Lucindaevans mcp 2013 by Lucinda Evans

Lucinda Evans: The Art of Forging Art: An Investigation into the Effects of Fake Art, it’s Artist’s and the Collectors

Critical Research Essay 6134 words

for BA (Hons) Degree 2011 Fine Art: Print and Time Based Media

Wimbledon College of Art

Table of Contents Synopsis List of Illustrations Introduction Chapter 1

The forging of art

1:1 A Master Forger 1:2 ‘How a con man and a forger re-wrote The History of Modern Art’ Chapter 2

Investigation of a Great Master

2:1 Master or Apprentice 2:2 Questioning a Master Chapter 3

The effects of an Authority

3:1 ‘Faking it’ 3:2 ‘Fake or Fortune’ Conclusion Bibliography

Synopsis Throughout this dissertation I have explored the role of authorship, authenticity and authority within the art world today. Investigation has lead me to look at artists; Eric Hebborn, John Myatt and Leonardo Da Vinci and of what effect they have had upon society and the authorities that determine the authenticity of art. It has been staggering to me to find out how many forgeries are thought to be still in circulation today, revealing how tainted and fallible the art world is.

4 Â

Illustrations Figure References

Eric Hebborn, 1991, Hebborn mixing paints for his forgeries, [online image] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jKbbajb5pE, (08.11.2012) p9 A Master Forger.

Exhibition of Drawings, 1984, Illustration of Anthony Blunt [online image] http://www.viewitem.eim.ebay.pt (11.11.2012) p10 A Master Forger.

Arthur Symons, 1909, Augustus John portrait of Symons Graphite on Paper [online image] http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/john-arthursymons-t05805 (17.12.2012) p12 A Master Forger.

Salvator Mundi, 1499 onwards, Leonardo Da Vinci’s Savior of Christ [online Image] http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/01-leonardoda-vinci-salvator-mundi-1513.jpg (04.01.2013) p18 Master or Apprentice.

Last Supper, 1452–1519, Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting of Jesus Christ Last Supper with his disciple’s. [online image] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons (19.08.2012) p19 Master or Apprentice.

Virgin of the Rocks, 1480, Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting Virgen de las Rocas. [online image] http://soholmweb.dk/madonnaOfTheRocks.jpg (21.09.2012) p20 Master or Apprentice.

Mona Lisa, 1503-1519 Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting [online image] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Mona_Lisa (19.11.2012) p23 Master or Apprentice.

The face of the man on the shroud, compared to Leonardo’s Salvator Mundi, 2011, Pickett and Prince showing us their theory [online image] http://www.picknettprince.com/books/turinshroud/turin.htm (25.12.2012) p26 Questioning the Master.

Bords de la seine à Argenteuil, 1840-1926, David Joel, Un-recognised Monet. [online image] http://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk (17.01.2012) p31 ‘Fake or Fortune.

Introduction The art world has a hierarchy, of which money; power and tradition all come into play. Tainted by deceit, the laundering and forging of many authentic art works that have fallen foul at this aspect of the art world. In 1799 the city of Nuremberg graciously loaned the painter, Abraham Küfner a self-portrait by Albrecht Dürer from which he was to make a copy for himself. Küfner however, made a copy of the painting but then exchanged it with the original. Küfner even removed the wooden panel’s from the back of the original painting and attached this to his own copy, which contained the seals and marks of past owners, he did this to prevent any suspicion arising when the painting was handed back. The original painting was considered to be so until six years later when the forged piece was put on display in 1805, Munich. At the same time, with remarkable consequences, Küfner sold the original painting (to an anonymous person), which later that year came onto the market again, when it was acquired for the Royal Collection, thus this untimely event, revealed the forgery. (Lost in the Louvre, 2013) This example not only demonstrates that art forgery has occurred within the art world for centuries, but also, that deceiving the art world might not be too difficult. (For further reading see http://lostinthelouvre.wordpress.com)

