(Dominic Miller) Blog Post #1
The Problem of Sleepers In The Art World
On the Art Law Podcast - The problem of Sleepers, Steve and Katie speak with Swiss art lawyer Laure Bandle to discuss the legal sides of art transactions, ethical dilemmas, and structural weaknesses in how the art market operates.
First off, what's a sleeper ? Swiss art lawyer Anne Laure Bandle stated " Sleepers are misattributed artworks and antiques that have been wrongfully identified. They have been underqualified, so we think of them not being worth much although they're created by a master artist." (6:40) The Salvator Mundi, a a Leonardo da Vinci artwork that was first bought for less than $10,000 and then sold for more than $450 million,This is among the most well-known instances they talked about. not only is there a significant price increase, but there are also serious concerns about Justice in this case. the person who sold it the first time? they got none of the upside.
This issue isn't just about bad luck or oversight. It is an inherent feature of the auction system. Scholarship changes, new technology emerges, and what is seen as a “ minor” piece of art today could be a Blockbuster tomorrow. As Bandle stated, “ First of all, you don't know. Second, scholarship evolves over time.. an expert might be the prevailing voice 10 years ago, but no longer.”
And here is where things get worse for sellers, or “consignors,” they have almost no legal protection when that kind of reattribution happens. Auction houses usually give buyers a 5-year authenticity guarantee, but sellers get nothing. Someone can sell a painting for $25,000 like in the Marching v. Christie's case and then years later, it turns out to be a Leonardo da Vinci Masterpiece worth 150 million dollars. In the article “ No recovery for missed 100 million DaVinci " by Adam Klasfeld “Marching sued Christie in May 2010 for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of warranty, negligence and negligent misrepresentation.” Legally, the original seller can't do much, because too much time has passed. As Steve Schindler said, “ You had $25,000 on the first cell side and then $150 million on the second… it's a lot of millions of dollars.”(36:19)
The Guardian, Photo: Pascal Cott
The conversation made it clear that the current system operates in favor of the auction houses, wealthy collectors, and institutions. Most sleepers don't come from people with teams of lawyers. They come from estate sales, flea markets, or people who inherited are without knowing it's full story. as Katie put it, even if the legal claim is weak, “It doesn't mean it feels less outrageous or less unethical.” (36:50) Bandle suggested that auction houses could take some responsibility, offering optional guarantees to consigners, especially when they feel confident in an artworks attribution. As she said “ They can simply choose which Lots would fall under that warranty if they are comfortable in providing it or not.” (40:07) This wouldn't fix every case, but even small changes like this could build more trust in the system.
The episode touched on Alternative Dispute Resolution (43:35), which is a way to settle art related conflicts without going to court. Bandle supports it because it is more private, sometimes faster, and handled by people who understand the art world. There is even a special panel called the Court of Arbitration for Art. Katie and Steve raised a valid concern that if these arbitrators are too close to the art world, they might carry their own biases. that could make it harder to get a truly fair outcome. Another thing that stood out to me was how informal and rushed art sales can be. Bandle mentions that sometimes, there is no signed contract even just weeks before a sale. That kind of speed and lack of paperwork makes it easy for problems to slip through the cracks. “Things are increasingly processed at a very fast pace, and that is obviously not helpful,” Bandle said. (43:26)
There’s tension between the commercial side of the art world and the cultural side. On one hand, everyone wants the market to be fast and competitive. While those very qualities make it hard to ensure fairness, accuracy, and accountability. Sleepers expose this gap. They show us what happens when someone unknowingly lets go of a masterpiece and gets left behind when the truth finally comes out. The legal system isn't built to fix that. But maybe the market itself can do better by slowing down when it matters, offering more protections, and being willing to rethink how it treats cellars, especially the little guys.
This podcast really opened my eyes. Sleepers might be thrilling art world discoveries, but they also reveal how much work still needs to be done to make the system fairer and more transparent. And even though the problems are big, this episode left me feeling like small, smart changes led by people inside the art world can make a real difference.
It feels unjust that someone could sell a work under false classification essentially robbed of the true value of what they owned. At the same time, I believe the responsibility also falls on the sellers knowledge, and due diligence. If they failed to recognize the significance of the peace at the time, can they really blame others for uncovering its worth later? Sellers must accept a certain degree of loss on their end, since failing to recognize an artworks true value, right?
No Recovery for Missed $100 Million Da Vinci, Adam Klasfeld, February 2, 2011 https://www.courthousenews.com/no-recovery-for-missed-100-million-da-vinci/
The Art Law Podcast, The Problem of Sleepers https://open.spotify.com/episode/5Af9Ne3aKztajueaZmN6lx
The Guardian, Photo: Pascal Cott, May 5, 2010 https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/may/05/christies-sold-leonardo-da-vinci-fraction-price
From these posters, I learned the term "sleepers." Not exactly the same, but it reminded me of an American TV show where people bring antiques or art to pawn shops, sell them, and then negotiate prices... (If I remember correctly, it was probably Pawn Stars.) In the show, I noticed that the pawn shop staff often took advantage of sellers who didn’t know the true value of their items, deliberately offering a low price. Later, in interviews, they would openly say they had bought a much more valuable piece at a bargain. This raised two questions for me: is it the seller’s fault for not knowing the real value of their piece, or is it the auctioneers and dealers who are at fault for exploiting the system? I believe that for the art market to grow and build trust, this kind of opacity needs to be eliminated, and sellers should be protected. At the same time, I also think that an artwork is only worth as much as someone can recognize. If a seller doesn’t know the true value and sells it cheaply, then perhaps that reflects the level of understanding they had of the piece, and the price they received is the compensation for that level of recognition.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Seeun Do : Pawn Stars is actually a great comparison to what happens with “sleepers” in auctions. It’s really cool that you made that connection. You're right, both situations reveal how the gap between knowledge and value can be either exploited or rewarded. I also appreciate that you’re grappling with the same question I am. Is it the seller’s responsibility to do their homework, or should the buyer be more transparent? It just goes to show that the art market isn’t only about the artwork itself but also shaped by individual perception.
Delete