What's the opposite of stolen art?

Free to a good home? The Burghers of Calais

The Art Newspaper reports that Rodin's monumental Burghers of Calais, standing near the Houses of Parliament, does not have a legal owner - or at least not one who'll admit to it.

While most people would probably be quite keen to own a sculpture valued in the millions, the candidates for owning for this one are denying everything.

The statues tell a story from the Hundred Years War, when Edward III besieged Calais. Edward declared that if six citizens of Calais would come out to give him their keys and their lives, he would spare the rest of the city. Rodin's six Burghers are represented on their way to meet the king, expecting to be beheaded.

Bought in 1911 by the National Art Collections Fund and donated to the nation, the statues now stand in Victoria Tower Gardens. The gardens are run by Royal Parks, and they are responsible for looking after the Rodin, but they say it's not actually theirs - even though when the Burghers were lent to exhibitions in years past, Royal Parks were credited as the lender. The Parliamentary Art Committee likewise disclaims ownership. The Art Fund notes the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) as owner, but the DCMS thinks otherwise.

The story was the same with another sculpture nearby - Henry Moore's Knife Edge Two Piece. It was also donated to the nation, this time by the artist himself in 1967. The Telegraph reports that the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the DCMS, English Heritage, the Government Art Collection, Westminster Council and the Greater London Authority have all confirmed it isn't theirs.

The Henry Moore Foundation recently announced that Knife Edge, in urgent need of restoration, was to be adopted by the House of Commons. Conservation is due to begin in early 2012.

As for the Burghers, anyone with house space for six life size Rodins may want to put their hand up now.

Read more in the Art Newspaper here and here.
Read more in the Telegraph.

Brainiart?

Questions have been raised as to the artistic value of an art exhibition currently showing at GV Art in Marylebone.

“BRAIN STORM - investigating the brain through art & science” is described as an “exhibition in which seven contemporary artists consider the human brain: the physical entity described by science, the seat of the mind and soul, and origin of the creative impulse”. The press release further explains that:

“Their works are shown alongside a film of a Neuropathologist performing a "brain cut up." For the viewer, this juxtaposition is the starting point for a dialogue between how we see the brain and understand its functions scientifically and what happens when this physical organ that produces our individual visual and creative understanding becomes the subject for the artist.”

“The inspiration for Brainstorm was an invitation earlier this year by Dr David Dexter, Reader in Neuropharmacology and Scientific Director Parkinson’s UK Tissue Bank, Centre for Neuroscience, Imperial College, London, for GV Art to observe a brain cut up. And, on 17 November, curator Robert Devcic and artists Katharine Dowson and David Marron spent more than two hours observing a braincut up at the Joint MS Society and Parkinson’s UK Tissue Bank at Imperial College, London. Some of the works in this exhibition were made in direct response to this experience.”

“The gallery hopes to have the actual brain and brain slices involved at that event on display in coming weeks. GV Art is the only private gallery in the country to hold a Human Tissue Authority Licence for Public Display and Storage”

Of course, it is on this last point that issues have arisen. For today, the brain, which was removed from the dead body of a multiple sclerosis sufferer (with the patient's consent), went on show.


It is reported that there have been protests over the work, with critics saying that the exhibit pushes the boundaries of decency in the name of art and that the public display of human body parts is “degrading”. In this respect, however, the only opponent cited is a Conservative MP, David Amess, who is a former member of the health select committee, who stated: “It's one thing if this is done in a laboratory, but it's degrading to put body parts on display in a public place. In my personal opinion, this is a disrespectful way to treat the human body and is unacceptable.”

It is not the first time that parts of a human body have gone on show in the name of art. This is not to say that there are not strict rules governing the public display or storage of any human tissue from a dead person.

The Human Tissue Act (“Act”), which came into force on the 1st September 2006 and is governed by the Human Tissue Authority (“HTA”), provides a framework for the regulation of storage and use of human tissue from the living, and the removal, storage and use of tissue and organs from the deceased for specified purposes. At the heart of the Act is the requirement that consent be obtained for the removal, storage and use of any relevant material which has come from a human body for certain Scheduled Purposes. These purposes include public display. The Act does not define 'public display', but the HTA Guidance provides that it will regard a public display as: “An exhibition, show or display in which a body of a deceased person or relevant material which has come from the body of a deceased person is used for the purpose of being exposed to view by the public.”

A key principle on which the Act is based is that all human bodies, body parts and tissue within the Act’s scope should be treated with appropriate respect and dignity. This principle applies to the public display of a body or tissue from a deceased person, and the guidance’s proposals complement those within the European Union Tissues and Cells Directive (EUTCD). The Act is also complemented by DCMS' Guidance for the care of Human Remains in Museums, which deals with the curating, care and use of human remains and rests on the same principle. In order to regulate this principle, the Act also makes it a requirement that all organisations that either use or store human tissue must be licensed to carry out specific activities. The HTA is responsible for issuing the licences.

As we have seen, GV Art holds one such licence. Accordingly, it may be inferred that that this exhibition does not fall foul of the requirements of the Act and that it has been concluded that the brain is being treated with sufficient dignity and respect.

Whether or not it is Art is another question. But, regardless of the answer to that, the exhibition certainly sounds fascinating.

It is currently showing at GV Art until 22 January 2011.

