September 2, 2016

Export bans – is Britain a cultural one way street?

Posted at 1:13 pm in Similar cases

Why do we feel other countries should share their culture, but then place bans on the export of our own

Institutions like the British Museum, along with much of the British Press, regularly denounce as cultural nationalism, claims by countries such as Greece and Egypt that looted artefacts should be returned. These countries are castigated for not sharing and they should be proud of the fact that other countries want their heritage, rather than seeing it as something that they want to retain.

When there is a chance of important British works ending up in foreign collections however, we regularly place export bans on them. While we encourage others to share, we are unwilling to do so ourselves. The situation is even more perverse than it first appears though -while the British items up for export are invariably up for sale in a public auction at the request of the current owner, many of the items that others ask to be returned were seized in times of war, or looted and then smuggled into the country without any permission being given.

Every few years a major export ban crops up in the news. Often, it is not even for a work that was originally British (such as the Picasso in the examples below), but something that we happened to acquire and would like to hang on to. We see something’s existence in Britain as making it a part of our culture, but we decry others for far lesser requests.

Queen Victoria's coronet, currently subject to an export ban

Queen Victoria’s coronet, currently subject to an export ban

From:
BBC News

Export ban placed on Queen Victoria’s wedding coronet
28 August 2016

A temporary export ban has been placed on a sapphire and diamond coronet that belonged to Queen Victoria, preventing it from being sold abroad.

The coronet, designed by Prince Albert for their wedding in 1840, is at risk of being exported unless a UK buyer matches the £5m asking price.

The temporary ban was imposed after the owner applied for an export licence.

Culture minister Matt Hancock, who imposed the ban, said it symbolised one of the UK’s “most famous love stories”.

The 11.5cm (4.5in) wide coronet is mounted with 11 sapphires, which are all set in gold, with diamonds set in silver.

Experts consider it to be one of the most important jewels of Queen Victoria’s reign, matching a sapphire and diamond brooch given to her by Albert the day before their wedding.

Queen’s portrait

Following Albert’s death in 1861, Queen Victoria refused to attend the State Opening of Parliament until 1866, when she wore the coronet.

Both the coronet and brooch also featured in one of the most famous official portraits of the young Queen Victoria, in 1842, by Franz Xaver Winterhalter.

The coronet was given by King George V and Queen Mary to Princess Mary on her marriage to Viscount Lascelles in 1922. It was later sold to a dealer in London, who then sold it to the export licence applicant.

The temporary ban followed a recommendation by the reviewing committee on the export of works of art and objects of cultural interest, which is administered by the Arts Council.

It recommended the restriction on the grounds of the coronet’s “close connection with our history and national life, and its outstanding significance for the study of the young Queen Victoria”.

Committee member Philippa Glanville described the piece as “exquisite”, adding: “It evokes vividly the shared romantic taste of the time, and its form has become familiar through many reproductions.

“Its departure would be a great loss, given its beauty, its associations and its history.”

Mr Hancock said it was “one of the most iconic jewels from a pivotal period in our history”.

“I hope that we are able to keep the coronet in the UK and on display for the public to enjoy for years to come.”

The Department for Culture Media and Sport said a final decision over the export licence will be deferred until 27 December.

From:
Sky News

Ministers Bar Export Of Queen Victoria Crown Made By Prince Albert
Sunday 28 August 2016

The £5m jewel, designed by Prince Albert in 1840, is set to go to an overseas buyer – but not if the Government has its way.

The export of an “iconic” coronet worn by Queen Victoria has been blocked by the Government.

The sapphire and diamond crown was designed for the monarch by Prince Albert in 1840, the year of their wedding.

It has been sold to a buyer who wants to take it out of Britain, but the Government’s temporary ban has put that on hold.

Culture minister Matt Hancock, who imposed the ban, said he hoped a UK buyer would come forward to match the £5m asking price.

He said: “It is one of the most iconic jewels from a pivotal period in our history and symbolises one of our nation’s most famous love stories.

“I hope that we are able to keep the coronet in the UK and on display for the public to enjoy for years to come.”

The coronet is decorated with 11 sapphires set in gold and diamonds set in silver.

It was made in 1842 at a cost of £415, using stones which came from jewellery given to Queen Victoria by her uncle and predecessor William IV.

The jewels matched the sapphire and diamond brooch that Prince Albert gave to Victoria the day before their wedding.

Victoria wore the coronet for the state opening of parliament in 1866, the first time she had attended the ceremony since the death of Albert five years earlier.

The coronet was passed down to George V, who gave it to Princess Mary on her marriage to Viscount Lascelles in 1922.

It was later purchased by a dealer in London, who sold it on to the overseas buyer who has applied for an export licence.

The temporary ban on its export followed a recommendation by the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest.

Committee member Philippa Glanville described the coronet as “exquisite”.

She added: “It evokes vividly the shared romantic taste of the time, and its form has become familiar through many reproductions. Its departure would be a great loss, given its beauty, its associations and its history.”

The decision on the export licence has been deferred until 27 December, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport said.

From:
BBC News

National treasures: What objects has the UK fought to keep in the country?
28 August 2016

A sapphire and diamond coronet given to Queen Victoria by her beloved husband Albert has been placed under a temporary export bar, preventing it from being taken abroad.

What other cultural objects have been dubbed “national treasures” in an effort to keep them in the UK?

Jane Austen’s ring

Every year, a panel of experts advise ministers on whether objects which are more than 50 years old and have been sold to overseas buyers should be “saved” for the nation.

