The New York Times article entitled “Legal Tussle Over Statue Turns Nasty” discusses a controversial legal battle regarding an ancient Cambodian statue. In March of 2011 a Cambodian sand statue depicting the god Duryodhana was intended to go up for auction at Sotheby’s New York. Before the auction took place, it was withdrawn from bidding because the statue was purportedly stolen from Cambodia. The Cambodian government claimed to be the rightful owners of this masterwork while Sotheby’s asserted that there was no evidence that this object was stolen. Since then, the American government has been working on behalf of the Cambodian government to regain control of this important piece of Cambodian history. The Duryodhana is from the 10th century and has been valued at more then three million dollars, elevating the stakes of this case to substantial heights.
For Sotheby, one of the world’s premier auction houses, this case has left an indelible mark on their reputation. Being sued for possibly selling a stolen item leaves art enthusiasts fearful that one day they could buy an object from Sotheby’s and be caught in a tangle of legal fights for their ownership. Further complicating the case is a woman named Ms. Levine, a former prosecutor for the United States Attorneys Office and now the director of the worldwide legal compliance department of Sotheby’s. She is being accused of misleading government officials about the history of the piece. The problem was thought to be solved when of Istvan Zelnik, a Hungarian art collector, stated that he would buy the statue for one million dollars and then donate the piece back to Cambodia. However, the American government wanted to be the heroes of this case after all their hard work and thus refused his offer. This seeming arrogance of the American Government questions their motivation of becoming involved with this case.
To me, this article raises the question of ownership of ancient art. Who has the right to claim ownership over an ancient item? Does the current Cambodian government own it just because it belonged to previous monarchs and rulers of that land? What do you think?
Mashberg, Tom. “Legal Tussle Over Statue Turns Nasty.” The New York Times. 13 Sept. 2013. 23 Sept. 2013.
This article brings up a lot of interesting issues. I found the shady situation regarding who actually owns an ancient item to be most intriguing. I think there should be international guidelines or rules that all countries should agree upon. However in this case, I believe the Cambodian government should have the rights to own the statue because the origins of the statue are from there. The statue must have been stolen or illegally acquired somehow by the United States because of its value (a whooping 3 million dollars). However, since the statue was not originally from the United States, I believe the right thing to do was accept Istvan Zelnik offer to buy the statue and then donate it back to Cambodia. It was foolish and selfish of the United States government to reject this offer because of pride.
Art is hard to track, the way it trades hands and moves about with little to no written record. Since the 10th century, this piece must have moved about to hundreds of different owners, thus blurring the lines of ownership. I do not believe that the Cambodian government has a strong claim for the statue, and I do not believe that accepting Istvan Zelnik’s offer would have been the right thing. Why do two governments need a middle man? Although the traces of ownership are shrouded in mystery for this piece, I believe that this piece should be thoroughly researched before making a final decision.
I agree with Christine in that there should be international rules concerning ownership of art. Maybe soon there will be rules and guidelines for ownership of art in foreign countries. It’s such a shame that this case involved a highly known auction house, since it will definitely damage the reputation, even if it becomes known that the statue wasn’t stolen. One legal issue can ruin something entirely. I think it was a silly move on America’s part to reject Zelnik’s offer because then the situation would have been handled and dealt with, but America just had to decline. I feel like the statue was stolen and is rightfully Cambodia’s. I personally don’t think there would be a reason for Cambodia to lie and claim that a statue of theirs was stolen if it really wasn’t.
Hungarians to the rescue! Just kidding, but seriously, art theft is a major problem, and it always has been. The fact that the statue has not been given back to Cambodia yet, despite its value to Cambodia’s history, and the fact that the American government wouldn’t allow Istvan Zelnik to buy the statue and donate it to Cambodia simply because they want to be the ones resolving the problem to me is absurd. They really need to get their act together, and honestly, I think that right now the government has bigger things to worry about than stealing the spot of hero from someone willing to resolve the problem with a simple solution.
The article just reminds me of similar situation in some Chinese cultural relics. Basically, many valuable art works were stolen or robbed during the two opium wars in 1800s and now those relics were in all kinds of auction in France and other European countries who were involved in the war. Who own the ancient items,current Chinese government or those individuals or countries who took them away from ancient Chinese, Cambodian government or Sotheby’s? I think the issue is really hard to extricate. There are commercial drives, national interests and concerns for the art itself behind the cases but what we should do first is to protect the ancient items and then comes negotiation.
I agree with Shixu. The primary concern for any government should be to protect the artwork and make sure that it is safe. Artwork shouldn’t be valued for the money and power that may result. Artwork should be valued for the aesthetics, the emotions it may conjure, and the history it provides.
The Cambodian government should be the rightful owners since the artwork is part of their history and hold special meaning that other people that are not Cambodian would not understand. I also believe that the United States was selfish and unthoughtful to not accept the offer by the Hungarian art collector. This problem may be resolved if it wasn’t for America’s greed to do everything by itself and everything its way whether it is correct and efficient or not. However, America may have been afraid that the Hungarian art collector was scamming it. No offense to Alex, but there are as many bad people in the world as there are good people.
why has the nyt arts section had so many articles on art theft in the past three four weeks? Has there been some art convention where all the thieves got together and decided to leak information about the whereabouts about precious sculptors and paintings? I belief art is always for sale and the owner is the person with the deepest pocket. I don’t know why America needs to be the savior and wouldn’t consent to this exchange though. Are we that righteous in this country?
Did the Cambodian government give any proof that the statue was stolen? If they are only saying that the statue belongs to them because it is Cambodian then that is not a legitimate reason. After all, my dad’s toyota doesn’t belong to Japan’s government… Aside from that though, I don’t see how Istven Zelnik was a possible savior in this situation. He offered the auction house one million for a piece worth three million. Not to mention taking the deal would have been seen as an admission of guilt on the part of the auction house. I think the government was right to reject his offer.
This definitely reminded me of what Shixu said. There are many cases in the world where countries have been attacked and looted for many things, one in particular, ancient artifacts and pieces of art. There should definitely be a strict set of international rules to prevent these conflicts from happening. I also agree with Alex. This problem is taking too long to resolve. Like what my professor says in philosophy, the best way to resolve conflicts is to have people from different parties sit and talk about what rules to make and follow.
After reading your blog post, I feel so lost on who can claim the right of ownership to the Cambodian statue. It’s a very difficult question. I really don’t know the answer. I feel like the Cambodian government should own the ancient item because it belonged to previous rulers of the land but then again that was before, the new Cambodian government have no connection to the statue. It’s a very interesting debate. I don’t think anyone can give a straight out answer to the question.
I liked the point you made about the American government wanting to be the heroes of this case after all their hard work. Mr. Zelnik pretty much tried to give everyone the easy way out and make the situation win-win, but the prosecutors in this case had to go and make it difficult, and I’m sure many people were frustrated, which makes me wonder if this is only a particular instance of something that seems like it’s becoming a universal truth: that the U.S. always butts into the business of other countries. On another hand, maybe they just want justice and a bit of redemption. I’m pretty sure that during the Vietnam War, Cambodia was bombed by the U.S. by President Nixon’s order, so maybe there’s a little bit of guilt there.
On the subject of the art, perhaps the U.S. should back away from justice this one time. The statue is part of Cambodia’s art history and the people need to be able to access pieces of their own history. Why allow the piece to fall into the hands of cultural appropriators? Why keep the people from viewing a piece of their history and culture for the sake of justice?