Isabelle Imbert

Tag: auction

  • Islamic Week Spring 2022: A Broken Balance? (blog)

    Islamic Week Spring 2022: A Broken Balance? (blog)

    This spring, London Islamic Week will be focused on four auctions: Bonhams opens on the 29th March with a catalogue of 248 lots; the 30th March, Sotheby’s presents a catalogue of 169 lots; Christie’s on the 31st March offers 209 lots; Rosebery’s closes the week on the 1st April with a large catalogue of 456 lots including 104 antiquities. To learn more about Rosebery’s auction, you can listen to the ART Informant podcast episode with Alice Bailey, Head of the Islamic and Indian Arts department.

    Chiswick will hold their Spring auction later in April, while Dreawatts Islamic department is on hold since the expert left.

    I hesitated a while to write this short article, as I was unsure how to approach it. However, it seems interesting to take a look at the current status of London art market and try to make sense of it.

    “Rustam kicking away the boulder pushed by Bahman”, Shah Tahmasp’s Shahnama, fol. 451 (detail). Christie’s, 31.03.22, £2,5,000,000-4,000,000

    The highlight of the show is indubitably the page from Shah Tahmap’s Shahnama, offered by Christie’s for £2,5 to 4 millions. The valuation is justified given the fact that the last page from the same manuscript sold in public auction went for more than £8 millions.1 This copy of the Shahnama, the book of kings, was started for Shah Isma’il, first king of the Safavid dynasty in Persia (1501-1722), and was finished by his successor Shah Tahmasp. The paintings are the apotheosis of Persian painting for their refinement, iconography, technique… In short, seeing one of the manuscript’s pages is always an event, and I am particularly excited for it. Not many will be able to bid on the lot and I would not be surprised if it ended in Qatar or the U.A.E. Beside the beauty of the page, we can also applaud the neatly documented provenance.

    For the specialists and aficionados of Persian carpet – which I am not, so I’ll keep this brief – Christie’s is offering a so-called Polonaise carpet for £1 million, which should also do quite well, as carpets seem to be of stable value.

    Battle of Pollilur (detail), Sotheby’s 30.03.22, lot 70, £500,000-800,000

    These are the only two items over the million. Sotheby’s biggest lot is a massive painting from early 19th century India, depicting the battle of Pollilur, which opposed Mysore armies led by Haidar Ali and the British troops of the East India Company. The whole composition is 978.5 by 219 cm and was most likely intended as an advanced preparative study for a mural. Offered at £500,000 to 800,000, the sale constitutes a peak for later Indian painting other than Company School2, and is definitely on trend with the current interest of buyers for 17th to 19th century Indian painting.

    The huge gap between Christie’s and Sotheby’s create an imbalance echoed in the entire catalogue. The important size reduction of auction catalogues, almost automatically triggers an increase of prices, but some in Sotheby’s catalogue are very difficult to justify. A 13th century silver-inlaid qalamdan is offered for £200,000-300,000. The state of preservation is nice, and some silver incrustations have been restored, but the box isn’t signed nor dedicated, while the shape or decor are not particularly rare, so I fail to understand the valuation rationale. More debatable is the so-called Abbasid rock-crystal bowl, valued at £100,000-150,000. In a nutshell, I do not think this piece is Abbasid given the fact that all comparison pieces are either older or unjustifiably attributed to the Abbasid dynasty. The shape and decor of the bowl are a lot closer to late Sassanian dynasty productions than 9th century Basra, which leave me to question the valuation even further, given the fact that Sassanian pieces rarely sell well.
    Some other prices are simply bananas (this is the technical terminology). How is a 16th century Safavid Qur’an with 19th century additions and lacquer binding given at £50,000-80,000? Same question with a non dated and unsigned 19th century Qajar copy of Sa’adi’s Kulliyat valued at £30,000-50,000. In comparison, Christie’s presents a similar but slightly bigger copy of the same text, with signed and dated illuminations and calligraphy, but valued at £5,000-7,000.

