21 FAKE RODINS & CLAUDELS at the Detroit Institute of Art

Updated: September 29, 2009

NOTE: All footnotes are enclosed with [FN ].



















Cat. 82 Camille Claudel, The Age of Maturity, 1899, Bronze, cast by Frederic Carvillani, After 1913, 121 x 181.2 x 73 cm., Titled and signed on base: L'Age Musee Mur Camille Claudel, Founder's mark on base: Cire perdue/Carvillani, Musee Rodin (S.1380), Paris Gift of Paul Claudel, 1952 Exh.: Paris 2000, no. 42; Riviere/Gaudichan/Ghanassia 2001, no. 45,9 (p 358, Camille Claudel & Rodin, Fateful Encounter catalogue )

"The acquisition of pieces stopped in 1907, and in the six ensuing years before Camille was committed to an asylum, she produced nothing more." (p 268 in Catherine Chevillot's "Eugene Blot, From Bronze Founder Art Dealer" essay in Camille Claudel & Rodin, Fateful Encounter catalogue )

The 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin, Fateful Encounter exhibition, opening October 9, 2005 at the Detroit Institute of Art, is a classic “Bait & Switch.” For the $14 to $17 price of per adult admission, the Musee national des beaux-arts du Quebec and the Musee Rodin, Paris, in collaboration with the Detroit Institute of Arts and the Fondation Pierre Gianadda in Martigny will offer the public “130 masterworks by these these two leading sculptors"[FN 1] but almost half of these so-called “fifty-eight sculptures by Rodin and 62 by Claudel"[FN 2] are, in reality, fifty-nine non-disclosed -reproductions- with twenty-one of them being outright -fakes-.

CAMILLE CLAUDEL -30 REPRODUCTIONS & 7 FAKES-

Specifically, this exhibition has thirty non-disclosed Camille Claudel reproductions cast in bronze between 1884 and 1907 with an additional seven non-disclosed fakes cast in bronze around and after Camille Claudel’s 1913 internment to an asylum.

AUGUSTE RODIN -8 REPRODUCTIONS & 14 FAKES-

Additionally, this exhibition also has eight non-disclosed Auguste Rodin reproductions cast in bronze between 1889 and 1916 with fourteen non-disclosed fakes cast in bronze between 1921 and 1988 after Auguste Rodin’s death in 1917.

In other words, by definition, rule of law and laws of nature, a reproduction: 1) cannot be a sculpture, 2) cannot be attributed to a living artist, much less a dead one and 3) cannot be misrepresent as a sculpture without becoming “something that is not what it purports to be” which is one legal definition of fake.

This monograph documents these contentious issues of authenticity.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE THINKER, RIGHT OR LEFT HANDED?
3. A TRUE CHRONOLOGY
4. THE BAIT & SWITCH
5. RODIN BETRAYED BY THOSE HE TRUSTED
6. MUSEE RODIN VIOLATES RODIN’S WILL
7. AMERICA IS NOT A FRENCH PROVINCE
8. DEFINITIONS, LAWS & CONNOISSEURSHIP
9. MICHIGAN’S ART MULTIPLES SALES ACT
10. DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ART, AAMD MEMBER
11. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE/MAIL FRAUD
CONCLUSION
FOOTNOTES
BIO

1. INTRODUCTION

PRINCIPALS & AUTHORS OF THIS EXHIBITION

Only nine of the principals involved in and authors for the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition and catalogue, that were directly in some way referenced in this monograph, are listed below. They are:

MUSEE NATIONAL DES BEAUX-ARTS DU QUEBEC

1) John R. Porter, Executive Director and Initiator of the Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition, authored, in part, the: “Preface” on page 8 and in whole “The Age of Maturity or Fate” essay on page 168 in the 2005 published Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition catalogue.

2) Yves Lacasse, Director of Collections and Research & Project Director, authored the “Claudel: The Early Works” essay on page 18 of the exhibition catalogue.

3) Line Ouellet, Director of Exhibitions and Education, authored the “Camille’s Exile, Rodin’s Glory” essay on page 288 of the exhibition catalogue. On page 9 of the catalogue’s “Preface,” the Directors John R. Porter and Jacques Vilian wrote that Line Ouellet was the one “who supervised the entire project.”

The address and telephone number for the Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec is: Parc des Champs-de-Bataille, Québec (Québec), G1R 5H3 Canada, (418) 643-2150 and Fax: (418) 646-3330.

MUSEE RODIN, PARIS

4) Jacques Vilain, Musee Rodin Director, authored, in part, the: “Preface” on page 8 and in whole “Camille Claudel: Vitriolic Caricatures” essay in the exhibition’s catalogue.

5) Antoinette Le Normand-Romain, Musee Rodin Curator of Sculpture, authored the following essays: “Rodin in 1882; On the Road to Success” on page 28, “In Rodin’s Studio” on page 36, “Claudel or Rodin?” on page 66, “Tete-A-Tete” on page 68, “Camille, My Beloved, In Spite of Everything” on page 80, “Balzac” on page 202, “Camille Sublimated” on page 216 and “A Niobid Wounded by an Arrow” on page 274 in the exhibition’s catalogue.

The address and telephone number for the Musee Rodin is: 77, rue de Varenne, 75007, Paris, Tél. 00 33 (0) 1 44 18 61 10 and Fax. 00 33 (0) 1 44 18 61 30.

FONDATION PIERRE GIANADDA

6) Leonard Gianadda, President of the Fondation Pierre Gianadda, lent their so-called Camille Claudel work to this exhibition and his foundation will host the Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition in 2006.

The telephone number for the Fondation Pierre Gianadda is: (41) 27 722 39 78 and FAX (41) 27 722 52 85.

MUSEE D’ORSAY, PARIS

7) Catherine Chevillot, Musee d’Orsay Head of Research, Documentation of Library Services, authored the “Take This Helping Hand I Am Holding Out To You - Eugene Blot, From Bronze Founder to Art Dealer” essay on page 260 in the exhibition’s catalogue.

The address for the Musee d’Orsay is: 62, rue de Lille 75343 Paris, cedex 07, France.

DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ART

8) Graham W. J. Beal, Director and 9) Alan P. Darr, Curator of European Sculpture & Decorative Arts contributions and quotes, that are referenced in this news release, were acquired from the Detroit Institute of Art’s websites.

The address and telephone number for the Detroit Institute of Art is: 5200 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48202, (313) 833-7900 and FAX (313) 832-3756.

The Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition’s obvious next venue is at the Detroit Institute of Art. What is any self-imposed ethical covenants guides the Detroit Institute of Art for its’ collection and exhibitions?

DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ART’S MISSION STATEMENT

The Detroit Institute of Art’s “Mission Statement” states: “To serve the public through the collection, conservation, exhibition and interpretation of art of a broad range of cultures and to expand understanding of these diverse visual forms of creative expression for the enjoyment and appreciation of the widest possible array of audiences.”

The Detroit Institute of Art’s “Mission Statement” clearly speaks of “art” and “expand{ing} understanding of diverse visual forms of creative expression.”

So, why has the Detroit Institute of Art gotten involved in a exhibition where almost half of the so-called sculptures are at best reproductions that would normally be found in their museum gift shop or furniture store?

Ironically, that was, in part, answered in a moment of devastating clarity by the Detroit Institute of Art Director Graham W. J. Beal in his “From the Director’s Chair” commentary posted earlier this year on the Detroit Institute of Art’s website

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S CHAIR

As noted, earlier this year, “From the Director’s Chair” posted on the Detroit Institute of Art’s dia.org/information/director.htm website, the Director Graham W. J. Beal wrote of his knowledge and understanding of the difference between a original painting and a “nineteenth-century copy."[FN 3]

The Director Graham W. J. Beal wrote: “To ensure transparency, works {“Wouwermans: one actually a nineteenth-century copy, and two that had serious condition problems”} are placed at one of the major auction houses, and all funds realized can only be used to acquire art for the collection. It is customary to use such funds for art of a similar kind.”

So, if it is “customary to use such funds for art of a similar kind,” wouldn’t the Detroit Institute of Art Director, by his own admission, be obligated to use the funds, in part, to purchase another “nineteenth-century-copy” or at least some kind of reproduction?

