Auctions 2012

1. NEW YORK  Munch’s The Scream, 1895 (right), which sold for $119.9m at Sotheby’s New York on Wednesday, has a surprising and hitherto undisclosed provenance. The masterpiece had been resting in the vaults of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, for 17 years, with few people even knowing that it was there.
The Sotheby’s catalogue states that The Scream was “on temporary loan 1990-91” to the museum. It was on display from May 1990 to July 1991. What went unrecorded by the auctioneers was that it was also “on deposit” from 1989 to 2006. A spokeswoman told us that the work was “very frequently” shown to university classes and scholars in the museum’s print room. However, its lengthy stay was not recorded in the 2007 Munch catalogue raisonné.
The museum must have hoped that at some point it might be able to acquire the pastel (one of four versions of The Scream), through either donation or purchase.
The Oslo businessman Petter Olsen, who owned the work, has said he will spend the money made by its sale to establish a new museum, art centre and hotel. The museum in Hvitsten, 40km south of Oslo, is due to open in May next year. Olsen still owns some Munchs, which he inherited from his father, Thomas, a ship owner who bought The Scream in 1937.
Olsen is planning an exhibition on the paintings created by Munch between 1906 and 1916 for the auditorium at Oslo University. The show will take place next year, when Norway celebrates the 150th anniversary of the artist’s birth.
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/The+Scream%E2%80%99s+secret+history/26459

2. NEW YORK This photo from Heritage Auctions shows the recently discovered 1823 William Stone copperplate printing of the Declaration of Independence that sold at auction in New York for $597,500, against an estimate of $250,000, on April 11, 2012. Only 31 copies of this historic re-printing were known as of a 1991. Heritage Auctions stated that the document sold to an anonymous East Coast collector. NEW YORK, NY.- With a price worthy of its historic stature, a recently discovered 1823 printing of the Declaration of Independence, painstakingly engraved and printed by William Stone to celebrate the 45th anniversary of the founding of The United States, sold for $597,500, more than doubling its' pre-auction estimate, at auction in New York on April 11, 2012. It was purchased by an anonymous East Coast buyer and was considered the centerpiece of the Heritage Auctions Historical Manuscripts Signature(r) Auction. "In 1820, English-born engraver William J. Stone of Washington, D.C. was commissioned to produce an exact copy of the original Declaration of Independence onto a copperplate, a process which took him three years to complete," said Sandra Palomino, Director of Historic Manuscripts at Heritage. "It was almost 45 years after the Revolution, only six years after the War of 1812 and smack dab in the middle of President James Monroe's 'Era of Good Feelings,' the most significant period of growth in the young nation's history up to that point. Interest in the Declaration surged." In all, 200 official parchment copies were struck from the Stone plate in 1823, with one extra struck for Stone himself. Each copy is identified as "ENGRAVED by W. I. STONE for the Dept of State, by order" in the upper left corner, followed by "of J. Q. ADAMS, Sect. of State July 4th 1824" in the upper right. "We know from a 1991 census of the manuscripts that there 31 total known to survive, with only 12 copies in private hands," said Palomino. "This auction represented a singular chance for someone to acquire a prime piece of American history and collectors jumped at the chance."" Choice pieces of Early American history were greatly in demand at the auction, as a Thomas Jefferson presentation copy of A Manual of Parliamentary Practice, with a Jefferson autographed letter transmitting the book to Virginia Revolutionary War soldier, politician and judge Francis T. Brooke realized $113,525 - against an estimate of $30,000+ - and George Washington's signed copy from his own library of A View of the History of Great-Britain during the Administration of Lord North, to the Second Session of the Fifteenth Parliament, bearing the first president's bookplate, brought $101,575, also against an estimate of $30,000+.
More Information: http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=54713[/url]

