Saturday, April 9, 2016

Panama Papers expose art world's offshore secrets

                    

Panama Papers: Dmitry Rybolovlev used offshore company to hide art from wife, leaked documents reveal

Russian billionaire transferred ownership of paintings by Picasso, Van Gogh and Monet to firm based in British Virgin Islands
by Cristina Ruiz  |  4 April 2016
Panama Papers: Dmitry Rybolovlev used offshore company to hide art from wife, leaked documents reveal
Dmitry Rybolovlev. Photo: AP Photo/Lionel Cironneau)
The Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev used a company registered in the British Virgin Islands to hide art from his former wife Elena during their divorce proceedings. The same company helped Rybolovlev move paintings by Picasso, Van Gogh and Rothko, among others, out of Switzerland to London to keep them out of Elena’s grasp.

The revelation comes from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) which has spent the past year examining over 11 million documents leaked from Mossack Fonseca, a Panama-based law firm specialising in wealth management and the creation of offshore shell companies. The leaked data covers nearly 40 years up to 2015 and provides an unprecedented look at the offshore banking industry and how money is moved secretly, and sometimes illegally, around the world.

The ICIJ has worked with the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and 100 other news organisations to analyse the data in what amounts to the biggest media collaboration ever undertaken.

The offshore holdings of 12 current and former world leaders including the prime ministers of Iceland and Pakistan, the king of Saudi Arabia and the children of the president of Azerbaijan have been exposed. World leaders who have embraced anti-corruption platforms such as the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and the family of Chinese president Xi Jinping also feature in the leaked documents, writes the ICIJ.

Mossack Fonseca “has serviced enough Middle East royalty to fill a palace,” the ICIJ reports. The Panamanian firm also “has details on at least 33 people and companies blacklisted by the US, including Mexican drug lords and terrorist organizations…Its fingers are in Africa’s diamond trade, the international art market and other businesses that thrive on secrecy.”

The art connection

In December 2008 Elena Rybolovleva filed for divorce from her husband Dmitry, who is now embroiled in a separate legal battle with his former art advisor Yves Bouvier. The Rybolovlevs were based in Switzerland and under Swiss law each spouse was entitled to an equal part of the couple’s wealth.

But tracking down Dmitry Rybolovlev’s assets was not easy. Mossack Fonseca had helped the businessman transfer ownership of many of his art assets to a company they set up for him in the British Virgin Islands, Xitrans Finance Ltd. This off-shore firm owned paintings by Picasso, Modigliani, Van Gogh, Monet, Degas and Rothko and “also bought Louis XVI-style desks, tables and drawers made by some of Paris’s grandest furniture makers,” the ICIJ writes.

“As the marriage broke down, according to notes from a court hearing sent via email to Mossack Fonseca in January 2009, [Rybolovlev] used Xitrans Finance Ltd to move these luxury items out of Switzerland to Singapore and London, beyond [his wife’s] reach.”

Update, 6 April: In a statement, the Rybolovlev family's lawyer said the "description and references to the divorce proceedings of Mr Dmitriy Rybolovlev are misleading", since it "fails to state that the ex-spouses Rybolovlev amicably settled their matrimonial dispute and announced in a joint statement dated 20th October 2015". He added that Rybolovlev "has never used any offshore entity to conceal any assets". Xitrans Finance was established in 2002, six years before the divorce proceedings began, and that its use "as a holding entity to constitute a remarkable art collection has been publicly disclosed in numerous publications worldwide and is perfectly legitimate,” the lawyer said.



                    0 Comments





Museums

Panama Papers expose art world's offshore secrets

Leaked documents reveal owners of "looted" Modigliani, how a UK billionaire guaranteed a milestone auction and links to the Chinese elite
by Cristina Ruiz  |  8 April 2016
Panama Papers expose art world's offshore secrets
The Victor and Sally Ganz auction at Christie's © STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) has turned its attention to the art world in its ongoing examination of documents leaked from Mossack Fonseca, a Panama-based law firm specialising in wealth management.

