China 'patriot' sabotages auction

[Sumonious]

News from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7918128.stm

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A Chinese man who won a high profile auction for two bronze artworks claimed by China says he will not pay for them.
The sculptures, which sold for 15m euros ($19m; £13m) each in Paris last week, were originally looted from Beijing in 1860.
Cai Mingchao, who has identified himself as the bidder, is an adviser to China's National Treasures Fund, which seeks to retrieve looted treasures.
He said his decision to bid for the bronzes had been a "patriotic" act.
"What I want to stress is that this money cannot be paid," Mr Cai told a news conference.
"I believe that any Chinese person would stand up at this time... I am making an effort to fulfil my own responsibilities," he said in a statement released by the fund.
"But I must stress that this money should not be paid," he said.
'Keep them'
The two bronzes, in the shape of the heads of a rabbit and a rat, were auctioned by Christie's in Paris last week as part of the estate of the late French fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent and his partner.
They were originally taken by British and French troops from the imperial Summer Palace in October 1860, towards the end of the Second Opium War.
China had tried to stop the sale, and later threatened the business of Christie's in China for having gone ahead.
But Christie's said the sale was legal, a position backed by a French court.
The auction house said it was aware of the reports.
"As a matter of policy, we do not comment on the identity of our consignors or buyers, nor do we comment or speculate on the next steps that we might take in this instance," it said in a statement.
The statues were still in Paris, French news agency AFP said. According to Christie's conditions of sale, buyers have seven days to pay for their purchases.
Yves Saint Laurent's partner, Pierre Berge, said that he would keep the items if Mr Cai did not pay up.
"I'll keep them at my place," he told French radio. "We will continue to live together in my home."
Correspondents say the sale has further soured relations between China and France, following a meeting between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled Buddhist leader.

It's not possible for the 'patriot' to run away with those artworks,right ? I have no knowledge about art auction. But in common sense, I believe that they properly have some protection against this situation.

I wonder how complex the situation will be if those artifacts somehow 'leak out' and back to China .

[danzig]

He wont be able to lay a hand on them til he kicks up the money, auction houses dont kick up the items til payment is made.

[Exarch]

this is interesting because it lays out the controversy over whether or not artpieces looted from war should go back to their ountry of origin.

the man wil still pay for it, he's simply saying he shouldnt have to since they are technically stolen goods.

it'd be like the EU invading washington and hauling back the washington monument as an artpiece back to paris.

[Kiljan Arslan]

should Italy have to give up what Venice looted 805 years ago from Byzatnium? Should it also have to give up the obelisks Rome looted from Egypt?

[Chukada1]

It's just a dumb statue.

I'm more concerned with the French government meeting with that son of a whore the Dalai Lama.

[Exarch]

should Italy have to give up what Venice looted 805 years ago from Byzatnium? Should it also have to give up the obelisks Rome looted from Egypt?

byzntium doesnt exist anymore

a more appropriate case would be the british museum returning egyptian artefacts and mummies, i mean a helluva lot more ppl woul object if a few archaelogists nstarted digging up the graves of english kings

[jankren]

should Italy have to give up what Venice looted 805 years ago from Byzatnium? Should it also have to give up the obelisks Rome looted from Egypt?

yeah of course. Its common sense.

[Kiljan Arslan]

yes however it sucessor states exist. Personally I think all states should allow some of their hisorical artifacts oversees just in case the hits the fan and a idiotic cultural revolution happens or some fundie takes power and decides to destroy things "objectionable"

[Exarch]

yes however it sucessor states exist. Personally I think all states should allow some of their hisorical artifacts oversees just in case the hits the fan and a idiotic cultural revolution happens or some fundie takes power and decides to destroy things "objectionable"

the cultural revolution was actually more Mao's way of keeping a teneble grip on power rather than handing it over to the more level headed successors; did you know Zhou Enlai, China's premier stationed troops outside the forbidden city to stop the Red Guard from wrecking the place.

i recommend the book 'wild swans'
the writer (who was a red guard) gives some good insight into the period, especially the bit where a coupla hefty young men stood outside their family home to stop any Red Guards from vandalising the place

[Sumonious]

I think technically China can not prove that those artifact were being stolen nor looted. They should also show evidence that those Chinese Zodiac Statue Collection was originally from China Palace too. Nationalism is being exploited in China.

