A signed letter seems an inadequate
initiator for the movement or release of a collection worth millions of
pounds. Some better evidence is required to show that a request originates
from the owner, such as a notarised document.
The status of a loan collection compares unfavourably with that of a museum’s
own collection.
The latter would be defended at all times and in all places against attack
using the full resources available to the museum.
The former ceases to be defended by the museum the moment that it is handed
over to another party.
Loan collections are therefore especially vulnerable to attack by third
parties, especially when the owner, either through incapacity or death,
is unable to maintain a close relationship with the borrowing museum.
A mechanism has been shown to exist for extracting a collection and then
laundering its provenance so that it appears to be a gift to another museum.
The mechanism depends for success on the involvement of two or more parties
who stand to gain by depriving the heirs of the deceased lender of their
inheritance, one of these parties providing a cover of institutional respectability
for the deception and the resources to subsequently protect what has been
acquired. ·
If a loan collection hijack succeeds, but is discovered, the mechanisms
available for interim conservation are weak if the laws of several countries
are involved.
Preserving the connection between the collection and the lender’s estate
until title to the estate is definitively established is difficult and
the measures that might be available within national boundaries are liable
to be rendered ineffective because of the number of legal systems that
may be involved.
Because of their vulnerability, I believe that
loan collections deserve a far higher degree of protection than they currently
have.
Without better protection there could be a loss of confidence by lenders
which would be damaging to all borrowers.
Recovery is only therefore likely in the case of collections where the
cost benefit justifies it, rendering collections of lesser value particularly
vulnerable.
Technically the loan items cannot be registered as stolen, so they do not
readily qualify for the art loss register.
An international loans register, with all movements of loans recorded
and in the public domain would reduce the risk of loans being appropriated
in the first place.
Lending to a public institution should confer some protective status
on the loan within the context of an international museums system.
In other words, by being registered on a properly constituted register
the loan would be defended against appropriation by any third party. It
would be protected until such time as the owner de-registered it in a properly
controlled manner. Then even if a picture was moved from one museum to
another it would still be within the same framework and the same degree
of protection.
The best protection for loan collections is openness. Lending to
a public institution puts the loan into the public domain, therefore information
about the loan should also be put into the public domain.
For example, today’s Internet technology makes a distributed database
accessible from anywhere in the world both feasible and not unduly costly.
This might discourage some lenders, who would lose their anonymity: but
if it had been widely known on the Internet where Anthony Denney’s pictures
were, they would still be in Dallas and none of this trouble would have
arisen!
It cannot be assumed that Denney is a one-off event. Such is human
nature and the pressure on museums to acquire collections, that it is possible
that Denney may encourage others to try similar schemes. This must not
be allowed to happen. Two rules ought to be observed by museums acquiring
collections:
Proof of ownership should be established conclusively
before any donation is accepted.
Museums should never take sides in a dispute over inheritance.
Section 11 - Index - Section
13 