The ICIJ has revealed that a painting by Modigliani that is being claimed by the grandson of Oscar Stettiner, a Jewish gallery owner whose art was seized by the Nazis, is owned by a company controlled by the Nahmad family of art dealers, who have previously denied that the work was in their possession.
Modigliani 's Seated Man with a Cane (1918)
Modigliani 's Seated Man with a Cane (1918)
The canvas in question, Seated Man with a Cane (1918), was bought by the Nahmads at auction in 1996, reports the ICIJ. They paid just over £2m for the painting at Christie’s London in June of that year. In November 2008, the Nahmads tried to sell the work at Sotheby’s New York with an estimate of $18m to $25m, but there were no bids on the canvas.

In 2011, Philippe Maestracci, Oscar Stettiner’s grandson, sued the Nahmads in US federal court for the return of the Modigliani; the suit was withdrawn after the Nahmads said that the painting was owned by a company called the International Art Center and not by them.

Three years later, in February 2014, the administrator of the Stettiner estate sued the Nahmads again, arguing that the International Art Center is a Panamanian shell company, which is an “alter ego of David Nahmad and other Nahmad family members”, according to the court papers. “The Nahmads have insisted in federal and state court in New York that the family does not possess the Modigliani,” the ICIJ reports.

But the leaked Mossack Fonseca documents show that “the Nahmad family has controlled the Panama-based company International Art Center (IAC) for more than 20 years… David Nahmad, the family leader, has been the company’s sole owner since January 2014”, the ICIJ reports. Mossack Fonseca first set up the IAC for the Nahmads in 1995.

When the ICIJ confronted David Nahmad’s lawyer, Richard Golub, with documentation showing that the Nahmads own the International Art Center, Golub said: “Whoever owns IAC is irrelevant. The main thing is: what are the issues in the [ongoing] case, and can the plaintiff prove them?”

The Ganz auction

The ICIJ has also shed new light on an auction of Modern art at Christie’s New York in November 1997. The sale of work collected by Victor and Sally Ganz included pieces by Picasso, Jasper Johns, Robert Rauschenberg and many others. It made a then record $206.5m and “proved a milestone in the transformation of art into a global commodity”, the ICIJ writes.

The Mossack Fonseca papers show that many of the key works in the Ganz collection were sold six months before the Christie’s auction to a company called Simsbury International Corp. This was set up in Niue, an island in the South Pacific, and administered by Mossack Fonseca. The works were sold to Simsbury for $168m from Spink & Son, the London auction house then owned by Christie’s, according to the ICIJ.

The man who controlled Simsbury was the British billionaire Joseph Lewis, who was then the richest man in England and the largest shareholder at Christie’s. The terms of the deal stipulated that the Simsbury-owned works would still be offered for sale as part of the Ganz collection at Christie’s: if they made more than Simsbury had paid for them, Lewis and Spink & Son would share the difference, the ICIJ reports.

The Ganz family and Lewis declined to speak to the ICIJ about the revelations.

Agents to the art world

The offshore dealings of other major art collectors are also detailed by the ICIJ. Mossack Fonseca’s records mention “enough art to fill a small museum”, they report.

Chen Dongsheng, the founder and chairman of China Guardian, the world’s third biggest art auction house after Sotheby’s and Christie’s, and grandson-in-law of Mao Zedong, is one of many rich Chinese businessmen and political leaders who have moved assets offshore. He is the sole director and shareholder of Keen Best International Limited, a company set up by Mossack Fonseca in the British Virgin Islands in 2011.



YSL’s Mondrian Dress Achieves $27,000 at Auction


YSL’s Mondrian Dress Headlines Leslie Hindman’s April Couture Auction

YSL’s Mondrian Dress Headlines Leslie Hindman’s April Couture Auction
(l-r) Mondrian dress by Yves Saint Laurent, "Delphos" gown by Mariano Fortuny, and a newsprint shift dress by Scott
(Courtesy Leslie Hindman Auctioneers)
A series of dresses created by Yves Saint Laurent, inspired by a Piet Mondrian painting he bought, is among the designer’s most iconic creations. On April 7, one of these pieces will headline the Luxury Accessories and Couture auction at Leslie Hindman Auctioneers in Chicago.
Estimated to fetch between $4,000 ­and $6,000, the shift dress — originally a sleeveless number — comes from the collection of an important client, who had asked the designer to customize it by adding sleeves, making the example, comprising black and white lines, as well as red and yellow accents, all the more unique.
 
