The Wall Street Journal - 22.08.2019

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Thursday, August 22, 2019 |A

The Savior

Of the ArtMarket

The Last Leonardo

By Ben Lewis

(Ballantine, 363 pages, $28)

BOOKSHELF| By Cammy Brothers

W

hen news broke in November 2017 about the sale, for

an unprecedented $450 million, of a painting in

questionable condition, with an uncertain attribution

to Leonardo da Vinci, it was the latest, most dramatic sign of

an art world gone topsy-turvy. Who would pay such a sum for

a 26-by-18-inch piece of painted panel? Almost two years later,

the strangeness surrounding the sale of the “Salvator Mundi”

has only increased. The painting has not been seen since its

sale, its whereabouts known only vaguely.

Ben Lewis, an art historian and critic, brings his combined

skills to bear in “The Last Leonardo,” a page-turning tale

about the most expensive painting of all time. It’s a story

populated by characters straight out of a thriller: the soft-

spoken but ambitious art dealer, the Russian oligarch in the

middle of a messy divorce, the shadowy Swiss storage king

who sidelines as a dealer, the Saudi prince eager to polish his

reputation with a cleansing spritz of high art. Mr. Lewis

interweaves the many threads

of an intricate tale into the

story of the dramatic

restoration, sale and resale of

the “Salvator Mundi.”

Within Leonardo’s lifetime

(1452-1519), his studio produced

at least 20 versions of the same

subject, which depicts Jesus

almost as a Byzantine icon, static

and centered, staring out at the

viewer. Leonardo typically did not

make this kind of stock religious

figure but had his assistants make

them, one among many indications

pointing away from his full authorship. Of the

originals, most have been lost or are known only through

copies. The multiple versions make each one difficult to trace,

but the first certain identification of the painting sold in 2017

dates from 1907, when it was noted in the collection of Fran-

cis Cook, an English merchant and art collector. The work was

described as having “suffered both by over-cleaning and

repainting.” A series of art historians saw it in Cook’s

collection but passed it over. In 1958 it was sold for £45 to

Warren Kuntz, an American collector from New Orleans. In

2005, a pair of intrepid art dealers, Robert Simon and Alex

Parish, bought it for $1,175.

Mr. Simon then brought the painting to the noted

conservator and New York University professor Dianne

Modestini. The painting had extensive areas of missing paint

and layers of overpainting by previous restorers. In Ms.

Modestini’s words, the condition of the face and eyes were

“shocking.” She performed exquisite work restoring the

painting, but as the author puts it, “If this had once been a

Leonardo, is it now still a Leonardo?”

A crucial moment in the quest to authenticate the painting

came in 2011 with the unusual decision, by the National

Gallery in London, to include “Salvator Mundi” in an

exhibition on Leonardo. The imprimatur of inclusion in an

esteemed show often boosts the value of a work being

prepared for sale, so such a move is generally frowned upon

and avoided. But after convening a group of experts, the

National Gallery decided to proceed, attributing the work

unequivocally to Leonardo.

Despite the institutional endorsement and a second

restoration treatment, the painting was not easy to sell. The

Qatari royal family; the Hermitage in St. Petersburg; the Getty

Museum; the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; the

Gemäldegalerie in Berlin and the Vatican all passed.

That’s when Yves Bouvier, a self-proclaimed art adviser and

the director of several high-end warehouses for art, stepped

in. He presented the painting to Dmitry Rybolovlev, a Russian

oligarch on the hunt for expensive art and real estate to shield

his assets during a divorce. Mr. Rybolovlev agreed to purchase

the “Salvator Mundi” for almost $130 million, with Mr.

Bouvier stashing it away in one of his warehouses. For years,

however, Mr. Bouvier had been reselling art to Mr. Rybolovlev

at a substantial markup (in this case, almost $50 million

more). By chance, Mr. Rybolovlev learned of Mr. Bouvier’s de-

ception, and several lawsuits are now in progress. In the

meantime, Mr. Rybolovlev put the painting back on the mar-

ket, with Christie’s holding the sale in November 2017.

