Friday, March 15, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Parisot Scandal Exposed-- Quatrochi's Expose of Byzantine Machinations, and Deceit
Modigliani's death mask, photographed in 1933 in
the atelier of Jacques Lipschitz
Christian Parisot, a self-appointed expert on the work of Modigliani, was also reported in London's FT of 11 Jan 2013, to have been under investigation for over 2 years by Italian authorities, was arrested, indicted and sentenced for artfraud-- and the investigative web has been extended to include some of Parisot's associates-- one of them the consignor of record of a Modigliani nude entitled Grand Nue Alongee or Reclining Nude of Celine (Coupet) Howard, discreetly referenced below in my CONSIGNMENT OF MODIGLIANI TO BONN EXHIBITION, posted in 2009 and deemed by Henrik Hanstein in the article to be "risky". The consignor of record was Joseph Guttmann of New York (working along with his cabal of associates-- his esteemed attorneys, Arnold Katzen, Christian Parisot, varied other attorneys all of whom may claim attorney-client privilege when queried by authorities, and others). What was never mentioned was that the painting had been the subject of a declaratory relief trial and a bank fraud investigation in the United States-- the painting remaining with unpaid bank liens and a dubious provenance to date. I do believe Mr Parisot's arrogance and the malfeasance of his associates have finally met with their comeuppance. I even pulled Parisot into a California courtroom from Paris and Italy (at great expense to his then handler Guttmann) to query him as to his authentication practices and fees to be paid for his favorable attribution. But Parisot and his cabal of cohorts proved difficult to impeach to a common jury of 12 working men and women. With Parisot as a paid gunslinger in your corner (a proverbial gun-for-hire), all concerned thought that a courtroom drama of "dueling experts" would result in a "wash", each cancelling one another out with a turgid, long-winded ennumeration of dubious credentials, educational pedigrees, along with a intimidatingly circumlocuitive ideolect crafted to short-circuit the presumedly low brain function of the common man and jury. Reasonable doubt, for sure! Preponderance of proof in evidence- don't worry about it! Too many unholy alliances and secrets all heavily nuanced with sotto voce, sous-table (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) whispers, baksheesh, and "incentives". Parisot's dubious droit morale, an alleged internship to Modigliani's impaired and dysfunctional daughter, and enough seals, and stamps to altogether befuddle even the most adroit civilian mind un-informed of the adroit brinksmanship at play.Guttmann's esteemed counsel even once told me in voir-dire in L.A. that he was seeking the "stupidest" jury pool he could find- and this was said afront two witnesses. Hence I think both Guttmann, and Parisot et al all concluded that they might be "bulletproof" from civil judgments-- given the plaintiff costs of meeting one's burden of proof, the multiplicity of jurisdictions required for a successful prosecution of one's case, and the byzantine opacity and mind-numbing quagmires and metrics of an international painting transaction. We all concluded that the force and power of a criminal adjudication and prosecution would be required to excise this cancer upon the artworld- given infinite resources and subpoena power well beyond that of a civil dispute or litigation.
Seized from the Museo di Palestrina- by the Commandante della Sezione Antiquariato e Sezione Falsificazioni e Arte Contemporanea
Such practices employed by both Parisot and Guttmann have enjoyed a life of their own-- a longstanding complicity between Giacomo Canale, Parisot, Guttmann and Arnold Katzen specifically with collaborative support provided by Jean Kisling, Claude Mollard, Marie-Claire Mansecal, Masaaki Iseki and Andre Schoeller. Canale would publish this cabal's findings under the imprimateur of Canale Arte, affording their findings a level of institutional legitimacy claiming that the "Modigliani Committee"s scholarship was supported by the Archives L'Egales Amedeo Modigliani (certainly- which was entirely the product of Parisot employing the droit morale legimacy afforded to him by the primogenitor laws of France), the Ambrogio Ceroni Archives (co-opted by the wife that survived his death, Angela), the Arthur Pfannstiehl Archives [(vehemently denied by its sole authority, heir and archivist, Bernard Schuster). Arthur Pfannstiehl's son, Frederick-- an ex-masseur in Europe was bequeathed none of his father's extensive documentation dating from the 1920s. Arthur Pfannstiehl published his first concourse (what he called his Catalogue Presume) ante-dating all rival opinions and expertise by forty years when he published his excellent and reliable Catalogue Presume in 1929.(Ambrogio Ceroni's Edizione del Milione catalogue of 156 paintings was only published in 1958, followed by the 1965 and 1970 editions, the latter Rizzoli and Flammarion editions purporting to be catalogue raisonnes of 337 paintings/canvases) ], and the Lanthemann Archives (denied to me by his wife, but all the same lacking the required epistemic weight and the gravitas of a raisonne).
On 23 Jan . 2001, the "Modigliani Committee" was launched by Guttmann and Parisot using Katzens office to provide a legitimate sounding NYC 1100 Madison Avenue address, suite 6C-- however many documents posted to that address were returned to sender marked "Adressee Unknown", despite the shiny brass plaque emblazoned "Modigliani-Kisling Institute" that Katzen had plastered to the Madison Avenue facade of the building. Giacomo Canale had claimed to "underwrite the project" and was "committed to the publication of the forthcoming new Catalogue Raisonne to be produced by the Committee".This though was prior to Katzen and Shirley Sack's arrest in Boston for money-laudering in June of that same year, for trying to sell a fake Modigliani "Jeune Femme aux Yeux Bleus" (credentialed/expertised by Parisot) and a Degas (also seized by the US govt US Customs and sold at auction in NY) for $4.1M to an alleged Columbian drug lord wishing to launder "street money" with the acquisition -- however their "client" was a US Customs Treasury agent working with the FBI. The same 'Modigliani' cropped up when a NY re-insurer and risk adjuster (Maxson Young) enlisted these offices to foil a Guttmann claim for the 'loss' of the work shipped by international courier service and processed as an insured exposure seeking compensation ( a claim for loss or theft) and a pay-out. This claim was foiled, the painting returned, and the claim dis-allowed.This incident diminished the prestige of the "Modigliani-Kisling Institute's" new Madison Avenue digs. And of course, the Archives L'Egales d'Amedeo Modigliani, has morphed into the Modigliani Committee, the Committe metamorphized into the Modigliani-Kisling Institute and ultimately the Modigliani Institute of Rome.
You see, Parisot has worked under the droit morale privilege of the French government and authorities for years since he succeeded to inveigle and cajole an impaired and impoverished Jeanne Modigliani (birth daughter to Amedeo Modigliani and Jeanne Hebuterne, orphaned by both parents in the course of one day in 1920) into assigning him her droit morale -- affording the surviving child of the artist the rights to opine on the authenticity of the artist's (in this case, her father's) legacy and work. Jeanne never had any archive or documentation of her father at any time, and certainly nothing at the time I met with her before her death.Yet this privilege is jurisdictionally limited- to that of the French courts , and this privilege will languish mercilessly when scrutinized under international law and expertise in a variety of legal jurisdictions. E-mail me for further discussion on this matter. Since Jeanne Modigliani's death in 1984 at age 66 in Paris, her daughter , Laure Nechtschein Modigliani (one of Jeanne's 2 daughters, born in 1951), had apparently honored Parisot's assignment of her mother's droit morale, with her support, and presumably to her profit and advantage. Since last year and to date, presumably in light of deteriorating relations between Modigliani's granddaughter Laure and Parisot, Laure Nechtschein Modigliani is reclaiming her droit morale, as one of the last remaining survivors in Modigliani's bloodline-- rights decided by way of birthright, of consanguinity, and not merit or credential. This matter only compounds Parisot's conviction and fines meted out by a Paris court in 2008 (sentenced to 24 mos./ part suspended) after an artfraud conviction for fogeries of Jeanne Hebuterne (Modigliani's common-law wife and fellow artist) brought forward by one of Laure Modigliani's cousins , Luc Prunet, Jeanne Hebuterne's great nephew. Perhaps Parisot's enterprising nature and shameless entrepreneurial zeal in the exploitation of Jeanne Modigliani's droit morale, have alienated Parisot's meal-ticket and undermined his authority and integrity-- unveiling the unholy covenant of sin lurking beneath such an incestuous relationship.
For your amusement, I just noticed that Parisot has actually found a Modigliani , sold by Bonhams in London, (not him) is a fake. SEE:
http://chez-edmea.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/modigliani-su-il-giornale-dellarte.html
Paul Quatrochi
Quatrochi@aol.com
www.Quatrochi.com
Tel: (212) 722-3700
Fax: (212) 987-7669
Mobile: (917) 560-8534
Paul D Quatrochi
Art Law Blog Author
*************
THE INDEPENDENT
23 January 2013
1 / 1
Christian Gregori Parisot and Modigliani’s portrait of Jeanne Hebuterne
PA
Modigliani owners are no doubt keeping their fingers crossed for a lucrative sale, for this would suggest the market is bouncing back from a recent, less salubrious, episode which had threatened to knock it for six.
Before Christmas, shocked modern art experts in Italy spoke of an “earthquake” tearing through their genteel world following the arrest of Modigliani expert Christian Gregori Parisot. If you wanted to check the authenticity of an work said to be by the Italian artist, Parisot was, or had been, your man.
Who better than the art trader who had lived and breathed Modigliani for decades, who met and worked with the painter and sculptor’s daughter Jeanne in the early 1980s? Or at least that was what he’d have you believe. In reality the case of Mr Parisot has revealed a remarkable degree of gullibility in the art world – and has called into question the ease with which people are able to assume the role of trusted authority.
Parisot, with his impressive-sounding title of President of the Archives Legales Amedeo Modigliani, organised Modigliani exhibitions around the world. And his say-so was enough to decide whether a sketch, painting or sculpture was the real thing. He had even worked as a consultant for the Italian state’s Cultural Heritage Protection agency, charged with the protecting the country’s important artistic heritage from con men and charlatans. Officials were forced to admit as much last month when he was arrested for forging and fraudulently endorsing dozens of fake Modiglianis.
