pawns&st=cse

REVIEW OF THE SANTA FE ETHNOGRAPHIC SHOW, AUGUST 2009

2009-09-22T11:43:00.000-07:00

Once again, I exhibited at the annual Santa Fe Ethnographic Art Show this last August, along with about 100 other dealers in tribal art, furniture, jewelry, paintings, as well as other miscellaneous items from Asia, Africa, Oceania, and the Americas. The show had always been held at the Sweeny Center, right off the main plaza, but for the last 3 years, during construction of a new civic center building, we moved to a temporary location several blocks from the center of town. In 2009 we finally returned to our original location, but in a newly designed civic center complex.

There was a bit of déjà vu this year, with the Whitehawk show back in the civic center and the Barry Cohen show just around the corner at their original location in the El Dorado Hotel.

I do like the new building. It is spacious, clean, and modern, with all of the exhibition spaces located on the main floor. There is a huge underground parking garage. Load in was relatively easy, with just one problem: there was a choke point at the one freight elevator for those parked in the underground garage. Otherwise, larger vehicles could pull right up to a large loading dock behind the building or load in from the street through a side door. Although it was not a problem this year, there have been plenty of times we had to slug through rain during load in and out, so it’s nice to have the option of parking in the garage.

The show organizers and their crew worked hard, as usual, to get things moved in and set up. Regardless of any criticisms I may have, I always appreciate the skill and stress they go through to put together these shows, especially as they make every effort to placate scores of grumpy dealers. A thankless job indeed!

Another favorite with this venue: catering by Cowgirls, a local restaurant that serves good, solid comfort food.

Some of the old exhibitors, who had previously dropped out of the Whitehawk show (several had jumped over to the rival Barry Cohen show), came back once the new location was available. Despite my personal feelings that most of these exhibitors lacked a certain amount of loyalty or patience with the transition, I was glad to have them back, as it significantly brought up the overall quality of the material in the show. Another benefit from having these returnees back is that most of these exhibitors actually deal in “ethnographic” art.

This has been one of my on-going complaints: in previous Whitehawk shows, many of the regular exhibitors would not be considered ethnographic dealers, as the term is commonly understood. I think most people would agree that colonial furniture, paintings, contemporary silver jewelry, and Bakelite would not be classified as ethnographic art. Another obvious problem is the quality and authenticity of many pieces offered by some of the exhibitors. There were (and still are) always at least a few booths that should have been cleared out and sent packing.

I’ll admit that in the past this mish-mash of material gave the show an exciting ‘anything goes’ sense of anarchy, with the possiblity of finding something you wouldn’t think to buy, crammed in amongst the trash. A bit like finding a treasure on eBay or in a good flea market. But, if the show is promoting itself as a quality ethnographic show, then this ongoing problem needs to be addressed. At least this year, because of the return of additional professional ethnographic dealers, the overall ratio of authentic material was thankfully higher.

Certainly, the exhibitors are paying for a quality ethnographic show! For years, the costs were notably less than those charged at the better-known Caskey Lees shows. Those lower costs helped blunt the negative issues with the show, but now we are paying basically the same rates as we would pay for a good booth at the San Francisco or Los Angeles Tribal/Asian Art shows. Considering that those shows (especially the one in San Francisco) actually draws in large crowds of real tribal art collectors, it seems misplaced to charge the same fee for a show that really does not bring in those same higher end buyers.

Other relatively minor problems; the square footage that was expected for booth spaces on the main floor was cut back during construction, which seemed to translate to less room in the aisles. There were times it was a bit tight moving through the show (especially during load in and out). The carpet pattern was also a bit much with the bold American Indian motifs, but I guess that would be expected in Santa Fe.

My last personal complaint that I want to mention (as an exhibitor) is the lighting. For reasons I cannot understand, the lighting trusses are placed right in the middle of the booth, thus preventing any natural way to properly light objects placed towards the front of the booth. I have mentioned this previously to the organizers who answer that everyone else seems to prefer this arrangement. Yet, virtually every single person I discussed this with, agreed that the truss should be placed towards the front of the booths. So any dealers who reads this (and agree with me) please express your preferences. Thank you!

Sales, as might be expected during our recent economic “pause”, were sluggish, at least for the majority of dealers who I talked to. The average response was “sales barely covered expenses” and that was about it, even with dealers that regularly sell well in Santa Fe. There were some exceptions, with one dealer of Catholic religious objects claiming to have had one of the best shows ever. I did see a lot of crosses, and statues of Mary and Jesus getting packed up. I guess when times are uncertain; it helps to surround yourself with religious artifacts!

It seemed to me that attendance was very high on Saturday, but less than usual on opening night and Sunday. Many of the regulars that I normally see were there, but most of the visitors that came into my booth were new to me. Normally, that would be a good thing and in the past I often sold to new buyers at this venue, even ones that were not major collectors of tribal art. I was busy most of the time; answering questions and quoting prices, but I experienced more “be-backs” than normal this year, with virtually none of them actually coming back this time. Oh well…

I heard a lot of complaints from dealers, with several claiming they were done with this show and would not return next year. That may happen with some, but in my experience most dealers, even the ones that rant and rave the most about poor sales, still feel obligated to give it another go. It was, and probably still is, my position that I would wait out the transitional period during construction and hang on at least until we got back to the plaza area. And I assumed that I would give it more than one try, regardless of how sales panned out the first time around. Under the current economic cloud, it is impossible to judge the value of this show for the future, based on a bad show this year.

However, I’ll admit that I am also not sure about my involvement next year. First, I am uncomfortable with the higher costs of this show, which amplifies the misery of poor sales. Second, I am just not sure if ethnographic art, excluding American Indian, Spanish Colonial, or Southwest art, has any real life left in Santa Fe. One prominent local tribal art dealer mentioned that his regular yearly sales were off considerably over previous years. And I noted that another tribal art gallery was closing this summer, a trend I have seen for a few years now.

Besides the Whitehawk show, I assume Barry Cohen will be back with his show at the El Dorado. In addition there will be a new show next year, organized by Kim Martindale and John Morse, veterans of the tribal and Indian art show circuit. Their show is advertised to include Asian, Devotional, Fine Art, Furniture, Indian, Tribal, and just about anything else anyone can think of to bring along. Will show saturation bring in new clients, attracted to this new art Mecca, or dilute the small pool that currently exists? Hmmmm…

25 or so years ago, the original organizers, along with a flood of “carpet baggers” with a mind to open a gallery, came up with the wild idea that other ethnographic art could sell in Santa Fe. At that time, there were no other regular tribal art show venues, so the idea took off, with serious collectors flying in from all parts of the country and the world. Eventually, other shows, based in larger regional centers, took the steam out of the need to come to the Santa Fe show to buy tribal art. We were still able to get some mileage out the continued success of the Indian shows and occasionally found buyers still willing to travel to Santa Fe or from wealthier art tourists that stumbled unwittingly into the Sweeny from the plaza. But, I am worried that the interest in other tribal arts (in Santa Fe) may be winding down.

That said, I’ll probably “be-back”…

VARIOUS NEWSPAPER ARTICLES OF NOTE

2009-09-22T11:27:00.000-07:00

In the Los Angeles Times:

"LACMA Director's Top Dollar"
Hired as a rising star, Michael Govan's hefty compensation now stands in stark contrast to the nonprofit museum's finances.
By Alan Zarembo and Mike Boehm, August 18, 2009.
For the direct link, please go to:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-lacma18-2009aug18,0,7489611.story

In the New York Times:

"The Mood of the Market, as Measured in the Galleries"
By Roberta Smith, September 4, 2009.
For the direct link, please go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/arts/design/04galleries.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=The%20mood%20of%20the%20Market,%20as%20Measured%20in%20the%20Galleries&st=cse

"To Stimulate Souls, Cosmic Mansions with Many Rooms"
Review of "Mandala: The Perfect Circle" at the Rubin Museum of Art, Chelsea.
By Holland Cotter, August 21, 2009.
For the direct link, please go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/arts/design/21mandala.html?scp=1&sq=To%20Stimulate%20Souls,%20Cosmic%20Mansions%20with%20Many%20Rooms&st=cse

"Ancient Man Hurt Coasts, Paper Says"
By Cornelia Dean, August 21, 2009.
For the direct link, please go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/science/earth/21ancient.html?scp=1&sq=Ancient%20Man%20Hurts%20Coasts,%20Paper%20Says&st=cse

MORE NEWS IN UTAH ARTIFACT CASE

2009-07-19T17:47:00.001-07:00

"Man Held in Threat to Informant in Artifacts Case"
By Nicholas Riccardi, LA Times, July 14, 2009
For the direct link, please go to:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-artifacts-threat14-2009jul14,0,3872470.story

VARIOUS NEWSPAPER ARTICLES OF NOTE

2009-07-09T13:31:00.000-07:00

Putting 'Primitive" to Rest
By Holland Cotter, NY Times, June 5, 2009
For direct link, please go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/arts/design/05gene.html?scp=1&sq=Putting%20

In Athens, Museum is an Olympian Feat
By Anthee Carassava, NY Times, June 20, 2009
For direct link, please go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/arts/design/20acropolis.html?scp=1&sq=In%20Athens,%20Museum%20is%20an%20Olympian%20Feat&st=cse

Chinese Vase Dates Back 18,000 Years
By Thomas H. Maugh II, LA Times, June 6, 2009
For direct link, please go to:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/06/science/sci-pottery6

Oldest Known Granaries Found
By Thomas H. Maugh II, LA Times, June 27, 2009
For direct link, please go to:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-granary27-2009jun27,0,7299988.story

U.S. Settles Suit Over Scholar
Expert in Southeast Asian antiquities died after her arrest in a federal investigation of looted Thai artifacts.
By Jason Felch, LA Times, July 8, 2009
For direct link, please go to:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-roxanna8-2009jul08,0,6135081.story

And lastly from the LA Times Science Briefing, July 4, 2009:

Ancestry in Asia?
Fossils recently found in Myanmar could prove that the common ancestors of humans, monkeys and apes evolved from primates in Asia, rather than Africa, researchers say. The pieces of 38-million-year-old jawbones and teeth found in 2005 show typical characteristics of primates, the researchers who found the fossils pointed out. Other scientists say it's too early to draw such conclusions. The findings were published Wednesday in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a London-based journal.