3. NEW YORK  In a 30-minute conference held on the 21st floor of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse in lower Manhattan today, Judge George B. Daniels ruled against the government’s request for “a warrant to arrest” the 10th century Khmer sandstone sculpture, known as a Dvarapala, which is the subject of the in rem civil forfeiture action known as United States of America v. A 10th Century Cambodian Sandstone Sculpture [case number: 12 Civ. 2600 (GBD)]. If granted the warrant, the Government would transfer the sculpture from Sotheby’s warehouse to federal custody at another New York City warehouse. (Read about the case in the earlier post by Damien Huffer’s “Sotheby’s “Off-Base” on Cambodian Antiquities Again”.)
 [The statue remains at Sotheby's subject to a restraining order that requires Sotheby's not to move the Dvarapala from its warehouse and to make it available for viewing by the government.]
 The outcome of the conference was clear at the outset, when Judge Daniels told Assistant U.S. Attorney Sharon Cohen Levin that he “hesitates” to grant the government’s request to remove the statue from Sotheby’s warehouse at this time, because after he received the Government’s verified complaint, the Judge received an April 4 fax from Sotheby’s legal counsel Peter G. Nieman that challenges some of the government’s allegations. The existence of Sotheby’s April 4 fax, Judge Daniels said, required him to determine whether sufficient probable cause exists to grant the government’s request to remove the Dvarapala from Sotheby’s warehouse at this time.
 In response, Ms. Levin said that no rule exists allowing Sotheby’s to send the Judge its April 4 fax, because Sotheby’s is not a party to the case, merely a temporary custodian of the property. Therefore the fax should not be considered in the Judge’s decision.
 Ms. Levin then repeated the contents of her own April 4 fax to the Judge, citing Rule G of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that in order to establish probable cause, the Government’s must: (a) file a verified complaint; and the verified complaint (b) must state the grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the defendant property, and venue; (c) must describe the property with reasonable particularity; (d) if the property is tangible, must state the location of the property when the action is filed; (e) must identify the statute under which the forfeiture action is brought; and (f) must state sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial — all of which the Government had done.
 The Judge’s response: the Government’s verified complaint and two-page application for a warrant are “appropriate” but do not constitute probable cause for granting the Government’s request to remove Dvarapala from Sotheby’s warehouse.
 Judge Daniels asked Ms. Levin whether there was any “urgency” in the Government’s request to remove the Dvarapala from Sotheby’s warehouse. Ms. Levin responded no. The Government does not expect Sotheby’s to violate the Judge’s restraining order (which requires the Cambodian statue be kept safe and secure in Sotheby’s warehouse and available for viewing by the Government).
 Judge Daniels then questioned whether the Government of Cambodia had requested the US Attorney to request the warrant that would remove the Dvarapala from Sotheby’s warehouse. Ms. Levin said yes and agreed to send a copy of Cambodia’s request to Judge Daniels.
 In a bid to establish probable cause, Ms. Levin repeated the basic elements of the Government’s verified complaint. She asserted that the type of warrant requested by the Government is necessary, and should not have been considered unusual or unexpected by Sotheby’s, as Sotheby’s has argued. Ms. Levin added that, in the past, the Government has seized such items under similar circumstances from Sotheby’s, therefore Sotheby’s was familiar with the process and should have known what to expect. In certain of those cases, Ms. Levin said, the Govemment has determined that Sotheby’s indeed acted as an honest broker and should retain physical custody of the disputed item until the matter is resolved. But this is not one of those cases, Ms. Levin continued, since the Govemment alleges here that Sotheby’s continued to market and attempted to sell the Dvarapala after Sotheby’s own paid expert told the auction firm that the statue was “definitely stolen.” The expert has been identified by the New York Times as Emma Cadwalader Bunker, who is a grand-daughter of former U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam Ellsworth Bunker.
