Saturday, February 18, 2017

200 Arthur Ross' Fakes Not Meant to Be Disclosed at the University of Florida's Harn Museum of Art


NOTE: Footnotes are enclosed as [FN].

PL. 40, Francisco Goya, Disparate ridiculo [Ridiculous Folly], also known as Andarse por las ramas [To Go among The Branches], from Los disparates (Los proverbios) (Follies [Proverbs]), ca. 1816-19, published 1864.
page 122, Collection Highlights in Meant to Be Shared, Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE


One legal definition of fake is "something that is not what it purports to be."[FN 1]


The University of Florida and its Harn Museum of Art's January 31, 2017 to May 28, 2017 Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition with its Meant to Be Shared, Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue, from Yale University and its Yale University Art Gallery, is riddled with 200 non-disclosed fakes falsely attributed as original works of visual art i.e., etchings, engravings and woodcuts to artists: Gauguin, Goya, Tiepolo, Pissarro, and Piranesi who were dead when they were made.

The dead don't etch, engrave or woodcut.

The above titled Disparate ridiculo with a "1864" date, falsely attributed as an original work of visual art i.e., etching to a Francisco de Goya y Lucientes [d 1828] is a prime example of "something that is not what it purports to be" in this exhibition and its catalogue.

Yet, the University of Florida Harn Museum of Art's Mission states: "The University of Florida’s Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art collaborates with university and community partners to inspire, educate and enrich people’s lives through art. The museum brings the joy of experiencing great works of art to diverse university, community, national and global audiences through relevant and enlightening art collections, exhibitions and learning opportunities."[FN 2]

"Great works of art" are created by living artists, not posthumously and then falsely attributed to them.

The University of Florida and its Harn Museum of Art solicit monetary considerations including but not limited to: "through a gift to the annual fund, documenting a commitment in your estate plans, making a life income gift to the museum, or establishing an endowment to ensure that your favorite programs continue in perpetuity."[FN 3]

Rhetorically, how can patrons give informed consent on whether to patronize a museum when an academic institution and its museum fails to give full and honest disclosure?

Additionally, the lending institution Yale University and its Yale University Art Gallery's states: "The mission of the Yale University Art Gallery is to encourage appreciation and understanding of art and its role in society through direct engagement with original works of art. The Gallery stimulates active learning about art and the creative process through research, teaching, and dialogue among communities of Yale students, faculty, artists, scholars, alumni, and the wider public. The Gallery organizes exhibitions and educational programs to offer enjoyment and encourage inquiry, while building and maintaining its collections in trust for future generations."[FN 4]

So, how can the public have "direct engagement with original works of art," in the University of Florida and its Harn Museum of Art's January 31, 2017 to May 28, 2017 Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition from Yale University and its Yale University Art Gallery, if 200 of the so-called "original works of art" are actually non-disclosed posthumous fakes that were not created or approved by the artists because they were dead.

The dead don't create original works of art.


This monograph documents that fact.




Fig. 8. Paul Gauguin, Noa Noa (Fragrance), 1893-94, Woodcut, 14 X 8 1/8 in. (35.5 x 20.6 cm), Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.91 [page 9, Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints]

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE



[Detail] Fig. 8. Paul Gauguin, Noa Noa (Fragrance), 1893-94, Woodcut, 14 X 8 1/8 in. (35.5 x 20.6 cm), Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.91 [page 9, Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints]

Noa Noa (Fragrant scent), Upper half of sheet; central woman in group, seen from waist upwards, with tree surmounted by cut inscription 'NoaNoa PGO'. The lower half of sheet is a central woman in group, seen from the waist downwards, with her dog. 1893/4. Colour woodcut printed in black over dark orange. Photograph shows both sections., Museum number 1949,0411.3679.a
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=23874001&objectid=684616

LIFETIME WOODCUT BY PAUL GAUGUIN

The Noa Noa image, in the Yale University and its Yale University Art Gallery's Arthur Ross collection, is signed in pencil:  "Paul Gauguin fait" and "Pola Gauguin imp" with an 1893-94 date. 

Pola Gauguin, Paul Gauguin's son, was born in 1893.  Since "Pola Gauguin imp," penciled bottom right of the titled Noa Noa, means: "I am the printer," it should be clear Paul Gauguin's baby boy Pola could not have signed, much less printed anything in 1893-94.


In the 1920s, Pola Gauguin was the printer for posthumous impressions of his dead father Paul Gauguin's [d 1903] wood blocks. This non-disclosed posthumous impression titled Noa Noa, like all posthumous impressions from Paul Gauguin's wood blocks, could not have been approved, much less printed by a dead Paul Gauguin. Therefore, posthumous impressions from his wood blocks could never be an original work of visual art i.e., woodcuts, much less attributable to the dead Paul Gauguin [d 1903]. 



PHOTO: https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi 
PAUL GAUGUIN [D 1903] 
BURIED IN ATUONA, FRENCH POLYNESIA

Pola Gauguin posthumous printing of his father Paul Gauguin's wood blocks is confirmed on page 42 of Artists & Prints: Masterworks from the Museum of Modern Art, Sarah Suzuki wrote: "In addition to the Noa Noa woodcuts printed by the artist, impressions were also pulled by the professional printer Louis Roy during the artist's lifetime, others were produced posthumously by Gauguin's son Pola, and by others."[FN 5]


In other words, Arthur Ross' Noa Noa, falsely attributed to Paul Gauguin, is "something that is not what it purports to be" which is one legal definition of fake.