NY TIMES ARTICLE ON INDIAN ARTIFACT LOOTING

2009-07-09T13:28:00.000-07:00

Utah Town Unsettled by Doctor's Suicide and an Inquiry on Indian Artifact Looting
By William Yardley, NY Times, June 21, 2009

For direct link, please go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/us/21blanding.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Utah%20Town%20Unsettled%20by%20Doctor's%20Suicide%20and%20an%20Inquiry%20on%20Indian%20Artifact%20Looting&st=cse

ANTIQUES AND THE ARTS ONLINE REVIEW OF NY TRIBAL ART SHOW

2009-07-09T13:12:00.001-07:00

Review with photos, please go to:
http://antiquesandthearts.com/Antiques/AntiquesShows/2009-06-02__13-14-17.html

NY TIMES REVIEW OF NY TRIBAL ART SHOW

2009-06-02T12:16:00.000-07:00

New York International Tribal & Textile Arts Show
By Benjamin Genocchio. Art in Review, May 15, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/arts/design/15gall.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=New%20York%20International%20Tribal%20&%20Textile%20Arts%20Show&st=cse

YALE CREATES DEPT. OF INDO-PACIFIC ART

2009-06-02T12:05:00.000-07:00

Gallery Creates New Department Of Indo-Pacific Art;
Leading Scholar Appointed Inaugural Curator
http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=6508

LA TIMES STORY: ART SOLD ON EBAY

2009-06-02T07:56:00.000-07:00

Relic Sellers are Faking it on Ebay
By Mike Boehm, LA Times, Section D, page one. Friday, May 29th, 2009.
http://articles.latimes.com/p/2009/05/29/calendar/et-ebayfakes29

REVIEW OF THE LA TRIBAL SHOW AT THE HELMS BUILDING:

2009-04-10T14:22:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles Tribal, a local association of dealers specializing in the traditional tribal arts of Asia, Africa, Oceania, and the Americas, held their first exhibition at the Helms Building in Culver City, California on March 13th, 14th and 15th 2009. Participating LA Tribal members: Anthropos Gallery (Ron Normandeau); Dimondstein Tribal Arts (Joshua Dimondstein); Philip Garaway; Mark A. Johnson Tribal Art; Leonard Kalina Fine Arts; Fily Keita Tribal Arts; Primary Source (John Strusinski); and Jerry Solomon Asian & Tribal Arts. Tribal Arts magazine were also represented.

There was a Friday night opening benefit for “The World Is Just A Book Away”, a non-profit organization promoting literacy in developing countries. On Saturday and Sunday, members of LA Tribal with Jonathan Fogel of Tribal Arts magazine held a Tribal Art Appraisal Clinic.

This untried venue turned out to be a very good place to hold a smaller and more intimate exhibition. Frankly, until set-up, we had no idea if the overhead track lights would work properly or the display cases could be easily plugged in! But, it all came together with no problems and the individual displays were first rate. In addition, the Helms Building (formerly the Helms Bakery) is a well known icon in Los Angeles, easy to get to from all parts of town, with lots of available parking.

The opening benefit and appraisal clinic were designed to draw in new people and hopefully potential buyers. Without question these were successful in bringing in new faces, and thanks to the efforts of the non-profit, a good PR team, ads, mailers, and email announcements, the event was well attended, better than expected. We had close to 200 attendees on opening night and at least that number over the next two days (mostly new people). Approximately 70 of these attendees (again, mostly new people) brought in items to be appraised. Tribal Arts magazine was able to sign up more than 20 subscribers, a very high number for this kind of show.

The bad news, which was not un-expected during this slow economy, was that sales were underwhelming. But, more disappointing than the lack of significant sales, was the lack of participation by those members of the local tribal art community that I would have expected to attend. It never surprises me who comes to these shows, but instead who doesn’t. Without question, we were able to get the word out to this community including all of the LA area collector’s councils, organizations, individuals, and museums that have an interest in tribal art, so it was extremely unlikely they would not have been aware of this event.

With the exception of the director of the Bowers Museum in Orange County (thank you Peter Keller for making the trip to LA!), I am not aware of any other museum staff that came by (I am looking at you Fowler Museum! You too LACMA!). And worse, perhaps 20% of the LA based Ethnic Arts Council (EAC) bothered to attend! This is especially disappointing considering that virtually all of the members of Los Angeles Tribal are EAC members and very supportive of their programs and events.

In the entire Southern California region, there is one regular public show of Asian and Tribal Art (the Caskey Lee show in November) a very few museum exhibitions, and this LA Tribal group show. That’s it! You would think that anyone that has enough interest in tribal art to spend money to join an organization dedicated to appreciating tribal art or work for an institution with a tribal art collection would find a little time over three days to take advantage of this rare, free opportunity to view these works up close and actually talk to people who are willing to give you information and answer your direct questions!

Despite the economic issues and the lack of full local participation, other aspects were very successful. It has been a goal of Los Angeles Tribal to hold a regularly scheduled annual show, so we will likely do this event next March at the same location.

LOS ANGELES TRIBAL: http://www.latribal.com/
THE WORLD IS JUST A BOOK AWAY: http://www.theworldisjustabookaway.com/
DUBROWORKS PR: www.dubroworks.com
TRIBAL ART MAGAZINE: http://www.tribalmagazine.com/
ART & ANTIQUES MAGAZINE: http://www.artandantiques.net/

REVIEW: INDONESIAN TEXTILE EXHIBITION AT LACMA

2009-04-10T12:04:00.000-07:00

I recently visited the Indonesian textile exhibition currently on display at LACMA. The exhibition is part of the Mary Hunt Kahlenberg collection, a former curator at LACMA and world renowned authority on Indonesian textiles. The original group was put on display (in conjunction with a symposium on Indonesian Textiles) in September of 2008 and ran until March of this year. Several pieces were removed and replaced with new selections in March. The current group will be on display until September 2009.

As a long time collector/dealer of Indonesian art and textiles, I am pleased to see LACMA take a special interest in this area. I believe their intent is to eventually acquire this collection. Textiles played an important part in the ritual life of Indonesians as well as displaying their status, wealth, and cultural identity. The collection covers most of the primary textile weaving cultures of Indonesia with a wide selection of ikat, batiks, and supplementary-weft examples from Sumatra, Sulawesi, Java, Bali, and Nusa Tenggara (the outer island, east of Bali).

Several pieces have been carbon dated (C14) with ranges from 1430 to 1715! In my early days of collecting textiles from this region, it was believed that none could have survived more than 150 years, so 19th century dates were consider ancient. However, in the last decade, as more C14 tests results have come in, it is clear that many Indonesian textiles are considerably older than anyone would have imagined. Having a few of these early examples on display is an eye-opener.

There are many interesting pieces on display, but several drew my attention: an heirloom batik found in Sulawesi (dated to 1645-1695); a Lemba bark cloth blouse from Sulawesi with applied mica paint; a Tampan from South Sumatra with a single red ship surrounding by sea creatures; a Palepai banner with two red ships from South Sumatra; a large, Porisitutu cloth from the Sulawesi with bold meanders and fantastic color; a very good Pua Sungkit from the Sarawak, Borneo with serpent figures; a shawl from Timor with extremely detailed ikat motifs; and an ancient ikat fragment from Sulawesi with knelling animal figures (dated to 1430-1510).

I am not a big fan of Indonesian batiks, so I’ll admit I was not bowled over with this section, which was heavily represented. Other pieces from islands like Savu and Roti were not spectacular by any means, but these areas are not known for incredible weavings. I was disappointed to find that textiles from Borneo were so under-represented. Aside from the very good Pua Sungkit mentioned above, there were no examples of the better known and spectacular large ritual ikat blankets (Pua Kombu) from Sarawak or any good examples of the smaller woman’s skirts (Kain Kebat). In the first run, there was an underwhelming example of one ikat skirt. Beadwork was minimally represented as well, with the exception of important beaded bag from Sumba that was shown in the first run.