[The Government's complaint references the Khmer scholar Eric Bourdonneau, who located a temple known as Prasat Chen, located at a site known as Koh Ker, deep in the Cambodian jungle, and found the base (known as a Bima pedestal) on which the Sotheby's statue and its mate, a similar statue now at the Norton Simon Museum, once stood. The measurements that Bourdonneau made of the feet, which are still attached to the Bima pedestals at Prasat Chen, match the Sotheby's and Norton Simon statues, which are both footless.]
[The Government's complaint also quotes the Sotheby's expert as saying in an email to Sotheby's: "I have been doing a little catchup research on Koh Ker (the site from this the statue was reputedly stolen), and do not think you should sell the Dvarapala at public auction. The Cambodians in Pnom Penh now have clear evidence that it was definitely stolen from Prasat Chen at Koh Ker, as the feet are still in situ…Please do not give this report to anyone outside of Sotheby, as I often have access to such material, and don’t want to anger my sources. The two Dvarapalas must have stood close together and their feet remain, so it’s pretty clear where they came from. I think it would be hugely unwise to offer the Dvarapala publicly, and I would not really feel comfortable writing it up under the circumstances. It is also possible that the Cambodians might block the sale and ask for the piece back….I’m sorry as I had some exciting things to say about it, but I don’t think Sotheby wants this kind of potential problem.” Later, the same expert emailed Sotheby's again, telling them the opposite: that the Cambodians may not complain complain after all: "I think it best that you know all this," the expert writes, "but think that legally and ethically you can happily sell the piece." In a third email quoted in the Government's complaint, responding to Sotheby's request to show the sales description that the expert had written to Cambodian authorities, the expert refused, saying "There is NO WAY that I can send what I write to [the Minister of Culture]…. Sending the writeup specifically would be like waving a red flag in front of a bull.” Sotheby’s then notified the Cambodian Culture Minister of its intention to sell the Dvarapala in November 2010 but did not receive an immediate response.]
 [The Goverment's complaint also references a January 20, 2011 Sotheby's internal email, which says in part: "You no doubt know that we will be selling a sculpture in our New York Asian sales that is known to have come from a specific site in Cambodia and or which we only have provenance from 1975... While questions may be raised about this, we feel we can defend our decision to sell it..." Finally, in a letter dated March 24, 2011, the day of the auction, Cambodian authorities demanded that the Dvarapala be removed from the sale, and that Sotheby's facilitate its return to Cambodia.]
 Ms. Levin concluded her argument by asserting that Sotheby’s is neither an appropriate nor neutral third party in this case and should not be permitted to hold the Dvarapala, which it should have known was considered stolen under Cambodian law. She added that the Judge should reject Sotheby’s argument, that it had consulted the UNESCO art law database and found no cultural property laws for Cambodia dating back to 1900, as the Government complaint alleges, because the UNESCO database contains a disclaimer stating that users must perform their own due diligence.
 [A simple Google search would have pointed Sotheby's to an article about Cambodia in Volume 17 of Cultural without Context, published by the MacDonald Institute at Cambridge University, references a 1925 Cambodian cultural property law that applies in this case, but does not appear in the UNESCO database].
 Ms. Levin also noted the U.S. customs routinely cares for precious artifacts. [Seized million-dollar artworks and antiquities are stored at the heavily guarded ICE facility at The Fortress in Long Island City.]
 While Ms. Levin was speaking, Judge Daniels thumbed through some papers and noted that Rule G(3)(b)(iii) states a warrant to remove the Dvarapala from Sotheby’s warehouse did not seem necessary, and is not required so long as a restraining order remains in place. So the Goverment’s request was denied. The next step, Judge Daniels said, is to proceed to a forfeiture hearing, which requires interested parties to file a claim no more than 30 days after the Government posts its final public notice. Therefore, the Court must wait until June 5 to determine whether there are any parties to the case other than Cambodia and Sotheby’s consignor.
 “It makes sense for the parties to exchange discovery information in the meantime,” said Judge Daniels, and if more information and witnesses are needed, the parties should provide that no later than July 7.
 The next conference in United States of America v. A 10th Century Cambodian Sandstone Sculpture is scheduled for Wednesday, June 20 at 10:30 AM.
http://www.savingantiquities.org/federal-court-judge-rules-that-10th-c-khmer-statue-remains-at-sothebys-for-now/

