For Art's Sake!

In other art news -- just about the time you thought all the art that had been stolen from Jews by the Nazis – or acquired through “forced sale” -- had been recovered, some troublemakers had to point out that the Bolsheviks pulled a similar stunt on prosperous Russians 20 years earlier. Yes, the time has arrived for a bevy of new claims, not against the Nazis this time – or the persons who wound up with that art work – but against Russia, and the persons who wound up with the earlier stolen art. And the amounts in question are not trivial -- “tens of billions of dollars”, according to a recent article. But this time the opposition is formidable – in one prominent case, that of a Van Gogh painting, it's Yale University, which claims that Russian “privitization” of the painting – i.e. its sale to Yale – was legal, even though the painting was originally confiscated from a private owner by the Bolsheviks.

I guess the problem here – though no one will admit it – is not unlike the issue of the “right of conquest” when it comes to lands and resources. How far back in history do we need to go in search of reparations? American blacks seem to think they're still entitled to reparations for slavery, for example. And if this is so, how about the Indians? (Are the casinos enough?) How about reparations to Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America for European colonialism? But let's be reasonable – let's limit it to the 20th Century. So if the Jews are entitled to reparations, why aren't the descendants of the wealthy Russians who owed these paintings and other objets d'art prior to the revolution? The answer, of course – as I'm sure you've already guessed – is political. The Nazis lost the war, after all, whereas the Bolsheviks – or their successors – won (as did the Jews -- although it's seldom represented that way). And in fact, the present-day Russian regime still has continuity, of a sort, with Lenin and the gang. So it is tough getting reparations out of the winning side... not that that reasoning has had any impact on the call for reparations for slavery (since the North was the winning side, and by extension most of the U.S. except for the Old South). And in fact, Germany never paid reparations for Nazism either, once they had given up most of their territory and millions of their people had been enslaved by the Soviets. So the whole thing is very much a mixed bag. In any case, if the lawsuit surrounding the Van Gogh succeeds – and don't forget, they have Yale to beat – we'll see thousands more just like it springing up, and another full employment act for lawyers, just as the Jewish claims against the Nazis are winding down. And who is to say what's “fair” in this situation? Again, I cite the right of conquest – sooner or later you have to draw a line and say, we're going to be satisfied with this state of affairs, period. Otherwise our humanistic impulses – our zeal for “fairness” -- are going to lead to a state of total chaos (as they have threatened to do with, e.g., “equal opportunity” and “affirmative action” and racial quotas).

De gustibus...

It can be funny when people say things without actually saying them. For instance, there is the recent statement of a member of Italy's “art police” regarding the frequency of forgeries of the classics vs. of works of more recent vintage. It turns out that most of the falsifications circulating these days are of modern art “probably because the art of today is easier to falsify with fewer technicalities.” Which is a very kind way of saying “probably because the art of today is, by and large, trash, done by hacks, charlatans, and poseurs with little or no technical skill.” And if you turn to the high-end art market during these troubled times, it turns out that, yes, the classics are “in” again, and many of the more, um, exotic creations of the postwar era are in much less demand. And this, in turn, is because people who purchase high-end art are divided, basically, into two categories – those who purchase art they like, and those who purchase art they think they _ought_ to like – or (and this is key) art that they know is ridiculous but that constitutes a good investment. You see, the art world is, basically, a house of cards held together by the opinions of “critics” and museum curators who seem to have entered into a conspiracy to not only elevate that which has no lasting value on high, but to denigrate and trivialize all that went before – especially before that date upon which they were born, with all of their exquisite and sophisticated (not to say decadent) taste. So – their efforts create demand, which causes prices to rise, just as in any market. But the price system is based not only on alleged “taste” but also on investment value – in fact, one suspects, it's based more on investment value than on taste. The problem is, when times are tough (even for the rich) people tend to focus more on things that have intrinsic value – which classical art is thought to have, whereas “modern” art... well, maybe and maybe not. In other words, financial challenges tend to make people get back to basics – even in the rarefied art world. So all of a sudden, that “investment” in a work by a still-living Londoner starts to look a bit ill-advised, compared to something by a, let's say, long-dead Italian. Plus – as the art police know – the modern stuff is much more easily forged. (And, BTW, since most of Warhol's stuff was done in his “factory” by a large staff, and mass-produced in a way (since it was prints and not paintings), how does one define the “genuine” Warhol material vs. forgeries or copies? Just wondering... ) In any case, it's good to see another positive "unanticipated consequence" of the recession -- namely a revival of good taste as a factor in art acquisitions. Now if only we could throw the rascals out for good... but I guess they have to make a living somehow.