The cycle of good faith

Abstract

Provenance research and due diligence inherently fall into the category of cost-benefit or risk-reward analysis on the open market. Under the influence of such cost-benefit analysis, the art market appears to be falling into a cycle of good faith. Everyone is seemingly buying their art in good faith, under the assumption that a previous owner or art market actor, somewhere along the line, has conducted the appropriate research to allow it to freely traverse the open market. The assumption of good faith is perpetuated by the limited number of concrete laws with which market actors have to contend that often only cover specific countries or cities. However, when reviewing efforts to ebb the flow and sale of illicit materials on the art market, the status of due diligence must also be addressed. There remains no universal standard for due diligence procedures. Yet, good faith endures in a cycle where neither buyer nor seller has any inkling of bad title. As such, this paper explores the status of due diligence through the contextual lens of paintings with actual or potential Holocaust-era ownership discrepancies and the market’s reaction to them.