[Exarch]

I think technically China can not prove that those artifact were being stolen nor looted. They should also show evidence that those Chinese Zodiac Statue Collection was originally from China Palace too. Nationalism is being exploited in China.

they were looted from the summer palace

They were originally taken by British and French troops from the imperial Summer Palace in October 1860, towards the end of the Second Opium War.

anywayz
this does nothing for chinese-french relations

it's almost amusing seeing the french act this way with the EU behind them
if it was just themselves....

but i digress

if the sucessor of the nazi regime in germany kept all the art treasures it looted from the rest of europe, that would garner such an international reaction, the results would be obvious.

however, becasue it's china, it must be treated differently for some reason or other

[Captain Arrrgh!]

yes however it sucessor states exist. Personally I think all states should allow some of their hisorical artifacts oversees just in case the hits the fan and a idiotic cultural revolution happens or some fundie takes power and decides to destroy things "objectionable"

Killy, Oi left me oonderpants in yer bedroom last month, an' Oi wants 'em back. They be a cooltural heritage, as Oi 'aven't washed dem in six years, an' tha poo stain woont come oot!

Kiljan's right, though. This yen for pissing and moaning about stronger nations looting weaker ones is getting tiring. Also, China is (as usual) hypocritical in that not only did they loot priceless Tibetan artifacts, they out and out destroyed many as well.

[Sumonious]

Kiljan's right, though. This yen for pissing and moaning about stronger nations looting weaker ones is getting tiring. Also, China is (as usual) hypocritical in that not only did they loot priceless Tibetan artifacts, they out and out destroyed many as well.

I support your argument. Should Vietnamese demand payment for the damage caused by Chinese during the 1979 war ? Should Vietnamese demand an apologize for more than 1000 years of enslaving ?

[Chukada1]

I support your argument. Should Vietnamese demand payment for the damage caused by Chinese during the 1979 war ? Should Vietnamese demand an apologize for more than 1000 years of enslaving ?

There is a difference between collatoral damage and looting. The former is to be avoided, and the latter is illegal.

[Sumonious]

There is a difference between collatoral damage and looting. The former is to be avoided, and the latter is illegal.

It's no collateral damage at all. They destroyed the infrastructure systematically, not to mention civilian massacre.

How the hell that looting during war is illegal while civilian killing, demolishing of basic infrastructure is 'collateral damage' ? Btw who made that stupid law that states 'looting during war is illegal' anyway? He should also add 'shooting ppl without being shot first' is illegal during war as well.

[Mithie]

I think technically China can not prove that those artifact were being stolen nor looted. They should also show evidence that those Chinese Zodiac Statue Collection was originally from China Palace too. Nationalism is being exploited in China.

Yes - China can. Yuan Ming Yuan, like all of Qing era royal constructions, have painstakingly detailed lists and blueprints during and after its construction stored in the national archives.

You can also visit there today in Beijing and see the etched out spaces where the statues go.

Anyway - this is no different than the Greeks clamoring for pieces of their Parthenon back from the British museum.

[Exarch]

it should be noted that it is not uncommon to see some wealthy chinese going to such bidding houses and buying back such items and donating it to musems in China and/or taiwan

[Sumonious]

But they do not have exactly evidence than it had been looted, right ? I mean what if it has been sold by Chinese ppl at those time ? Does it still make the owning those statue illegal ? No one knew exactly how it ends up in France.

[Mithie]

But they do not have exactly evidence than it had been looted, right ? I mean what if it has been sold by Chinese ppl at those time ? Does it still make the owning those statue illegal ? No one knew exactly how it ends up in France.

Yes - there is plenty of evidence. The French looted the place and BURNED IT TO THE GROUND. Now, while it's entirely possible the French bought the artifacts fair and square at a yard sale and then took a left turn on the way home to France to BURN THE PLACE DOWN, I think the possibility of that is significantly muted.

I suggest you do a little bit of reading.

[Sumonious]

Yes - there is plenty of evidence. The French looted the place and BURNED IT TO THE GROUND. Now, while it's entirely possible the French bought the artifacts fair and square at a yard sale and then took a left turn on the way home to France to BURN THE PLACE DOWN, I think the possibility of that is significantly muted.

I suggest you do a little bit of reading.

I understand that the French looted it. I just try to defend the Christie's auction house because I hate the way Chinese government criticize others. Does the Christie's auction house know about history of their goods ? Of course, they do. But why should they take responsibility of history ? If Chinese government was fine with purchasing those art by auction, why don't they continue to do it and leave history behind. They may even suggest the new owner of those art gives it back to China or gain it through diplomacy. Why does the Chinese government have to be over-reacting ?