Spotlight on catalogues raisonnés and looted, spoliated and illegally exported art.

Curatorial, digital and legal perspectives on catalogues raisonnés and looted, spoliated and illegally exported art: an open question?

ICRA board member Frances Fowle, Emeritus Professor at the University of Edinburgh and author of ‘The Art Market and the Museum’, in discussion with distinguished panellists:
🔹 Victoria Reed, Bettina Burr Chair for Provenance at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
🔹 Nicholas O'Donnell, cultural property legal expert at Sullivan & Worcester LLP and author of “A Tragic Fate: Law and Ethics in the Battle Over Nazi-Looted Art” @sullivan.worcester
🔹 Kate Fitz Gibbon, cultural heritage lawyer and specialist in Central Asian art law; author of “Native American Art and the Law”

We were privileged to learn from our three distinguished panelists, who reminded us that, contrary to the common perception, a catalogue raisonné is not a definitive or infallible source or “Bible". These scholarly works—while invaluable—can contain gaps, outdated information, and uncertainties, and therefore always require critical engagement and independent research.

Our discussion highlighted several key points: the importance of museums preserving online records of restituted works; the value of feeding new research back to catalogue authors; and the need, in art historical, curatorial and legal contexts, to confront provenance ambiguities with reasoned explanation rather than assumption. Cataloguing is not a one-time act but an ongoing, evolving process. As one panelist aptly noted, “We are only as good as our sources.” Thorough, credible cataloguing of this delicate category of artworks depends not on authority alone, but on transparent, verifiable evidence.

The panel also addressed the tension between privacy laws and the growing ethical and legal imperatives for transparency in provenance research. We explored how current legal frameworks simultaneously demand disclosure of ownership chains while also mandating the protection of personal privacy—an inherent conflict that continues to challenge the field.