‘The Art Fund, the national fundraising charity for art, had intended to announce on Monday 26 October a campaign to save Rembrandt van Rijn’s Portrait of Catrina Hooghsaet (1607 – 1685), 1657, from export.

Previously at Penrhyn Castle, it had been provisionally sold by the trustees of the Penrhyn settled estates in North Wales to an overseas buyer for £35million.  However, the Secretary of State announced on 16 October that an export licence would be withheld (initially until 15 February 2016) to enable a UK buyer to try to raise the necessary funds to keep the work in this country.

At 3.30pm today the Art Fund received a call from Sotheby’s to say that they would be withdrawing their application for an export licence on behalf of their overseas buyer, and that the work would instead remain in this country for the time being.

The Art Fund believes that the future of the painting remains perilously unsafe. It has been in Wales for 150 years and in Britain for nearly 300 years, and is of supreme national importance. By mounting a public appeal at this critical point the Art Fund had aimed to ensure that this masterpiece could be acquired by a UK public collection, and at a favourable price:  net of tax the price had been agreed at c.£22.5 million.  Indeed significant funds from charitable sources had already been raised since the 16 October announcement.

The Art Fund is deeply concerned by this turn of events, and will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to ensure that the public interest is better served, in this and in other matters concerning the protection of our national cultural heritage.’

One possibility, not to be dismissed lightly, is that the Art Fund is run by idiots. They seem more interested in marketing than in art, demanding that museums include prominent lurid acknowledgement of their support and following fashion in headlong pursuit of trendy contemporary art. Describing the Rembrandt as 'perilously unsafe' is absurd hyperbole that reveals their real focus: keeping stuff in the UK rather than developing our public art collections. 

The other possibility is that they have just given up on the idea of developing collections and buying great works of art in favour of simply keeping in  the UK whatever is already in the UK. The trope of 'saving our art' plays to the bias of loss-aversion, which as specialists in advertising rather than art they will understand well. But it's a sign of the stultifying monoculture of arts discussion here that it goes unchallenged. No one questions the absurdly distorted funding model, or makes the case for going out to buy art that is great rather than art that is here.

It is good news that the Rembrandt stays in the UK for now but it must be frustrating for the museum which was looking to acquire and calls for further reform to the UK export licensing system are perhaps understandable.  Each applicant for an export licence must indicate their willingness to sell the work in question to a UK museum if a matching bid can be raised.  If the applicant confirms that they will sell then relevant museums - typically with Art Fund assistance - embark on (often heroic) fund raising efforts, increasingly difficult in recent times. As the export process imposes no legal obligation on the applicant, an overseas owner can theoretically withdraw their application for an export licence right up to the last moment thus leaving the museum with an unfortunate ‘cost’ both in terms of time spent and goodwill potentially foregone with donors etc.  I suspect this partly explains the Art Fund’s concern with the Rembrandt.  It does not seem unreasonable that museums should be allowed to work through these cases with the benefit of certainty given the size of the sums involved.

Other similar cases in recent years include William Hoare’s Portrait of Ayuba Suleiman Diallo and Reynolds' Portrait of Omai.  Hoare’s portrait is on display at the National Gallery (now owned by the Qatar) but I am unsure as to the whereabouts of the Omai portrait (owned by John Magnier), having been ferried backwards and forward between Dublin and London over the past 10 years.

It is good news that the Rembrandt stays in the UK for now but it must be frustrating for the museum which was looking to acquire and calls for further reform to the UK export licensing system are perhaps understandable.  Each applicant for an export licence must indicate their willingness to sell the work in question to a UK museum if a matching bid can be raised.  If the applicant confirms that they will sell then relevant museums - typically with Art Fund assistance - embark on (often heroic) fund raising efforts, increasingly difficult in recent times. As the export process imposes no legal obligation on the applicant, an overseas owner can theoretically withdraw their application for an export licence right up to the last moment thus leaving the museum with an unfortunate ‘cost’ both in terms of time spent and goodwill potentially foregone with donors etc.  I suspect this partly explains the Art Fund’s concern with the Rembrandt.  It does not seem unreasonable that museums should be allowed to work through these cases with the benefit of certainty given the size of the sums involved.

Other similar cases in recent years include William Hoare’s Portrait of Ayuba Suleiman Diallo and Reynolds' Portrait of Omai. Hoare’s portrait is on display at the National Gallery (now owned by the Qatar) but I am unsure as to the whereabouts of the Omai portrait (owned by John Magnier) [...]

I can certainly understand the Art Fund's concern. They know what a tiny fraction of objects judged to meet the Waverly Criteria are actually saved, given the non-existent public funding for acquisitions and failure of the government's attempt to induce Britain's elite to embrace art philanthropy. If owners of the few items where a campaign proves possible just sit back and wait for a moment of greater weakness, history suggests they will not be disappointed. Our system gives more respect to buyers rights than many, and those rights would not be unduly eroded if the law was changed so that those seeking an export permit had to give a binding undertaking to accept a matching offer.

With regard to the tax issue though, I wonder if the Art Fund’s concern at the speedy withdrawal of the Export License application is because the tax deduction, bringing the price down to 22.5million GBP, is only applicable if the painting is sold by the original owner?  If the Rembrandt is sold to a new owner for 35millionGBP, the Treasury will get the tax and should the new owner apply for an Export License in ten year’s time the price will not only be ( much ) higher but there will be no tax relief because the painting will not have been “conditionally exempted” for decades. At the best, there might be a small doucer for a Private Treaty sale—which rarely seem to happen at all these days.