14 FORGERIES & the Nasher Sculpture Center

Original published November 11, 2003 (Updated December 26, 2012)

NOTE: All footnotes are enclosed with [FN ].

















"Raymond Duchamp-Villon, French, 1876-1918, Large Horse (Le Cheval majeur), 1914 (enlargement 1966), Bronze, 59 1/2 x 57 x 34 in. (151.1 x 144.8 x 86.4 cm.), Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1980.A.06, Inscription Side of base: 'R. Duchamp-Villon 1914 7/9 Louis Carre, Editeur Susse Fondeur, Paris'"http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=22
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

The above so-called Large Horse (Le Cheval majeur) in bronze, attributed to Raymond Duchamp-Villon, is one of at least fourteen -14- non-disclosed forgeries misrepresented as “sculptures” by the Nasher Sculpture Center in their collection since its' opening in 2003.

The dead don't sculpt.

This monograph documents these contentious issues of authenticity.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Why are they forgeries?
What are moral rights?
Definitions
Educational Propaganda
1. Raymond Duchamp-Villon Large Horse
.......What is a forgery?
.......What is a signature?
.......What is the definition of counterfeit?
.......What is connoisseurship?
.......What is scholarship?
.......Nasher Sculpture Center's Mission
2. Aristide Maillol’s Night
.......What is the definition of provenance?
......."M" Inscription Signature?
.......What is an exemplaire d'artiste?
.......What is a deceptive act?
3. Edgar Degas’ Dancer at Rest-
.......Cast - after his death
.......“Degas did not date or sign” his sculptures
4. Honore Daumier’s Ratapoil
.......Nasher Sculpture Center's director Jeremy Strick
.......Unethical Casting in Bronze
5. Raymond Duchamp-Villon’s Maggy
6. Raymond Duchamp-Villon’s Horse and Rider II
7. Raymond Duchamp-Villon’s Professor Gossett
8. Alberto Giacometti’s Cubist Composition: Two Heads
.......FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness
9. Julio Gonzalez’s Woman with a Mirror
10. Gaston Lachaise’s Elevation
.......Gaston Lachaise's widow died in 1957
.......Lachaise Foundation
.......Four Lifetime Casts
11. Henri Laurens’ Maternity
.......What is an artist proof?
12. Auguste Rodin’s Eve
.......Cannot in any case exceed twelve
13. Tony Smith’s The Snake is out
14. Henri Matisse's Venus in a Shell II
.......What is the definition of authenticate?
.......“Museums Exist for their Authenticity”
.......Law, Ethics and the Visual Arts
CONCLUSION
FOOTNOTES
BIBLIOGRAPHY


WHY ARE THEY FORGERIES?
1. Posthumous reproductions can -never- be sculptures. A sculpture is a three-dimensional object created by a -living- artist.

-The dead don't sculpt.

2. The posthumous application or inscription of an artist name to any image or object would -never- be considered their signature.

-The dead don't sign-.

3. The practice of promoting so-called -limited editions- to posthumously reproduced images or objects is deceptive.

-The dead don't number-.

4. The practice of promoting posthumous reproductions as -artist proofs- is deceptive.

-The dead don't proof-.

5. The posthumous alteration of the artist’s original work, for example, from a “rough texture” to a “smooth - hard, machine-like finish,” is a violation of the artist’s -moral rights-.

-The dead don't approve alterations-.

WHAT ARE MORAL RIGHTS?

On page 1025-26, in the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -moral right- is defined as: "a right protecting a visual artist's work beyond the ordinary protections of copyright. Moral rights included both integrity rights, which protect the work from changes that damage the artist's or the work's reputation, and attribution rights, which allow the artist to claim authorship of the work and to prevent the unlawful use of the author's name in reference to a modified version of the work. Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (17 USCA 106A, 113)"[FN 1]

So, how can one confirmed that these fourteen objects in question are, in fact, -forgeries-?

DEFINITIONS

First and foremost, because of the abuse of terminology and the decades of misrepresentation, with or without intent, by too many to note in the museum, auction and academia industry, it is imperative to independently document the definitions of key terms so these contentious issues of authenticity may be accurately confirmed.

