Art collector loses battle against selling ban on phallic surrealist sculpture because it contains part of 165-year-old elephant tusk

Published: 11:16, 4 June 2026 | Updated: 11:28, 4 June 2026 The government has banned an art collector from selling an 'exceptionally rare' phallic sculpture - because it breaks elephant protection laws. Devon-based expert Victor James was told the 1930s piece falls foul of the UK Ivory Act and therefore cannot be traded as it contains part of a 165-year-old tusk. 'The Obelisk of Satisfied Desire' - by British surrealist Eileen Agar - is described as 'an assemblage of five objects: a metal dish, a decorated candle, a small colander a model duck and a tusk'. It has been lauded as a symbol of 'flamboyant desire' and 'outstanding historical value'. However, a tribunal judge has now rejected Mr James' case - informing him any other ruling 'would make it easier for new or modern illegal ivory to be laundered in the guise of antique ivory'. Mr James, whose gallery is based in Colyton, Devon, had challenged the decision of The Secretary Of State For Environment, Food And Rural Affairs not to grant him an exemption certificate. Under the law, pre-1918 items containing ivory deemed to be 'of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historic value', are permitted for trading. Mr James argued the ivory element of the 1930s sculpture was a pre-carved African artifact dating from 1860, and as such the whole sculpture ought to be exempt - in spite of the 2018 Ivory Act. 'The Obelisk of Satisfied Desire' (pictured) - by British surrealist Eileen Agar - is described as 'an assemblage of five objects: a metal dish, a decorated candle, a small colander a model duck and a tusk' Eileen Agar (pictured), born in 1899, was a London-based British surrealist with an Argentinean mother and a Scottish father But Judge Sophie Buckley, sitting in a division of the First Tier Tribunal dealing with the welfare of animals, said: 'If the tusk were separated from the sculpture and were the "item" in relation to which the exemption were made, it is accepted that it would, subject to assessment, satisfy the condition of being pre-1918.' She added: 'The sculpture is clearly the "item". The sculpture is more than a collection of separate objects. Eileen Agar has made a new object.' Rejecting Mr James' case, she concluded any other decision 'would make it easier for new or modern illegal ivory to be laundered in the guise of antique ivory, as it would be more difficult to determine the age of the ivory in the item when it is positioned in a modern setting'. Eileen Agar, born in 1899, was a London-based British surrealist with an Argentinean mother and a Scottish father. She died aged 91 and her sculptures have previously sold for over £100,000. In a critique of the 1930s piece, art history and surrealism expert Michael Remy says: 'The whole conception of the object is phallic: the central piece, a majestic erection, is an elephant's ivory tusk which, Agar says, was used in Africa as a torch - with the link between the tusk and fire transforming the former into the source of flamboyant desire. 'The tusk springs forth from an inverted kitchen bowl and vigorously penetrates a kind of colander, on top of which a duck, Indonesian according to Agar, stands for the erotic symbol, so she says, of a pagan deity, all these exotic references reinforcing the erotic undertones and erasing, as in all primitive artefacts, the distinctions between the animal, the material and the human. 'Objects are literally making love to create this one inimitable object.' Describing the art collector's arguments in favour of an exemption from the rule allowing the piece to be sold, Ms Buckley said in court: 'Mr James described the sculpture as a "surrealist assembly" which consists of five separate objects that are fully formed and worked pieces in their own right, including the tusk, which he referred to as a piece of 19th century African tribal art. 'He submitted that he made the application for the tribal work of art specifically within the context of the sculpture. 'His intention in making the application is to obtain an exemption certificate to enable him, if he wishes, to sell the sculpture. He does not want to sell the tusk. He cannot, at present, sell the sculpture because it has ivory in it, and... dealing in "ivory" is prohibited. 'He submitted that the relevant item was the tusk itself and not the sculpture and therefore the item satisfied the pre-1918 criteria. The application related to the tusk itself within its unique context, as an integral part of the sculpture.' Ms Buckley went on to outline Mr James' argument that 'the tusk meets the second criterion - outstanding artistic, cultural or historical value - by virtue of its context, namely its incorporation within the sculpture'. She added: 'Mr James emphasised that the tusk was not reworked ivory but an independent object incorporated into an assemblage. 'He submitted that this was an unusual case. He said that it was unlikely to "open the floodgates"... because it was unlikely that others would attempt to deal in ivory by creating a masterpiece and setting the piece of ivory within that.' However, government barrister Daniel Cashman had argued the art collector's 'approach would undermine the purpose of the Act,'. Ruling in the government's favour, Ms Buckley said: 'The 2018 Act is clear that the relevant "item" is not the ivory alone but can be an item that "has ivory in it". The "item", where it is constructed of mixed materials, one of which is ivory, is to be assessed as a whole. 'A clear indication that the appellant's proposed approach is wrong is that it would run counter to the policy and legislative purpose of the 2018 Act, because it would mean that any post-1918 item was capable of exemption... so long as the ivory itself was pre-1918, and it would create an incentive to continue to re-work pre-1918 ivory into artistic or cultural items for the purposes of dealing in them. 'Further, it would make it easier for new or modern illegal ivory to be laundered in the guise of antique ivory, as it would be more difficult to determine the age of the ivory in the item when it is positioned in a modern setting. 'The sculpture is clearly the "item". The sculpture is more than a collection of separate objects. Eileen Agar has made a new object, as she states in her notes, the elements of which are all objects that she had in her studio. 'The piece written by Michel Remy notes: "Objects are literally making love to create this one inimitable object". 'Having concluded that the sculpture is the relevant item, it is clear that it does not satisfy the condition... because it was made in the 1930s. 'We find that the secretary of state was right to treat this as an application for an exemption certificate in relation to the sculpture and the conclusion that the condition... was clearly not met was not based on an error of fact, wrong in law, or unreasonable.' No comments have so far been submitted. Why not be the first to send us your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards. By posting your comment you agree to our house rules. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual We will automatically post your comment and a link to the news story to your Facebook timeline at the same time it is posted on MailOnline. To do this we will link your MailOnline account with your Facebook account. We’ll ask you to confirm this for your first post to Facebook. You can choose on each post whether you would like it to be posted to Facebook. Your details from Facebook will be used to provide you with tailored content, marketing and ads in line with our Privacy Policy.