Museums May 2012

Below are two important stories about U.S. museums in general and the Getty in particular.

1. LOS ANGELES, CA.- On Thursday, May 31, 2012 the Getty Research Institute will launch the Getty Research Portal, an unprecedented resource that will provide universal access to digitized texts in the field of art and architectural history. The Getty Research Portal is a free online search gateway that aggregates descriptive metadata of digitized art history texts, with links to fully digitized copies that are free to download. Art historians, curators, students, or anyone who is culturally curious can unearth these valuable sources of research without traveling from place to place to browse the stacks of the world’s art libraries. There will be no restrictions to use the Getty Research Portal; all anyone needs is access to the internet. “It is fitting that the Getty Research Institute, an international leader in the study of art as well as new research technologies, would spearhead a revolutionary resource such as the Getty Research Portal,” said James Cuno, President and CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust. “By removing impediments to study, such as costly travel, and providing an authoritative convenient research tool, the Getty Research Portal underscores the Getty’s commitment to preserving and sharing the world’s artistic heritage.” The GRI worked with a number of institutions to create the Getty Research Portal—the Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library at Columbia University, the Frick Art Reference Library, and the Thomas J. Watson Library of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, as well as members of the New York Art Resources Consortium; the Biblioteca de la Universidad de Málaga in Málaga, Spain; the Institut national d’histoire de l’art in Paris; and the Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg in Heidelberg. Together with the Getty Research Institute’s Library, these art libraries have already contributed nearly 20,000 digitized art history texts, which are immediately searchable via the Portal. Unlike other methods of searching for books online, every link in the Getty Research Portal leads directly to a complete digital surrogate that is free to download. “The mission of the Getty Research Institute is to further the understanding and appreciation of art. Supporting research and access to scholarly resources is the most important part of this endeavor,” said Thomas W. Gaehtgens, Director of the Getty Research Institute. “The six founding art institutions have come together to share their unique collections of rare books and primary art historical sources and scholars will be able to enter this virtual library wherever they are without cost. The Getty Research Portal is likely to be the most used tool in art historical research at universities and museums alike.” Because the Getty Research Portal only aggregates the metadata of the digitized texts and links to them, instead of keeping the texts on a server, there are no technical limitations to how much material can be collected. However, given current restrictions on the digital dissemination of copyright materials, all of the content on the Portal will be limited to works published before 1923.... for the complete article http://artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=55320


2.  Leading US museums are finally in recovery mode and their directors are much more optimistic about the financial outlook than a year ago, but few are feeling bullish. Endowments may have increased but they have not regained their peak of 2007. Of the ten richest museums we surveyed, seven were within sight of their previous levels, but the wealthiest, the Getty Trust, is only a third of the way to the $1.8bn it lost during the downturn (see table, p10). The road to financial health will be long for all but a fortunate few, and many fear that the economic recovery may prove short-lived. Nevertheless, many directors describe themselves as “cautiously optimistic”.
Thomas Campbell, the director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, remembers spending his first six months making 10% cuts in 2009. “It was all quite tough. We did what we needed to do,” he says. Seventy-four members of the professional staff were made redundant, and 95 took early retirement. His outlook is much more positive, buoyed by a return in the value of the endowment, booming attendance figures (see p35) and major donations, including $60m from a trustee, David Koch, announced in February. “I don’t want to tempt fate but the situation seems better,” says Campbell, who revealed that the museum raised more than the $100m it needed to renovate its wing of American art, which reopened in January.