In other words, if we cannot speak the same language, how can we communicate, much less understand each other?

WHAT IS AN ORIGINAL?

In the J. Paul Getty Trust’s  website that “supports limited research and cataloging efforts,” under their Getty Vocabulary Program the term -original- is defined as: “Use to distinguish from reproductions or other types of copies.”[FN 2] 

On page 286 in HarperCollins' published Dictionary of Art Terms and Techniques by Ralph Mayer, -original- is defined as: “An artist’s independent creation. 2. a work of art considered as a PROTOTYPE, as that from which copies and reproductions have been made.”[FN 3]

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF CAST?

On page 66 in HarperCollins' published A Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques by Ralph Mayer, -cast- is defined as: “to reproduce an object such as a piece of sculpture, by means of a MOLD.”[FN 4]

So an -original- would be a work of art by the artist and a -cast- would be reproduced from a sculpture.

WHAT IS A SCULPTURE?
On page 372 in HarperCollins’ published Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques by Ralph Mayer, -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...”[FN 5]

WHAT IS A SCULPTOR?
This is answered in the J. Paul Getty Trust’s website. Under their Getty Vocabulary Program, -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.”[FN 6]

This definition of -sculptor- clearly emphasizes that artist must be alive. The dead don't "specialize in creating images and forms."

Therefore, anything posthumously reproduced/cast would be, at best, a reproduction.

WHAT IS A REPRODUCTION?

On page 350 in HarperCollins' published Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques by Ralph Mayer -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.”[FN 7]

Unlike the potentially precise photo-mechanical reproductions of two-dimensional images, sculptural reproductions are subjectively made by the hands and fingers of someone other than the artist (particularly if they are dead). 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.

WHAT IS A FAKE?

On page 617 in the Seventh Edition of Black’s Black’s Law Dictionary, -fake- is defined as: "something that is not what it purports to be.”[FN 8]

Now connect the potential crude reproduction methods for casting in bronze with the admitted practice of posthumously supersizing, altering and adding signatures and editions numbers to these posthumously reproduced three-dimensional objects and you would have “something that is not what it purports to be,” the legal definition of -fake-.

In other words, they (heirs and others) have willingly given up the authentic original surface details made by the working fingers of the artist himself. The resulting pieces may be interesting to look at, but it is an absurdity to pretend they are just the way the artist would have wanted and intended for them to appear.












p 7., "Sculpture - Materials & Methods, Guide to Looking and Visiting
the Nasher Sculpture Center" [detail]
www.nashersculpturecenter.org/.../Sculpture---Materials---Methods.aspx 

EDUCATIONAL PROPAGANDA

The Nasher Sculpture Center is involved in a "systematic dissemination of doctrine, rumor, or selected information to promote or injure a particular doctrine, view or cause" which is one legal definition of propaganda found on page 1232 of Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary.[FN 9]

A prime example of this propaganda, is the Nasher Sculpture Center Education Department's produced and posted online 37 page pdf packet titled: "Sculpture - Materials & Methods, Guide to Looking and Visiting the Nasher Sculpture Center"[FN 10] with casting graphics and content written by intern Karen Jacobi.

On page 7 of this "information on the Nasher Collection suitable for school tours"[FN 11] packet, it uses the so-called "sculpture Night by Auguste Maillol"[FN 12] as a silhouette, to illustrate the different steps of lost casting.

The caption below this so-called "sculpture" is: "Aristide Maillol, Night, ca 1902-07, (cast 1960)."[FN 13]

The only problem is this packet fails to disclose Aristide Maillol died in 1944.

The dead don't sculpt.