Source: The Evening Standard, 11 January 2011

Image Source: © Alex Lentati

UK Government slaps export ban on Turner's Campo Vaccino

In July 2010, one of J. M. W. Turner’s finest works, Modern Rome – Campo Vaccino, went under the hammer at Sotherby’s. Completed in 1839, the work was Turner's final landscape painting of Rome. The painting was offer for sale by a descendant of the family of the 5th Earl of Rosebery, which had owned the painting since 1878. In fact, it was only the second time that the painting had appeared on the open market since it was painted. Accordingly, the painting was said to be in an immaculate condition.


Turner’s masterpiece had, however, previously been on a long loan to the National Galleries of Scotland, and had also been displayed at the Royal Academy, the Victoria and Albert Museum and the National Gallery of Art in Washington. Therefore, when the auction was announced in March 2010, there were fears that the piece would be lost from public view when it was sold.

The painting was purchased at auction for 29.7 million pounds, setting a new auction record for Turner’s works, by a London dealer on behalf the J Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles. Unfortunately, the Getty Museum will have to wait until at least 2 February 2011 to see whether an export licence will be granted to the painting, enabling them to take the painting out of the UK. The reason for the delay is that, at the beginning of November 2010, Culture Minister Ed Vaizey placed a temporary export ban on the painting, following the recommendation of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest (RCEWA).

RCEWA is an independent body, administered by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, which advises Ministers of the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) on whether cultural objects, intended for export, are of national importance under specified criteria. Where RCEWA finds that an object meets one or more of the criteria, it will normally delay the decision on whether or not to grant an export licence to allow UK buyers time to raise the money to purchase the object in question at or above the fair market price. In this case, RCEWA judged that Campo Vaccino was of outstanding aesthetic importance, so closely connected with the UK’s history and national life that its departure would be a misfortune, and that every possible effort should be made to raise enough money to keep it in the United Kingdom. The amount that has to be raised to buy back the painting is £30,284,968.75 including VAT.

At present, the export ban will expire on 2 February 2011, when a decision will need to be made as to whether to grant an export licence application for the painting. This period may be extended until 2 August 2011 if it appears that there is a possibility of sufficient funds being raised to make an offer to purchase back the painting.

The export ban should not have come as a surprise to the Getty Museum. It was a declared condition of the sale that export would be reviewed. Furthermore, export of the Getty’s 2002 purchase of Raphael's The Madonna of the Pinks was similarly held up for two years, and then reversed when the National Gallery in London was able to reach an agreement to purchase the work for £22 million in 2004. However, if the money cannot be raised to buy back Campo Vaccino, by this time next year it will most certainly have gone to join a number of other Turner works in sunny LA.

The results are in

The UK Government’s Spending Review was announced today by Chancellor George Osborne.

In summary, over the Spending Review period, the outcome for the DCMS is as follows:

• The DCMA budget is to be cut by 24% from £1.4 billion to £1.1 billion;


• Administration costs are to be cut by 41% (which includes the abolition or reform of 19 of DCMS’s 55 existing quangos – as reported here and cuts in the grant to the Arts Council England);


• It is to be ensured that national cultural assets are preserved for future generations, including by limiting cuts to 15% for core arts programmes, like Museums, Arts Council England funding to frontline arts, and sports programmes;


• Free entry to galleries and museums is to be retained.

The DCMS settlement also includes provision for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games by maintaining a public sector funding package of a staggering £9.3 billion.

Art vs Sport? – apparently, the choice has been made for us.

Image source: © Simon Brader

It begins...

As reported, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) had offered to make a number of cuts to reduce its budget.

In keeping with his promises, on 14 October Jeremy Hunt announced that 19 of the 55 DCMS public bodies are being abolished or reformed.

Bodies that will be abolished include the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council which was responsible for improvement and innovation in the area of museums, libraries and archives, as well as the Advisory Council on Libraries, the Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection and the UK Film Council.

Thankfully, a number of the Arts bodies are to be retained and will continue to function, including the Arts Council England and the major national and London art galleries and museums.

Blitzkrieg on the arts

With the Chancellor due to announce the Government's spending plans for the next four years in the Spending Review on Wednesday 20 October 2010, Sir Nicolas Serota has attacked the culture secretary Jeremy Hunt’s offer to cut the budget of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by 25-30%.

In a statement in the Guardian, Serota, Director of the Tate, calls the proposal “absurd”, stating that:

“With the ruthlessness of a blitzkrieg the coalition is threatening the stability of an entire system for cultural provision that has been built up by successive onservative and Labour governments: a mixed economy of public and private support that has made Britain a civilised place to live, where all have an opportunity to enjoy the arts or celebrate our heritage, and have been doing so in increasing numbers.”

Serota warns that the effects of such cuts will include:

“…smaller number of galleries and theatres, fewer chances for young people to broaden their experience of life, and a savage reduction in support for individual writers, artists and composers…closing galleries, reducing outreach activities and shutting for one or two days a week…fewer performances, less invention and much less work in the community”

And that:

“In some cases a vicious circle of declining audiences and reduced corporate and private benefaction will result in a slow, painful death because the core public subsidy is insufficient to sustain the halo of earned income and donations that we have all become adept at gaining. It will be the smaller, most innovative organisations across the country that suffer the most.”

In spite of these calamitous predictions, Serota does offer an alternative. He notes that a 10-15% cut over the next four years could be surmounted. Indeed, he says that this is a challenge of the kind that arts organisations regularly face and can overcome. Any more than this, however, and the stability of the entire art and culture system will be severely threatened.

It remains to be seen whether his words are heeded on 20 October.

Source: The Guardian, 4 October 2010



BLITZKRIEG installation by Viennese artists Busk/Anker/Emilone