With reference to the ICOM Code of ethics in respect of museum
acquisitions and Patrick Boylan's comments on the Denney case, see below.
I perhaps gave the wrong impression that the Toulouse
museum was something of a bystander concerning the
acquisition of the Denney collection. In fact, my paper at
http://museum-security.org/denney/index.htm shows that
the Toulouse Museum provided the cover of respectability for
the movement of the pictures and the funds for transport and
insurance and storage for the pictures.
However the real point at issue concerning the ICOM code lies
in the subsequent acquisition of the pictures and relates to the
testing of a prospective donor's claim to ownership. Should the
museum take the claim to ownership at face value or not? If the
Museum is following the ICOM code, what should it do to test the
donor's claim to ownership? What constitutes sufficient proof of
ownership? Or, what constitutes a sufficient doubt on ownership
requiring the museum to put a donation project on hold?
In the Toulouse case, the donor's claimed to be heir to
Denney's entire estate by virtue of a Spanish will. But the collection
had not been declared on the inventory of the Declaration of Inheritance
signed by the donor and the museum knew this. In other words, the
donor had no documentary proof of ownership. Also the donor's claim
to be sole heir to the estate was the subject of litigation in the
Spanish Courts and both the Museum and the City Authorities knew this.
I maintain that a prudent course of action for the City of Toulouse -
consistent with following the ICOM Code - would have been
to mothball plans for a donation until all ownership issues had
been definitively settled in the Spanish Courts. However the City
thought differently and went ahead with the donation.
In the Denney case the donor's claim to ownership appears
to have been taken at its face value by the museum and the
City of Toulouse and any counter claims were severely
severely discounted.
In my view a disturbing precedent has been set,
which runs against the whole spirit of the ICOM Code.
But perhaps I am wrong? What do other people think?
Antony Anderson
----------
From: Boylan P[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 30 April 1997 12:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: staff code of ethics
The ICOM Code of Ethics is quite explicit that museums must ensure that
they can get a valid legal title to any acquisition, whether purchase,
gift or bequest. The "Denney Case" referred to by Anthony Anderson below
raises important issues, though perhaps not on that point as such, which
essentially involves an allegation that there was a complex fraud
perpetrated by someone with close "inside" information about the
"donor's" circumstances, and in particular that written instructions to
transfer works of are to Toulouse must have been forged as the "donor"
had died several days earlier.
The real issues seem to me to be:
(1) the extent to which the legal concept of "due diligence" requires
museums accepting the ICOM Code to assume fraud by a third party in EVERY
case where items are offered (ie. all apparently legitimate documents to
be more or less automatically regarded as fraudulent). (Certainly English
courts at least rejected such extreme automatic suspicion of everthing
as unreasonable and unworkable centuries ago, and in the case of
commercial transactions and transfers of chattels (though not real estate)
all those taking part in a transaction are allowed to regard documents as
legitimate unless it is proved otherwise.)
(2) more relevant, I think, what should be done in case of the (extremely
tiny) proportion of cases where such a fraud is subsequently alleged.
Here, the conduct of the museum and its staff may become an issue, though
as I understand it from Dr Anderson's notes the Toulouse Museum as such is
something of a bystander in the current controversy: in actual or
prospective legal actions it is the Mayor and Council who are in
control of what is going on, both administratively and legally.
Patrick Boylan
(Chairman, ICOM Ethics Committee 1984 - 1990,
& currently ICOM Vice-Pres.)
=======================================================================
On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Antony F Anderson wrote:
>
> Suggest that you look at the ICOM Code of Ethics which is available at:
>
> http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/icom/ethics
>
> You should pay particular attention to developing a clear acquisitions policy.
You should not assume that just because someone offers to donate something
to your museum they have full title. If you accept without exercising due
diligence in investigating the title you may find yourself subsequently
in a very hot legal dispute when the real owners turn up and claim what
is rightfully theirs.
> A recent case shows how essential a code of ethics is. The Museum of Modern
Art in Toulouse appears to have accepted a donation before all questions
of ownership had been settled - moreover the museum appears to have been
fully aware of the questionable title being passed on. This is quite
contrary to the ICOM code which puts the onus on Museums to exercise the
utmost caution when accepting donations and to examine the provenance
very carefully.
> The pictures had been on long term loan to the Dallas Museum of Art and
were extracted by means of forged signatures shortly after the owners
death. Full details of the case can be seen at:
> http://museum-security.org/denney/index.htm
|