This dissertation will explore the attempts forgers have made in deceiving experts and authorities, not only for financial gain, but to expose the people who have made mistakes in authenticating art. Research for this dissertation includes the study of original paintings within the collections at The National Portrait Gallery, The Victoria and Albert Museum, The Tate Modern, and Christies. The documentaries Fake or fortune (BBC 1) has provided a comprehensive source of data. Phillip Mould’s Book, Sleuth, has been invaluable to my research; his work contributes greatly to the study

of art forgery. The astounding life of Eric Hebborn has offered a great depth of knowledge and understanding into the history of art forgery and Martin Kemp, the Da Vinci expert has also been extremely useful. This dissertation will furthermore explore the ways in which people have forged art, how, why and at what expense. It will attempt to show the mistakes made by authorities such as art dealers, historians and experts, and whether these are accidental or intentional.

7 Â

Chapter 1

The forging of art

In the past, art was generally created for historical reference, religious inspiration, or simply for aesthetic pleasure, the identity of the artist was not as significance to the buyer as it is today. Throughout the Renaissance, many painters took on apprentices who studied painting techniques by imitating their own works and styles. As a payment for the training, the master would then sell these works, meaning that not all works were completed by the artists own hand; although this practice was generally considered a tribute, not forgery. Art has long been popular, it is a symbol of class, status and taste, and with this, the value of art increased, as did the importance of an artist’s identity. We begin to see artists marking their work to enable it to be easily identified, this later evolved into the signature we are so used to seeing on paintings now (Figure 2). As the demand for particular artists work increased so did the value, fueling the production and distribution of fraudulent art. Chapter one will explore the artists behind the forgeries and the dealer’s role in circulating forged art whether knowingly or accidentally.

1.1 A Master Forger Eric Hebborn (Figure 1) alarmed the art world in the early 1980s when he admitted to infiltrating hundreds of forged master’s drawings through the auction market. Born in the London suburb of South Kensington 1934, Hebborn speaks openly of his mother in the BBC documentary Portrait of Master Forger, explaining how, ‘the early part of my life I think was fairly sad, my farther seemed to of been always out at work, and my mother had many children’ Hebborn goes on to say how his mother ‘was under a great stress she seemed to have taken her revenge as it were, out on me and she use to treat me rather badly’. It was perhaps these early years of Hebborn’s life, which shaped his future. At the age of eight, Hebborn was accused of setting fire to his school. Seemingly innocent it would appear Hebborn was merely experimenting with drawing materials,‘ if you light a swan match you have a little piece of charcoal at the end you can draw with’. (Hebborn, 1991) The headmaster found the matchsticks and sandpaper in Hebborn’s desk for which he was punished on the assumption he was playing with fire. Hebborn felt that as ‘ I was punished for the deed, now I shall do it’, after juvenile court he was sent to Longmoor reformatory in Harold Wood, ‘that was an unpromising beginning’ Hebborn describes of this time. Hebborn attended the Royal Academy at which he flourished ‘he won all the prizes for drawing so were dealing with a very gifted drafts man’ (Stock 1991), Hebborn’s rewards gave him a two year scholarship at the British School in Rome in 1959. (Figure 2) The sale of several drawings in the style of Augustus John, (Figure 3) that Hebborn forged, helped finance him to move to Italy. Hebborn later submitted work for the Christies 1974 sale in Rome, supplying twenty-four drawings in the style of various old Masters. Christie’s attributed these to sixteenth century artists.

Eric Hebborn, 1991, Hebborn mixing paints for his forgeries, [online image] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jKbbajb5pE, (08.11.2012)

Exhibition of Drawings, 1984, Illustration of Anthony Blunt [online image] http://www.viewitem.eim.ebay.pt (11.11.2012)

Arthur Symons, 1909, Augustus John portrait of Symons, Graphite on Paper [online image] http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/john-arthur-symons-t05805 (17.12.2012)

