Lega ivory and bone figuresJay Last Collection
Beverly Hills, California
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tribal auction Schedule April - June 2010
Lempertz auction / Brussels / April 24 / www.lempertz.com
Bonhams auction / New-York / May 13 / www.bonhams.com
Sotheby’s auction / New-York / May 14 / www.sothebys.com
Pierre Bergé auction / Brussels / May 28 / www.pba-auctions.com
Bruneaf / Brussels / June 9-13 / www.bruneaf.com
Pierre Bergé auction / Paris / June 12-13 / www.pba-auctions.com
Christie’s auction / Paris / June 15 / www.christies.com
Sotheby’s auction / Paris / June 16 / www.sothebys.com
Bonhams auction / New-York / May 13 / www.bonhams.com
Sotheby’s auction / New-York / May 14 / www.sothebys.com
Pierre Bergé auction / Brussels / May 28 / www.pba-auctions.com
Bruneaf / Brussels / June 9-13 / www.bruneaf.com
Pierre Bergé auction / Paris / June 12-13 / www.pba-auctions.com
Christie’s auction / Paris / June 15 / www.christies.com
Sotheby’s auction / Paris / June 16 / www.sothebys.com
Sunday, April 18, 2010
John Friede Update - The End May Be Near
The three-way dispute between John Fried, his brothers, and Sothebys may be near a favorable resolution for all parties. It is possible if some private funds can be raised that none of the Friede pieces currently at the de Young will need to be sold. Certainly John and Marcia Friede will be delighted when this chapter is behind them."Most of the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum's renowned compilation of Oceanic art will remain in place now that a deal has been signed ending an inheritance dispute that had threatened to dismantle the collection and force the sale of parts of it.
But some pieces that had been on display at the museum - including a striking shock-haired figurine used to top a sacred flute estimated to be worth more than $1 million - are currently on the auction block. That piece and others will be sold to help settle a cross-country legal drama that involved sweeping philanthropy, a bitter internecine spat over money, and a $25 million loan from Sotheby's that helped amass what is considered the world's most important private collection of tribal objects from Papua New Guinea.
The bottom line for the public is that 29 pieces that had been among the 398 on display at the city-owned de Young museum after being donated by New York philanthropists John and Marcia Friede have been removed for sale.
Those 29 are among 124 that had been pledged to Sotheby's as collateral for a loan to the Friedes. Museum officials were aware that Sotheby's had a claim to at least 88 of those items before the collection was unveiled at the rebuilt de Young in 2005, court documents show.
"We believe that under these very complex circumstances, we achieved the best possible result for the museum and the public," said John Buchanan, director of San Francisco's Fine Arts Museums, which includes the de Young. The "collection at the de Young will continue to be an unparalleled example of the masterworks of Papua New Guinea to be shared with current and future generations."
Under legal settlements the city attorney's office recently released to The Chronicle, the de Young gets clear title to 274 of 398 pieces at the museum - everything except those works that had been put up as collateral to Sotheby's.
Large collection
The Friedes had collected more than 4,000 pieces of New Guinea tribal art over four decades and promised the prized works to the de Young in a series of agreements dating to 2003.
The museum specifically designed an 8,000-square-foot gallery named for the couple to house the collection when it rebuilt its Golden Gate Park home.
The artwork, named the Jolika Collection after the first letters in the Friedes' three children's names, was to be transferred over a period of years.
But the couple also used the works to secure loans from Sotheby's to acquire more pieces and, at the insistence of John Friede's brothers, put the collection up as collateral in an inheritance dispute following the 2005 death of their mother, Evelyn A.J. Hall, sister of publishing tycoon Walter Annenberg.
The result was a series of legal battles in California, New York and Florida.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera went to court in September 2008 to prevent John Friede's two brothers from seizing the collection and selling parts of it to raise up to $20 million after a Florida judge ruled that Friede had violated the terms of a legal settlement involving their mother's estate. Friede was to pay his brothers $30 million after their mother had loaned him millions before her death. He values the entire collection at about $300 million.
Issues resolved
The newly released settlement documents indicate the legal issues have been resolved. The documents were heavily redacted in places, including references to dollar amounts, specific pieces of art and conditions on sales, but indicate that artwork that had been displayed at the museum could be auctioned by Sotheby's to pay off the estimated $16 million to $18 million John Friede says he still owes the auction house.
The documents indicate the city paid an unspecified amount to get clear ownership of 168 works at the museum, on top of the 106 collection pieces the de Young indisputably owns. Attorneys for the city say the deal protects the majority of the works, may shield many more and avoids the uncertainty of a trial.
