Art Forgeries and Authentication

The other day I posted on a Wall Street Journal article about issues with art authentication as well as a bill in the NY legislature to give limited protection to art authenticators on good faith opinions. As mentioned in that post, art authentication is quickly becoming an important issue and concern to appraisers who use the services of authenticators. It is certainly getting much coverage in the art trade press as well as from the main stream media. Recent lawsuits, and perhaps more chilling, the threat of a lawsuit has had the intended effect of having these experts step back and not authenticate or even question a suspect work.

The NY Times ran a piece a couple of days ago looking at some of the issues that have arisen due to the forgeries sold by the Knoedler Galleries and some of the good and bad from authenticators who were both involved in the process and from those who closely observed the process.

One of the more interesting comments that should concern all appraisers and collectors who use and employ experts and authentication opinions is many experts had concerns over some of the Knoedler pieces, and did not speak up because of the fear of being sued.  When experts refuse to speak up, the market gains additional confidence and credibility on possible forged pieces. Accepatance then grows for a forged work within the marketplace.

Additionally, there were some artist foundation's which had concerns with some of the Knoedler pieces and the amount of unknown/uncatalogued pieces of art being sold.  The attorneys for the foundations recommended staying quiet and not questioning suspect pieces for fear of lawsuits.  The threat of lawsuits has gotten so great the article mentions keeping quiet has become the new standard. The NY Times also mentions the proposed NY legislation to protect authenticators against frivolous lawsuits against good faith expert opinions.

Not all authenticators or experts have clean hands, as some where getting very large fees, one of $450,000 to authenticate works from the Knoeler on Rosales supplied art. These authenticators,  who appear to be involved in the sale process would not fall under the good faith provisions of the proposed limited protection of the NY Legislature bill as there certainly appears to be a conflict of interest.

The NY Times reports

Some art experts who authenticated counterfeits said to be by Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko and Robert Motherwell were paid undisclosed consulting fees by Knoedler. Other scholars privately identified several works as fake, but were instructed by lawyers to stay quiet to avoid being sued. And the industry’s ubiquitous lack of transparency prevented anyone from discerning a pattern — even after some forgeries were identified.

These problems have permeated the industry for decades, said Stephen Urice, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law. He pointed to a 1978 court ruling: “In the fantasy land of marketing in the fine arts,” prestigious names are “dropped freely as rain,” and large sums quickly change hands, Judge J. Shorter of New York State Supreme Court wrote. “In an industry whose transactions cry out for verification of both title to and authenticity of subject matter, it is deemed poor practice to probe into either.”

In the Knoedler case, the only person convicted so far is Glafira Rosales, a Long Island dealer who pleaded guilty to fraud last fall. Prosecutors say her co-conspirators included her boyfriend, Jose Carlos Bergantiños Diaz; his brother, Jesus Angel Bergantiños Diaz; and Pei-Shen Qian, the artist who forged the works. The Bergantiñoses have been released on bail in Spain, while Mr. Qian is in China. The dealers who sold dozens of these works — Ann Freedman, the former president of Knoedler, and Julian Weissman — have repeatedly said that despite the lack of documentation, they were convinced the art was genuine.

Jack Flam, an art historian who was one of the first to challenge the authenticity of the Rosales paintings, said: “If you asked me what the biggest factors were behind this thing succeeding so long, first is that everybody was afraid to be sued. People give credibility to works unwittingly by keeping quiet.”

Mr. Flam is the president of the Dedalus Foundation, a nonprofit group created by the painter Robert Motherwell. He and his colleagues were initially impressed by the supposed Motherwells, but by late 2007, as the number of new discoveries attributed to Motherwell grew, they became uneasy. Mr. Flam began making inquiries and soon discovered that the Richard Diebenkorn estate, the Willem de Kooning Foundation and the Barnett Newman Foundation were also suspicious of works that Knoedler was selling.

“The foundations all knew that something was wrong with their particular artist but didn’t know anybody else had problems,” Mr. Flam said. “I was the first one who went around and starting asking everyone."

The article continues

Keeping quiet is standard practice. The College Art Association, whose members are art professionals, recommends that art historians give their opinion “only when there is a written request by the owner of the work,” and then only if the owner promises to indemnify the scholar against legal damages. Museums, which once routinely gave opinions on works, have also stopped offering assessments.

An expert’s silence or a refusal to offer any opinion can be interpreted in different ways, however. Ms. Freedman testified in court that she frequently assumed that the absence of expressed doubt meant that an expert was affirming a work’s bona fides.

In March the New York State Legislature took a step toward easing the scholar’s dilemma by introducing a bill that would protect art experts who offer opinions on a work’s authenticity from “frivolous” lawsuits.

Source: The NY Times