Along with Parisot and his suspected accomplice, the art dealer Matteo Vignapiano, the police seized 59 fakes including 41 sketches, 13 graphic designs, four sculptures in bronze and an oil painting.
As is so often the case with such extraordinary scams, the clues were there but people only started to notice them after the event. Claudio Strinati, a senior official at the Ministry of Cultureand president of the “scientific committee” of Parisot’s “Modigliani Institute”, has admitted that it had seemed odd that the committee never actually met.
“Parisot asked me to do this job, years ago,” he said, “But the committee never met, at least to my knowledge, and has never done, [let alone] decided or verified anything. I thought it was strange, but not to the point of imagining illegal activities.”
Modigliani’s pared-down, masque-like faces may have been relatively easy to fake. But given this, it is not unreasonable to expect experts such as Mr Strinati ,who were charged with verifiying his works, to have been more a little more active.
The irony of the situation won’t be lost on students of Modigliani’s tragic life. For while fraudsters have been getting rich on fake Modiglianis. During the artist’s pestilential existence – he died aged 35 when tuberculosis spread to his brain – the destitute alcoholic and drug addict was forced to give away his paintings in exchange for food and only ever managed one solo exhibition in Paris. And that was closed down on the first day following complaints of indecency.
Italian detectives brought the curtain down on Parisot after raiding a show titled “Modigliani from Classicism to Cubism” at the Archeological Museum in Palestrina, near Rome, in July 2010. It was here that true authorities identified 22 fake Modiglianis.
The most remarkable fact, however, relates to the conviction Parisot acquired in Paris two years before this major exhibition in a state gallery.
In May 2008, The Art Newspaper reported how “the art historian and Modigliani specialist Christian Parisot was sentenced to two years in prison with 16 months suspended, and fined €8,000 by a Paris court on 18 April, for faking drawings by Jeanne Hébuterne, Modigliani’s mistress and model”.
The works were seized by the police after Luc Prunet, Jeanne’s great nephew, complained they were forgeries. This was confirmed in a report by the French expert Gilles Perrault. But even this wasn’t enough for the art world to sit up and take notice.
No-one is currently answering the phone at the Archives Legales Amedeo Modigliani, in Rome. But other experts are clear about they see as the problem to be. “Any group, entity or individual can set themselves up as “authorities” with pretentious names,” lamented Martin Kemp, a professor of art history at Oxford University and a leading authority on Leonardo da Vinci.
It remains to be seen if the 100 or more bogus Modiglianis that Parisot is thought to have put on the market have dented demand for the artist. There is no doubt that the 1919 portrait of the Italian painter’s lover Jeanne Hebuterne on sale at Christie's is genuine. And Christie’s hopes that if anything, the clamour for genuine works by the Italian artist will have increased. Hence its upbeat predictions for the imminent auction of the key portrait.
Jay Vincze, Christie’s impressionist and modern art specialist, noted that Modigliani produced relatively few paintings during his short life. Perhaps gallery owners and art traders ought to have considered this before they listened to Mr Parisot – and allowed greed to get the better of them.
**
The picture shown above is Amadeo Modigliani’s Portrait of Jeanne Hebuterne, an internationally celebrated masterpiece and an unquestionably genuine work by the artist which will be offered at auction on 6 February 2013 at Christie’s, London. We are happy to reiterate the position for complete clarity.
Before Christmas, shocked modern art experts in Italy spoke of an “earthquake” tearing through their genteel world following the arrest of Modigliani expert Christian Gregori Parisot. If you wanted to check the authenticity of an work said to be by the Italian artist, Parisot was, or had been, your man.
Who better than the art trader who had lived and breathed Modigliani for decades, who met and worked with the painter and sculptor’s daughter Jeanne in the early 1980s? Or at least that was what he’d have you believe. In reality the case of Mr Parisot has revealed a remarkable degree of gullibility in the art world – and has called into question the ease with which people are able to assume the role of trusted authority.
Parisot, with his impressive-sounding title of President of the Archives Legales Amedeo Modigliani, organised Modigliani exhibitions around the world. And his say-so was enough to decide whether a sketch, painting or sculpture was the real thing. He had even worked as a consultant for the Italian state’s Cultural Heritage Protection agency, charged with the protecting the country’s important artistic heritage from con men and charlatans. Officials were forced to admit as much last month when he was arrested for forging and fraudulently endorsing dozens of fake Modiglianis.
Along with Parisot and his suspected accomplice, the art dealer Matteo Vignapiano, the police seized 59 fakes including 41 sketches, 13 graphic designs, four sculptures in bronze and an oil painting.
As is so often the case with such extraordinary scams, the clues were there but people only started to notice them after the event. Claudio Strinati, a senior official at the Ministry of Cultureand president of the “scientific committee” of Parisot’s “Modigliani Institute”, has admitted that it had seemed odd that the committee never actually met.
“Parisot asked me to do this job, years ago,” he said, “But the committee never met, at least to my knowledge, and has never done, [let alone] decided or verified anything. I thought it was strange, but not to the point of imagining illegal activities.”
Modigliani’s pared-down, masque-like faces may have been relatively easy to fake. But given this, it is not unreasonable to expect experts such as Mr Strinati ,who were charged with verifiying his works, to have been more a little more active.
The irony of the situation won’t be lost on students of Modigliani’s tragic life. For while fraudsters have been getting rich on fake Modiglianis. During the artist’s pestilential existence – he died aged 35 when tuberculosis spread to his brain – the destitute alcoholic and drug addict was forced to give away his paintings in exchange for food and only ever managed one solo exhibition in Paris. And that was closed down on the first day following complaints of indecency.
Italian detectives brought the curtain down on Parisot after raiding a show titled “Modigliani from Classicism to Cubism” at the Archeological Museum in Palestrina, near Rome, in July 2010. It was here that true authorities identified 22 fake Modiglianis.
The most remarkable fact, however, relates to the conviction Parisot acquired in Paris two years before this major exhibition in a state gallery.
In May 2008, The Art Newspaper reported how “the art historian and Modigliani specialist Christian Parisot was sentenced to two years in prison with 16 months suspended, and fined €8,000 by a Paris court on 18 April, for faking drawings by Jeanne Hébuterne, Modigliani’s mistress and model”.
The works were seized by the police after Luc Prunet, Jeanne’s great nephew, complained they were forgeries. This was confirmed in a report by the French expert Gilles Perrault. But even this wasn’t enough for the art world to sit up and take notice.
No-one is currently answering the phone at the Archives Legales Amedeo Modigliani, in Rome. But other experts are clear about they see as the problem to be. “Any group, entity or individual can set themselves up as “authorities” with pretentious names,” lamented Martin Kemp, a professor of art history at Oxford University and a leading authority on Leonardo da Vinci.
It remains to be seen if the 100 or more bogus Modiglianis that Parisot is thought to have put on the market have dented demand for the artist. There is no doubt that the 1919 portrait of the Italian painter’s lover Jeanne Hebuterne on sale at Christie's is genuine. And Christie’s hopes that if anything, the clamour for genuine works by the Italian artist will have increased. Hence its upbeat predictions for the imminent auction of the key portrait.
Jay Vincze, Christie’s impressionist and modern art specialist, noted that Modigliani produced relatively few paintings during his short life. Perhaps gallery owners and art traders ought to have considered this before they listened to Mr Parisot – and allowed greed to get the better of them.
**
The picture shown above is Amadeo Modigliani’s Portrait of Jeanne Hebuterne, an internationally celebrated masterpiece and an unquestionably genuine work by the artist which will be offered at auction on 6 February 2013 at Christie’s, London. We are happy to reiterate the position for complete clarity.
THE ART NEWSPAPER
Modigliani Institute president arrested
Forgery unit of Italian police seize works attributed to the artists, along with suspect authenticity certificates
By Gareth Harris. Web only
Published online: 24 January 2013
Published online: 24 January 2013
Christian Parisot, the president of the Modigliani Institute in Rome, has been arrested by the Italian art forgery unit after a two-year investigation. According to the Italian regional paper Il Tirreno, the police seized 13 prints, four bronze sculptures, and a painting attributed to Amedeo Modigliani, along with certificates of authenticity. The Italian police say the alleged fakes are worth €6.6m. Both Parisot and the art dealer Matteo Vignapiano have been placed under house arrest.
The police investigation dates back to 2010 when the police removed 22 allegedly false works from an exhibition organised by Parisot, “Modigliani: From Classicism to Cubism”, at the Archaeological Museum of Palestrina. When asked if he denied the charges, Parisot declined to comment while Vignapiano could not be reached for comment.
Last year, Modigliani’s granddaughter Laure Nechtschein Modigliani, the daughter of Jeanne Modigliani, asserted her droit morale over the artist’s canon. “Laure Modigliani, the only living descendant of the artist, currently holds this right over the works. She has previously allowed Christian Parisot to exercise the moral rights, although she has not renewed this agreement since it last expired. M. Parisot therefore has no such power,” said her Italian lawyer Fabrizio Lemme (The Art Newspaper, May 2012).
Parisot responded that he had managed initially with Jeanne Modigliani (Laure’s mother) and, after her death, “the author’s moral rights of the artist Amedeo Modigliani” in conjunction with Laure Nechtschein Modigliani. He added: “It is well known that the author’s moral rights cannot be transmitted but that does not mean I cannot be the recipient of the Modigliani Archives, due to my deep knowledge and expertise.”