    I am extremely curious to see if this artificial price inflation will convince buyers, or if they will give more attention to the less expensive but still quite interesting pieces that Sotheby’s is offering, such as a rare miniature Qur’an from Sultanate India (pre-Mughal), complete but in the wrong order, valued £10,000-15,000; the Indian Qur’an on green paper dated 1311/1893-4, valued £20,000-30,000, or the Abbasid dish with Kufic inscriptions, offered £20,000-30,000 but with no published provenance.

    Safavid tile, Bonhams 29.30.22, lot 75, £2,000-3,000

    While late Indian paintings are getting some well deserved attention at Sotheby’s, Bonhams seems to be swimming against the current by focusing more than usual on Persian art, especially Medieval ceramics. Their top three lots are from Iran, starting with a silver-inlaid 13th century candlestick offered at £150,000-200,000. The second lot raises the same questions of dating and attribution as Sotheby’s so-called Abbasid rock crystal bowl discussed earlier. The beautiful bronze horse and rider valued £100,000-150,000 is given “early Islamic, Persia 7th/8th centuries”, which could be a possibility, apart from the fact that all comparisons given are either Sassanian, pre-Islamic, or Seljuk, 13th century. This doesn’t take from the inherent aesthetic quality of the piece, but Bonhams also has an annoying tendency to leave out provenance from their catalogue, which is risky with this type of already problematic pieces. The market will decide.

    Bronze horse and rider, Bonhams, 29.03.22 lot 18, £120,000-150,000

    That being said, it wouldn’t be a Bonhams auction without late Indian art, especially Sikh, that plays in a very specific demographic and have been doing well in previous sales. A particularly interesting lot is the album of 60 paintings depicting Sikh rulers, monuments and people, most likely produced in Lahore in the 1840’s. The patron of this volume is not known (probably a British official given the English annotations on some pages), but its preservation state is quite rare and valuable.
    The main item of this section is a lovely emerald and diamond-set gold pendant from the collection of Maharani Jindan Kaur (1817-63), wife of Maharajah Ranjit Singh (1780-1839), valued £60,000-80,000. Here lies the strength of Bonhams, its capacity to source exciting pieces with clear historical background and clear provenance.

    An imperial Mughal spinel, Rosebery’s 01.04.22, lot 126 – £60,000-80.000

    For the same estimate, Rosebery’s is offering an imperial Mughal spinel, inscribed with the title of Shah Jahan and dated 1[0]39AH (1629-30AD), as well as other prestigious Indian jewellery from the late 18th and 19th century. Here as well, Indian painting is in the spotlight, as well as Chinese Qur’an with a selection of 14 ajzaʼ from different manuscripts. Alice Bailey, head of department, will speak about her auction better than I can, so go check the latest ART Informant episode!

    After two years of pandemic, I am very excited for this Spring Islamic week, and look forward seeing all the incredible selections. If you’re in London between the 28th and the 30th March, get in touch and come say hi!

    A large annotated drawing showing the currents of energy in a horse, Rajasthan, 19th c. Bonhams 29.03.22, lot 235, £2,000-3,000
    1. Sotheby’s 31st May 2011.
    2. For reminder, the Great Indian Fruit Bat from the Impey Album sold last year at Sotheby’s for £644,200 incl. premium.
  • Auction Catalogues and Reattribution: a Difficult Exercise

    Auction Catalogues and Reattribution: a Difficult Exercise

    All Islamic Art Historians working on large set of material data will tell you the same, spending hours going through auction catalogues to find the forgotten gem is part of the job. Writing my doctoral dissertation of Indian and Persian flower paintings produced between the 16th and the 18th centuries, I dissected countless of catalogues from the 60’s to recent days, hoping to find the long-lost twin of Mansur’s Tulip (which I didn’t). What I found, however, was a lot of questionable attributions, dating, and deeply cut corners.

    This is not the case for all auction catalogues and some houses take very seriously their responsibility to publish accurate analysis of Islamic artefacts, especially for the most prestigious auction lots, but it is common practice to put objects in artificial categories and call it a day. These categories are usually based on one distinctive feature, whether it is a chronological marker such as a ruling dynasty (i.e. Safavid Iran), a city or production centre, loosely attached to chronological range (i.e. Iznik or Kashan), or more rarely another artefact (i.e. The St Petersburg Muraqqa’). Integral part of the catalogue entries, these categories provide an immediate reference to the seasoned reader, but they also constitute a selling argument.

