Giving your collection a name is one of the best mechanisms for building its value available to any clever collector. If you prefer to maintain your anonymity, give you're collection a name anyway; just not your own.
I am reminded of the Hedge Fund manager in Asia who buys art by young and emerging contemporary artists avariciously on his gallery hops every Sunday whether in Hong Kong, Singapore or Tokyo. While he is happy to hear from the galleries he frequents regularly, the last thing he wants is to be bombarded with emails and calls from galleries and artists that get hold of his name randomly. The same can be said of the wealthy software giant who has many different collections housed in purpose built museums around the world, yet will only buy from those with whom he has a signed six-page confidentiality agreement. Woe betide the dealer who reveals his identity – this wonderful client would be lost forever.
Wealthy collectors aside however, many others have added enormous value to their artworks simply by giving their collection a name. By ensuring that galleries, dealers and art centres add the collection details on to artist’s résumé’s, and agree to have their name on display cards and in catalogues when works are ‘on loan’ to institutions, these collectors are constantly adding value to their holdings. Collectors like Margaret Levi and Bob Kaplan in Seattle have been champions for Aboriginal art in the United States and since the mid 1980s and are long time patrons of the Seattle Art Museum. Their collection is inextricably linked to that institution with important works always available to its curator of African and Oceanic Art for use in thematic exhibitions. The artworks they have given to the museum, and their patronage, are included in the book A Community of Collectors: 75 Anniversary Gifts to the Seattle Art Museum which honours its most valued and respected patrons.
Carried to its logical conclusion many others, who that amassed extremely substantial and valuable holdings, such as Australian Aboriginal art collectors Elizabeth and Colin Laverty for example, invested heavily in documenting their collection through the production of books of the highest quality. The Laverty’s commissioned authoritative writers and curators to write essays in order to produce an artefact that was of great benefit, not just to their own collection, but also to the entire Aboriginal art movement. Collectors with this sort of vision, passion and commitment are patrons of the utmost importance and do the artists that they have collected the ultimate service whilst substantially adding value to their own artworks.
Despite everything I have advised above, there are paintings, artefacts and objects that have a lower Index of Provenance than they deserve due to the historical period or social circumstances that existed at the time they were created. They include extremely rare fine examples of material culture, highly individual examples of ‘outsider art’, works of quality created by unknown or barely recognised artists, or items created by important artists that found their way in to the market under serendipitous circumstances. These anomalies account for a tiny part of the vast body of material culture that has been produced by artists of many different cultures, including indigenous artists since first contact with Europeans. They include many fine pieces that can be highly desirable and worthy of collecting.?
I refer below to examples drawn from Australian Aboriginal material culture, however, every class of art and antiques from every different cultural group will have similar anomalies.
While the majority of bark paintings that found their way in to museums and private hands prior to the 1970s were collected by well-known anthropologists and dealers or through prominent personalities in the field, many were produced as gifts or used as trade goods, outside of any formal art networks that were developing at that time. While few of these were well documented, many have survived in relatively good condition. Largely unknown and sitting in private homes throughout Australia and occasionally overseas they generally first appear when the current owners request a valuation. Having been a valuer myself for more than a decade I have been regularly presented with images of bark paintings and artefacts, accompanied by tall stories and true, regarding their source provenance. Commonly conversations or letters explain that….
‘I collected these in the late 1960s when I worked at the remote Mudgeribah homestead’ …or…..’My parents lived out near Woorabindah and the local Aborigines used to visit’…or …..’My father was a field officer when the Jabiluka mine was surveyed’
As these stories are almost impossible to verify, a valuers job is to identify the pieces and see if they stylistically and historically fit the story. The valuer must consider: Are they as old as is claimed and are they consistent with other pieces of similar vintage from the region? Every now and then it is possible to put a name to a work by comparing its style to others in reference books and museum collections although, most often, valuers tend to err on the side of caution. Many fine old pieces appear each year and occasionally a real gem is discovered. Like the collection of Wandjina paintings that was offered to me when visiting the sister of a terminally ill Doctor who had worked for more than 20 years in a number of Kimberley Aboriginal communities. Amongst them was a large bark painting of a style that was soon identified as the work of Alec Minglemanganu, an artist who created a very small number of now highly desirable paintings during the 1960s and 1970s. When sold at auction by Lawson~Menzies in November 2006 it achieved a price of $38,400. Persuaded by Sotheby’s less than a year later put it up for sale once more, the buyer realised a profit of nearly $50,000 after costs when it sold the following July for $102,000.
This painting, when rated according to the Index of Provenance above, would have been considered COLD rating only two points at the time it was offered to Lawson~Menzies in 2006!!!