12 Â

Hebborn’s so called ‘bread and butter business’ was dealing in old master drawings, along side this he was able to offer his own efforts and quickly established links with the London art trade. Hebborn cleverly used his relationships with arts dealers for his own gain, within the documentary Hebborn explains his cunning tricks; ‘ I knew that Anthony Blunt and this dealer Hans Calman were antagonists, I mean, they didn’t agree with each other, Hans thought that Antony was not very bright on Poussin, and Anthony thought that Hans Calman wasn’t very bright. So I thought I’d make this drawing to tease them, I thought I’d make it near enough to Poussin for Anthony to take it seriously, but not close enough for him to except it and put it among the other Masters works. Then I’d take it Hans and say “look Anthony Blunt thinks this is a fake, what do think?” and I knew his reaction would be “what a fake! If Anthony says it’s a fake it must be genuine”’. (Hebborn, 1991) This example shows where Hebborn’s motive might of come from and how he developed a taste for fooling the experts.

It was in an antique shop where Hebborn began to understand more about paper, and its history and uses in art. He organised many of the prints catalogued in the shop and it was on some of these blank, old papers that Hebborn committed his first forgeries. Julien Stock, the director of Old Master Drawings and Paintings for Sotheby’s, felt that Hebborn’s capabilities and talents seemed to work well within his favor, as ‘he did deal in old master drawings as well as being a brilliant artist himself, so he mixed his drawings with those of original works’ (Stock, 1991). Hebborn had an understanding of what the experts would look for, aware of the mechanics within painting, it was as though he had a trained eye like the experts.

Art historian Christopher Wright, believes that Blunt made premature decisions on confirming drawings were not fakes, and adds ‘of course sometimes mistakes were made, but If a mistake was made its basically un correctable because without somebody actually writing a very serious article in a well know periodical, saying that these attributions are provably wrong the matter just drops’(Wright, 1991). Wright explains how the industry would easily ignore a mistake without obligation to correct it. Hebborn states that he produced over 1000 drawings in the style of many famous artists from the fourteenth to the twentieth century such as Da Vinci, Rubens, van Dyck, and Jean-Baptiste, along with various others. Many of these drawings are now in possession of some of the greatest national and private collections around the world, including the British Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Hebborn believed that he was not a crook and he was ‘only doing what people have always done during the history of the world.’(Hebborn 1991) He feels that ever since art was invented people have made imitations of it in their own way. Hebborn was unrepentant and accused the art dealers of being the real crooks. He claimed that dealers knew the drawings they were selling were fakes but sold them anyway. ‘No drawing can lie of itself,’ said Hebborn. "It is only the opinion of the expert that can deceive." Hebborn created false stamps and labels for his forgeries, which would seem that he wanted to make the work appear genuine. Yet Hebborn explains how this is to challenge the experts further ‘if they were experts they would have seen that they were false collectors marks. They should have seen, in fact they weren’t done very well, some of them were done free hand in watercolour, rather than being stamped. I mean, I did them in a very amateurish way they shouldn’t of been fooled at all’. Though curators have detected many of the fakes, and with Hebborn revealing many more, the vast majority remains in circulation under names other than his own.

The number of works by Eric Hebborn in public collections will never be certain.

1.2 ‘How a con man and a forger re-wrote The History of Modern Art’ (Provenance by Laney Salisbury & Aly Sujo, 2009, New York) John Myatt and John Drewe committed art forger in the late 1980s. Myatt had to find an alternative to his poorly paid job as an art teacher as his wife left him, with their two children. So he posted an ad in Private Eye magazine which read ‘Genuine fakes. Nineteen and twentieth century paintings from £150’ The advertisement was answered by John Drewe, born John Cockett in 1948 at the age of seventeen he dropped out of school and changed his surname to Drewe. It is not sure why he changed his name but as he disappeared for fifteen years one can only assume that it was for an illegal reason’s, as the British Government has no record of him paying taxes, being arrested or seeking any medical treatment within that time. When Drewe answered the ad, he requested Myatt to make some paintings in the style of Matisse. In 1986 John created a painting for Drewe in the style of Cubist painter Albert Gleizes, Drewe had taken the painting to Christie’s and they had valued the piece at £25K. How is a possible for Christie’s to make a mistake like this, with all of their historians and experts behind them, how did an art dealer and teacher con them by mixing household emulsion with KY Jelly? Is there a possibility that they knew all along, and wanted profit and recognition for their own establishment? Myatt and Drewe both went ahead with the illegal deal, but one must admit why wouldn’t they, being accepted by Christie’s almost gives Drewe and Myatt the approval to produce more fakes. Drewe then began selling his copies to third parties