Regardless, of a few weak areas in this collection, the other examples are so spectacular it is well worth the visit (and re-visit). Hopefully, this exhibition will bring renewed interest in Indonesian textiles, an area often neglected by museums and collectors of important tribal art.

COMMENTARY ON THE RECENT SF TRIBAL SHOW

2009-03-04T15:42:00.000-08:00

San Francisco Tribal & Textile Art Show

Fort Mason Center, Feb.13th to 15th, 2009.

Every February I exhibit at the San Francisco Tribal & Textile Art Show held at the Fort Mason Center. I really look forward to this event because in my opinion this show is the best Tribal Art venue in the US and possibly the world. There are more exhibitors than any other show (100 or more) with considerably more variety of material, unlike the big European shows which tend to focus on African art. Also, sales have typically been strong and consistent each year. There is always an interesting display in the lobby at the entrance to the venue and this year was no exception. Featured were a series of fantastic and powerful paintings from famed Miami artist (and tribal art collector) Jose Bedia.

Even with the constant drumbeat of economic Armageddon each day on the news, I was cautiously optimistic that buyers would dust off their checkbooks to take advantage of this once in a year opportunity to acquire great tribal artworks. There were plenty of good pieces for sale and attendance was high, certainly it appeared to be no less people walking the aisles than last year.

However, most people I talked to were not in a buying mood, even the ones that were not directly affected by the economic slowdown. Everyone appeared nervous about spending any serious money. With fewer sales to collectors, most dealers were backing off buying as well, so in the end overall sales were down considerably from previous years. This seemed to be the case with the majority of exhibitors, with the exception of a few dealers who did quite well. This was disappointing of course, but not unexpected considering the circumstances. Despite lower than usual sales this year, I believe this will not be the norm and look forward to exhibiting at this venue next year.

One side area that I want to address is the vetting at the show this year. Vetting, prior to the public opening, is a necessary step to insure the quality and authenticity of the material offered. This is usually done with the intention of removing only those items that are obviously or very likely to be problematic (fakes, reproductions, or overly restored items). In a perfect world, people selected to do the vetting would be recognized as experts in their fields and have no personal interest in the items on display. Admittedly, this is difficult to achieve as finding outside experts who are willing to do this job is not easy and often impossible. As an alternative, the show organizers usually have to select a group of dealers that are also exhibitors.

Unfortunately, this can (and often does) lead to allowing certain dealers, with less than honorable intentions, to have the power to remove any item from a competitor’s booth. This is supposed to be remedied by that fact that a small group has to make these decisions and no piece can be vetted out by a single person. However, it is not unusual for other members of these committees to either have their own agendas or not be qualified to make those decisions in the first place. In addition there can be a sheep-like mentality amongst some members of a vetting committee who prefer to avoid confrontation, so they just go along with the opinion of the most forceful personality.

I personally know of several authentic old Borneo sculptures (including a pair of male/female territory markers) that were vetted out of the show. These particular pieces were so clearly and unequivocally correct, that I was in shock when I found out they were removed. To be blunt, certain key members of that committee, who voted to remove these pieces (as well as others), were either extremely ignorant of the material or chose to do so because of a personal agenda.

This business is hard enough without the moronic and virtually criminal behavior of certain dealers. The real shame is these same dealers actually believe they will look better to their clients if they pull down their colleagues, when in fact it only causes distrust and insecurity in the marketplace. We need more cooperation, not more competition amongst our community if we want to see this business flourish.

LA TIMES STORY ON OCEANIC ART

2009-03-04T12:28:00.000-08:00

SOUL OF OCEANIA:
The Art of Pacific Island Cultures is Gaining New Significance Across the U.S.

Article about Oceanic art at LACMA and at the San Diego Museum of Art.
By Suzanne Muchnic, LA Times, February 22, 2009.

For the direct link to the article online, please go to:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-ca-oceanic22-2009feb22,0,924504.story

ART AND RECESSION

2009-01-22T07:57:00.000-08:00

Art and Recession
By Wolfgang Schlink, editor EAC e-news

“Art Imitates Crunch, With Few Exceptions” proclaimed an early January 2009 headline of The Wall Street Journal. Art moves largely in lockstep with the global economic turmoil. Artists, galleries, auction houses, museums, schools, philanthropists, and collectors are adjusting to a changing world.

2008 - Records, rejects, Russians

For Sotheby’s, November 14, 2008 was a rare good day in recent months. The auctioneer was basking in superlatives, like “a new level” for African and Oceanic Art, “continued enthusiasm of collectors even amid challenging economic times”, and “many world records achieved”. The sensational $4 million sale of a pair of Senufo ancestor figures, originally in the collection of Nelson A. Rockefeller, was the highlight of the evening. Moreover, the New York auction of the Rosenthal Collection was one of the few bright spots in the fall auction scene; so praise was warranted. But, to put things in perspective, tribal art accounts for just a small fraction of total art auction sales where Impressionist, modern, and contemporary art dominate.

Prices for art - especially of the contemporary and modern genre – had skyrocketed in the past few years driven by the irrational exuberance of wealthy collectors. Within weeks of a waning 2008 the overheated market dropped to a more earthly level. For some segments of the art world this did not make for a soft landing. Contemporary Asian art from China and India - so hot for a few years - fell prey to overhyped estimates at the October/November Hong Kong auctions. By the beginning of the fourth quarter Sotheby’s contemporary art experts still took solace in the record results of their Damien Hirst September formaldehyde-drenched auction. The direct sale - a bypass of Hirst’s gallerists - marked a peak of the contemporary art market. In hindsight, it was not a trendsetter, but rather an aberration combined with lucky timing. The Hirst auction took place on September 15, the day Lehman Brothers collapsed.

By December 2008, Christie’s indicated price cuts of 10% or more; an optimistic view as the New York November auctions had seen downward adjustments of more than 30% and a disproportionate share of unsold consignments. Cash rich buyers took advantage of what could only be described as twofer sales. In less than 90 minutes at Sotheby’s New York, Los Angeles financier Eli Broad reportedly plunked down $8 million for a Ruscha, a Judd, a Koons, and a Rauschenberg, all well below their low estimates.

The tea leaves of the fall 2008 auctions for late 19th and 20th century art do not make for a simple reading. The heap of bought-in lots increased. Works by Warhol, Lichtenstein, Marden, Hirst, and Koons were among the rejects while records were still broken. Some of the highlights: Edvard Munch’s 1894 “Vampire (Love and Pain)” changed hands for more than $38 million. Kazimir Malevich’s 1916 “Suprematist Composition”, recently wrested by the painter’s heirs from Amsterdam’s Stedelijk Museum, set a high mark for Russian art at $60 million.

Earlier, in May 2008, Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich had snapped up Francis Bacon’s 1976 “Triptych”, at $86.3 million the fourth most expensive painting ever sold at auction. Only 48 hours later he added Lucian Freud’s 1995 painting “Benefits Supervisor Sleeping” from the artist’s “fat period” to his collection. At $33.6 million it was a record result for a living artist. The two purchases - an interesting comparison – came close to matching the entire 2007 budget of America’s National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).

It is not entirely clear what drives the art collecting ambition of several Russian oligarchs and intensely private Mr. Abramovich in particular. He is known as a trophy hunter who owns FC Chelsea (the English Premier League soccer club) and several luxury yachts including the world’s largest with its own missile defense system (still under construction). His muse seems to be girlfriend Dasha Zukhova, herself a rookie in the art collecting world. Yet, the 27 year old Russian ‘It Girl’ has the drive to make things happen. With the assistance of first-class professionals and her boyfriend’s deep pockets she orchestrated the conversion of the Bakhmetevsky Bus Garage, a Moscow architectural landmark from the 1920s, into a center for contemporary culture. For the June 2008 “soft” opening of her Garage art space, movers and shakers of the international art scene scrambled for invitations. Among the 300 lucky attendees were the likes of Ronald Lauder (Neue Galerie, N.Y.C.), Larry Gagosian (has now his own Moscow gallery), collector Steven Cohen, and artist Jeff Koons. Singer Amy Winehouse flew in for the night and performed for a reported fee of $2 million. Abramovich and Zhukova have far reaching plans. For 2010, they have committed to a Francis Bacon retrospective that will open at the Garage and then travel to the Hermitage in St. Petersburg.

Some glorified comments seem to suggest that a new elite of Russian collectors is born, reminiscent of the tradition of Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, or Impressionist connoisseurs Ivan Morozov and Sergei Shchukin. It remains to be seen if the art shopping spree of Mr. Abramovich is more than just an expensive flash in the pan. Russia’s precipitous economic downturn since May 2008 has clearly affected his fortune by the billions, although a spokesperson calls the bad news “merely paper losses”.

The lessons from the capricious auction scene of 2008 indicate that even in a recession rare, good art of impeccable provenance keeps its value. Impressionist paintings did not lose their standing. In contrast, overvalued names and less than first-rate works have quickly created their own bear market.

