'ART AND SOUL
The uncertain world of valuation
B.N. Goswamy

‘DE-ACCESSIONING’ is a term we hear rarely in our part of the world. For the practice is virtually unknown here. To put it briefly, it means, in a museum context, taking an object off the stock/accession register. When, for reasons best known to it, a museum decides to part with an object from its permanent collection–either through sale, auction, or giving away in gift or exchange, etc–it is ‘de-accessioning’ that object. Here, in our own land, objects might get damaged, or lost, or pilfered, but most of our museums being owned or substantively subsidised by the government, and government rules being what they are, no one even thinks of ‘de-accessioning’. Once entered into sarkari records, an object is there forever. Or nearly.

Elsewhere, however, ‘de-accessioning’ is a fairly common practice. Admittedly, it is a divisive issue, and opinions on it remain sharply divided. There are those who, being ‘purists’, believe that all objects being of ‘sacrosanct scholarly value’ should be beyond the reach of the art market; and others who favour the ‘judicious pruning’ of museum collections, sometimes in the interest of earning money from the sale of ‘redundant’ objects for adding to inadequate acquisition funds. Against this background, curious things keep happening. Like the case which is currently making news in the art world. It might be of some interest to the reader if I were to go into it in some detail.

Some three years ago, the Strong Museum in Massachusetts decided to consign a Chinese vase that was in its collection to a local auction house. The object had been received as a donation a long time ago from a member of the Strong family, but, after consideration, it was decided that it be de-accessioned. In the catalogue of the auction house, it was described as a ‘famille jaune’ porcelain vase bearing a mark of the reign of Qianlong: the price estimate, given apparently after evaluation, was between 800 and 1200 US dollars, suggesting, despite the prestigious dynastic name, that the object might be a 19^th century copy. 

EARLIER COLUMNS Seasons of longing November 16, 2003 Greed in the land of antiques November 2, 2003 Of elegant walks & sculpted silks October 19, 2003 Pattern-drawers of Benares October 5, 2003 Kaghaz ki kahani September 21, 2003 The rains in poetry and painting September 7, 2003 The way of the brush August 24, 2003 Passion for collecting textiles August 10, 2003 Dazzling images from Amir Hamza’s life July 27, 2003 Recording intellectual journey of man July 13, 2003

The auction was held in December, 2001, and the price the vase fetched was 23,000 dollars, way above the expectation of the curatorial staff. There was natural jubilation, for these funds were welcome, but the celebrations were short-lived. For, a year and a half later, the same vase re-appeared on the Hong Kong market, being described in the auction catalogue as a "spectacular" object, bearing "a Qianlong six-character mark and of the period." A local dealer bought it for HK$ 11.93 million, which is the equivalent of $ 1.53 million US dollars. The Strong Museum authorities were aghast. They had "lost" more than a million dollars, they believed, and decided, therefore, to sue the local auction house for "breach of contract and malpractice". The suggestion clearly was that there was initial undervaluation, implying either collusion, or incompetence, on the part of the auction house.

While this matter is still pending, experts – which includes everyone, from art historians to critics and auctioneers and solicitors – are rummaging through old cases that bear a resemblance to the one involving the Chinese vase. One solicitor has dug up a case that went up to the English Court of Appeal some 20 years ago. The owner of a painting, as per the details of that case, consigned two paintings of foxhounds to a local auctioneer whose representative, after looking at the paintings, and consulting a colleague, decided that the paintings did not amount to much. They went on the block, and sold for a sum of 840 pounds sterling, once again way above the initial estimate of only 30 pounds. Later, these very paintings appeared in another auction, having been attributed in the sales catalogue to the celebrated painter of horses and other animals–George Stubbs –and were sold for 88,000 pounds. Hearing of this, and devastated at the ‘loss’ they had suffered, the original owners sued their auction house for negligence and damages.

The details of the case are very complicated but the parallels between the two cases are quite remarkable, although apparently not a-typical. Conclusions are not easy to draw, but one thing is certain: it is a very uncertain business, this business of ‘de-accessioning’ and valuation and attribution.

Of great interest, in this context, is the view that the Court of Appeal took of the foxhound pictures case. The trial was protracted, and a vast number of experts and witnesses were examined. Issues were clearly framed but, at the end of it all, the Lord Justice said in the leading judgment: "The valuation of pictures of which the artist is unknown, pre-eminently involves an exercise of opinion and judgment, most particularly in deciding whether an attribution to any particular artist should be made. Since it is not an exact science, the judgment in the very nature of things may be fallible, and may turn out to be wrong." There was the all-important proviso, however, which the Judge added: "Provided that the valuer does his job honestly and with due diligence."

For the record: in the foxhound paintings case, the Judge decided that no negligence on the part of the auction house was established. No damages were therefore awarded.

This feature was published on December 14, 2003