as originals on a mass scale. Despite his guilt, Myatt went along with the scam for years. British art dealer John Drewe created false documents for works forged by his partner John Myatt, and even inserted pictures of forgeries into the archives of prominent art institutions, unbelievably all he had to do to get to these invaluable resources was donate ÂŁ20,000 of which he gave to the Tate modern to help with the cataloguing of various collections, which in turn gave him privileged access to the museums archives. Which have now become tarnished, due to the Experts and institutions that own gullibility and frailty it suggests that Myatt and Drew aew not the only ones to blame. Art historian Thomas Hoving estimates that various types of forged art comprise up to 40% of the art market. Scotland Yard eventually closed in on the duo, and Myatt confessed. According to the police estimates, Myatt painted about 200 forgeries in a regular schedule and delivered them to Drewe in London. Police later recovered only 60 of them. Drewe sold them to the auction houses of Christie's, Sotheby's and to dealers in London, Paris and New York. To this day, though, nobody is sure how much damage they caused to the museum archives.

Art Forgery is a crime and has clearly been committed throughout these cases, but if we look behind these forgeries we see that forgery has not been for just financial gain, it has involved dedicated artists, striving to gain power, recognition and simply to make a point of which they believe in. Myatt, Drewe and Hebborn went to extraordinary lengths to convince art dealers and experts that their works were authentic, but I cant help yet question the authorities within this case, allowing the forgers to believe that their works were good enough to be by the purposed artist. If they knew what they were really doing, of which they should as these are the people that say a Picasso is a Picasso, and a Da Vinci is a Da Vinci. Collectors pay a great

16 Â

deal for their knowledge and approval, museums showcase the works to the world as authenticated by art historians and experts, how can they make a mistake like this? Why did they allow Drewe get behind the scenes of the museum and play with the archivesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of British history? Hebborn speaks that this is the meaning behind his forgery, as he hoped to expose the educated acclaimed experts. Within all of the cases mentioned mystery still prevails itself, how many forgeries are left? How many records and archives have been tampered with? But one does question how did the authorities allow this to happen right under their nose? And why are they still in their role of authority for making these undeniable mistakes? In chapter two I will be focusing more on the role of the authorities and experts. Exploring their responsibility and how they can justify their decisions made on art works, and the trust we rightly or wrongly put into these experts.

17 Â

Chapter 2 Investigation of a Great Master 2.1 Master or Apprentice? In 2011 Leonardo Da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi (Figure 4) was re-discovered. Although its existence has been known for the last fifty years, from 1958 when Sotheby’s sold it's for just £45 and attributed to Giovanni Boltraffio, a student of Da Vinci’s. Only in 2011 did an international panel of art experts authenticate the painting; Da Vinci expert Professor Pietro Marani was one of the four experts asked to give their opinion, when it was stored at the National Gallery in London last year. Accompanying him was fellow Italian Maria Teresa Fiori and Oxford University art Professor Martin Kemp who has studied Da Vinci for more than 40 years; and Robert Simon a specialist in old masters. Together they formed the conclusion that the painting was in fact an authentic Da Vinci. Marani explained how they 'were given a day to examine it and it was all the time we needed - we could tell at once that it was a work by Da Vinci and the documentation and analysis proved it beyond doubt.’ ‘There are lots of copies of this painting and it was popular for Da Vinci's students to paint but this is undoubtedly by his own hand - the colors’ are wonderful.’ He backs this up with further statements. ‘The blues and the reds in the painting are very similar to those of Da Vinci's Last Supper (Figure 5) and the pigment is also very similar to his Virgin of the Rocks painting’. (Figure 6)According to Da Vinci experts who examined Salvator Mundi during the various stages of restoration, there were several tangible characteristics, which stood out immediately; the ringlets of hair, the knot-work crossing the stole, and the right fingers raised to offer a blessing. The fingers were especially significant because, as Oxford Leonardo expert Martin Kemp put it, ‘All the versions of the 'Salvator Mundi' all of them have rather tubular fingers’. (Kemp 2012)

