Olsen Irwin Director Tim Olsen considers the disjunction of respect that secondary market extends to living artists in light of the Sotheby's Australia lawsuit against John Olsen. An Article by Tim Olsen My father took the road less travelled. The life of a creator is not one many seeking ?safety?, ?certainty? and ?comfort? might choose, especially in the aspirational society we live in these days. But thankfully, his pure talent, prolific work ethic and deep love of the Australian landscape brought him prominence and sales which allowed him to continue to be a professional artist in a very slim field for success. His work hangs in the Sydney Opera House, he has served on the Boards of the National Art Gallery and Art Gallery of New South Wales and he has been honoured with an OBE, an AO and the Centenary Medal. In 2005 he won the Archibald Prize, twice the Wynne and he continues to paint today at age 87. Auction houses seem to love my father?s paintings as they attract a good price and therefore a good commission for them. So, you would think there were a lot of reasons for my father to be respected by the arts industry. He?s certainly respected and valued by art collectors, but the auction houses only seem to value and prize his canvasses, if not any work of his. Respecting the person behind the work, strangely, seems a long way down their list of priorities. On top of that, and of equal importance to the auction houses and to the buyers of artwork, is the need to be completely guaranteed about the provenance of an artwork. There were recent cases, were we have seen how poor provenance can be brutal. There was the fake Albert Tucker sold by Christie?s to Sydney barrister Louise McBride in 2000 for $87,000. Christie?s discovered the painting was a fake not long after the sale but did not tell McBride. When she tried to sell the work a decade later, she discovered it was worthless. Needless to say, she sued and ? ?after four years of legal torture? ? won ? (being a barrister no doubt helped). She said of the case, ?If I had not known it before I well and truly know it now; many of the professional practitioners in the Australian art market don't get this. For far too many it is all about the money, rarely about the art.? In January, it was reported that a number of fake worksattributed to 2012 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Art Award winner Barbara Moore were being sold by a popup auction house and some nine allegedly fake works attributed to Tommy Watson appeared in the auction house?s sales last year. So, verifying that a work is genuine must be the absolute priority for auction houses. In my father?s highly publicised case, Sotheby?s was selling a work that had become something of a family enigma. The work, The Mother, had been painted for my late mother Valerie in 1964, not long after the birth of my sister Louise. It had ?disappeared? and, in her later years, my mother repeatedly fretted over its whereabouts. When we heard that Sotheby?s was putting the work on the market we naturally wanted to know who was selling it. Sotheby?s staunch priority of confidentiality for the seller over their respect for the artist led to court, a private investigation and ultimately the truth about the work ? it had been gifted by my father at a very traumatic time in our family?s life when he was recovering from a bad car accident which almost lost him his painting arm, in fact bashed the whole family up. We were refugees with no roof over our head, on the other side of the world. My father was compromised to give away the painting in lieu of a small house in Spain for us to convalesce; obviously without my mothers knowledge. We discontinued the legal case as soon as we discovered this important information ? which Sotheby?s had refused to share with either us or the police. Fortunately we were able to avoid my father at his age being humiliated by cross- examination, for his understandable vague memory, knowing full well the vendors had full right of ownership. Supposedly, ' Sotheby's Australia is the premium auction-house within Australia, combining traditional expertise with integrity and inventiveness?. Sadly neither inventiveness , co-operation nor compassion for our still fresh grieving for Mums recent death was on display in our case. There was no attempt to take some sort of middle ground, such as providing us with the information on the condition that myself or John sign a confidentiality agreement, in order to resolve this naturally frustrating and emotionally-charged issue. Since then, my father had refused to grant copyright permission to Sotheby?s. They need this permission to reproduce images of the artworks for sale in catalogues and on the web and usually involves payment of a licence fee of approximately $250 per work to our licensing representative Viscopy. We value the importance Auction houses play in the excitement surrounding John Olsens buoyant status as a highly loved and investable artist. But why should he extend the goodwill of granting copyright to an Auction house who are not interested in helping him maintain the integrity and provenance of his works that come on to the market. Instead they behave obstructively and insult him with legal action. Despite this, Sotheby?s has ignored our withdrawal of copyright and published works for sale both in catalogues and on their website in a flagrant display of disrespect for both the law and my father. In total the whole thing is unreasonable and offensive. In earlier times, it?d be guns at ten paces at dawn. But these days, apart from continuing to speak through lawyers, I am more interested in an innovation that will resolve issues of provenance for all artists, auction houses and buyers and sellers in the future. Credible provenance is more and more important to the art market but I would argue that respect for the artist who creates these much-loved works that are prized by our community, is even more vital. Sotheby's think not. Tim Olsen