The Barbier-Mueller collection has a rich history spanning over a century. The collection was started by Josef Mueller, the son of a bourgeois family in Switzerland, who began collecting African and Oceanic art in the early 20th century. Josef Mueller's daughter Monique later married Jean-Paul Barbier-Mueller, and the collection continued to grow under their stewardship.

In 1977, Jean-Paul and Monique Barbier-Mueller opened the Barbier-Mueller Museum in Geneva, Switzerland to house and display their growing collection. Over the years, the collection expanded to over 7,000 pieces, including works from tribal and classical antiquity, as well as sculptures, fabrics, and ornaments from "primitive" civilizations around the world. The museum gained international acclaim through traveling exhibitions, loans to other museums, and the publication of numerous catalogs and art books. After the deaths of Jean-Paul in 2016 and Monique in 2019, their heirs decided recently to sell approximately 100 African works from the Barbier-Mueller collection. This sale followed the Pre-Columbian sale in 2013 at Sotheby’s Paris and several other auction sales in 1978 and 1979 after the death of Joseph Mueller.

On March 6, 2024, 100 African art objects from the Barbier Mueller collection (one of the most famous collections of African and Oceanic art in the world) were auctioned at Christies Paris. The Fang reliquary head which was once owned by the French artist Maurice de Vlaminck had not been exhibited since November 1930. The Fang head was placed on top of bark containers or baskets that held the preserved skull and bones of these revered ancestors. The head served to protect and guard the irreplaceable relics that linked the living to the dead. The auction broke records, with the Fang reliquary head selling for €14.8 million, which was a new record for a work in this category. A number of other extremely well-known objects also sold for record prices.

In the context of current events, both within the non-profit and for-profit segments of the ethnographic art market, this sale could be interpreted as both good news or bad news for sides either opposed or supporting collecting objects that are located outside the indigenous countries. Like any major sale, rumors abound as to the identities of the buyers, which if known would certainly answer many questions as to the future of the market. Were these buyers from the contemporary/modern collectors? Or were the buyers one-time players filling a need for an area in a museum? Some reports suggested there are around twenty buyers in the world that could and would want to step up for a purchase like this. I call that a WAG (wild-ass guess) at best; however, considering the data suggests there is more political concern in the marketplace, it is reasonable to assume the buyer came from a segment where this was not a primary issue.

I will leave the political and moral debates to others. As an appraiser, I am far more concerned about the market and being able to provide thoughtful advice to those that are concerned with the future of their objects that were collected legally with clear title in simpler times. The top end of the market is never an accurate predicter of the rest of the market. In general, great objects hold their value; however, it is important that one considers the possibility that, given time and cultural changes, the lower end of the market could be a predicter of the high-end market. We can all think of objects within our areas that suffered a downturn. My colleagues on the Antiques Roadshow that specialize in fine furniture could tell us many sad stories about how that market seemingly evaporated overnight. Trends and buying habits are clearly impactful.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s, I sold some great Navajo Germantown blankets that were, in many cases, beautifully woven with colorful dramatic patterns that, considering their size, were perceived as a bargain as a work of two-dimensional art to be displayed on a wall. Sellers, buyers, appraisers, curators... everyone thought the market for these textiles, considering their finite number and quality, would go up. The market dropped as a result of a major change none of us anticipated. The next generation of buyers did not care... they had other interests. This market reversal is quite similar to what happened in furniture.

Museums are an important part of a stable art market, in that they mirror the concerns and aspirations of their supporters. US museums are facing a funding crisis, with ambitious expansions leaving them with larger footprints but declining government funding. Attendance has not returned to pre-COVID levels, while operating costs have increased significantly. Traditional philanthropic models are no longer reliable, as younger generations have different priorities and relationships with the arts compared to previous generations. Younger and new donors, including tech-industry donors, are less interested in supporting legacy institutions and are more focused on tackling global issues like climate change and racial justice. Many donors want a more active role in pushing institutions to change, rather than just securing board seats or having their names on galleries. Museums are shifting from a "deficit-based" approach of trying to solve community problems, to an "asset-based" approach that identifies and catalyzes community strengths and resources. There is a push for museums to genuinely empower communities through bidirectional partnerships and shared power, rather than just tokenistic engagement. Museums are using augmented reality (AR), interactive digital exhibits, and online access to collections to make the museum experience more immersive, collaborative, and accessible. The availability of high-quality digital art content is changing how people can engage with and access art, potentially reducing the importance of physical possession of artworks by museums. In summary, US museums are facing significant funding challenges and are having to adapt their models to engage younger and more socially conscious donors, as well as to meaningfully partner with and empower local communities. They are also leveraging technology to transform the museum experience and increase accessibility.

