Abstract
In 2021 the Pandora Papers were released by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, revealing a global network of secret financial dealings by wealthy individuals and world leaders who took advantage of shell companies, off shore accounts, and tax havens. Although the data leak was shocking, the Pandora Papers sent waves through the museum world, revealing a darker side to art dealers, wealth, and museums.The art and museum world has latched on to one major player; Douglas A.J. Latchford (1931-2020). Latchford was the pre-eminent collector and dealer of Cambodian antiquities. Prior to the Pandora Papers Latchford was under investigation for forging documents and dealing in looted art/artifacts. With the release of the Pandora Papers museums have had to take the brunt of the criticism surrounding the data regarding Latchford’s shell companies and off shore accounts. Museum responses have been lukewarm but are important and will set precedence for museum ethics, art dealers, collectors, and what happens when dealers/donors of objects lose their reputation. The response to the Pandora Papers from museums is an opportunity to restructure relationships between the market and the public museum. The International Council of Museums (ICOM) has guidelines regarding provenance and monetary donations, but there lacks clear procedure on a situation such as Latchford and the Pandora Papers. I focus my response on three museums; the Met, the Cleveland Museum of Art, and the Denver Art Museum and exam current policy and scholarship regarding tainted monetary donations and provenance guidelines, relying on ICOM codes.
Presenters
Katie PrinkeyStudent, MA Museum Studies, George Washington University, District of Columbia, United States
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
KEYWORDS
Ethics, Art dealers, Looted Antiquities, Pandora Papers, Collections, ICOM, Provenance