It is one thing for the naive and uninformed public to commingle terminology and concepts as if reproductions and art were interchangeable but it is a whole new ballgame when a museum director does it.

Sadly, how could so many well-educated individuals, who have made it their careers to supposedly preserve and protect our cultural, have little or no connoisseurship and/or so little concern for authenticity?

Regardless of the motives of the principals involved in this 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition, the facts are clear as this monograph will document, there are fifty-nine non-disclosed reproductions in this exhibition with twenty-one of them being outright fakes.

The Thinker, Auguste Rodin 1904, 78 in. 198.1 cm, Bronze Sculpture, Alexis Rudier Foundry, Photo © 2004, Detroit Institute of Arts, Gift of Horace H. Rackham (22.143)
www.dia.org/the_collection/overview/full.asp?objectID=58666ℑ=1

2. THE THINKER, RIGHT OR LEFT HANDED?























Cat. 120 Auguste Rodin, The Thinker on a frament of a capital, About 1880-81, Plaster, 87.5 x 59 x 42.6 cm, Musee Rodin, Paris (p 37, Camille Claudel and Rodin, Fateful Encounter catalogue)

RIGHT-HANDED

In the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, on page 36 opposite the beginning of the Musee Rodin curator Antoinette Le Normand-Romain’s “In Rodin Studio” essay, a photograph is displayed with the following description: “Cat 120 Auguste Rodin The Thinker on fragment of a capital About 1880-1881 Plaster 87.5 x 59 x 42.6 cm Musee Rodin, Paris.”

In that photograph, “The Thinker” has its’ right hand resting on his chin.























Fig. 10 Auguste Rodin, The Gates of hell, About 1889-90, Plaster, Musee d. Orsay, Paris (p 48, Camille Claudel and Rodin, Fateful Encounter catalogue)

LEFT-HANDED

Twelve pages later, on page 48 in middle of the Musee Rodin curator Antoinette Le Normand-Romain’s “In Rodin Studio” essay, another photograph is displayed with the following description: “Fig. 10 Auguste Rodin The Gates of Hell About 1889-90 Plaster Musee d’Orsay, Paris.”

The only problem is “The Thinker,” in this photograph, now has its’ left hand resting on his chin.

DOES THE RIGHT HAND KNOW WHAT THE LEFT IS DOING?

Obviously, this is just an inadvertent reverse of one photograph in a catalogue that could happen to anyone.

So, is this obscure flaw really nothing of consequence or is it the tip of a proverbial iceberg?

3. A TRUE CHRONOLOGY

To truly understand the breath and depth of this fraud, it is important to document the true chronology of the fifty-nine non-disclosed reproductions and fakes in this 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition at the Detroit Institute of Art.

Therefore, culled from the “Works and Photographs” on pages 351-356 of the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, below are two separate checklists, one for Camille Claudel and one for Auguste Rodin that is numbered by this author, that lists the given catalogue numbers (Cat.), titles, foundries, casting dates (chronological order) and “signed” information if any for these fifty-nine non-disclosed reproductions and fakes.

CAMILLE CLAUDEL
1880’s
1. Cat. 27 My Brother (Paul Claudel) 1884, Signed - Camille Claudel
2. Cat. 28Giganti 1885, Signed - Camille Claudel
3. Cat. 30 Paul Claudel as a Child About 1885, Signed - C. Claudel
4. Cat. 35 Louise Claudel 1886 {no signature listed}
5. Cat. 49 Charles Lhermitte 1889 {no signature listed}

1890’s
6. Cat. 50 The Psalm cast by Adolphe Gruet, between 1891 and 1893, Signed - Camille Claudel
7. Cat. 58 Auguste Rodin cast by Adolphe Gruet, 1892, Signed - Camille Claudel
8. Cat. 64 The Waltz, with drapery partially covering the head cast by Siot-Decauville, 1893, Signed - Camille Claudel
9. Cat. 65 The Waltz Reduction with variants, bronze, about 1895?, Signed Camille Claudel
10. Cat. 72 La Petite Châtelaine cast by Adolphe Gruet, 1895, C. Claudel
11. Cat. 78 Léon Lhermitte 1895, Signed - Camille Claudel
12. Cat. 77 Les Causeuses 1897, {no signature listed}
13. Cat. 56 Auguste Rodin cast by François Rudier, Signed - Camille Claudel
14. Cat. 87 Perseus and the Gorgon About 1899, Signed - C. Claudel

1900’s
15. Cat. 70 Head of the Old Man from The Age of Maturity group, cast by François Rudier, 1901 or 1902, Signed - Camille Claudel
16. Cat. 67 The Waltz edited by Eugène Blot beginning 1905, Signed - C. Claudel
17. Cat. 79 The Wave, 1898-1903, {no signature listed}
18. Cat. 83 The Implorer, edition by Eugène Blot, early 1904, Signed C. Claudel
19. Cat. 81 Deep Thought, about 1905?, Signed - C. Claudel
20.Cat. 84 A) The Implorer, edition by Eugène Blot, early 1904, Signed - C. Claudel
21. Cat. 84 B) The Implorer, edition by Eugène Blot early 1904, Signed - C. Claudel
22. Cat. 88 Fireside Dream, edition by Eugène Blot beginning 1905?, Signed - C. Claudel
23. Cat. 92 A) Fortune, edition by Eugène Blot, early 1905, Signed - C. Claudel
24. Cat. 92 B) Fortune, edition by Eugène Blot, early 1905, Signed - Claudel
25. Cat. 94 A) Abandon, bronze, edition by Eugène Blot early 1905, Signed - C. Claudel
26. Cat. 94 B) Abandon, edition by Eugène Blot, early 1905, Signed - C. Claudel
27. Cat. 97 The Siren, edition by Eugène Blot early 1905, {no signature listed}
28. Cat. 95 Abandon, edition by Eugène Blot, 1907, Signed - C. Claudel
29. Cat. 98 Wounded Niobid, cast through the agency of Eugène Blot, 1907, Signed Niobide/C. Claudel
30. Cat. 43 Head of a Girl with a Chignon edited by Eugène Blot, 1908, Signed - Claudel

March 10, 1913 CAMILLE CLAUDEL INTERNED TO AN INSANE ASYLUM.

After 1913
1. Cat. 66 The Waltz, cast by Alexis Rudier, after 1897, {no signature listed}
2. Cat. 82 The Age of Maturity, cast by Frédéric Carvillani, after 1913, , Signed - Camille Claudel
3. Cat. 96 Paul Claudel Aged Thirty-Seven, cast by P. Converset, about 1912-1913, Signed - Camille Claudel
4. Cat. 32 Crouching Woman, without head or arms, Bronze, about 1913?, {no signature listed}

1920’s
5. Cat. 26 The Old Woman, cast by Fumière et Cie, between 1906 and 1926, Signed - C. Claudel
6. Cat. 46 Head of a Slave, cast by Alexis Rudier, 1925?, Signed A. Rodin
7. Cat. 54 Laughing Man, cast by Alexis Rudier, Signed A. Rodin, 1925


AUGUSTE RODIN
1880’s
1. Cat. 123 Ugolino and His Sons, cast by Griffoul and Lorge, 1889, Signed - Rodin
2. Cat. 127 Jules Dalou, cast by Pierre Bingen, 1889, Signed - A. Rodin

1890’s
3. Cat. 153 She Who Was Once the Helmet-Maker’s Beautiful Wife, 1891, Signed - A. Rodin
4. Cat. 156 The Eternal Idol, 1891, {no signature listed}

1900’s
5. Cat. 130 Awakening, cast by Léon Perzinka, 1900, Signed - A. Rodin

1910’s
6. Cat. 118 A) Saint John the Baptist, cast by Alexis Rudier, 1915, Signed - A. Rodin
7. Cat. 168 Brother and Sister, cast by Alexis Rudier, 1916, Signed - A. Rodin
8. Cat. 173 Study for France, cast by Alexis Rudier, before 1916?, Signed - A. Rodin

1917 AUGUSTE RODIN DIES.

1920’s
1. Cat. 151 Meditation, cast by Alexis Rudier, before 1921, Signed - A. Rodin
2. Cat. 134 Camille Wearing a Bonnet, cast by Alexis Rudier, 1924, Signed - A. Rodin
3. Cat. 118 B) Saint John the Baptist, cast by Alexis Rudier, 1926, Signed - A. Rodin
4. Cat. 129 Eternal Spring, cast by Alexis Rudier, 1926, Signed - A. Rodin
5. Cat. 174 France Turned Leftwards, cast by Alexis Rudier, 1927, Signed - A. Rodin