Salvator Mundi, 1499 onwards, Leonardo Da Vinci’s Savior of Christ [online Image] http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/01-leonardo-da-vinci-salvator-mundi1513.jpg (04.01.2013)

Last Supper, 1452 – 1519, Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting of Jesus Christ Last Supper with his disciple’s. [online image] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons (19.08.2012)

Virgin of the Rocks, 1480, Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting Virgen de las Rocas. [online image] http://soholmweb.dk/madonnaOfTheRocks.jpg (21.09.2012)

What Leonardo had done, and the copyists and imitators didn't pick up, was to get just how the knuckle sort of sits underneath the skin. ‘In other words, the artist was so well-versed in anatomy that he had studied it -- most probably via dissection.’ Not only this but the thumb on the raised hand showed that the artist had used pentimento1a tell sign that this painting was by da Vinci, Kemp Felt that this was compelling evidence. Yet characteristics are not material evidence. To prove that Salvator Mundi is a long lost Leonardo, researchers had to uncover facts. The provenance of the painting, including some lengthy gaps, it was pieced together from its time in the collection of Charles II until 1763 (when it was sold at auction), and then from 1900 to the present day. It was compared to two preparatory drawings, housed in the Royal Library at Windsor, that Leonardo made for it. It was also compared to some 20 known copies and found to be superior to all of them. “Salvator Mundi was given the "kid glove2" treatment by those who cleaned and restored it. And when the time came to begin researching and reaching out to experts, it was done quietly and methodically. The entire process took nearly seven years, so this wasn't a case of some dark horse candidate bursting onto the scene. The Salvator mundi was the highlight of the Retrospective exhibition at the National portrait gallery in 2011. When the picture resurfaced, a great amount of controversy surrounded the work, was it real? Was it a fake? Where had it been for all this time? Noah Charney the historian and novelist of the book ‘The Art thief’ questioned the Salvator Mundi, “As for science, while it showed that the pigments look right for Leonardo and the wooden panel dates from the right era, "that does not necessarily mean that it is by 1 A pentimento (plural pentimenti) is an alteration in a painting, evidenced by traces of previous work, showing that the artist has changed his or her mind as to the composition during the process of painting. The word is Italian for repentance, from the verb pentirsi, meaning to repent.(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentimento) 2 The term Kid glove treatment, means to handle with great care and sensitivity.

Leonardo". (Noah Charney, Los Angeles Times 2011.)

‘No Leonardo exhibition would be complete without a mystery’. [Jones explains how Da Vinci ]‘has been continually famous since the late fifteenth century and his work has forever been a subject of speculation. Five centuries on and his work still weaves a unique spell.’ (Jonathan Jones, 2011, then out the website link, date accessed and date written in the bibliography)

The serene portrait of Christ the Savior of the world shows a face softened by the master’s famous sfumato3 dry brush technique. The Mona Lisa (Figure 7) also exhibits this technique. There have been numerous historians and other experts within this field that have questioned the origin of the painting.

It is enlightening as to how the public is excited by the idea that this could be an authentic Da Vinci artwork, but have become more so over the suggestion that the painting could perhaps be a fake.

It would appear that the one hand that is holding the orb is somewhat painted rather crudely, the form is especially rigid and almost wooden like unlike the raising right hand which is much better and looks like appears to expose Da Vinci’s own style. Confusingly, experts are now saying that the right hand shows characteristics linked with Da Vinci, whilst the left hand does not. Many parts of the painting such as the chest and raised hand are still very much like other paintings by the master.

3 Sfumato is a painting technique in which there are no harsh outlines, and it is painted with full strokes that enhance color and light. The areas blend together, hence the term "Sfumato".

