Self-appointed cultural property moralist Paul Barford and his friends at Saving Antiquities for Everyone are fond of flogging collectors for purchasing cultural property on eBay, for buying artifacts whose sole provenance is to "an old collection," and for not investigating the export laws of the source country for the artifacts one collects BEFORE buying. Yet, it now appears that Mr. Barford himself is guilty of all these same "sins" in forming his collection of antique Japanese woodblock prints. See
http://inthefloatingworldandbeyond.blogspot.com/2010/11/too-difficult-for-some-to-understand.html
Mr. Barford has purchased his antique prints off eBay. He tells us at least one comes from an "old Cracow collection." And he is apparently so unclear about Japanese law that after being called on it, he has written the Japanese Embassy for clarification of its export rules. It will be interesting to find out precisely what Mr. Barford asked and whether he receives a definitive answer to his query.
Hopefully, Mr. Barford and his friends as SAFE will now think twice before again hurling similar accusations against collectors. As they say, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The contents of this post have now appeared verbatim on another blog run by a "collectors' rights" activist (one recently plugged by the PhDiva blog).
http://paulbarford.blogspot.com/2011/08/oh-dear-caught-with-your-fingers-in-pie.html
"Oh dear, caught with your fingers in the Pie
Mr. Barford has purchased a few antique prints off eBay. He tells us at least one comes from an "old Cracow collection." And he is apparently so unclear about Japanese law that after being called on it, he has written the Japanese Embassy for clarification of its export rules. It will be interesting to find out precisely what Mr. Barford asked and whether he receives a definitive answer to his query. Hopefully, Mr. Barford and his friends at SAFE will now think twice before again hurling similar accusations against collectors. As they say, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Posted by "Paul Barford Antiquities and Heritage Issues" at 14:55
Would you therefore please explain to the author of that post [and please post your comments here] the opinion of the Cultural property law expert of Bailey and Ehrenburg concerning any legal problem in the collecting in the European Union of 1920s commercially produced Japanese woodblock prints formerly in an old collection in Poland made by the seller's father (which is what is being discussed here). By the way, this particular example was a direct hand-to-hand sale and not "bought on eBay".
I really cannot see one, and find it odd that the accusation that starts here on your blog should still be circulating.
Would you therefore please set straight your view of the actual legal situation, since these potentially damaging accusations have clearly started from a series of posts made by a lawyer on the Cultural Property Observer blog. Thanks
Do you really see no difference in the buying of old books and prints and freshly dugup archaeological finds?
Paul Barford (the real one)
Mr. Barford-
One engaged to render an opinion about the legality of your collection would need a complete inventory first. For example, there appears to be a discrepancy between your present claim that your collection consists of prints from the 1920's and earlier statements that suggest it also includes prints over 100 years old (and hence subject to UNESCO).
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you and your SAFE mates have always demanded that collectors comply with the laws of the countries of origin of artifacts, here Japan. Sorry, but the law does not necessarily distinguish between archaeological artifacts and other type of antiques. I belive you were going to do some of your own research into Japanese law-- which you have yet to disclose-- but the real issue is that it took someone to call you on it before you even contemplated it. And, of course, all who have questioned you about this just hope that you will undertake the same kind of due diligence you demand so forcefully of others.
Mr. Tompa:
Could Mr. Barford, whoever he or she is (which is the real one? Or we witnessing dementia at work?)reveal to us all what he asked of the Japanese Embassy regarding the legality of his collecting very old Japanese artifacts? And what the Japanese Embassy may have told him? He (she? it?) seems to scuttle about with respect to his demands for transparency about everyone and everything else -- but for himself. And it is, frankly, somethng of a bore and rather a matter to be dismissed. He should put up or just subside. But will he (she? it?).
Warm regards, and with thanks for pointing up the man's (woman's? things?) silly little hypocrisies.
Alexander
"One engaged to render an opinion about the legality of your collection would need a complete inventory first. "
I am not asking for that. On the basis of the information you HAD, you expressed an opinion as a cultural property lawyer. I asked you to state what grounds there were for claiming that the item to which you specifically referred was illegally obtained and I had been guilty of failure to exercise "due diligence".
I also asked you since the preliminary opinion of Bailey and Ehrenberg's cultural property law specialist expressed here was being cited elsewhere in an effort to defame me, that you clarify for everybody's benefit "your view of the actual legal situation". Or do you not actually know? Thanks
My question on whether or not you see "no difference in the buying of old books and prints and freshly dugup archaeological finds" was in a wider context, not the Japanese one. Is the acquisition of dug up Anasazi or Mimbres pottery in the US for example governed by the same principles as a copy of the 1889 "Detroit Times" or a lithograph of a view along Connecticut Avenue in 1840? or are different kinds of due diligence involved?
I'm afraid you are trying to change the subject again. The blog asked the question whether a self-appointed cultural property moralist such as yourself undertook the same due dilligence he demands of others before collecting his old Japanese prints, some of which appear to be 100 years old and hence subject to UNESCO. Since you do not respond, however, it would seem not. Yes, the strong smell of hypocricy wafts around the Portable Antiquities Collecting and Heritage Issues blog.
Post a Comment