Yet, on page 8 and 9 in the Nasher Sculpture Center's "Sculpture - Materials & Methods, Guide to Looking and Visiting the Nasher Sculpture Center" packet, the public would never know that it was not a "sculpture Night by Auguste Maillol"[FN 14] with these following misleading statements:

• "Artist first sculpt a model in clay or plaster. The surface of the model is coated with a protective coating, such as lacquer."[FN 15]

• "The artist can make adjustments at this point, hand finishing the wax positive to the desired level of completion before the bronze casting."[FN 16]

• "This is the point at which the artist signs the work and an edition number and a foundry seal are added."[FN 17]

On page 1016 in Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -misrepresentation- is defined as: "the act of making a false or misleading statement about something, usu. with the intent to deceive."[FN 18]

So, what are students and their teachers to make of the Nasher Sculpture Center and its' Educational Department when they promote in writing that in 1960 the dead, like Aristide Maillol (d. 1944), can "sculpt," "coat," "adjust" and "hand finish," much less "sign" anything?

"Raymond Duchamp-Villon, French, 1876-1918, Large Horse (Le Cheval majeur), 1914 (enlargement 1966), Bronze, 59 1/2 x 57 x 34 in. (151.1 x 144.8 x 86.4 cm.), Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1980.A.06, Inscription Side of base: 'R. Duchamp-Villon 1914 7/9 Louis Carre, Editeur Susse Fondeur, Paris'"
http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=22
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

1. RAYMOND DUCHAMP-VILLON’S LARGE HORSE

The so-called Large Horse, attributed to Raymond Duchamp-Villon, is initially described on the Nasher Sculpture Center's website as: "Although vestiges of a horse's form are still apparent in Duchamp-Villon's Large Horse, he has almost completely reinterpreted the animal's form into a mechanical dynamo of gears, flywheels, pistons, and tie-rods."[FN 19]

Then just when your thinking you are viewing the work of a master who "almost completely reinterpreted the animal's form," the Nasher Sculpture Center's then backhandedly admits in the next paragraph that it's a posthumous -supersized- forgery: "At the time of the artist's death from typhoid fever in 1918, contracted while serving in World War I, he had begun to enlarge a model of the composition. His two brothers, the artists Marcel Duchamp and Jacques Villon, later carried out two successive enlargements and had them cast into bronze."[FN 20]

On page 661 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -forgery- is defined as: "A false or altered document made to look genuine by someone with the intent to deceive."[FN 20]

Since Raymond Duchamp-Villon died in 1917, would the posthumous supersizing of his work with the posthumous inscription of "R. Duchamp-Villon 1914" be "a false or altered document made to look genuine by someone with the intent to deceive?"

Rhetorically speaking, when you supersize something, don't you get at least -fries- with it?

"Henry Moore, British, 1898-1986, Working Model for Three Piece No. 3: Vertebrae, 1968, Bronze, 41 1/8 x 93 x 48 in. (104.5 x 236.2 x 121.9 cm.), Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1968.A.09, Inscription, Top of base: 'Moore 4/8', Right side of base: 'H. Noack Berlin'"
http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=113
LIFETIME REPRODUCTION

Now, compare the given inscription: “R.Duchamp-Villon 1914 7/9” for so-called Raymond Duchamp-Villon's Large Horse with the above Henry Moore's Working Model for Three Piece No. 3 Vertebrae given inscription: “Moore 4/8.”[FN 21]

The problem is, unlike Henry Moore, Raymond Duchamp-Villon was dead (d. 1918) when this -inscription- of “R. Duchamp-Villon," much less the edition number "7/9," was applied in 1966.

How’d a dead Raymond Duchamp-Villon do that?

WHAT IS A SIGNATURE?

This is answered in the J. Paul Getty Trust’s website. Under their Getty Vocabulary Program the term -signature- is defined as: “Persons' names written in their own hand.”[FN 22]

Also, on page 1387 in Seventh Editon of Black’s Law Dictionary, -signature- is defined: “a person's name or mark written by that person or at the person's direction.”[FN 23]

Therefore, the posthumous application or inscription of an artist’s signature such as “Raymond Duchamp-Villon” to a posthumously forged object, much less one that has been posthumously -supersized-, would be -counterfeit-.

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF COUNTERFEIT?

On page 354 in the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -counterfeit- is defined as: “To forge; to copy or imitate, without a right to do so and with the purpose of deceiving or defrauding.”[FN 24]

In other words, by someone applying the artist’s signature to an object without that living artist’s documented consent, it creates the illusion that the artist either create it and/or approved it.