Philanthropists rethink

“… mad Americans and sad Japanese slowly begin to discover they have been throwing away billions of pounds on the hideous rubbish which is still called ‘modern art’“; the London Daily Telegraph mocked the art slump of 1991(!). The assessment for late 2008 would sound only slightly different. Yet in November, Tobias Meyer, at Sotheby’s in charge of contemporary art worldwide, tried to put a positive spin on a dire situation by feeding the art world the euphemism: “… price disparity between good and great has widened to humongous”. And of course, the nationality of compulsive contemporary art buyers had changed over time. Now, the nouveaux riches from Russia, the Middle East, and Asia stayed away, and so did much of the recession-bitten Wall Street elite of collectors. A few members of the latter quickly turned from buyers to sellers to take advantage of a last fat chance - for a while - to replenish some of the lost family silver. America’s museums had courted affluent financiers, investment bankers, hedge-fund managers, and their wives for board memberships with the expectation of major art endowments. Philanthropy has to wait as museum patrons prioritized personal needs.

Kathy Fuld, a vice chairman of MoMA’s Board of Trustees and wife of Lehman Brothers ex-CEO Richard Fuld, consigned a set of 16 rare postwar works on paper (Willem de Kooning, Arshile Gorky, and others) to Christie’s for their November 12 auction, guaranteed by the auctioneers for $20 million. The sale tallied just $13 million leaving Christie’s holding the bag for the difference. You win some, and you lose some. According to Bloomberg, husband Richard Fuld unloaded his shares of insolvent Lehman in September for just $500,000, a stash that had been worth a tidy $247 million only some 18 months ago.

Jennifer Stockman, president of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, consigned several works of art to the same auction, among them a 1994 painting “Pine House (Rooms for Rent)” by Scottish-born artist Peter Doig. The work had stellar exhibition provenance from London’s Tate Britain where it had been part of an early 2008 show of the artist’s work. It also came with an estimate of $4.5 to $6.5 million and a generous guarantee by the auction house. Small change as Georgian mining magnate Boris Ivanishvili had shelled out $11.3 million for Doig’s 1991 painting “White Canoe”, at the time (February 2007) the most expensive work by a living European artist. Yet, the no-sale of “Pine House” and the low sale of other pieces of the Stockman lot triggered the guarantee. The sheltered consignor was happy while Christie’s stockroom kept growing. “Talk about timing … It was now or never …” were Mrs. Stockman’s cheerful comments; words reminiscent of a commodity trader.

Marie-Josée and Henry Kravis - she the president of MoMA’s Board of Trustees, he the co-founder of private equity firm KKR - staged a successful sale of their c. 1879 Edgar Degas pastel on paper “Danseuse au Repos”. The painting was knocked down at a record $37 million, breaking its own 1999 high mark of $27.9 million. A successful ‘flip’ for the consignors with an added bonus as Sotheby’s supposedly had guaranteed the sale at a generous $40 million.

And, when everybody was getting ready for some good - albeit muted - holiday cheer, Bernard Madoff and his collapsed Ponzi scheme shocked the financial world. The deceitful investor made off with multibillion dollars of direct and indirect clients. Philanthropists are disproportionately affected by the Madoff malaise as they have a tendency to put their charitable dollars into higher risk investments than let’s say their retirement savings. For a few of them their art collections became over night their sole - not very liquid - assets. Unlucky timing as any forthcoming fire sales will face a soft art market.

Auctioneers restructure

The new economic reality forced auction houses to make changes. Sotheby’s and Christie’s, the top contemporary art auctioneers, and distant third Russian-owned Phillips de Pury had engaged in a cutthroat competition to win consignments. Many of the weapons used in this battle for prestige and market share have become - at least for now - tools of a foolish historic arsenal. Gone are the kickbacks of buyer’s fees to the seller. Next, the questionable and loss making practice of luring sellers by giving them price guarantees has been abandoned. In this ultimate gamble to attract consignors, an auction house would commit itself to pay a fixed sum to a seller of a piece of art, regardless if it would be bought at auction or not. This promise was at times embellished by a profit-sharing agreement if a successful sale exceeded the guarantee. Cheyenne Westphal, Sotheby’s European chairman of contemporary art, confidently declared: “We guarantee the works we believe in”. That she stated in October 2008. Only weeks later it turned out the believers had significantly underestimated the precipitous slide of the art recession. Serious multi-millions of dollars - all three major contemporary art auctioneers were affected - were lost in their blown up (no pun intended) guarantees. By December, Sotheby’s and Christie’s reportedly had lost a combined 63 million to their overoptimistic pledges. Incidentally, the guarantee game had always been looked at with some skepticism as it could easily skew the impartiality of the auctioneer. Who wouldn’t try to market a guaranteed pay-out harder in lieu of the uncertainty of selling or not selling a given lot?

Yet auction houses continue to play all sides of the sale. They seem to have maintained the “third party guarantee” (i.e. not their own, more likely a gallery’s or a collector’s pledge geared to see the prices for a particular artist increase). Fairly new in their toolbox is the “irrevocable bid” (i.e. a buyer’s pre-sale guarantee). In addition, they are extending loans and pre-sale advances to sellers. And, who’d know about potential side deals to ingratiate themselves with consignors, like promised donations to the seller’s favorite charity?

Sotheby’s had expanded its brand from being just an expert art intermediary. Attempting to cater to other needs of their well-to-do clientele, they branched out into high end real estate brokering. Over time the auction house had slipped into the role of a financial institution for the wealthy, involved in lending, guaranteeing, rebating, and the (now terminated) credit card business. It did not make for a successful diversification. Sotheby’s share price (NYSE ticker: BID) had dropped to $8.89 by New Year’s Eve, a nosedive of 77% from early 2008. Downsizing of staff, resulting in anticipated savings of $7 million for 2009, was just one of the consequences.

Closely held Christie’s - part of French holding company Artemis that owns the Gucci brand and Chateau Latour - announced their restructuring plan on January 12, 2009. Speculation had it that the winery or even the auction house itself may be for sale. Not so fast; for now the vague announcement just speaks of “significant staff reductions”.

Museums retrench

The Art Newspaper of London recently conducted a financial survey of some 40 U.S. art museums. The polled institutions had reportedly lost on average more than 20% of their invested endowments in 2008. That may well be an understated figure. As a consequence, from the Guggenheim to the Getty, from MoMA to MOCA painful budget cuts are being put in place for 2009 and 2010 affecting staffing, programming, and operations. Hiring freezes, early retirement packages, postponement of building expansions and renovations, temporary closing of venues, and cut back on research and exhibitions are the orders of the day for America’s cultural institutions.

While their European counterparts are for the most part publicly funded, American museums rely heavily on private and corporate philanthropy. Sponsorship of art fairs, museum exhibitions and catalogs, has been an integral part of the business plan of many financial institutions. It was one way to attract high-end clients for their wealth management divisions. Active players, like Lehman Brothers or Merrill Lynch have collapsed or merged. Other art-supporting banks of significance, like Deutsche and UBS, have reported multi-billion losses. The corporate sponsorship dollar is becoming a rare currency in the global art and museum world.

Los Angeles’ MOCA, arguably the world’s most important contemporary art venue, was lucky. A victim not so much of the recession but of financial mismanagement, the museum had lived for years beyond its means. Magnate Eli Broad came to the rescue and has pledged a $30 million lifeline for MOCA’s survival.

President Obama - WPA revisited?

The current economic crisis is a stark reminder of the time of the Great Depression; minus the dust storms and soup kitchens for now. Today’s economic pundits keep skillfully avoiding the dreaded D-word. “A deepening recession” was the balancing act of wordsmithing recently used by a senior advisor to the presidential runner up. The answer to the calamitous times of the 1930s was Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal which included support for the arts. Programs like the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and others provided jobs creation and education. Artists who received government paychecks included Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, Arshile Gorky, and Thomas Hart Benton. Production of posters for public causes flourished, muralists beautified post offices and other public buildings. The depression presented photographers like Walker Evans and Dorothea Lange, both on the federal payroll, with haunting motifs. It remains to be seen to what extent the Obama administration will include support for the arts in the eagerly anticipated stimulus package.

President Obama has publicly stated: ”Our art, our culture, that’s the essence of what makes America special …”. His campaign platform included an arts program, unusual for a presidential contender. One of the main ingredients of his cultural policy platform is the creation of an Artists Corps, a cadre of young art talent pressed into service for the benefit of America’s public schools. A welcome thought at a time when state budget cuts force the Los Angeles Unified School District to freeze its Arts Community Partnership program, a valuable hands-on teaching program in many disciplines of the performing and visual arts. Clearly a shame, as it is a documented fact that test scores in low-income public schools which link art education across the curriculum improve faster than scores in schools lacking art programs. Establishing the Artists Corps would be a win-win situation for young artists and for students.

In a time of recession the cliché of the starving artist is likely to become a clear and present reality. Art is luxury that one can arguably live without. As an overspending nation focuses on reducing debt, the negative impact on art sales and the burgeoning gallery scene is inevitable. Yet there is a chance for the creative, innovative mind. One example is Los Angeles-based artist Shepard Fairey who by his own admission was “living on the poverty line” until 2001. He propelled his art to prominence by starting as a street artist pasting - not always terribly legal - his posters on buildings, walls, and bridges. Skill, timing, and using the potential of the Internet made his image of candidate Obama a ubiquitous icon. The National Portrait Gallery at the Smithsonian just acquired and unveiled the original.

