The Trade in Looted Antiquities Endures for One Reason: Demand
news.artnet.comI was working in a company when the boss/owner asked me to translate a lengthy Excel sheet from Arabic into English, it was a long list of antique furniture; a nightmare and I already had my plate full and was earlier denied my bonus. The minute I read a weird special Arabic word (Altaq) that not many people know, it indicates the armchair/sofa or anything, was a single piece, I suspected something scary. I ventured an emailed the CEO saying that the suitable translator that could handle the translation complexities was asking for $500. It was a gamble and it worked. I later found out that his son had opened an art & antique furniture showroom in a mall. My suspicion was and still is, it was looted from my country during this civil war. With all my support and love for whistleblower, I can not be one, or a good one as proving my doubts is beyond my means. And my family and I are also victims of antique furniture looting and here is one item from 1919 https://imgur.com/a/QDYysC1
I remember reading a book about an FBI investigator who specialized in recovering stolen art and it mostly turned out to be low-rent sad hucksters. The chase is always more interesting than the stories of who took them.
I think this is merely a function of the sexiest art thefts being the least lucrative. The market for looted antiques is big because it’s typically extremely difficult to prove that a particular piece was obtained illegally.
In the end isn't this just the long tail of signaling wealth?
Having what others don't. Not only they don't have, but they can't have it, and faking it won't cut it.
Like a lot of luxury brands, fine dining, even traveling are catering to a virtue signaling middle class on social media.
Apparently the ultra wealthy are now going to the stratosphere, having weird meetings, building bunkers, and playing politics.
I think the message I've often heard is that looted objects are so obviously looted and subject to confiscation that there's now little demand for them. I took this article as a pushback against that idea. (Others are joking at the circularity of the title, but I think it's directly countering two assertions often made: that there's little actual trade in looted antiquities and art, and there's little trade because there's little demand, because the objects are obviously illegal and would have to be hidden, which defeats the purpose of having them.)
Whether there's been a change over time in this (signaling is now "I'm so wealthy and powerful I can own this without fear of reprisal or loss") or the message has always been incorrect, I'm not knowledgeable enough to say.
I've heard circular reasoning before, but not one right in the title!
Schools should really teach the Law of Supply and Demand so adults don't need to belatedly discover it.
I also agree that you don’t need to know market participant’s motivations if you only cater to the existence of market participants
focus on own your part of the stack without worrying about the other parts
If demand dries up, move on
Also, you could replace "looted antiquities" with any number of illicit things: ivory and other parts of endangered animals, drugs, organs etc. etc.
Wait, are you saying there's still a market for antiquities because there's a market for antiquities?!