More than 27,000 people went to see it when the auction

house put the painting on display, their responses documented

for an odd promotional video: Through a hidden camera,

viewers were recorded gazing at the painting. Slack-jawed

and moist-eyed, they were held in rapture. Hype or not, the

tears were real. Few would have realized how much of Ms.

Modestini’s handiwork they were seeing. How could they?

The full conservation report is yet to be made public.

Bidding began at $75 million and rocketed to $180 million

in about two minutes before reaching a final price of $

million. The buyer, initially shrouded in mystery, was

eventually revealed to be Crown Prince Mohammed bin

Salman of Saudi Arabia. For Prince Mohammed, the purchase

may have seemed like a way to establish himself as a cultured

player on the world stage, but the optics quickly shifted. “In

the Gulf States, art is a projection of power,” Mr. Lewis writes,

“but it also functions in a new way, as camouflage, to disguise

what is really going on.” Almost immediately after the sale, it

was announced that the painting would be loaned to the

Louvre Abu Dhabi, but it never arrived. “The ‘Salvator Mundi’

has not yet journeyed to Arabia,” we are told. “It has not left

Europe since it was sent there after the Christie’s auction.”

After its dramatic rise from obscurity, the painting is once

again hidden from view. “It is impossible to imagine a more

vivid symbol,” Mr. Lewis writes, “of the dysfunctionality

within the ecosystem of art than the fact that the most

recently discovered work of art by the most famous artist of

all time—never mind its outrageous cost—dare not show its

face.” The Louvre has requested it for the museum’s major

Leonardo exhibition, opening in October, but is still awaiting

an answer.

The story Mr. Lewis tells is about what happens when art

becomes an asset class. In one vast Geneva warehouse alone,

more than a million of the world’s most precious works,

purchased by investors as part ofa diversified portfolio, now

sit—accruing value for their owners, avoiding taxes, seen by

no one. Now there’s something to cry about.

Ms. Brothers is an associate professor at Northeastern

University and the author of “Michelangelo, Drawing, and the

Invention of Architecture.”

The ‘Salvator Mundi’ had layers of over-

painting by earlier restorers. If this had once

been a Leonardo, was it now still a Leonardo?

Is Hacking an ‘Act of War’?

W

ho should pay for the
damage Iran has in-
flicted on tankers in
the Strait of Hormuz? It’s long-
standing practice for insurance
companies not to cover acts of
war. Taking on the risks of
warfare, which lays waste to
entire regions, would expose
an insurer to ruin. But conven-
tional acts of war also entail
heavy risks for aggressors,
making them a less prevalent
danger to business. Modern
technology has made it easier
to conduct targeted acts of ag-
gression from far away, in se-
cret or by proxy, putting busi-
nesses on the front line.
In the best-case scenario, to-
day’s hybrid warfare drives up
the cost of insurance enor-
mously, as in the Strait of Hor-
muz. Anthony Gurnee, CEO of
Ardmore Shipping, told CNBC
in July that the cost of cover-
ing a trip through the strait
had grown 10-fold in two
months.
Other corporate victims of
foreign assaults are even un-
luckier. Two years ago, the
NotPetya attack, a virus target-
ing Ukrainian government
agencies and businesses,
spread to various multinational
corporations. It caused an esti-
mated $870 million in losses to
Merck; $400 million to FedEx’s

European subsidiary, TNT Ex-

press; $300 million to Maersk,

the Danish shipping giant; and

$188 million to Mondelez,

which makes Oreos.

It’s unclear if some of those

companies will get an insurance

payout. Mondelez’s and Merck’s

claims have both been denied

on grounds that the NotPetya

attack was an act of war—an ar-

gument supported by the fact

that several countries including

the U.K. and the U.S. attributed

the attack to Russia. Both com-

panies are fighting in court with

their insurance companies.