Additionally, the Art Gallery of Ontario [AGO] Assistant Curator of Prints and Drawings [Ph.D in Art History] Alexa A. Greist, a “specialist in Italian Renaissance works on paper who worked at the Yale University Art Gallery,”[FN 6] authored the “Arthur Ross: The Collector” essay in the Yale University published  Meant to Be Shared, Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue. On page 8, this specialist wrote: “In 1998 Ross began to acquire prints by nineteenth-century French artists, including Paul Cezanne, Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot, Honore Daumier, Delacroix, Paul Gauguin, Manet, and Camille Pissarro works that reflected both what was available on the market at the time and the collector’s lifelong interest in craftsmanship and process. To Ross these works represented the creativity of artists “who transformed the development of printmaking with originality.”[FN 7]

A posthumous [1920s] impression printed by Pola Gauguin from Paul Gauguin's Noa Noa wood block does not qualify as the "development of printmaking with originality."



Under U.S. Copyright Law 106A, the Rights of Attribution "shall not apply to any reproductions."[FN 8] Rhetorically, if the Rights of Attribution does not apply to reproductions, would posthumous impressions, much less posthumous fakes be any different?

Now, in contrast, the Paul Gauguin lifetime printed woodcut [also above], in the British Museum collection, has the following "Curator Comment": 
  • "This is the upper half of an impression of one of the plates from the Noa Noa suite printed by Roy, which were first exhibited in Gauguin's studio in December 1894. The blocks were printed in black and the colours added through stencils. It is cut to the margins and pasted down onto a blue mottled backing paper (now discoloured to brown) in a way that is characteristic of the manner in which Gauguin himself used to mount the impressions printed for him by Roy in 1894. For a complete such impression dedicated to Mallarmé, see 'Gauguin', Grand Palais Paris, 1989, p.365. This fragment (unrecorded in the Mongan/Kornfeld/Joachim catalogue) turned up in a French private collection, and was brought in to the BM by Sotheby's before the July 2004 auction. It was obvious that it joined precisely a fragment of the lower half that had come to the BM in the bequest of Campbell Dodgson in 1949 (1949-4-11-3679a). The estimate in the auction catalogue was £4/6,000. It was bought in, and the BM subsequently secured it by private treaty for £3,000 plus premiums, using funds previously donated by the Martineau Family Charity.
    "It is known that Gauguin was unhappy with the way in which Roy had printed the Noa Noa series, and that he frequently cut and re-used impressions to illustrate his writings. There is therefore every reason to think that it was Gauguin himself who tore this impression in halves, and that this is the first time that they have been reunited since the 1890s."[FN 9]

Rhetorically, if the artist Paul Gauguin, when alive, was demanding about how his wood blocks were printed, shouldn't museum professionals and scholars, much less the public, demand full and honest disclosure to posthumous impressions i.e., fakes being are falsely attributed to a dead Paul Gauguin? 



Francisco Goya, Spanish, 1746–1828, Que valor! (What Courage!), Plate 7, from Los desastres de la guerra (The Disasters of War), 1863, Etching, aquatint, drypoint, burin and burnisher, platemark: 15.5 x 21 cm (6 1/8 x 8 1/4 in.) framed: 45.4 x 50.5 x 2.55 cm (17 7/8 x 19 7/8 x 1 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.37.8
http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/179088

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY NOT BY GOYA


[Francisco de Goya y Lucientes] Los Desastres de la Guerra (The Disasters of War) / Que valor! (What courage!), Plate 7: young woman standing on mound of corpses, lighting cannon fuse; from a bound album of working proofs, presented by the artist to Ceán Bermúde, 1810-12, Etching, drypoint, burin and burnisher, AN37955001, © The Trustees of the British Museum, Department: Prints & Drawings, Registration number: 1975,1025.421.9, Bibliographic reference Delteil 126 Harris 127.I.3
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1333694&partId=1&searchText=goya&page=6

LIFETIME ETCHING BY GOYA


Francisco de Goya y Lucientes died in 1828. 

The Arthur Ross' collection of The Disasters of War etchings, listed with the "1863" date, are not even posthumous impressions from Francisco de Goya y Lucientes' original etching plates. Francisco de Goya y Lucientes' original Disasters of War etching plates were posthumously [1863] reworked and altered with aquatint [making them darker] and new lines [creating new compositions] with printed titles [correcting Goya's spelling] by the Royal Academy of Madrid. This was obscenely done to fit the sensibilities of mid-19th-century perspective, that despite Goya's attempt to bring light to these atrocities, dark subject matter should look dark. 


