MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
For those not in the know. BBC program and the premise is a lost work of art is refound and they work through various methods to establish if it's a fake or a true work by the artist.
So this week lady turns up with a "Landseer" lots of investigation, ups and downs, trials and tribulations. But it turns out that the painting was supposedly destroyed by the Tait due to water damage and so is regarded as gone. But other paintings in the same category noted as destroyed have turned up and are restored and back on show. The painting was part of a collection gifted to the country.
Her painting was bought for £720 but might be worth £80k.
Question is if it were real and the Tait supposedly destroyed it where would she stand?
The flooding that led to the damage also led to quite chaotic scenes and the organisation was shambolic, every chance it might have been "put aside" by someone. If real does she get to keep the painting or has she got "stolen" property that must be returned?
Don't know the answer to your question but I do really like the programme....
Presumably the insurance company would own it (assuming it was insured by the Tait)
Interesting question. I hadn't thought of that possibility while watching. From a moral standpoint, if it was real and in the owners shoes, I would perhaps feel obliged to gift it back to the country as had originally happened.
I did think that it potentially being 'put to the side' or sold on by the no doubt low paid person tasked with destroying them was rather glossed over in the program. It seemed quite likely to me!!
Thought it interesting that they didn't push the Tait lady who was basically saying that as the paperwork said it was destroyed it was destroyed. Even though they had examples in the gallery of other works which the paperwork said had been destroyed.
Tate
Apologies Tate.
Not sure to be honest, unless it could be definitively shown to be stolen at some point I think it's the new owners to keep. In these cases they are potentially doing the art world a favour by brining these works back into the catalogues.
The bit i have the biggest issue with is the decision is it often comes down to the opinion of one expert who it this case categorically said it wasn't a Landseer based on his interpretation of brush strokes etc. For me the more compelling evidence around the size of the picture, the fact it had suffered damage and critically the notch on the left were quite compelling evidence to suggest it was the original. To be quite as dismissive as he was seemed pretty arrogant.
Presumably the insurance company would own it (assuming it was insured by the Tait)
often with major work owned by museums they are pretty much uninsurable. Stuff I worked with of that nature back in my art handling and transport days was covered by ‘Government Indemnity’
The OP seems to be asking a legal question rather than a moral one. My guess is that, legally, it is stolen property so the insurance company owns it. Morally, the gallery threw it in the trash and the woman who bought it did so quite innocently so they should pay her the equivalent value of the insurance payout for its return. In my moral system, an insurance company that was dumb enough to pay out without confirming the article's destruction are too stupid to deserve any consideration.
To be quite as dismissive as he was seemed pretty arrogant.
An arrogant expert in the art world? Whatever next! Though in some ways they also seem to be very conservative - as well as their expert opinion most also seem to want an unbroken paper trail going all the way back to the artist's receipt from the paint and canvas shop, but if they had that then the program would be a lot shorter.
The "notch/shoulder" did seem quite compelling. Although as pointed out there was detail that didn't come through. The sword handle and bugle flag. And to my untrained eye the clouds top right seemed off.
I felt that this one glossed over a few things.
Although there was no indication that it was on the list for destruction (there was no list just approved for destruction) it was listed as beyond repair alongside those now on display. (The execution of lady Jane Grey).
Fake or Fortune just highlights how ridiculous the whole art world is