1930’s
7. Cat. 125 Jean-Paul Laurens, cast by Alexis Rudier, 1930, Signed - A. Rodin

1940’s
8. Cat. 140 The Shade, cast by Alexis Rudier, 1949, Signed - A. Rodin

1950’s or later
6. Cat. 160 Balzac in Monk’s Habit, cast by Georges Rudier, Signed - A. Rodin

1960’s or later
9. Cat. 142 The Cry, cast by Georges Rudier, 1961, Signed - A. Rodin
10. Cat. 141 I Am Beautiful, cast by Georges Rudier, 1969, Signed - A. Rodin
11. Cat. 154 Danaid, cast by E. Godard, no. 11, Signed - A. Rodin

1980’s
12. Cat. 167 The Inner Voice or Meditation, large model, cast by - Coubertin, 1981, Signed - A. Rodin
13. Cat. 171 Meditation with Arms, cast by - Coubertin, 1982, Signed - A. Rodin
14. Cat. 145 Pierre de Wissant, cast by - Coubertin, 1988, Signed - A. Rodin


FOUNDRY REFERENCES

On page 266 and 268, in the “TAKE THIS HELPING HAND I AM HOLDING OUT TO YOU EUGENE BLOT, FROM BRONZE FOUNDER TO ART DEALER” essay, the author Catherine Chevillot wrote: “The first trace of business relations between the sculptor and Blot dates from 1902 - The acquisition of pieces stopped in 1907.” (Source: 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue)

Other foundry names and years in business are: Francois Rudier 1881-1904, Griffoul and Lorge 1887-1894, Pierre Bingen 1884-1889, Leon Perzinka 1896-1901, Adolphe Gruet 1891-1895 and Alexis Rudier 1902 to 1952. The Godard Foundry has worked with the Musee Rodin “since 1969.” The Georges Rudier foundry opened in 1952. The Susse Foundry worked with the Musee Rodin between “1964 and 1978.” The Coubertin Foundry opened in 1963 and began working with the Musee Rodin “since 1973.” (Source: former Musee Rodin curator Monique Laurent, pages 285-293, 1981 Rodin Rediscovered catalogue.)

Auguste Rodin, Pierre de Wissant, 1887, Bronze, cast by Fonderie de Coubertin, 1988 214 x 106 x 118 cm, Signed in front, on base A. Rodin, Musée Rodin (S.6139), Paris (p 363 Camille Claudel & Rodin, Fateful Encounter catalogue)
Photo: Musée Rodin / Béatrice Hatala.
www.dia.org/exhibitions/claudel_rodin/media_gallery.asp

4. THE BAIT & SWITCH

On the Detroit Institute of Art’s www.dia.org/exhibitions/claudel_rodin/ media_news.asp website, it states: “The catalogue and exhibition help further the understanding of Claudel’s and Rodin’s work, situating their careers and relationship in the context of their times.”

Does the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue and exhibition truly give a better understanding of Camille Claudel’s and Auguste Rodin’s work?

Here are just ten examples culled from this promotional material and catalogue for this exhibition that offer one thing “sculptures” and actually give something else all together different -reproductions- and/or -fakes-, otherwise known as the -Bait & Switch-:

1ST OF TEN EXAMPLES

In the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, on page 8 of the “Preface,” the General Director of the Musee national des beaux-arts du Quebec, Quebec John R. Porter and Director of the Musee Rodin, Paris Jacques Vilain wrote: “Camille Claudel and Rodin: Fateful Encounter is firstly the fruit of the friendship, generous complicity and passionate commitment of our two museums devoted to late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century French Sculpture.”

PIERRE DE WISSANT WAS CAST IN 1988

If these museums are so devoted to “late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century French Sculpture,” how do these directors explain that the “Pierre de Wissant,” in the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition, was cast in bronze in 1988 and “Signed - A. Rodin”[FN 4] in the late-twentieth-century some seventy-one years after Auguste Rodin’s death in 1917?

2ND OF TEN EXAMPLES

On page 12 of the Introductions in the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, the Director of Exhibitions and Education Musee national des beaux-arts du Quebec Line Ouellet wrote: “It is a therefore a genuine comparative exhibition of the work of both artists, comprising sixty-one works by Rodin and seventy-three works by Camille Claudel.”

INNER VOICE WAS CAST IN 1981

How can this be a “genuine comparative exhibition of the works of both artists,” if the “Inner Voice,” in this 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition, was cast in bronze in 1981 and “Signed - A. Rodin”[FN 5] some sixty-four years after Auguste Rodin’s death in 1917.

3RD OF TEN EXAMPLES

On the Detroit Institute of Art’s www.dia.org/exhibitions/claudel_rodin/media_news.asp website, for the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition, the Detroit Institute of Art’s Director Graham W. J. Beal states: “Camille Claudel and Auguste Rodin produced extraordinary bodies of sculpture, much of it while working side by side.”

I AM BEAUTIFUL WAS CAST IN 1969

Now contrast the director’s statement with the reality that the “I Am Beautiful,” in this 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition, was cast in bronze in 1969 and “Signed - A. Rodin"[FN 6] some fifty-two years after Auguste Rodin’s death in 1917.

4TH OF TEN EXAMPLES

On the Detroit Institute of Art’s www.dia.org/exhibitions/claudel_rodin/media_news.asp website, the Detroit Institute of Art’s Curator Alan P. Darr states: “Unlike previous exhibitions of Rodin’s and Claudel’s sculpture, Fateful Encounter features key works that best reveal the artist’s influence on and reactions to each other.”

THE CRY WAS CAST IN 1961

One of those so-called “key works,” the curator wrote about in this 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition, “The Cry” was actually cast in bronze in 1961 and “Signed - A. Rodin”[FN 7] some forty-one years after Auguste Rodin’s death in 1917.

5TH OF TEN EXAMPLES

On page 66, of the “Claudel or Rodin?” essay in the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, the Musee Rodin curator Antoinette Le Normand-Romain wrote: “Conversely, works by Camille were signed by Rodin, especially when bronzes were cast from plasters at Meudon following Jules Mastbaum’s orders for the Rodin Museum in Philadelphia in 1925-26 (cat. 46 and 54).”

BRONZES CAST IN 1925-26 & SIGNED BY RODIN?

Since Auguste Rodin died in 1917, how can the Musee Rodin curator explain how Auguste Rodin signed anything in “1925-26,” much less “works by Camille?”

6TH OF TEN EXAMPLES

On page 54 of the Musee Rodin curator Antoinette Le Normand-Romain’s “In Rodin Studio” essay in the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, the following description is given for a photograph of a bronze titled “Danaid”: “Cat. 154 Auguste Rodin 1889 Bronze 35 x 60 x 49 cm Fondation Pierre Gianadda, Martigny.”

On page 364, under “Works and Photographs” in the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, a more expanded description is given for the “Danaid.” It states: “Cat. 154 Auguste Rodin Danaid 1889 Bronze, cast by E. Godard, no. 11 35 x 60 x 49 cm Signed in back: A Rodin Fondation Pierre Gianadda (3426), Martigny Exh.: Paris 1889, no 15 (marble from the Ateneumin Taide Museo, Helsinski)”

DANAID CAST AFTER 1969

The only problem is the E. Godard foundry began working with the Musee Rodin “after 1969,” some fifty-two years or more after Auguste Rodin died in 1917 and eighty-some-years after the listed date of “1889” for the Fondation Pierre Gianadda’s “Danaid” in the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue. (Foundry source: former Musee Rodin curator Monique Laurent, pages 285-293, 1981 Rodin Rediscovered catalogue)

FONDATION PIERRE GIANADDA’S SCHOLARSHIP?

What are we to make of the scholarship of the Fondation Pierre Gianadda which is not only lending their so-called “Danaid” to this 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition but is hosting this same exhibition next year in 2006?