In other words, Arthur Ross' collection of The Disasters of War, falsely attributed to Francisco de Goya y Lucientes, is not only "something that is not what it purports to be" which is one legal definition of fake but with the reworking and altering of his original etching plates, the subsequent posthumous impressions becomes "the act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine"[FN 10] which is one legal definition of forgery.



https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=1651
FRANCISCO GOYA [D 1828] 

BURIED IN SAN ANTONIO DEL LA FLORIDA, PROVINCIA DE MADRID, SPAIN

The posthumous reworking and alterations of Goya's lifetime etching plates, with aquatint, etched lines outlining the images and titles by the Royal Academy in Madrid, is confirmed, in part, by Janis A. Tomlinson, Lecturer [February 28, 2017] for the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition at the University of Florida's Harn Museum of Art.[FN 11]  In her 1992 Goya In the Twilight of Enlightenment catalogue, published by Yale University Press that after Goya's lifetime Disasters of War etching plates were acquired by the Academy of Fine Art of San Fernando in 1862, Janis A. Tomlinson wrote: "To make the first edition of the series most of the plates were altered, completing the lines framing the scenes, adding scratches, and even brunienclo areas of aquatint (7) and tinkering with drypoint (1, 77), chisel (38) or etching (43, 57). Besides printing was performed following the style of the time by the effects of entrapado, a procedure which passes a muslin cloth over the plate and inked on the surface leaving a certain amount of ink that produces a very soft toned overall. The result was far from the force and clarity that can be seen in the many state tests are preserved."[FN 12] 

In 1863, the Royal Academy of Madrid printed 500 posthumous forgeries, falsely attributed as original works of visual art i.e., etchings to a dead Francisco de Goya y Lucientes [d 1828], from each of these 80 posthumously reworked and altered The Disasters of War etchings plates [totaling 40,000]. 


After these 40,000 posthumous forgeries from 80 posthumously reworked and altered The Disasters of War etching plates were printed, these etching plates were steel-plated, permanently codifying not only the posthumous changes made to them by the Royal Academy of Madrid but the wear and tear from their massive posthumous printing. 

Then as if that was not enough, from 1892 to 1937 or later, the Royal Academy of Madrid printed an additional 40,000 forgeries [now totaling 80,000] from the posthumously reworked, altered and steel-plated plates then continued to falsely attributed them as original works of visual art i.e., etchings to a dead Francisco de Goya y Lucientes.


In contrast to the mythology perpetuated on page 162 in the Meant to Be Shared, Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue that the "first edition"[FN 13] of Goya's The Disasters of War was published in 1863, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes actually printed some 485 original works of visual art i.e., etchings total from his 80 The Disasters of War etching plates before his death. These lifetime The Disasters of War etchings are confirmed, in part, by the British Museum on their website. The British Museum Curators wrote: "The album is in the original mottled calf binding with marbled endpapers and gold tooling, with a manuscript title page by Bermúdez with annotation (by Carderera?) at the base. There is also a manuscript insert, in two different hands; (see 1975,1025.421.1-2 for more detail). The album is also signed by Goya on the closed sheet edges. It contains the full set of eighty plates plus two unpublished, some touched with graphite, with an additional three touched impressions of H. 26-8 pasted in at the back, also with pencilled titles by Goya."[FN 14]

Yet, on page 3, of "Arthur Ross, The Collector" essay, Alexa A. Greist wrote: "According to Clifford Ross, the range of emotional tone that Goya displayed in his prints fascinated his father, from the bawdy hilarity of the Caprichos to the disturbing images of human cruelty in the Disasters of War and the profoundly enigmatic ones of the Disparates." 

The collector Arthur Ross may of been fascinated, it is unfortunate it was not matched by authenticity.

Additionally, on page 3 in her "Arthur Ross, The Collector" essay Alexa A. Greist perpetuate the the mythology of "edition" and oeuvre authenticity when she wrote: "Inspired by his initial purchase of prints by Goya, Ross Began to collect as much of the artist's printed oeuvre as he could, focusing on early editions or states and insisting on strong provenances."[FN 15]

The term -provenance- is defined, under the Getty Vocabulary Program, as: “A record of previous ownership or previous locations of a work.”[FN 16]

All 80 of the listed The Disasters of War "published 1863 [first edition]," falsely attributed to Francisco de Goya y Lucientes [d 1828] as original works of visual art i.e., etchings, is 35 years removed from any possibility of provenance to him.
  
80 NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERIES

Yet, on page 162-163 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue, Francisco Goya [d 1828] is listed as the artist for "Los desastre de la guerra, Coleccion de ochenta laminas inventadas y grabades al agua fuerte por Don Francisco Goya (The Disasters of War, Collection of Eighty Plates Designed and Etched by Don Francisco Goya), ca. 1810-14, published 1863 (first edition).

Remember, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes died in 1828. The dead don't etch. 

Then to add insult to injury, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes' original The Disasters of War plates, as documented earlier, were posthumously reworked and altered by the Royal Academy, Madrid. Therefore, anything posthumously printed those plates would never be a posthumous impression, much less an original work of visual art i.e., etching. Any posthumous printing of these reworked and altered plates would be the "act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine." which as documented earlier is one legal definition of forgery.



Francisco Goya, Spanish, 1746–1828, El Cid Campeador lanceando otro toro (The Cid Campeador Spearing Another Bull), from the series La tauromaquia, 1876, Etching, burnished aquatint and burin, platemark: 25 x 35 cm (9 13/16 x 13 3/4 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.39.11
http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/179032

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE



Francisco de Goya y Lucientes died in 1828.