Yet having been accepted into a ‘tier one’ auction and sold it to a good collector the painting was subsequently nominally worth 4 points. The fact that Lawson~Menzies used it in its newspaper advertisements and on the invitation to its preview night should have increased its cache a little further. It was now TEPID. Having been given a major spread in the Sotheby’ catalogue just 8 months later and sold for such a spectacular sum the painting was now well in to the WARM category having found its way in to several art magazines used to promote the success of the Sotheby’ s sale. Now well on its way to becoming a work of some notoriety, the lucky owner wisely lent it to an institution and is working to further establish its bone fides as a most highly desirable asset. Needless the painting is now HOT property and it is just a matter of time before it enters the hallowed halls of a major collecting institution.
Most people believe that the first desert paintings were created for Jeffrey Bardon in Papunya in the early 1970s, however this is not strictly true. Desert paintings were created at a number of locations including Yuendumu in the 1960s and many found their way in to the hands of schoolteachers and others under contract in Aboriginal communities.
No sooner had Jeffrey Bardon begun working with the old men at Papunya than a number of artists began offering their paintings to buyers further a field. Over the years hundreds of paintings created in the 1970s have turned up having been sold to nearby station owners, contractors who worked at Papunya, Haasts Bluff and nearby communities, and to a number of people who worked with Aboriginal people in the church and the bureaucracy in and around Alice Springs. Often in poor condition these works are generally more interesting culturally than they are aesthetically. But, every now and then, a real gem can turn up with very little to recommend it in terms of its ‘provenance’.
Another work that appeared in 2006 and was sold in the same auction as the work by Alec Minglemanganu (described above) was an early Papunya board owned by a brick-a-brack dealer in Mentone, Victoria.?The painting had been sitting at the back of his shop since the early 1980s when, as a student, he had purchased it for $10 in a garage sale in Beaumauris. Although not in pristine condition here was a work almost identical to several recorded faithfully in Jeffrey and James Bardon’s definitive book on the formative years of the Western Desert Art Movement. It could easily have been one of the set of the 10 Budgerigar Dreaming paintings that Bardon himself described as ‘Kaarpa Mbitjana Tjampitjinpa’s crowning achievement’. The same Kaapa who, along with Clifford Possum and his brother Tim Leura, was credited as being one of the founders of the entire movement. Given the absence of any provenance to speak of, the owner was encouraged to spend the $500 that it would cost to have the painting thoroughly examined by conservator and forensic analyst Robyn Sloggett of the Ian Potter Centre for Conservation in Melbourne. When placed under UV light,?an array of concealed iconographic imagery was discovered that implied several parts of the painting were originally thought by the artist to be of a secret and sacred nature, too explicit to be revealed to a viewer, other than a male initiated to the highest degree. The powder pigments were scientifically consistent with those used during the formative period of the painting movement. Having passed muster, and accompanied by a certificate giving an expert opinion on its authenticity, the 71 x 43 cm. painting on composition board was recorded as having been painted some time between the beginning of 1971 and the end of 1972 and offered at auction in November 2006 with a presale estimate of $40,000-60,000. It was featured in a number of newspaper articles and art periodicals both before and after the sale at which it sold for? $72,000 to a collector with homes in both Australia and the United Kingdom. He subsequently agreed to tour the painting in the exhibition, Masterworks from the Lawson~Menzies Collection, which visited regional galleries throughout Victoria, NSW and Queensland over the following year. Once more it was used in a range of publications to promote the touring show. It’s provenance is no longer an issue as this painting is now strongly represented in a range of literature and it is well on the way to being worth as much as the not dissimilar but slightly larger Budgerigar Dreaming 1972 sold by Sotheby’s just 4 months earlier for $216,000.
Unless they have previously been part of documented collections or de-accessioned from an institution, most artefacts are unattributed to any particular creator and lack provenance if created prior to 1980.?
While early artefacts may have been utilitarian items, many are of great artistic beauty and interest. They may have originally been made to throw at and kill an animal, fend off a foe, carry possessions or represent a totem in a ceremonial context. Yet in many cases their age, decoration and surface patina make them sensuous and alluring, highly desirable objects. To my mind, the most important considerations when looking at old artefacts are age, form, design and patina. The best artefacts, many of which were collected in the earliest days of the colony, are extremely finely executed with delicate incising or fluting, a graceful and classic form, and a patina consistent with a century or more of gentle but cherished handling. When mounted properly such items are beautiful art pieces.
This important and specialised area of collecting can include sculptural objects and ceremonial regalia as well as sacred objects, which generate great sensitivity particularly amongst Aboriginal people when they appear publically. The lack of clear guidelines has made it all but impossible to display for sale many pieces that are suspected of having had a sacred purpose. The position taken by many tribal dealers differs markedly from that of a number of bureaucrats and advocates involved in culture and art. There are those who believe, as I do, that objects originally imbued with sacred meaning for a specific purpose at a specific time, are no longer sacred once this time has elapsed and its purpose has been fulfilled, especially when no longer held within the particular clan context that considered them so. Many fine old pieces can be seen to have been partially burnt signifying to many tribal specialists that they were decommissioned, that is their sacredness was released so that they could be sold freely by their owners after their original ceremonial purpose ended.? Many objects which have been the subject of heated debate have actually been accompanied by documentation from early art advisers in the field who argued that only by offering them for sale could it be ensured that the ability to continue to make them would be passed on from one generation to the next.