Another piece of historic couture at the sale is a 1920s Mariano Fortuny apricot "Delphos" gown. Named after a Greek classical sculpture, the simple column gown remains prized for its design of vertical pleats that were permanently set in silk by a process that has never, even until now, been successfully duplicated. One example was one of only two garments acquired for the collection of the Museum of Modern Art in 2003; another sold for a world record auction price of $10,000 in December 2001 at Doyle New York. This one, from Estate of Mary Taussig Hall of St. Louis, Missouri, carries a pre-sale estimate of $1,000 to $2,000.
Another piece of historic interest is a black-and-white newspaper dress circa 1967. Oddly enough, it was borne of the age of the space race, when paper companies such as Scott made paper garments for a population that believed it would soon be living on the moon, without the ability to do laundry. Dresses like these were sold at grocery stores, presumably conveniently located near some toilet paper. This example, sporting headlines from the Chicago Sun-Times, has a pre-sale estimate of $100-$200.
Elsewhere in the 510-lot sale are pieces by other important designers such as Balenciaga, Christian Dior, Oscar de la Renta, Andre Courreges, Bill Blass, and Carolina Herrera.
Notable accessories in the sale include an Hermès 34cm black porosus crocodile “Kelly” handbag, circa 1950, with gold hardware and monogrammed initials “SHL” (estimate: $10,000-$12,000), as well as an Hermès gold taurillon clemence 30cm “Birkin” handbag, circa 2006, with palladium hardware (estimate: $6,000-$8,000).



3 Reasons Why Every Entrepreneur Should Take A Road Trip This Year

Entrepreneurs
Join Us For An Exclusive Webcast on Social Security

3 Reasons Why Every Entrepreneur Should Take A Road Trip This Year


I am the co-founder and CEO of BodeTree.com, a web app that automates the finance and accounting processes for small businesses and startups. As a first-time CEO, I’m learning as I go about the nuances of managing people, products, and processes. Prior to founding BodeTree, I played a key role on the strategy team of a Fortune 500 company and provided valuation and financial opinions as a consultant. I graduated from Arizona State University with an undergraduate degree in finance and studied economics at Babeş-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. In addition to writing for Forbes, I’m a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, Entrepreneur Magazine, and MSNBC.
Loading...
Loading...

I’m a frequent traveler, but more often than not that means hustling from one major airport to the next. My longest travel time usually clocks in at less than five hours. Recently, however, decided to shake things up and make the 14-hour drive from Denver to Phoenix.
I haven’t taken a road trip like that since I was a kid, and the experience was fascinating. The process of driving through America for two days led to a lot of realizations about the nature of entrepreneurship and the market I serve. The process was so valuable, in fact, that I think every entrepreneur who finds themselves operating in a bubble, especially those on the coasts, should take a road trip and reconnect with the rest of America.
Humanize your understanding of the market
When you’re an entrepreneur, it is natural to think of your addressable market in terms of statistics. At BodeTree, I’ve always thought about our market as being comprised of 30 million small businesses, 90% of which don’t have organized accounting. It’s deceptively easy to do back-of-the-napkin calculations and back into slide-deck ideas of market penetration.
The reality, however, is far more complicated. I stopped at a number of small businesses on my trip and observed their owners as they worked. It became abundantly clear that each and every small business owner is unique, with different motivations, goals, and expectations. While I had an intrinsic understanding of this after working in the industry for years, the process of witnessing small business owners in action drove the point home with newfound clarity.
Recommended by Forbes
This fundamentally human observation of the market my company tries to serve resonated with me on a personal level. I walked away from the experience with a more holistic understanding of the market and my company’s ability to serve it.
Gain a fresh perspective
When you’re building any kind of innovative product, you tend to focus a disproportionate amount of time catering to early adopters. More often than not, these early advocates are young, urban, and relatively sophisticated. When you couple this with the fact that many entrepreneurs base their operations in urban environments where these types congregate, it becomes easy to see how a perception bubble can develop.

