

The Yves Saint Laurent sale

Caveat venditor

The fallout continues

See article

Readers' comments




"An auction of personal effects of Mahatma Gandhi has gone ahead, despite protests from India and the seller's last-minute attempt to halt it."

Interesting that this came up at the same time as the Chinese Bronze heads.

I don't hear the Indian government saying stuff like "The United States is hurting the feeling and cultural rights of the Indian population."

politics watcher

Rules should be followed, but only to the extent that they are fair and just. It used to be the rule--indeed the law--in many (if not all) states of the US that a black person could not marry a white person. Should such a rule be respected and followed? In today's China, the written and unwritten rule is still that no PRC-based media outlets would be allowed to publicly discuss what happened in 1989 and what punishment should be given to those government officials responsible for the state violence. That rule may still be enforced within China, but we all know (at least those of us who are eternally optimistic) that this will also pass and the rule will eventually be thrown into the dustbin of history, where it rightly belongs.

The same can also be said for the current rules and international law on the ownership and transfer of art/cultural objects that were plundered from their countries/cultures of origin. Yes, Mr. Cai broke the rule in refusing to pay what he said he would pay, but then what about the looting of such objects by British and French soldiers in the first place? What rule did they follow in doing those infamous little things worthy only of thieves and scoundrels? That might is right? If we are decent enough to acknowledge that such plunders were morally wrong (regardless of what the contemporary rules of military engagement, if any, might have said--it's indisputably illegal in our time, thank goodness), would such "original sin" be simply cleansed away from those looted objects once the powers of the day decided that such and such (including a statute of limitations) should be the rule on those objects? A rule that was basically made by those countries that were most actively involved in robbing other countries of their cultural heritage is fundamentally flawed, to say the least.


Of course people care about the bronzes - otherwise we wouldn't be writing about them. Until the laws are changed, we have to play by the rules. Buying these bronzes as a 'gift' for China certainly elevates that London-based Chinese businessman to a higher position than Cai - who has only cheated his way to notoriety.


It seems that the Chinese fenqing have descended on the Economist with their usual tactics of derailing debate in the name of a nationalistic agenda.

History is littered with tales of occupying forces looting artworks and treasures and they are, quite rightly, episodes that should be remembered and discussed. But rather than viewed in the historical context in which they belong, China whips its people into an anti-western frenzy and seems incapable of adopting rational arguments.

The first responder was right; Beijing conveniently overlooks the cultural destruction still going on in its own backyard. I've been to Tibet - unlike the majority of Chinese - and the tragedy unfolding there makes the sacking of the Summer Palace seem like a kids teaparty.

But back to the point. It's entirely possible that Cai is just Beijing's fall guy in this story, allowing them to maintain deniability while they get what they want. And what they want is the issue, not the bronzes.


By continuing to bid without the intention to pay, Cai joins the dubious sensationlist's club. his bidding inflated the price of these objects beyond reason and he succeeded in sabotaging other genuine bidders who would have bought these items at a much lower level and placed the objects in China.

there is sufficient ground to argue that China should be a home for these objects. however, China's argument is greatly weakened by its own shameless record of destroying other peoples heritages. Just ask the Tibetans.




"Now The Economist has discovered that a London-based Chinese businessman who bid up to €12m ($15.1m) on both pieces was attempting to buy one of them as a gift for China. With Mr Cai’s pirate move, however, the controversy has escalated and the bronzes have become too hot to touch. "

Paying for the looted bronzes amounts to paying for ransom. When you pay once, the bandit will ask more next time. The act
of Mr Cai has sucessful stoped that from happening. Believe me,
nobody really cares about the bronzes, people just fed up with
higher and higher ransom.

politics watcher

If Mr. Cai showed little respect to the rules of auction as well as the legal framework that legitimizes the ownership of the bronzes, it is nothing in comparison with the flagrant disregard of any rule or law about lawful ownership that was shown by those who took the heads by force from the Summer Palace. What Mr. Cai did was a show of contempt at a set of rules not quite respectable to begin with; what those invading soldiers did in Beijing in 1900 was crimes punishable by death.

But what about collectors of such stained assets such as YSL? Should they be denied their lawful ownership despite their payment of good money? That is a fair question and must be adequately answered if the issues surrounding looted objects can be satisfactorily resolved. Since the original looting was usually a state act (even if the lootings were voluntary actions by the soldiers--they would not have been in a position to plunder if their government had not sent them there and/or if their commanders had not failed to restrain them from the pillage--such restraint not likely for the French army that sustained its military actions largely by plundering the occupied territories in Europe in the early 1800s), I would propose that the French government (and maybe also the British government), in the case of the bronze animal heads, be required to compensate the current holder at his original cost and return the two heads to China, free of charge. The French government, it should also be pointed out, presumably has benefited financially from YSL/ Berg�'s possession of these two heads since such personal property is apparently subject to taxes in France.

And it is not an honorable thing for a country (be that France, Britain or the US, among others) to allow looted objects to be held or exhibited on its land, no matter what the current international "rule"/"law" may say on this subject.

politics watcher

When I wrote 1900, I meant 1860, when the looting AND burning of the Summer Palace took place. The Summer Palace was burnt again by the invading Eight-Power Allied Forces.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The crisis in Venezuela: Another day, more bodies
Americas view March 13th, 16:49
A tribute to Robert Ashley: A perfect life
Prospero March 13th, 16:22
Commodities and the economy: Copper bottomed
Buttonwood's notebook March 13th, 15:58
Germany's Hoeness trial: Uli goes to jail
Charlemagne March 13th, 14:18
El Salvador's election: An extraordinary result
Americas view March 13th, 14:13


Products & events