Owls by Antonovici, Brâncuși’s apprentice, enter State heritage at 110,700 lei

The act has a precise and useful effect: it takes 45 works by a sculptor who worked in Brâncuși’s studio out of the sphere of ordinarily administered assets and places them under the regime of the public domain. Their journey through the administration is worth following, though, because it can be read off the columns of the annex themselves. The collection was acquired in 2024, under Order of the Minister of Culture no. 2.944/2024. The inventory value was recorded in the financial and accounting records in 2025. The decision entering it in the centralised inventory of assets in the public domain of the State appears in August 2026, and the identification number of the Ministry of Finance has still not been allocated, the column saying only that it „se va atribui”, will be allocated. That is almost two years and three acts before an asset bought by the State becomes visible in the State’s own public register.

The most consistent decision in the act is also the most questionable: the 45 works enter the inventory as a single asset. The title of the annex says so in the singular, „datele de identificare ale bunului cultural mobil”, the identification details of the movable cultural asset, and the columns bear it out: one classification code, 8.24.06, one inventory number and one value, 110,700 lei for the lot. No work has a value of its own. „Bufniță uriașă” (Giant Owl), a plaster 2.47 metres tall, and a pencil drawing on tracing paper measuring 41.5×54.5 centimetres weigh exactly the same in the State’s records. The consequences are not theoretical: an insurance policy, a restoration tender or a loan to a museum all work from the value of the asset, and here the value exists only for the collection as a whole. For the same reason, any movement of a single piece touches the entire inventory position.

The second observation concerns the quality of the identification data, the only thing that remains once the works pass out of sight. For these objects the annex is the equivalent of an identity document, and it contains a corrupted name, a set of dimensions that contradicts itself and an incomplete address: „Țara: România, sectorul 3, Bulevardul Unirii nr. 22”, country Romania, District 3, Bulevardul Unirii no. 22, without naming the city, although the column is headed „Adresa”, address. There is no photograph, no individual identification code for any of the 45 works, and no mention of their classification in the national cultural heritage, that is, of the one procedure that would give each piece a file of its own. For assets easily confused with one another, such as seven plaster owls by the same artist, a description in words is thin protection.

Finally, Article 1 grants administration „cu destinația de punere în valoare a patrimoniului cultural mobil”, for the purpose of showcasing movable cultural heritage. The wording is not ornamental, because the right of administration is granted for a purpose and can be argued about on that basis. Except that the act provides no mechanism by which the purpose can be checked: no deadline, no reporting obligation, no exhibiting institution charged with the task. It stays a correctly drafted intention that nobody has any means of measuring.

What should be changed

• A value and an individual code for each work. The annex ought to give, for each of the 45 positions, its own inventory value and a unique identifier, even if the position in the centralised inventory remains a single one. In practice, one owl could be insured, restored or lent without a fresh decision being needed for the whole collection.
• An identification photograph attached to every position. For movable cultural assets an image does more than three dimensions in centimetres, and it can be published on the website of the Ministry of Culture, with a reference in the annex. In practice, a missing piece could be recognised, which with a description reading „ghips, 66×20,32×6,35 cm”, plaster, 66×20.32×6.35 cm, is impossible.
• A statement about classification in the national cultural heritage. The annex ought to show whether the works are classified in the Treasure or the Fund category and, if they are not, within what period the procedure is to be started. In practice, it would be known whether these 45 works enjoy the special regime of protection or only that of the public domain.
• The full address of the place where the collection is kept. The column ought to name the town and the institution that actually holds the space, not only the district and the street. In practice, the handover and takeover protocol due within 30 days would have an identifiable addressee, and the public would know where the collection is.
• A deadline and a form for the showcasing. The act could fix the period within which the Ministry of Culture designates the exhibiting institution and publishes a minimum plan, even if only a temporary display. In practice, the purpose written into Article 1 would become verifiable, and the collection would not stay in storage out of sheer inertia.