33 NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKES
Yet, on pages 164 and 165 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue, the some 33 of the listed La taureaumachie [The Art of Bull-fighting] "published 1876 [third edition]," are being falsely attributed to Francisco de Goya y Lucientes [d 1828] as original works of visual art i.e., etchings, even though it is at least 48 years removed from any possibility of provenance to him. 

To belabor the obvious, in 1876, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes was some 48 years dead. The dead don't etch.


In other words, Arthur Ross' collection of 40  La taureaumachie [The Art of Bull-fighting] "published 1876 [third edition]," falsely attributed to Francisco de Goya y Lucientes, is "something that is not what it purports to be" which is one legal definition of fake.


Francisco Goya, Spanish, 1746–1828, Disparate desordenado (Disorderly Folly) or Disparate matrimonial (Matrimonial Folly), also known as La que mal marida nunca le falta que diga (She Who Is Ill Wed Never Misses a Chance to Say So, from the series Los disparates (Los proverbios), ca. 1816–19, published 1864 (first edition), Etching, aquatint and drypoint, platemark: 24.5 x 35 cm (9 5/8 x 13 3/4 in.) framed: 43.5 x 59.35 x 2.55 cm (17 1/8 x 23 3/8 x 1 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.40.8
http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178251

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE


Goya y Lucientes, Francisco de (1746 - 1828) – Painter (Spanish), Born in Fuendetodos, Zaragoza, Spain. Dead in Bordeaux, France., Details of artist on Google Art Project, Title Disorderly Folly, Object type Print, Date (1815 - 1819), Dimensions, Height: 246 mm (9.69 in). Width: 357 mm (14.06 in)., Current location (Inventory), Museum of Lázaro Galdiano
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Goya_y_Lucientes,_Francisco_de_-_Disorderly_Folly_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

LIFETIME ETCHING?

LEFT: Disorderly Folly with a "1815-1819" date in the Museum of Lazaro Galdiano
RIGHT: Disorderly Folly with a "1864" date in the Yale University and their Yale University Art Gallery's Arthur Ross Gallery


22 NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKES
On pages 165 and 166 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue, all 22 of the listed Los disparates  "published 1864 [first edition]" to "published in L'art, 1877" falsely attributed to Francisco de Goya y Lucientes [d 1828] as original works of visual art i.e., etchings, is 36 to 49 years removed from any possibility of provenance to him. 

Once again, to belabor the obvious, in 1864 and 1877, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes was some 36 to 49 years dead. The dead don't etch.

In other words, Arthur Ross' collection of 40  Los disparates "published 1864 [first edition]," falsely attributed to Francisco de Goya y Lucientes, is "something that is not what it purports to be" which is one legal definition of fake.


So, is the above Disorderly Folly, attributed as a lifetime [1815-1819] "print" impression to Francisco de Goya y Lucientes in the Museum of Lazaro Galdiano, authentic? The above Disorderly Folly, attributed to Goya, with a "1815-1819" date in the Museum of Lazaro Galdiano is bright & airy versus the above Disorderly Folly, attributed to Goya, in Yale University Art Gallery's Arthur Ross collection which is not only dark but in reverse.

Rhetorically, if the Royal Academy of Madrid would have the hubris to posthumously reworked and altered Francisco de Goya y Lucientes' The Disasters of War plates in 1863, what makes any connoisseur believe that in 1864 and 1877 Goya's original Disparates plates were not also reworked and altered?


Now, on page 13 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition catalogue, Yale University Art Gallery The Robert L. Solley Curator of Prints and Drawings Suzanne Boorsch wrote: "the collection also includes close to two hundred prints by Francisco Goya. - who produced some of his greatest creations in his last years."

So, going from the ridiculous to the sublime, how can anyone with a straight face claim Goya "produced some of his greatest creations in his last years" when  the non-disclosed posthumous fakes, falsely attributed to Francisco de Goya y Lucientes in this Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition and catalogue, were posthumously impressed [in majority from posthumously reworked and altered plates] between 1863-1877 a.k.a. 35 to 49 years after Goya died in 1828. 


This Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition does not operate in a vacuum. This exhibition of non-disclosed fakes and/or forgeries are for monetary consideration including but not limited to: admission fees, "gifts and donations,"[FN 17] city-state-federal grants, corporate sponsorships, tax write-offs and outright sales.

Therefore, is this "a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment"[FN 18] which is one legal definition of fraud?

PL. 5, Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, A Woman with Her Arms in Chains and Four Other Figures, from Vari capricci (Various Cariccios), 1740-42
page 92 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE



In the "Collection Checklist" on page 180 of the 182 page Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition catalogue, it lists 41 Vari capricci (Various Capriccios) etchings, attributed to Giovanni Battista Tiepolo [d 1770], as "published 1785."

Giovanni Battista Tiepolo died in 1770. In 1785, Tiepolo was some 15 years dead. The dead don't etch.

PHOTO: https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?
GIOVANNI BATTISTA TIEPOLO [D 1770] 
BURIED IN CHURCH OF MADONNA DELL' ORTO, VENICE, ITALY 

In other words, Arthur Ross' collection of 10  "Vari capricci (Various Cariccios)," falsely attributed to Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, is "something that is not what it purports to be" which is one legal definition of fake.