The estate of the early 20th-century artist is one of the most problematic in the art world. There are at least five catalogues raisonnés of the artist’s work including a volume by Ambrogio Ceroni, last updated in 1972. The art scholar and Modigliani specialist Marc Restellini has been working for over ten years on a catalogue raisonné of the paintings. This catalogue, which is being prepared under the aegis of the Wildenstein Institute, was initially expected to be completed in 2006; Restellini tells The Art Newspaper that he is still working on the publication. Parisot has also spent years compiling a catalogue raisonné.
Last year, Modigliani’s granddaughter Laure Nechtschein Modigliani, the daughter of Jeanne Modigliani, asserted her droit morale over the artist’s canon. “Laure Modigliani, the only living descendant of the artist, currently holds this right over the works. She has previously allowed Christian Parisot to exercise the moral rights, although she has not renewed this agreement since it last expired. M. Parisot therefore has no such power,” said her Italian lawyer Fabrizio Lemme (The Art Newspaper, May 2012).
Parisot responded that he had managed initially with Jeanne Modigliani (Laure’s mother) and, after her death, “the author’s moral rights of the artist Amedeo Modigliani” in conjunction with Laure Nechtschein Modigliani. He added: “It is well known that the author’s moral rights cannot be transmitted but that does not mean I cannot be the recipient of the Modigliani Archives, due to my deep knowledge and expertise.”
The estate of the early 20th-century artist is one of the most problematic in the art world. There are at least five catalogues raisonnés of the artist’s work including a volume by Ambrogio Ceroni, last updated in 1972. The art scholar and Modigliani specialist Marc Restellini has been working for over ten years on a catalogue raisonné of the paintings. This catalogue, which is being prepared under the aegis of the Wildenstein Institute, was initially expected to be completed in 2006; Restellini tells The Art Newspaper that he is still working on the publication. Parisot has also spent years compiling a catalogue raisonné.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Christian Parisot Arrested-- Modigliani Legacy Further Besmirched
Christian Parisot Arrested: Modigliani Institute President Involved In Forgery Investigation
Posted: 01/14/2013 2:47 pm EST
The "vivacious dandy" Amedeo Modigliani has been dead for nearly a century, yet his name continues to creep into some of the contemporary art world's most scandalous headlines. The Italian artist is considered one of the most faked artists in forgery history because of his consistent style and knack for attracting million dollar price tags.
This month, Modigliani Institute President Christian Parisot is embroiled in an international forgery investigation involving the deceased painter. The art expert and close friend of the artist's family is accused of providing false certificates of authenticity for over €6.65 million ($8,678,800) worth of counterfeit Modigliani works, according to the Financial Times.
Parisot was apprehended last month in connection with an investigation that dates back to 2010, when 22 fake Modigliani paintings were removed from an exhibition he organized at the Archaeological Museum of Palestrina. He and Italian art dealer Matteo Bignapiano were put under house arrest while authorities seized 59 artworks thought to be falsely attributed to the artist, acccording to a report by local newspaper, Il Tirreno.
Parisot has a long history with the Modigliani family, having served as secretary to the artist's daughter and only living descendant, Jeanne Modigliani. He had also been in the process of compiling Modigliani's cataogues raissones, a comprehensive monograph of the painter and sculptor's oeuvre. But the December 2012 arrest was not Parisot's first run in with the law. In 2008, he was accused of producing forged copies of drawings by Modigliani's mistress, Jeanne Hebuterne. His case went to court where he was sentenced to a fine and two years of jail time, a verdict he promptly sought to appeal before the 2010 investigation began.
Huffington Post 15 January 2013
Christian Parisot, a self-appointed expert on the work of Modigliani, was also reported in London's FT of 11 Jan 2013, to have been under investigation for over 2 years by Italian authorities, was arrested, indicted and sentenced for artfraud-- and the investigative web has been extended to include some of Parisot's associates-- one of them the consignor of record of a Modigliani nude entitled Grand Nue Alongee or Reclining Nude of Celine (Coupet) Howard, discreetly referenced below in my CONSIGNMENT OF MODIGLIANI TO BONN EXHIBITION, posted in 2009 and deemed by Henrik Hanstein in the article to be "risky". The consignor of record was Joseph Guttmann of New York (working along with his cabal of associates-- his team of attorneys, Arnold Katzen, Christian Parisot, various other attorneys all of whom may claim attorney-client privilege when queried by authorities, and others). What was never mentioned was that the painting had been the subject of a declaratory relief trial and a bank fraud investigation in the United States-- the painting remaining with unpaid bank liens and a dubious provenance to date. I do believe Mr Parisot's arrogance and the malfeasance of his associates have finally met with their comeuppance. I even pulled Parisot into a California courtroom from Paris and Italy (at great expense to his then handler Guttmann) to query him as to his authentication practices and fees to be paid for his favorable attribution. But Parisot and his cabal of cohorts proved difficult to impeach to a common jury of 12 working men and women. Hence I think both Guttmann, and Parisot et al all concluded that they might be "bulletproof" from civil judgments-- given the plaintiff costs of meeting one's burden of proof, the multiplicity of jurisdictions required for a successful prosecution of one's case, and the byzantine opacity and mind-numbing quagmires and metrics of an international painting transaction. We all concluded that the force and power of a criminal adjudication and prosecution would be required to excise this cancer upon the artworld- given infinite resources and subpoena power well beyond that of a civil dispute or litigation.
Such practices employed by both Parisot and Guttmann have enjoyed a life of their own-- a longstanding complicity between Giacomo Canale, Parisot, Guttmann and Arnold Katzen specifically with collaborative support provided by Jean Kisling, Claude Mollard, Marie-Claire Mansecal, Masaaki Iseki and Andre Schoeller. Canale would publish this cabal's findings under the imprimateur of Canale Arte, affording their findings a level of institutional legitimacy claiming that the "Modigliani Committee"s scholarship was supported by the Archives L'Egales Amedeo Modigliani (certainly- which was entirely the product of Parisot employing the droit morale legimacy afforded to him by the primogenitor laws of France), the Ambrogio Ceroni Archives (co-opted by the wife that survived his death, Angela), the Arthur Pfannstiehl Archives (vehemently denied by its sole authority, heir and archivist, Bernard Schuster. Arthur Pfannstiehl's son, Frederick-- an ex-masseur in Europe was bequeathed none of his father's extensive documentation dating from the 1920s. Arthur Pfannstiehl published his first concourse (what he called his Catalogue Presume) ante-dating all rival opinions and expertise by forty years (Ambrogio Ceroni's Edizione del Milione catalogue of 156 paintings was only published in 1958, followed by the 1965 and 1970 editions, the latter Rizzoli and Flammarion editions purporting to be catalogue raisonnes of 337 paintings/canvases), with his Catalogue Presume published in 1929), and the Lanthemann Archives (denied to me by his wife, but all the same lacking epistemic weight and the gravitas of a raisonne). On 23 Jan . 2001, the "Modigliani Committee" was launched by Guttmann and Parisot using Katzens office to provide a legitimate sounding NYC 1100 Madison Avenue address, suite 6C-- however many documents posted to that address were returned to sender marked "Adressee Unknown", despite the shiny brass plaque emblazoned "Modigliani-Kisling Institute" that Katzen had plastered to the Madison Avenue facade of the building. Giacomo Canale had claimed to "underwrite the project" and was "committed to the publication of the forthcoming new Catalogue Raisonne to be produced by the Committee".This though was prior to Katzen and Shirley Sack's arrest in Boston for money-laudering in June of that same year, for trying to sell a fake Modigliani "Jeune Femme aux Yeux Bleus (credentialed/expertised by Parisot) and a Degas for $4.1M to an alleged Columbian drug lord wishing to launder "street money" with the acquisition -- however their "client" was a US Customs Treasury agent working with the FBI. This incident diminished the prestige of the "Modigliani-Kisling Institute's" new Madison Avenue digs.
You see, Parisot has worked under the droit morale privilege of the French government and authorities for years since he succeeded to inveigle and cajole an impaired and impoverished Jeanne Modigliani (birth daughter to Amedeo Modigliani and Jeanne Hebuterne, orphaned by both parents in the course of one day in 1920) into assigning him her droit morale -- affording the surviving child of the artist the rights to opine on the authenticity of the artist's (in this case, her father's) legacy and work. Jeanne never had any archive or documentation of her father at any time, and certainly nothing at the time I met with her before her death.Yet this privilege is jurisdictionally limited- to that of the French courts , and this privilege will languish mercilessly when scrutinized under international law and expertise in a variety of legal jurisdictions. E-mail me for further discussion on this matter.
As an aside, I was just interviewed this past week 13 Feb. 2014 by the ALR (London) for nearly 3 hrs regarding Joseph Guttmann's complicity with Parisot et al, to authenticate, publish and sell off dubious paintings ( I believe 36 in number was the last figure, in addition to those I know of personally), among them Modigliani--- this is clearly a cottage industry fine-tuned by Guttmann and his crew/cabal. Most interesting.
Paul Quatrochi
Quatrochi@aol.com
This month, Modigliani Institute President Christian Parisot is embroiled in an international forgery investigation involving the deceased painter. The art expert and close friend of the artist's family is accused of providing false certificates of authenticity for over €6.65 million ($8,678,800) worth of counterfeit Modigliani works, according to the Financial Times.
Parisot was apprehended last month in connection with an investigation that dates back to 2010, when 22 fake Modigliani paintings were removed from an exhibition he organized at the Archaeological Museum of Palestrina. He and Italian art dealer Matteo Bignapiano were put under house arrest while authorities seized 59 artworks thought to be falsely attributed to the artist, acccording to a report by local newspaper, Il Tirreno.
Parisot has a long history with the Modigliani family, having served as secretary to the artist's daughter and only living descendant, Jeanne Modigliani. He had also been in the process of compiling Modigliani's cataogues raissones, a comprehensive monograph of the painter and sculptor's oeuvre. But the December 2012 arrest was not Parisot's first run in with the law. In 2008, he was accused of producing forged copies of drawings by Modigliani's mistress, Jeanne Hebuterne. His case went to court where he was sentenced to a fine and two years of jail time, a verdict he promptly sought to appeal before the 2010 investigation began.
