New Jersey Ivory ban....

[drac2k]

Yes, I agree that Fascists and Nazis do behave very badly, however they tend to confiscate and preserve the artwork, i.e. the Kunstschutz,(even if it is only for themselves), and it is eventually recovered whereas the Chinese tended to destroy it, i.e. the "Cultural Revolution."It appears, they have learned from their mistakes, as evidenced by their attempts to recover it, however it seems that democracies will need to learn the same hard lesson !

[spiral]

I see your point...drac2k .& think its mostly true. I think stuff containing precious metals was often melted down in europe though? & some Chinese art was also kept stored & displayed? Much Russian certainly was.

But such discussion normally leads to closing of threads as political. So perhaps we shouldn't continue? If that's ok with you?

It was about the changes in US wildlife laws law & has encompassed many sides of the debate about ivory, without rancour, & is hopefully both informative & thought provoking for as all.as much as it is contentious & concerning.

All the best.
spiral

[David]

Originally Posted by drac2k

Yes, I agree that Fascists and Nazis do behave very badly, however they tend to confiscate and preserve the artwork, i.e. the Kunstschutz,(even if it is only for themselves), and it is eventually recovered whereas the Chinese tended to destroy it, i.e. the "Cultural Revolution."It appears, they have learned from their mistakes, as evidenced by their attempts to recover it, however it seems that democracies will need to learn the same hard lesson !

As Spiral rightly points out, if you guys don't want to see this thread closed quickly all discussion of politics needs to end now.
I also agree with Spiral that the pieces he showed being lined up for destruction can in no way be compared to the destruction of ancient stone Buddhas or true historically valuable antiques. I still see it as a shame once material has been shaped into art, but such hyperbole is not really helpful to this discussion.

[drac2k]

First, we must thank Spiral for bringing this situation to the forefront and it is noted that all parties have made valid points, however one common argument that I have a problem with is the assertion, that it is of recent manufacture and as such, not worthy of protection.
I am unable to determine by those pictures what is being destroyed ;I can not determine the age, the artistry or the total scope of the items that are to be crushed.
Next, I have a problem with the implied notion that something has to be thousands of years old to be art or valuable.Hawaii, Fiji, Samoa, and many other pre-European contact societies throughout the world that were unknown to us before the 18th century, certainly have valuable and beautiful artifacts.Is a Albrecht Durer more valuable than a Van Gogh, because it is older ?
In conclusion, I don't want us to go down the slippery path of saying "well ,it's only 100 years old, so it is not as bad as destroying something older."The perimeters are constantly closing.

[David]

Originally Posted by drac2k

First, we must thank Spiral for bringing this situation to the forefront and it is noted that all parties have made valid points, however one common argument that I have a problem with is the assertion, that it is of recent manufacture and as such, not worthy of protection.
I am unable to determine by those pictures what is being destroyed ;I can not determine the age, the artistry or the total scope of the items that are to be crushed.
Next, I have a problem with the implied notion that something has to be thousands of years old to be art or valuable.Hawaii, Fiji, Samoa, and many other pre-European contact societies throughout the world that were unknown to us before the 18th century, certainly have valuable and beautiful artifacts.Is a Albrecht Durer more valuable than a Van Gogh, because it is older ?
In conclusion, I don't want us to go down the slippery path of saying "well ,it's only 100 years old, so it is not as bad as destroying something older."The perimeters are constantly closing.

I seriously doubt that any of the statues in Spiral's photo are as old as 100 yrs. old. If any are then they qualify by most people's standards as being "antique". It does not seem to me that antique ivory is being destroyed by the US gov't. If it is it should be stopped. I am not sure whose statement leads you to believe that it is a "common argument" that recently manufactured art is not worthy of protection, but as Spiral has pointed out, these recent Chinese production pieces have neither the quality nor historical value of true antiques. No one suggested that a Durer should be more valuable than a Van Gogh simply because it is an older work. Both are acknowledged and historically important artists. But the same cannot be said of recent nearly mass produced ivory statuary from China. No one suggested that the work must be thousands of years old to be worthy of protection. I clearly mention antiques (which again would mean 100 yrs. or older) though in actuality if we need to draw a line in the sand, i believe that any carved ivory that it pre-CITES (1973) should be exempt from these new laws.