I sometimes forget just how big and diverse the United States really is. While driving through small towns and vast stretches of open land, I realized just how insulated my life is from the reality of the individuals I’m trying to serve.


Continued from page 1
That realization made me think back to a story about the legendary movie producer Jerry Weintraub. Weintraub was fond of telling the story of how he kept a flock of pink plastic flamingoes in the grass near the entrance of his Hollywood office. When asked about the unique design choice, he responded that he kept them there to remind everyone that it’s the mainstream public that determines if a movie is a hit, not the Hollywood elite.
Driving through rural America made me realize just how right Weintraub was, and gave me a fresh understanding and appreciation for our diverse domestic cultures. Any entrepreneur looking to serve the broad market would be wise to cultivate the same appreciation inside of their own business.
Better understand the challenges of scaling your business
Perhaps the most significant feeling I experienced on my journey was a feeling of dread regarding the challenge of scaling BodeTree in rural areas. Much of the infrastructure that we take for granted, from high-speed internet to ubiquitous cell coverage, doesn’t exist in the same capacity throughout much of the country.
In essence, the experience helped me to broaden my understanding of the market and my company’s place in it. Many of the assumptions, such as the general level of technological savvy or quality of infrastructure, were turned on their head once I reached some of the more rural communities along the way.
My understanding of the small business market evolved and became more nuanced, and I better recognized the dangers of an insulated urban perspective. Entrepreneurs of all walks can benefit from this type of wake up call. So, if you’re looking to reconnect and expand your understanding of the U.S. market, take a road trip this year. You’ll definitely learn a thing or two along the way.



Chris Myers is the Cofounder and CEO of BodeTree, a web application designed to help small businesses manage their finances.

Friday, April 8, 2016

Allen Jones Loves Women, But Can Women Love His Art?

Observer



Allen Jones Loves Women, But Can Women Love His Art?

A retrospective on the UES introduces the British pop artist's edgy work to a new generation

Allen Jones, Ovation, (2010).
Allen Jones, Ovation, (2010). (Photo: Courtesy Michael Werner Gallery, New York and London)
If you’ve long been branded a misogynist by the art world, is it ever possible to rehabilitate your image? For British pop artist Allen Jones, who is now 78 years old and 50 years into his career, the answer may, finally, be yes.
A retrospective of Mr. Jones’ career currently on view at Michael Werner Gallery on Manhattan’s Upper East Side could stir a sea change, at least on this side of the Atlantic, by showing off his lesser known but crowning achievements: his paintings.
While Mr. Jones remains a widely known, divisive figure in the U.K. for his fetishistic sculptures of women, he’s less recognized among American audiences. Now, a new generation might be better equipped to embrace him. Issues he’s been exploring for decades—social constructions of gender, media obsession with body image, the male gaze, sex, power and fantasy—are evolving topics in the public discourse, making his art more relevant than ever.
The artist, who has said publicly he’s a feminist, sent shockwaves through the art world in 1970 when he exhibited a set of now infamous sculptures at London’s Tooth & Sons gallery: women posed as furniture, titled Hat Stand, Table and Chair. The works sparked uproar among critics and viewers for their subservient poses and his choice to clothe them in fetish wear. Perhaps not by coincidence, their display overlapped with the sexual revolution of the late ’60s and the rise of second wave feminism, lending fuel to a heated cultural debate. Filmmaker Laura Mulvey penned an essay for Spare Rib magazine in 1973 that speculated the artist suffered from castration anxiety. When the sculptures were shown in 1978 at the ICA London, there were protests, and when they went on display at the Tate in 1986 a visitor threw acid on them.
“I think his subject matter has prevented him from having a big career in America,” the current exhibition’s curator Sir Norman Rosenthal told the Observer. “A lot of American artists over the last 50 years flirt with going to the edge, but basically Allen loves women, and loves the idea of womanhood, and they’re all in praise of women.”