Let the image be the maxim of art and recession: There is - HOPE.

----------------------
The article was first published in the Ethnic Arts Council of Los Angeles (EAC) e-news january/february 2009 edition

INTERNATIONAL ASIAN ART FAIR 2009: CANCELLED!

2009-01-21T10:21:00.000-08:00

Statement from the Haughton website announcing the cancellation of the 2009 Internatioal Asian Art Fair in New York.

"Due to the present global economic situation we have regrettably taken the decision to cancel The International Asian Art Fair for 2009. The fair was scheduled for the 11-15 March at The Park Avenue Armory, Park Avenue at 67th Street, New York City. Many of the dealers who had contracted to take part are not in a position to go forward in the current climate and as such we have decided a fair would put an untenable strain on their resources. We hope to be able to re-launch the fair in 2010 and look forward to working with our exhibitors again."

http://www.haughton.com/

REVIEW OF LOS ANGELES ASIAN & TRIBAL ART SHOW

2008-12-02T15:10:00.000-08:00

I recently participated in the 18th annual Los Angeles Asian & Tribal Art Show. It is produced by the Caskey Lees organization and held in mid November at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. There were approximately 60 dealers present, offering classic Asian material from Japan, China, Korea, and India, as well of tribal, textile, and pre-Columbian art.

Tribal Art dealers present were LA Tribal members: John Strusinski, Ron Normandeau, Joshua Dimondstein, Philip Garaway, Fily Keita, Jerry Solomon, myself of course, as well as Michael Hamson, Georgia Chrischilles, Aarin Richard, Tom Murray, Zena Kurzick, Craig De Lora, Peter Boyd, and M B Abram. Carpets and textiles were well-represented by John Ruddy, Casey Waller, Ron Hort, Noel Glenn, and Jeff Appleby. My apologies to any others I may have missed.

Once again, UCLA’s Fowler Museum was the beneficiary of the opening night proceeds. They also had a silent auction to raise funds for their Textile support group.

As usual, the show produced mixed results. First, the bad news:

Most of the dealers I spoke with were reasonably nervous about the poor economic news and how it might affect sales at the show. Frankly, regardless of how well the economy is doing, dealers tend to mope about this subject and rarely find any reasons to be optimistic about big sales at any of these shows! It’s just part of the pre-show drama.

However, the slow economy was clearly a factor and sales were down for the majority of dealers, including myself. Most of the buyers did seem hesitant to make any serious purchases under this economic cloud. There isn’t much we can do about this right now, except hang in there until things get back on track.

Also, it has been my view for some time, that the high end market for tribal art in LA is anemic, so it can be difficult to just blame the economy on poor sales. Most of my important sales are made outside of the LA area. I am still not sure why this is the case. LA is one of the wealthiest communities in the world. Most of these people collect art, yet very few seriously collect tribal art or appear to have any interest in doing so. The older collectors in LA are not very active and few younger collectors have stepped up. There are plenty of reliable resources for high quality tribal art in the LA area, but the local collectors rarely take advantage of this situation.

I was disappointed (again) with the Fowler Museum’s participation. This is premier tribal arts institution in Los Angeles and I would expect a more enthusiastic relationship with our local tribal art show. I have been to openings at the Fowler and many hundreds of people attend, yet I rarely see any of those people at our event. Sure, some of the staff comes through and perhaps a few others that may have heard about the show via the Fowler, but virtually no one I talked to on opening night had any connection to that museum. I don’t understand why the Fowler would not take advantage of this relationship and beat the drum to get their troops to the opening. They get a big chunk of the money that comes in that night and it gives their people a rare opportunity to view and purchase authentic tribal artifacts, that likely will be donated or loaned to that museum!

The last point is the venue, which I have mentioned before. The Santa Monica Civic is a tired old building and was not designed to hold quality art shows. I am surprised that the City of Santa Monica has no plans to tear that building down and replace it with a modern and more interesting architectural structure that would draw larger crowds. They have literally improved or re-built every single other building in the nearby Civic Center complex, but for some reason have ignored this out-dated blight right next door. There doesn’t seem to be any viable alternative for now, but it is my hope that the City will eventually address this issue.

The good news:

The current PR firm (AGK Media Group) and Art & Living Magazine (which was one of the co-sponsors of the show) made a huge effort to bring in new people to the opening and over the weekend. I believe we had 400 to 500 people on opening night, the largest attendance I can recall. There were considerably more people on Saturday, as well. I had so many new people, as well as the regulars, come into my booth that I couldn’t take a break all Friday evening and most of the day on Saturday. And more importantly, most of the sales I did make were to new buyers.

As a positive side note, the opening was catered for the first time by a local restaurant, Mercedes Grill, which just happens to be my one of my regular hangs. Great food and drinks were provided, but unfortunately they had not anticipated the larger crowd so there wasn’t much to go around after the first hour or so.

I like the overall mix and look of this show and it really seems to be hitting its stride. There is a nice variety (and price ranges) of material for sale and I am always happy to see more tribal art at this venue. The displays and material are not on the level of the San Francisco Tribal show, but it seems to be improving each year. The show has potential and I look forward to doing it again next year, especially if the economy is in better shape and the PR people can continue to bring in new faces.

Lastly, I want to put in a good word for the show producers and their team who work tirelessly to organize these events. Not everyone appreciates the amount of hard work and months of prep it takes to make this all happen. It is a thankless job trying to please everyone and get all of the details worked out before opening.

DE YOUNG OCEANIC COLLECTION, CONT.

2008-12-02T13:46:00.000-08:00

For the latest news on the dispute over the Oceanic art collection at the De Young Museum, please go to this link on the San Francisco Chronicle website:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/23/MNUL146AO2.DTL

INDONESIA TEXTILE COLLECTION AT LACMA

2008-12-02T13:28:00.000-08:00

The Los Angeles Times has written a review of the Indonesian textile collection currently on display at LACMA.

For a link to this review, please go to:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-textiles19-2008nov19,0,7665627.story

INTERVIEW WITH INDONESIAN BLOG

2008-10-22T12:00:00.000-07:00

I was recently asked to answer some questions about Indonesian tribal art for another blog: Everything Indonesia.

The link for this interview is below:
http://everythingindonesia.blogspot.com/

INDONESIA TEXTILE COLLECTION AT LACMA

2008-10-22T11:53:00.000-07:00

"Five Centuries of Indonesian Textiles: Selections from the Mary Hunt Kahlenberg Collection"
September 18, 2008 through September 13, 2009
Los Angeles County Museum of Art

The collection will rotate in mid March, 2009.

For details, please go to http://www.lacma.org/art/ExhibTextiles.aspx

A full review will be posted soon.

NEW GUINEA COLLECTION LEGAL WOES

2008-10-22T11:17:00.000-07:00

Several friends in the San Francisco area have asked me to post comments concerning the Jolika Collection of New Guinea tribal art at the De Young Museum. The donors, John and Marcia Friede, pledged at least part of the collection as financial collateral against a lawsuit over an inheritance dispute with other family members. Recently, a court in Florida has determined in favor of these family members and agreed that the collection could be seized to satisfy that judgment.

Naturally, residents of the Bay Area are upset over the possibility that this important and comprehensive collection could be broken up and sold off to pay this debt. It has caused enough of an uproar that the city attorney of San Francisco has begun a pre-emptive legal process to keep the entire collection at the De Young. Even the New Guinea Ambassador, Evan J. Paki, circulated a letter that supports keeping this collection intact and at the museum. In part, the letter states:

“Through the entire Jolika Collection at the de Young, my nation has a rich storehouse of New Guinea cultural knowledge and history here in the United States. The New Guinea art pieces and treasured cultural objects are an integral part of our storied cultural history; and the Jolika Collection represents a valuable contribution in this respect. While the people of New Guinea no longer possess the masterpieces in the Jolika Collection, we have come to appreciate the entire Jolika Collection as an extension of our nation’s cultural treasures…”

I am not sure if the other family members have requested that the De Young Museum turn over any of this collection to satisfy the court ruling. If they have, I have not heard of it. I would like to hear from anyone that knows if this is the case.

What has not been mentioned, but I find puzzling is why the Friede’s would offer this collection as collateral in a lawsuit after (or before) donating it to the De Young Museum? If the Friede’s were so concerned about keeping this collection intact, as they continue to indicate, they should not have put the collection at risk.

The few stories in the papers (SF Chronicle and the NY Times) that I have read so far are giving the impression that the other family members in the lawsuit are the bad guys in this saga. I do not claim to understand the complexity of this case, but the Florida court has ruled in their favor and agrees with their position. It would be unfair to “demonize” the other family members just because the fallout of this case may affect the collection at the De Young.