    Some productions are indeed more valued than others, depending on market trends. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to produce an expertise for a client who was interested in acquiring an archaeological artefact that raised the difficulty of re-attribution.

    Abbasid, Early Islamic, Sasanian: Close Call…

    The objects was an elliptical dish on low foot, flared belly and flattened rim, carved in a single piece of rock crystal. The outside body was cut in a symmetrical composition based on two repeating patterns of a palmette of three main double leaves and two smalls at the base, flanked by long looping stamen and a centric pattern repeating on the long sides. The centre of the dish was marked by a double line forming a medallion. The rim was cross-hatched apart from both ends, highlighted by a symmetrical pattern based on repeating lines.

    The object had been sold previously as Abbasid (750-1258). Based on the pictures I first received, it was my immediate opinion that the piece was not Abbasid, as its shape and ornementation had no equivalent in known objects and architectural decoration from this period. The other clue was the proximity of this piece with two others kept in the Louvre, discovered in the archaeological settlements of Susa.

    Left: SB 3795 (9.1×6.6×1.3cm) ; Right: SB 3792 (8,1×4.2×7.2cm) – Louvre, Département des Antiquités Orientales

    Archaeological excavations of Susa, spanning from 1851 till 1979 and led by several teams of mostly French nationality, had focused first and foremost on Ancient and Imperial periods up to the Achaemenid dynasty, destroying upper layers in the process. For this reason, the line between late Sasanian and Early Islamic settlements is today blurry and it is virtually impossible to date precisely artefacts that do not bear any distinctive features (such as Arabic inscriptions).

    Stucco relief fragment, Ctesiphon, Iraq, Sasanian, 6th c. MET (32.150.10)

    Individual patterns and the overall shape of the piece led me to suspect the piece had nothing to do with Abbasid productions, even in Susa, but could be linked to late Sasanian productions. For instance, the three-leaves palmettes that occupy each sides of the dish, find numerous equivalences in Sassanian repertoire. Palmettes are extremely common in late Antiquity and in Islamic arts, but the structure of these patterns is specific enough to be used as a point of comparison: three leaves doubled in their centre, two additional leaves at the base in the shape of a crude heart, flanked by symmetrical loops. It appears in stucco decoration found in Ctesiphon, the Sasanian capital, as well as Susa in the late Sasanian/ Early Islamic layers.

    The same way, the elliptical shape of the dish is a commonplace of late Sasanian art.1 Either elliptical or boat-shaped, with or without a foot, these dishes are associate to wine-drinking and can be ornamented lavishly.

    Walters Art Museum, Baltimore (57.625)

    Though archaeological layers haven’t been preserved, Sasanian occupation of Susa is well documented in primary sources2, revealing that the city was conquered in the 3rd century and rebuilt into a vibrant economic trade centre with Mesopotamia and Fārs. The artefacts found on site, including the two Louvre dishes, suggest that rich merchants were installed in the city. It then declined under the last Sasanian rulers but continued to inhabited under the Umayyad and Abbasid, before being progressively abandoned.

    …Or Easy Way Out?

    Attributions to particular productions and chronological eras tend to be passed down from dealer to dealer, as if the first publication was the unalterable authority. Because the object had been published in a previous auction catalogue as Abbasid, the attribution was acted, and going against it without any new archaeological evidence would be a challenge. Intellectual honesty aside, reattributing the piece to what I think is its correct production context, or at least questioning the status quo, have a significant impact of the valuation.

    Glass fragmentary beaker, attributed to Samarra, 9-10 c. Christie’s 11/04/2000, lot 288

    Sasanian and post-Sasanian3 are rare on the market and do not easily find buyer, apart from silver wine-boats with exceptional decoration. The productions are not particularly well studied and raise questions of dating and authenticity. In comparison, glass or rock-crystal objects identified as Abbasid have a lot more chances to reach high prices, sometimes despite questionable attributions. In consequence, it is a safer bet for auction houses and art dealers to put an object as Abbasid. The dynasty lasted more than 500 years and covered a massive territory, so even if doubts remain, attributions do not raise too many eyebrows.

