Meet our Guest with D’Lan Davidson

Portrait of D’Lan Davidson, Director of D’Lan Contemporary

In a recent Sotheby’s Aboriginal Art auction held on 25 May in New York, two works by 19th century Wurundjeri artist and Elder William Barak were bought by the artist’s descendants. Leading international Australian Indigenous art consultant and dealer D’Lan Davidson successfully bid on the works on behalf of Elder Ron Jones and the Wurundjeri people. For this edition of Meet our Guest, our Director and Founder, Alana Kushnir spoke to D’Lan about the significance of these acquisitions and the steps D’Lan Contemporary is taking to initiate positive industry change.

How would you describe your role?

I started out as a private dealer, finding and sourcing important Australian Indigenous artworks and placing them into prominent collections. In 2010 Sotheby’s Australia approached me to formally take over the role of Head of Aboriginal Art, which became quite a tenuous position because of the Global Financial Crisis. After five years of doing auctions I moved back into the private sphere, doing private sales of important Australian Indigenous art. That gave me more control over placement – where artworks go – and pricing. It gave me the ability to price the works where I thought there was a much stronger footing and stand firm with the artwork in its representation.

With D’Lan Contemporary, you maintain strict ethical practices when it comes to buying and selling Australian Indigenous Art. Can you expand on what those ethical practices are?

One example is assuring a clear line of provenance that generally goes back to a community art centre. We rely on and must uphold the community art centre model as the foundation and pillar of this industry. In the past this model has been ridiculed by collectors outside of this sphere, but it has proven to be the safest, most reliable source for Australian Indigenous art. This practice has put us in a very strong position moving forward in this industry. 

What are your thoughts on certificates of authenticity – what’s their purpose in the market for Australian Indigenous Art?

Certificates of authenticity are something that the industry has required for quite some time. However, in many ways they are part of a by-gone era, especially where now, the artwork can be tracked back to its original source.

Buying clients do find an assuredness in having a piece of paper like that. In time we will move past requiring it. If you are buying from a reputable dealer and the chain of provenance is complete, a certificate of authenticity should be secondary.

Image: William Barak, Corroboree - Women in possum skin cloaks, 1897, earth pigments and charcoal on paper, 50.5 cm x 68 cm

In your experience, are there many artworks that you’ve come across that don’t have complete supply chains? 

We do still get approached by sellers with unauthorised works from time to time, but not as much as you might think. When I first took the role over at Sotheby’s I would get bombarded with people thinking that the floodgates had opened because I was a new director, but because we shut that down fairly quickly, these days there is an understanding of what we require. By percentage it might be 1 in 100 that we get approached to sell where the provenance isn’t reliable. We have a very firm stance on our response to those works.

What’s one piece of advice you would give to someone who is new to purchasing Australian Indigenous Art?

Don’t take a dealer’s word for it. Have a look at the provenance that Australian national and state institutions accept. They have very strict policies when it comes to provenance and that’s a clear guide for any new collector to take. See what works are on display, consider what works you are personally drawn to, and understand the acceptable provenance that Australian institutions have agreed is appropriate for Indigenous Australian art.

You were the successful bidder on behalf of the Wurundjeri people and Elder Ron Jones, on artist William Barak’s pieces from 1897, Corroboree (Women in possum skin cloaks) and Parrying Shield, in the recent Sotheby’s Aboriginal Art auction held in New York. You described Corroboree as “the genuine discovery of the sale”. Why is this work so significant?

There are only 52 known drawings by the artist in public or private collections. For that to be rediscovered at this point in time is quite surprising. The drawing and the shield are irrefutably by the artist. The provenance is completely unbroken. There’s arguments around whether someone has the right to sell the gift or not, but at the end of the day the right outcome was achieved here, which was the Victorian government stepping up and buying it back on behalf of the Wurundjeri people. That for me was the most important and progressive step. There are arguments around a whole range of ethical dilemmas the selling of the works (which were a gift from Barak) raises. My very small role in this was being entrusted with the position of bidding on the works in person in New York.

What led you to be in the position of bidding on the works?

The University of Melbourne had been facilitating discussions between the Wurundjeri people and the Victorian government about the purchase of the works. They were greatly concerned about missing this opportunity. I happened to be in New York and have extensive experience in bidding for important artworks. I had a conversation directly with the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung Cultural Heritage Corporation the night before the auction, and after that it was agreed that the best approach to securing the purchases was to have representation in the (auction) room.

Telephone bids are probably one of the most reliable ways to bid at auction, but telephone bids can be misplaced. I doubt that this would have happened on this occasion, but it is possible. The other option was to bid online, and similarly, with online bidding things can go awry. The most reliable way to bid for something at auction is to have somebody represent the bidder in the room. Bidding at auction can be a really daunting process, and it’s something that I know the ins and outs of. I had uncle Ron Jones on the phone giving me clear instructions during the process as well. I just happened to be the man there with the paddle (and a little bit of bidding experience).

Image: William Barak, Parrying Shield, 1897, earth pigments on carved and engraved hardwood, 95 cm x 15.5 cm

In terms of D’Lan Contemporary’s future, you’ve said that you “strive to evolve, to initiate positive industry change.” What steps have you taken? 

We have a fabulous team of 7 people working with us and the change that we are encouraging from a secondary market perspective – because it can be seen as a one way street, where the only beneficiary for exuberant sale outcomes is the owner or present custodian – from my perspective having worked in the industry for 23 years, and understanding through cultural lore and practice the importance of giving back, we’ve introduced a trust fund called NEIVA, the National Endowment for Indigenous Visual Arts, which shares 30% of our net profits back to community and the industries that they support. So it’s not just directed back to the artists – which we do already support through the mandatory resale royalty and copyright schemes. We’re on track now to break records again from a growth standpoint, and we all believe within our organisation that that’s not driven by protecting our bottom line, but by instigating growth through this sustainable model of giving back.

The funds go into a pool that Indigenous communities can apply to access. It’s led by an independent board of Indigenous persons, and delivered to industry at the community level where it’s needed most. We believe that this model will become industry standard over the longer term because (this circular giving model) is written into the paintings that we are selling.

For many years the Australian Commercial Galleries Association was the national industry body for commercial galleries in Australia. The organisation folded 5-7 years or so. Do you think commercial galleries in Australia should be held accountable to an industry body? Why/why not? 

We’re a part of the Indigenous Art Code – which is designed to set standards of ethical behaviour for art dealers and galleries operating in the Australian Indigenous art sector – so we adhere to the Code. I do think there needs to be some level of accountability for sure, but it’s a tricky industry to get right every time. The ability to make a decision at the gallery level is still very important, because we need to remain agile, and relevant, because we are seeing things change dramatically and quite quickly. There needs to be a body that all galleries are accountable to.

What else do you think should be done to effect industry change?

We can try and lead by example, but that’s not all it takes. We’ve been talking to industry leaders about this as we need outside voices to be able to generate significant change.