"You have to remember the context of this lawsuit," Deputy City Attorney Adine Varah said. "There was a Florida court order authorizing the brothers to seize the works in the museum and liquidate them to pay their debt. This is about preserving and protecting the collection for the public."
Under the settlement, the remaining $5.65 million from the $30 million that John Friede owed his brothers was paid from three sources: John Friede's one-third share of the Pierre Bonnard painting "Le dejeuner" that he owns with his brothers; a portion of a roughly $4 million payment from his mother's estate that was to go to the de Young to pay for upkeep, promotion and study of the Jolika Collection but instead went to purchase 168 of the works; and proceeds held in escrow from the sale of some works not housed at the museum.
No taxpayer funds
City attorneys stressed that the money used to secure the collection was from a charitable contribution from Friede's mother's estate.
"We're not talking about taxpayer funds," Varah said.
John Friede said he hoped additional donors could be found to pay the museum for the endangered pieces rather than have them sold to pay his debt.
"There is the very hopeful possibility that the museum will not use objects to pay it off but will find the money to avoid further diminishing the collection," Friede said. "I would love for none of them to sell." Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/14/MN831CU8SO.DTL#ixzz0lUse98fD
But some pieces that had been on display at the museum - including a striking shock-haired figurine used to top a sacred flute estimated to be worth more than $1 million - are currently on the auction block. That piece and others will be sold to help settle a cross-country legal drama that involved sweeping philanthropy, a bitter internecine spat over money, and a $25 million loan from Sotheby's that helped amass what is considered the world's most important private collection of tribal objects from Papua New Guinea.
The bottom line for the public is that 29 pieces that had been among the 398 on display at the city-owned de Young museum after being donated by New York philanthropists John and Marcia Friede have been removed for sale.
Those 29 are among 124 that had been pledged to Sotheby's as collateral for a loan to the Friedes. Museum officials were aware that Sotheby's had a claim to at least 88 of those items before the collection was unveiled at the rebuilt de Young in 2005, court documents show.
"We believe that under these very complex circumstances, we achieved the best possible result for the museum and the public," said John Buchanan, director of San Francisco's Fine Arts Museums, which includes the de Young. The "collection at the de Young will continue to be an unparalleled example of the masterworks of Papua New Guinea to be shared with current and future generations."
Under legal settlements the city attorney's office recently released to The Chronicle, the de Young gets clear title to 274 of 398 pieces at the museum - everything except those works that had been put up as collateral to Sotheby's.
Large collection
The Friedes had collected more than 4,000 pieces of New Guinea tribal art over four decades and promised the prized works to the de Young in a series of agreements dating to 2003.
The museum specifically designed an 8,000-square-foot gallery named for the couple to house the collection when it rebuilt its Golden Gate Park home.
The artwork, named the Jolika Collection after the first letters in the Friedes' three children's names, was to be transferred over a period of years.
But the couple also used the works to secure loans from Sotheby's to acquire more pieces and, at the insistence of John Friede's brothers, put the collection up as collateral in an inheritance dispute following the 2005 death of their mother, Evelyn A.J. Hall, sister of publishing tycoon Walter Annenberg.
The result was a series of legal battles in California, New York and Florida.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera went to court in September 2008 to prevent John Friede's two brothers from seizing the collection and selling parts of it to raise up to $20 million after a Florida judge ruled that Friede had violated the terms of a legal settlement involving their mother's estate. Friede was to pay his brothers $30 million after their mother had loaned him millions before her death. He values the entire collection at about $300 million.
Issues resolved
The newly released settlement documents indicate the legal issues have been resolved. The documents were heavily redacted in places, including references to dollar amounts, specific pieces of art and conditions on sales, but indicate that artwork that had been displayed at the museum could be auctioned by Sotheby's to pay off the estimated $16 million to $18 million John Friede says he still owes the auction house.
The documents indicate the city paid an unspecified amount to get clear ownership of 168 works at the museum, on top of the 106 collection pieces the de Young indisputably owns. Attorneys for the city say the deal protects the majority of the works, may shield many more and avoids the uncertainty of a trial.
"You have to remember the context of this lawsuit," Deputy City Attorney Adine Varah said. "There was a Florida court order authorizing the brothers to seize the works in the museum and liquidate them to pay their debt. This is about preserving and protecting the collection for the public."
Under the settlement, the remaining $5.65 million from the $30 million that John Friede owed his brothers was paid from three sources: John Friede's one-third share of the Pierre Bonnard painting "Le dejeuner" that he owns with his brothers; a portion of a roughly $4 million payment from his mother's estate that was to go to the de Young to pay for upkeep, promotion and study of the Jolika Collection but instead went to purchase 168 of the works; and proceeds held in escrow from the sale of some works not housed at the museum.
