|
|
 |
|
| The Specter of Spoils |
Policing Provenance
Jan Alexander
01/01/2005
|
Ronald Spencer believes that almost every important art collection could contain a work with problematic provenance. Spencer, an art and foundation lawyer with Carter, Ledyard & Milburn in New York and editor of The Expert Versus the Object: Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the Visual Arts, suspects that these dubious pieces are works wrongfully taken from an earlier owner, or artwork incorrectly attributed to a particular artist.
False attributions might be deliberate fakes, created intentionally to deceive the buyer, or they might be based on mistakes in research—often itself a matter of scholarly opinion that can change over the years. Spencer’s book includes essays that explain the nuances of science and history that go into judging authenticity. The catalogues raisonnés, which list all known works by an individual artist, are standard reference tools, but also perpetual works in progress; leading artists have competing versions. The International Foundation for Art Research, born in the aftermath of art fraud hearings in the 1960s as an impartial body that would save art experts from being sued for expressing doubt about a work, has found that it cannot take on every case in an increasingly litigious climate. For the collector, a gallery owner’s word that a painting is by Picasso is in essence a warranty, but in most states there is a statute of limitations, typically four years from the date of purchase under the terms of the Uniform Commercial Code, to make a claim. Worth asked Spencer to comment on the risk factor in purchasing art.
What could be more embarrassing than a prominent collector not only finding out he owns a fake or is being sued by an alleged rightful owner, but also seeing the story wind up in the newspaper?
There is indeed a psychological appeal to stories of art forgery. The general public regards people in the art world as sophisticated rich folks for the most part, and people get a sense of schadenfreude hearing about someone smart, sophisticated, rich and powerful being taken to the cleaners. Still, it is impossible to measure how often this happens, because the art market consists of so many private, highly confidential transactions. If Mr. Jones buys a painting from a gallery, then sees it is not in the catalogue raisonné for the artist and demands a refund, no one will hear about that unless there is litigation.
The risk of faulty provenance in art increases with market value, the climate for wartime restitution, even the status of relations between countries. What are the odds of buying a problem work?
As with any purchase, the likelihood of buyer’s remorse increases if you buy art in a hurry. You see something you really want, your emotions tend to take over and you overlook the faults. A businessperson is not an art historian and is not going to walk into a gallery with a checklist of things to look for. This is in part the reason for the rise of art advisors. In some cases, the gallery can reassure the buyer based on its own historical research.
However, as a buyer, it is important to satisfy yourself that the experts have done their homework. If they say this was in a certain exhibition in 1928, you should insist on seeing the auction catalog, or make sure the researcher saw the catalog. If they say it was in the collection of so-and-so, ask how they know that. Some very reputable galleries will take a piece on consignment from a major collector, take that collector’s provenance information and put it on their letterhead. Then all of a sudden the gallery appears to be backing the information. Ask how they double checked the collector’s information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
