The Enigmas of Exportation

Photo Courtesy of the Getty Museum

The process by which American art museums acquire their pieces from other nations can often be very complicated, and sometimes dramatic. However, with the rampant worldwide looting of cultural objects that is currently taking place, and the subsequently black-market sale of these items, it is not very surprising that foreign export processes are usually extremely intricate. As time consuming and convoluted as they can be, these stringent processes and policies ultimately decrease the illegal exportation of artwork, which also indirectly assists in the prevention of further illicit looting around the world.

The difficulties associated with foreign purchases and exportation can be seen in some of the Getty Museum’s past attempts to purchase art from Great Britain. According to an article in the Arts and Culture section of the Los Angeles Times, the Getty has just recently won a small-scale struggle with the British authorities regarding the purchase of a Rembrandt self-portrait titled “Rembrandt Laughing.” Soon after the Getty announced its purchase of this painting, “British authorities put a freeze on the export license for the work. British law allows for the veto of foreign purchase of artwork if a British institution can at least match the purchase price and the work is deemed of significant cultural value.” This is not the first time that the Getty has been prevented by the British authorities from completing the purchase of an artwork. This also occurred in 2002 with the attempted purchase of Raphael’s “Madonna of the Pinks,” which is now located in London’s National Gallery. The British authorities having the power to veto foreign purchases of art in order to retain items that possess a powerful cultural value demonstrates the extent to which art is esteemed and cherished in our society.

As inconvenient as these situations were for the Getty, they prove how important it is for museums to respect the export policies of other nations. In addition, they emphasize the fact that museums should operate with a high regard and responsibility for the public trust in mind. Ed Vaizy, the British culture minister that placed the freeze on the export license, had done so in the hope that a British buyer would come forward to “rescue” the Rembrandt self-portrait. Vaizy explains, “I hope that my deferral of the export license will allow time for a buyer to … secure this exquisite painting for the nation, where it can be studied and enjoyed by all.” The public trust, and the overall artistic benefit of the country, were clearly major contributing factors in the British authorities’ decision to freeze the export license.

In the book Whose Muse? Art Museums and the Public Trust, edited by James Cuno, the relationship between the museum and the public is explored in depth through a number of essays written by prominent museum leaders. As John Walsh, former director emeritus of the J. Paul Getty Museum, explains in the book’s introduction, “individual works of art can move people deeply, that museums are places where the public can have that experience as a public experience…” (21). It is one of the main responsibilities of museums to house artwork that fosters national pride and encourages discussion and learning among the public. Though a small squabble with the UK resulted from the Getty purchase of this painting, the American public will ultimately greatly benefit from its display at such a renowned art museum. 

Check out these links that helped this entry of Museum Musings!
LA Times (Rembrandt)
LA Times Article
LA Times Article