No taxpayer funds
City attorneys stressed that the money used to secure the collection was from a charitable contribution from Friede's mother's estate.
"We're not talking about taxpayer funds," Varah said.
John Friede said he hoped additional donors could be found to pay the museum for the endangered pieces rather than have them sold to pay his debt.
"There is the very hopeful possibility that the museum will not use objects to pay it off but will find the money to avoid further diminishing the collection," Friede said. "I would love for none of them to sell." Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/14/MN831CU8SO.DTL#ixzz0lUse98fD
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The Internet - Your Best Friend or Worst Enemy
I must say that I have been obsessed with computers since I first sat down in front of a 486 in 1984. If you are old enough to understand that last sentence, then you know something about dos command lines and the maddening restrictions imposed by the magical number 642. For those of you that wonder what planet I come from suffice it to say we live in a far better and maybe far worse world now than we did then. I am delighted that I no longer need to rely on a talking head to formulate my political beliefs.. I can now just go on You Tube and see for myself exactly what the politician said then that they are denying now. That is a powerful tool. The ability to research almost any subject easily makes it possible for anyone who wants to invest a little time to be more informed. That's the good side that Google and the many other search engines provide. The bad side is that misinformation lives forever. In the past if you did or said something dumb, sooner or later the deed would be forgotten and you could move on. Not so now and this is in my judgment troubling. Awareness of this fact gives us an added responsibility to speak up when you know something to be wrong. That is the message.In my 36 year career I have met some people that I respect for their commitment to their jobs under difficult conditions. Recently a blog posted a piece that implied the former curator of Oceanic and Pre-Columbian art at the Minneapolis Institute of Art was at best a little oblivious and at the very worst incompetent. The blogger is not important but if someone in the future is searching the Internet on Molly Huber I hope they find this piece as well.. because she deserves the respect. The blogger wrote:
"When the curators at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts (MIA) selected 20 pieces from their collection to display as part of their “In Pursuit of a Masterpiece” exhibit, Molly Huber selected a fake. And one that wasn’t very good, either.
But it was a fake that fooled everyone for years, a fake that toured museums in Europe. The statue was of a figure first made famous at Chichen Itza known as a “Chac Mool.”
According to Huber, the MIA acquired the statue in 1947. The museum exhibited the statue for years as an example of pre-Columbian artistry. In the 1950s it loaned the statue to museums in Rome, Berlin and other European cities.
According to Huber, the MIA acquired the statue in 1947. The museum exhibited the statue for years as an example of pre-Columbian artistry. In the 1950s it loaned the statue to museums in Rome, Berlin and other European cities.
Its true nature was only revealed in the mid-1970s, when research by the first curator of what was then called the primitive art department showed it to be a 20th-century fake, created with intent to deceive and likely modeled loosely after a Chac mool from the Chichen Itza in the collection of Mexico City’s National Museum of Anthropology,” Huber wrote in the new exhibition’s online catalog.
The original Chac Mool found at Chichen Itza.
Huber, until recently, was the MIA’s assistant curator of African, Oceanic and Native American Art. She did not explain, at least not in any online materials, why she selected the Chac Mool and unfortunately, she is no longer working at the institute and therefore unavailable to answer questions about it. But if you happen to be in Minneapolis and would like to see the fake that fooled everyone for decades, drop by the MIA."
If the blogger had taken the time to research the Internet on this exhibition, he or she would have learned that inclusion of this sculpture was done to make the point that ongoing research in a museum is critically essential to fulfilling the responsibility of the museum:
"...The biggest factor was the lack of a pre-Columbian expert on staff, someone who would have known not only that the style and materials are wrong, but also that, compared to authentic examples, the carving is clumsy and awkward. When I first saw this sculpture in storage many years ago, it seemed almost laughably bad, and now it's hard to believe so many were taken in by it for so long. The sculpture remains valuable, however, as an example of the importance of ongoing research to determine the authenticity of even well-respected artworks "
Molly Huber, Assistant Curator, African, Oceanic, and Native American Art
Molly Huber, Assistant Curator, African, Oceanic, and Native American Art
So obviously Huber chose this object because it was a fake and it illustrated an important point. And by the way Huber did include in this show a superb Veracruz yoke from the the collection that is certainly authentic.
Maybe the more important point is do our museums in fact really honestly pursue the issues of authenticity within their collections or do they just offer political lip service to a serious problem. Museums and their problems do not lend themselves to simplistic descriptions or easy solutions. Any museum director must carefully weigh all the implications and ramifications of any decision.;however, there is not much that is more fundamental to the success of an institution than their credibility in representing their collections honestly. As an important teaching tool, I wish more museums would openly display their fakes as a teaching tool for their members.
