Advertisement

June 18, 2013

Recent Cases Paint Troubling Picture of Art Experts in Poland

In the current financial crisis, when stock market indexes are falling and the only certain thing in the capital market is uncertainty, investors are paying more attention to art, which in addition to their artistic value, can provide a relatively high rate of return.

Growing demand on the art market results not only in higher prices, but also greater incentive to increase the number of works available on the market. One of the most popular and secure ways to purchase artworks is provided by auction houses or antique shops. Security measures concerning such type of transactions are ensured by professional art experts. They confirm whether particular artwork is genuine, as well as carry out its appraisal. Despite this immense responsibility, there has been an increasing number of cases in the recent decade showing that art experts do not perform their duties in a proper manner. These cases enhance discussion on more accurate regulation of artwork trade and the role of art experts. Below are the best–known cases from the Polish art market: 

  1. In 2008, the media reported that the National Museum in Gdansk purchased a counterfeit painting by Wyczółkowski for PLN 80,000 with expertise provided by Prof. Jerzy Malinowski. When the case was disclosed, the museum ordered another expertise from Prof. Dariusz Markowski. Basing on chemical test results he certified that the painting was counterfeit.
     
  2. In December 2007, the police seized a fake painting by Jan Cybis with a value was estimated at PLN 30,000 . Authenticity of the artwork was questioned by the painter’s son, Dr. Jacek Cybis, who disagreed with the positive expertise of Dr. Hanna Bartnicka–Górska.
     
  3. In May 2000, Mariusz Jańczuk bought a fake painting by Moses Kisling - “Boy sitting on the chair” for PLN 150,000, which, as stated in a professional expertise from the “Polswiss Art” auction house, was genuine. Its authenticity was questioned by Kisling's son and the case was brought to court.
     
  4. In March 2001, Dr. Łukasz Kosowski, an art expert from the same auction house, confirmed authenticity of the Henryk Siemiradzki painting - “Salome” which eventually turned out to be a forgery.
     
  5. In 2005, journalists from TVN (a TV station) and “Rzeczpospolita” (a newspaper) prepared a sting against two art experts: Dr. Irena Kossowska and Dr. Łukasz Kossowski. With the approval of a well-known Polish artist, Franciszek Starowieyski, they hired a young painter to create a fake painting by the artist. Experts not only approved the painting, but determined its age at 46 years and also estimated its value at PLN 3,200 .

These examples exposed serious problems that significantly affected certainty and security measures on the Polish art market.

First of all, it is crucial to emphasize that substantive requirements for a candidate art expert are vague and give rise to reasonable doubt. As a matter of fact, almost anyone can be an art expert. Moreover, experts are neither obliged to have liability insurance nor assume any responsibility for their decisions. In such cases as presented above, it is often an auction house that bears responsibility for an incorrect expertise.

Secondly, art experts should be aware that their activity is also examined by deontological norms. Many combine work as an art expert with museum employment. It is therefore necessary to point out that section 8, paragraph 13 of the Professional Ethics Code of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) explicitly states that persons employed in museum should not undertake other paid employment or accept outside commissions that are in conflict with or which may be viewed as being in conflict with museum interests. In fact, one could argue that presented practices are perceived to be damaging to a museum or the profession as well as matters of professional ethics.

Recent scandals intensified discussions among members of the Association of Polish Antiquarians, which resulted in adoption of a resolution on the procedure for selecting art experts. Its provisions stipulate that the Association will appoint experts upon official request of its member with a recommendation from two other members.

Although these changes shall be perceived positively, it is hardly possible to change a negative trend without significant regulation of the art market. In such conditions art is not always a good investment, but will always remain a matter of taste and personal preferences.

Włodzimierz Szoszuk
adwokat, Senior Partner
Head of IP Practice Group 
Wardyński & Partners
Al. Ujazdowskie 10
00-478 Warszawa
tel.: (+48) 22 437 82 00, 537 82 00
fax: (+48) 22 437 82 01, 537 82 01

Copyright © 2013, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

About the Author

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP has a strong tradition of supporting the arts community. One of the firm's founding partners, Gordon F. Hampton, was a serious art collector and patron of the arts, who served as a trustee of the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art and helped to found the Fellows of Contemporary Art, a non-profit organization active in promoting and funding the work of contemporary artists. Continuing our legacy in the arts, Sheppard Mullin's Art Law Practice Group draws upon a wide variety of legal fields to provide the following services...

310-228-3700

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.