ethics, morality, liability in the art world

Recently I posted a question on my twitter page asking "is it suspect when an any person or organization claims expertise in many areas in art authentication and art appraisal yet fails to provide their credentials or educational background?" The reason for this question was brought on by a recent seminar in New York with several of my colleagues. Recent ethic's codes and liability reform makes it absolutely necessary for us scholars to be transparent. This seminar, sponsored in part by CAA (College Art Association) laid out new guidelines and made very clear our responsibilities as Art Historians, particularly when it comes to authentication:

"One of the areas of great responsibility, and great controversy, for art historians, whether they are employed by an academic institution or a museum, or operate as independent scholars or experts, is that of authentication or attribution, it is very important that they be aware of the issues involved. Issues of attribution and authentication differ substantially among the various fields of art history...In many fields there may be only one or two experts capable of giving an informed opinion. In others there may be many experts and conflicting published opinions...Although many art historians continue to issue individual opinions about attribution or authenticity, due to possible risks of litigation over the rendering of opinions, these guidelines recommend a different approach. Furthermore, given the international context in which opinions are rendered, international legal issues, including those relating to ownership and libel, must be approached with caution and legal guidance. "Certificate" opinions concerning or implying authentication or attribution, given for business, market value, or tax purposes, no longer, in all circumstances, represent infallible objectivity unless they are supported by a consensus. It is recommended that art historians be very cautious about issuing such opinions solely on their own authority alone...."

The transcript goes on to list the guidelines suggested that we art historians implement and for those who would like a full copy of the transcript, email me at rtdicello@roadrunner.com and I will send it to you. These issues bring up the point of just how subjective our work can be and they warn against that. In that light is it our obligation to provide our credentials in our marketing materials? For instance, don't doctors and lawyers have to include the fact that they are credentialed in law and medicine. The same I believe is true for accountants and investment providers. In short, in the marketing of appraisal and authentication services, do we have an obligation to state in our marketing materials who is doing the work and what qualifications back up their opinions? I think the short answer is yes. Ethics requires transparency.