Clinton Howell Antiques

When we really know the character of the person(s) involved in scandal, it is seldom surprising and in fact isn't really scandal. What we are doing is taking voyeuristic delight in another person's karma. Richard Nixon, for example, told us he was not a crook. (Beware the solipsistic oxymoronic dialectic confession--it is just too confusing.) And we knew that Bill Clinton enjoyed female company. Was the Monica Lewinsky story a scandal therefore? No, it was Bill Clinton down to his last Socratic defense trying to define the word, "is".

In the antiques business, we are not immune to people with odd karmas and some of them become quite successful dealers. Some of these dealers have flamed out, some have battled lawsuits, some have succumbed and some have survived. Every dealer sees the opportunity of being unethical, but it is the unethical people who happen to be dealers that take advantage of the situation. These situations aren't scandals, they are karma. Most of them would have been far more successful as politicians where real scandal exists. Such as the building of a fence to keep out illegal immigrants. What poppycock! That and the powers given to Homeland Security are a true scandal.

I don't wish to be pessimistic, but I do like frogs and I admire bats. I love bees and salmon are quite something to watch. I wonder if some governmental agency is being given a pat on the back for keeping an eye on the situation, that is the unknown plagues that each of these species is undergoing. It is hard not to be cynical of this current group in power that has deemed that a fence on the Mexican border is more important than environmental concerns or the property owners whose land is being usurped. I am not just talking about our president but all the rest of Congress that feels so strongly about this issue. What are we doing? Stone walls do not a prison (read border here) make nor iron bars a cage. My mother used to say that to me when I was young. It was true then and it is true now.

No, I have never been to Japan and I have never been overly interested in much of Japanese art, but I found an exception at the Japan Society on 47th St. in New York City the other day. Shibata Zeshin (1809-1891) was an artist as well as a lacquer specialist. As I have always appreciated the craft of art, Zeshin, I realized very quickly, was my man. His lacquer work is particularly beautiful, delicate and balanced with nuance and whimsy. His paintings exhibit similar understanding of composition and form. Furthermore, he developed ways of using lacquer on scrolls which demonstrated a dedication to material and a willingness to push his material beyond traditional scopes.

Art in today's society has become a passport of cool of hipness, more about ideas than craft. While I understand the desire to separate from the group to celebrate one's vision, I have to say that Zeshin was a man who understood what it was to be contemporary and still a 19th century Japanese artist.

You are what you eat. That is undeniable, but are you also what you listen to and read collaterally, like skimmed newspaper articles, advertisements in the background, muzak in the marketplace? This is a nuanced question given the mass of what we come in contact with on a daily basis. In the world of antiques, for example, the shelter magazines tout hot new ideas in almost every issue and this reportage most certainly has resonance in my business. The word for the last five to seven years is that modern is hot and sexy. Bullshit! Good design is hot and sexy and always will be.

The media craves and creates excitement. Is it any wonder that the election process produces sound bites instead of substance? Substance requires attention and concentration. Health care, education and infrastructure are boring subjects in depth and yet essential elements of our society. Going to war is sexy, particularly all those new bombs and missiles. But five years of war is not sexy. Maybe it is the sound bites, that information we have barely listened to, that has polluted our judgment? It is something to think about.

After spending half an hour on Youtube watching all manners of political commentary and their peanut galleries, left and right wing, I have to say the right to free speech seems overextended (boy. would this doom my candidacy if I was running for office). Of course, I don't really mean that, but we are a nation that believes that incivility and profanity and personal insult is a recognized form of debate. I would not dare to question the intelligence of such people, but I might ask that they learn how to spell before they spew their screed. I might also suggest a few years in college to help elevate debating skills.

If this sounds elitist, it is only because it sounds that way. It isn't that way, however. Discussion is not declamatory. Refutation is not put down. If your beliefs are credible, then articulate them. The rest is, well, not worth talking about.

I would love to see a controlled study group of, say, two hundred people given the words "antique dealer" to define. I can't see many people being able to do so. I thought of this because of an article about a man in California who is being prosecuted for claiming to have won the Congressional Medal of Honor. There is a law that says you cannot claim any military honors without merit. This man is facing fines and jail time.

I sympathize with the intent of the law, but free speech is free speech. If I had won such an honor, I would be furious with people who claimed such valor and I'd probably want to punch them out. But that is not how our system works. Free speech allows you to say anything...., ANYTHING.

