
The Geneva Free Port is crammed with storage vaults that contain great art - bootload
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/arts/design/one-of-the-worlds-greatest-art-collections-hides-behind-this-fence.html
======
lolc
A friend works on deciphering an old script based on very few samples. When he
inquired about a piece he learned that more of those with similar
inscriptions, presumably from illegal excavations, are stored in Geneva.
Luckily he was granted access to have a look at them, I assume that the owners
like researchers to validate their stuff, because they are suspected
forgeries.

We don't really know how many more samples of that script are tucked away in
vaults. In that context in don't care about a 1000 Picasso paintings. I would
love for people to go crazy about the paintings, so long as they leave the
truly old pieces to the researchers and in the ground until they can be
excavated properly.

~~~
return0
That's the worst part about it. I believe art older than a reasonable number
of centuries (e.g 300 years) should not be tradeable. What's the moral
argument for allowing it?

~~~
iwwr
Private property? If you were to implement such a measure, it further
encourages black markets, since the demand will still be there. A bad
consequence can even be the destruction of art from either: hiding a crime or
harder access to legitimate researchers and restorers.

Besides, not everything old is necessarily worth preserving.

You don't always need a physical object, you can take high-res scans or
pictures.

Many pieces of privately-owned art are actually on long-term loans to museums.

Public museums usually have far larger stockpiles of objects than can
reasonably be displayed. Many languish in storage for decades at a time. In
private ownership they can at least be displayed and taken care of.

~~~
jonknee
Private ownership of antiquity is definitely murky. If you can prove
legitimate ownership for an object that is one thing, all of a sudden owning
an ancient treasure is another. I think they should belong to the state in
question (e.g. the people from that area).

~~~
chris_va
Where do you draw the line? In the US we always side with personal freedom in
the courts (e.g. if you want to own something, you can do so, pursuit of
happiness and all that).

Antiquities don't have a lot of intrinsic value beyond display, so eventually
(maybe 50 years, maybe 200 years) they will all end up in a museum. Generally
they have higher value to people in the area from which they originated, so
they will eventually migrate home. I'd prefer to be patient and let it happen
naturally instead of implementing new laws.

~~~
return0
Why would they migrate home?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles)

~~~
chris_va
40% in favour of returning the marbles to Greece 15% in favour of keeping them
at the British Museum 18% would not vote 27% had no opinion

... I feel like this is a good example of where they will eventually migrate
home. It hasn't been very long, on an antiquities scale.

------
Hermel
Can anyone explain how this works from a tax perspective? As far as I know,
goods in free ports are basically "in transit between two countries" for tax
purposes. I.e. they left their origin, but have not entered their destination
yet. I can see how that temporarily avoids sales tax (or VAT). That's also the
tax mentioned in the newspaper. However, as soon as you bring that artwork to
its destination, you have to pay that tax. And by that time, it will probably
be much higher than now. First, the tax will most likely have increased (VAT
rates never seem to go down). Second, the art will have appreciated in value,
increasing the taxes due on import even more. All that considered, this does
not seem like a very good strategy to me, at least tax-wise.

~~~
fludlight
"Temporarily" in this case can mean decades, by the end of which inflation and
time value of money can considerably erode your multi million dollar sales tax
bill. As an added bonus you can get a loan on your painting while it's in the
warehouse because lenders can limit your access, thereby ensuring that you
neither damage the collateral nor move it beyond their reach.

~~~
Hermel
> inflation and time value of money can considerably erode your multi million
> dollar sales tax bill

No, when importing the piece of art to its destination, VAT tax apply on its
current value at the current VAT rate. So the opposite happens. Instead of
eroding over time, the tax bill gets larger as tax rates are likely to climb
and the value increase.

However, a good reason to do so is if your liquidity is limited. For example,
if you e.g. as a German inherited a 100 million EUR piece of art stored in a
free port today, bringing it to Germany would cost you 19 million in VAT.
Assuming that you don't have that much cash laying around, you would face the
choice of selling it or just keeping it there for a few more years.

~~~
danmaz74
But how can you estimate the "current value" for a unique piece of art?