Attacks on businesses linked

to foreign governments are be-

coming increasingly frequent.

Hackers working for Beijing

and Pyongyang regularly target

Western companies. Last year

the U.S. Department of Home-

land Security and the Federal

Bureau of Investigation re-

ported that hackers linked to

Russian government operatives

have attacked American firms

in a variety of sectors, includ-

ing energy, water, aviation and

manufacturing. This is the new

state of foreign policy. Earlier

this summer the U.S. reportedly

hacked the Russian grid.

If the risks of hybrid warfare

become too high, certain busi-

ness activities—think sending

cargo ships along particular

routes or operating critical na-

tional infrastructure such as

power plants—may become un-

insurable. Businesses are cheap,

easy and largely risk-free tar-

gets. Western countries’ march

toward smart cities, and their

increasing use of the internet of

things, make their companies

and residents more vulnerable

still.

This means the insurance

market has to change, and it’s

starting to already. Global cor-

porate insurers are working on

models that would allow them

to cover companies even if

they are targeted by hostile

countries or proxies, without

bankrupting the insurer. Insur-

ance brokers, in turn, are tak-

ing on a more central role in

advising companies regarding

insurance and risk. The greater

danger makes the market more

complex to negotiate.

Governments can help by

taking the risks to businesses

into account in their geopoliti-

cal strategies. Roderich

Kiesewetter, a Christian Demo-

cratic member of the German

Parliament, told me that Euro-

pean governments should act

together to make sure Strait of

Hormuz traffic doesn’t become

uninsurable and thus unusable

for international trade. “It

would be helpful if we moni-

tored the area as part of a

joint European mission,” he

said.

In the U.S., Sens. Mike Crapo

(R., Idaho) and Mark Warner

(D., Va.) have introduced a bill

styled the Microchips Act,

which would require defense

and intelligence agencies to de-

velop a comprehensive strat-

egy to deal with Chinese

threats to U.S. supply chains,

including from cyberattacks.

In extreme cases such as

complete power grid failure,

there may be no option but for

the government and the insur-

ance industry to team up and

jointly reinsure the risk, as

Britain’s Pool Re does with

terrorism.

It’s dangerous to insulate

companies from risks they take

on, but hybrid warfare is an

unpredictable danger imposed

on the entire market. Almost

any firm could be hit by a

cyberattack. Governments need

to afford them the protections

needed for global commerce to

continue.

Ms. Braw directs the Mod-

ern Deterrence project at the

Royal United Services Institute.

By Elisabeth Braw

Billions rest on that

question for insurance

companies and their

policyholders.

OPINION

I

’d love to see Donald
Trump beaten in 2020, and
it should be easy enough.
His list of accomplishments is
short, most Americans express
strong disapproval of his be-
havior, and he has done little
to win over people who don’t
already support him. Yet he
stands a good chance of re-
election. One in five registered
voters is up for grabs in 2020,
according to a Washington
Post-ABC News poll, while Mr.
Trump’s approval rating
among independents has risen
from 35% to 42% since June,
according to an NPR/PBS
NewsHour/Marist poll. What
gives?
I blame my fellow liberals.
Rather than figuring out a way
to beat an unpopular president
in 2020, most have spent the
past 2½ years blaming every-
one but themselves—Hillary
Clinton, Russia, the Electoral
College, “white suprema-
cists”—and expecting to win
on the strength of their hatred
without putting together a
winning coalition.
Part of the problem lies
with the unpopular positions
prominent Democrats have
taken—from decriminalizing
unauthorized border crossings

We Liberals Need Self-Criticism

to banning private health in-

surance. The main problem,

though, has less to do with

policy than with attitude. To

many ordinary Americans we

appear unhinged, haughty and

out of touch. What can we do

to change?