Huffington Post 15 January 2013
Christian Parisot, a self-appointed expert on the work of Modigliani, was also reported in London's FT of 11 Jan 2013, to have been under investigation for over 2 years by Italian authorities, was arrested, indicted and sentenced for artfraud-- and the investigative web has been extended to include some of Parisot's associates-- one of them the consignor of record of a Modigliani nude entitled Grand Nue Alongee or Reclining Nude of Celine (Coupet) Howard, discreetly referenced below in my CONSIGNMENT OF MODIGLIANI TO BONN EXHIBITION, posted in 2009 and deemed by Henrik Hanstein in the article to be "risky". The consignor of record was Joseph Guttmann of New York (working along with his cabal of associates-- his team of attorneys, Arnold Katzen, Christian Parisot, various other attorneys all of whom may claim attorney-client privilege when queried by authorities, and others). What was never mentioned was that the painting had been the subject of a declaratory relief trial and a bank fraud investigation in the United States-- the painting remaining with unpaid bank liens and a dubious provenance to date. I do believe Mr Parisot's arrogance and the malfeasance of his associates have finally met with their comeuppance. I even pulled Parisot into a California courtroom from Paris and Italy (at great expense to his then handler Guttmann) to query him as to his authentication practices and fees to be paid for his favorable attribution. But Parisot and his cabal of cohorts proved difficult to impeach to a common jury of 12 working men and women. Hence I think both Guttmann, and Parisot et al all concluded that they might be "bulletproof" from civil judgments-- given the plaintiff costs of meeting one's burden of proof, the multiplicity of jurisdictions required for a successful prosecution of one's case, and the byzantine opacity and mind-numbing quagmires and metrics of an international painting transaction. We all concluded that the force and power of a criminal adjudication and prosecution would be required to excise this cancer upon the artworld- given infinite resources and subpoena power well beyond that of a civil dispute or litigation.
Such practices employed by both Parisot and Guttmann have enjoyed a life of their own-- a longstanding complicity between Giacomo Canale, Parisot, Guttmann and Arnold Katzen specifically with collaborative support provided by Jean Kisling, Claude Mollard, Marie-Claire Mansecal, Masaaki Iseki and Andre Schoeller. Canale would publish this cabal's findings under the imprimateur of Canale Arte, affording their findings a level of institutional legitimacy claiming that the "Modigliani Committee"s scholarship was supported by the Archives L'Egales Amedeo Modigliani (certainly- which was entirely the product of Parisot employing the droit morale legimacy afforded to him by the primogenitor laws of France), the Ambrogio Ceroni Archives (co-opted by the wife that survived his death, Angela), the Arthur Pfannstiehl Archives (vehemently denied by its sole authority, heir and archivist, Bernard Schuster. Arthur Pfannstiehl's son, Frederick-- an ex-masseur in Europe was bequeathed none of his father's extensive documentation dating from the 1920s. Arthur Pfannstiehl published his first concourse (what he called his Catalogue Presume) ante-dating all rival opinions and expertise by forty years (Ambrogio Ceroni's Edizione del Milione catalogue of 156 paintings was only published in 1958, followed by the 1965 and 1970 editions, the latter Rizzoli and Flammarion editions purporting to be catalogue raisonnes of 337 paintings/canvases), with his Catalogue Presume published in 1929), and the Lanthemann Archives (denied to me by his wife, but all the same lacking epistemic weight and the gravitas of a raisonne). On 23 Jan . 2001, the "Modigliani Committee" was launched by Guttmann and Parisot using Katzens office to provide a legitimate sounding NYC 1100 Madison Avenue address, suite 6C-- however many documents posted to that address were returned to sender marked "Adressee Unknown", despite the shiny brass plaque emblazoned "Modigliani-Kisling Institute" that Katzen had plastered to the Madison Avenue facade of the building. Giacomo Canale had claimed to "underwrite the project" and was "committed to the publication of the forthcoming new Catalogue Raisonne to be produced by the Committee".This though was prior to Katzen and Shirley Sack's arrest in Boston for money-laudering in June of that same year, for trying to sell a fake Modigliani "Jeune Femme aux Yeux Bleus (credentialed/expertised by Parisot) and a Degas for $4.1M to an alleged Columbian drug lord wishing to launder "street money" with the acquisition -- however their "client" was a US Customs Treasury agent working with the FBI. This incident diminished the prestige of the "Modigliani-Kisling Institute's" new Madison Avenue digs.
You see, Parisot has worked under the droit morale privilege of the French government and authorities for years since he succeeded to inveigle and cajole an impaired and impoverished Jeanne Modigliani (birth daughter to Amedeo Modigliani and Jeanne Hebuterne, orphaned by both parents in the course of one day in 1920) into assigning him her droit morale -- affording the surviving child of the artist the rights to opine on the authenticity of the artist's (in this case, her father's) legacy and work. Jeanne never had any archive or documentation of her father at any time, and certainly nothing at the time I met with her before her death.Yet this privilege is jurisdictionally limited- to that of the French courts , and this privilege will languish mercilessly when scrutinized under international law and expertise in a variety of legal jurisdictions. E-mail me for further discussion on this matter.
As an aside, I was just interviewed this past week 13 Feb. 2014 by the ALR (London) for nearly 3 hrs regarding Joseph Guttmann's complicity with Parisot et al, to authenticate, publish and sell off dubious paintings ( I believe 36 in number was the last figure, in addition to those I know of personally), among them Modigliani--- this is clearly a cottage industry fine-tuned by Guttmann and his crew/cabal. Most interesting.
Paul Quatrochi
Quatrochi@aol.com
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Klimt "Fishblood", 1898
GUSTAV KLIMT
India ink and pen on paper
Image: 40.2 x 40.5 cms (Sheet measures 43.5 x 47 cms)
Signed Lower Right: Gustav
KlimtExecuted: 1898
Bibliography:
1. Ver Sacrum I, Issue # 3, March 1898, Vienna, page 6 (as Fischblut )
2. Christian Nebehay,Ver Sacrum 1898-1903, Edition Tusch, Vienna, 1975
Ver Sacrum 1898-1903, Rizzoli, New York, 1977; page 110
3. Colin B. Bailey, Gustav Klimt: Modernism in the Making, Harry Abrams Inc., New York, 2001 in collaboration with The National Gallery of Canada, page 89
4. Christian Nebehay, Gustav Klimt, 1960; Beilage Zur Liste: Ver Sacrum, Jahrang I (1898); Issue 3 March 1898, Seite 6 , Cited as "Buchillustration: Fur V.S. (Ver Sacrum ) gez. Gust. Klimt, : Meerjung-frauen auf dem Rucken schwimmend, von grossem Fisch verfolgt"
5. Fritz Novotny and Johannes Dobai, Gustave Klimt, Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, New York and Washington, Cited on page 308 as a sketch and motif for Moving Water 1898 (Bewegtes Wasser, 1898). It is further cited that Fishblood was originally published in the original 1898 volume of Ver Sacrum I, no. 3, March 1898, page 6. Moving Water, 1898 is cited as plate 94, page 308 in the Novotny/Dobai text.
6. Catherine Dean, Klimt, Phaidon Press, Ltd. London , 1996 (reprinted ’98, ’99, ’01)
Plate #9, Cited as Fish Blood, and mistakenly noted as having the precise dimensions of the Ver Sacrum I , Issue #3 lithograph as 29.8 x 28.8 cms. Dean also mistakenly identifies the provenance as the Historisches Museum der Stadt Wien in Vienna, whereas the work has always been in private collections since the Secession Exhibition of 1903.
7. Alice Strobl, Gustav Klimt, Die Zeichnungen, vol. I , 1878-1903; Welz Verlag, Salzburg, 1980. Illustration from Ver Sacrum March, 1898, Illustration # S 675
8. Gilles Neret,Gustav Klimt 1862-1918, Taschen, Germany 2006; Illustrated page 20 as Fish Blood 1898, and noted on page 94 as Plate 20 below right; also noted as "dimensions and location unknown".
9. Christian M Nebehay, Ver sacrum 1898-1903, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, Munich 1975, page 111 (illustrated)
10. Dr. Ilona Sarmany- Parsons, Klimt, Crown Publishers, New York/Bonfini Press, Naefels Switzerland; 1987; Page 11 (full page plate). Cited as Original Destroyed
11. Dr. Marian Bisanz-Prakken, Nuda Veritas and the Origins of the Vienna Secession, 1895-1905; Szepmuveszzeti Muzeum, Budapest Museum of Fine Arts Exhibition; 23 Sept 2010 -9 January 2011, Full page color illustration p. 69. The catalogue cites (p. 234): "Until recently this most famous drawing was only known as a full page illustration in Ver Sacrum, the indications 18 ½ inches refer only to the framing lines in the reproduction (published illustration), which measures 185 x 185 cms. Since it’s rediscovery, the original work has been shown and published here for the first time".
12. Dr Marian Bisanz-Prakken, Gustav Klimt: The Drawings, Exhibited at the Albertina Museum, Vienna 14 March 2012- 10 June 2012 under the curation of Dr Bisanz-Prakken and published as Fishblood.
13. Dr Marian Bisanz-Prakken, Gustav Klimt: The Magic of Line , (3 July- 23 Sept. 2012), also organized in collaboration with the Getty Center's senior curator Lee Hendrix and Dr Marian Bisanz-Prakken of the Albertina. Dr Bisanz-Prakken has also published a new book, while she continues to work on the Supplement to Strobl’s Catalogue Raisonne of 1980, in which Fischblut will be included (in addition to Strobl’s 1980 inclusion as Illustration # S 675). The new text will be organized around the Albertina and Getty exhibitions and entitled Gustav Klimt: The Magic of Line, (ISBN 10: 1606061119/ISBN 13: 9781606061114) to celebrate the sesquicentennial of Klimt’s birth. Fischblut is illustrated and discussed in this new text.
