Credits: Susanna Ceccarelli

The Day After

The day after is about to arrive. What will change in the art world?

Il Giornale dell'Arte dedicates an insert to the reopening.
136 contributions from museum directors, superintendents, foundations directors but also gallery owners, auction house managers and publishers. All aware that the return to normality will not mean restoring the same status quo of March 8.
Let us comment on it together. What has changed in the meantime? During the Coronavirus explosion, “digital” has had space.
In these almost 70 days, many museums have offered virtual visits and digital contributions. Also as regards the art market, which saw the cancellation of fairs and events, the digital response was immediate. Galleries and auction houses have changed physical appointments into digital appointments: online auctions, and other tools for the most demanding customers, with dedicated virtual environments.

Will digital continue to be massively used even after the end of the quarantine?
Minister Dario Franceschini spoke of a possible portal, such as Netflix, where it will be possible to publish original content, not freely shared on other sites or social pages. Cultural products on payment.

All agreed?
So far, everything was all for free. We are back to the question how culture should be accessible to everyone. Nevertheless, it is useless to hide that the idea of ​​a culture accessible to everyone is probably not sustainable. For a time still not defined, and definable, the cultural sector, firmly linked to the tourism sector, will have limited resources. Especially small businesses.
However, we would like to reiterate that making culture is not at no cost, not even for the digital part. Behind any contribution published in recent months, there are hours of work of many professionals, who have invested in accelerating spreading the understanding of the digital language with their work. They can't work for free forever. If these digital contents are truly the solution to attract and communicate with possible visitors, and return back to surplus, they must be recognized for the value they have, avoiding to think of them as pastimes. Or accessory tools at best.

 Now is really time to create a new future for culture, and to recognize the creation of content for digital use, the space and resources they deserve. An evolution and growth opportunity for the cultural system.


Let’s see if we can take it!

Credits: Susanna Ceccarelli

The dark side of the moon

Illicit trafficking in works of art to finance terrorism, money laundering, hidden financing.

“Organized crime has many faces,” added Catherine de Bolle,  Europol's executive director. “The trafficking of cultural goods is one of them: It is not a glamorous business run by flamboyant gentlemen forgers, but by international criminal networks. You cannot look at it separately from combating trafficking in drugs and weapons: We know that the same groups are engaged, because it generates big money.”

Moreover, even in the consultation of the European Commission for new actions against money laundering, launched to collect input from all citizens, but above all from the most interested parties, there are art dealers in the list of involved stakeholders.

It is evident that for art dealing it is considered necessary to introduce greater control, to make the art market more transparent. However, the value of artworks is inevitably conditioned by their authenticity, which affects the profits that can be made from them. Or by their alleged authenticity. And the absence of shared protocols for certification of works of art leaves much room for maneuver.


Something needs to change
 

Eyes Wide Shut

The longstanding question regarding the authentication of artworks, both old master and modern ones, is always relevant. Even today, no shared scientific protocols have been established, so to start a correct discussion on this topic. Not later than last week, this problem became clear again at auction.

Two paintings declared "FOLLOWER OF SIR PETER PAUL RUBENS, about 1700", had already been sold six months ago by the same gallery but with a different attribution: "CICLE OF SIR PETER PAUL RUBENS" were auctioned.
What has happened in the last six months that got the paintings from being a "workshop" to being a "copy" of the following century? Moreover, the same two artworks eleven years ago were offered by another large auction house for a double estimate. How can this happen? What information was added between one auction and another?

The Condition Reports  which are generally published –same here- report only the conservation conditions, observed rather superficially.
The provenance only rarely adds decisive information on the autograph. As indeed this is the case this time as well. We wonder why it is not explicitly stated in the catalogue if any type of analysis has been performed that has implied consequences for the attribution. One could think of analyses performed showing an anachronism in the materials used, or a C14 on the wooden support.
A Condition Report enriched with Radiography, Reflectography and colour analysis would have clarified many doubts.

Especially at a time like this, where auction houses only offer online sales, it would be appropriate to offer works with more detailed curricula, also enriched with elements that the human eye cannot perceive. This could offer complete transparency, a de-risking for the investment and therefore an incentive to buy. Who would buy with closed eyes?