Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mrsandrist t1_j4dpzkp wrote

Sotheby’s stopped the sale of a Winslow Homer watercolour in 2011 on behalf of the Rountree/Blake family, despite them having no evidence that it had been stolen from them - no injunction, no police reports of a break in, no entry in the art loss register, basically just the assertion that it had once been in their family and now was not. Litigation is ongoing and as far as I know Sotheby’s still have possession.

Explain to me how this auction is going ahead. We know the Māori artifacts were stolen, we have precedent for the return of stolen artworks (ie nazi looting, war looting during Middle East unrest, ecc) and artefacts, we have numerous precedents for Sotheby’s seizing the assets until a legal judgement is made. Why is Sothebys doing the utmost to protect an artwork abandoned by a wealthy English family and then turning a blind eye to the wholesale cultural disenfranchisement of the Māori? Why is their disputed provenance worth halting a sale but the disputed provenance of the Māori artefacts means they can pass on good title? Bonkers.

145

The_Wisest_Wizard t1_j4e7sw1 wrote

At least one wasn't stolen. "It was originally given by Ngāti Whātua chief Pāora Tūhaere to a British vice-admiral in 1886, on condition it remained in the man’s family, according to a newspaper report at the time." So I don't see how they can stop it. Not a legally binding requirement to keep it in the family.

37

feeltheslipstream t1_j4ea9na wrote

Documented verbal contract?

10

Whitmil t1_j4edyy2 wrote

Did they document what should happen to it if it leaves the families possession?

−4

Mrs_Krandall t1_j4eoevu wrote

It gets returned to Ngati Whatua

I think that's rather clear.

17

Bionicbawl t1_j4jdfju wrote

You can legally bestow property on someone for just a “named person’s” lifetime. Then it’s required to be given to either an owner, their heirs, or a designated individual. It’s not uncommon.

Additionally there are more and more laws being made internationally in support of repatriation of indigenous artifacts to still existing peoples.

5

The_Wisest_Wizard t1_j4je1k7 wrote

Right but that's not what allegedly happened here. I don't know the laws here but I'm guessing either a statute of frauds equivalent or rule against perpetuities equivalent would make this request non-binding.

2

DarthDannyBoy t1_j4ejdmp wrote

This is very common amongst the art/artifact/etc trade. It's because they aren't white and are looked down upon. It's everywhere. It's disgusting and a large majority of museums and similar institutes are guilty of it and and they act like pretentious assholes about it.

Look at the British and the Smithsonian. Some of the worth for it.

10