~~~
SOLAR_FIELDS
I would imagine it would be the amount it last sold for, adjusted for
inflation.

~~~
dagw
Also you can look at what similar pieces have sold for.

------
WalterBright
The art world is plagued with forgeries, some so good that nobody can prove or
disprove authenticity. After all, with prices so high, there's every incentive
to create very good forgeries.

Which raises the question - if one cannot discern a difference, is there a
difference? And if there is no difference, why pay those fantastic prices? I
wonder when the modern "tulip" madness will come crashing down.

I wouldn't mind decorating my house with cheap forgeries that are so good one
cannot tell with the unaided eye.

~~~
danieltillett
There is a village in China that will make a copy of any artwork for you. I
have to say that good forgeries are just as collectable as the real thing :)

------
WalterBright
> Some see even higher stakes for contemporary works, as they can be whisked
> off, their paint hardly dry, before ever entering the public’s
> consciousness.

I guess we know what people will be doing for money when jobs are gone due to
automation.

------
danieltillett
I liked the suggestion that they had to open up the warehouses for the public
if they want to keep their tax free status. To have so much great art locked
up for tax avoidance reasons is not ideal.

------
jkot
I think this tone "art was created to be viewed" sort of hurts. Painting
deteriorates over time when exposed to light and normal air. Also there is a
not much difference between painting located in some container, and museum in
prohibitively expensive New York.

Rather than advocating against "evil superrich" we should focus on
digitization. It should be a law that any piece sold, insured or stored has to
digitized in high resolution.

~~~
MichaelBurge
The last thing we need is more precedent for government agents entitling
themselves to people's private property. You might as well be demanding that
every programmer give the government a copy of their source code, in case you
die or your company goes bankrupt and people get curious about what you were
working on.

~~~
MereInterest
> You might as well be demanding that every programmer give the government a
> copy of their source code, in case you die or your company goes bankrupt and
> people get curious about what you were working on.

You give that example of hyperbole, but I believe that is quite reasonable. I
am of the opinion that if you want your code to have copyright protection, you
must have a copy of the source code either available to the public or placed
in an escrow service to be made public when the copyright expires.

Copyright is an agreement between authors and society. In exchange for limited
protection of the work, the work is not hidden from the public, and can
therefore be built upon once the work is in public domain. If the author is
not allowing the work to eventually enter the public domain, then the author's
side of the agreement is not being upheld, and they should not have copyright
protection either.

~~~
MichaelBurge
Copyright is a different matter. These historical artifacts won't have any
copyright on them in the first place, and are physically secured to prevent
people from seeing them. If somebody snuck in and took pictures, there'd be no
reason for the owner to have any control over the resulting pictures(although
the trespasser could be prosecuted).

With code, "[..]sold, insured or stored[...]" are the three verbs under
consideration. Selling and insuring likely require somebody to look at it, so
copyright is somewhat relevant(although you can make them sign an NDA). But
that "stored" verb would mean that writing code for your personal or company
use with no intention to ever show it to the public is also illegal. So you
wouldn't just waive some benefits, but would be fined or jailed if you don't
file a copy with the government.

------
henvic
Blame the taxes for that.

They should keep helping people avoid taxes as this is the right thing to do.
Tax is unethical by its very nature (it is theft, regardless of
justifications).

That said, they could very well facilitate a tax-free art gallery environment
trying to build mecas of fine art galleries.

~~~
dang
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11795373](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11795373)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
golergka
You may disagree with this comment, but how is that off-topic?

~~~
dang
Taxation-is-theft is the quintessence of the generic ideological tangent.
Those are off topic on HN.

~~~
golergka
Really? Because I see debates about taxation and politics in general all the
time in the comments - especially when these themes are directly related to
the posts.

Seriously, how can you say that comments about taxation are off-topic while
this article is not off-topic and is currently on the front page? You can't
really have a conversation about poverty, welfare and related policies without
talking about taxation, and it's a weird moderatorial distinction.