More on this subject, as events unfold…

LAWSUIT AND DE YOUNG OCEANIC COLLETION

2008-09-28T11:11:00.000-07:00

The San Francisco Chronicle ran two stories on the Jolika Collection of Oceanic Art that is housed at the De Young Museum. The outcome of a family lawsuit may determine if this collection stays at the De Young or is sold off to cover legal obligations. The two links below on the SF Chronicle website have the latest information as of Sept. 23rd.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2008/09/20/MN13131GMH.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2008/09/23/BADC132MVB.DTL

GUIDELINES FOR BUYERS AND SELLERS

2008-09-16T15:51:00.000-07:00

For more than 30 years I have been in the tribal art business, of which the primary activity is purchasing objects from a variety of sources and then re-selling them to collectors, institutions, or other retailers. It would seem that the guidelines for buying and selling tribal art (or any kind of art) would be obvious, but it has been my experience this is not always the case. This is especially true with new collectors, who may be unaware of the subtle details. I have also experienced some issues with “seasoned” buyers who occasionally fail to properly follow through on a purchase.

Because these issues come up on a regular basis, I want to make an attempt to clarify what I believe is the proper business relationship between buyers and sellers. These guidelines do not apply to every transaction and not every seller or buyer will agree with my view, but I believe it is important to make these points anyway. This set of guidelines is not inclusive and others may have suggestions or corrections, which I welcome.

Terminology note: because professional dealers buy as much as they sell and collectors often sell items from their collections, to keep this simple: anyone offering pieces for sale will be identified as a “seller” and anyone making a purchase will be identified as a “buyer”.

Buyers should be aware that professional sellers are regularly asked for information about items they have for sale. This is part of the job and most sellers are comfortable answering these questions, within reason. These days, most professional sellers have websites, so naturally inquiries via email are routine. Unfortunately, it is clear that many of these inquiries are not from people seriously interested in buying a piece, but more of a fishing expedition for prices, perhaps as a comparison of value to pieces in their own collections, or to obtain free information. It really takes up a lot of valuable time and energy for sellers to differentiate between the serious and the merely curious. The bottom line is that buyers should understand that there needs to be some limitations on these inquires and be sensitive to the amount of time one might expect a seller to provide additional images and information.

All items are subject to availability, so the buyer needs to make it clear if they want a particular item and are willing to abide by the terms of the seller. A buyer can ask for an item to be put on “hold”, but should not expect the seller to do this for more than a few days, unless very specific arrangements have been made. The buyer needs to communicate their intentions as soon as possible, otherwise, the seller has the right to offer it elsewhere or sell the item to the first buyer that has made a commitment.

Prices may change so buyers should not expect them to remain the same if they ask about an item at a later time. Prices are like the stock market, one day it might be up and another day it might be down. Sellers have the right to change their prices based on evolving market conditions or their personal financial needs. Obviously, it would be unfair for a seller to raise the price of an item in mid-negotiation, but at any other time, it is acceptable.

With all of the above in mind, buyers should pay attention to these basic guidelines:

If the buyer has any questions or concerns they should ask these before making their final decision. Again, keeping in mind the amount of time used to do so.

When asking about an item or requesting a price, it is always polite to follow up regardless of the decision. The seller takes time to answer these questions and of course wants to know if a potential buyer is really interested in making the purchase. There could be others asking about that same item and it is extremely helpful to know which inquiries are serious.

It is usually acceptable for buyers to negotiate on a purchase. Most sellers are willing to work terms with a buyer, so it never hurts to ask. For example, a buyer might ask the seller for a reasonable discount on the price, or possibly to cover shipping costs or the sales tax (if it applies). The buyer might ask for a payment plan. One or two of these requests might be acceptable, but it would be unfair to ask a seller for a discount and then ask for time to make payments. It should also be clear that not all sellers are willing to give terms and even ones that normally do so might not with special or unusually rare items.

The buyer should be clear about the payment method they would like to use (check, money order, wire transfer, credit card, cash, etc) and when they will pay. The type of payment method and timing of the payment usually has a bearing on the amount a seller may be willing to discount. Unless arrangements are made in advance, the seller usually expects the payment immediately.

This last point is important as most professional sellers are continually setting up other purchases and often make these deals based on their expectation of cash flow. If a buyer agrees to make a purchase and sets a time to make that payment, the seller fully expects that payment to come at or before that time, so they have those funds available to run their business. If a buyer runs into some unexpected trouble making that payment, they are obligated to communicate with the seller as soon as possible to make other arrangements.

The buyer is expected to make the full payment, including shipping costs (if necessary), before taking possession of the item. Exceptions may be made for buyers well-known to the seller, but only if the seller is willing to do so. Getting items on approval without payment is the exception, not the norm, so it should not be expected.

Assuming an item has been shipped; once it arrives the buyer should acknowledge receipt immediately, noting any condition issues. It would be helpful if the buyer would let the seller know as soon as possible if they are keeping the piece or returning it. Most sellers give time to the buyer to make their final decision (usually no more than a week), but the sooner the seller knows if the sale is final, the better.

If a buyer does decide to return an item, they should do so in a timely manner and make sure the item is returned in the same condition it arrived. The buyer cannot expect the seller to give a full refund if the item is returned damaged.

Most sellers will give a full refund for returned items, less the cost of shipping, if done so in the agreed upon time period. After that time period has elapsed the seller may opt to offer credit or exchange. Buyers should be fully aware of a seller’s return policy before making their purchase, so there is no misunderstanding at a later date. It has been my experience that most sellers are cooperative when it comes to returns, but they do have to protect themselves from simple “buyer’s remorse” or items that have been unfairly discredited by other less knowledgeable or unscrupulous sellers.

Professional sellers are always appreciative when buyers make their lives a bit easier. Some enthusiasm and passion for the art, good communication, a quick decision, and on time payments are all we really ask for. If the buyer makes the transaction easy for the seller it is virtually a guarantee the seller will go out of their way to make things easier for the buyer, especially on future sales.

That said, sellers are also obligated to know their material and provide accurate information. They should be fair in their assessment of each piece and offer buyers an honest evaluation of relative quality, rarity, condition, and value. They should provide clear title and provide verifiable provenance when possible. They should clearly state any condition problems and note major restorations or repairs. They should provide a written guarantee of authenticity. They should state a clear return policy. The seller should be responsible for packing items properly and ship immediately upon receipt of funds. And finally, they should allow for a reasonable time period for the buyer to make a final decision on any purchase, especially with sales made by photographs or via the internet.

3-PART LA TIMES STORY ON ROXANNA BROWN

2008-09-14T10:12:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles Times ran a three part story (Sept, 11,12, 13) on Roxanna Brown, the former director of the Bangkok University Museum and Thai ceramics expert, who died in Federal custody this year. She was arrested as part of the ongoing tax fraud and smuggling investigation involving two local LA dealers and several Southland museums. Fascinating story. All three parts can be found at the link below (although the third part is not clearly indicated on the LA Times website).

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/crime/la-me-roxanna-sg,0,3022894.storygallery

LACMA BUYS OCEANIC PIECES

2008-07-15T17:32:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art acquired a significant private collection of rare Pacific Island art. The acquisition, announced on July 8th, 2008, comprises of 48 rare works purchased from the Masco Corp. Foundation of Detroit.

For the full story, please go to this link on the Los Angeles Times website:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-lacma9-2008jul09,0,4846366.story

AFGHAN TREASURES ON TOUR

2008-06-28T08:05:00.000-07:00

Art: Back Out in the World.
Los Angeles Times, June 15, 2008

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-afghan15-2008jun15,0,1538409.story

"Hidden Treasures From the National Museum Museum, Kabul" currently at the National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. On tour to the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco in October, and then the Museum of Fine Arts of Houston and the Met in New York before returning to Kabul by Sept. 2009.

COLLECTING FOLK ART

2008-06-28T07:59:00.000-07:00

A very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal on collecting Folk Art:

Collecting: Loving the Ugly Mermaid
Wall Street Journal, June14/15, 2008, page W3 or online at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121340317110073921.html

NEW YORK TRIBAL & TEXTILE ART SHOW

2008-05-30T11:22:00.000-07:00

REVIEW OF THE NEW YORK TRIBAL AND TEXTILE ART SHOW

The NY show’s venue has changed back to the original armory at Lexington and 26th and held one week earlier. From the exhibitors' viewpoint this was a long overdue and necessary move. Our set-up and show schedule at the previous venue was awkward and tight, to say the least. We were forced to get everything ready in less than one day leading to either a rushed opening on Friday night or early bird entry on Saturday morning as well a ridiculous four days run that ended on Tuesday.

At the new venue the show organizers had enough time to properly prepare the booths (walls, paper, lighting, displays, and shipments) allowing two days for set-up and vetting. Behind the scenes, logistics were smooth and relatively stress-free. Also, I like the neighborhood better than the uptown armory: more restaurants, bars, and businesses.

Seller anticipation was mixed. Prior to 9/11, NY was the hottest tribal art venue in the US, overshadowing the SF and LA shows. Sales were brisk and attendance was consistently high, with considerable representation from dealers and collectors from Europe and other areas of the US. After 9/11 the show waned and frankly, never recovered its previous glory.

Attempts at getting sponsorship and serious new collectors to our opening nights failed miserably. None of these sponsors brought out “their” people. Another big disappointment: even the regular collectors barely made the time to come by. Eventually, this led to dropping the opening night for a 10 am Saturday early entry. The only advantage was it allowed for a few more hours of set-up on Friday.

