There is no tax scam here, only people who do not understand philanthropy...including the author of this article. That Marc Benioff bought this figure against worldwide competition at public auction for $7.5 Million and promptly gave it to the Bishop Museum as a gesture of good will to the people of Hawaii is the act of a hero and should be lauded from all corners. In so doing, he may take a deduction on his taxes, but even at his highest of tax brackets, he would be not recover more than about 40% of his cost...60% of the amount paid, or $4.5 Million is straight out of his pocket and is strictly a gift. I call that generous by any measure. To be clear, it is only pieces that have been held for more than a year that can be argued to have risen in value above cost. Works of art held 5, 10, 20 and 30 years have in many cases gone up in market value...but in general they need to be appraised at 3 times the price paid before the owner will be able to break even...And you can be sure that only a fool would mess with the IRS when it comes to mis-appraising to save a few dollars in taxes. An art historical analysis, C-14 test and other means of exploring the age of this sculpture would certainly part of due diligence. I have viewed the figure in the British Museum and I have been in plenty of Tiki Bars in the old days; this piece has much greater stylistic affinities with the former than in the later. But whatever the chatter, Marc Benioff is a great philanthropist!
27
I don’t usually comment on things because of all the haters out there but, he bought it for a little over $50,000 and now because he’s donating it it’s worth $7.5 million as a tax deduction? Why isn’t it worth what he paid for it as a deduction?? What am I missing here? Anyway, sounds fishy to me.
7
Age itself does not confer value. (My house is filled with furniture and such that is between 100 and 300 years old. None of it has great value.)
If the origin story really is that a missionary group obtained it in the 1820's, then it may well represent one of the early bits of tourist art from the Hawaiian islands. In other words, it was likely carved, even in the 1820's, as a derivative work by someone who no longer believed or took seriously the cultural significance--but may still have had carving skills.
It would likely be possible to determine if the carving were made with steel edged tools or with obsidian edged tools, perhaps a better marker of Hawaiian-ness or Tiki-bar-ness.
8
Dendrochronology (tree rings) can likely establish the age of the wood (not DNA). That would not establish the date of carving, but it would be unlikely that in the 1930's a carver would have sought out, or been able to find, 150 year old wood. 80 years ago these objects didn't have enough value to justify the effort of careful forgery. A recent forger, expecting to sell it for millions, might.
6
@Jonathan Katz Dendrochronology can only date wood against a complete background of ring sequences over time, for that area. In other words, what you find in a particular sample must be matched within a long sample obtained from other trees.
To the best of my knowledge, nothing like that exists for Hawai'i.
And in any event, it's a destructive process.
7
If the item is indistinguishable from something found in a Tiki bar, why is it worth $7.5 million??? If Hawaiians have been carving these sorts of images for hundreds of years, why does it being a couple of 200 years old instead of 2 years old make such a difference in price if the quality of workmanship is the same?
8
“He strongly identifies with the spiritual values of Hawaii, where he owns a six-bedroom house.”
I actually snorted, so thank you, Scott Reyburn.
40
Yet another Getty Kouros. So easy to relieve the overtly wealthy of money if they suffer from delusions of adequacy.
13
May I suggest doing a quick 30 second "search" on eBay for Hawaiian Art.... in just that amount of time you will find hundreds of elaborate stunning authentic vintage pieces that put this ridiculous Benioff carving to shame in the $100.00 to $400.00 price range --- with free shipping!!! .... and the reported value of $7.5 million for this goofy tourist piece "The Island Eater" .... hahaha ???? Seriously ?
Oh my gosh... "What kind of fool, do you think I am"... (The 4 Tops, 1964...).
13
Mr Blau is likely being misquoted as saying "DNA testing can narrow down the age of the wood."
It's carbon-14 (C14) testing that can narrow down the age of the wood; I think the author misquoted Blau, because Blau's statement "...but not when it was carved" is a very well-known issue with C14 dating of wooden artifacts and implies that's what he was talking about.
17
One would think that an inspection under a microscope of the carving marks on both sculptures would be revealing, since very different tools would likely have been used in the early 19th-century vs., say, the 1930's.
19
@Alan Dean Foster
Also scanning ion microscopy to detect traces of the tools. Alloys used have changed.
7
@Alan Dean Foster
True old Hawaiian work would have been carved with obsidian blades.
The "god" is portrayed with neither a garment nor genitalia. Perhaps this was to satisfy the Missionary group who were the purported customer. It certainly suggests a derivative work made as one of the early tourist trade goods in the days before Hilo Hattie.
The tooling marks on the legs are also suspicious. Even with an obsidian scraper, it would have take little time to smooth off the obvious tooling marks and either indicate musculature, or smoothness, or the feather robes Hawaiian nobility wore.
This looks like a quickly produced object, based on cultural references of an already fading way of life, designed for sale or barter.