Stand In, (2001).
Stand In, (2001). (Photo: Courtesy Michael Werner Gallery, New York and London)
Despite the backlash, Mr. Jones’ career has persevered along with his obsession with the female figure. He’s inspired pop culture parodies, best seen with the women-shaped tables in Stanley Kubrick’s Korova Milk Bar, from his 1971 film A Clockwork Orange. And contemporary artists such as Norwegian Bjarne Melgaard have created copycat works. Mr. Melgaard’s 2013 Allen Jones Remakes sparked their own debate when they were included in a photo shoot featuring Russian magazine editor Dasha Zhukova, who he posed sitting atop a replica of Mr. Jones’ Chair.
The show marks the artist’s first exhibition in the U.S. in nearly 30 years—his last show in New York was in 1970 at Richard Feigen Gallery—and primarily features his paintings, both early and recent, which have historically taken a back seat to his scantily clad and precariously posed sculptures of the female form.
Chair, (1969).
Chair, (1969). (Photo: Tate.org)
The Observer met the artist at Michael Werner during installation of his show.
In person, he is the picture of politeness. He’s soft spoken, jovial and at times modest. Discussing his work over the years, especially his raunchy visions of the female form, he leans toward formal considerations of color, the figure and technique, and remains as inquisitive as ever about ways of depicting the “body perfect.”
“I realized with the language I’d taken from adult comic books and advertisements…I’d created a kind of vocabulary about the figure which was very stylized. I was compelled to make the figures as tangible, grabbable, and three dimensional as possible,” he said.
Mr. Jones has worked hard to separate himself from his peers, both in his subject matter and materials. While contemporaries such as Larry Rivers, Jim Dine and Claes Oldenburg were busy carrying ideas from abstract expressionism over into the pop art movement, Mr. Jones refused to give up figuration. “It seemed to me a crazy idea that in 40,000 years of human mark making suddenly because of Donald Judd you could no longer represent the figure,” he said.
Kate In Red, (2013).
Kate In Red, (2013). (Photo: Courtesy Michael Werner Gallery, New York and London)
While painting was the hot commodity when he left school at the Royal Academy in London in 1960, he turned to sculpture and non-traditional, industrial materials like resin and fiberglass in an attempt to make his art more experiential.
“If I’m trying to make the thing real why don’t I just make it? For me at the time it was quite a big risk, as a painter, to not paint the thing. My intention was to just put clothes on [the sculpture], and when I tried it I just thought it looked like some strange surreal look alike.”
According to the artist, interpretations of his work as regressive, sexist and perverted have gotten carried away. “The figure is a cipher for me,” he said. “Here’s an image of subjugation where the figure is objectified, but that doesn’t make it necessarily so. It’s a convenient image, but the written word is so strong that it became that for students studying my work.”
Interval, (2007).
Interval, (2007). (Photo: Courtesy Michael Werner Gallery, New York and London)
At times, public opinion has greatly changed the art. The title of his first fiberglass sculpture, Hat Stand, was not his choice, he said. The figure’s pose was meant as a nod to a classical pose from ancient sculpture. However, given the obvious references to utilitarian furniture with other works in the series, Chair and Table, a name was informally added later by a third party as a way to thematically connect the pieces. The fetish clothing, he explains, was used to divorce his figures from real life. And their curvaceous bodies? They’re meant to be exaggerated.
“The first figures were unbelievably exaggerated. Now, when I look at them, the figure is a comic strip figure really: huge breasts, a very tiny waist, and all the rest of it. At that time I was interested in making some kind of super figure. It wasn’t meant to be a portrait in that way, it was meant to be what it was,” he said.
How does the artist feel about his work being debated, appropriated and copied? “I just think it’s an affirmation,” he said.
Treasure Chest, (2014).
Treasure Chest, (2014). (Photo: Courtesy Michael Werner Gallery, New York and London)
In recent years, a new, more positive tone has trickled into writings about his work. “His art is an icy joke about the power of desire: it pays homage to Duchamp’s ironic view of human culture as a masturbatory machine,” said critic Jonathan Jones in 2013.
“Jones’s identity as a painter has been the biggest casualty of his accidental place in politics,” wrote Zoe Williams in The Guardian, following his retrospective at The Royal Academy of London in 2014-2015. Referring to the Furniture pieces, she said “Taken against his other work, it is impossible to conceive of Jones as having one single view of women, in which they are objectified.”
But not everyone is changing their tone on Mr. Jones. Zoe Pilger was simultaneously captivated and disgusted in her write up for The Independent. “Here is the female figure rendered abject and humiliated, a fact which is obscured by the brilliance of his design,” she wrote.
Light Green, (2001).
Light Green, (2001). (Photo: Courtesy Michael Werner Gallery, New York and London)
There are several works in the show at Michael Werner that make an argument for Mr. Jones’ as a feminist in disguise difficult to stomach. A life-size, light-up 2001 sculpture of a woman in a form fitting green cat suit and a newly made wearable metallic body plate, titled Cover Story, are arresting but remain problematic depictions of the body—whether or not they’re intentionally meant to be over-the-top.
But a room of Mr. Jones’ newest works, mostly paintings, is captivating. Unnatural hues of radioactive green, fire engine red and Creamsicle orange gently fade together across the surfaces of bodies, clothing and an abstracted background, every so often interrupted by a sharp line or plane such as a wall or door frame.
Cover Story, (2015).
Cover Story, (2015). (Photo: Courtesy Michael Werner Gallery, New York and London)
A three panel triptych from 2007, titled Interval, explores an audience during intermission: some muscular and busty figures are only partially rendered, their skins colored blue and green with the same palette used for the scenery.
“I see now that I actually like painting, creating a gradient, modeling and caressing the form with a paint brush, in a way maybe because I just feel more confident about that,” Mr. Jones said.
What is evident in his erotic canvasses is that there is little room to doubt his skill as a painter—he’s a master—nor his devotion to favorite subject: women. Looking at decades worth of work together in one show has given him new perspective on the early conceptual choices that shaped his career. “I could see in the very early work the situation of a young artist emerging from college who is trying to absorb the lessons of his time and look serious,” he explained. “I learned that you have to speak as clearly as you can.”
But a big question remains: is the work really how he views the world? Perhaps not, but his perspective is not exactly innocuous. “There’s no doubt I have my own fantasies about the figure,” he said. 