However it is equally true that a large amount of important, and often sacred material, was taken by ethnophiles as curios or given away inappropriately by tribal members under stress in exchange for tobacco or rations. Wooden and stone churinga’s and ceremonial bull roarers (which are often churringa’s that have been bored with a hole to disguise their original purpose), all fall in to this commercial no man’s land. Yet attempts to seek advice or to repatriate them to the most appropriate people meet with failure, time and time again. While no one really wants to claim them, or has an appropriate place to keep them, Aboriginal people, most often from cultural groups far removed from the actual owners, continue to argue for their protection from display or public sale. Interestingly, many of the most important Aboriginal paintings bear identical designs to the markings on these wooden and stone objects, and the artists simply state in the accompanying documentation that the content cannot be revealed as it is secret and sacred, in order to be able to sell them publicly.
Interestingly, the elders in Papunya argued amongst themselves and their neighbours about what could and couldn’t be portrayed in their paintings more than 30 years ago. They finally agreed and the desert painting movement was able to thrive unfettered. Yet objects bearing exactly the same designs sit in plan-drawers and filing cabinets the world over. They are no longer used in a ceremonial context principally because most of the ceremonies are no longer performed. Those ceremonies that do continue to take place require the creation of new objects in order that they be imbued with sacred content anew. Surely this argument is just about the medium, rather than its content. When the National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA) attempted to address this issue in its ethical guidelines it gave no clear and transparent advice for dealing with this difficult issue publicly. So, in the absence of any public guidance, these objects are sold to eager collectors privately and clandestinely.
As in most other classes, tribal art has its share of fakes and fraudsters. There have been a number of documented cases of forgery where almost perfect replicas have been passed of as the real thing. It is therefore wise to buy from those that really know their subject and have worked in the field for many years. Amongst the most prominent and reliable tribal art dealers I have worked with in Australia are Todd Barlin, formerly of Sotheby’s; Malcolm Davidson, who now carries on the business founded by his father, the irrepressible and extremely well regarded Jim Davidson; Arthur Palmer, who spent years working as a pilot throughout Australia’s far north; James Elmslie, the tribal art specialist for Theodore Bruce auctions, Chris and Anna Thorpe, and myself.
Amongst the many other esoteric classes of collectable material that have been created by Aboriginal people are works made by itinerant unschooled artists and children. Occasionally the most wondrous discoveries are made and some of these have shed light on artists who have gone on to become artists of renown. In one particular case they spawned an entirely new art movement.
In the late 1970’s Paddy Jaminji, Jacko Dolmyn, and Paddy Mosquito, painted the first bits of plywood construction board in earth pigment to be carried in the ceremonial enactment of a song cycle composed by Rover Thomas after Cyclone Tracy. At the time no one could have imagined that this was to lead to the genesis of the East Kimberley painting. These boards created during the late 1970s predate any art movement as such, and a number were sold to early site surveyors for the Argyle Diamond mine. The majority found their way to Perth and into several important collections including the Art Gallery of Western Australia and the Berndt Museum.?
Ginger Riley’s first paintings were on small scraps of old plywood and cardboard picked up in the dump, some of which were framed using Phillips head screws to hold plastic electrical conduit to the outer margins. Even the first desert paintings were actually painted on rolls of brown paper provided by a schoolteacher in Yuendumu during the 1960s. They are now part of the Power Bequest and after many years in the collection at the University of Sydney are presumably now somewhere in the vaults of Sydney’s Museum of Contemporary Art.
If you were to ask me to recall the best piece of outsider art that I have seen in Aboriginal Australia I would have to say it was the overturned and rusted car body sitting on its roof on red earth along a sand gully off a road just off the Tanami Track. Painted crudely with desert iconography in what must have originally been vibrant colours the entire body was peppered with the dotting creaked by bullet holes. It would have made a wonderful installation in a major art gallery and may well have been saleable if shown in the right context.
On the other hand Howard Morphy’s American discovery of a box of 113 paintings by children from the Carrolup River Native Settlement in Western Australia in a dusty Colgate University storage space in April 2004 was one of national significance. These are never likely to be for sale as they are of vital cultural significance to contemporary Aboriginal people.
When collecting emerging artists be prepared to make mistakes. A modest budget requires a good eye to minimise financial risk. Visit major galleries and collections to find out which are the main emerging artists represented. Developing your? ‘eye’ is an essential part of learning how to identify a quality work. The works chosen by the curators of the major state and national collections provide invaluable guidance to viewers as they develop their own collections. Look at what isn’t selling. These works may be inexpensive, yet they may be works of real quality that are out of favour. A knowledgeable buyer can make you a tidy profit if they purchase them and then document and promote them properly.
If you’re paying less than $5000 for a work of art (in the primary market), it generally means the artist is emerging. Its low investment but high risk.
Alison Harper, Editor, Australian Art Market Report, April 2005