    In truth, attributions to Sasanian, post-Sasanian, Omayyad or Abbasid remain speculative. Certainty is rare in early Islamic arts history, but rethinking the importance of attributing unmarked object and opening the door to doubt would constitute a healthier alternative to catalogues too prescriptive. These might leave interested buyers or potential sellers disappointed, should new information arrise that would render the original attribution obsolete.
    Whether it was the doubt caused my analysis or the price given by the dealer that changed the buyer’s mind regarding the acquisition, I will not know, but finding the right words to question established historiography was certainly a challenge!

    1. A. S. Melikian-Chirvani, “From the Royal Boat to the Beggar’s bowl”, Islamic Art IV, New York, 1992.
    2. See G. Gropp, “Susa v. The Sasanian Period”, Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition, 2005 and associated bibliography.
    3. The term “Post-Sasanian” is attributed to artefacts that cannot be attributed to either Sasanian or early Islamic productions with absolute certainty. It usually encompasses objects linked to Zoroastrianism but found is Islamic occupation layers on archaeological sites, or to objects that more vaguely look Sasanian but cause sufficient doubts.
  • After the Storm, Another Storm?

    After the Storm, Another Storm?

    The effect of the Pandemic on the London Islamic week of Spring 2021

    The year 2020 has been challenging for the world and everybody on the planet has felt the impact on the pandemic. Not being out of the woods yet, the beginning of this year seems more hopeful with the promise of a vaccine in most countries, but we’ll more likely see long-term effects of this crisis, starting with the London Islamic week of Spring 2021.

    For the Islamic arts market, and the art market in general, 2020 has forced a rapid shift, proving the capability of auction houses to adapt, but not without consequences.

    All prices below include premium.

    Bayazid Bastami and Khizravayh b. Shaykh Ahmad, Iran, c. 1570. Christie’s 01.04.21, lot 17, £4-6.000

    A rapid shift to avoid the worst

    From a purely financial perspective, the worst was avoided. For pre-modern Islamic and Indian arts, Sotheby’s took the biggest hit, achieving overall £10,526,614, a 31.6% decrease compared to last year. Christie’s maintained its base revenue with £21,927,125, a 0.41% decrease from 2019, but excluding the exceptional sale (as in “one time event”) of the al-Thani collection, held in New York in July 2019 and that made $109,031,875.
    Bonhams sustained a 32% growth by maintaining its 4 annual sales, two live and two online, while Chiswick auctions registered a 5.75% decrease while adding additional online auctions.

    In France, Millon et Associés also endured the pandemic with a 37.2% decrease in revenue, also due to the fact that 2019 was an exceptionally good year for this house that managed to sell a page of the Padshanama.

    Ram, Qajar Irna, 19th c. Bonhams 30.03.21 lot 35, £1.5-2000

    Sotheby’s heavy decline can be attributed to two things. First, a disappointing spring auction where most of the star items didn’t sell, such as the blue and black Kashan ewer from the Edward Binney III collection. Overall the sale made £3.6 millions, Sotheby’s London lower result since October 2017. Secondly, the sale of artefacts from the L.A. Mayer Museum in Jerusalem, aborted due to the controversy surrounding deaccessionning, was a blow for the house that was already behind his main competitor.

    Travel restrictions, forced closure of non-essential businesses and the overall insecurity about the immediate future could have turned most buyers away, but the move to online auctions, already initiated in the previous years, allowed a smooth transition. Online catalogues, online bidding and 360° exhibition tours are already a tool for major houses, but the pandemic has accelerated the process. We can expect to see printed catalogues disappear completely in the next few years, Christie’s having already announced its plan to decrease by half the number of catalogues sent around the world.1

    Zodiac bassin, Iran 13th c. Sotheby’s lot 79, £ 1-1.5M

    A Cloudy Present: London Islamic week of Spring 2021

    The biggest London auction houses, Christie’s, Sotheby’s and Bonhams have just published their catalogue and their content seem to reflect both the effects of the pandemic and the increasing challenges of the Islamic arts market. Firstly, the catalogues are a lot smaller than usual: 141 lots for Bonhams presented on the 30th March, 183 lots including 45 carpets for Sotheby’s on the 31st March and 157 lots including 57 carpets at Christie’s on the 1st April. In comparison, Christie’s had 205 lots in 2020 and 302 in 2019. The pandemic has made it more difficult for experts to travel and source objects, but more generally, it is getting harder to source never sold before items.

