Antiques Trade Gazette 47 back page PERSONAL VIEW Gifts that can cause rifts


■ The devil is almost always in the detail when it comes to museum bequests, says MILTON SILVERMAN


PRIVATE dealers may take some solace from the fact that they do not face some of the problems that public galleries take on.


One of the most unusual I have come across was as follows. A museum commissioned a team of artists to construct faux marbling on the walls of the entrance halls. This was genuine artistic work and there was a term in the contract between the two parties that the museum could do nothing to deface, damage, or destroy the artists’ work. Some years later, the museum wished to modernise its appearance and cover over the faux marbling. Conservators were engaged. Although an isolating layer could be placed between the faux marbling and the covering work, no conservator could say with certainty that all would be absolutely fine beneath.


The claim for damages by the artists was questionable, but the museum took the view that it would be very negative public relations


for the museum to end up in court, and so chose to make a substantial payment to the artists in order to progress the works required. This is a good illustration of how the consequences of a contractual term should be considered carefully before agreeing the term. A more usual problem for museums and public galleries is the difficulties caused by bequests. Public museums and galleries have to be vigilant in clarifying the terms of a gift. One curator told me how he was telephoned by the owner of a painting that was very much within the collecting policy of the gallery. The owner said that he was moving house and wanted the gallery to have the painting. The painting arrived and was accessioned into the collection. The curator dropped the owner a line thanking him very much for his gift. Nothing was heard until a considerable time later, when the donor of the painting wrote saying: “You remember that painting I deposited with you? Would you like to buy it for £200,000, otherwise I am selling it at auction.” It turned out that the donor had just suffered a very heavy financial loss.


As everything had been done by telephone except for the two letters mentioned, the gallery’s view was


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR


Sir – DACS has long represented the interests of visual artists in its campaign for the Artist’s Resale Right, which will apply to heirs and beneficiaries of deceased artists from January 1, 2012. Artists at many stages of their career benefit


from this valuable right, not just the well- known and wealthy. This is primarily due to the Government’s decision to introduce a minimum threshold of €1000 instead of €3000. In fact, 41% per cent of the artists DACS has paid since 2006 would have missed out on resale royalties had the threshold been set higher. This highlights the contradictory position of


some in the art trade, who, on the one hand claim the Right only benefits wealthy artists, and on the other, are now pushing for the removal of the most significant mechanism within the law which enables a greater diversity of artists to benefit by seeking to raise the threshold to €3000. It is not clear how these critics can justify this contradictory position. All the evidence to date indicates that the Right


has had no negative impact on the UK art market whilst artists have received nearly £14 million in resale royalties since 2006 – a valuable investment


that the situation was ambiguous. In the end, they chose not to argue and bought the painting.


The curator was keen to add that this was an exceptional situation and that normally the museum is covered by an exchange of letters and a written contract.


Keeping to the strict terms of a bequest forever and a day is perhaps just too much to ask of even a public institution, which after all is run by mere mortals. A prominent family’s substantial collection of paintings by John Singer Sargent was presented to the Tate (now Tate Britain). It was a term of the bequest that these 18 or 19 portraits should be on permanent display in a room called the Sargent Room. Before the Second World War there was indeed a Sargent Room. You will find that room very difficult to find now, because it is not there. Works on loan can be the cause


of problems. It is not uncommon, for example, for the owner to turn up and complain about the condition of the picture they have deposited, whereupon the curator promptly points out the contract term stipulating that the painting may not be touched without the depositor’s permission. Depositors also complain about the location of their painting. The curator then points out the


email: editorial@atgmedia.com Contradictory position on Resale Right


in the life blood of the UK’s art market when public funding cuts are significantly reducing artists’ incomes. As a not-for-profit organisation, DACS is not able


to draw on significant resources for its advocacy of artists’ rights. What we have been able to draw upon, however, is the strength of feeling and passionate support of thousands of British artists for whom Artist’s Resale Right is so vital.


Gilane Tawadros Chief Executive, DACS


Sovereign cases


SIR – I am a collector of British hallmarked sovereign cases/holders and sovereign combination cases, stamps, cards, pencils cards etc. I am presently compiling a book on the subject. I would like to hear from any other collectors or dealers with information, stories or sovereign cases not in my collection. For instance, I have never been able to purchase or view a novelty cane with a silver sovereign case as the handle.


Terry McMahon terrymcmahon1888@hotmail.com


Roger Hill (1944-2011)


ROGER Hill, co-founder of Lithoflow, the printing firm, has died aged 67. With his friend Ian Quinn, Roger started the firm in the late 1960s and it became (with the encouragement of Bill Brooks – then managing director of Christie’s South Kensington), the printer of auction catalogues to CSK from 1975 onwards. It also won contracts with other auction houses for their catalogues. Lithoflow in no small way contributed to the success of


CSK in its early days, with the demanding schedule of up to 12 sales a week and over 20 different departments to attend to – which did not always adhere to tight print schedules. It was Roger’s duty to liaise and visit the departments on a regular basis, enabling lifelong friendships to be forged in the process. Quite a number of the catalogues were not illustrated


save on the front cover, so it was possible to produce them rapidly, as three or four pages of advertising were taken each week with ATG to illustrate each sale. In later years, Roger and Ian invested heavily in print


machinery and the catalogues they produced competed alongside those from Christie’s in-house printers, Whites and Woods of Perth. In private life, Roger was a keen golfer and liked to keep up with his friends from CSK.


John Hudson


contract condition making plain that the museum can place the painting where it wants.


One of the strangest incidents that I have heard of was where the curator was presented with a very fitting picture for the gallery, on condition that the background to the hanging must always be in pale orange, to enhance the picture’s colours. Despite the importance of the picture to the gallery’s collection, the curator rejected it, as the donor sounded like far too much trouble. “Bonkers” was what she called him.


Equally idiosyncratic was a tale told to me by a senior curator from one of the nation’s most important public galleries. A benefactor with no heirs advised that she wanted to leave a substantial part of her important collection to the gallery, and also to a well-known animal charity. Important to the benefactor, though not relevant to the bequest, was the fact that she wanted to be buried with her teddy bear in the coffin, as it had been a lifelong companion.


Milton Silverman is Senior Commercial Dispute Resolution partner at Streathers Solicitors LLP, Wigmore St, London (0207 034 4200) with more than 20 years’ legal experience.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48