TEN NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKES
In contrast to the documented fact of posthumous printing of these ten Giovanni Battista Tiepolo's Vari capricci etching plates in 1785,  on page 35 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition catalogue the Yale University Art Gallery's The Robert L. Solley Curator of Prints and Drawings Suzanne Boorsch wrote: "Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, a year older than Canaletto, was the last of the three superb Venetian etchers whose works Ross acquired. The collection includes all ten of the Vari capricci [Various Capriccios], made in the early 1740's, which, as mentioned earlier, Piranesi would have seen on his return trip to Venice in the mid-1740s."[FN 19]


It seems at best, the Yale University Art Gallery's The Robert L. Solley Curator of Prints and Drawings Suzanne Boorsch has not read the "Collection Checklist" on page 180 of  Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition catalogue.

Artist: Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo, Italian, 1727–1804, After: Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, Italian, Venice, 1696–1770, Profile of an Old Man, from the Raccolta di Teste (Collection of Heads), ca. 1771–74, Etching, platemark: 11.6 x 8.5 cm (4 9/16 x 3 3/8 in.) framed: 31.1 x 27.95 x 2.55 cm (12 1/4 x 11 x 1 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.28.24
http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178125

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE

All 32 of the Raccolta di Teste (Collection of Heads) etchings are listed, on page 180 Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition catalogue, as "after Giovannia Battista Tieplol (Italian 1696-1770).

The term "after" is being used as an euphemism for posthumous impressions and/or reproduction of Giovanni Battista Tiepolo's lifetime etchings and/or designs.


In other words, Arthur Ross' collection of 32  "Vari capricci (Various Cariccios)," falsely attributed to Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, is "something that is not what it purports to be" which is one legal definition of fake.


THIRTY-TWO NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKES
In contrast to the documented fact of posthumous printing of these 32 Giovanni Battista Tiepolo's Vari capricci etching plates in 1785, on page 35 in the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition catalogue, Yale University Art Gallery The Robert L. Solley Curator of Prints and Drawings Suzanne Boorsch wrote: "Ross was also particularly attracted to the series Raccolta di teste [Collection of Heads] by Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo, after designs by Giovanni Battista - the collection includes thirty-two of the sixty etchings of these heads know to exist [see fig. 22]."

These so-called etchings are non-disclosed posthumous impressions either from Giovanni Battista Tiepolo created etching plates and/or chromist-made reproductions from his designs. Posthumous impressions from Giovanni Battista Tiepolo's etching plates if applicable and/or chromist-made reproductions from his designs cannot be attributed to the son Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo because he did not create them.

This is confirmed under U.S. Copyright Law 106A, the Rights of Attribution "shall not apply to any reproductions."[FN 20]


In other words, the posthumously printed impressions and/or posthumously reproduced designs, cannot be attributed as original works of visual art i.e., etchings to the father Giovanni Battista Tiepolo either because he did not create them, much less approve their posthumous printing because he was dead.



Artist: Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo, Italian, 1727–1804, After: Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, Italian, Venice, 1696–1770, Old Man with a Large Hat, from the Raccolta di Teste (Collection of Heads), ca. 1757, Etching, platemark: 15.3 x 11.5 cm (6 x 4 1/2 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.29
http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178179

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE

On page 36 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition catalogue, Fig. 22 titled Old Man with a Large Hat, from Raccolta di teste [Collection of Heads] is listed with a "ca 1757" date.

Yet, in the "Collection Checklist" on page 180 of the 182 page Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition catalogue it lists this Old Man with a Large Hat [Fig. 22] from this Raccolta di teste [Collection of Heads] is disclosed as posthumous "ca. 1771-74." Additionally on this same page, the "Collection Checklist" of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition catalogue, lists: "Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo and "Raccolta di Teste [Collection of Heads], after Giovanni Battista Tiepolo [Italian, 1696-1770]."

The term "after" is being used as an euphemism for what at least is nothing more than posthumous impressions and/or reproductions.

On page 137 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -bait and switch- is defined as: "Most states prohibit the bait and switch when the original product is not actually available as advertised."[FN 21]

So, as noted earlier, posthumous impressions from Giovanni Battista Tiepolo's etching plates if applicable and/or chromist-made reproductions from his designs cannot be attributed to the son Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo because he did not create them.

Additionally, to belabor an earlier fact, the posthumously printed impressions and/or posthumously reproduced designs, cannot be attributed as original works of visual art i.e., etchings to the father Giovanni Battista Tiepolo because he did not create them, much less approve their posthumous printing because he was dead.

So, is the public to suspend disbelief or just believe when Yale University Art Gallery The Robert L. Solley Curator of Prints and Drawings Suzanne Boorsch, states: “her principal scholarly interest is in the Renaissance, especially in Italy and France.”[FN 22] 

Camille Pissarro, French, 1830–1903, Portrait of Paul Cézanne, 1874, second printing 1920
Etching, stone: 27 x 21.4 cm (10 5/8 x 8 7/16 in.) framed: 65.1 x 54.9 x 3.2 cm (25 5/8 x 21 5/8 x 1 1/4 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.68
http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178175

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE

Detail of the above Portrait of Paul Cezanne



Camille Pissarro, French, 1830–1903, Paul Cézanne (Portrait of Cézanne), 1874 (printed 1920)
Etching, Plate: 27.2 x 21.7cm (10 11/16 x 8 9/16in.), Yale University Art Gallery. Edward B. Greene Fund, 1962.9.1
http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/22747

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE

Detail of the above Portrait of Paul Cezanne 

Both of the titled Portrait of Paul Cezanne [Arthur Ross and Edward B. Greene collection], in the University of Florida's Harn Musuem of Art's Meant to be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition,  have Camille Pissarro's initials "CP," an edition numbers 17/75 and 4/75 respectively with both listed as printed in 1920.

