Response Paper #3 - Essay Example

Before delving into the niceties of legal theory, it will serve us to first review the components of the statute that appellant Omeira stands convicted of contravening and, thereafter, applying those same components to the facts of the case. Simply stated, section 901.34(1), Wessex Code, the Native Art Protection Act (or NAPA), forbids export of native works of art produced before 1920 and worth more than 100,000 pounds. The statute is quite specific. It does not address such matters as forgery—indeed a forged work of art (e.g., unlawful export of an ostensible work by the celebrated 15th century Wessex master Harpo that was actually produced in the studio of the less appreciated 17th century Wessex sculptor Groucho) might well satisfy the three desiderata of the Act.

The Act, however, does establish three elements that must be present for the Act to be applicable in a specific case. First, the work of art in question must be of Wessex origin. Second, it must have been produced before 1920. And, third, it must be appraised at more than 100,000 pounds. We may apply these specific desiderata to the work in question, Seminole Falls, ostensibly the work of the 18th century Wessex master Decameron, but now known to be a modern forgery—the product of Belgian landscape artist Flammarion, to determine if the Act has been violated.

First, Seminole Falls is not of Wessex origin. Evidence, bordering on the conclusive, points to its production in Flammarion’s Antwerp studio. Second, Flammarion did not establish himself as a prominent landscape painter until the mid-1960s. Therefore, Seminole Falls could not have been produced before 1920, a requirement necessary to implicate the Act. Finally, third, the value of the work has been established as less than 100,000 pounds. As our brother, Justice Newson, succinctly described it, “An expert from the Arts Council inspected the painting and