7TH OF TEN EXAMPLES

On page 204 of the Musee Rodin curator Antoinette Le Normand-Romain’s “Balzac” essay, in the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, a photograph titled “Balzac in Monk’s Habit” is displayed with the following description: “Cat. 160 Auguste Rodin Balzac in Monk’s Habit About 1893 Bronze 108 x 50 x 37 cm Fondation Pierre Gianadda Martigny.”

Additionally, on page 364 in the back of the catalogue, under “Works and Photographs,” an expanded description is given for this “Balzac in Monk’s Habit”: “Cat. 160 Auguste Rodin Balzac in Monk’s Habit About 1893 Bronze, cast by Georges Rudier 108 x 50 x 37 cm Signed in front: A. Rodin Fondation Pierre Gianadda (3676), Martigny.”

BALZAC IN MONK’S HABIT CAST AFTER 1952

The only problem is the Georges Rudier foundry, listed as casting this “Balzac in Monk’s Habit” bronze, went into business in 1952 some fifty-seven years after the listed date of “1893” and some thirty-five years after Auguste Rodin’s death in 1917. (Foundry source: former Musee Rodin curator Monique Laurent, pages 285-293, 1981 Rodin Rediscovered catalogue)

8TH OF TEN EXAMPLES

On page 117 of the Musee Rodin curator Antoinette Le Normand-Romain’s “Camille, My Beloved, In Spite of Everything” essay, in the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, another photograph is displayed with the following description: “Cat. 66 Camille Claudel The Waltz [1893] Reduction with variants, bronze, after 1897 42 x 35 x 22 cm Private Collection”

ALEXIS RUDIER FOUNDRY WENT INTO BUSINESS IN 1902

On page 357 of the catalogue, an expanded description is given for The Waltz, now listing the foundry that cast it in bronze as: “Alexis Rudier/Fondeur Paris.”

The only problem is the Alexis Rudier foundry went into business in 1902 some five years after the listed date of “after 1897.” (Foundry source: former Musee Rodin curator Monique Laurent, pages 285-293, 1981 Rodin Rediscovered catalogue)

9TH OF TEN EXAMPLES

On page 25, in Yves Lacasse’s “Camille Claudel: The Early works” essay in the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, the author wrote about Camille Claudel’s “The Old Woman,” bronze: “The first composition is known today by its terracotta version and a Fumiere & Cie cast dating from between 1906 and 1926 (cat. 26), both belonging to the Claudel family.”

Additionally, on page 25 the following description is given for a photograph of the same “The Old Woman” bronze: “Cat. 26 Camille Claudel The Old Woman 1882 bronze 28 x 18 x 21 cm Private collection” and later on page 353, under “Works and Photographs,” this same bronze is listed as: “Signed - C. Claudel.”

1907 TO 1913, CAMILLE CLAUDEL PRODUCED NOTHING MORE

Now compare those description for “The Old Woman” bronze cast between “1906 and 1926” to page 268 in Catherine Chevillot’s “Eugene Blot, From Bronze Founder to Art Dealer” essay in the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, where the author wrote: “The acquisition of pieces stopped in 1907, and in the six ensuing years before Camille was committed to an asylum, she produced nothing more.”

In other words, knowing that Camille Claudel did not create or sign anything after her internment to an asylum in 1913 and by the above account “produced nothing more” six years before that, are we to suspend disbelief that Camille Claudel actually may have created this object between “1906 and 1926,” much less signed it?

Camille Claudel, The Age of Maturity,
1899. Bronze. Paris, Musée Rodin, Photo: Musée Rodin / Christian Baraja.
www.dia.org/exhibitions/claudel_rodin/media_gallery.asp
http://www.dia.org/exhibitions/claudel_rodin/images/comps/CC_RFE03.jpg

10TH OF TEN EXAMPLES

On page 358, under “Works and Photographs” in the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, for the Camille Claudel’s “Age of Maturity,” it gives the following description: “Cat. 82 Camille Claudel The Age of Maturity 1899 Bronze, cast by Frederic Carvillani, after 1913 121 x 181.2 x 73 cm Titled and signed on base: L’Age Mur Camille Claudel Founder’s mark on base: Cire perdue/Carvillani Musee Rodin (S.1380), Paris Gift of Paul Claudel, 1952 Exh.: Paris 2000, no. 42; Riviere/Gaudichan/ Ghanassia 2001, no. 45.9.”

PHILIPPE BERTHELOT DECIDED TO CAST HER WORK

On pages 189-190 in John R. Porter’s “The Age of Maturity of Fate” essay in the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, the author wrote: “Following Camille’s committal to an asylum in April 1913, a board of guardians was formed and Paul, then posted to Germany, asked his close friend, the diplomat Philippe Berthelot, to be part of it. - Undoubtedly aware of the necessity of ensuring the survival of the second version of The Age of Maturity in his care, he {Philippe Berthelot} deemed it his responsibility to have cast-iron cast made (cat. 82). The circumstances under which this was carried out remain obscure.”

Since this so-called “Age of Maturity” is “signed - Camille Claudel” after Camille Claudel was committed for the rest of her life to an asylum, did her so-called legal guardian Philippe Berthelot ever visit her at the asylum to get her to sign it?

NO RECORD PHILIPPE BERTHELOT EVER VISITED CAMILLE CLAUDEL

On page 293 of Line Ouellet’s “Rodin’s Glory” essay in the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, the author wrote about Camille Claudel’s life after being interned to an asylum: “Camille lived in almost total isolation. Neither her mother nor her sister ever visited her. Paul saw Camille less than ten times over this long period. His daughter Marie occasionally visited her aunt in the 1930’s. In August 1943, Marie’s mother-in-law, Nelly Mequillet, spent a week at Camille’s bedside when she was in an extremely weak state due to malnutrition.”

5. RODIN BETRAYED BY THOSE HE TRUSTED

The last few years before Auguste Rodin’s death, his control and oversight of his plasters was subverted by those entrusted by the State of France to protect it. A prime example of this subversion is the first Musee Rodin director Leonce Benedite.

FIRST MUSEE RODIN DIRECTOR LEONCE BENEDITE

In Albert Elsen’s 1985 Gates of Hell by Auguste Rodin book, on page 148, the author wrote: “As events after Rodin’s death were to prove, Benedite did overstep his authority on certain occasions. In the matter of the final assembly of the doorway, Judith Cladel, who was dismissed by Benedite as a curator at the Musee Rodin, wrote during the years 1933-36 that workmen told her in 1917 that Benedite edited their efforts on at least one occasion in a way they felt Rodin would not have approved: “Some of Rodin’s scandalized assistants who cast his plasters made it known to me that, charged with the reassembly of The Gates of Hell, they received orders to place certain figures in different arrangement than that which the artist wanted, because 'that would be better'.”[FN 8]

One of those “occasions,” that Albert Elsen refers to, is described in his Footnote 17 on page 253 of his book, where the author wrote: “In 1921, during the course of a trial on charges brought by the State against a founder who was casting Rodin’s work without authorization, it was shown that Benedite had authorized the enlargement of Rodin’s La Defense after the artist’s death.”

HENRI LEBOSSE, AUGUSTE RODIN’S ASSISTANT

On page 253, in Albert Elsen’s “Rodin’s “Perfect Collaborator,” Henri Lebosse” essay in the National Gallery of Art’s 1981 Rodin Rediscovered exhibition catalogue, the author wrote: “From the mid-1890’s until his death, Rodin entrusted most if not all of his important enlargements and reductions to this dedicated and today unknown technician who referred to himself as Rodin’s “sculpteur reproducteur habituel.” Lebosse wrote the master on January 24, 1903. “I would like to be your perfect collaborator.”

1920 SCANDAL INVOLVING FAKE WORKS

Unfortunately, on page 256 of his essay, Albert Elsen documents that Henri Lebosse became one of Auguste Rodin’s biggest betrayers. After August Rodin’s death in 1917, the Musee Rodin Director Benedite directed Henri Lebosse to increase the original scale of the sculpture “The Defense” four times. Albert Elsen wrote: “Tragically for Rodin’s “perfect collaborator,” the Verdun enlargement became part of a 1920 scandal involving fake works, marble carvers who continued to turn out sculpture signed with Rodin’s name, and unauthorized bronze casts by the Barbedienne foundry.”

