Author's introductory note by Antony
Anderson
I am the son-in-law of Anthony
Denney, being married to Teresa one of his twin daughters. I am not
therefore an impartial observer and must declare an interest in the events
that I will now attempt to describe. Nevertheless, I hope to present the
Denney case history with sufficient accuracy and clarity for it to form
a useful focus for discussing some of the public issues that may arise
with art loans.
The Art Loan System
Art loans between a world-wide network of museums, institutions and private
owners, enable museums to provide a service far beyond what they could
provide out of their own resources. Art loans are only possible because
lenders have absolute confidence in the system and know that what is lent
will come back to them. Suppose that confidence were to be shaken, what
would happen then? Who would lend if one percent of all works of art lent
went missing? Yet loan agreements tend to be imprecisely drafted so that
one might suppose that total confidence in the system was justified: as
if there was no need to anticipate what might happen when museum staff
moved, records were misplaced or lenders grew old or died. Loans can go
wrong and, if they do, what are the responsibilities of the holding museum,
and who maintains the Art Loan Quality System?
The Denney Case
In the Denney case, a long term loan from a private individual was transferred
between museums by deception. It resulted in a nightmare of tangled claim
and counterclaim on inheritance: but why? In order to answer this question
we must closely examine the processes of conveyance whereby title to the
Anthony Denney’s loan collection was made to seem to pass from his estate
to the Museum of Modern Art in Toulouse.
Purpose of this Paper
My purpose is to draw lessons of general relevance from the case that may
make similar events less likely in the future.(1)
|
Summary - Index -
Section 2 