    That being said, both Christie’s and Sotheby’s have managed to source unpublished star lots. The 13th century Khorassan basin with silver-inlaid astrological figures is nothing less but extraordinary. The silver decoration is mostly intact, which is rare given the fragility of silver incrustations, while the size (50 cm diameter) and the quality of the figurative decor make the high valuation, £1.000.000-1.500.000, completely justified. For the first time since 2010, Christie’s most expensive lot is a 19th century Qajar painting2, known to have been part of the collection of late artist Frederic Clay Bartlett (1873-1953). The massive group portrait, valued £1.000.000-1.500.000, is described in extensive details by Dr Layla S Diba, great scholar of Qajar Iran. The painting is presented as a “rediscovery”, but it was never lost, it was part of the permanent and exposed collections of Bonnet House Museum and Gardens. About its sale, Patrick Shavloske, CEO, commented:

    But the time has come for the Qajar painting to move to a new home that is better positioned to give the artwork the care and honour it so richly deserves. Proceeds from the Qajar painting sale will be used by the museum to conserve its paintings by Frederic Clay Bartlett and Evelyn Fortune Bartlett as well as the historic Bonnet House itself, also an artful creation of the Bartletts.3

    Unidentified Qajar prince, Christie’s 1st April 21, lot 31

    Museums deaccessionning part of their collections to compensate the lost of revenues caused by the pandemic have sparked a large debate, and though the sale of L.A. Mayer Museum at Sotheby’s ultimately failed, this auction is not getting the same traction, most likely because it is limited to one artefact.

    Both Sotheby’s and Christie’s have managed to source interesting manuscripts. Christie’s is presenting a Qur’an with a colophon bearing the name of the famous 13th century calligrapher Yaqut al-Musta’simi, valued £300.000-500.000. The manuscript was illuminated in 17th century Safavid Iran, but the writing looks genuine to a non-specialist of Ilkhanid calligraphy such as myself. We can regret the fact that Christie’s didn’t get the opinion, nor even quote Dr Nourane Ben Azzouna, specialist of Yaqut al-Musta’simi, to confirm if the manuscript is genuine.4 A genuine manuscript signed by one of the greatest masters of calligraphy is an event that would have required further investigations.

    A surprising view in Christie’s catalogue is the page wrongly attributed to the St Petersburg Muraqqa’, sold at Sotheby’s in 2018 for £25.000 and discussed on this blog. This time, the page is valued at £7.000-10.000, a huge drop from the initial sale price.

    Sotheby’s is presenting a very interesting Qur’an dated 920/ 1514, signed by the calligrapher and dedicated to the Chief of Justice of Jerusalem and Nablus, only 2 years before the conquest of Jerusalem by the Ottoman armies. The arts of the book from the extreme end of the Mamluk dynasty have not been studied in much details yet, so this complete manuscript constitutes an interesting testimony of the period.

    Some lots, however, clearly reflect the difficulties that both Sotheby’s and Christie’s had constituting exciting catalogues. For instance, Christie’s presents a “page from the Nasir al-din Shah album“ valued £3.000-5.000. Though this page might be attached to an album produced for the sovereign of the Qajar dynasty, Nasir al-Din around 1888, the page is not from the Nasir al-din Shah album, very famous muraqqa’ initially gathered in Mughal India and passed to Iran after Delhi sac by the army of the Afshar king Nasir al-din Shah in 1747. Words matter, though I do not think buyers will be duped.
    Same goes with a Mamluk Qur’an page on pink paper offered by Sotheby’s for £6.000-8.000. The page is dated in the catalogue circa 728/ 1327 on the basis of a different page sold in 2008, also undated but previously published by the art dealer Philip C Duschnes as originating from a Qur’an written by Ahmad b. ‘Abdullah b. al-Mansur Hashemi al-‘Abbasi, completed 7 Sha’ban 728. This convoluted datation is problematic, especially given that I am not completely convinced the page from 2008 comes from the same manuscript as the two pages from 2011 and 2021. My doubts are based on the different quality level of the kufic script in the headers and some details in the thuluth script. Beside the fact that the colophon remains unpublished to this day, the datation of the page can be questioned on the basis of the illumination style, closer to the productions from the second half of the 14th century than the late 1320’s.4

    On the left, the page sold in 2008; On the right, Sotheby’s 31.03.21 lot 5.