PROVENANCE:
Exhibited in the Secession Exhibition, Vienna : Nov.-December 1903 (no. 72)
The Nebehay Gallery, Vienna (?)
Imra Rozsa (sold to Rosza in Geneva, )
Leopoldina Rozsa (by inheritance and legally exported (export license issued by the Austrian government’s Bundesdenkmalamt on 6 July 1959[no. 2225/59]. )
Private Collection New York
Note: Sarah Jackson (Historic Claims Director) of The Art Loss Register (of New York and London) has generated a 19 page report certifying the work is clear of all claims and enjoys good and uncompromised title in her report of 27 November 2006.
Also Dr. Marian Bisanz-Prakken, curator of the Albertina in Vienna, and past research assistant/archivist of Dr. Strobl, and current author of Dr. Strobl’s Supplement to her Catalogue Raisonne of 1980 (cited above), has confirmed (after conferring both with Dr. Strobl herself, as well as Dr Krug (director of the Nebehay Gallery) in Vienna, that the work will positively be included with correct dimensions and a NY domicile, in the forthcoming Supplement to the Strobl Catalogue Raisonne. Also Sophie Lillie of Vienna has conducted extensive research at the BDA in Vienna, as well as conducted a full and complete vetting of the work with all required clearances; giving the work bona fides of title and authenticity. The actual export license from the Bundesdenkmalamt dated 6 July 1959 (no. 2225/59) was secured citing clear passage from Vienna to New York on that date with knowledge and clearance of the work by the Austrian government for export.
ADDENDUM:
Fischblut (Fish Blood) after the Szepmuveszeti Muzeum ( Budapest Museum of Fine Arts, 23 Sept. 2010- 9 January 2011) Nuda Veritas: Gustav Klimt and the Origins of the Vienna Secession, 1895-1905 exhibition, the masterwork traveled to and was exhibited at the Albertina Museum in Vienna (12 March- 10 June 2012) in the exhibition Gustav Klimt: The Drawings, curated by Klimt expert and scholar Dr Marian Bisanz-Prakken (Senior Curator of the Albertina). Fischblut (FishBlood) then travelled to the J. Paul Getty Museum (Getty Center) in Malibu, California for the celebrated exhibition entitled Gustav Klimt: The Magic of Line , (3 July- 23 Sept. 2012), also organized in collaboration with the Getty Center's senior curators by Dr Marian Bisanz-Prakken of the Albertina. Dr Bisanz-Prakken has also published a new book, while she continues to work on the Supplement to Strobl’s Catalogue Raisonne of 1980, in which Fischblut will be included (in addition to Strobl’s 1980 inclusion as Illustration # S 675). The new text will be organized around the Albertina and Getty exhibitions and entitled Gustav Klimt: The Magic of Line, (ISBN 10: 1606061119/ISBN 13: 9781606061114) to celebrate the sesquicentennial of Klimt’s birth. Fischblut is illustrated and discussed in this new text and will remain on exhibit at the Getty Center until 23 Sept. 2012. Also see the links to the Getty exhibition, in which Fischblut is prominently featured:
http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/klimt/video.html
Fischblut (Fishblood)
India ink and pen on paper
Image: 40.2 x 40.5 cms (Sheet measures 43.5 x 47 cms)
Signed Lower Right: Gustav
KlimtExecuted: 1898
Bibliography:
1. Ver Sacrum I, Issue # 3, March 1898, Vienna, page 6 (as Fischblut )
2. Christian Nebehay,Ver Sacrum 1898-1903, Edition Tusch, Vienna, 1975
Ver Sacrum 1898-1903, Rizzoli, New York, 1977; page 110
3. Colin B. Bailey, Gustav Klimt: Modernism in the Making, Harry Abrams Inc., New York, 2001 in collaboration with The National Gallery of Canada, page 89
4. Christian Nebehay, Gustav Klimt, 1960; Beilage Zur Liste: Ver Sacrum, Jahrang I (1898); Issue 3 March 1898, Seite 6 , Cited as "Buchillustration: Fur V.S. (Ver Sacrum ) gez. Gust. Klimt, : Meerjung-frauen auf dem Rucken schwimmend, von grossem Fisch verfolgt"
5. Fritz Novotny and Johannes Dobai, Gustave Klimt, Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, New York and Washington, Cited on page 308 as a sketch and motif for Moving Water 1898 (Bewegtes Wasser, 1898). It is further cited that Fishblood was originally published in the original 1898 volume of Ver Sacrum I, no. 3, March 1898, page 6. Moving Water, 1898 is cited as plate 94, page 308 in the Novotny/Dobai text.
6. Catherine Dean, Klimt, Phaidon Press, Ltd. London , 1996 (reprinted ’98, ’99, ’01)
Plate #9, Cited as Fish Blood, and mistakenly noted as having the precise dimensions of the Ver Sacrum I , Issue #3 lithograph as 29.8 x 28.8 cms. Dean also mistakenly identifies the provenance as the Historisches Museum der Stadt Wien in Vienna, whereas the work has always been in private collections since the Secession Exhibition of 1903.
7. Alice Strobl, Gustav Klimt, Die Zeichnungen, vol. I , 1878-1903; Welz Verlag, Salzburg, 1980. Illustration from Ver Sacrum March, 1898, Illustration # S 675
8. Gilles Neret,Gustav Klimt 1862-1918, Taschen, Germany 2006; Illustrated page 20 as Fish Blood 1898, and noted on page 94 as Plate 20 below right; also noted as "dimensions and location unknown".
9. Christian M Nebehay, Ver sacrum 1898-1903, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, Munich 1975, page 111 (illustrated)
10. Dr. Ilona Sarmany- Parsons, Klimt, Crown Publishers, New York/Bonfini Press, Naefels Switzerland; 1987; Page 11 (full page plate). Cited as Original Destroyed
11. Dr. Marian Bisanz-Prakken, Nuda Veritas and the Origins of the Vienna Secession, 1895-1905; Szepmuveszzeti Muzeum, Budapest Museum of Fine Arts Exhibition; 23 Sept 2010 -9 January 2011, Full page color illustration p. 69. The catalogue cites (p. 234): "Until recently this most famous drawing was only known as a full page illustration in Ver Sacrum, the indications 18 ½ inches refer only to the framing lines in the reproduction (published illustration), which measures 185 x 185 cms. Since it’s rediscovery, the original work has been shown and published here for the first time".
12. Dr Marian Bisanz-Prakken, Gustav Klimt: The Drawings, Exhibited at the Albertina Museum, Vienna 14 March 2012- 10 June 2012 under the curation of Dr Bisanz-Prakken and published as Fishblood.
13. Dr Marian Bisanz-Prakken, Gustav Klimt: The Magic of Line , (3 July- 23 Sept. 2012), also organized in collaboration with the Getty Center's senior curator Lee Hendrix and Dr Marian Bisanz-Prakken of the Albertina. Dr Bisanz-Prakken has also published a new book, while she continues to work on the Supplement to Strobl’s Catalogue Raisonne of 1980, in which Fischblut will be included (in addition to Strobl’s 1980 inclusion as Illustration # S 675). The new text will be organized around the Albertina and Getty exhibitions and entitled Gustav Klimt: The Magic of Line, (ISBN 10: 1606061119/ISBN 13: 9781606061114) to celebrate the sesquicentennial of Klimt’s birth. Fischblut is illustrated and discussed in this new text.
PROVENANCE:
Exhibited in the Secession Exhibition, Vienna : Nov.-December 1903 (no. 72)
The Nebehay Gallery, Vienna (?)
Imra Rozsa (sold to Rosza in Geneva, )
Leopoldina Rozsa (by inheritance and legally exported (export license issued by the Austrian government’s Bundesdenkmalamt on 6 July 1959[no. 2225/59]. )
Private Collection New York
Note: Sarah Jackson (Historic Claims Director) of The Art Loss Register (of New York and London) has generated a 19 page report certifying the work is clear of all claims and enjoys good and uncompromised title in her report of 27 November 2006.
Also Dr. Marian Bisanz-Prakken, curator of the Albertina in Vienna, and past research assistant/archivist of Dr. Strobl, and current author of Dr. Strobl’s Supplement to her Catalogue Raisonne of 1980 (cited above), has confirmed (after conferring both with Dr. Strobl herself, as well as Dr Krug (director of the Nebehay Gallery) in Vienna, that the work will positively be included with correct dimensions and a NY domicile, in the forthcoming Supplement to the Strobl Catalogue Raisonne. Also Sophie Lillie of Vienna has conducted extensive research at the BDA in Vienna, as well as conducted a full and complete vetting of the work with all required clearances; giving the work bona fides of title and authenticity. The actual export license from the Bundesdenkmalamt dated 6 July 1959 (no. 2225/59) was secured citing clear passage from Vienna to New York on that date with knowledge and clearance of the work by the Austrian government for export.