Market forces are complicated by adding cultural considerations. In this scenario, not only do buyers care less, but these buyers become subjected to criticism for appropriating culture and “stealing” property that rightfully belongs to an indigenous group. Buyers are judged in the present for acquiring art legally in the past with clear title. A few years ago, I was cataloging 25 objects of Native American for an auction house. Unless we agreed to pull all the Indian objects, an activist group threatened to boycott the auction on social media and protest at the auction location. When I explained that some of the objects were soapstone and were sold as contemporary art to benefit Native American families, the activists insisted they were “ceremonial” and would not be excluded from the group. Recently, we have heard rumors of similar claims being made against contemporary Hopi kachinas carved for the benefit of Native Americans. In the future, it is plausible that restrictions may be placed on non-indigenous people as to what they might be permitted to even see, much less own.

The point is that in an economic-stressed climate where critical areas that impact the country, such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, and law enforcement, are underfunded, who is going to fund important programs for indigenous peoples? It would seem prudent to educate our voting population about these important cultures so that we may better understand their needs. Our nonprofit and for-profit sectors have a role to play in understanding and appreciating cultural differences.

This argument is not political; but it is an essential part in seeking balance and understanding in both the non-profit and for-profit communities. If we relegate our museums to educating us to what is the trend of the moment, it seems very plausible that our population will have little interest in supporting anything having to do with the ethnographic art of indigenous peoples. If this happens, like furniture or Navajo Germantown blankets, nobody will care.

As a society, we appear to be becoming more and more interested in things that are ultimately not very important. I lecture my interns to be alert for the ‘aha’ moment when you discover what profession, or lifestyle, or person will make you happy and fulfilled for the rest of your life. It seems to me that waiting for likes, being glued to your cell phone, and finding yourself through social media are not ultimately the best way to find real happiness.

So, we return to the Fang head. Will this great collection smoke out other great collections into the marketplace. My bet is yes; however, I am not certain what this means long term for ethnographic art. Certainly, prices have fallen, a reality for many of us that started in the 1970’s had a very difficult time accepting. When selling, there has always been this nagging feeling that we are giving away art for a percentage of the real value. Get real; ultimately, the market dictates value, which is where we are now. So, granted lower-priced objects are still selling, creating in the short term at these price points new interest from buyers that are in a discovery mode. These buyers are not primarily interested in protecting an investment. Serious buyers with major investments in art should be and are concerned with capital gains not capital losses. Long-term, I am worried about the future of ethnographic art. Short-term, I have no idea where the market will go.

Having a great experience in the present can occasionally blind the collector to the ultimate reality that, as an appraiser, I confront every week with clients. Eventually, life, as you know it, ends. Now what do you do? The options are clear when considering the disposition of material possessions. You can sell at auction or through private dealers. You can keep it in the family, or you can donate it to a 501C3. All these options have nuance that become important when confronting the issues I have outlined above. In an ideal world where money is at least a secondary problem, I envision a collaboration among collectors of like-mind to protect their art and make it available to future generations through foundations, trusts, or private museums. Ultimately, decreasing control greatly increases vulnerability. Without private sector support, museums will make collection problems just disappear by storage, selling, repatriating, and rejecting donations. This is already happening, which is setting in motion heightened interest in provenance and all levels of virtue signaling.

Bleak is a matter of perspective. And it really isn’t over until it’s over. Trust me, you will know when this happens. I can only hope that future generations of collectors, curators, appraisers, and dealers will have as much fun as I have had. I end with a great debate that I had with Roy Sieber which started as a satirical exercise of determining the “top ten” greatest African art objects in preparation for my lecture at the Kimbell Museum. I also include one of my favorite pictures of my mentor and friend.