The role of international auction houses like Sotheby?s and Christie?s has become murkier with the unfolding of the smuggling of antiques by the Jaipur art dealer by Vaman Ghia. Even as documentary evidence of a nexus emerges, the reception of this revelation with horror, disbelief or even with the excitement of a scandal to those bored with life, really does not meet the need of the time.

It should be evident to anyone that an auction house, emerging out of the tradition of a liquidator, is concerned primarily with the job of appropriating assets and then disbursing them at a profit for the seller and a commission for itself. From this narrow and archaic definition of good business making money is all it is about.

?Untitled? charcoal on paper by Vivan Sundaram

So if Bush makes money plundering Iraq for its oil and antique smugglers plunder Iraq?s museums, it does not matter. The main thing is that they carry it off. Even if it is only till they are brought to the dock for rocking the investment boat to the point of nearly sinking it.

Whether it is Warren Hastings or Robert Clive, or Hitler, Mussolini or Tojo, or Bush, Blair and Bechtel, the impetus of increasing appropriation of wealth finally leads to its destruction and an outcry against it. It is this that the investor must see and avoid if the market is to survive.

True, the history of most of today?s developed countries is one of systematic appropriation, from the plunder of petty producers, to piracy and colonization, to feed the hunger for accumulation to fuel mass production and a global market to absorb it. So far so good. But today there is enough accumulated wealth going round, and easy bank loans are proof of it, so where is the need for such appropriation?

Appropriation based on the greed of plunderers can destroy the whole climate of investment. And the chaos that will involve requires a cold hard look at the alternatives to plunder as a source of accumulation.

There is no dearth of them. They can be grouped under two major heads: productive investment and creative investment. The first is related to the mass market for production and it needs to be consumed in order for it to pay.

Here too, appropriation through monopoly practices and a captive consumer society must be guarded against, as that is what contributes to the curious phenomenon of stagflation — stagnation in production and inflation to cover loses under monopoly conditions. Big fish eat the little ones for a while, then each other. Then nothing is left to eat.

Then there is the best kind of investment: creative investment. This investment includes investment in art, museums, schools, universities, publishing, cinema, TV and computer software.

This form of investment ought to generate new ideas, new markets and new uses for things.

But again under monopoly conditions it can do the opposite. Instead of creating places for public exhibition of the best art, it can allow their plunder for private appropriation.

Worse, it can cater to the mass production of Kitsch, sex, violence, theft, faking and cheating as part of a consumer culture dominated by a few bulk purveyors of everything that is the opposite of the creative.

In the art market, monopoly conditions stifle the healthy market by one or two galleries, or a cartel of these, dominating all exhibition space to promote only a handful of artists. This kills originality, variety and quality.

This reflects largely the capacity to appropriate exhibition space and promotional exposure.

And coupled with this, we have the sale of kitsch, bad art and fashionable art, while real artists die of starvation or see their works destroyed by the elements.

So we as supporters of creative art must come forward to defend a democratic climate in art where every artist is able to exhibit works freely and take advantage of the possibilities the market offers.

At the same time, new ideas will come up and take root in a free and open visual debate of creative thinking. It is time we turn our eyes from appropriation to the greener pastures of production and creativity instead.