In early 2009, Florida fossil collector James Kennedy cleaned off an old bone he had found two years earlier and noticed some lines on it — lines that turned out to be a clear etching of a walking mammoth with tusks. It is presumed to be the oldest known art object of its type found in the New World. The location where he found it hasn’t been disclosed, except that it came from an area north of Vero Beach.
Kennedy is keeping the bone in hopes of selling it by auction. “I want to auction it to the person with the most money, although I would rather it go to a museum,” Kennedy said.Why? Museums do not have so much money these days. From one private collection to another makes more money.
7 comments:
I know this will fall on deaf ears but comments meant to make people think that private collectors are somehow taking items from museums are nonsense. In many cases, private collectors donate or loan objects to museums. Private collectors are passionate about their hobby and take great care of the objects in their possession.
"I know this will fall on deaf ears but comments meant to make people think that private collectors are somehow taking items from museums are nonsense". Yes they are, many private collectors today are buying items NO MUSEUM WOULD TOUCH due to ethical considerations.
I think the times when museums can accept things from private collectors are ending, unless those collectors start applying the same standards to their collecting as a modern museum.
But this inscribed bone, an artefact, supposedly the oldest piece of art of its type from the New World. Should it not be in a public collection where you and your kids can see it, or should it be in "Big" Joe Grabbett III's Austin, Texas den where nobody except his shady business partners and a few classy call girls and the cleaning lady can see it? Like the Crosby Garrett helmet.
The point I was making however is the market for such objects has reached such a form that today public collections cannot compete financially (given they have other tasks than merely accumulate more objects and their funding is under increasing pressure). It is therefore inevitavble that if "market forces" are applied, many iteems like this coming onto the market will not enter public collections. Like the Crosby Garrett helmet.
Should the USA not have a system akin to the UK's Treasure Act whereby important finds like this are not lost to public collections? I have long urged collectors' rights activists intent on imposing Britain's system on other "artefact source nations" to first apply it in the USA. Here is a prime case where the current US measures are failing.
No the United States should not enact restrictive legislation if it wants to stay consistent with a fundamental tenet of any free country - personal property rights. But that is beside the point.
Personal ownership of an object in no way suggests that it will not be on display to the public. Again you demonize the private collector by assuming (a) they are shady and (b) they are unwilling to share their object with the public.
And while it fits a restrictionist view to paint a picture of a nefarious evil doer as a collector. It is simply not the case with most collectors. All private collectors are not evil. But museums are businesses. And if an object is important enough I believe that museums will find a way to exhibit that object regardless of the ownership.
As for the Crosby Garret helmet (or any valuable privately owned object), the new owner may very well provide it on loan to a variety of museums as part of a traveling exhibition. As such, the public will have the ability to view the object. And in fact if it is part of a traveling exhibition it will actually increase the ability for the public to view the object as they will not have to travel to a specific museum to do so.
Personal ownership of an object in no way suggests that it will not be on display to the public.” Well actually it does doesn’t it? That is the whole point. I think you are simply being naïve in suggesting what “might be” when reality shows otherwise.
So you say private collectors willingly lend their stuff to museums and travelling exhibitions? What about the Dr Redd collection of Anasazi dug ups? The Nick Laws and Dale and Raymond Lyman collections? The Aubry Patterson one (all surrendered as part of plea deals in the ongoing Four Corners investigations). The Peter Tompa collection of Hungarian denars and Roman emperors’ noses, http://www.blogger.com/profile/05924359202414555962 when was that last loaned out on public display? A whole host of collectors’ shabtis and scarabs http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-i-dissagree-with-collector.html ? More notably, the majority of privately owned items coming up on sale at Christies and Bonhams for the most part have not – despite what you or I would like to be the case – been “on display to the public” while in previous owners’ hands, for if they had been, there would not be the mystery about where they were before they recently “surfaced” would there? Those collectors who want to “show off” what they have (or have other motivation for passing it through the public eye in museum cases see Renfrew on this) are far outnumbered by those that hoard stuff away in secret. Keeping them locked away in people’s homes is being “restrictionist” isn’t it?
I do not think I have ever said that “all private collectors are evil”. I think that collectors who do not ask questions about the origins of the objects they acquire are the reason for the problems with the market.
(“museums” are not “businesses” where I come from – in fact policy in some countries is that they should not be, which is why admission is free).
”No the United States should not enact restrictive legislation if it wants to stay consistent with a fundamental tenet of any free country - personal property rights. But that is beside the point”. Get real Bob, the United States has legislation regarding “ownership” of things found. Just none that would serve the interests of getting this piece into a public collection.
If by that you mean that countries that do have such legislation – like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which is the example I quoted [after all only following what the US collectors’ rights twerps suggest] – are therefore in any way inferior to your own “freedom”, you can take that talk to another forum, please.
I fully agree with you that collectors must ask questions about that object they acquire (but that was not an issue with the helmet or with this fossil).
I stand by my original assertion. You imply that one should not hold a public auction for an item because it will be acquired by a private collector that that will not share the item. I do not think that I am being naive. It seems to me that many fantastic items on display at a variety of museums have been graciously donated by private collectors. I am also confident that museum curators will be able to work with owners to secure the rights to display truly extraordinary pieces of art without state intervention.
For the state to limit the option of potential acquirers suppressing the fair market value of the object would be unfair to the personal property holder.
PS
To be clear, I simply was stating my belief that the US which claims to believe in personal property rights should not enact legislation that would allow the state to control the disposition of privately owned property in response to your question.
Bob,
Had the Crosby Garrett Helmet been aquired by the Tullie House Museum it would have been displayed within the context that it was found. This would have been infinitely better than in some sterile display.
The helmet would have drawn people to the area and they would have stayed in local bed and breakfasts, eaten in local eateries and spent in local shops. This would have had a knock on effect to the local economy in a place where it is much needed.
At the end of the day that helmet belonged to an ancestor of present day Cumbrians and Cumbria is where it should have stayed.
Post a Comment