First, stop obsessing over

identity. We can and should

support policies that benefit

disadvantaged groups, from

criminal-justice reform to a

higher minimum wage and af-

fordable health care. But our

tendency to insert race, sex

and sexual orientation into ev-

erything gives the impression

that we are more committed

to narrow groups than Ameri-

cans as a whole.

Second, change the Man-

ichaean outlook. Liberals in-

creasingly tend to shame and

“cancel” anyone who doesn’t

conform to our thinking on

complex social issues. We

wield political correctness like

a club. It’s been well-docu-

mented that voters in 2016

saw Trump as an antidote to

political correctness—and it

isn’t only conservatives.

Eighty percent of Americans—

including three-quarters of

blacks and more than 80% of

Asian-Americans, Hispanics

and American Indians—disap-

prove of political correctness.

Third, cultivate a fuller un-

derstanding of justice. Our fa-

natical embrace of the oppres-

sor-victim narrative finds us

quick to assign guilt or inno-

cence based on narrow identity

markers like race and sex, see-

ing women as always victims,

men as always aggressors, mi-

norities and immigrants as by

definition innocent. We’ve

rightly drawn attention to dis-

parities in everything from po-

lice brutality to mortgage lend-

ing, but we’ve become reckless

in the process. Think of the

way progressives believed

Jussie Smollett’s preposterous

hate-crime claim and con-

demned Al Franken without

evidence.

Fourth, progressives need

to be progressive—pluralistic

rather than tribal, compas-

sionate rather than hateful,

thoughtful rather than reac-

tive. “Progressive” has become

a dirty word to many Ameri-

cans, more closely associated

with intolerance and double

standards than with free

thought and due process.

Fifth, those who work in the

media need to stop abusing

their authority. I am grateful

for rigorous investigative work

that uncovers Mr. Trump’s

abuses of power. But there’s a

reason so many Americans

think much of the media is

“fake news”: The left-of-center

figures who populate it stop at

nothing to demonize their po-

litical enemies.

This is a shame because our

side’s media is basically alone

in drawing attention to press-

ing issues like corruption, cli-

mate change and income in-

equality. We’ll have a better

time reaching people when our

approach to delivering the

news is more credible.

We liberals have hidden be-

hind our professed goodness

and lost our capacity for self-

criticism. We’ve insisted that

everyone else adapt to a

changing world but have re-

fused to adapt ourselves. If we

don’t change, we’ll continue to

inspire more suspicion than

hope, and pay a price for it in

2020 and beyond.

Mr. Gatsiounis is an Austin-

based writer who reports on

race and politics.

We won’t beat Trump

by blaming others and

boasting about our

own supposed virtue.

By Ioannis Gatsiounis

T

he Democrats’ impeach-
ment train rolls on. The
latest movement came
Monday, when the House’s No.
4 Democrat, Assistant Speaker
Ben Ray Luján, announced
that he favors “moving for-
ward” on an inquiry into im-
peaching President Trump.
Never mind that the House
has not voted, as it did with
Presidents Andrew Johnson
and Richard Nixon, to autho-
rize a Judiciary Committee
impeachment investigation.
Nor is the House relying on
the recommendations of an
outside investigation, as it did
with President Bill Clinton. On
the contrary, House impeach-
ment fanatics were disap-
pointed earlier this year when
special counsel Robert Muel-
ler found no criminal conspir-
acy and did not conclude the
president obstructed justice.
House Democrats are stum-
bling on anyway.
Judiciary Committee Chair-
man Jerry Nadler has decided
he won’t wait for authoriza-
tion from the House, and Mr.
Mueller’s investigation soured
the congressman on asking
for another one of those. On
his own authority, Mr. Nadler
told CNN Aug. 8 that his com-
mittee will undertake “formal
impeachment proceedings”
aimed at voting articles of im-
peachment to the floor by
year’s end. That goal may be
achievable: 17 of 24 Judiciary
Democrats now support im-
peachment, and only four
more are needed to send an
impeachment resolution to
the full House.