In the case of these fourteen non-disclosed forgeries, all of the artists were dead at the time when their so-called signatures/inscriptions were posthumous applied. Hence, the so-called signatures/inscriptions are counterfeit.

These terms and their definitions are the basic foundation for -connoisseurship- in the fine arts.

WHAT IS CONNOISSEURSHIP?

In Paul Duro and 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 25]

On the Nasher Sculpture Center’s website, it states: “The Nasher Sculpture Center is committed to fostering scholarship on modern and contemporary sculpture, and to becoming a resource that will make Dallas a destination point for students and scholars in the field.”[FN 26]

WHAT IS SCHOLARSHIP?

The term -scholarship- is defined, by the American Heritage Dictionary, as: “1. The methods, discipline, and attainments of a scholar or scholars. 2. Knowledge resulting from study and research in a particular field.”[FN 27]

NASHER SCULPTURE CENTER’S MISSION

Additionally, on the Nasher Sculpture Center’s website, it states: “Education is central to the Nasher Sculpture Center’s mission and the Center is working with the foremost arts education organizations in Dallas to develop curricula and teaching resources specific to the history and practice of sculpture.”[FN 28]

Does the Nasher Sculpture Center practice the kind of -scholarship- that could be the model and resource for other “arts education organizations?”

To answer that question, let’s examine the -provenance- of two so-called Aristide Maillol bronze “sculptures” in the Nasher Sculpture Center Collection.

"Aristide Maillol, French, 1861-1944, Marie, 1930, Bronze, 27 x 8 x 13 in. (68.6 x 20.3 x 33 cm.), Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1979.A.06, Inscription On base: 'M', Provenance Artist, Dominion Gallery, Montreal, Canada, Private Collection, Toronto, Canada, Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1979"
http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=99
LIFETIME REPRODUCTION






















Aristide Maillol, French, 1861-1944. Night (La Nuit), 1902-09 (cast 1960), Bronze, 41 x 42 x 22 1/2 in. (104.1 x 106.7 x 57.2 cm.), Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1982.A.08, Inscription Top of base: 'M' with a circle around it, Right side of base: 'Georges Rudier Fondeur Paris', Left front of base: 'E.A.', Provenance Artist, Mrs. Dina Vierny, Paris, Galerie Beyeler, Paris, Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1982"
http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=98
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

2. ARISTIDE MAILLOL’S NIGHT (La Nuit)

On the Nasher Sculpture Center’s website, the Aristide Maillol bronze Night (La Nuit) is listed as “Cast 1960” and the Maria bronze is listed with the “1930” date. Under the headline “Provenance” for both, the first person listed is the “artist.”

How can the “provenance” for both of these so-called sculptures begin with the “artist” Aristide Maillol, if one of them Night (La Nuit) was actually reproduced in 1960 some sixteen years after his death?

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF PROVENANCE?

The term -provenance- is defined, under the Getty Vocabulary Program, as: “A record of previous ownership or previous locations of a work.”[FN 29]

Obviously, the dead artist Aristide Maillol could not be the “previous owner” for something reproduced/cast sixteen years after his death.

Unfortunately, the -provenance- is not the only contentious issue of authenticity with this so-called Aristide Maillol bronze.

“M” INSCRIPTION SIGNATURE?

The Aristide Maillol lifetime cast Marie, with the listed date “1930,” has the inscription “M.” The posthumous reproduction/cast Night (La Nuit), reproduced/cast in 1960, also has the inscription “M.” How did a posthumous reproduction/cast Night (La Nuit) come to be inscribed with Aristide Maillol’s signature initial “M?” Was the signature initial “M” in Aristide Maillol’s original model of the Night (La Nuit) that was used to reproduce/cast in bronze or was the signature initial “M” posthumously applied in 1960?

In addition, this so-called Aristide Maillol Night (La Nuit) is also inscribed with “EA” which on the Nasher Sculpture Center’s website is disclosed as an “Exemplaire d’Artiste.”