April 2010 - The Tribal Art Market - Where Are We Now
At the end of the first quarter of 2010 as we head into the late spring early summer auction season, we are beginning to see further indicators of a deteriorating market . The San Francisco Tribal & Textile Arts Show hosted by Caskey Lees has in the past been considered one of the top venues for Tribal Art. The show was held this year in mid February and was regarded by many as flat with many dealers walking away with losses. The comment I heard repeatedly was that the players were there but people weren't buying. At the same time Kim Martindale organized and hosted the 25th annual Marin Indian art show just up the road in San Rafel, California. The thinking was that the two shows would have a stronge enough draw to bring out of state collectors, dealers, curators, and enthusiasts to the the venues. Martindale reported that the dealers reported doing better than expected while direct quotes from dealers described sales as lackluster. The New York International Tribal and Textile Arts Show to be held in March was cancelled due to a lack of sufficient response from the exhibitors. To be honest not all of this can be attributed to the market, for there has been some serious dissension and complaints about the changing venues for this show. I do believe that formerly successful venues that are now struggling is a market indicator to be considered.So as a collector or dealer what should your strategy be? Should you pull back your best pieces for better days. As a collector should you be entering the marketplace as a seller? Should you be buying? Clearly one man's problem is another man's opportunity. As I have said in this forum for more than six months your success or failure is going to be part strategy and part luck. I see the auctions right now as a crap shoot. You may do well but you could also be burned. Check out the reserves for Sothebys May 14th sale in Paris. The reserves certainly appear lower to me .. which would be smart to try to entice me into bidding.
The past few auctions have also been indicative of a slowing market for middle level material in particular. Bonhams held a tribal art auction on February 12 to coincide with the two tribal shows held at the same time. Out of 280 lots 130 failed to sell. Nothing sold over $50,000. Certainly objects in the $50,000 and below will feel any economic impact before the great works that tend to hold their value longer. The Milton Rosenthal collection of Oceanic art (March 24, 2010) auctioned in Paris illustrates that point with only 7 of 37 lots failing to sell. The Maori tiki illustrated above as lot 11 sold for 372,750 euros ($503,749) and was documented by the curator of the Auckland Museum in a 1974 letter to be pre-contact. The provenance quoted the well known dealer Charles Ratton. " 'It truly is a magnificent piece' enthused Charles Ratton in a letter of 26 May 1956 to the collector, archaeologist, and historian Bernard Bottet, who had just acquired this pendant from the collection of the Countess Martine de Béhague (1869 – 1939)." To my recollection this is the highest price ever paid for a Maori tiki. Please correct me if I am in error. But the point is that great things normally hold their value in bad times.
Certainly many interested parties will hold their collective breaths over the the auction sales scheduled for May and June. Among them are the following:
June 7, 2010, San Francisco, California Bonhams'
Native American andPre-Columbian Art Auction
June 19, 2010 Würzburg, Germany
61st tribal art auction: African Zemanek-Munster
Fri, 14 May 10, 10:00 AM, Lots 1 - 158, New York, New York
AFRICAN & OCEANIC ART
Sothebys, New York
Fri, 14 May 10, 2:00 PM, New York, New York
IMPORTANT AMERICAN INDIAN, AFRICAN, OCEANIC AND OTHER WORKS OF ART FROM THE STUDIO OF ENRICO DONATI
Sothebys, New York
8 Jun 10, 10:00 AM, New York, New York
THE COLLECTION OF PATRICIA KLUGE
ALBEMARLE HOUSE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
15 Jun 2010, 3 PM Paris
Art Africain et Océanien Art
Christies, Paris
7 Jul 2010, 3 PM Paris
Collection de Madame Darthéa Speyer, Paris
Christies, Paris
16 Dec 2010, Paris
Art Africain et Océanien
Christies, Paris
It is significant to note that there is no summer sale scheduled in Paris by Sothebys. Clearly the prestige for any sale at this point in time is Paris. Pragmatism and the very lopsided exchange rate dictates New York as the only reasonable site for a sale. The Europeans with their euros get a 30% discount while the US collectors avoid paying a premium for buying in Paris. So for the moment the market comes back to New York. Christies has adopted precisely the opposite strategy for reasons that don't make a great deal of financial sense. If I were an owner in that sale, I would be even more nervous about where this is going. Maybe the material is good enough for a buyer to look beyond the purchase price. I remain skeptical but we will let you know what happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)