Over the past few years, despite the continual Greek chorus about recessions, prices of works of art from what historians term as the modern era, escalated to astronomically amazing sums. The latest to break all world records was the $110 million Edward Munch’s The Scream.

For the uninitiated who measure success and value in simple monetary terms, the value of all modern art has been placed in a category of its own, surpassing even that of the time-honoured great masters. This simply because, in the last 20 years, the works of Modigliani, Brancusi, Munch and Picasso and their ilk have become practically impossible “must-haves” for purposes of prestige, investment and, above all, shifting taste and volatile fashion.

Will The Scream fetch $220 million in 2022 had it to come up for auction again? Will any of the other three versions of it match or outdo the record $110 million had they to be auctioned in the next six months?

The art market is the only one that has thrived notwithstanding the recession. To own works of art has become, more than ever before, the safest and most rewarding form of investment. We have seen this not only internationally but here too where the works of top Maltese artists are today highly collectible and more people are saving up to buy original works of art for both investment and aesthetic purposes.

Against this background and the sensational information about world records being fed to the public on an almost weekly basis, it is hardly surprising that the news that a Polish collector in his 90s wanting to make his collection of modern art available to the Maltese public went down a treat. Because of Zdzislaw Bieganski’s age and because of the names of the artists in the collection that were quoted, the general opinion is that his demands must be accepted as soon as possible for Malta not to lose a unique legacy.

The fact that this country does not have a Museum of Modern Art as such is another factor that is fuelling public demand to accede to Mr Bieganski’s terms. Again, while for the last 100 years curators and collectors abroad were busy collecting Monets, de Chiricos, Van Goghs and Bonnards, to name just a few, their counterparts here were still consolidating 17th and 18th century collections.

We have suddenly realised that there is a swathe of history of art that is completely unrepresented in our patrimony and, because the rank and file think in monetary terms, it is now far from being a buyers’ market for these works. Thus, many would argue that questioning or delaying the acceptance of the Bieganski collection is looking at a gift horse in the mouth. However, it is not as simple as that and there are a number of considerations that have to be made.

For example, it appears that the huge collection is, for the most part, undocumented and provenances are practically nonexistent. Furthermore, the more valuable pieces in the collection are not in Malta and Mr Bieganski does have natural heirs.

The lack of provenance could open possibilities that, for instance, some works could have originally been confiscations and would get Malta involved in endless lawsuits. Therefore, in a case like this, the government must act very cautiously.

Admittedly, time is not on Malta’s side in this case and, therefore, the motto that governs this project must perforce be that of the Medicis: festina lente or more haste, less speed, lest we come a cropper.