ADDENDUM:
Fischblut (Fish Blood) after the Szepmuveszeti Muzeum ( Budapest Museum of Fine Arts, 23 Sept. 2010- 9 January 2011) Nuda Veritas: Gustav Klimt and the Origins of the Vienna Secession, 1895-1905 exhibition, the masterwork traveled to and was exhibited at the Albertina Museum in Vienna (12 March- 10 June 2012) in the exhibition Gustav Klimt: The Drawings, curated by Klimt expert and scholar Dr Marian Bisanz-Prakken (Senior Curator of the Albertina). Fischblut (FishBlood) then travelled to the J. Paul Getty Museum (Getty Center) in Malibu, California for the celebrated exhibition entitled Gustav Klimt: The Magic of Line , (3 July- 23 Sept. 2012), also organized in collaboration with the Getty Center's senior curators by Dr Marian Bisanz-Prakken of the Albertina. Dr Bisanz-Prakken has also published a new book, while she continues to work on the Supplement to Strobl’s Catalogue Raisonne of 1980, in which Fischblut will be included (in addition to Strobl’s 1980 inclusion as Illustration # S 675). The new text will be organized around the Albertina and Getty exhibitions and entitled Gustav Klimt: The Magic of Line, (ISBN 10: 1606061119/ISBN 13: 9781606061114) to celebrate the sesquicentennial of Klimt’s birth. Fischblut is illustrated and discussed in this new text and will remain on exhibit at the Getty Center until 23 Sept. 2012. Also see the links to the Getty exhibition, in which Fischblut is prominently featured:
http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/klimt/video.html
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Jean-Michel Basquiat "PECHO", 1983
Without any desire to prostitute this blog and site and use it as a bullhorn of sorts to the artworld at large-- can anyone help me do some due diligence on a Basquiat study entitled "Pecho" of 1983 (acrylic, oilstick and marker on artists board; 30 x 40 ins; Signed on verso: Jean-Michel; Navarra catalogue no. 3, p. 99; Basquiat Estate Authentication Committee certificate 29 Sept 2000, Transaction # 60530)? I have seen the work first hand, am interested in buying the work for a client, yet have some questions about the history of the work subsequent to its auction history. Would the owner or their agent please call me @ (212) 722-3700 or email me at Quatrochi@aol.com. I would be most appreciative.
PAUL D. QUATROCHI PhD
***********
Quatrochi Fine Art Agents, Ltd.
(New York)
Office: (212) 722-3700
Fax: (212) 987-7669
Worldphone: (917) 560-8534
E-mail: Quatrochi@aol.com
Website: www.quatrochi.com
Twitter: @PaulQuatrochi
PAUL D. QUATROCHI PhD
***********
Quatrochi Fine Art Agents, Ltd.
(New York)
Office: (212) 722-3700
Fax: (212) 987-7669
Worldphone: (917) 560-8534
E-mail: Quatrochi@aol.com
Website: www.quatrochi.com
Twitter: @PaulQuatrochi
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Klimt- The Final Epilogue
Quatrochi Fine Art Agents, Ltd. is excited to announce that Klimt Fischblut will finally make it's public appearance since its first public exhibition in Vienna in 1903 (the Vienna Secession exhibition) this 22 September 2010 at the Budapest Museum of Fine Arts and be exhibited through the fall months in the much awaited and critically acclaimed exhibition entitled Nuda Veritas. Gustav Klimt and the Early Years of the Vienna Secession 1895-1905. The exhibition was in last part organized by the Albertina Museum in Vienna under the auspices of Dr Marion Bisanz (who is currently completing the Supplement to the Strobl Catalogue Raisonne). All documentation regarding the Albertina Museum and Getty Center exhibitions celebrating the sesquicentennial of the artist's birth can be found in all postings subsequent to this update.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Final Epilogue- Klimt affair
There has been a complete and utter Dismissal with Prejudice against Quatrochi Art Agents, Ltd., with a settlement paid by opposition counsel and Wachter. The work is free to be sold without any legal hindrance whatsoever.
Quatrochi Fine Art Agents, Ltd.
quatrochi@aol.com
Quatrochi Fine Art Agents, Ltd.
quatrochi@aol.com
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Maine Antique Digest (David Hewett) addendum to their 2008 publication :
What's Blocking the Successful Sale of a Klimt Drawing (08/25/09)
What's Blocking the Successful Sale of a Klimt Drawing
by David Hewett
We noted in an August 2008 article ("Would-be Seller of Klimt Sues Would-be Buyer for $1.2 Million") that Maggie Wachter, the owner of a Gustav Klimt drawing, had filed a lawsuit against New York City's Quatrochi Art Agents and the moving and storage firm Day & Meyer, Murray & Young Corp. for failing to complete the contract terms for the purchase of the drawing and return it to her.
We have been informed by Paul Quatrochi that any delays in completing the contract have been solely due to the prospective seller. "The provenance of the work was utterly misrepresented by Ms. Wachter [the seller], and had to be entirely deconstructed, employing extensive research, scholars, and governmental authorities. Any purported breach is solely due to the extent of the research my client contracted me to do, as his agent."
Quatrochi added, "We have consistently endeavoured in good faith to return the work to Wachter's counsel, with our offer having been consistently declined. We also have made proposals to buy out Wachter's interest, with no reply."
About the lawsuit, Quatrochi said, "I should also clarify that the action was levied against a dormant [New York state] corporation, and not me personally-the corporation having been closed now for some time. Such conduct has baffled me and my attorneys, and perhaps Wachter ought to rethink her choice of counsel."
Originally published in the September 2009 issue of Maine Antique Digest. (c) 2009 Maine Antique Digest
ShareThisLogin or Register to post a Comment
What's Blocking the Successful Sale of a Klimt Drawing (08/25/09)
What's Blocking the Successful Sale of a Klimt Drawing
by David Hewett
We noted in an August 2008 article ("Would-be Seller of Klimt Sues Would-be Buyer for $1.2 Million") that Maggie Wachter, the owner of a Gustav Klimt drawing, had filed a lawsuit against New York City's Quatrochi Art Agents and the moving and storage firm Day & Meyer, Murray & Young Corp. for failing to complete the contract terms for the purchase of the drawing and return it to her.
We have been informed by Paul Quatrochi that any delays in completing the contract have been solely due to the prospective seller. "The provenance of the work was utterly misrepresented by Ms. Wachter [the seller], and had to be entirely deconstructed, employing extensive research, scholars, and governmental authorities. Any purported breach is solely due to the extent of the research my client contracted me to do, as his agent."
Quatrochi added, "We have consistently endeavoured in good faith to return the work to Wachter's counsel, with our offer having been consistently declined. We also have made proposals to buy out Wachter's interest, with no reply."
About the lawsuit, Quatrochi said, "I should also clarify that the action was levied against a dormant [New York state] corporation, and not me personally-the corporation having been closed now for some time. Such conduct has baffled me and my attorneys, and perhaps Wachter ought to rethink her choice of counsel."
Originally published in the September 2009 issue of Maine Antique Digest. (c) 2009 Maine Antique Digest
ShareThisLogin or Register to post a Comment
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Art Law Blog - "Klimt case"
Posted as a post-script to Quatrochi's 24 July 2009 blog submission:
PS: I think in the interest of truth-telling, I am surprised by the short-sightedness of Wachter's counsel, who expect the exercise of a mere option and agreement to buy a drawing (in a domestic civil court), to trump, eclipse, or enjoy a higher priority than my higher duty to the international art markets (and international criminal courts), to prevent any potentially ill-gotten gains and spoils of war from being 'sold' to good-faith BFPs (and such acts of spoliation)- only furthering and contributing to the litigious character of the art world. As I have previously said, all good-faith sellers of good character have never forbiddden me in past time from doing my requisite due diligence and research- all conducted at the instruction of the buyer, for whom I dutifully serve as 'agent'. Also as previously stated we have offered on endless occasions to return the work from safe-keeping (D&M) to Wachter's counsel with our offer consistently being declined, or our unwaivering offer to buy out Wachter's interest with no reply. This is baffling and untoward conduct from opposition counsel that I have never seen before, and certainly confusing enough to altogether befuddle my attorneys and colleagues in the art community. I also add that since the inception of Wachter's action (June 2008), countered with our consistent initiatives to have Wachter's lawyers discontinue the action (with or without prejudice) so as to sell the work, were met by Wachter's counsel with no reply whatsoever, despite our clear indication that the art markets, as well as the financial and credit markets were collapsing meteorically. In the meantime the Mei Moses art index indicates that the value of the international art markets has declined some 45% to date from our first entreaty to her lawyers (just 32% since March 2009). This inaction of her lawyers alone is grounds for censure, as they have only compounded the misery-index of our collective predicament and are accomplices in the furtherance and compounding of their own client's alleged damages. The invocation of the doctrine of laches is appropriate : Vigilantibus non dormientibus oequitas subvenit! An affirmative defense, this prejudicial delay to any proposed resolution clearly underscores the malicious character of the action, and lends itself to legitimate criticism as a frivolous suit which ought be summarily dismissed. See Solow v Nine West Group, 2001 WL 736794, *3 (SDNY June 29 2001); Simons v USA 452 F 2d 1110, 1116 (2nd Cir. 1971) (affirming Rule 12 (b) (6) dismissed based on laches where papers "reveal no reason for the inordinate and prejudicial delay".
It should be noted that a complaint will soon be lodged against opposition counsel Bernstein, McInnis and Bileris for egregious conduct by these offices with the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the NYS Bar Association.