The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest has the power to place bars on such treasures – giving UK-based individuals or institutions time to raise money to keep them.

In 2013, US singer Kelly Clarkson was thwarted in her bid to buy a ring which once belonged to 19th Century novelist Jane Austen.

Clarkson bought the turquoise and gold ring for £152,450 at auction, outbidding the Jane Austen’s House Museum – which is located at the author’s former residence in Hampshire.

Following a temporary export ban, the museum’s “Bring the Ring Home” campaign saw donations from across the world and enough money was raised to buy it.

The ring was accompanied by papers documenting its history within the author’s family.

The ‘extraordinary’ Turner

A successful fundraising appeal was launched by the Tate in 2006 after JMW Turner’s 1842 painting of the Rigi mountain, seen from Lake Lucerne in Switzerland, was sold at auction for £5.8m – a then record price for a British watercolour.

The Blue Rigi, Sunrise was described by then Tate director Sir Nicholas Serota as a “truly extraordinary work of ineffable beauty”.

More than 11,000 donations totalling £550,000 were received from the public in the UK and other nations, including from artists David Hockney and Peter Blake.

The Tate pledged £2m and was also given £500,000 by The Art Fund charity, while the National Heritage Memorial Fund made up the rest of the cost.

The work was kept in the UK and went on display at an exhibition at Tate Britain in 2007.

The Medieval panel on loan

A donation from US gallery owner and philanthropist Ronald S Lauder helped to retain a rare medieval panel by Italian artist Giovanni de Rimini.

Scenes From the Lives of the Virgin and Other Saints, painted around 1300-1305, was in the Duke of Northumberland’s Alnwick Castle collection.

A temporary export bar was put in place after it was sold at auction at Sotheby’s in 2014.

Mr Lauder provided the funds to enable the National Gallery to buy the work for £4.91m. The deal means that the panel will be loaned to Mr Lauder during his lifetime but it will return regularly to the National Gallery during this period.

Most expensive car

The “Birkin” Bentley Blower became the most expensive British car sold at a public auction when it was snapped up by an anonymous bidder at the Goodwood Festival of Speed for £5.1m in 2012.

It was one of seven classic cars and two motorcycles owned by Isle of Man watchmaker Dr George Daniels, who died in October 2011.

The single-seater racing car – a supercharged version of Bentley’s 1927 four-and-a-half litre car – gained its nickname because it was designed by the aristocrat Sir Henry Birkin.

The car was driven by Sir Henry at the Brooklands track in Surrey – the world’s first purpose-built motor circuit.

British Motor Industry Heritage Trust objected to it going abroad, saying it was one of the most important racing cars to have survived from the pre-war era.

But by the end of the temporary bar period, no offer to purchase the racing car had been made and an export licence was finally issued.

The £50m Picasso

Pablo Picasso’s Child With A Dove was one of the earliest works by the artist to enter a British collection when it was bought in 1924.

But no institution was able to raise the funds to buy the painting back from a private collector based in Qatar, who paid a reported £50m for it in 2012.

It was sold by auctioneers Christies on behalf of the Aberconway family in Wales, who were bequeathed the painting in 1947 and loaned it to public galleries.

Child With A Dove was seen as marking a transition from Picasso’s celebrated Blue Period, when he moved away from a broadly Impressionistic style.

The reviewing committee had argued the painting from 1901 had achieved “iconic status” which, with its long history in British collections, made it of outstanding importance to the UK’s national heritage.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Possibly related articles

Tags: , , , , , , ,

7 Comments »

  1. johannahan said,

    09.02.16 at 1:15 pm

    RT @elginism: Blog post: Export bans – is Britain a cultural one way street?
    https://t.co/lsutQwd8M8

  2. Artantiq said,

    09.02.16 at 1:23 pm

    RT @elginism: Blog post: Export bans – is Britain a cultural one way street?
    https://t.co/lsutQwd8M8

  3. emrolsen said,

    09.02.16 at 2:39 pm

    RT @elginism: Blog post: Export bans – is Britain a cultural one way street?
    https://t.co/lsutQwd8M8

  4. ChrysoPratsides said,

    09.02.16 at 5:22 pm

    RT @elginism: Blog post: Export bans – is Britain a cultural one way street?
    https://t.co/lsutQwd8M8

  5. ChrysoPratsides said,

    09.02.16 at 5:27 pm

    @elginism
    Britain’s hypocrisy at its best!
    Arrogant, opinionated & self important the #BritishMuseum

  6. Louise said,

    09.10.16 at 12:14 pm

    Certainly not every object made in britaian has to remain in britain. but if people care enough to raise the money to keep it here – as in the case of the jane austen ring for instance – i see no objection. In the case of the car for instance nobody offered to buy it so the ban was lifted. as far as i am aware there is nothing to stop other countries placing similar bans on objects leaving their countries. whether they have done so i don’t know, but that’s up to them.

  7. Matthew said,

    10.06.16 at 8:21 am

    There is nothing at all to stop a country placing such bans – on the other hand though, if they object when other countries assert ownership of their cultural property, then perhaps they should be applying a more consistent approach to all cases?

RSS feed for comments on this post

Leave a Comment

We want to hear your views. Be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive. Remember this is for feedback and constructive discussion!
Comments may be edited or removed if they do not meet these guidelines. Repeat offenders will be blocked from posting further comments. Any comment deemed libellous by Elginism's editors will be removed.
The commenting system uses some automatic spam detection and occasionally comments do not appear instantly - please do not repost comments if they do not show up straight away