On 19 September this year, the Domaines [1] auctioned three paintings belonging to a prefecture (see article). Due to lack of time, we were unable to go into more detail about the origin of the works. It was the Prefecture of Hauts-de-Seine, as we could deduce from the photos on the reverse. We had not been able to consult the two catalogues of Félix Ziem and Eugène Isabey to which the notices referred, which we have since done. The catalogues do not say where they are located. For Isabey’s painting (ill. 1), which was exhibited at the Salon of Valenciennes in 1838, Pierre Miquel’s catalogue lists several former collections (ill. 2). For the two works by Ziem, only The Feast of the Assumption in the Basin. Venice (ill. 3), is listed in Anne Burdin-Hellebrandth’s catalogue and its only known history is the sale X - Versailles, 9 December 1962 (no. 77), while the panel Venice. The Reception of the Doge on the Pier (ill. 4) has no bibliography, and no provenance.
-
- 1. Eugène Isabey (1803-1886)
The Galley of the Doge of Venice
Oil on canvas - 84 x 125 cm
Painting of no public interest from the point of view of art, according to the French Ministry of Culture
Photo: Domaines - See the image in its page
-
- 2. Entry from the Isabey catalogue
by Pierre Miquel - See the image in its page
The French State’s lack of interest in provenance when it disposes of works of art, and in particular where they were located between 1933 and 1945, is quite staggering. This information is obviously often impossible to obtain, yet it is what is now required of all sellers when museums buy works, even to the point of blocking certain purchases, as we will soon see in an investigation we are currently conducting. Have they even checked the databases of stolen objects? They haven’t replied to us on this subject, which gives a clue as to whether they are probably neglecting the minimum checks they ask everyone to carry out.
-
- 2. Félix Ziem (1821-1911)
The Feast of the Assumption in the Basin. Venice
Oil on panel - 66.5 x 72 cm
Painting of no public interest from the point of view of art, according to the French Ministry of Culture
Photo: Domaines - See the image in its page
But there’s something even more serious: these three works, which nobody seems to know how they got to the Préfecture, were not part of its "private domain", but of its public domain. The French law is very clear on this point, as stated in article L2112-1 of the "Code général de la propriété des personnes publiques" ("General code of public property"): "property of public interest from the point of view of history, art, archaeology, science or technology forms part of the movable public domain of the public owner. The addition after this sentence of a list of examples ("in particular") changes nothing: works of art kept by a Préfecture are part of its public domain and are therefore inalienable. This means that they must first be declassified from the public domain before they can be sold.
However, as this article demonstrates, a property of interest as described in this article can only be declassified from the public domain when it has lost its public interest from the point of view of the same criteria (article R115-1 of the French Heritage Code). These paintings, which cannot be sold because they are of public interest, cannot be declassified for exactly the same reason.
-
- 3. Félix Ziem (1821-1911)
Venice. The Reception of the Doge on the Pier
Oil on panel - 38 x 60 cm
Painting of no public interest from the point of view of art, according to the French Ministry of Culture
Photo: Domaines - See the image in its page
When questioned, the Domaines told us that:
"As you have noted article L. 212-1 DU CG3P has two distinct parts to define the public domain of movable property...
A part listing the public movable domain, which poses no difficulty. All the assets referred to belong by law to the public domain and are inalienable.
The other part, which is introduced into the text by a "in particular", is less precise and more subjective, being a "conceptual" definition of the public domain based on the historical, cultural or artistic interest of an asset.
To decide whether or not a property falling within this conceptual definition belongs in the public domain, the Ministry of Culture is consulted to give its opinion on the public interest of the property.
In this case, the Ministry considered that the paintings in question were not of public interest within the meaning of the CG3P.
Otherwise, the property would have been considered to belong to the public domain and would therefore be inalienable unless a decision was taken to declassify it".
As for the Préfecture, here is its response, which is more or less the same as that of the Domaines:
"The paintings in question do not fall within the precise cases listed in paragraphs 1 to 11 of article L2112-1 of the CG3P relating to the membership of the movable public domain of public persons.
Only a "public interest from the point of view of history, art, archaeology, science or technology" would justify the inclusion of these paintings in the State’s movable public domain, making them inalienable without prior declassification.
As only the Ministry of Culture is competent to determine whether a work of art is of such "public interest", the Direction Nationale d’Interventions Domaniales [the "Domaines"] referred the matter to the Ministry of Culture for its opinion. On 4/05/23, the Direction Générale des Patrimoines et de l’Architecture of the Ministère de la Culture indicated that the paintings did not present a heritage interest justifying their inclusion in public collections and gave its agreement to their sale".
These explanations are obviously not at all satisfactory. Since when has a painting by Eugène Isabey [2], an important Romantic artist exhibited in many museums including the Louvre, not been of "public interest from the point of view of art"? Since when have two works by Félix Ziem, a landscapist whose paintings can be found in many museums, including the Petit Palais in Paris, and who even has a museum in Martigues dedicated to him and bearing his name, not been of "public interest from the point of view of art"?
The Administration des Domaines is shirking its responsibilities by saying that it asked the Ministry of Culture for its opinion, which was that this was the case, although the Ministry did not confirm this to us.
It would be understandable for the Domaines to question the public interest, from an artistic point of view, of a contemporary work by an unknown artist. Certainly not paintings by Eugène Isabey or Félix Ziem. And this administration was so aware of their interest that it called in a well-known painting expert from Drouot, Frédéric Chanoit! Why ask an art expert for his opinion on something that has no artistic interest whatsoever?
The fact that these paintings all depict Venice clearly shows a clear intention and a common provenance, at least before they arrived at the Préfecture. Or were they purchased by a former prefect? In any case, contrary to what the Domaines, the Préfecture des Hauts-de-Seine and the Ministry of Culture claim, these works are clearly of "public interest from the point of view of art" and are inalienable. If they are inalienable, they cannot be sold. The sale is null and void. The Ministry of Culture has no choice but to ask the Domaines to recover the paintings and hand them over to it so that they can be allocated to museums. Unlike the Grignon furniture case, which is still ongoing, in this instance there was no discovery on the part of the buyers: the works were sold for what they were. They must therefore return them and be reimbursed for their purchase price, which obviously includes costs.
If, as is likely, the Ministry does not act, then an association with an interest in the case will have to take the matter to court. The Sites et Monuments association has informed us of its desire to do so, but lacks the necessary funds. If a patron wishes to support this action or if a lawyer agrees to take it on pro bono, please do not hesitate to contact them (or us, who will pass on the information).