• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
    • Real Clear Arts
    • Judith H. Dobrzynski
    • Contact
  • ArtsJournal
  • AJBlogs

Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

The Fanjuls Win (a small) One

While “Chelsea Visits Havana,” the first big group show of American art in Cuba was moving into place — it opened on Friday at the 10th Havana Biennial — there was other art news on the Cuban front that slipped below the radar. Credit my friend Georgina Adam, an editor-at-large at The Art Newspaper, who pointed me to it in an item in her regular Saturday column for the Financial Times.

In late February, the U.S. State Department said it would investigate the current ownership of a painting, now in the hands of an Italian-Argentinean dealer, that was confiscated from the billionaire Fanjul family in 1961, when they were forced to leave Cuba after the revolution.

The work, Malaga Porta, was painted by Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida (whose self-portrait is below), and has been variously

Self_Portrait_Jouquin_Sorolla2.jpgvalued at $250,000 to $3 million. It’s considered a minor work by Sorolla, Spain’s best Impressionist.

The Fanjuls, one of Cuba’s wealthiest families before the revolution, have nevertheless been trying to get it back for years. With a fortune made in sugar and property, the dynasty owned many majestic homes in Cuba and an important art collection to go with them. It included hundreds of paintings by the likes of “Caravaggio, Goya, Murillo, Nattier, Boucher, Lebrun, Largilliere, Hoppner and Boldini, plus a Michelangelo pencil drawing, plus 14 paintings and three sketches by Sorolla y Bastida,” according to Peter Watson, who detailed this whole tangled tale in an article in The Age in 2005. 

The family believes the works were largely sold onto international markets after the Soviet Union fell, leaving Cuba without a patron state and in need of hard currency. 

Now, according to a press release issued on Feb. 24 by a lawyer for the Fanjuls, who started anew in the U.S. and are said to be billionaires, the State Department has agreed to probe potential violation of the Helms-Burton Act by one Bruno Sciaoli, the dealer. The Helms-Burton act blocks those who deal in property confiscated by Cuba, and their immediate families, from entering the U.S. and exposes them to potential damages.

The Fanjuls are not alone in seeking their confiscated art; they and others have listed them with the Art Loss Register, which keeps track of stolen works so that auction houses, dealers, and collectors may check before they buy or sell. 

But the European Union deplored the Helms-Burton Act and passed a resolution essentially making it unenforceable in member countries. As Georgina writes:

The problem is complicated, because European governments recognise Cuba and accept the nationalisation of the collections, but under US embargo laws it is illegal to trade in confiscated property from Cuba. But if the State department finds the art dealer guilty in this test case, it could have a major impact on sales of these Cuban-sourced works. ALR executive director Chris Marinello compared the issue of confiscated Cuban art as “a similar situation to the holocaust.”

I tend to agree with Marinello: confiscation is confiscation.

The Fanjuls have long covered their political bases by donating to both Democrats and Republicans, though at one time they were particularly close to Bill Clinton. Various members contributed to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2007-2008. Interestingly, I could not find any mention of the investigation on the State Department website.

There’ve been many articles on the Fanjul case, but the Maine Antique Digest in 2005 published the only one, by David Hewett, that I could find with a (partial) list of the Fanjuls’ lost works.

Is Google being evil?

Twenty-four hours after first reading Lynn Chu’s op-ed in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal on the proposed Google book settlement, it’s still on my mind. I have not been following this issue as closely as I should be, and no doubt there are counter-arguments. But her analysis certainly disturbed me. Here are some key passages:

There is nothing more individual in the world than a book, an author, a publisher, and the value of a contract. The aging baby boomers now flacking the settlement don’t seem to understand that PDF scanning (how Google and everyone else digitizes books) isn’t rocket science; it’s cheap and easy. Books will be digitized without Google. But the Google settlement sets in amber today’s overhyped role of the Internet, ruled by that great and magnificent Oz — Google.

And:

Under the settlement, every rights-owner in America is supposed to hand over all their private contract data, on every edition of every work they ever wrote — and every excerpt permission ever granted to others — at the peril of losing the money Google will be making on their backs. This is a massive burden on everyone in the book industry, making us all, in effect, Google’s data-entry slaves. Indeed, in most cases such information about every permission ever granted is unlocatable. It opens a Pandora’s box of disputes and mistaken claims about who actually owns what.

 And:

We already have a good system. It’s called the system of private property and free contract, designed for dispersed, autonomous individuals — not command-and-control centers. The U.S. Constitution grants authors small monopolies in their own copyrights. Author market power is talent-based and individual, not collective. This class action seeks to wipe all this out — just for Google.

Ms. Chu is a literary agent at Writers Representatives, and she clearly believes Google is being evil with this proposed settlement of its dispute with the Authors Guild and other plaintiffs in their class-action suit against the company. I hope that the 385 pages of the settlement document don’t scare others in the publishing world away from understanding it before the May 9 deadline for deciding whether to opt-in or opt-out.

Here’s a link to the WSJ article (though, as a subscriber, I’m not sure whether or not it’s behind a firewall).