[VANDOO]

WHO IS TO SAY THAT THE GREATEST IVORY CARVER OF ALL TIME DOESN'T LIVE AND WORK TODAY? UNDER THIS LAW HIS GREATEST MASTERPIECES WOULD BE DESTROYED AND HE FINED AND IMPRISONED. THIS WOULD HAPPEN EVEN IF HE CARVED FROM A PRE-CITES STOCK OF IVORY. FOOD FOR THOUGHT
I AGREE MOST OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE AND THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST HAS BEEN OF A POORER QUALITY. AFTER ALL MOST CUSTOMERS ARE NOT KINGS SO NOT ABLE TO AFFORD THE WORK OF THE MASTERS.
A MORE REASONABLE WAY OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM SHOULD BE FOUND CONFISCATION AND DESTRUCTION OF ART OR A VALUABLE RESOURCE IS NOT A GOOD CHOICE.

[David]

Barry, let's keep in mind the actual source of ivory. The killing of these majestic beasts solely for the artistic endeavors of a theoretical "greatest ivory carver of all time" so that the piece can then be sold to rich westerners for their art collections is hardly justifiable in my universe. So, if the greatest human skull carver is out there trying to do his work today should we legalize the taking of human heads for the sake of his art as well?
Stocks of pre-CITES ivory is another question that needs to need looked into, but it seems to me that the only way to stop the illegal trade is to stop ALL new carving of ivory material. Pre-CITES ivory is a limited and finite supply. Who decides who gets to carve it and what happens when that supply runs out and demand for carved ivory pieces continues? As long as the market for new ivory carvings continues people will find illegal ways to fill it. IMHO the master ivory carver needs to move on to a different material. Continuing to carve new ivory pieces (even if it is pre-CITES material) only continues to drive the market for the stuff and encourages the poachers
My only concern, and what should be the only real concern of antique collectors (weapons or otherwise) everywhere, is the question of antique and pre-CITES carvings and usage. I have no tears for the latest and greatest ivory art carver and his woes about the possible destruction of his latest masterpiece. There are many other materials to carve that don't take the lives of elephants or other ivory bearing animals.

[drac2k]

David, you have just come up with the solution that has been evading all of us; the carving of human sculls.This is not a new tradition, but an old one dating from before the Viking scull mead cups, to the Tibetan practice of bone carving.The Dyaks, Igorots , and others also adorned heads that they took.
There is no need to sanction the illegal taking of heads as there are plenty around the world that could be had cheaply ; one immediate source I can think of would be from Isis, who don't seem to be utilizing them other than for terror purposes! I know, maybe you think that would be encouraging the illegal taking of heads, so I propose that when people die, if they wish, they could sell their bones to whomever they wanted to, to carve as they wish, irregardless of their skills.
I personally have been told that I have a huge head(my wife affectionately calls me bucket head);I would gladly sell it(to be taken after my death),to a "master carver," to do as he wished.Based on the size and bone density and small brain cavity, I am sure it would fetch a high price.I would also donate 10% of the proceeds to a game reserve in penance for any ivory that I might have purchased in the past by accident !

[spiral]

Interesting chaps, personally Vandoo I don't think the best carver of anything will be around today... because he will use electric power tools for speed...{time equals money.} so he may have an artistic eye but its not like the 1920 when it was all done with micro chisels where you needed to understand the medium, the texture & grain you were working in. With abrasive tools that is not so important.

Interesting point David re. a line in the sand.

For the law to be just. {whether people agree with it or not.} it needs accurate dates of what ok & what isn't.

You mention the Cities 1972 order, which actually banned the international trade in worked artefact dating pre. 1 june 1947.

That how the law is in used in most of Europe, although its only the last few years it been more heavily enforced.

Why that date was chosen I am not sure, {But it was just a month before the British gave up ruling India & Burma...}

But that date is more a less checkable as I understand, all bone ,,Ivory & horn on the planet had different radioactive isotopes than anything pre. August 1945 {Hiroshima.} it just took a couple of years to infiltrate every organic still alive via food. So all though there's a 2 year question of proof with that, it is more or less provable.

Any other arbitry date , comes down to opinion, of is it realy that old or not, not proven fact. Morally I think 1972 is fine but, how does one prove such? & what prevents it being faked or mistaken opinion?

That's why I think the 1947 date is a good year... it is provable more or less.

But sadly whatever any of our thoughts it probably wont make a lot of difference to the current & forthcoming new laws.

In England its also illegal to rework old ivory, because years ago people would claim all there modern ivory work came from that one old tusk or item they had a receipt for..... And human nature being what it is many tusks would go through on that one receipt. {No dna matching to receipts.} I think that was also part of the 1972 act but could be mistaken.

Ivory poaching was already seen as a problem by cities back then.

But I think its stepping into another degree now.

Already Illegal import or export of one piece of ivory without the legal paperwork in Europe {the eec.}is punishable by up to 7 years in jail now.

spiral