On page 289, in the 1981 Rodin Rediscovered exhibition catalogue, former Musee Rodin curator Monique Laurent further explains the circumstances behind the 1919 scandal and trial when the curator wrote: “As for Philippe Montagutelli, founder, 54, avenue du maine in Paris, who worked in 1912 and 1913 on Clemenceau, France and Carrie-Belleuse, among others, but in September 1913, Rodin challenged him and filed a complaint for counterfeiting. This first affair would be followed in 1918-1919 by a famous trial for fakes and counterfeits in which the sculptor Archilles Fidi, of Italian origin, was also implicated.”

6. MUSEE RODIN VIOLATES RODIN’S WILL

The Musee Rodin’s inauspicious beginnings before and after Auguste Rodin’s death in 1917 has not changed much in eighty-eight years. The current Musee Rodin: A) admits they do not reproduce in bronze from Auguste Rodin’s original plasters, B) posthumously applies counterfeit “A Rodin” signatures to bronzes they reproduce, C) does not always limit editions to twelve as required by French decrees, D) allows wealthy benefactors, in at least one case to pick the color of at least one of the bronzes they in turn promote as a “Rodin” and E) posthumously alters and completes Auguste Rodin’s unfinished work in violation of his 1916 Will.

a) NOT FROM THE ORIGINAL PLASTERS

The Musee Rodin curator Antoinette Le Nomand-Romain, on the Musee Rodin’s www.musee-rodin.fr/welcome.htm website, wrote: “Consequently, whenever it is decided to release a new "subject", a copy is first made from the old mould which can be sent without risk to the foundry where it undergoes the necessary preparations for casting. It is coated with an unmoulding agent, usually in a dark colour, and cut, before being cast again. This practice not only ensures absolute fidelity to the original but also preserves the old plasters which are obviously more valuable since they were made during the lifetime of Rodin.”

In other words, by the Musee Rodin avoiding sending the hypothetical original plasters to the foundry, they have willingly given up the authentic original surface details made by the working fingers of Rodin himself or that Rodin approved through his collaboration with his “sculpteur reproducteur habituel"[FN 9] Henri Lebosse. Each time the surface of one of these subjects is approximated by the necessary crude handling of the materials used in the reproduction processes, there is visible change. The resulting pieces may be interesting to look at, but it is an absurdity to pretend they are just the way Rodin would have wanted and intended for them to appear.

b) COUNTERFEIT SIGNATURES

On page 47, of the Tasende Gallery’s 1999 Sculptures from the Musee Rodin, Paris catalogue, it is written: “All work cast under commission by the Musee Rodin includes the following mandatory inscriptions: - Rodin’s signature.”[FN 10]

The so-called “mandatory inscriptions: - Rodin’s signature{s}” were posthumously applied, by the Musee Rodin or by the foundries with the museum’s approval, to the fifty-four non-disclosed fakes in this Rodin: A Magnificent Obsession, Sculpture from the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation exhibition.

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SIGNATURE?

On page 1387 in the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -signature- is defined as: “A person’s name or mark written by that person or at the person’s direction.”

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF COUNTERFEIT?

On page 354 in the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -counterfeit- is defined as: “to forge, copy, or imitate (something) without a right to do so and with the purpose of deceiving or defrauding.”[FN 11]

Is the posthumous application of a so-called “Rodin signature” to these posthumously reproduced objects done with “the purpose of deceiving or defrauding?”

c) NOT LIMITED TO TWELVE

On page 121 in the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s published 1976 Sculpture of Auguste Rodin catalogue by John Tancock, there are nineteen 79 inch high The Thinker{s} in bronze listed. One of those nineteen 79 inch high The Thinker{s} is listed as: “Beverly Hills, Cantor, Fitzgerald Art Foundation. Cast no. 10/12.”[FN 12]

CANNOT IN ANY CASE EXCEED TWELVE EXAMPLES

In the 1981 Rodin Rediscovered catalogue, Jean Chatalain wrote: “The French Ministries of Culture and Finance issued a joint decree on 5 September 1978 which regulates the internal administration of the Musee Rodin. Article 1 of this text stipulates: “The reproductions of the works of Rodin and the editions sold by Musee Rodin consist of: Original editions in bronze. These are executed from the models in terra cotta or in plaster realized by Rodin and under the direct control of the museum, acting as the holder of the artist’s rights of authorship; the casting from each one of these models cannot in any case exceed twelve examples.”

NINETEEN THINKERS IN AN EDITION OF TWELVE

If a 1978 French decree mandates that “models cannot in any case exceed twelve examples,” how can there be nineteen 79 inch high Thinker{s} listed in the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s published 1976 Sculpture of Auguste Rodin catalogue by John Tancock?

Did someone lose count?

d) WEALTHY BENEFACTORS APPROVE COLOR OF BRONZES

In the article “Casting of the Monument” by the Coubertin founders Frederic Colombier and Jean Dubos, published in the Fall 1998 "Sculpture Review" magazine, it details the casting in bronze of the so-called Auguste Rodin’s Monument to Victor Hugo plaster. On page 34, the founders wrote: “After presentation of samples, the Musee Rodin and the Cantor foundation approved the color to be achieved.”[FN 13]

In other words, to be perfectly clear, the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation was allowed by the Musee Rodin to pick the color of a posthumously cast bronze that they in turn promote as an “original” Auguste Rodin.

How arrogant is anyone, much less the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation, when they believe and act on that belief that they can substitute their judgment for the artist, living or dead?

e) MUSEE RODIN POSTHUMOUSLY COMPLETES UNFINISHED WORK

On the Musee Rodin’s www.musee-rodin.fr website, the Musee Rodin curator Antoinette Le Nomand-Romain wrote: “Museum aware of their value {Rodin’s plasters} also took great care of them even completing them as time went by.”

AUGUSTE RODIN’S 1916 WILL

On page 285 in the National Gallery of Art’s published 1981 Rodin Rediscovered catalogue, the former Musee Rodin curator Monique Laurent documents some of the details of Auguste Rodin’s Will and his donation to the State of France. In part, Auguste Rodin’s Will states: “notwithstanding the transfer of artistic ownership authorized to the State of M. Rodin, the latter expressly reserves for himself the enjoyment, during his life, of the reproduction rights of those objects given by him.”

In other words, the Musee Rodin violates Auguste Rodin’s Will to “{reproduce} objects given by him” when they posthumously altered and/or completed his unfinished plasters then apply his name to it to create the illusion that Auguste Rodin somehow approved it, much less signed it.

COMPOSITION WAS NOT LIKELY ASSEMBLED BY RODIN

On that Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation's website the “Hand of Rodin Holding Torso” is described as: “1917, Musee Rodin cast in 1968 Bronze 6 1/8 x 8 3⁄4 x 4 1/8 in. Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Collection.”[FN 14]

Furthermore, the description given is: “Hand of Rodin Holding Torso consists of a life cast taken directly from Rodin's hand by one of his assistants and a fragment known as Small Torso A, originally created for The Gates of Hell. - this composition was not likely assembled by Rodin.”

IF RODIN DID NOT ASSEMBLE IT, WHO DID?

On page 637, in the 1976 Sculpture of Auguste Rodin by John Tancock, the author wrote: “Three weeks before Rodin’s death, Paul Cruet, who was largely responsible at that time for making Rodin’s molds, took this cast of his right hand. Into it was inserted a cast of a small torso by Rodin, Small Torso A, one of the innumerable small fragments possibly connected with The Gates of Hell (no. 1). The torso has since been cast separately. This composite work, made from a life cast and an original work, which pays homage to Rodin the sculptor.” This plaster was “not signed or inscribed.”

“HAND OF RODIN HOLDING TORSO” IS NOW SIGNED IN 1968

If you look closely at the enclosed Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation’s photograph of their 1968 “Hand of Rodin Holding Torso” bronze on the www.cantorfoundation.org/ Rodin/Gallery/rvg65.html website, you will notice that it has an “A Rodin” signature on the wrist.

Since Auguste Rodin was dead when it was cast in bronze, how’d he do that?