Mona Lisa, 1503-1519 Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting [online image] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Mona_Lisa (19.11.2012)

‘The overall effect of the painting feels overly dramatic and too rigid to be Leonardo it may at least be executed by one of his apprentices under the guidance of Da Vinci, he resembles it is like a painting made by younger artist then the others we know from the masters and the beautiful images extremely dramatic and ghostly quality of a dark background and especially in the cause of quality if not quite matching eyes and yet the lower half of the painting and the Drake and ornate border red ribbons and rigidly curiously rendered as to see like they might belong to different paintings altogether them all the work is studied them all that is seen that they air it holds the marks to artist the Masters hand is in part of the face in the race and the apprentice is more and more obvious in the rest of the painting’. (Abbot, 2012) This may cause a concern for many people that this painting is acclaimed and almost proven to be an authentic original Leonardo da Vinci painting not the slightest suggestion that an apprentice may have produced a part of the painting.

2.2 Questioning a Master

“A study of facial features (Figure 7) suggests the image on the relic is actually da Vinci's own face which could have been projected into the cloth.” (Prince 2012) The claims were made in a channel 5 documentary, the documentary describes how da Vinci could have scorched his own facial features onto the linen clothe of the shroud using a sculpture of his own face and a camera obscure-and early photographic device. Lillian Schwartz and graphic consultant at the School of visual arts in New York the most prominently known in the 1980s when she match the face of the Mona Lisa to a portrait of Leonardo. She did this by using computer scans to show the faces dimensions the. “There is no doubt in my mind that the proportions that Leonardo wrote about were used in creating this Shroud's face.” (Schwartz 2012). Clive Prince and Lynn Picknett wrote ‘Turin Shroud, How Leonardo da Vinci Fooled History’. They suggest that not only did da Vinci create the shroud but also that he used a very early photographic technique. And like Schwartz they believe that da Vinci used himself as the model. Critics claimed that there was no factual evidence to their theories. When the Salvator Mundi was rediscovered Prince and Picknett believe that they have found their evidence. It was said that the measurements to the image on the shroud matched those of the Salvator Mundi. Not only did the measurements match one another they showed a strong likeness and representation of da Vinci’s selfportrait. Implying that both paintings Salvator Mundi and the shroud were in fact an interpretation of da Vinci himself. Prince and Picknett overlaid both of these images, sharing us that without either image being manipulated in anyway when they were put on top of each other it clearly showed the measurements being identical.

They also looked at other copies of the Salvator Mundi and no other matched the measurements to the image on the shroud only those that have copied da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi and even those were only a close match and not exact. This theory has intrigued and excited people globally, is it because the idea that a great master like da Vinci has possibly fooled thousands of people not only those who take an interest have a passion in art, but also those with religious belief that believe that the shroud is the cloth of Jesus Christ.

Looking into the conspiracies’ and evidence that surrounds Da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi it seems that the expert’s theories have not convinced everyone. This demonstrates the divide of opinions of authenticity in art.

Chapter 3 The Effects of an Authority

3.1 Faking It The E4 TV show Faking it, is a program of which artists, dealers, and critics work along side Paul Clive who is a painter and Decorator, and has no connection to the contemporary art scene what so ever. During the show for one month he to aim to become an artist and infiltrate the art scene, ‘he will learn to create masterpieces, talk the talk, and take criticism on the chin.’ If he gets through that he will exhibit in a show along side four other artists at a hit gallery. And be judged on his work by four Art Critics. ‘Will they spot him as a fake?’ Judging Paul was three mentors from the art world. One of Paul’s Mentors, Laura Godfry-Izac studied at the Slade and currently teaches Fine Art, she worked with Paul teaching and helping him express him self. Ivan Tenant, who runs a gallery was there to help teach Clive the ‘Lingo’ of the art world and how to sell him self to dealers. Whilst critic David Lee challenges

Clive’s work and ideas. Infiltrating the art scene does not seem too difficult for Clive, he has tragic memories of his childhood and this is the foundation to his new practice. Monochrome printing techniques are the works he exhibits it the final show. The judges believe that Clive is a long term, serious artist as they have to choose an artist within the show, that may be fake, only one of them suspect Clive. I feel this shows the fallibility of the art world today. It is put to us so clearly within Faking it how the experts make mistakes and although in this case no damage was done, it allows us to see the experts making mistakes on not only authenticating art art, but knowing the true authorship to the art.