artsypodcast



Artsy



A Letter from the Editor—An Inclusive Art World, One Podcast at A Time

At the start of 2016, we outlined our mission to focus on intention—bypassing cynicism and snark for substantive content that provokes dialogue and expands the audience for art. This past quarter at Artsy, we addressed under-discussed topics, regions, and subjects—African-American artistsmuseum funding and higher education in art in the United States, Korean minimalismfemale artists employing moving image as medium, and the conundrum that is conceptual art (if it confuses you, you’re not alone), to name a few. And we responded to our readers’ cues: We began to send our art-world stories, news, and features to our most engaged audience as daily emails (sign up here). You responded with overwhelming open rates.
We also explored new mediums and methods for storytelling, launching a podcast series, the first created by any major art publication. For our second podcast, “Art History vs. the Art Market,” Deputy Editor Alexander Forbes, Senior Editor Tess Thackara, and Editorial Associate Isaac Kaplan took a journey from one end of the art world to the other—from the current state of the art market, as explored through Alex’s fantastic breakdown of the TEFAF Art Market Report, to the institutional focus on “Big Art History,” cross-temporal exhibitions that are cropping up across the globe, a discussion spurred by the recent opening of The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Breuer Building and inaugural show, “Unfinished.” In our next podcast episode, coming out today, our editors explore San Francisco’s dramatic economic and cultural shifts and impact on the city’s future, as well as Art Basel Cities, a new and potentially game-changing initiative, announced at Art Basel in Hong Kong two weeks ago.
Our podcast program exemplifies our editorial mission: reaching our core art-world audience—gallerists, collectors, curators, art professionals—with stories that take our readers to the front lines of the global art-world circuit and explore the intricacies of the art market, while also engaging a broad audience with pieces that examine a range of topics through the lens of art, whether giving a platform for cultural innovators to make their predictions on the future of art, or bringing you the stories of two artists who are giving transgender issues a global spotlight.
Art writing can be limiting in scope. Our aim is to break down those limitations.

—Marina Cashdan, Editorial Director