Behind 40,000 fake artefacts in a Chinese museum
China’s economy has been booming, there is no doubt about that. So has been the country’s art market. The Art Basel and UBS global Art Market Report 2021 discovered that, despite the negative impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the global art market and the economy in general, China contributed to 20% of the $50.1 billion global art sales, second to the US (42%) and on par with the UK. China has been nobody in this arena up to 2006. However, it has now cemented its place in the top 3 of global art market share.
Nevertheless, the culture boom in China seems to be shadowed by the looming concern over the surge in forgeries. In an interview with the New York Times, Xiao Ping, painter and former authentication adviser to the Nanjing Museum, estimated that “80 percent of the lots at small and medium-sized auction houses are replicas.” What is more startling is when a Chinese private museum in Hebei Province, Jibaozhai Museum, was exposed to house as many as 40,000 fakes — that is nearly the museum’s entire collection.
In information available to the public, this museum was granted several official titles by the local and national governments, including AAA National Tourist Area. The standards of Quality Grade Evaluation of Tourist Areas are made by the National Tourism Administration. This is a uniquely Chinese way of managing tourism attractions with the aim to boost the tourism industry. Tourist attractions with higher ratings tend to attract more visitors, and consequently generating more profit. For Jibaozhai Museum to be classified as AAA, one article in the standards specifies that the museum should “have high value at a provincial level in at least one area including historical, cultural and scientific”. When assessed against this standard, the museum does not qualify, given that the fake artefacts produce little, if any, value. However, in practice, stronger emphases are put on the scale, facilities and services rather than the actual content in the museum. The grand halls and extensive collections (albeit fake) of Jibaozhai Museum therefore justify the rating.
With around 100 museums opening all over China every year and generous government incentives to support their operations, different parties are jumping onto the opportunity. Instead of acting in the public interest and joint-handily build a country with strong soft power, museums like Jibaozhai opted for a profit-driven path. In fact, many local governments acquiesce or even praise the existence of these museums to promote the profile and image of their municipality. This seemingly “win-win” situation for the government officials and museum operators left the public struggling to receive adequate cultural education that they deserve. This situation reflects a general environment in China where everything is evolving at an unprecedented speed but the rule of law is lagging behind. Setting up standards that truly reflect the intended goal by the central government may not eradicate the issue of forgery and the chain of interest behind its operation. However, they can be useful frameworks for better execution on the local level. And more importantly, time is of the essence.