Chairs were NOT stolen.
Under pressure from Interpol, the Indian Consulate, Homeland Security, Immigration and the FBI, Wright made sure of it.
To quote:
"Indian governmental authorities conducted an investigation as to whether the items were legally purchased or stolen: the conclusion - by India's own investigator - was that the items were sold by Chandigarh authorities with permission of Chandigarh authorities and were legally purchased by the European art dealers.
Here is the quote from the Indian Times:
An internal inquiry conducted by the department has confirmed that significance of the heritage artifacts was not taken into consideration at the time of fixation of auctions as is evident from the list of items sold.
The probe was ordered after Paris-based auction house, Artcurial, took UT by surprise in February 2010 by selling furniture, wooden models and sketches. The Times of India has a copy of the inquiry report submitted by UT senior architect Maitreyi C Gupta.2
But, regardless of the government's own report showing
that the works were properly purchased, the Indian
government continues to pursue these items.
....
The New York Times reported:
Kiran Joshi, a professor of architecture in the city, agreed that the dealers were perhaps not to blame. "It's not the collectors that were the problem.
The problem is our perception of heritage. We thought it was junk, our government thought it was junk,? she said.
It was only abroad that people prized the chairs as ?part
of the history of modernism. That's why they are selling
for such exorbitant prices. Suddenly this has become the
rage. But we didn't know anything much about it in India,"
she said.
"
Here is the full statement on ownership from Wright:
http://www.wright20.com/m/2011/03/30/chandigarh.pdf
chime away...
anyone....just an opinion from the bottom looking up....
p.s.-stolen or not- not my point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVE72Ae82Tw
Okay jesgord
jesgord,
I took a look at the auction and I thought some prices were high and some seemed very low. Auction estimates are often very low to get the masses involved and induce "auction fever" when the bidding begins.
The "bell curve" of life says that there will always be people of means (so called rich) and the under class (so called poor). For the most part the poor seem to resent the rich and the rich could care less about the poor.
The "people of means - large disposable income" that I know all earned their money by hard work and desire and the "under class" I see on television are waiting for someone to give them something. They will remain poor. Also these same "rich" people seem to be "cost conscience - cheap" and this is how they gathered large amounts of cash.
When it comes to buying, it is a fact that the "rich" poeple will spend a smaller percentage of their money than the less fortunate. Much to the disdain of my family, I believe that money is for spending not saving. The "legal minimum amount" of taxes I pay helps support the have nots.
Now back to the auction, It appeared (as far as I looked) that the DCM chairs and the Billy Wlider chaise lounge went for reasonable pricing. I want the Billy Wlider chaise lounge, but I intend to pay less than the hammer price. I have all the time in the world to wait for the deal.
jesgord, thank you for thinking of me. I have tried to be as straight forward as possible without being insulting. I am sure someone will not be happy.
on the contrary...
well played sir...i only disagree with the point made of the poor waiting for someone to give us something...ive worked hard for over half of my life at which i am only 28. i expect nothing and take nothing. i have survived on 1lb of beans and 1 loaf of bread per week for months at a time and never considered looking for "help". but certainly i do appreciate the tact of your response and by no means resent the rich{i have wealthy friends and family}, i resent excess. nor do i suppose that all are given a silver spoon...hard work sometimes pays off...but sometimes not, Cest la vie......
p.s.- glad to see niceguy rather than face The Wrath of Ark;)
In defense of "excessive" spending:
Matty: your moral outrage seems excessive and wrongheaded.
Just as the items being auctioned are "just stuff", the amounts being paid are JUST money. You'd think that virgins were being sacrificed for sofas & sideboards, the way you're carrying on. Who's harmed if Richie Rich pays a lot for a sofa? Assuming you think it right & proper that your own income is yours (and yours alone) to dispose of however you choose, so too is Richie Rich's.
If it's appropriate that those of us with modest incomes cry foul when some rich guy spends $50,000 for a sofa, is it also appropriate for those with a tiny fraction of YOUR or my income to damn us for spending $500 on a piece of furniture? What business is it of theirs? What business is it of yours or mine if others spend an amount we consider stratospheric? How would YOU go about "justifying" the $500 that you can afford to spend, other than to conclude that you wanted the sofa, and had an extra $500 laying around? Same with Richie Rich, except he has an extra $50,000.
You have no idea who these buyers are, or how they earned their money, so stop trying to make a moral argument out of an emotion that reads to me as just plain old-fashioned, common-as-dirt envy.
(I can barely spend $500 for a sofa, so please don't suggest that I'm arguing from the perspective of a "have" rather than a "have not". I'm just a Have-Not with my head screwed on straight.)
no contest...
i didnt want it to be misconstrued as such, but i can see where you'd get that...my argument comes more from the understanding of what that kind of money could do if applied to something based in the "greater good"....and of course these same people may be as philanthropic as The Giving Pledge...more power to them...i cant help but feel the way i do...just as the poor are painted in a certain light, so are the rich. there are exceptions to every rule. but please do not think it something as petty as envy, i will take my inspired poverty any day....
there is no winning
matty,
You neither win nor lose. Your opinions are yours and they are right for you. Even that mean fellow the Ark's opinions were right for him.
By the way, I am a child of the 50's and my parents had a plastic (new and cool) spoon for me. I got the silver spoon later with my money.
I would agree that everyone's opinions are valid so long as applied to themselves alone---
which is why I piped up in the first place.
If freedom of choice is what we're all in favor of, I felt it necessary point out that person A's individual rights end wherever Person B's individual rights begin. To criticize other's spending is to essentially deny their right to their own earnings.
If you can imagine a better use of $62,000, you're free to generate $62,000 then spend it however you see fit.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com