A fake Marc Chagall painting, owned by a businessman from Leeds, in north England, who had bought it for US$167,309 in 1992, was ordered to be burned last month and an Istanbul art gallery closed down its Joan Miro exhibition in 2013 after directors of the Spanish surrealist painter’s estate said some of the works were forgeries.
The uncovering of fakes by committees comprising descendants of the artist is increasingly common and has prompted one of Britain’s foremost art historians to condemn the methods used by scholars to authenticate works as a “professional disgrace.”
Martin Kemp, emeritus professor of art history at Oxford University and a Leonardo expert, said many rely on “dubious data” and that a “chaotic” approach is used to attribute paintings. He said he was alarmed at the ease with which historical, visual and scientific evidence is manipulated to suit the overriding objective — enhancing academic reputations or boosting financial rewards in attributing paintings to particular masters.
Photo: Reuters
“There’s lots going on, from academic incompetence to really dirty stuff,” he said. The manipulation is possible because the collective profession’s approach is “chaotic,” he said. “Documentation, scientific analysis and judgment by eye are used — and ignored — opportunistically in ways that suit each advocate, who too frequently has undeclared interests.”
Kemp added: “It tends to be very selective and, even if other evidence is mentioned, then generally there’s a core of what seems to be most secure, which is seized on. The more wobbly things are shoved to the side. The various kinds of evidence, their status and what job they do in proving the case are never really inspected.”
Having trained as a scientist and art historian at Cambridge University and the Courtauld Institute, central London, he has an acute sense of using evidence “in a reasonably systematic way.” That makes him all the more aware of how scientific evidence is being abused, with a reliance on “very dubious” data.
Scientific examination is carried out by museums and galleries or private operators. Acknowledging that some of the latter are excellent, Kemp said: “Nonetheless they’re being paid as pipers to a degree, regarding a work owned, say, by a group of speculators. They accumulate big fat files, data of technical evidence which — if you know how to analyze it — mean almost nothing.” He mentioned “lots of graphs and fancy data, including carbon dating,” which reveal little of use.
ALARMING
He is alarmed by owners and syndicates of investors, with much to gain from a painting’s attribution to a master, who commission tests on pictures with a “visual plausibility” and censor data that fails to back their case. If, for example, a report casts doubt on a Rembrandt attribution because tests reveal a pigment only developed after the artist’s death, contracts prevent the report’s author from speaking out if that information is suppressed. Kemp said: “There has certainly been some legal silencing.” He observed that few art experts can stand up to “fancy lawyers” employed by owners, “bullying of the worst kind.”
Money is the motivation, he said. As pictures change hands, he is sometimes sent the same picture — at about five-year intervals — by each new owner.
“The syndicate gets a few opinions from some more easily manipulated art historians. They assemble a body of scientific data, sell the picture for a profit to the next syndicate, upping the ante each time.”
The situation is not helped by the reluctance of scholars to express opinions for fear of legal action. The Andy Warhol Foundation no longer authenticates works for that reason. In 2011 it revealed that it spent US$7 million defending itself against a lawsuit brought by a collector, Joe Simon-Whelan, over his Warhol silk-screen self-portrait whose authenticity it had rejected.
The problem is partly the professional training, Kemp believes.
“In any profession — law, sciences or history — you must be aware of the status of different kinds of evidence. In art history, that isn’t taught in any way and I’ve never seen it discussed. People write about them individually — provenance, stylistic analysis, technique, patronage, infrared and X-rays — but they exist as separate bodies of evidence which people seize on opportunistically according to their expertise and what suits them.”
Art historians need to have a proper grasp of scientific analysis and particular technical functions — whether, for example, they are looking at a complete under-drawing beneath a painting or areas that happen to absorb infrared rays. Kemp will deliver relevant lectures this spring at two art conferences, in Florence and The Hague.
Nicholas Eastaugh, scientist and technical art historian of Art Access & Research, whose clients include leading auction houses and museums, said: “This is a standards issue. There are no standards. It’s totally unregulated. It’s a Wild West out here. We’re trying very hard to establish standards, but there is no professional control. You can shop around for a scientific report that probably says essentially what you want. It’s shocking.”
Sept. 1 to Sept. 7 In 1899, Kozaburo Hirai became the first documented Japanese to wed a Taiwanese under colonial rule. The soldier was partly motivated by the government’s policy of assimilating the Taiwanese population through intermarriage. While his friends and family disapproved and even mocked him, the marriage endured. By 1930, when his story appeared in Tales of Virtuous Deeds in Taiwan, Hirai had settled in his wife’s rural Changhua hometown, farming the land and integrating into local society. Similarly, Aiko Fujii, who married into the prominent Wufeng Lin Family (霧峰林家) in 1927, quickly learned Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese) and
The low voter turnout for the referendum on Aug. 23 shows that many Taiwanese are apathetic about nuclear energy, but there are long-term energy stakes involved that the public needs to grasp Taiwan faces an energy trilemma: soaring AI-driven demand, pressure to cut carbon and reliance on fragile fuel imports. But the nuclear referendum on Aug. 23 showed how little this registered with voters, many of whom neither see the long game nor grasp the stakes. Volunteer referendum worker Vivian Chen (陳薇安) put it bluntly: “I’ve seen many people asking what they’re voting for when they arrive to vote. They cast their vote without even doing any research.” Imagine Taiwanese voters invited to a poker table. The bet looked simple — yes or no — yet most never showed. More than two-thirds of those
In the run-up to the referendum on re-opening Pingtung County’s Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant last month, the media inundated us with explainers. A favorite factoid of the international media, endlessly recycled, was that Taiwan has no energy reserves for a blockade, thus necessitating re-opening the nuclear plants. As presented by the Chinese-language CommonWealth Magazine, it runs: “According to the US Department of Commerce International Trade Administration, 97.73 percent of Taiwan’s energy is imported, and estimates are that Taiwan has only 11 days of reserves available in the event of a blockade.” This factoid is not an outright lie — that
Former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu’s (洪秀柱) attendance at the Chinese Communist Party’s (CPP) “Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War” parade in Beijing is infuriating, embarrassing and insulting to nearly everyone in Taiwan, and Taiwan’s friends and allies. She is also ripping off bandages and pouring salt into old wounds. In the process she managed to tie both the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) into uncomfortable knots. The KMT continues to honor their heroic fighters, who defended China against the invading Japanese Empire, which inflicted unimaginable horrors on the
RSS