    Sotheby’s, Christie’s and Bonhams catalogues contain a majority of later artefacts, mainly 18th and 19th centuries, which reflect the difficulties the houses have encountered sourcing Medieval and Pre-Modern objects. This might be why some attributions to the Safavid era seem a bit far-fetched.
    For £100.000-150.000, Christie’s is offering an album page showing the rest on the flight into Egypt, given to the famous Safavid painting Muhammad Zaman and dated 1076/ 1665-66. I have several problems with this page beside the commonplace of the inscription, ya saheb al-Zaman, often linked to the painter without much afterthoughts, so here come the bullet points:

    • Though Biblical themes and copies from European prints have been a constant in Muhammad Zaman career, the style of this particular painting doesn’t fit the painter’s, it lacks the roundness of his forms and the volumes created with strong shades.
    • The painting is on vellum, which is a highly singular for Muhammad Zaman and Safavid painters in general (though they have experienced with various media).
    • The painting is signed but unfinished, which is unprecedented in Muhammad Zaman catalogue
    • The date 1076/1665-66 seems to be too early in the artist’s career. Though Muhammad Zaman biography is still open to debate, the core of his work is dated from the 1670s to 1690s, with a seemingly confirmed date of death in 1700.
    Christie’s 1.04.21 lot 20, attributed to Muhammad Zaman, £100-150.000

    Despite a smaller catalogue, Bonham’s has managed to remain coherent with their usual focus on later Indian art, particularly Punjabi and Sikh. Their star lot is a 19th century portrait of Raja Lal Singh by the Austrian painter Augustus Theodor Schoefft, valued £150.000-250.000. Among the most prestigious artefacts feature a gorgeous Chand-Tikka from the collection of Maharani Jindan Kaur (1817-63) valued £90.000-120.000 and a large manuscript of Janamsakhi from late 18th century Punjab, given for £25.000-35.000.

    The main object of curiosity in Bonham’s catalogue is an oil on canvas full-length portrait of an “African soldier“, given to Safavid Iran circa 1680-90, valued £100.000-150.000. The notice has been written by Dr Eleanor Sims, scholar of Safavid painting and who has published on a series of 21 full-length portraits on canvas she dates from the 1680s.6 I have personally never been convinced these 21 paintings were produced in the 17th century under Safavid rulers, I think they were made later, maybe during the 18th century during the reigns of Zand or Afshar dynasties. This is an unpopular opinion and no doubt some will disagree, but given what we know about painting production, artistic fashion and stylistic evolution of Pre-Modern Persian painting (16th-19th c. roughly), there is no good explanation for this production of full scale oil paintings, coming from nowhere and disappearing as it came before becoming highly popular under the Qajar dynasty in the 19th century.

    “African soldier” Bonhams 30.03.21 lot 28, £100-150.000

    Regarding the “African soldier”, I am obviously not convinced neither. Despite the accurate depiction of weapons described by Dr Sims, I do not believe this man to be a soldier, as the garb does not fit the representation of actual Safavid soldiers, and I do not believe he is from the 17th century as evoked above.

    Dr Sims worked with Christie’s in 2019 to attribute the paintings of a 15th century manuscript to the famous painter Behzad, in a demonstration that convinced no one since the manuscript remained unsold. Given this track record and the questions surrounding this portrait, it will be particularly interesting to see what price it will achieve.

    This Islamic week definitely carries the weight of the pandemic, and though the three catalogues also contain some interesting items, we can wonder if the pressure for spectacular lots haven’t forced the experts to cut some corners. Travel restrictions in 2020 haven’t particularly blocked buyers, but the quality of the catalogues might.