11
I'm always startled at how the obvious conflict of interest is usually ignored and agents working for the entity which originated a suspected con are given the lion's share of opportunity to speak up about it in the press. Christies is not who we need to hear from here. Consider the source: Both Christies and Sothebys have, since the 80s, been consistently linked to this sort of scandal.
The worst scandal was when they agreed to price fixing between each other in the late 90s, even though they already form an oligopoly no one can touch. Once an entity has 50 % of a market tied up, they really can't be effectively punished or even challenged.
The art markets are so long over due for regulatory oversight that no one even hopes for it any longer. It's been left to wealthy individuals to battle it out in court. Crude and not effective at achieving meaningful reform.
The general public doesn't call for reform because they haven't the slightest idea of how art markets work. They simply don't participate in them. As for the wealthy well "buyer beware" and then there's that other quote from P.T. Barnum.
14
For those of you who may be wondering, metrosideros is the genus which includes 'Ohi'a Lehua, a common but important tree in Hawai'i. 'Ohi'a forests are the home of the remaining, endangered honey creepers where they feed on the nectar of the trees' red flowers.
9
E kala mai (please excuse me), but how do you write this article without consulting a single Hawaiian person? Without talking to anyone who might actually have experience with interacting with authentic Hawaiian culture and art? All your experts in oceanic art are up in Europe. This is the definition of appropriation, suggesting that some studied Europeans know the art and culture better than the people of that culture. We have living expert carvers training in the ancient techniques and form, we have native Hawaiian scientists and archeologists, we have a range of expertise here able to speak to this concept and yet I see none of them represented here.
45
@Noa Lincoln I believe that Marques Marzan, who is quoted in the article, is a native Hawaiian, and he is intimately involved in the research into this object.
17
@Noa Lincoln
You're not wrong that Hawaii has great people who are being ignored. However the value of an appraisal in this case is based on a person's continued exposure to the very old artifacts of Hawaii which unfortunately are largely off the island leaving them unavailable for most Hawaiians to see. It's the same with African Art — great carvers working in Africa. All the good old stuff sits in Europe.
I was in Honolulu at the Bishop Museum recently and the $25 entrance fee is a sin — it makes it nearly impossible for most Hawaiians to ever get to now the collection well. Especially the Hawaiian Artists. I find this pricing (there is no free day) sickening. You should picket them. The country club culture of the mainland and the wealthier members of the military is what holds Hawaii's art scene back. Not the Press off island. Hawaiian's need to learn not to be afraid of making enemies in high places locally. You people are just too nice to the status quo there.
11
@Noa Lincoln
There is nothing wrong with "appropriation". Take it as a compliment.
1
In the photograph the British Museum piece certainly looks more impressive. Why do auction houses get away with making up provenance?
9
what are the terms of sale .... legally, does Christie's stand by their catalog description or is this caveat emptor? i.e. can he get a refund?!
4
"This provenance ... which has no documentary corroboration, was included in marketing materials from Christie’s."?
Doesn't statement this really sum up at least one aspect of this situation -- and one we seem to keep seeing -- the fly-by-night provenance and "documentation" of artworks by several big auction houses, and even some museums?
In this era of scientific testing and ample evidence to provenance and ownership history, why is Christie's (and others) putting out provenance clams with "no documentary corroboration"?
It's hard to imagine this being done, allowed, or blithely passed off as some "he says, no, she says" aberration. Something seems rotten in the state of art dealing and practice by some museums...
18
“It’s the sort of thing you see in a tiki bar,” said Daniel Blau, an expert in the art of the Pacific islands who is based in Munich.
No doubt that may be true, but I come from the school of thought where traditional Hawaiian sculpture continues to be a rich, wonderful and beautiful role model and influence in modern day arenas. If a piece of art resembling "The Island Eater" is found in a tiki bar, I see that as a good thing, not a bad thing or even something to cast aside rudely or arrogantly. I keep thinking of that phrase,"imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".
5
@Marge Keller I read it as suggesting the piece isn't as old as claimed. It can be dated to the 30s with certainty, the era in which Tiki bars were popularized.
4
@Nan
I understand that the piece is possibly not as old as it is claimed. I just thought the line about it is sort of a thing one would find in a tiki bar as crass and rude. But thanks for your comment. It's always a welcomed gesture to ensure a mistake is corrected. Apparently my comment was extremely clumsy. Sincere apologies.
2
I've used Salesforce. It has no aloha.
13
with the Republican "tax reform" which ended the personal exemption and doubled the standard deduction, now only rich people can afford to make charitable contributions. And rich people, who are nothing if not self-aggrandizing, tend to give to things that enhance themselves, such as to the Opera, Orchestra or museum. So, Planned Parenthood and United Way go begging because that's who small donors gave to. But hey, we'll always have the tiki statue.
43
@Detached
I thought your final sentence was priceless! I'm still laughing.
9
@Detached
I found your closing remark priceless!
And no, I won't be looking for any charitable tax deduction but am open to discuss this comment.
1
@Detached yes, next time i'm vacationing in HI i'll be sure to check it out ...
1