Impeachment Bumbles On

It gets dicier there. Know-

ing the Democratic majority

depends on 31 lawmakers who

won GOP-held seats in last

year’s midterm election,

Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes

impeachment, preferring to

beat Mr. Trump at the polls in

2020. As of Wednesday, 127 of
      235 House Democrats favor
      beginning impeachment pro-
      ceedings, along with one inde-
      pendent. Assuming no House
      vacancies, 218 votes would be
      necessary to impeach Mr.
      Trump and send him to a trial
      in the Senate, where it’s im-
      possible to imagine 67 law-
      makers voting to convict.

Mr. Nadler’s decision to

proceed will have ramifica-

tions. He will increasingly be-

come the face of House Demo-

crats. Everything he does—

every hearing, every lawsuit

and every statement—will

drive the national news.

More House Democrats will

endorse impeachment; gravi-

tational forces inside the

party will pull them that di-

rection. Hedge funder Tom

Steyer abandoned his multi-

million-dollar impeachment

campaign for a vanity candi-

dacy for the Democratic presi-

dential nomination, but he

left an army of activists clam-

oring for Democrats to im-

peach Mr. Trump. Many on

the Democratic Party’s left

wing are itching to take on

traditional Democrats in pri-

maries; impeachment will be a

litmus test.

Mr. Nadler and his commit-

tee’s work will further reduce

awareness of the Democratic

legislative agenda. What

swing voter today can de-

scribe what House Dems have

done? That attention deficit

will only get worse as Mr. Na-

dler becomes the president’s

Inspector Javert. Impeach-

ment could also distract from

presidential candidates at a

critical moment—year’s end,

with early primary contests

looming.

The biggest problem for

Democrats is that pursuing

impeachment risks alienating

swing voters. The July 28

Quinnipiac Poll found 62% of

independents didn’t believe

that “Congress should begin

the process to impeach Presi-

dent Trump.” Meanwhile, a

June 16 Gallup Poll found 51%

of independents thought Mr.

Trump should not be “im-

peached and removed from

office.”

Absent compelling new in-

formation, Mr. Nadler’s mach-

inations could endanger con-

gressional Democrats in GOP-

leaning districts, which is why

only two Democratic repre-

sentatives from districts Mr.

Trump won—New Hamp-

shire’s Chris Pappas and Illi-

nois’s Lauren Underwood—

back impeachment.

Swing voters will ask why

Democrats want to plunge

America into a constitutional

crisis. Impeachment requires

broad bipartisan consensus. In

this case, not even Democrats

are united on the question.

By overplaying his hand,

Mr. Nadler could create the

impression of a partisan witch

hunt. This would likely ener-

gize Mr. Trump’s base, and

the inevitable failure to re-

move the president from of-

fice could depress Democratic

turnout.

Still, Team Trump should

consider a different tack from

the one it took in response to

the Mueller investigation.

While it was under way, the

president and his allies spent

considerable time and energy

attacking it. As Mr. Nadler

proceeds, however, less may

be more. A speech, tweet or

TV appearance devoted to im-

peachment is a missed oppor-

tunity to tout the president’s

agenda.

Tone also matters. It would

be more effective if Team

Trump’s comments were in

sorrow and disappointment

rather than in the frustration

and anger that colored their

reactions to the special coun-

sel’s investigation. Mr. Nadler

is moving ahead with im-

peachment, hoping for a mira-

cle. It won’t happen; he is on

a fool’s errand, setting up the

country for even greater ran-

cor and his party for disap-

pointment.

Mr. Rove helped organize

the political-action committee

American Crossroads and is

author of “The Triumph of

William McKinley” (Simon &

Schuster, 2015).

Somebody tell Jerry

Nadler he’s setting up

his fellow Democrats

for disappointment.

By Karl Rove

Daniel Henninger is away.