A recent case of potential art counterfeiting concerns the Getty Kouros, whose authenticity has not been clarified. The Getty Kouros, along with seven other pieces, was donated to the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu, California, in the spring of 1983. Over the next 12 years, art historians, restorers and archaeologists studied the Kouros, scientific tests were carried out and showed that the surface could not have been created artificially. However, when some of the other pieces offered with the Kouros turned out to be fakes, their authenticity was again questioned. In May 1992, the Kouros was exhibited in Athens, Greece, at an international conference convened to determine its authenticity. The conference could not solve the problem; While most art historians and archaeologists denounced it, the scientists present believed that the statue was authentic. To this day, the authenticity of the Getty Kouros remains a mystery and the statue is displayed with the date: „Greek, 530 BC or modern counterfeit“. [42] One of the obstacles for the plaintiff was the support of the defendant`s claim of authenticity by his business partner and renowned art expert Bernard Bernson. Two issues arise from this reality, both of which are wonderfully highlighted by this legal dispute. First of all, on the most human level, because we can compare the words of a simple art lover, the applicant Hahn, with those of a certified expert, Bernson. Second, the judge emphasized a crucial point in this case: an expert is the product of his own knowledge.
The legal world has a hard time dealing with experts who claim authenticity just by looking at a painting. In Hahn, the judge expressed full respect for fact-based assessments of authenticity. However, he did not hesitate to mock statements of authenticity based on an expert`s „sixth sense“. But despite this criticism from art experts in general, and the close relationship between Bernson and the accused in particular, the jury sided with the accused. In my opinion, this is indeed an unsatisfactory result, but it is explainable. A jury is obviously not made up of the best art experts – so it is perhaps not surprising that they took Bernson`s word for it based solely on the fact that he was a well-known art historian. In addition, the jury concluded that the relationship between Bernson and the accused was not so inappropriate in the first place. Why shouldn`t an art dealer have an otherwise experienced expert and historian in their network? The sale of transparent copies after exhibition is not uncommon for art counterfeiters.
So did John Myatt, the forger behind what Scotland Yard called „the greatest artistic fraud of the 20th century.“ Between 1986 and 1994, he forged about two hundred works by artists such as Marc Chagall, Jean Dubuffet, Henri Matisse and Alberto Giacometti and, with the help of an accomplice, a specialist in false provenances, deceived collectors and experts, so that the works were auctioned for hundreds of thousands of pounds by Christie`s and Sotheby`s. In 1999, Myatt was sentenced to twelve months in prison, but served only four months for good behavior. He now operates openly and legally, selling what he calls „real fakes.“ American art forger Ken Perenyi published a memoir in 2012 in which he spent decades creating thousands of authentic replicas of masters such as James Buttersworth, Martin Johnson Heade and Charles Bird King, selling the fakes to famous auction houses such as Christie`s and Sotheby`s and wealthy private collectors. [19] While the art historian is appalled by the fabrication and even trade of fakes, the jurist tends to accept this economic reality (perhaps reluctantly). The art historian wants to protect art as such, the lawyer focuses on protecting legitimate interests, especially those of the buyer, whose interests seem to have less chance in the courtroom. The art historian can`t help but feel a certain admiration for high-quality blacksmithing as an art in itself. The lawyer wants to create a level playing field for the trade in art, both original and fake. The International Foundation for Art Research – IFAR. Founded in 1969, it is a „not-for-profit teaching and research organization dedicated to integrity in the visual arts. IFAR provides unbiased and authoritative information on authenticity, ownership, theft and other artistic, legal and ethical issues relating to art objects. IFAR serves as a bridge between the public and the scientific and commercial arts community.
[45] The most obvious fakes are displayed as clumsy copies of prior art. An infringer may try to create a „new“ work by combining elements of more than one work. The forger may omit typical details of the artist he is trying to imitate, or add anachronisms to claim that the fake work is a slightly different copy or an earlier version of a more famous work. To detect the work of an experienced counterfeiter, investigators must rely on other methods. Although a fake Landis was first exhibited in 2008 at the Oklahoma City Museum of Art, along with many other similar revelations since then, it has never been charged with a crime because it never took money from anyone. In addition, he directed his donations to professionals who had the expertise to discover his counterfeits, but did not do so partly in good faith and partly because of limited resources. Nevertheless, there are serious consequences in terms of costs for small and medium-sized museums, which have been deceived because they have to pay for thorough scientific analyses to detect hidden counterfeits in their collections, as well as for legal advice. In total, the damage caused by Landis` „gifts“ is estimated at approximately $5 million. The first recorded falsification of artifacts in the Mesoamerican region dates back to the 16th century, when the Spanish administration began creating fake works to meet consumer demand at home in Spain. [13] When Mexico opened its borders after the War of Independence, they became a tourist attraction and a popular destination for North Americans and Europeans. These tourists bought enough artifacts for their cabinets of curiosities that they created a market for fakes. [13] In the United Kingdom, if a work of art turns out to be a fake, the owner has different remedies depending on how the work was obtained. If it is purchased in an auction house, there may be a contractual guarantee that allows the buyer to refund the piece if it is returned within a certain period of time. Other contractual guarantees may apply per purchase, meaning that conditions such as fitness for a particular purpose may be implied (sections 13 to 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 or sections 9 to 11 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015). Some counterfeiters have created false traces of paper linked to a piece to make the work appear authentic. British art dealer John Drewe created fake provenance documents for works forged by his partner John Myatt and even placed fake images in the archives of leading art institutions. [28] In 2016, Eric Spoutz pleaded guilty to fraud related to the sale of hundreds of works of art misattributed to American masters, accompanied by forged provenance documents.Spoutz was sentenced to 41 months in prison and ordered to withhold the $1.45 million he earned through the program and pay $154,100 in compensation. [29] This type of fraud is intended to mislead by creating a false origin or provenance of the item in order to increase its value or prestige at the expense of the buyer. As a criminal offense, it is not only the act of imitating a famous artist of key features of a work of art, but the deliberate financial intent of the counterfeiter. [1] When caught, some of these counterfeiters try to pass off fakes as jokes or jokes about the art experts and dealers they sold to, or about the art world as a whole. [1] A current example of a counterfeit portrait art ring is the case of the Knoedler gallery.