3.2 Fake or Fortune Fake or Fortune takes us on a journey of Todays ‘art world, glamour, wealth, intrigue, beneath the surface is a darker place, a world of high stakes and gambles.’(Fiona Bruce 2012) Along side Bruce is Phillip Mould International art dealer, who knows the risks of the art world, he hunts down sleepers, paintings that hide secrets. ‘In the Past you look at paintings, now you can almost look through them.’ (Philip Mould) The remarkable story that is told within this series exposes those in charge of the authenticity behind Claude Monet. The very powerful family behind authenticating Monet, are the Wildenstein’s. The Wildenstein’s are a family dynasty with a billionaire art dealer, for nearly forty years they have published the Monet catalog, which is meant to list every genuine Monet. ‘ No Monet has ever sold in a Major auction house without being listed’. (Mould, Philip 2012) Art Historian Daniel Wildenstein first published the catalog in 1974. Since his death his son Guy Wildenstein has be left with the power to decide, what is or isn’t a Monet. David Joal has been against a long battle to get his painting Bords de la seine à Argenteuil

(Figure 9) accepted by both generations of Wildenstein’s. David’s battle has been the length of eighteen years, and through out Wildenstein has responded with incredibly brief letters, holding almost no hope for David’s painting authenticity. Bruce and Mould are to help David gather as much information and proof that Bords de la seine à Argenteuil is an original by Monet and if so, finally David’s painting will be documented within the catalog to prove its authenticity to the world. The end to this investigation is astonishing, The technical evidence is overwhelming, proving where the painting was painted the style of Monet was evidence, through computer technology and the trained eye and that the painting was in existence before Monet’s death. ‘Yet it is not just information technology that has progressed discovery, but also technical analysis, this means by which the physical properties of the painting can be diagnosed and understood’ (Mould, 2011, p. 5)The documentary evidence supports and supplements the evidence as in who owned the painting, when it was painted. The Wildenstein’s should be ashamed. Art attribution is about fact and evidence. It is never (ever) about familial loyalty ‘ If it doesn’t look like a Monet, all this is a irrelevant, and he also said which was so telling, that it had been seen by his father the late Daniel Wildenstein and that Wildenstein him self had not thought it was a Monet and he said he couldn’t go against his father’s opinion.’ Infuriated Bruce and Mould can not believe Wildenstein’s dismissal, all evidence asked for my Wildenstein was given and yet still he dismissed the painting to be a Monet, when it is shown clearly that Bords de la seine à Argenteuil is an original by Claude Monet. ‘Now this just show’s how floored many aspects of the art world are.’(Mould) I feel that this is irrefutable and for it isn’t about the painting making money, and going to auction its about at what cost does a painting loose its authenticity and at what expense. Mould concludes the investigation with.‘ this dynastic art dealing, extremely

wealthy institution, seems to be able to make the decisions without actually having to justify them, what we need instead is a committee like we have for Van Gogh, Or Rembrandt an academically appointed group of individual’s all of whom have done I important things in the area of research and studies, who have earned those decisions, who’s opinion’s when they come together we can believe. Surely not a system like this, the one we’ve just encountered, it’s just wrong’.

Bords de la seine à Argenteuil, 1840-1926, David Joel’s, Un-recognised Monet. [online image] http://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk (17.01.2012)

Conclusion Hebborn was know by many as a ‘master crook’ yet within my investigation I feel Hebborn was nothing more than an artist with a meaning, of which was to expose those who look at art only worrying what the attributions are, and not for what art really is. I feel that Hebborn was not noticed within the art world enough and only then was it when he caused a scandal by fooling the experts. ‘We should enjoy works for what they are and not worry too much of what the attributions are’ (Hebborn 1991) Myatt and Drewe hit the art world by storm, and have fraudulently affected history, I feel that the authorities decisions within this case played a major part as they allowed Drewe to enter the archives and accepted the pairs forgeries. Da Vinci’s historians, experts and authorities show an example of an investigation for authenticating art. And how many people disregard the opinion of the authorities and yet this has no effect upon stature of the work. Art plays a vital role within society, and sadly I feel that it still holds its stature and importance even with forgeries. It seems to me that deceit plays a vital role within the structure of the art world; even when there is enough evidence to unearth this deceit the power of one individual can control the verdict of the art. I believe that art should art not be about much more than this tainted deceit that it has become part of.