7. AMERICA IS NOT A FRENCH PROVINCE
IN 1917 AUGUSTE RODIN CALLED THEM REPRODUCTIONS

The sculptor Auguste Rodin clearly understood that the bronzes cast from his original sculptures, by various foundries, were reproductions. This fact is confirmed in 1916 when Auguste Rodin gave in writing to the State of France upon his death, in his Will, the “reproductions rights to the objects given by him."[FN 15]

IN 2005 THERE CALLED -SCULPTURE EDITIONS-

On page 345 in the Footnote 45 from “Taking This Helping Hand I Am Holding Out to You” essay by Catherine Chevillot in the 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue, the author wrote: “It should be noted that, for sculpture editions, throughout the nineteenth century the law constantly wavered between the principles of industrial property and artistic property. In the absence of an explicit agreement and depending on the period, possession of the model was tantamount to possession of the exploitation rights. See Catherine Chevillot, “Artistes et fondeurs au XIX siecle,” Paris: Musee du Louvre, Musee-Musees series, conference “Le bronze, l’edition originale et la reproduction,” February 13, 2002.”

In other words, in 1916 Auguste Rodin clearly understood that the bronzes cast from his original sculptures were reproductions, why is it so difficult for some in the 21st-century to understand that?

Fortunately, this 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition is being held in the 21st-century and forty-five of the fifty-nine nondisclosed reproductions and fakes in this exhibition were actually cast in bronze in the 20th-century.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few in the museum and academic industry who will defend and have defended this fraud of misrepresenting reproductions, much less posthumous reproductions, as “works of visual art” ie., -sculptures- by making blanket statements that these reproduced objects, on exhibition in American museums, adhere to current “French Law” or that nineteenth-century standards are applicable and therefore are “original.”

Despite misleading pronouncements by some in the museum industry, French law clearly mandates the disclosure of reproductions as -reproductions-.

What current French decrees are applicable?

FRENCH DECREE NO. 81.255

The March 3, 1981 French decree no. 81.255, Article 9,[FN 16] in part, states: Article 9--All facsimiles, casts of casts, copies, or other reproductions of an original work of art as set out in Article 71 of Appendix III of the General Code of Taxes, executed after the date of effectiveness of the present decree, must carry in a visible and indelible manner the notation ‘Reproduction’.”

Where did anyone, much less the museums and academia, ever get the distorted idea that anything posthumously reproduced could somehow be considered under “French Law,” much less under U.S. federal, state or local laws, to be anything but a “reproduction?”

ORIGINAL EDITIONS

This is possibly answered by a French decree titled: “Article 1 of a joint decree by the Ministries of Culture and Finance, issued on 5 September 1978,"[FN 17] which regulates the internal administration of the Musee Rodin. In part, it states: -The reproduction of works of Rodin and the editions sold by the Musee Rodin consist of; -Original editions in bronze. These are executed from models in terra cotta or in plaster realized by Rodin.”

In this 1978 French decree, -original- is used as an adjective to describe and separate the Musee Rodin’s posthumous “editions” of reproductions in bronze of Rodin’s work from others who legally may posthumously reproduce in bronze any of Rodin’s work that is in the public domain.

Have some in the academia and museums latched onto a distorted interpretation of this French decree to self-servingly morph reproductions somehow into -originals-? This massively distorted perspective would obviously expose a serious lack of connoisseurship by those with otherwise impressive titles, credentials and experience.

In other words, only living artists can create -originals-. Anything reproduced, much less posthumous, would be, at best, a -reproduction- as obviously documented by the prior listed 1981 French decree which, once again in part, states: “reproduction of works.”

8. DEFINITIONS, LAWS & CONNOISSEURSHIP

In Paul Duro & Michael Greenhalgh’s published Essential Art History, “connoisseurship” is defined as: “that of the art expert able to distinguish between the authentic and non-authentic, for example between an original and a copy.”[FN 18]

Independently documenting the definitions of key terms is an effective way to truly document the facts behind the misrepresentation of reproductions as “works of visual art” ie., -sculptures-.

WHAT IS A SCULPTURE?

On page 372 in Ralph Mayer’s HarperCollins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques, -sculpture- is defined as: “The creation of three dimensional forms by carving, modeling or assembly. In carving, the sculptor removes unwanted material.... In modeling on the other hand, the sculptor creates a form by building it up...”

WHAT IS A SCULPTOR?

This is answered in the J. Paul Getty Trust’s www.getty.edu website. Under their Getty Vocabulary Program the term -sculptor- is defined as: “artists who specialize in creating images and forms that are carried out primarily in three dimensions, generally in the media of stone, wood, or metal.”

U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW - WORK OF VISUAL ART

Under U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, a “work of visual art” ie., -sculpture- is defined as: “multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author.”

U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW - RIGHTS OF ATTRIBUTION

Furthermore, under U.S. Copyright Law 106A. Rights of Attribution - “shall not apply to any reproduction.”

WHAT IS A REPRODUCTION?

On page 350 in Ralph Mayer’s HarperCollins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques -reproduction- is defined as: “A general term for any copy, likeness, or counterpart of an original work of art or of a photograph, done in the same medium as the original or in another, and done by someone other than the creator of the original.”

Obviously anything reproduced, much less posthumously, would be, at best by definition and under U.S. Copyright Law, a “reproduction.”

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF CAST?

On page 70 of Ralph Mayer’s 1999 The HarperCollins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques -cast- is defined as: “to reproduce an object, such as a piece of sculpture, by means of a MOLD.”

For anyone to make a -representation-, that objects in their collection or exhibition, are “sculptures” then at the end make the -disclosure- that they were “cast” ie., reproduced, as if these concepts were interchangeable, would be a “non-sequitur.”

WHAT IS A NON-SEQUITUR?

On page 1080 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -non-sequitur- is defined as: “An inference or conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises.”

In other words, by definition and under U.S. Copyright Law, you cannot call a reproduction a “visual work of art” ie., -sculpture-, much less attribute that reproduction to that artist whether they are alive or dead.

WHAT IS MEANT BY “REPRESENTATION?”

On page 1303 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -representation- is defined as: “A presentation of fact - either by words or by conduct - made to induce someone to act, esp to enter into a contract.”

DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ART’S REPRESENTATION

On the Detroit Institute of Art’s www.dia.org/exhibitions/claudel_rodin/media_news.asp website, the museum’s “About the Exhibition,” in part, describes how the exhibition is broken up into sections featuring: “sculptures by Rodin,” “masterpieces by Rodin,” “Claudel’s sculpture,” and “collaborat{ions} - by Rodin, likely assisted by Claudel.”

WHAT IS A CONTRACT?

On page 381 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -contract- is defined as: “an agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.”

DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ART’S {CONTRACT} TICKET INFORMATION

On the Detroit Institute of Art’s www.dia.org/exhibitions/claudel_rodin/media_news.asp website, the museum’s “Ticket Information” for their Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition, in part, states: “Wednesdays - Fridays, $14 for adults, $8 for children ages 6-17, $12 per person for groups of 20 or more. Saturdays and Sundays, $17 for adults, $8 for children ages 6-17, $17 per person for groups of 20 or more. Tickets are timed and include an audio tour and museum admission.”

WHAT IS MEANT BY “DISCLOSURE?’

On page 476 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -disclosure- is defined as: “The act or process of making known something that was previously unknown.”

DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ART’S DISCLOSURE

On the Detroit Institute of Art’s www.dia.org/exhibitions/claudel_rodin/media_news.asp website, the museum’s “disclosure” in their New Release titled “The Passion and Genius of Two Legendary Artists: Camille Claudel and Rodin: Fateful Encounter,” does not once refer to any object in the exhibition as being “cast,” “reproduced,” “posthumous” or as a “reproduction” despite at least fifty-nine being, at best, nothing more than reproductions.

Without full and honest disclosure to reproductions as -reproductions- by all museums, how can the consumer give informed consent before they chose to attend an exhibition whether they pay admission or not?

WHAT IS (INFORMED) CONSENT?

On page 300 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -consent- is defined as: “Agreement, approval or permission as to some act or purpose, esp. given voluntarily by a competent person.”

WHAT IS FRAUD?

On page 670 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -fraud- is defined as: “a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment.”

Would a museum that misrepresents reproductions, lifetime or posthumous, as “sculptures” be committing “a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment” which is one legal definition of -fraud-?