    Shah Abbas seated on a terrace, signed Mehdi al-Imami, Iran, 20th c. Bonhams 30.03.21, lot 16, £2.000-3.000
    Shah Abbas seated on a terrace, signed Mehdi al-Imami, Iran, 20th c. Bonhams 30.03.21, lot 16, £2-3.000
    1. “Le bilan 2020 du marché de l’art”, L’objet d’Art, 575 (Feb 2021), p. 76.
    2. Last time was the Portrait of a Nobleman signed Isma’il Jalayir, estimated £500.000-800.000 and sold £601.250. Christie’s 13.04.2010, lot 150.
    3. “A rediscovered Qajar painting from Bonnet House Museum Gardens leads Christie’s auction”, artdaily
    4. She has published many times on the topic of attributions to this calligrapher. See her latest book, Aux origines du classissisme. Calligraphes et bibliophiles au temps des dynasties mongoles (Brill, 2018), pp. 48-132 in particular.
    5. Thank you to Dr Adeline Laclau for her expertise on this page.
    6. Eleanor Sims, “Five Seventeenth-Century Persian Oil Paintings”, Persian and Mughal Art, London: 1976, pp. 223-32; “The “Exotic” Image: Oil-Painting in Iran in the Later 17th and the Early 18th Centuries”, in The Phenomenon of ‘Foreign’ in Oriental Art, Wiesbaden: 2006, pp. 135-40; “Six Seventeenth-century Oil Paintings from Safavid Persia”, in God is Beautiful and Loves Beauty: The Object in Islamic Art and Culture, New Haven: 2013, pp. 343, 346-47.
  • The Future of the Islamic Art Market could be Now

    The Future of the Islamic Art Market could be Now

    Click here to jump to the latest update (22nd Nov.)

    The challenges the world faces this year are of unprecedented magnitude, and with them, the fragile equilibrium of world economy has been thrown off balance completely. For museum and galleries, the blow is particularly hard, as most intitutions were already struggling keeping their doors open and their ceilling from leaking.

    Kashan turquoise-glazed pottery figurine of a camel and rider, 13thc. L.A. Mayer Museum auction, Sotheby’s

    To Deaccession or Not To

    In countries were main museums are public institutions, the gradual decrease of governement fundings have forced museums to look for funds elsewhere. In 2018-2019, the British Museum received £13.1 million grant-in-aid, the lowest since 2015, and particularly significant when put next to the year total expanditure, £96.2 million. This translated, among others, by an acquisition budget going from £1.1 million to £0.8.million. Last year, British Museum public revenues was £39.4 million, also the lowest since 2015, but we can expect 2020 to be particularly disastruous.1

    For galleries and private museums, the pandemic and inevitable economical crash that is predicted for 2021 are even more worrying, and it will take some time to recover from the loss of public revenues. Around the world, cultural institutions and associations are forced to look inside for solutions. In April, the American Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) passed a series of resolutions to relax the rules of deaccessinioning restricted funds:

    The resolutions state that AAMD will refrain from censuring or sanctioning any museum—or censuring, suspending or expelling any museum director—that decides to use restricted endowment funds, trusts, or donations for general operating expenses. The resolution also addresses how a museum might use the proceeds from deaccessioned art to pay for expenses associated with the direct care of collections.2

    Could the MET sell this Qur’an folio, Iran 12th c. (1996.238.2)

    This means that between April 2020 and April 2022, American museums can sell parts of their collections to replace lost income and finance their operations.
    In the UK, the powerful Royal Academy of Arts (RA) has been letting a similar idea float, though the debate has been particularly focused on the Taddei Tondo, a marble sculpture of Michelangelo, already threatened of sale in the late 70’s.3 No decision has been made yet regarding the tondo future, and it is unlikely that the piece will end up in an auction, but the financial crisis of cultural institutions, especially the smaller ones, might force hands.

    Selling or exchanging pieces of collections to fund new acquisitions is not a new practice, American museums have been doing it for years in a controlled setting4, but the new guideline from the AAMD extends the justification for selling art pieces towards operational means.