Bibliography A History Of Art Forgery. (n.d.). Retrieved 02 16, 2013, from http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/forgery/history/forgery-10.html. Art Dealers from Hell, Part 2 The Bullet Points. (n.d.). Retrieved 09 23, 2012, from http://www.artbusiness.com/bad_art_dealers_galleries_2.html Aigner, A. (2011, 10 10). The History of Art Forgery Damien Hirst Blockbuster is neither fraud nor flesh. (2012, April 14). Retrieved April 16, 2012, from www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=28100. First Artist who signed. (2007, 11 18). Retrieved 08 11, 2012, from https://100swallows.wordpress.com/2007/11/18/this-ones-by-me/ . Sailer, S. (2008, 11 05). Eric Hebborn as Eric Hebborn. Retrieved 11 19, 2012, from Steve Sailer" isteve: http://isteve.blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/eric-hebborn-as-erichebborn.html Grosvenor, B. (2012, 02 20). Art History News. Retrieved 03 12, 2012, from http://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/1064_Snooty_art_dealers . Keats, J. (2012, 07 11). Eric Hebbprm Wants to tell you how to forge Art.Got a Pen? Retrieved 11 08, 2012, from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathonkeats/2012/11/07/eric-hebborn-wants-to-teachyou-how-to-forge-art-got-a-pen-book-excerpt-2/ Norman, B. C. (1996, 01 13). Obituary : Eric Hebborn. Retrieved 08 17, 2012, from The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-eric-hebborn1323749.html Northern Renaissance (2011). [Motion Picture]. O'donnell, B. (2010, 09 25). Van Meeregen, De hory, Hebborn and Keating, The Master Forgers. Retrieved 05 12, 2012, from www.sabotagetimes.com/people/van-meegeren-de-hory-hebborn-and-keating-themaster-forgers/. Lost in the Louvre - not just another art history blog. (2013, 01 04). Retrieved 01 18, 2013, from http://lostinthelouvre.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/famous-fake-fridaykuffners-durer/. - Oil Paintings in Focus. Retrieved 08 12, 2012, from http://ezinearticles.com/?TheHistory-of-Art-Forgery---Oil-Paintings-in-Focus&id=6629372 A.Walker, J. (2001). Art in the age of Mass Media (3 edition ed.). Pluto Press. Gekoski, R. (2013). Lost. Stolen or Shedded: Stories of Missing works of Art and Litrature. Profile Books . A.Walker, J. (2003). Supercollector - A critic of Charles Saatchi (2nd revised edition ed.). Institution of Artology.

Walker, J. A. (2002). Art and Celebrity. Pluto Press Mould, P. 2011. Sleuth : The Amazing Quest for Lost Art Treasures. Harper Collins. Shapiro, B. (2012). The Art Forger (1 ed.). Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. Tresire, P. M. Walton, K. (2006). Fake, Forgeries, lies and EBAY, conffessions of an Internet Con artist. G.B: Weldenfield & Nicolson. Decoding Da Vinci, How a lost Leonardo was found (2011). [Motion Picture]. Francois Reichenbach, D. A. (Producer), Welles, O. (Writer), & Welles, O. (Director). (1975). F for Fake [Motion Picture]. France, Iran, West Germany: Speciality Films. Illis, N. (Producer), & Illis, N. (Director). (2012). Fake or Fortune? What lies beneath? [Motion Picture]. Mark, B. G. (Producer). (1991). Portrait of a master Forger [Motion Picture]. Irving, C. Fake The story of elmyr de Hory the greatest Art Forger of our time. Mcgraw-Hil Book Company. Phillips, J. (Producer), & Shaw, M. (Director). (2012). A Forgers Master Class [Motion Picture]. Sky Arts .