9. MICHIGAN’S ART MULTIPLES SALES ACT
REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF REPRODUCTIONS AS REPRODUCTIONS

In the State of Michigan, under the Art Multiples Sales Act Act 40 of 1987 -“provides for disclosure in writing of certain information concerning multiples of prints and photographs if sold or exchanged for value exceeding $100.00 each, exclusive of any frame, before the sale or exchange. This law requires disclosure of information such as the identity of the artist, the authenticity of an artist's signature, the medium, whether the multiple is a reproduction, when the multiple was produced, the type of master used to produce the multiple, and the number of multiples in a limited edition."[FN 19]

SIGNED MEANS AUTHOGRAPHED BY THE ARTIST’S OWN HAND

In the State of Michigan, under the Art Multiples Sales Act Act 40 of 1987 -“Signed means authographed by the artist’s own hand, and not by mechanical or photographic reproduction, after the multiple was produced, whether or not the master was signed."[FN 20]

DISCLOSURE REQUIRED IF POSTHUMOUS

In the State of Michigan, under the Art Multiples Sales Act Act 40 of 1987 requires: “(e) Whether the multiple or image on or in the master is a mechanical, photomechanical, or photographic copy or reproduction of an image previously created or produced by the artist in a different stated medium, or on or in a different master, for a purpose other than the creation of the multiple being described. (f) If subdivision (e) is applicable, and if the multiple is not signed, whether the artist authorized or approved, in writing, the multiple or edition of which the multiple is a part. (g) Whether the multiple is a posthumous multiple. As used in this subdivision, “posthumous multiple” means a multiple which was produced after the artist's death, from a master which was created during the artist's life. (h) Whether the multiple was produced from a master which produced a prior limited edition, or from a master which constituted or was made from a reproduction of a prior multiple of the master which produced the prior limited edition."[FN 21]

DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ART IS LOCATED IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

The Detroit Institute of Art is located in the State of Michigan. Though this State of Michigan Art Multiples Sales Act Act 40 of 1987 does not specifically address the disclosure of reproductions of sculptures and that the museum is selling $14 to $17 price of per adult admission to view an exhibition of reproductions and not selling reproductions, would the Detroit Institute of Art argue that as a cultural institution that they are to be held to a lesser standard of disclosure than ordinary artists living and working in the same State of Michigan?

10. DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ART, AAMD MEMBER

The Detroit Institute of Art is a current member of the Association of Art Museum Directors. As a AAMD member, what ethical standards and guidelines does the Detroit Institute of Art endorse?

1996 AAMD’s “STATEMENT OF MISSION”

The Association of Art Museum Directors’ “Statement of Mission,” as adopted in June 1996, in part, states: “The purpose of the Association of Art Museum Directors is to aid its members in establishing and maintaining the highest professional standards for themselves and the museums they represent.”[FN 22]

2001 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES IN ART MUSEUMS

On page 31 of the 2001 Association of Art Museum Director’s Professional Practices in Art Museums booklet, it is written that the: “misleading marketing of reproductions, has created such widespread confusion as to require clarification in order to maintain professional standards. - When producing and/or selling reproductions, museums must clearly indicate, through the use of integral markings on the objects, as well as signs, labels, and advertising, that these items are reproductions.”[FN 23]

The AAMD requires of their members that: 1. “When producing and/or selling reproductions - signatures, edition numbers, and/or foundry marks on sculpture must not appear on the reproduction.,” 2.“ ...the fact that they are reproductions should be clearly indicated on the object.” and 3. “When advertising reproductions, museums should not use language implying that there is any identity of quality between the copy and the original or lead the potential buyer to believe that by purchasing any such reproductions, he or she is acquiring an original work of art.”

Unfortunately, the Detroit Institute of Art is selling the $14 to $17 price per adult admission to view their Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition, without fully disclosing the reproductions as -reproductions-.

MUSEUM GIFT SHOP HAS A HIGHER STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE?

Now the Detroit Institute of Art may argue that these AAMD guidelines for disclosure of reproductions as “reproductions” only applies to their museum gift shop. If that perspective is argued, much less taken, it would be an overt admission by the Detroit Institute of Art that their museum gift shop has a higher standard of disclosure than the museum does or does not require of itself.

11. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE/MAIL FRAUD

In the March 17, 2004 News-10-Now’s “US Attorney’s Office investigates art fraud” story by Carmen Grant (news10now.com/content/all_news/?ArID= 12317&SecID=83), Assistant U.S. Attorney Lisa Fletcher is quoted as stating: “What we found is that Anthony Marone and William Yager conspired with one another, since at least as far back as 1999, to post on ebay for auction works of art that they represented to be original by original famous artists, and what they actually sold was counterfeit works of art. By doing that they committed several federal offenses including conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud.”

WHAT IS FRAUD?

Once again, on page 670 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -fraud- is defined as: “A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment.”

Would anyone, that misrepresents reproductions, much posthumous reproductions with posthumously applied counterfeit signatures, as an “visual work of arts” ie., -sculptures- for potential “admission fees,” “city, state, federal grants,” “corporate sponsorships,” “outright sales” and “tax write-offs,” be committing “a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment?”

CONCLUSION

What needs to be accomplished is the full and honest disclosure of reproductions as -reproductions- by all museums, auction houses, academia and art dealers. If the Detroit Institute of Art, Musee Rodin and all participating museums, in this 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter exhibition, will give full and honest disclosure for all reproductions as: -reproductions- whether they had been posthumously reproduced or not, it would allow museum patrons the potential to give informed consent if they chose to pay admission to see these reproductions in this exhibition.

But if these reproductions are not disclosed as -reproductions- or the reproductions are not copies of the artist’s original artwork because they are second generation or more removed -fakes- ie., “something that is not what it purports to be” and/or have counterfeit signatures applied, much less posthumously, then serious consequences of law may come into play for those who chose to misrepresent these -reproductions- and/or -fakes- for profit.

