Untitled
Art Law: Topic 12 - Authenticity and Art Forgeries
Issues of Authenticity
General Context:
Few pieces of art can be reliably traced back to the artist after they have passed away and after an extended period (e.g., 100 years).
The issue of originality often becomes a matter of heresy in legal contexts.
American Position on Originality:
In the U.S., it is not possible to warrant that an old artwork is original.
Instead, it involves a warranty of reasonable grounds to believe the artwork may be original.
Relevant cases:
Jendwine v Slade (1797): 170 Eng Rep 459
Power v Barham (1838): 111 Eng Rep 865 74.
Reference: L. D. DuBoff and C. O. King Art Law (6th ed, West Group, Minn, 200) at 74.
See also: Rod Thomas, "Buying investment art, authenticity, risk, and a four proof framework," Art, Antiquity and the Law (2022) Vol. XXVI1, (Issue 2) Art Antiquity and the Law 133.
Attribution Process
Concept of Attribution:
Often described using the metaphor of a three-legged stool:
Science
Provenance
Connoisseurship
None of these can definitively prove the work is by the artist but they can indicate that it is not by that artist.
There is usually a lack of unanimity regarding opinions on attribution.
Common terminologies related to attribution include:
“Studio of Rubens”
“School of Rubens”
“Follower of Rubens”
“Attributed to Rubens”
“Style of Rubens”
“PP Rubens”
Proof Types
1. Science as a Proof:
Scientific methods (e.g., examining materials) can demonstrate that a specific artwork could not have been created by the artist if the materials did not exist during the artist's working period.
This constitutes a form of negative proof.
X-ray analysis can show inconsistencies in style but is less persuasive since artists may have fluctuations in technique.
Example: Vermeer and Han van Meegeren (see Wikipedia article on Han van Meegeren).
2. Provenance as a Proof:
Provenance refers to a documented chain of ownership and attribution to the artist.
This is currently significant for determining authenticity within the art world.
Considered a weak link, since documents can be forged, and for artworks of antiquity, gaps in the chain often exist.
Notably, the Prado works in Madrid may be exceptions due to their provenance verification.
There are discussions on using blockchain technology to improve provenance verification, though debated; effective only when the genesis token is issued, but real-world complications persist.
3. Connoisseurship as Proof:
In New Zealand, connoisseurship can be conflated with pretentiousness.
Definition: Connoisseurs evaluate art using their experience pertaining to style and technique. Their judgment relies on intuition, empirical evidence, and a disciplined analytical method. Responsibilities include authorship attribution, validating authenticity, and assessing quality.
Considered opinion evidence, not factual evidence and can be challenged in court based on:
Lack of qualifications/reputation.
Insufficient consideration of foundational materials.
Weak methodology.
Liability and Judicial Considerations
Balance of Probabilities:
Few connoisseurs universally agree on the authenticity of every artwork.
Notable issues arise when artists experiment, complicating determinations of attribution.
Legal liability can ensue for connoisseurs, especially when giving or withholding opinions.
Connoisseurs might conclude a piece isn't the artist’s work; however, this may not serve as compelling proof that it is.
Judicial Quotes:
Lord Evershed MR in _Leaf v. International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86 at 94**:
“The attribution of works of art to particular artists is often a matter of great controversy and increasing difficulty as time goes on.”
Nourse LJ in _Harlingdon & Leinster v. Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1991] 1 QB 564 at [37]**:
“Almost any attribution to a recognised artist, especially of a picture whose provenance is unknown, may be arguable.”
Case Studies and Examples
Leonardo’s Salvator Mundi:
Known through approximately 20 copies by other artists, painted around 1500.
One of fewer than 20 known works by Leonardo, acquired for less than US$10,000 by a consortium of art dealers.
Subsequently authenticated as a Leonardo painting, sold at Christie's in 2017 for US$450,312,500, setting a record.
Current unknown status and concerns regarding authenticity exist; Matthew Landrus suggested only 5-20% may genuinely be Leonardo’s work.
Elizabeth Durack (aka “Eddie Burrup”):
An Australian artist who painted Aboriginal-style works under a male alias, later revealing her identity in 1997.
Legal implications of her actions fell under “cultural fraud” and cultural misappropriation concerns.
Died in 2000; her works continue to sell well.
Raises questions about the fate of art when it changes hands and is presented in the market.
Legal Definitions in New Zealand:
Per the Crimes Act 1961, specifically clause 240 regarding deception:
(1) “Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right… obtains ownership… directly or indirectly.”
(2) “In this section, deception includes false representation, omissions to disclose material particulars, or any fraudulent device intended to deceive.”
Psychology of Forgery
Motivation for Forging Artworks:
Most forgers are often “failed” artists seeking validation by fooling experts and wealthy buyers.
There’s a perceived complicity within the art world and public that promotes forgery:
The excitement of discovering a new “masterpiece,” even at a discount.
The democratization of art leading to significant price surges over the past decades.
The rise of the internet exacerbates the situation as eager buyers purchase unseen works.
Once invested in a piece, buyers may resist acknowledging being duped.
Example of Donald Trump’s Renoir Claim:
Trump claimed a Renoir on his jet was valued at $10 million. Experts disputed its authenticity, stating the original is found at the Art Institute of Chicago.
He seems to believe his own narrative of authenticity.
Reflections on Forgery Culture
Interview with Art Forger Ken Perenyi:
New Zealand lacks a statute of limitations on crime which presents unique legal challenges.
Does not navigate legal issues involving passing off of artworks.
Current practices of forgers sometimes involve disclaiming their works as copies upon sale, raising ethical questions.
Forgers often admire the artists they replicate but neglect the damage to these artists' reputations.
Comparing art forgery to counterfeiting money raises ethical dilemmas regarding the social acceptance of forgery within the art community.
Art Market Dynamics in New Zealand
New Zealand Art Market:
Many artworks from New Zealand artists active since around 1950 are available in the secondary market.
Consumers expect auction works to be authentic, differing from Europe and America.
Connoisseurship in New Zealand is perceived to lack rigor.
Art purchases are often driven by name recognition rather than artistic knowledge.
Dealers and valuers authenticate artworks, but there are instances of poorly executed copies being sold.
Concerns of complicity within dealers, valuers, and the buying public regarding authenticity.
Notable Case of Karl Sim (1923-2013)
Background:
A self-described “failed” artist with socialist beliefs who forged works of key artists, including Goldie.
Produced authentic-looking documents to establish provenance.
Found humor in deceiving credible art experts with his forgeries.
Successfully sold his works and had them certified as originals, enabling him to introduce them to the market at discounted rates.
Notably caught in a 1984 celebrity trial, resulting in community service and a fine.
Continued forgery undertakings until his death in 2013 with plans for a book published posthumously in 2019.
Ongoing Art Forgery Events
“Erring for Art: Fakes and Forgeries Exhibition”:
Held bi-annually in Mangaweka, focusing on original takes on famous artworks with artistic twists, honoring the legacy of Karl Sim, New Zealand's only convicted art forger.
Political and Public Reactions
Helen Clark's Controversy (2002):
As PM, signed a piece of art she did not create for charity, sparking investigation and discussions on forgery.
The auction price at $1,600 and the subsequent police investigation brought attention to the commonality of such practices among politicians.
Expert commentary suggested such contributions are not typically genuine, raising ethical implications.
Legal consequences for forgery can extend to severe penalties, such as up to 10 years in jail as per New Zealand law.
Resources and Investigations
Freemanart International:
Offers investigations into the authenticity of artwork including scrutiny of forgeries, false documentation, and potential fraud litigation.
(Website: http://www.freemanart.ca/New_Zealand.htm)