In the antiques world, there are people who are traders, those people who perhaps understand style and who may have a commercial instinct, and there are dealers. Dealers, in my opinion, should know their woods reasonably well, they should know style, they should know makers, they should know other examples of things similar to what they sell that are in museums and country houses, they should know good restorers/conservators..., the list goes on. Do I take dealing seriously? Yes, because words do matter.

Ambling along a street on the Upper East Side of New York City the other day, I saw a pile of discarded furniture with the signature mahogany stain of the Bombay Company. It was a fitting reminder to me of a conversation I had in the 1980's with a man who was telling me that the Bombay price point was indisputably a better deal than antique furniture. It was so cheap!!!! The pile on the sidewalk bore out his observation.

The downside to companies like Bombay for me is that they emulate classic styles. It is the middle class dream to own things that appear to have some sophistication. I don't disagree with this, but I have to say that quality also matters a great deal. That we will buy something because it is cheap is a contradiction in many different ways. Unfortunately, like a great many other things we do these days, we choose to turn a blind eye and accept half a loaf when the whole loaf will ultimately prove to be more worthwhile.

I wonder if this is a function of education or perhaps a lack of time to complete all that needs to be done. Who really wants to spend the time looking for a table that might require a budget stretch (I am not talking antiques here, I am referring to used furniture which can be found all over the place) but which will last over the convenience of buying something new for very little money? The catch of course is that cheap is cheap, there is no way of getting around that fact.

I believe it is education that makes us curious. As much as I would like to blame the current administration for this lack of education, I fear that it has become endemic to our way of life. Clever entrepreneurs, and make no mistake the Bombay Company was a very clever idea, want to prove to us that we can have the look for very little money when in fact what is required of us is time and curiosity. That pile of debris on 73rd St. is my case in point.

I have long thought that the most important attribute of an antique dealer is to be able to impart knowledge to a client. It isn't all that simple as it requires an attentive buyer and the dealer must pace their words and speak as a teacher, not as parent.

A good leader often gets you to understand what he wants through the release of information. It is a form of teaching that virtually none of the presidents in my life time have practiced. Instead, they lead as a parent admonishing us about the dangers of taking the wrong path, usually the path leading against their wishes. Hillary Clinton's health care initiative died because of its secrecy. Dick Cheney's obsession for secrecy belies the role of a public servant.

I would like to see a leader that tries to let the country know just how much power lobbyists have over the Congress. I would like to see the role of lobbyists vastly diminished. I would like to see the people responding to their politicians in a working fashion, both at the polls, which is a reactive proposition and with their elected officials, an interactive proposition.

Obama seems to understand the interactive concept well. Neither Hillary or McCain seem to. Huckabee is open because he is a long shot. Would he be nearly so open if he were the Republican candidate?

I do have a preference this fall. I would like to see America as the victor in the polls, not one party. The potential with the three major candidates is better than it has been for awhile, but no one can possibly know what is going to happen until the new president starts to govern. Frankly, I would suggest to anyone in the process of thinking about who to vote for to spend a little time learning about antiques. It is more relaxing and if they get interested, they can always buy one and take it home.

I got into the antiques business because I have a passion for antiques. Most of the people that I know in the business also have a passion for it, but a few of them particularly shine out.

My friend, the conservator Yuri Yanchyshyn, is one of those people. He cares immensely for what he does. He handles wonderful objects and furniture and his sole purpose is to see that they last for as long as possible. His work requires great skill in a number of different areas including a vast knowledge of materials, finishes and adhesives as well as a good grasp of chemistry and particularly solvents. He is good at wading into unknown territory in order to solve problems and he does it with skill and panache as I have learned on more than one occasion. He is a credit to the American Institute of Conservators as well as a leading light in his field. His business is called Period Furniture Conservation and you should google him and visit his website.

Another person, equally passionate about antiques, is John Fiske, an antiquarian who, with his wife Lisa Freeman, own the business of Fiske and Freeman which is just moving to Ipswich, Mass from far away Vermont. In the most recent issue of "The New England Antiques Journal", John writes eloquently of the connection that antiques gives us to humanity in general. He is worth the read and worth the visit in Ipswich. 

A nod to Samuel Beckett in recognition of just how endemic it is to all of us to be waiting for something. That is what doing an antique show is all about. Waiting for the right person to show up.