The last two years at the previous venue, the organizers and PR firm were able to get stunning reviews in the NY Times, which we all hoped would bring in those valuable “new” collectors we are all looking for. Unfortunately, our awkward show schedule could not get this review out before the weekend and instead came out on Monday, when things were winding down. The first year of the review did appear to bring out some new faces on Monday and Tuesday, but no serious buyers. It was difficult to tell if the second review had much impact.

This year, opening night was on Wednesday with regular hours running from Thursday through Sunday. I assume the extra week day was added so the NY Times reviewer would have ample time to review and publish before the weekend. A tepid review by a different (and clearly unenthusiastic) reporter did make the Friday addition however; it did not appear to help bring in new buyers this year.

Much to our relief, this year’s opening night was relatively a big success. Attendance was way up with many of the big collectors making an appearance. There was actually an excitement in the air and it looked as if the show was making a serious comeback! From what I heard, most sales were made on that night or by the next day.

I felt attendance for the remaining regular dates was adequate, but in my opinion there was a real lack of enthusiasm for buying at this point. I saw regular clients and chatted with many people new to me, but had virtually no sales after the first day or two. Again, most of the exhibitors I talked to reported the same story.

Many will blame the economic slowdown or discouraging political news. Others would like to blame the show organizers for failing to get the word out. I disagree with that assessment. First of all, I think the organizers and their PR people do a very good job of promoting the show. The word is out, but for reasons out of their control, only so many people bother to attend and even less buy. I suppose the economy might affect the buying habits of some mid to low level collectors, but in reality most of the regular collectors I know tend to live above the whims of temporary economic changes, so I don’t think this was big factor.

Sotheby’s and Bonham’s/Butterfields were holding their tribal auctions that week, which should have attracted more serious buyers to town and in theory brought them over to the tribal art show. However, it also has the potential to dilute sales in a now overly saturated marketplace, so perhaps that had some negative effect. Hard to gauge this one. It should be noted that sales at the Sotheby’s auction were very good with a record price paid for an African piece.

Perhaps the tribal art community is just not making a good enough case publically to encourage new collectors to pay attention. Perhaps, as sellers, we are just not bringing the right material and offering them at prices that would entice new (and old) collectors? If so, I don’t know how to solve this last problem as any seller will tell you that prices at the supply end are consistently up and the availability of good material is down.

It is my view that one significant part of the problem is many buyers do not really pay attention to the dynamics that support these tribal art shows. Do buyers really understand that sellers pay considerable sums of money, plus the costs of inventory, with some risk of loss and damage, as well as their time to exhibit at these shows?

Yes, we are all networking with other dealers, museum curators, academics, and of course collectors, that may or may not bear fruit over time. There is much to learn at these shows and acquiring important information cannot be underestimated or easily valued. For each locality this is THE tribal art event, a “Tribal Art Woodstock” if you will, that brings us together as a community. Without a sense of community, we are potentially nothing more than rogue sellers, naïve collectors, or ivory tower academics that will lose the benefits of standards, openness, and cooperation.

But, the bottom line and economic stimulus that insures these shows will continue is sales. If buyers are not buying, sellers cannot afford to pay these high fees to exhibit. Without regular high quality sellers, the shows will fall to the wayside (take the struggling University of Philadelphia show and failed attempts in Seattle and Chicago as a good examples). Without these shows, the community loses a valuable educational and promotional asset.

Obviously, I would encourage buyers to pay more attention to the needs of sellers at these shows. We are here to sell, so if at all possible, buy. Take advantage of the opportunity presented to view and purchase great, authentic (and vetted) tribal art. We all want to see these shows survive and thrive, so any cooperation on the part of buyers will be rewarded and appreciated. Lastly, we all need to continue working on better ways to promote tribal art to a wider audience.

For another viewpoint and review of the NY Tribal and Textile Art Show I would encourage you to visit the Tribalmania website at: http://www.tribalmania.com/. Michael Auliso does a more comprehensive review with lots of good images. I am not sure if his review of the NY show is up at the time of my posting, but I am sure it will be soon.

OCEANIC ARTWORKS AT PACIFIC ASIA MUSEUM

2008-05-30T07:34:00.000-07:00

"Pacifika: Young Perspectives on Pacific Island Art"
Pacific Asia Museum, Pasadena, California
Now through August 24th, 2008.
http://www.pacificasiamuseum.org/

"...an exhibition devoted to early Pacific Island society and reaction of modern Pacific Islanders."

NY TIMES ARTICLE ON CULTURAL PROPERTY

2008-05-30T07:27:00.000-07:00

This link was sent to me by a colleague:

Antiquities, the World is Your Homeland
by Edward Rothstein

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/arts/design/27conn.html?ex=1212638400&en=878a2cb99a0d57d2&ei=5070&emc=eta1

RECENT ARTICLES RELATING TO LA MUSEUM AND TAX CASE:

2008-05-30T07:04:00.000-07:00

NY Times link to article about looted artifacts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/arts/design/04frau.html?scp=1&sq=Roxanna+Brown&st=nyt

A series of news links about the arrest and death in US custody of Roxanna Brown, director of the Southeast Asian Ceramics Museum at Bangkok University, Thailand. Roxanna Brown was mentioned in the recent articles and affidavits related to the importation of Thai ceramics and alleged tax fraud by Los Angeles based art dealers and museums.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9234570

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/12/america/Smuggled-Art.php

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004413443_webloot14m.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004413800_apwasmuggledart1stldwritethru.html

I was sent this statement from a colleague who found it on the Southeast Asian Archeology News Blog:

The death of Dr. Roxanna Brown in prison in Seattle is a huge loss not just to her family but to everyone involved in the field of Southeast Asian ceramics. Her thorough and original research and the work that she has done in recent years as the founding curator of the Southeast Asian ceramic museum have made an enormous contribution to the appreciation and understanding of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Thai artifacts. No one else in any country has done as much.

By rights she ought to have been contemplating a retirement full of honours, respect and gratitude. Instead, through the carelessness of government officials in her own country, she has been forced to endure a lonely, humiliating and undoubtedly painful death.

I have studied the investigation that has been going on in Los Angeles in detail and I have read the affidavits and search warrants that were filed by the US Inland Revenue agents who have been conducting this five-year investigation. It is my considered opinion that they have been on a very long, expensive and futile fishing expedition, pursuing a few slightly shady tax dodges while doing immense damage to the museum community as a whole.

Now that damage has reached Thailand. It is one of the tragic ironies of this scenario that the US Inland Revenue Service, while trying, quite hypocritically, to portray itself as the defender of Thai culture, has taken away the life and destroyed the career of one of the best friends this culture ever had.

Let’s hope that Dr. Brown’s death will not have been completely in vain, and that this ill-advised witch hunt will be called off.

NEW EXHIBITION AT UCLA FOWLER MUSEUM

2008-05-02T08:39:00.000-07:00

MAMI WATA: ARTS FOR WATER SPIRITS IN AFRICA AND ITS DIASPORAS.
April 6 through August 10, 2008.
UCLA Fowler Museum, Los Angeles.
www.fmch.ucla.edu/

Los Angeles Times review of exhibition:
Calendar Section: April 20, 2008.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-ca-mami20apr20,1,383174.story

RECENT ARTICLES IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

2008-05-02T08:27:00.000-07:00

Two articles of interest in the Los Angeles Times:

New Zealand's Maori Rediscover Themselves in Tattoos.
Front Section: April 20, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-tattoo15apr15,0,4721289,full.story

Oldest Oil Paintings Found in Asia.
Science File: April 26, 2008.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-paintings26apr26,0,1168357.story

REVIEW OF SAN FRANCISCO TRIBAL ART SHOW, continued.

2008-03-23T07:58:00.000-07:00

For a much more extensive review (with images) of the recent San Francisco Tribal Art Show, please go to the Tribalmania website.

The direct link for the review is: http://www.tribalmania.com/SHOWSANFRAN-08.htm

LA TIMES STORY ON ART DONATIONS

2008-03-02T09:54:00.000-08:00

YOU SAY THAT ART IS WORTH HOW MUCH?
"The IRS audits a tiny fraction of donors who claim write-offs. The cost is untold millions in tax revenues."

LA Times, Sunday, March 2, 2008 (Front Page)
By Jason Felch and Doug Smith , Times Staff Writers

Direct Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-irs2mar02,0,3015698.story

SAN FRANCISCO TRIBAL ART SHOW REVIEW

2008-02-29T10:04:00.000-08:00

I was one of approximately 100 dealers exhibiting at the recent Tribal Art show in San Francisco, California, over the weekend of February 7th – 10th , 2008. The show is held at the Fort Mason Center, in the Marina District, with a panoramic view of the Bay, Alcatraz, and Marin County. We were lucky to avoid the rain storms of the previous weekend, during the Asian Show, with each day more stunning than the last.

This is THE Tribal Art show to do and nearly all of the best American dealers are in attendance. The show has also drawn a large (and growing) wave of major European dealers. One significant addition: the show organizers were able to convince a small collective of European dealers to abandon their previously successful downtown gallery show (Crossroads) to exhibit at the Fort Mason venue. There has always been a long waiting list to get in, but recent demand to exhibit has caused some problems. To make room for others, some exhibitors have been moved out of their prime spaces or dropped from the show.

