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.
mrsandrist t1_j4dpzkp wrote
Reply to ‘When something like this comes up where we’re both excited, but also that sorrowful that we lost so much.’ — A Māori tribe in New Zealand is calling for the return of treasured artefacts listed for sale by the auction house Sotheby’s by marketrent
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.