One of the points that was made at the ARCA symposium at the V&A yesterday related to the fabrication of collecting histories, sometimes by forging supporting documentation. Richard Ellis suggested that the due diligence process should leave no stone unturned.
As I sat in the audience I kept thinking about the reported collecting history for the Leutwitz Apollo acquired by the Cleveland Museum of Art. How much of it can be authenticated? How far has the museum explored discrepancies?
It is a good story as it is presented. Garden sculpture. Communist attack. Burial in the rubble of the house. Sale to a Dutch dealer.
Does the curatorial team at Cleveland believe it?
Discussion of the archaeological ethics surrounding the collecting of antiquities and archaeological material.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Two lots withdrawn from Bonham's sale
Becchina Archive Source: Christos Tsirogiannis. Dr Christos Tsirogiannis has identified two lots that were due to be auctioned at next week...
-
Source: Sotheby's A marble head of Alexander the Great has been seized in New York (reported in " Judge Orders Return of Ancien...
-
Tarentine funerary relief Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art The Manhattan DA has provided limited details about the recent return of antiqu...
-
If international museums can no longer "own" antiquities either through purchase on the antiquities market or through partage , wh...

No comments:
Post a Comment