Camille Pissarro died in 1903. The dead don't etch, much less sign and consecutively number.


This is confirmed under U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, a “work of visual art” is defined as: “a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.”[FN 23]


PHOTO: https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?
CAMILLE PISSARRO [D 1903] 
BURIED IN THE CITY OF PARIS ILE-DE-FRANCE

In other words, the Arthur Ross and Edward B. Green' collection of these two  "Portrait of Paul Cezanne,"  falsely attributed to Camille Pissarro, are "something that is not what it purports to be" which is one legal definition of fake.


Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Italian, 1720–1778, Autre vue de la Façade du Pronaos, dessiné et décrit dans la planche V … (Another View of the Pronaos Façade Drawn and Described in Plate V … ), from Différentes Vues de … Pesto (Different Views of … Paestum), 1778–79, Etching, platemark: 47 x 70.5 cm (18 1/2 x 27 3/4 in.) framed: 78.4 x 95.55 x 3.2 cm (30 7/8 x 37 5/8 x 1 1/4 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.17.7 
http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178034

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE

Giovanni Battista Piranesi died November 9, 1778. 

TWENTY-ONE NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKES
Rhetorically, how did Giovanni Battista Piranesi take up to 13 months after his death in 1778 to complete the above etching, much less the 21 etchings [listed on page 178-179 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue] attributed to him with the dates 1778-79?


PHOTO: http://www.ada.ascari.name/CasaAda/studio/artec/artisti/piranesi.html
GIOVANNI BATTISTA PIRANESI [D 1778] 
BURIED IN THE SANTO MARIA DEL PRIORATO, ROME, ITALY

In The Prisons / LE Carceri by John Howe and Philip Hofer,  the authors wrote about Giovanni Battista Piranesi: "In his fifties, his interest in archaeology took him on expeditions to the south of Italy. Ill health finally forced him to return to Rome, where he died in 1778. His son Francesco preserved his father's plates, and successfully exploited his oeuvre, reproducing and selling great quantities of prints after his father's death; twenty-nine folio volumes containing about 2,000 prints appeared in Paris between 1835 and 1837."[FN 24]


In other words, these  non-disclosed posthumous impressions  falsely attributed to a dead Giovanni Battista Piranesi, are "something that is not what it purports to be" which is one legal definition of fake.


Édouard Manet, French, 1832–1883, Polichinelle, 1874–76, Lithograph printed in seven colors
platemark: 46 x 33.5 cm (18 1/8 x 13 3/16 in.) framed: 75.6 x 60.3 x 2.5 cm (29 3/4 x 23 3/4 x 1 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.80
http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178188

NON-DISCLOSED FAKE

A chromist is someone who reproduces with their hands, fingers and fingerprints the art of another artist.

On page 192-193 of the The Private Collection of Edgar Degas, Volume 1 by Ann Dumas, the author wrote: "Also of the greatest rarity is the proof from Manet's original chalk drawing on stone of Polichinelle, annotated by him 'Epreuve unique' (fig. 175); although there is in fact a second 'original' proof that Manet colored with gouache and watercolor (private collection, New York) to serve as the model from which the printer Lemercier's technicians could prepare the color stones after transfer of Manet's original lithograph 'drawing.' The 'unique' proof of Polichinelle, printed in black, is almost certainly identifiable hanging on the wall in Degas's apartment."[FN 25]

In other words, "Lemercier's technicians" were the chromists who reproduced by their hands, fingers and fingerprints a "proof that Manet colored with gouache and watercolor."


In the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints exhibition didactic panel, for Polichinelle [1874-1876] attributed to "Edouard Manet" [French, 1832-1883] as a "Lithograph printed in 7 colors," it additionally stated: "Edouard Manet was the first artist to make an original color lithograph. This print was intended to be printed in a run of eight thousand impressions and inserted into the periodical Le temps, but the French polic, seeing it as a caricature of the President of the Republic General Patrice de MacMahon, stopped its printing after only twenty-five impressions. At a later date, another print run was made."

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE
Aside, it is now clear Edouard Manet did not "make an original color lithograph," how time and labor consuming would it be to print 8,000 seven [7] color chromist-made reproductions?

A print run of 8,000 time 7 colors equals 56,000 times the chromist drawn colors on the limestone blocks would inked by hand, paper applied and registered, buffer sheet and template [with grease on top] laid on top, lined up with the scraper bar, pressure handle pulled down then physically run those individual sheets of paper through the press by the printer. If each run through the press could be accomplished by the hand of the printer in 3 minutes [which would be superhuman] that would be twenty an hour or 480 print runs in a twenty-four hour day. Therefore, if you divide 56,000 by 480 a day, it would take 116 consecutive 24 hour days or almost 4 contentious months to print 8,000 seven [7]  color chromist-made reproductions.