PS: I think in the interest of truth-telling, I am surprised by the short-sightedness of Wachter's counsel, who expect the exercise of a mere option and agreement to buy a drawing (in a domestic civil court), to trump, eclipse, or enjoy a higher priority than my higher duty to the international art markets (and international criminal courts), to prevent any potentially ill-gotten gains and spoils of war from being 'sold' to good-faith BFPs (and such acts of spoliation)- only furthering and contributing to the litigious character of the art world. As I have previously said, all good-faith sellers of good character have never forbiddden me in past time from doing my requisite due diligence and research- all conducted at the instruction of the buyer, for whom I dutifully serve as 'agent'. Also as previously stated we have offered on endless occasions to return the work from safe-keeping (D&M) to Wachter's counsel with our offer consistently being declined, or our unwaivering offer to buy out Wachter's interest with no reply. This is baffling and untoward conduct from opposition counsel that I have never seen before, and certainly confusing enough to altogether befuddle my attorneys and colleagues in the art community. I also add that since the inception of Wachter's action (June 2008), countered with our consistent initiatives to have Wachter's lawyers discontinue the action (with or without prejudice) so as to sell the work, were met by Wachter's counsel with no reply whatsoever, despite our clear indication that the art markets, as well as the financial and credit markets were collapsing meteorically. In the meantime the Mei Moses art index indicates that the value of the international art markets has declined some 45% to date from our first entreaty to her lawyers (just 32% since March 2009). This inaction of her lawyers alone is grounds for censure, as they have only compounded the misery-index of our collective predicament and are accomplices in the furtherance and compounding of their own client's alleged damages. The invocation of the doctrine of laches is appropriate : Vigilantibus non dormientibus oequitas subvenit! An affirmative defense, this prejudicial delay to any proposed resolution clearly underscores the malicious character of the action, and lends itself to legitimate criticism as a frivolous suit which ought be summarily dismissed. See Solow v Nine West Group, 2001 WL 736794, *3 (SDNY June 29 2001); Simons v USA 452 F 2d 1110, 1116 (2nd Cir. 1971) (affirming Rule 12 (b) (6) dismissed based on laches where papers "reveal no reason for the inordinate and prejudicial delay".
It should be noted that a complaint will soon be lodged against opposition counsel Bernstein, McInnis and Bileris for egregious conduct by these offices with the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the NYS Bar Association.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Consignment of Modigliani to Bonn exhibition
Paul Quatrochi would like to open a dialogue regarding the responsibilities of a national museum, and their exhibition curator's (Christoph Vitali) role concerning questions of authenticity, dubious title, and its liability in the knowing or unwitting masking of a fraud.
Art 27.06.2009
Showing Modigliani is risky, says art expert
Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: The origin of 'Reclining nude' (1918) is in dispute
At a retrospective exhibition of works by artist Amedeo Modigliani in Bonn, at least one of the paintings is said to be fake. The case is under investigation. Art expert Henrik Hanstein tells DW why he's not surprised.
Henrik Hanstein is managing partner of Kunsthaus Lempertz in Cologne. Founded in 1845, it is one of the leading art auction houses in Europe.
Deutsche Welle: Mr. Hanstein, in general there are said to be three fake Modiglianis around for every real one. Why is it with Modigliani paintings particularly difficult to distinguish between an original and a copy?
Henrik Hanstein: This has to do with Modigliani himself, who certainly didn't live the kind of orderly life that every art cataloger hopes for - he didn't register or photograph every painting. Modigliani's estate was scattered very quickly in all directions and it quickly became a kind of Bohemian myth and, thus, an easy target for imitators.
To sort this out, five divergent and contradictory catalogues have in the meantime attempted to organize his works. I don't know of anything similar in art history. It's unique. And, that makes it really difficult for a museum to put on an exhibition.
Can anyone say for sure whether the disputed paintings are originals or fakes?
Difficult question: At the moment, there are two experts who consider themselves to be the authorities, including Professor Christian Parisot in Paris and Rome, who received archive documents from Modigliani's daughter and because of that has a kind of competitive advantage. The second expert also lives in Paris. Both have their qualifications, but when I survey the market, both also have large weaknesses.
That's why it's so difficult to say, 'I know or I don't' - that is, unless they have a painting whose provenance they can prove very reliably over many years and have early documents showing its origin.
At Kunsthaus Lempertz, what do you do when you are offered a Modigliani?
We recently had an interesting case of a painting that was offered to us from the United States and then lay around for seven years, but none of us liked it, so we didn't want to include it in the auction.
What do you mean, you didn't like it?
Technically, stylistically, it provenance hadn't really been confirmed, it wasn't verifiable in any of the catalogues and in such cases you have to be extremely careful.
We said we didn't want it, but the collector didn't come to pick it up and also didn't pay the fee for storing it with us, so we gave him a deadline. It was then promptly picked up by Christian Parisot, who wanted to examine it carefully in Rome. Before we gave it to him, we also brought in a restorer, and, after closer inspection, it became apparent that the signature was on top of the varnish, which is a clear indication of a fake. Also, the canvas was machine-woven and couldn't have existed between 1915 and 1917. So, on technical grounds, we said, no, that's not one.
But then while in an Italian restaurant ordering a pizza I read by chance in the newspaper Corriera della Sera about a painting that had been missing in private ownership for a long time and then put on display for the first time in Italy. It was billed as a big discovery. And I couldn't believe my eyes. I looked in my small camera that I had with me. It was "our" painting! That really took my breath away.
So, one has to work almost in a forensic manner. There's really no more difficult case than Modigliani. There are paintings hanging at the Bonn exhibition that aren't from him. That's not being kept secret. I don't think the state attorney's office would be able to solve it.
How should the Bonn museum - the Art and Exhibition Hall of the Federal Republic of Germany - react?
It shouldn't react at all. The state attorney will ask where is the authoritative expert? But it won't get an answer. That's an exhibition that doesn't claim to be flawless. When they go through the exhibition and keep their eyes open, they'll see that the quality of the paintings varies greatly.
But the attempt, after decades, to put together a retrospective, is respectable nevertheless.
From the beginning it was clear that, with Modigliani, you'll could run into a trap.
It's been suggested that an allegedly fake painting in the show was put up for sale during the exhibition. Was there an attempt to give the painting a certificate of authenticity during the exhibition?
That was a painting in the exhibition that didn't appeal to me. That applied also to curators. And, when it was advertised by code in the newspaper - in the Frankfurt Allgemeine, I think - then the suspicion became firmer. I found it rather disconcerting. I don't know the background. Here, it's possible that the museum has been used as a means to an end.
Interview: Sabine Oelze (kjb)
Editor: Ian P. Johnson
Send us an e-mail » Send » Print »
Art 27.06.2009
Showing Modigliani is risky, says art expert
Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: The origin of 'Reclining nude' (1918) is in dispute
At a retrospective exhibition of works by artist Amedeo Modigliani in Bonn, at least one of the paintings is said to be fake. The case is under investigation. Art expert Henrik Hanstein tells DW why he's not surprised.
Henrik Hanstein is managing partner of Kunsthaus Lempertz in Cologne. Founded in 1845, it is one of the leading art auction houses in Europe.
Deutsche Welle: Mr. Hanstein, in general there are said to be three fake Modiglianis around for every real one. Why is it with Modigliani paintings particularly difficult to distinguish between an original and a copy?
Henrik Hanstein: This has to do with Modigliani himself, who certainly didn't live the kind of orderly life that every art cataloger hopes for - he didn't register or photograph every painting. Modigliani's estate was scattered very quickly in all directions and it quickly became a kind of Bohemian myth and, thus, an easy target for imitators.
To sort this out, five divergent and contradictory catalogues have in the meantime attempted to organize his works. I don't know of anything similar in art history. It's unique. And, that makes it really difficult for a museum to put on an exhibition.
Can anyone say for sure whether the disputed paintings are originals or fakes?
Difficult question: At the moment, there are two experts who consider themselves to be the authorities, including Professor Christian Parisot in Paris and Rome, who received archive documents from Modigliani's daughter and because of that has a kind of competitive advantage. The second expert also lives in Paris. Both have their qualifications, but when I survey the market, both also have large weaknesses.
That's why it's so difficult to say, 'I know or I don't' - that is, unless they have a painting whose provenance they can prove very reliably over many years and have early documents showing its origin.
At Kunsthaus Lempertz, what do you do when you are offered a Modigliani?
We recently had an interesting case of a painting that was offered to us from the United States and then lay around for seven years, but none of us liked it, so we didn't want to include it in the auction.
What do you mean, you didn't like it?
Technically, stylistically, it provenance hadn't really been confirmed, it wasn't verifiable in any of the catalogues and in such cases you have to be extremely careful.
We said we didn't want it, but the collector didn't come to pick it up and also didn't pay the fee for storing it with us, so we gave him a deadline. It was then promptly picked up by Christian Parisot, who wanted to examine it carefully in Rome. Before we gave it to him, we also brought in a restorer, and, after closer inspection, it became apparent that the signature was on top of the varnish, which is a clear indication of a fake. Also, the canvas was machine-woven and couldn't have existed between 1915 and 1917. So, on technical grounds, we said, no, that's not one.
But then while in an Italian restaurant ordering a pizza I read by chance in the newspaper Corriera della Sera about a painting that had been missing in private ownership for a long time and then put on display for the first time in Italy. It was billed as a big discovery. And I couldn't believe my eyes. I looked in my small camera that I had with me. It was "our" painting! That really took my breath away.
So, one has to work almost in a forensic manner. There's really no more difficult case than Modigliani. There are paintings hanging at the Bonn exhibition that aren't from him. That's not being kept secret. I don't think the state attorney's office would be able to solve it.
How should the Bonn museum - the Art and Exhibition Hall of the Federal Republic of Germany - react?
It shouldn't react at all. The state attorney will ask where is the authoritative expert? But it won't get an answer. That's an exhibition that doesn't claim to be flawless. When they go through the exhibition and keep their eyes open, they'll see that the quality of the paintings varies greatly.
But the attempt, after decades, to put together a retrospective, is respectable nevertheless.
From the beginning it was clear that, with Modigliani, you'll could run into a trap.
It's been suggested that an allegedly fake painting in the show was put up for sale during the exhibition. Was there an attempt to give the painting a certificate of authenticity during the exhibition?
That was a painting in the exhibition that didn't appeal to me. That applied also to curators. And, when it was advertised by code in the newspaper - in the Frankfurt Allgemeine, I think - then the suspicion became firmer. I found it rather disconcerting. I don't know the background. Here, it's possible that the museum has been used as a means to an end.