The Met is among the museums in the best shape, almost back to its 2007 endowment high of $2.9bn. Others close to their pre-recession levels are the Museum of Fine Arts Houston, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, New York’s Museum of Modern Art and the Art Institute of Chicago. Some institutions with smaller endowments have recently started to focus on rebuilding them. The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMoMA) has raised $437m of a $555m capital campaign that will also double its $153m endowment, for example. Others were insulated from the financial crisis: last year, the Walton Family Foundation donated $800m to the new Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, Arkansas, for its endowments—$350m for operations, $325m for acquisitions and $125m for capital improvements. In its darkest hours, the Seattle Art Museum had to close for a fortnight and its staff took unpaid leave (the equivalent of a 4% pay cut), while senior staff also took a 10% hit. Charlie Wright, the chairman of the trustees, says that while some senior staff are still on reduced pay, “by the end of this financial year [June 2012], we should be clear of those issues”.
The museum was directly ­affected by the banking crisis: it lost $5.8m in annual rent, which it was expecting from its tenant, the failed Washington Mutual bank. Help came in the form of grants from the Chase bank and the Gates Foundation. Now the museum has a stable tenant: the retailer Nordstrom. But the time is still not right to launch a campaign to increase the endowment. “Things have improved, but they just haven’t improved enough,” Wright says.
“Are things better? Yes. Are things good? No,” says Arnold Lehman, the director of the Brooklyn Museum. Post-­recession, fundraising staff have to work harder. “Instead of sending out 50 requests for support for a project, we must send out 100.” He says that corporate sponsorship is much more difficult to ­attract, and praises the individual donors who came forward when things looked their bleakest.
At the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Timothy Rub, the museum’s director, says: “I hope it’s the beginning of a recovery, but I think it’s going to be a long road.” As a result, the museum’s priority is “stabilising support for ­exhibitions and the presentation of the collection. We want to make sure these are well funded and sustained, rather than growing [the museum] at the margins with buildings or ­programmes.”
He also says support from individuals has recovered strongly, singling out a “remarkable” $28m given by Gerry Lenfest, a former chairman of the museum, made in 2008. His gift is a challenge grant, which has encouraged other donors to give a further $15m so far. “It will end up netting $55m to $56m to endow curatorial positions.”
Economists predicted that the Midwest would be hit hardest by the recession, due to a “triple whammy” of the slumps in car manufacturing, banking and housing. But the director of the Cleveland Museum of Art, David Franklin, is in “growth mode—and feeling pretty confident”. In 2011, the museum raised about $20m, and “in the eight months up to March we have raised $18.5m”, he says.
Cleveland’s museum is due to complete a $350m expansion in two years. “That’s encouraging people to be generous,” he says. He also says that corporate support has returned “even though the economy is tense”, and that companies want to show they are being active in the community.
Douglas Druick, the director of the Art Institute of Chicago, says cost-cutting measures have ended, while support from companies, foundations and individuals has remained “steady”. “But it will take a little more time to see any major shifts coming out of an economic recovery,” he says.
San Francisco and the Dallas-Fort Worth areas escaped the worst of the recession and museums in both are expanding. “We’re very optimistic,” says Neal Benezra, the director of SFMoMA. “We certainly tightened our belts, but we didn’t have to cancel any exhibitions or lay off staff.”
The museum has raised “about 79%” of its $555m goal, says Benezra, “but when you’re on a capital campaign, the danger is that you neglect annual giving. We’re really asking our friends to give twice, but the response has been positive.”
Maxwell Anderson, who moved from Indianapolis to lead the Dallas Museum of Art in January, is about to announce a capital project. “[They] are typically harbingers of returning confidence,” he says. “Patrons have not been that hard hit or felt the pinch in their inheritances [here].”
Other parts of the US and smaller institutions may not be as fortunate. “My sense is that museums are coasting—to see how things go,” says Ford Bell, the president of the American Association of Museums. “The economy seems to be improving but a lot of people are waiting to see if ‘the other shoe drops’—it might suddenly get bad again.” A sharp rise in oil prices “or a big tangle in Congress about how to stimulate the economy” could derail the recovery. http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/US-museums/26128

Shut Up and Count the Money

Tribal art appraisers are constantly confronted with the challenge of comparing objects and understanding markets to arrive at value conclusions that will make sense to the client that could care less about appraisal methodology. For federal appraisals such as estate and charitable donation we are required to base our value conclusions on the federal definition of "fair market value".  The simple definition is "the price at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.” That sounds pretty straightforward. As appraisers we use comparable sales both in the private market (from dealers, curators and collectors) and public market (auction houses). Okay willing buyer willing seller - that's pretty easy. Neither being under any compulsion to buy is also pretty straightforward if we ignore our obsession with this art. Which leaves us with  the concept of reasonable knowledge. That issue might be a bit trickier. What if the buyer knows nothing about tribal art and relies on the auction house or maybe an advisor that is getting a commission on the sale.  Is it fair market value. I think the courts might get a case like this where say an appraiser uses the illustrated Matisse Lega mask as a justification for  a donation value for a medium level comparable mask. Now maybe the comparable hasn't ever hung in the studio of a famous artist so maybe in that sense it's not comparable. Ignoring this fact and the fact that as appraisers we normally reject aberrant high and low values, the implication is still clear.  Bids that have ranged up to ten times expected value may represent sales that no longer even fall within the definition of "fair market value". I can guarantee you that appraisers will try to use these crazy sales to juice up up their charitable donation appraisal to make clients happy.

As sellers the past ten years  continue to focus out exactly what are our responsibilities in representing our art to the clients. Nobody wants to talk about this because there is a tremendous amount of money at stake in the these transactions. Go back and review the tape on Morley Safer's  60 Minutes piece a month or so ago when he tried to get the contemporary dealers to talk about the current buying frenzy. The smart guys didn't want to talk on camera. The others sounded like piranha feeding on clients that lacked "reasonable knowledge" of what they were doing. I remember one scene where the daughter of a Russian oligarch  was looking up at a European dealer who was  extolling the virtue of this work that was a steal at $4,000,000. Hmm maybe.. maybe not.

It is a gigantic game of musical chairs and when the music stops you know where you need to be. It is a very complex agenda driven world that requires some survival instincts to stay in the game. If you are looking for help, you might find a great many people in the art world mumbling "shut up and count the money."