This estimation does not even to take into consideration the time for each printed color's drying rate so there is no transfer of that printed color to the next stone used for the next color, potentially affecting the quality and success of printing an edition.


So, rhetorically, when the Harn Museum of Art's didactic panel for this titled "Polichinelle, 1874-1876, Lithograph printed in 7 colors," attributed to Edouard Manet, states: "Edouard Manet was the first artist to make an original color lithograph," is the public to suspend disbelief or just believe?

LAW, ETHICS AND THE VISUAL ARTS
On pages 816-817 of Kluwer Law International’s published 1998 Law, Ethics and the Visual Arts, Third Edition by John Henry Merryman and Albert E. Elsen, the authors wrote about “Counterfeit Art.” Under the subtitle “Truth,” the authors wrote: “The most serious harm that good counterfeits do is to confuse and misdirect the search for valid learning.  The counterfeit  objects falsifies history and misdirects inquiry.”[FN 26]

Additionally, under the subtitle “Resource Allocation,” the authors wrote: “Museum and art historical resources are always limited. What gets acquired, displayed, conserved and studied is the result of a continuous process of triage, in which some objects can be favoured only at the expenses of others. Counterfeit objects distort the process.”[FN 27]


Finally, under the subtitle “Fraud,” the authors wrote: “There remains the most obvious harm of all: counterfeit cultural objects are instruments of fraud. Most are created in order to deceive and defraud, but even “innocent” counterfeits can, and often will, be so used. The same considerations of justice and social order that make deliberate fraud of other kinds criminal apply equally to fraud through the medium of counterfeit art…”[FN 28]

CONCLUSION 
What needs to be accomplished is the full and honest disclosure of all reproductions as -reproductions- by all museums, auction houses and art dealers. If the University of Florida and its Harn Museum of Art and the Yale University and its Yale University Art Gallery will give full  and honest disclosure for all reproductions as reproductions, it would allow museum patrons informed consent on whether they wish to attend an exhibition of reproductions. 

But, if these objects are not reproductions by definition and law but "something that is not what it purports to be" i.e., fake and/or forgeries made to look genuine, then serious consequences of law may come into play for those who chose to misrepresent those fakes and/or forgeries for monetary consideration including but not limited to: admission fees, "gifts and donations,"[FN 29] city-state-federal grants, corporate sponsorships, tax write-offs and outright sales.


The reputations and legacy of living and past artists, present and future museum art patrons and the art-buying public deserve the re-establishment of the obvious - that the living presence and participation of the artist to once again be required, as it always should have been, to create the piece of art attributable to the artist if indeed it is attributed to them, much less purported to have been signed by them. 



FOOTNOTES:
1. p 617, Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, Copyright © 1999, By West Group, ISBN 0-314-22864-0

2. http://harn.ufl.edu/about

3. http://harn.ufl.edu/support-give

4. http://artgallery.yale.edu/about-mission

5. Publisher: The Museum of Modern Art, New York (April 2, 2004), ISBN-10: 0870701258, ISBN-13: 978-0870701252

6. http://artmatters.ca/wp/2016/11/meet-our-newest-curators/ 

7. Publisher: Yale University Art Gallery (January 12, 2016), ISBN-10: 0300214391, ISBN-13: 978-0300214390

8. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html106a

9.http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1457473&partId=1&searchText=gauguin&sortBy=fromDateDesc&page=1

10. p 661, Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, Copyright © 1999, By West Group, ISBN 0-314-22864-0

11. "In a February 28, 2017 “Etching Enlightenment’s Demise: The Print Series of Francisco Goya” Lecture at the University of Florida Harn Museum of Art, Janis A. Tomlinson, Director, University Museums, and Professor, Art History, University of Delaware will speak bout the “Four major etched series by Francisco Goya correspond with very distinct periods in Spanish history, tracing a trajectory from enlightened absolutism through a monarchy in crisis, the Napoleonic invasion, and restoration. This lecture will discuss Goya’s imagery on view in Meant to be Shared and changing techniques in relation to this context of a world transformed. This is a Harn Eminent Scholar Chair in Art History Lecture. A Reception will follow the lecture."
http://harn.ufl.edu/lectures-talks

12. Publisher: Yale University Press; 1st edition (October 28, 1992), ISBN-10: 0300054629, ISBN-13: 978-0300054620

13. Publisher: Yale University Press; 1st edition (October 28, 1992), ISBN-10: 0300054629, ISBN-13: 978-0300054620

14.http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1396149&partId=1&page=4&searchText=goya+disasters+of+war&images=&people=&place=&from=&fromDate=&to=&toDate=&object=&subject=&matcult=&technique=&school=&material=&ethname=&ware=&escape=&museumno=&bibliography=&citation=&peoA=&plaA=&termA=&sortBy=&view=

15. Ibid

16. www.getty.edu

17. http://harn.ufl.edu/belong-give

18. p 670, Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, Copyright © 1999, By West Group, ISBN 0-314-22864-0