WHAT IS AN EXEMPLAIRE D’ARTISTE?

On the Conseil de la Sculpture du Quebec’s website, the term -Exemplaire d’Artiste- is defined as: “SPECIMEN Of ARTIST: exempailres intended to the artist and for his collaborators and in addition carried out to specimens of pulling lawful or envisaged intended for the trade. Each specimen is marked letters EA followed by the identification number registers in Roman numerals, the numerator indicating the number of the specimen of artist and the denominator, the size of the pulling of the specimens of artists. Except trade, only used as specimens, HC are registered.”[FN 30]

Additionally, the Conseil de la Sculpture du Quebec defines an -original work of art- as a: “single work or work whose pulling is limited to a lawful number of specimens and of which each is numbered, including the specimens of artist and except trade.”

In other words an -Exemplaire d’Artiste- is an “original work of art” that is inscribed “EA” with Roman Numerals (ex. I/IV) which signify its’ edition limitation.

Since the Night (La Nuit) was posthumously forged in 1960, it could not be “intended to the artist,” because in 1960 their was -no- Aristide Maillol who died sixteen years earlier in 1944.

Therefore, the posthumously forged inscription of “EA” (Exemplaire d’Artiste) and Roman Numerals of “II/IV” is overtly deceptive.

WHAT IS AN DECEPTIVE ACT?

On page 413 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -deceptive act- is: "defined by the Federal Trade Commission and most state statutes, conduct that is likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably under similar circumstances."[FN 31]

Therefore, if posthumous reproductions are misrepresented as "Exemplaire d’Artiste," is it "likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably under similar circumstances?"

"Edgar Degas, French, 1834-1917, Dancer at Rest, Hands Behind Her Back, Right Leg Forward (Danseuse au repos, les mains sur les reins, la jambe droite en avant), 1892-1895 (cast 1919-1921), Bronze, 17 1/4 x 5 1/4 x 9 3/4 in. (43.8 x 13.3 x 24.8 cm.), Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1998.A.01"

http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=438
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

3. EDGAR DEGAS’ DANCER AT REST-

All so-called Edgar Degas -bronze sculptures- are "A false or altered document made to look genuine by someone with the intent to deceive." which one legal definition of -forgery-.[FN 32]

Edgar Degas never worked in bronze[FN 33], he never wanted his mixed-media sculptures cast in bronze[FN 34] and he never signed his mixed-media sculptures[FN 35], yet all the so-called “Degas bronze sculptures” have what appears to be a “Degas” signature applied.

How’d he do that?

“CAST - AFTER HIS DEATH”

On the National Gallery of Art’s website, it documents that Edgar Degas never cast his mixed-media models into bronze. It states: “Degas himself was not drawn to making bronzes. The medium's permanence was ill-suited to the way he worked, which involved constant changing and revision. The casting of Degas' waxes was undertaken through his heirs after his death.”[FN 36]

Posthumously, the dead don't sculpt, much less sign.
























"Edgar Degas, French, 1834 - 1917, Little Dancer Aged Fourteen - wax statuette, 1879-1881, yellow wax, hair, ribbon, linen bodice, satin shoes, muslin tutu, wood base, height: 99 cm (39 in.), Collection of Mr. and Mrs. Paul Mellon, 1999.80.28, Inscription on proper left back corner of base: Degas"
www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/ pinfo?Object=109848+0+ins
LIFETIME SCULPTURE WITH COUNTERFEIT INSCRIPTION

“DEGAS DID NOT DATE OR SIGN” HIS SCULPTURES

The National Gallery of Art’s website states: “we are developing a chronology for the sculpture, which Degas did not date or sign”[FN 37]

Then who posthumously applied the counterfeit inscription “Degas” on the base of the Edgar Degas Little Dancer Aged Fourteen wax statuette[FN 38] in the National Gallery of Art’s collection?

The National Gallery of Art confirms on their website that Edgar Degas never worked in bronze, never wanted his mixed-media sculptures cast in bronze and never signed them and yet despite this documented and posted website admission by the National Gallery of Art, these posthumously forged bronzes, in their collection, are promoted as original works of visual art ie., -sculptures-.