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. www.dia.org/exhibitions/item.asp?webitemid=300
2. www.dia.org/exhibitions/claudel_rodin/media_news.asp
3. On the Detroit Institute of Art’s www.dia.org/information/director.htm website, in the “From the Director’s Chair” posted in January 2005, the museum’s director Graham W. J. Beal wrote about the museum’s “removing works from the collection through deaccessioning.” The director cited an reason for deaccessioning was to “trade up” and gave an example to” “acquire a superb painting, in almost perfect condition, by the seventeen-century Dutch artist Philips Wouwerman.” The director continued by writing that: “Part of the funds came from the sale of three inferior Wouwermans: one, actually a nineteenth-century copy.”
4. “Auguste Rodin, Pierre de Wissant 1887 Bronze, cast by Fonderie de Coubertin, 1988 214 x 106 x 118 cm. Signed in front, on base A. Rodin Founder’s mark on back of base: shell surrounded by the letters FC; near signature No. IV/IV Musee Rodin (s.6139), Paris Cast executed for the museum’s collection in 1988 Exh: Paris 1887 (undetermined copy); Paris 1889 no. 1 (monument, plaster)” {page 363, 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter
5. “Cat. 167 Auguste Rodin The Inner Voice or Meditation, large model 1896 Bronze, cast by Fonderie de Coubertin, 1981 146 x 75.5 x 55 cm Signed on base, beside right foot: A. Rodin Founder’s mark in back: shell surrounded by the letters FC n 0/Musee Rodin (S.792), Paris Cast executed for the museum’s collections in 1981 Exh.: SNBA 1897, no. 125 (plaster presented with the Monument to Victor Hugo); Dresden 1897, no. 1166 (plaster); Stockholm, 1897, no. 1698 (plaster, whereabouts unknown)” {page 364, 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue}
6. “Cat. 141 Auguste Rodin I Am Beautiful 1886 Bronze, cast by Georges Rudier, 1969 69.4 x 36 x 36 cm Signed in front, on rock: A Rodin Inscribed in front: Je suis bello o mortels comme un reve de pierre/Et mon sein ou chacun s’est meurtri tour a tour/est fait pour inspirere au poete un amour/Eternel et muet ainsi que la matiere Founder’s mark in back: Georges Rudier/Fondeur Paris Musee Rodin (S.1151), Paris Cast executed for the museum’s collections in 1969 Exh” Paris 1886 (plaster)” {page 363, 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue}
7. “Cat 142 Auguste Rodin The Cry About 1886 Bronze, cast by Georges Rudier 1961 25.2 x 28.7 x 18.9 cm Signed on left side of bust: A. Rodin Founder’s mark in back, at right: Georges Rudier/Fondeur Paris Musee Rodin (S.1126), Paris Cast executed for the museum’s collections in 1961 Exh: Brussels/Rotterdam/Amsterdam/The Hague 1899, no. 2a/4 (plaster)” {page 363, 2005 Camille Claudel & Rodin: Fateful Encounter catalogue}
8. © 1985 by Albert Elsen Published with the assistance of the Cantor Fitzgerald Foundation
9. On page 249 in Albert Elsen’s “10. Rodin’s ‘Perfect Collaborator,’ Henri Lebosse” essay published in the National Gallery of Art’s 1981 Rodin Rediscovered catalogue ISBN 0-89468-001-3 (pbk.) AACR2
10. (Detail 1999 RODIN, Tasende Gallery Catalogue) “The Martyr - inscribed---A Rodin - in 1995 - Godard Foundry”
11. Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, ISBN 0-314-22864-0
12. Copyright © 1976 by the Philadelphia Museum of Art, ISBN 0-8923-157-2
13. Sculpture Review, Fall 1998 Vol XLVII No.2 ISSN 0747-5284 Editorial Telephone # (212) 529-1763
14. www.cantorfoundation.org/ Rodin/Gallery/rvg65.html
15. On page 285 in the National Gallery of Art’s published 1981 Rodin Rediscovered catalogue, the former Musee Rodin curator Monique Laurent documents some of the details of Auguste Rodin’s Will and his donation to the State of France. In part, Auguste Rodin’s Will states: “notwithstanding the transfer of artistic ownership authorized to the State of M. Rodin, the latter expressly reserves for himself the enjoyment, during his life, of the reproduction rights of those objects given by him.”
16. page 281-282 APPENDIX Jean Chatelain’s “An Original in Sculpture” essay published in the National Gallery of Art’s published 1981 Rodin Rediscovered catalogue, ISBN 0-89468-001-3 (pbk) AACR2
17. page 281 APPENDIX Jean Chatelain’s “An Original in Sculpture” essay published in the National Gallery of Art’s published 1981 Rodin Rediscovered catalogue, ISBN 0-89468-001-3 (pbk) AACR2
18. rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/teach/eah/ ImageServe Essential Art History by Paul Duro & Michael Greenhalgh
19. ART MULTIPLES SALES ACT (EXCERPT) Act 40 of 1987 442.353 Catalog, prospectus, flyer or other written material or advertisement. [M.S.A. 19.409(3) ]
“Sec. 3.
(1) An art merchant shall not cause a catalog, prospectus, flyer, or other written material or advertisement to be distributed in, into, or from the state, that solicits a direct sale by inviting transmittal of payment for a specific multiple, unless it clearly states, in close physical proximity to the description of the multiple, 1 of the following:
a) The information required by section 2.
(b) The material contained in the following statement, or the statement itself, if the information required by section 2 is supplied before or with delivery of the multiple:
“Section 2 of the art multiples sales act, Act No. ___of the Public Acts of ____, being section ______ of the Michigan Compiled Laws, provides for disclosure in writing of certain information concerning multiples of prints andphotographs if sold or exchanged for value exceeding $100.00 each, exclusive of any frame, before the sale or exchange. This law requires disclosure of information such as the identity of the artist, the authenticity of an artist's signature, the medium, whether the multiple is a reproduction, when the multiple was produced, the type of master used to produce the multiple, and the number of multiples in a limited edition.”
20. ART MULTIPLES SALES ACT (EXCERPT) Act 40 of 1987 442.351a Definitions. [M.S.A. 19.409(1a) ]
“Sec. 1a.
As used in this act:
(a) “Artist” means the creator of an image depicted by or in a master.
(c) “Limited edition” means a number of multiples which are produced from a single master, all of which depict the same image, and which bear numbers or other markings to denote that production of multiples from that master is limited to a stated maximum number, or which are otherwise held out as limited to a maximum number.
(d) “Master” means a printing plate, stone, block, screen, photographic negative, or other material which contains an image used to produce multiples.
(e) “Multiples” means prints, photographs, photographic negatives, or other objects of visual art which are produced in more than 1 copy and sold, offered for sale, or consigned in, into, or from the state for value exceeding $100.00 each, exclusive of any frame, including pages or sheets taken from books or magazines and sold or offered for sale as art objects, but not including books and magazines.
j) “Signed” means autographed by the artist's own hand, and not by means of mechanical or photographic reproduction, after the multiple was produced, whether or not the master was signed.”
21. ART MULTIPLES SALES ACT (EXCERPT) Act 40 of 1987 442.355 Information to be supplied for each multiple; express warranty. [M.S.A. 19.409(5)]
“Sec. 5.
(1) All of the following information shall be supplied for each multiple produced after the effective date of this act:
(a) The name of the artist.
(b) If the artist's name appears on the multiple, the source of the name, such as whether the multiple was signed by the artist, whether only the master was signed, whether the artist's name was stamped or estate stamped on the multiple, or whether the name originates from some other stated source.
(c) A description of the medium and process used to produce the multiple, such as whether the multiple was produced through etching, engraving, lithography, serigraphy, or photography. If photography was used, the particular method and materials used in the photographic developing process shall be stated. If an established term, in accordance with the usage of the trade, cannot be employed to accurately describe the medium, process, or materials, a brief, clear description shall be made.
(d) Whether the artist was deceased at the time the master which produced the multiple was made.
(e) Whether the multiple or image on or in the master is a mechanical, photomechanical, or photographic copy or reproduction of an image previously created or produced by the artist in a different stated medium, or on or in a different master, for a purpose other than the creation of the multiple being described.
(f) If subdivision (e) is applicable, and if the multiple is not signed, whether the artist authorized or approved, in writing, the multiple or edition of which the multiple is a part.
(g) Whether the multiple is a posthumous multiple. As used in this subdivision, “posthumous multiple” means a multiple which was produced after the artist's death, from a master which was created during the artist's life.
(h) Whether the multiple was produced from a master which produced a prior limited edition, or from a master which constituted or was made from a reproduction of a prior multiple of the master which produced the prior limited edition.
(i) The year or approximate year the multiple was produced. For purposes of sections 7 and 8, as to multiples produced before January 1, 1950, the information shall include the year, approximate year, or period when the master was made which produced the multiple, or when the particular multiple being described was produced, or both.
(j) Whether or not the multiple is offered as 1 of a limited edition, and if so, the number of multiples in the limited edition and the method of numbering used, if any.
(k) If the additional multiples described in subsection (3) exceed the number specified in that subsection, the number of proofs other than trial proofs, or other numbered or unnumbered multiples, in the same or other editions, produced from the same master, or from another master as described in subdivision (h), and whether and how the proofs are signed and numbered.”
22. www.aamd.org/AAMDmission.shtml
23. Under the title “Reproductions of Works of Art” and documented as “adopted by the membership of the AAMD, January 1979; amended 2001, Copyright 2001 by the Association of Art Museum Directors ( ISBN 1-880974-02-0 ) Address: 41 East 65th Street, New York, New York 10021
“Art museums legitimately generate income through the sale of such educational materials as catalogues, books, postcards, and reproductions. The manufacture and knowledgeable use of reproductions for teaching purposes or in a decorative context is appropriate. However, a proliferation of “art-derived” materials, coupled with misleading marketing of reproductions, has created such widespread confusion as to require clarification in order to maintain professional standards.

“When producing and/or selling reproductions, museums must clearly indicate, through the use of integral markings on the objects, as well as signs, labels, and advertising, that these items are reproductions. Signatures, print edition numbers, and printer’s symbols or titles must not appear in the reproduction if in the original they occur outside the borders of the image. Similarly, signatures, edition numbers, and/or foundry marks on sculpture must not appear on the reproduction.

“Reproductions must be in materials and/or sizes other than those uses by the artist in the original works of art. Although reproductions of decorative arts serving functional purposes may pose special problems in this regard, the fact that they are reproductions should be clearly indicated on the object.

“The touting of exaggerated investment value of reproductions must be avoided because of object or work being offered for purchase is not original and the resale value is highly in doubt.

“When advertising reproductions, museums should not use language implying that there is any identity of quality between the copy and the original or lead the potential buyer to believe that by purchasing any such reproductions, he or she is acquiring an original work of art.”