19. Yale University Art Gallery, ISBN 978-0-300-21439-0


21. Copyright © 1999, By West Group, ISBN 0-314-22864-0

22. http://artgallery.yale.edu/prints-and-drawings

23. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101

24. Publisher: Dover Publications; Bilingual edition (May 20, 2010), ISBN-10: 0486475514, ISBN-13: 978-0486475516

25. Publisher: Abrams, N (November 1997), ISBN-10: 0810965127, ISBN-13: 978-0810965126

26. © Kluwer Law International 1998, ISBN: 90-411-0697-9 

27. Ibid 

28 Ibid

29. http://harn.ufl.edu/belong-give





ADDENDUM:

PAUL GAUGUIN
On pages 161 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue, Noa Noa  is listed as "1893-94, Woodcut, 14 x 8 1/8 in. (35.5 x 20.6 cm), Mongan, Kornfeld, and Joachim 43, state ii/ii, 2012.159.93, Boorsch, Fig. 25


FRANCISCO DE GOYA Y LUCIENTES
On pages 162-163 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue, Francisco Goya, is listed as the artist for the [80] Los desastres del la guerra. coleccion de ochenta laminas inventadas y grabades al agua fuerte por don Franicso Goya and listed as "published 1863 (first edition)."

On pages 164-165 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue, Francisco Goya, is listed as the artist for the [33] La Taureaumachie and listed as "published 1876 (third edition)."

On pages 165-166 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue, Francisco Goya, is listed as the artist for the [18] Los disparates (Los proverbios) and listed as "published 1864 (first edition)."

On page 166 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue, Francisco Goya, is listed as the artist for the [4] Los disparates (Los proverbios) and listed as "published  in L'art 1877."



GIOVANNI BATTISTA TIEPOLO 
On page 180 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue, Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, Italian, 1690-1770, is listed as the artist for the Vari capricci [Various Capriccios], published 1785, even though he was dead when they were done. Aside the "Title page, 1785," every single title, given for these Vari capricci posthumous impressions, has a date of "1740-42" that predates Giovanni Battista Tiepolo's death in 1770:
  1. Seated Youth Leaning against an Urn, 1740-42
  2. Three Soldiers and a Boy, 1740-42
  3. Two Soldiers and Two Woman, 1740-41
  4. A Woman with Her Hands on a Vase, a soldier, and a Slave, 1740-42
  5. A Nymph with a Small Satyr and Two Goats, 1740-42
  6. Standing Philosopher and Two Other Figures, 1740-42
  7. A Woman with Her Arms in Chains and four Other Figures, 1740-42
  8. Death Giving Audience, 1740-42
  9. The Astrologer and the Young Soldier, 1740-42
  10. The Rider Standing by His Horse, 1740-42


On page 180 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue, Raccolta di Teste [Fragrance] is listed as "after Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, Italian, [1690-1770]. Ten are listed as "after" with posthumous dates:
  1. Portrait of Giambattista Tiepolo, ca. 1771-74
  2. Profile of an Old Man, ca 1771-74
  3. Old Man with a Beard, ca. 1771-74
  4. Profile of an Old Man, ca. 1771-74
  5. Turk Seen from the Front, ca. 1771-74
  6. Turk with a Fur Hat, ca 1771-74
  7. Old Man with a Beard and a Bare Head, ca. 1771-74
  8. Turk Seen from Behind, ca. 1771-74
  9. Old Man Looking Downward, ca. 1771-74
  10. Old Man with a Hat, 1773-74


In all probability the other 22 so-called Raccolta di Teste [Collection of Heads] etchings with dates that predate Giovanni Battista Tiepolo's 1770 death and also listed as "after" are at best chromist-made reproductions posthumously reproduced by hands, fingers and fingerprints of his son Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo. Those twenty-one are listed as:
  1. Bearded Old Man, ca. 1757
  2. Old Man with a Sword, ca 1757
  3. Turbaned, Bearded Elderly Man, ca. 1757
  4. Old Man with a Small Turban, ca. 1757
  5. Old Man Meditating, ca. 1757
  6. Old Man with a Large Hat, ca. 1757
  7. Old Man with a Large Hat
  8. Old Man with a Bare Head, ca. 1757
  9. Old Man with a Bare Head, ca. 1757
  10. Head of an Oriental, a Book in Hand, ca. 1757
  11. Old Man with a Helmet, ca 1757
  12. Old Man with a Helmet, ca 1757
  13. Old Man in the Manner of Rembrandts, ca. 1757
  14. Old Man with a Bracelet, ca. 1757
  15. Old Man with a Beard, ca. 1757
  16. Old Man with His Hat on His Forehead, ca. 1757
  17. The Mathematician, ca. 1757
  18. Old Man with a Beard, ca. 1757
  19. Old Man with a Turban, ca 1770
  20. Old Man with a Beard and Long Hair, ca. 1757
  21. Profile of an Old Man with a Beard, ca. 1757
  22. Bearded Old Man with a Cap, ca. 1770



CAMILLE PISSARRO
On page 179 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue, Camille Pissarro is listed as the artist for the Portrait of Paul Cezanne  "1874, second printing 1920."


GIOVANNI BATISTA PIRANESI
On pages 178-179 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue, Giovanni Batista Piranesi, is listed as the artist for the [21] Differentes vues de .... Pesto (Different View of...Paestum), 1778-1779.


EDOUARD MANET
On pages 168 of the Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints catalogue, Edouard Manet is listed as the artist for the  Polichinelle, 1874-76, Lithograph printed in 7 colors.

[mine]





FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com