What's Happening at the Auctions - May 2012

Considering the New York tribal art shows and the auctions a great deal of material was offered to buyers in May of 2012. A number of experts consulted believed that while there were some great objects in the mix, there were some significant objects that were over estimated in this market. The results seem to support that opinion. Heritage auction house in Dallas unfortunately had another lukewarm performance that was ensured by few lots of note and a very high buy back. Christies had a solid performance yielding over a $1,000,000 with just 51 lots many of which seemed to be carried by the strong lots. A expected Sothebys did very well in the May 11th sales despite a high buy back in the larger sale. One collector pointed out the proximity Sothebys created during the preview with the contemporary art with  exceed $320,000,000 in the two sales held at about the same time as the tribal. The entire gross of the tribal sale equates to one lot on the contemporary sale. So clearly Sothebys is marketing to a buyer that may relate more to the collection history than the quality of the object and its value in the marketplace. Is a mediocre Matisse Lega mask worth over $300,000? As the new buyers become more sophisticated

Heritage Auction house, Dallas Texas  - 2012 May 5 Signature Amrican Indian Art Auction
415  lots offered - 310 sold - 105 failed to sell with a buy in rate of 25% - Gross sales with Premium - $445,051. The highest single sale was Lot 196 a Cheyenne beaded hide baby cradle that sold for $35,000. Only six lots sold over $10,000.

Christies, New York Arts of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas - May 10, 2012
52 lots offered - 51 sold - 1 lot failed to sell with a buy in rate of 2% - Gross sales with premium $1,606,000. The highlights of the sale were lot 1 the Aboriginal shield from the Beyeler coll. ht. 35 3/4" with an estimate of $3,000 to $5,000 sold for $116,500. The cover of the catalog Lot 6, the Santa Cruz Islands platter L. 24 3/4 from the Beyeler coll with an estimate of $80,000 - $120,000 sold for $314,500. Another surprise was lot 15 which featured a Bijogo mask ht. 45" from the Beyeler coll. with an estimate of $8,000 - $12,000 sold for $266,500. While there no big shockers on the downside, there were several lots that seemed to be carried along by the positive auction atmosphere.

Sothebys New York Masterpieces of African Art  Coll.  Werner Munsterbeger - May 11, 2012.
6 lots offered - 6 sold - buy in rate 0% - Gross sales with premium - $3,130,250 . Certainly the highlight of this sale was the Bena Lulua mask which sold for $2,546,500 with the premium. Quite frankly with the elaborate catalog, the pre-sale hype, and considering the recent purchases in Sothebys last sales, it would not have been surprising at all in this very strange market if this helmet mask sold for more than $3,000,000. We can debate whether all six pieces in the sale were actually "masterpieces". When does good art historical research end and hyperbole begins?

Sothebys New York African, Oceanic and Pre-Columbian Art May 11, 2012
217  lots offered - 154 lots sold - 53 lots failed to sell with a buy in rate of 29%. Gross sales with the premium  - $14,580,501. There were 24 lots that sold over $100,000, 6 pieces sold over $500,000, and 3 pieces sold over $1,000,000.  I don't think Sothebys worried about their buy in rate of 29%. In lot 25 the Jalisco couple ht.  26" and 25 1/2" with an estimate of $30,000 to $40,000 sold for $362,500. The Stylized Bamana figure  ht 27 1/4 from the Charles Ratton coll. was estimate to sell for $400,000 to $600,000 and sold for for $2,658,500. In lot 72 the auction house stressed the affinity with modern sculpture and the Dogon art. This particular Dogon figure ht. 24 1/2" which passed through both Kamer and Klejman's hands was estimated to sell for between $250,000 and $350,000 but far exceeded this range by selling for $542,500. Prior to lot 81 Sothebys led in with an article entitled Henri Matisse The Sculptural Language of African Art. The Bamana seated figure which has passed down through the Matisse family was estimated at $150,000 to $250,000 but sold for $782,500. Lot 82 featured what many would consider a very mediocre Lega mask that was owned by Matisse but only had an estimate of $5,000 to $8,000. It probably didn't hurt to have a picture of Matisse's studio with the mask on the wall because the hammer price was $362,500. For many the true shocker of the sale was the Susan Vogel Baule mask which failed to sell in lot 96 with an estimate of $300,000 to $500,000. This mask was featured in William Rubin's introduction to Primitivism in the 20th Century Art. Susan Vogel is considered by many to be the most prominent expert on Baule art. A fine Kota reliquary from the Pinto and Arman collections was offered in lot 131 with an estimate of  $1,000,000 to $1,500,000.  It sold for $1,082,500. The 7 1/4" bone Azande figure in lot 164 was estimated to sell between $40,000 and $60,000. Bidders took this one to $512,500. Finally the Buyu male figure in lot 192 and only  18 1/8" in height  was estimated to sell between $600,000 and $900,000. It sold for $2,434,500