The Opening Night Gala on Thursday evening benefits the departments of Textiles and the Art of Africa, Oceania, and Americas in the de Young Museum. As usual it was packed with all of the local tribal art illuminati, backers of the de Young Museum, and an impressive contingent of important collectors from outside the Bay Area. There was plenty of great food, an open bar, and lots of socializing, but it was unclear if there was much across the board business.

The crowds returned on Friday and Saturday and it is my understanding most of the major sales went down at this time. Certainly, most of my sales occurred on these two days. Despite some gloomy economic forecasts, it didn’t appear to keep most collectors at this show from making significant purchases! However, by Sunday it seemed that the air had been sucked out of the room and the buying enthusiasm was over. Some buyers returned to pick up their purchases and there were, of course, a few stragglers making their way through the aisles, looking for deals, but not much else. As usual, sales were mixed, with some exhibitors reporting record sales and others just getting by.

At the entrance to the show was an engaging special exhibition: “Outer Garments-Inner Warmth, Power, Protection, Prestige.” Organized by Lee and Vichai Chinalai, there a dazzling array of jackets, shawls, and other wearable art in a variety of materials from a wide range of cultures.

From my Tribal “Southeast Asian and Western Pacific Island” perspective, there were some major pieces on exhibit in the main hall. The rarest and most impressive objects were two archaic Dayak ironwood cave guardian figures with strong muscular postures and anvil like heads. There were several wild Borneo masks (Hudoq); a very rare mini Dayak figure wearing a Hudoq style mask that resembled an American Indian Kachina; a pair of Dayak ironwood sacrificial posts; a couple of wonderful Dayak shields; a monumental Sumba Island stone; a variety of Dayak outdoor sculptures (Hampatong) including one with unusual tattoo motifs on the thighs; two sets of elaborate and complex Dayak roof finials in the form of dragon heads; and a beautiful Dayak chief’s door with intertwined snake motifs. Clearly in this region, Dayak art from Borneo Island is the 8000 lb Orangutan!

Perhaps the biggest sale of the show was Mindja Yam Cult Figure from the Sepik area of Papua New Guinea. It’s a beautiful example and came with impressive provenance: the Masco Collection. Oceanic art, especially New Guinea pieces, were selling well, still able to draw attention in the Bay Area because of the strong presence of the Friede Collection at the de Young Museum. As usual, textiles were well represented, especially carpets, ikats, and embroideries. There was a nice selection of Pre-Columbian pieces and other arts of the Americas (although most of the dealers in this area hold out for the big Marin County Indian Show two weeks later). Oh yeah, and a bunch of things from Africa…yawn!

This show just continues to build momentum and every year dealers and collectors alike look forward to this event. Without question it has become the most important Tribal Art show in the US and arguably the world. Sure, there are major Tribal shows in Paris and Brussels, but the emphasis is on African art without the variety of material and dealers at the San Francisco venue.

The credit for this success can be shared equally with the hard work of the show organizers’ well-oiled team and their loyal exhibitors who have steadfastly held on while this show floundered in the past, eventually picked up steam, then evolved into the major event it is today. Clearly, some house-cleaning was needed and it was helpful to bring in additional big name dealers from other parts of the world, but it is important to remember that the original exhibitors were the ones that hung on when it was not THE SHOW to do.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MUSEUM RAIDS

2008-02-28T09:00:00.000-08:00

OBSERVATIONS ON THE RECENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MUSEUM RAIDS:

The information in the government affidavits may or may not be true. It is not uncommon that much of the government’s case is based on distortions or exaggerations of the facts.

At this time none of the people mentioned in the affidavits have been charged with any crime. The affidavits were used by government agents to obtain search warrants to gather evidence for possible future indictments.

The newspaper articles (either in print or online) clearly distorted at least some of the information provided in the government affidavits. To get a better idea of what is involved in this case, it is best to read the affidavits (links were provided from the online news articles).

Example of newspaper distortion of “facts”: It was widely reported that one of the participants (the Gallery Owner: GO) was offering illegally obtained Thai artifacts to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA). "GO" claims that LACMA was a stickler for provenance and proper paperwork, but the museum was aware of a “loophole” that would allow him to donate these items. In the affidavits it was made clear that LACMA museum officials were not “in” on this loophole, but that "GO" was able to provide false documents that would satisfy museum standards. That “small” distortion by the media of the information provided in the affidavits would make it appear LACMA was complicit in the donation of illegal artifacts when this was not the case.

Another distortion stated by the media is that museum officials at some of the targeted institutions assisted in providing high values on donated artifacts. This is not true, as museum officials are not involved in any way with the stated value of donations. That information is provided by the donor or an appraiser and given to the IRS for tax purposes. Obviously, museum officials hope that a donor will receive a high appraised value for the item as it is more likely it will be donated, but the ultimate value is not relevant to the reasons a museum wishes to obtain a donated art object.

It is alleged that some of the participants provided false tax appraisals to the undercover agent (UA) and valued items higher than was paid. There may be problems with these appraisals, such as falsified signatures and dates of purchase, however, it is not illegal to evaluate items at a higher value than what was paid (the IRS does require that items be held for one year otherwise the value is set by cost). Assuming that the items in question were held for more than one year, valuations are based on the fair market value at the time of the appraisal and it is possible that the items were in fact worth what was stated in the appraisal.

As an aside, it is also possible that some or all of these artifacts are not, in fact, authentic, but reproductions of Thai antiquities. The government alleges that an expert of their choosing claims they are authentic, but it is not clear if this expert actually examined the artifacts in person. It should be noted that the vast majority of “antiquities” and “artifacts” publicly offered in source countries, such as Thailand, are reproductions, so it is very likely at least some of the items are not authentic.

Assuming they are authentic, these items are not significant cultural artifacts, but rather common and inexpensive. The Thai government did not instigate this investigation. The Thai government is also aware that several museums in the US and Europe have these artifacts in their collections, but have made no effort to re-claim them. If these artifacts were eventually confiscated and returned to Thailand, they would most likely be stored and forgotten about. It is also possible many of them would find their way out the back door and resurface in antique shops in Bangkok.

It is possible the participants will face charges relating to the importation and sale of illegally obtained antiquities, although that is difficult to gauge at this time. What is more likely are charges relating to possible tax fraud. If the allegations are true, it would seem a more solid case.

Why the big fuss? Why did the Feds send 30-40 agents, arriving early in the morning, with cameras rolling, to acquire the evidence that could have easily been obtained by 2 or 3 agents in suits making an appointment with the museum? Why the big expense for a relatively minor offense? If the allegations are true, then the government has a right to act, but clearly they wanted to make a larger point.

What they were able to do was to scare the hell out of every museum official, appraiser, art collector, and art dealer involved, even remotely, in the antiquities trade. You can bet that within 24 hours, every museum in the US was re-evaluating its acquisitions and donations policies. In addition, any appraiser, collector, or dealer assisting in over-evaluating objects for donation is rethinking their involvement.

NOW, AFRICA

2008-01-29T19:11:00.000-08:00

A New LACMA Gallery Shows African Art as More Than Influence.
A Review of the new African Art Gallery at LACMA.
By Anne-Marie O'Conner, Times Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 29th, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-africanart29jan29,1,7715144.story

MUSEUM RAIDS, CONTINUED...

2008-01-29T19:08:00.000-08:00

"Probe of Stolen Art Goes National"
Chicago Sites Raided in Federal Investigation of Cerritos Art Dealer.
By Jason Felch and Mike Boehm, Times Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-museum29jan29,1,6302986.story

FEDS RAID FOUR SOUTHLAND MUSEUMS

2008-01-26T10:37:00.000-08:00

Federal agents, including the IRS and ICE staged coordinated early morning raids on LACMA, the Pacific Asia Museum, the Bowers Museum and the Mingei International Museum. The focus of the raids was to gather evidence showing museum officials knowingly accepted donations of illegally obtained artifacts, in particular items from the Ban Chiang culture of Thailand. The museums alledgely encouraged over-evaluations of the donated items for tax purposes. Two local art dealers are accused of "masterminding" the sale and donations of these illegal artifacts through an undercover agent posing as an art collector.

All of the southern California press covered this story and it was on all of the local news stations on Thursday, the 24th and Friday, the 25th. I am including the links for two articles from the LA Times, but additional stories can be found on Orange County Register and San Diego Union websites. The affivdafits are fascinating (the links are found with the articles). It may be necessary to sign up to read the LA Times articales, but it easy to do.

"Raids Suggest a Deeper Network of Looted Art"
Even after scandals Southland museums pursued suspect artifacts, warrants say.
By Jason Felch, Times Staff Writer
Friday, January 25th, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-museums25jan25,1,5801906,full.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

"Museum Didn't Need This Publicity"
Santa Ana's Bowers has long sought the attention in the art world. But not from a federal raid.
By Mike Boehm, Times Staff Writer
Saturday, January 26th, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-museums26jan26,0,559952.story