Ms. Chu continues her argument, advising writers to do nothing, here.  

 

How collector Aby Rosen can become a real hero

Friday afternoon: waiting for callbacks for stories I’m working on, callbacks that rarely come on Fridays after about now. Unfortunately. Which set me to some Friday afternoon pipe-dreaming.

The Frick Collection has been thinking about expansion since at least Sam Sachs was director there; current director Anne Poulet has echoed the call for “limited expansion,” as she has termed it. For nearly a year, the gorgeous 45-foot-wide townhouse around the corner, at 22 East 71st St., has been up for sale. It was, of course, home to the late Salander-O’Reilly Gallery. Sotheby’s has the listing, and you can see what a perfect match for the Frick it would be. Or take the short-cut and read a description from the Times last year:

THE Salander-O’Reilly Galleries…provided a museumlike space to display old master paintings, tapestries and sculptures. Customers entered through the arched wrought-iron gates in the Italian Renaissance facade, up a few steps under a vaulted ceiling of coffered plaster. They stepped softly on the polished marble into a gallery with stone walls and a broad staircase designed by C. P. H. Gilbert in the 1920s.

The asking price is $75 million, out-of-reach for the Frick. But the mansion is owned by arts patron Aby Rosen, the real estate developer. It’s true his tastes are contemporary. Here’s how Phoebe Hoban described them in a March, 2008 profile of Rosen in New York Magazine:

Looking over his blue-chip collection of 80 Warhols (and counting), the naughty Richard Prince nurse, the Basquiats, the Christopher Wools, the Harings, the Koonses, the Bacon, people wonder as they did with Charles Saatchi whether it’s Rosen or the company that owns this vast trove. (Through a spokeswoman, Rosen declined to comment.)

But wouldn’t it be great if Rosen simply gave the building to the Frick? I don’t know what the real estate collapse has done to his net worth, but if websites like Curbed are accurate he is still active and out-and-about in New York. Jeff Koons, one of Rosen’s friends, is said to collect Old Masters. Maybe he can plant the idea.

Just a thought.

 

The yin and yang of Chinese contemporary art

There’s no debate over the state of the contemporary art market — it’s pretty dead. But the once high-flying Chinese contemporary art market, well, that may or may not be equally depressed.

On March 10, The New York Times said it was, citing recent auction results and quoting Zoe Butt, the director of Long March Space: “The era of Chinese contemporary art commanding such high prices is over.” Long March recently closed two of its three galleries in Beijing.

On Mar. 11, Pace Wildenstein chairman Arne Glimcher fought back, publishing a piece in The Daily Beast asserting that “I’ve heard people saying ‘the China thing’ is over but that’s not true.” He provided no backup, though, and failed to disclose his self-interest. (A commenter called him out, telling readers about Pace’s new gallery in Beijing and its representation of two prominent Chinese artists.)

A few months back, when I interviewed Belgian Baron Guy Ullens — who has collected these works works for more than 20 years — for the April Town & Country, he said the days of everything-sells were over.

Yet, next Thursday, Acquavella Galleries — always highly attuned to what sells —
2008Self-Portrait.jpgwill open the first U.S. solo show, 20 works in all, of Zeng Fanzhi (right, Self-Portrait, 2008). Zeng holds the auction record for Chinese contemporary paintings, $9.7 million. 

Ullens, who recently announced that he was selling part of his huge collection at a May auction (according to Bloomberg), provided some very interesting context about the coming years, though: “Before 1998 or 2000, the Chinese were not producing a lot. The good stuff of the old times is limited….[But] There are 50,000 to 70,000 going to art school in China right now. You can see the wave coming.”

Ullens, who with his wife cofounded the Ullens Center for Contemporary Art in Beijing, was looking forward to seeing the work of that wave, which will eventually make its way here. That could be energizing to contemporary art.

But consider this: So far, only about 40 contemporary Chinese artists have gained art-historical recognition, according to Yishu: The Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art.  Is there an appetite for so many more? Will the weeding take place there, or here?  

Photo: Acquavella Galleries 

Larry Salander arrested, indicted

A grand jury has spoken: art dealer Larry Salander has been indicted on 100 counts, “including grand larceny, falsifying business records, scheming to defraud, forgery and perjury,” according to The New York Times website. Salander has been arrested; more details will be coming out during the day. The total stolen was calculated at $88 million.

Everyone who ever visited his posh gallery on East 71st Street in New York wondered how Salander did it; we’re about to learn more details. In the context of Wall Street scandals, this must look small — but the art world doesn’t need this now.

Here’s the Times story.

 

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

About Judith H. Dobrzynski

Now an independent journalist, I've worked as a reporter in the culture and business sections of The New York Times, and been the editor of the Sunday business section and deputy business editor there as well as a senior editor of Business Week and the managing editor of CNBC, the cable TV

About Real Clear Arts

This blog is about culture in America as seen through my lens, which is informed and colored by years of reporting not only on the arts and humanities, but also on business, philanthropy, science, government and other subjects. I may break news, but more likely I will comment, provide

Archives