Interview: Sabine Oelze (kjb)
Editor: Ian P. Johnson
Send us an e-mail » Send » Print »
FT article- Think Like a Faker
Paul Quatrochi is seeking to open a dialogue in the spirit of establishing the rightful role of the Art Loss Register as underscored in this FT article published worldwide, regarding allegations of forgery.
Think Like A Faker
By Anthony Haden-Guest
Published: July 20 2007 14:52 Last updated: July 20 2007 14:52
Paul Quatrochi, a private dealer in Manhattan, only found out that the Art Loss Register (ALR) was now listing fakes when it asked him about a collection with which he was familiar. The ALR, which maintains a list of stolen works, wanted his opinion on whether certain pictures were fakes.
Quatrochi said that he regarded both the collector and his holdings with some scepticism. “He has two Vermeers. Two!” he chortled. An unusual claim that positively demanded scrutiny. “They are hard to date. I’d put them at about 1920.” But Quatrochi, who is trained in art law, noted that this was highly litigious territory and wondered if the ALR knew what it was getting into.
The Art Loss Register was founded in 1991 by Julian Radcliffe, then the director of a Lloyds brokers. “We only really started registering fakes to build up a database in the last two years,” he says. Concerns such as those voiced by Quatrochi don’t bother him unduly.
“We are not the arbiter of whether something is a fake,” he says. “We merely raise the red flag.
“We do sometimes find ourselves in a position where one side says, ‘Put it on the database and I’ll sue you if you don’t.’ And the other guy says, ‘It shouldn’t be on the database and I’ll sue you if it’s on.’”
Has the ALR been taken to court for doubting authenticity? “No. People are often threatening to sue. Very often they withdraw, a little bit shamefaced, when they discover they need us on their side next time round.”
Quatrochi was contacted about the suspect collection by Katja Lubina, a young Dutchwoman who works at the ALR’s offices in London. “I was going through the cases on the database registered as fakes, doing some quality control so that we can immediately act,” she says.
Can’t that be legally a high-risk business?
“Yes,” she says. “Nobody in this office would like to say this painting is a fake. So what we do is we advise them that there are indications that it could not be the real one.”
I observe that this seems a fine distinction.
“We are not saying it is a fake. We are saying, ‘Please be advised that someone might think this is a fake.’ For instance, another identical work has been for years in such and such a museum. So it could be that it is a fake. But we are not saying it.”
The ALR folders resonate with greed, guile and longing. One letter reads: “You mentioned that a South American gentleman had offered this painting to you for sale.” An ALR search established the painting was a copy of a Monet in the Musée d’Orsay in Paris.
In such cases, the ALR’s role is simple. Lubina is delighted when she has more complexity to deal with. “People are so creative in covering up fakes,” she says. She cites some supposed Van Gogh drawings, which were not only fake themselves but which had been embellished with fraudulent Nazi stamps on the reverse.
“They point you in the wrong direction. And you immediately think, ‘Well, this might be a case of looting.’ And your attention is on whether the provenance is OK, that is wasn’t confiscated or stolen. Which takes you away from thinking whether it is a genuine work or not.”
Fakers can get more creative than this. “It’s not just about faking the work of art. It’s about faking the whole provenance,” Lubina says. One of the ALR’s most potent fake-busting databases is the Witt Library in the Courtauld Institute at Somerset House in London. “It is an archive where you can look up provenance for works of art. They keep boxes for every artist. They record sales of paintings over a number of years,” she says.
“You can go into archives like the Witt, with your backpack, everything,” Lubina says. “You slip something in one of the files. From then on it will always be picked up by people researching. That happened in the Dr Drewe and John Myatt case.”
Myatt was the artist. Dr John Drewe, armed with an antique typewriter, manufactured the provenance. Between 1986 and 1994, they put 200 bogus pieces into circulation. Many are certainly still hanging or floating around. “There are such great criminal minds out there,” says Lubina. “I think we would all be surprised if we knew the real size of the [problem].”
So Lubina and everyone else at the Art Loss Register has to learn to think like the fakers?
“Yes. Probably after having worked here, I can develop my own techniques,” she says with a merry laugh.
The Art Loss Register, tel: +44 (0)20-7841 5780 (UK); +1 212-297 0941 (US); artloss@artloss.com
anthony.haden-guest@ft.com
ś�际收藏界的赝品清单 - FT中文网 - FTChinese.com曼哈顿私营经销商保罗•夸特罗奇(Paul Quatrochi)出乎意料地发现，国际 ... 那么，ALR有没有因为对艺术品的真实性提出质疑而被告上法庭呢http://s.info.com/clickserver/_iceUrlFlag=1?rawURL=http%3A%2F%2Fapp.ftchinese.com%2Fstory.php%3Fstoryid%3D001013872&0=&1=0&4=74.205.26.218&5=205.188.117.17&9=6e6d127e79764f34b4b8b486f50cca01&10=1&11=us.infoflag&13=search&14=867530&15=main-title&17=16&18=5&19=0&20=3&21=13&22=iZpm%2FQXy6vQ%3D&40=Blj86vtprvmmvVvhLHnKXw%3D%3D&_IceUrl=true
Think Like A Faker
By Anthony Haden-Guest
Published: July 20 2007 14:52 Last updated: July 20 2007 14:52
Paul Quatrochi, a private dealer in Manhattan, only found out that the Art Loss Register (ALR) was now listing fakes when it asked him about a collection with which he was familiar. The ALR, which maintains a list of stolen works, wanted his opinion on whether certain pictures were fakes.
Quatrochi said that he regarded both the collector and his holdings with some scepticism. “He has two Vermeers. Two!” he chortled. An unusual claim that positively demanded scrutiny. “They are hard to date. I’d put them at about 1920.” But Quatrochi, who is trained in art law, noted that this was highly litigious territory and wondered if the ALR knew what it was getting into.
The Art Loss Register was founded in 1991 by Julian Radcliffe, then the director of a Lloyds brokers. “We only really started registering fakes to build up a database in the last two years,” he says. Concerns such as those voiced by Quatrochi don’t bother him unduly.
“We are not the arbiter of whether something is a fake,” he says. “We merely raise the red flag.
“We do sometimes find ourselves in a position where one side says, ‘Put it on the database and I’ll sue you if you don’t.’ And the other guy says, ‘It shouldn’t be on the database and I’ll sue you if it’s on.’”
Has the ALR been taken to court for doubting authenticity? “No. People are often threatening to sue. Very often they withdraw, a little bit shamefaced, when they discover they need us on their side next time round.”
Quatrochi was contacted about the suspect collection by Katja Lubina, a young Dutchwoman who works at the ALR’s offices in London. “I was going through the cases on the database registered as fakes, doing some quality control so that we can immediately act,” she says.
Can’t that be legally a high-risk business?
“Yes,” she says. “Nobody in this office would like to say this painting is a fake. So what we do is we advise them that there are indications that it could not be the real one.”
I observe that this seems a fine distinction.
“We are not saying it is a fake. We are saying, ‘Please be advised that someone might think this is a fake.’ For instance, another identical work has been for years in such and such a museum. So it could be that it is a fake. But we are not saying it.”
The ALR folders resonate with greed, guile and longing. One letter reads: “You mentioned that a South American gentleman had offered this painting to you for sale.” An ALR search established the painting was a copy of a Monet in the Musée d’Orsay in Paris.
In such cases, the ALR’s role is simple. Lubina is delighted when she has more complexity to deal with. “People are so creative in covering up fakes,” she says. She cites some supposed Van Gogh drawings, which were not only fake themselves but which had been embellished with fraudulent Nazi stamps on the reverse.
“They point you in the wrong direction. And you immediately think, ‘Well, this might be a case of looting.’ And your attention is on whether the provenance is OK, that is wasn’t confiscated or stolen. Which takes you away from thinking whether it is a genuine work or not.”
Fakers can get more creative than this. “It’s not just about faking the work of art. It’s about faking the whole provenance,” Lubina says. One of the ALR’s most potent fake-busting databases is the Witt Library in the Courtauld Institute at Somerset House in London. “It is an archive where you can look up provenance for works of art. They keep boxes for every artist. They record sales of paintings over a number of years,” she says.
“You can go into archives like the Witt, with your backpack, everything,” Lubina says. “You slip something in one of the files. From then on it will always be picked up by people researching. That happened in the Dr Drewe and John Myatt case.”
Myatt was the artist. Dr John Drewe, armed with an antique typewriter, manufactured the provenance. Between 1986 and 1994, they put 200 bogus pieces into circulation. Many are certainly still hanging or floating around. “There are such great criminal minds out there,” says Lubina. “I think we would all be surprised if we knew the real size of the [problem].”
So Lubina and everyone else at the Art Loss Register has to learn to think like the fakers?
“Yes. Probably after having worked here, I can develop my own techniques,” she says with a merry laugh.
The Art Loss Register, tel: +44 (0)20-7841 5780 (UK); +1 212-297 0941 (US); artloss@artloss.com
anthony.haden-guest@ft.com
ś�际收藏界的赝品清单 - FT中文网 - FTChinese.com曼哈顿私营经销商保罗•夸特罗奇(Paul Quatrochi)出乎意料地发现，国际 ... 那么，ALR有没有因为对艺术品的真实性提出质疑而被告上法庭呢http://s.info.com/clickserver/_iceUrlFlag=1?rawURL=http%3A%2F%2Fapp.ftchinese.com%2Fstory.php%3Fstoryid%3D001013872&0=&1=0&4=74.205.26.218&5=205.188.117.17&9=6e6d127e79764f34b4b8b486f50cca01&10=1&11=us.infoflag&13=search&14=867530&15=main-title&17=16&18=5&19=0&20=3&21=13&22=iZpm%2FQXy6vQ%3D&40=Blj86vtprvmmvVvhLHnKXw%3D%3D&_IceUrl=true
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)