Skinner's Boston American Indian and Ethnographic Art - May 12, 2012
 533 lots offered - 476 lots sold - 57 unsold lots  with a buy in rate just under 11%. Gross sales with the premium not published.. Only 13 lots sold at $10,000 or above. The pictograph on muslin by Chief Henry One Bull (Sitting Bull's nephew) depicting the Custer battle was the high mark of the day selling at $80,000.

Bonhams New York  African, Oceanic,  and Pre-Columbian Art - May 12, 2012
347 lots offered - 183 lots sold - 164 lots unsold for a buy in rate of 47%... 21 objects sold at $10,000 or higher. The highlights of the sale were primarily four lots with everything else selling below $30,000. In lot 302, which was the only lot in six figures,  the seated Kuba king sold for  $182,500.

Bonhams, New York The Nancy Sue and Judson C. Ball Collection of Native American Art. -
May 14, 2012
190 lots offered - 81 lots sold - 109 lots unsold for a buy in rate of  57% . The gross sales total was not published. Only 6 lots sold at $10,000 or above.

Sothebys New York American Indian Art May 16, 2012
158 lots offered - 74 lots sold - 84 lots unsold with a 53% buy in rate. Gross sales were $3,248,128 with 10 lots selling over $100,000.  The highlights were lot 5 a Haida doll collected in 1828 estimates at $50,000 to $70,000 sold for $254,500, lot 36 a Naskapi painted hide coat sold for $278,500, lot 48 a burlwood effigy bowl $206,500, lot 86 a fringed hide war shirt attributed to Chief Joseph sold for $482,500. It is very interesting to compare this shirt with the one that sold earlier at Sothebys for over $2,000,000.

Art and Auction Magazine Not Liable... Just Kidding Maybe

In late April and Early May Corice Arman began a media blitz tour to plead her case to the media that Art and Auction photographers had broken an African Nok terracotta sculpture worth $300,000 during a photo shoot. I will admit from the beginning that I don't know who broke the sculpture or in fact if the sculpture is even authentic. I have never examined the figure nor reviewed any of the documentation. But that's the point isn't it. CBS news , New York Post,  GalleristNY, Daily Mail Online (UK),  msn.com, nydailynews.com,  mobilebloomberg.com, chicagotribune.com, downtownexpress.com, uk.reuetrs.com, and I am sure other media outlets all reported the allegations as if they were facts. "Photocrew smashes ancient art, owner sues for $300,000." was the lead from Reuters online in the UK. Unfortunately, this was typical as most of these media outlets certainly left their readers with the impression that 1. Art and Auction photographers broke the terracotta figure 2. The figure was worth $300,000 3. The figure was a very important and very unique object. Now to be fair to the media, the the flashy statement is the lead with the qualifier at the very end. " Corice alleges", "the collector states", "the collector claims" are typical disclaimers. Obviously the disaster is far sexier than the disclaimer.. But is it really?

Again I have no idea what happened. But what if the photographers didn't break it? Or what if  the African masterpiece is a fake?  That could make a pretty interesting story in itself. And what about the obvious questions that were completely missed.  The shoot was on May 12, 2011, a year ago. Where are the fragments? Did they stay in Arman's apartment? Have the fragments been tested? If so are we sure the fragments are the fragments from the broken sculpture? What is the chain of custody from the time of the breakage until the filing of the law suit? Corice Arman said her insurance company had rejected her claim. Was the sculpture scheduled and covered for breakage in the home? Why didn't someone ask this? I can only guess why presumably intelligent reporters missed so much in such a short time. The story is infinitely more interesting when the reader can consider all the possibilities.

Certainly a mantra for this newsletter and blog is to not be intimidated by anyone and to at least ask yourself the logical questions before you make your art related  decisions.