    The L.A. Mayer Museum auction presented by Sotheby’s

    What it means for Islamic Arts

    So far, Islamic arts had not been publicly impacted by deaccessioning, though the practice is common behind closed doors and emphasised by controversial sales such as the Timurid Qur’an on Chinese paper witht a more than opaque provenance, sold in June 2020.
    However, in a market working in a quickly closing loop and given the current context, it was only a matter of time before parts of an Islamic arts collection be presented in a historical auction.
    The time should have been on the 27th October 2020 and the auction at Sotheby’s of 190 lots from the collections of the L.A. Mayer Museum of Islamic Arts in Jerusalem. The aim of the auction has been clearly stated by the museum director Nadim Sheiban:

    We were afraid we could lose the museum and be forced to close the doors. […] If we didn’t act now, we would have to shut down in five to seven years. We decided to act and not wait for the collapse of the museum.5

    The star of the auction: an Aq-qoyunlu silver-inlaid helmet, 15th c.,  £400.000-600.000

    The catalogue included lots from all over Islamic lands but none from Israel and Palestine, as the legislation regarding native artefacts leaving the country is particularly strict. The auction, planning to reach around £6 million, would have given financial security to the L.A. Mayer Museum for the years to come, but would also constitute a definite slippery slope for private museums of Islamic arts around the world.

    In an unexpected turn of events, the auction was postponed last minute on Monday night. While Sotheby’s website states that the delay is only until November, there is no guarantee the sale will ever occur, as criticisms came from the Israeli government officials and the public. The Hermann de Stern Foundation, that owns the L.A. Mayer Museum collection, still seems keen on moving forward with the sale but might struggle reaching an agreement:

    The foundation’s management hopes that the postponement will make it possible to reach agreements that will also be acceptable to the Culture Ministry in the coming weeks.6

    What now?

    If the sale does go ahead, it will set a new precedent for the market of Islamic arts, as it will open the door for other museums to sell parts of their collections, either to acquire new items or just to keep the light on.

    We can also question the motives for selling Islamic artefacts. The conflict between Israel and Palestine and the tensions in the Holy City between Jewish and Muslims come to mind in the case of the L.A. Mayer Museum auction and make the intervention of the pan-Israeli governement more surprising, but Islamic arts are political and ideological tools in more than one region. The Indian governement of Kovind and Modi might use this opportunity to accentuate their efforts to rewrite (not to say errase) India’s Muslim history, but even in Europe where far-right anti-Mulims parties are gaining more influence every day, progressiveley emptying Islamic arts collections could be a way to deny a shared past.


    This bleak picture highlights the fact that selling Islamic arts bears a lot of weight, and publicly deaccessionning collections is not anodyne. Auction arts should use caution when selling museum pieces, but in this less than certain economical context, caution might already be gone in the wind. It will be interesting to see if the L.A. Mayer Museum auction goes ahead in November, and what the near future holds for Islamic arts.

    Update: Auction delayed again

    On Wednesday 19th December, the High Court of Justice has suspended the sale for two additional weeks, time for the L.A. Museum, Sotheby’s and the Culture Ministry to negotiate over holding a more limited auction with less high profile items, though these remain to be defined.7

    A painting that could become controversial? Wedding of Dara Shokuh, Awadh, c. 1740, National Museum, New Dehli (58.58/38)
    1. British Museum governance.
    2. AAMD Board of Trustees Approves Resolution to Provide Additional Financial Flexibility to Art Museums During Pandemic Crisis 15 April 2020.
    3. Royal Academy of Arts considers selling Michelangelo marble to plug financial hole—and not for the first time 25 Sept 2020.
    4. The Permanent Collection May Not Be So Permanent, The New York Times, 26 Jan 2011. The Indiana Museum of Art lists all the deaccessioned pieces since the 1930’s.
    5. Jerusalem’s Islamic art museum says it has to auction off part of its collection, The Times of Israel, 24 Sept 2020.
    6. Auction for Jerusalem museum’s treasures postponed at last minute, The Guardian, 26 Oct. 2020.
    7. High Court Delays Controversial Sale of Rare Islamic Artifacts by Israeli Museum, Haaretz, 19th Nov. 2020.