Cultural heritage and cultural access rights: Leonardo da Vinci and trials concerning authenticity, prizing, international loan and export of his works after 2010

Abstract

The legal battle between a Russian oligarch Dymirty Ryborovlev and a Swiss free port owner Yves Bouvier turned public attention to the practices of art market and the scope of its transparency. The case of Jeanne Marchig v. Christie’s showed how fragile is the process of professional art authentication. Example of alleged and unexpected finding of a portrait of Isabella d’Este pointed to the existence of shady areas of trade in works of art in private circulation, which makes the whole art market even less transparent. Finally, the “Vitruvian Man” case was raising the question of accessibility of old art belonging to the public collections.

These four court cases presented in this article – all involving artworks created by Leonardo da Vinci or attributed to him – show the entire spectrum of legal problems related to works of art made by old masters, which are of particular importance to private owners, states, regions and the cultural heritage of mankind. The outlined examples illustrate the extent to which the artworks can be objects of market speculation when they turn into the target of human’s desire being perceived as an ordinary commodity – a thing one “must have” or “must see”.

The first two cases exemplify problems of private possession of works of art which are possibly of greater cultural value. The works’ circulation outside any public scrutiny makes the final verification of their authenticity impossible. Unequivocal decisions in this regard may be contrary to the interests of investors managing finances entrusted to them. As a consequence, there are no effective tools to protect the interests of collectors who have lost money as a result of market speculation. Dymitry Ryborovlev, who did not receive legal icompensation for the suffered losses, learned it the hard way; the role of Jeanne Marchig in the history of Leonardo’s alleged drawing remains ambiguous to this day.

Two last cases focused on the relations between the state and the individual with respect to cultural property. The cases illustrate whether or not cultural property should be excluded from the market as res extra commecium, and whether their private possession can be compatible with public interest, especially with collective rights of access. On the other hand, as the example of “Vitruvian Man” shows, public ownership is not a universal solution to all questions relating to the preservation of exceptional artworks.

All of mentioned cases seem to confirm the lack of transparency of the contemporary art market and the insufficient coverage of works of art of particular historical and artistic value by legal regulations.