I can't say that it happened at this year's Winter Antique Show. I think I might have met a couple of the right people, but they might not have recognized me. Or vice-versa.

It has very little to do with antiques after all. It has to do with trust. That is probably why we bother to wait at all.

I haven't blogged for a bit. Not because I haven't had ideas, but because I have devoted myself to pulling my stand together for the Winter Antqiues Show which starts next week. It includes the designing of a floor which I have left to my restorers, Curry and Hovis, but what really concerns me is the restoration of all the things I have purchased in the last year. I have had to lean on friendships with a whole host of restorers around the world and, for the most part, they have been extremely cooperative.

The effort that goes into putting a show booth together is extraordinary. Around July, I always feel that I don't really have anything new to put on my booth. That isn't always the case, but what you want is something that really strikes you as rare and unusual. Along about the time that the International Show begins in October and when you get to see all the English dealer booths from London and realize that many of them are showing things they showed at the Grosvenor House Fair in June, you start worrying less about having a completely original booth.

Sort of. You are never really satisfied, no matter how good the objects on your stand are. You don't ever want to compare yourself to others, you want to do the best that you possibly can and only you know how good that is. When it is good, the feeling is superb and when it is okay, you want to slit your wrists. At this point, I haven't started to look for the razor, but who knows, by next Tuesday, I might become a self appointed Sweeney Todd.

In dealing with my health insurer, the NYC Parking Violations Bureau, and an English bank today, it comes as no surprise to anyone that these bureaucracies are designed not to do things, but to prevent things from happening. Usually, they are given a revenue stream that is operated by highly efficient and often officious individuals. On the back end, the crew that are supposed to help in times of need, that is to give service, these people are often handicapped by their superiors who teach them not to answer any question until it is properly asked of them. Their purpose is to prevent the revenue stream from being breached in any fashion and for profits to be maximized. It works.

How did we get into this predicament? I don't want to blame Wal-Mart just because they are big (although my daughter had an interesting run in with them on Sunday about a prescription) but the larger a corporation becomes, the dumber the employees are allowed to act. Even Einstein knew how to act dumb, so it is not as if these people are stupid. But when intelligence is not engaged in a job, why think? Consequently, we have a dumb boundary or the moat for the modern day thane, laird or whatever you want to call Mega-Huge Corporation of today. With dumbness, you can discourage people as my manager had to call the health insurer three times before she knew the right question to ask, I had to hold for 15 minutes for the Parking Violations Office who had overcharged me and finally, the bank who told me that it was after hours and I should call tomorrow. After all, I only had an unauthorized transaction on my debit card. If I have spent a million pounds by tomorrow, it isn't my fault. Or is it? 

Our political system is extremely interesting to me. It seems as if all of the candidates are forced, given the nature of the news media, to perfect a delivery that is acceptable to their base. It is sort of a one note delivery. Stray off message and the media makes a federal case out of how the message is not what the candidate meant all along.

How complex is it being the president of the U.S.? Actually, I would say it is very complex. Are we any clearer at this point in time of how any of these candidates would fare in facing the bureaucracy of America which seems incapable of dealing with all sorts of things from bridge collapses to Defense Department overbilling to infrastructure meltdown to education and health reform? I don't think we are.

What is really interesting is how the Republican candidates are trying to appeal to the Christian right, the Karl Rove innovation that got Bush elected in 2000. The Democrats, on the other hand, are trying to unify but by the time the candidate is chosen, they will be at each other's throats. A Republican candidate is not that far fetched given this factor.

Would that we had a system that focused on policy.

A friend who visited Art Basel in Miami told me that he did not understand contemporary art but that he felt it was the fault of his own ignorance. "Once I know the context of a painting within the artist's work, I can start to get a handle on at least one painting."

My counter to this assertion is that context should not matter at all. Context only matters when talking about value, but it does not matter in the assessment of aesthetics. Van Gogh painted some so-so pictures and they are almost never what one thinks of when Van Gogh is mentioned. Are they still good pictures? To my way of thinking, if I like them, they are, but if I don't then they are not. Guess what this type of assessment does to value? It tanks it.

I have never liked Frank Lloyd Wright furniture. It is uncomfortable to look at and sit in. I love Greene and Greene furniture. One company was a furniture company designing furniture to live with and admire and the other company was making props for an architect. Isn't this obvious to everyone?