Wednesday, 17 August 2016

An Old Man is Brought to Tears by "Independent Research"


Over on a collector's blog near you Wayne Sayles, the dealer with an arts history degree, writes (August 2016 at 15:25):
If you want to see the "so much sense' that brought so many tears to the eye of an emotional old coin dealer that he found it difficult to type, turn to the John Hooker FSA blog for his attempts to grapple with the notion of the evils of cultural heritage without reading any of the basic literature that pertain to the question ('The "cultural heritage" Group Neurosis'). It's what they call "independent research" where the adjective seems to denote that the author is free to blithely make unfounded assertions with no attempt to back them up.

As for "shutting up" critics of the self-indulgence of the dealers and collectors, Mr Hooker has already refused to publish a whole series of comments questioning his statements and lack of definition that I have posted to this essay's rather directionless series of 'instalments' (now in its tedious fourth week). I guess he found no answers in the limited range of his online reading. But engaging with what somebody else says and taking issue with what is unclear or could be seen another way (as I presume they teach even in art history courses in Wisconsin) is what we call debate Mr Sayles.

The collectors and dealers may strive to shout down, intimidate and generally discourage the closer examination of their position by people holding different views than their own. But the debate will go on. Yes, the real message is that the past does belong to all of us (it's why we call it our "heritage" Mr Hooker) but that does not give artefact hunters, dealers and collectors any entitlement to pocket it, appropriate it entirely to themselves or make private profit from it in a way which obliterates the past, and prevents others from accessing it. This is precisely because we agree that it should be being used for the benefit of all including future generations and not just to satisfy the extemporary whims of greedy individuals. And that is exactly what is happening today because of the manner in which the commerce in dugup antiquities is being carried out, manners of handling artefacts which Mr Sayles dealers' interest group the ACCG is engaged in defending, with the help of Mr Hooker. 

There are those who think that is wrong and will speak out, even at the cost of being accused of "pontificating" and becoming the target of the nasty personal attacks and ridicule that for the last decade and a half have been aimed at them precisely by the collectors of and dealers in those artefacts. Fifteen years of ongoing erosion of the archaeological resource while which no progress has been made in cleaning up the market and sorting out this problem. But then, precisely that is the aim of people like Mr Sayles (MA), Mr Hooker (FSA), Mr Welsh, Mr Howland and all the rest.

7 comments:

heritageaction said...

The bottom line Paul is that neither you nor I have ever been attacked by anyone that didn't have a vested interest in the status quo. Mr Welsh recently spoke for them all presumably when he spoke of "the unproven hypothesis that looting is caused by antiquities collecting".

What a dreadful claim, yet that's what they are all defending each time they attack you.

Paul Barford said...

Look, Mr Heritage, if you think you'll get a "you talk so much sense here it brings tears to my eyes" from me, you'll have a long wait. I'm English, not given to Hollywood wet-eye-gratitude. But yes.the motivation of those engaged in all the mud-slinging from collectors, dealers and their supporters is quite clear to everyone. They do not want an adult discussion of the issues.

heritageaction said...

I see he now says your demeanor and public conduct.....
"positively reek with sly, deceptive, unethical, intentionally offensive and provocative behavior"

To which I would respond .....
"let him make money ONLY out of goods that he can show are legally sourced, at which point nothing Paul Barford says will cause him grief ever again!"

Paul Barford said...

The difference between us is that I write about what one can discern about Dealer Dave's business practices from what he, himself, says about them. Dealer Dave on the other hand simply attempts in a long series of posts about me on his blog (as well as at least one discussion list where members have called into question his "obsession:" with me) to 'discredit' me by personal attacks. I think most people can compare what I say with his response and draw their own conclusions to whom those labels would best apply.

My wife's lawyer has a theory that his obsession with me has a homoerotic background. He has seen cases of such stalking before.

heritageaction said...

Hahaha! Well he does say you're "provocative"!

Paul Barford said...

He may well have seen those "provocative photos" purporting to show me naked and engaged in various activities that were once going the rounds among his metal detecting pals and published by metal detectorist "Belzoni" on the PAS forum just before the PAS closed it down because of the way their "partners" were behaving there. Maybe that is behind it - but I was younger then. Mr Welsh too. They may have stirred his bizarre fantasies, I guess. Anyway, that would explain the lengths he goes to to attract my attention and elicit a reaction.

heritageaction said...

Sorry Paul, my explanation is more prosaic. Selling second hand cars without proper documentation makes one furiously defensive not amorous.

 
Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.