"Honore Daumier, French, 1808-1879, Ratapoil, c.1850 (cast 1925), Bronze, 17 x 6 x 7 1/2 in. (43.2 x 15.2 x 19.1 cm.), Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1997.A.08, Inscription Back of base: 'Alexis.Rudier.Fondeur.Paris'"

http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=437
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

4. HONORE DAUMIER’S RATAPOIL
All so-called Honore Daumier "bronze sculptures” are posthumous -forgeries-.

Honore Daumier, who died in 1879, never cast in bronze.

The so-called “Daumier bronzes” were posthumously reproduced/cast in the 19th-century with -Ratapoil- beginning in "1891"[FN 39] and the vast majority in the 20th-century. Specifically, the so-called "Daumier bronzes" were posthumously cast in the 1920’s, 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s and the 1960’s.[FN 40]

Despite this fact, these posthumous forgeries are misrepresented as Daumier “sculptures.”

NASHER SCULPTURE CENTER DIRECTOR

The new Nasher Sculpture Center's director Jeremy Strick (as of March 2, 2009) was a member of the Association of Art Museum Directors[FN 41] when he was the director of the Modern Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles.

Additionally, the Art Institute of Chicago in Chicago, Illinois, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. and Saint Louis Art Museum in St. Louis, Missouri are current members of the AAMD. The Nasher Sculpture Center's director Jeremy Strick was, in the past, a curator at all these same institutions.

The Association of Art Museum Directors endorses the College Art Association’s April 27, 1974 "Statement on Standards for Sculptural Reproduction and Preventive Measures to Combat Unethical Casting in Bronze."[FN 42]

UNETHICAL CASTING IN BRONZE

In the College Art Association’s Ethics & Guidelines under the subtitle Unauthorized Translation Into New Materials it states: “All bronze casting from finished bronzes, all unauthorized enlargements, and all transfers into new materials, unless specifically condoned by the artist, all works cast as a result of being in the public domain should be considered as inauthentic or counterfeit. Unauthorized casts of works in the public domain cannot be looked upon as accurate presentations of the artist’s achievement. Accordingly, in the absence of relevant laws and for moral reasons, such works should: -- Not be acquired by museums or exhibited as works of art.”[FN 43]

Therefore, as a former AAMD member when MOCA's director, how will the Nasher Sculpture Center's new director respond to his institute's collection of inauthentic or counterfeit work that violates his own prior endorsed ethical guidelines on sculptural reproductions?

"Raymond Duchamp-Villon, French, 1876-1918, Maggy, 1911 (cast 1957), Bronze, 28 x 13 1/4 x 15 in. (71.1 x 33.7 x, 38.1 cm.), Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1986.A.09"
http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=47
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

5. RAYMOND DUCHAMP-VILLON’S MAGGY

On page 145 in the 1987 A CENTURY OF MODERN SCULPTURE, The Patsy and Raymond Nasher Collection catalogue, this Raymond Duchamp-Villon's Maggy is described as -cast 1957- and has the following -inscription-: “Duchamp-Villon.”[FN 44]

Once again, on page 661 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -forgery- is defined as: "A false or altered document made to look genuine by someone with the intent to deceive."[FN 45]

Since Raymond Duchamp-Villon died in 1917, would the posthumous inscription of his name be "a false or altered document made to look genuine by someone with the intent to deceive?"

Additionally, on page 146 in the 1987 A CENTURY OF MODERN SCULPTURE, The Patsy and Raymond Nasher Collection catalogue, it states: “A small group of bronzes were cast during the artist’s lifetime (number unknown), and Galerie Louis Carre issued a posthumous edition of eight bronzes plus proofs, cast by George Rudier. This cast is not numbered but is recorded by Galerie Louis Carre as number four of eight.”[FN 46]

Yet, on the current May 2009, the Nasher Sculpture Center's website, for their posthumous forgery, it gives the following contradictory description as: "The year before making Maggy, Duchamp-Villon described the art of sculpture: "Mistress of three dimensions, it has at its service line, plane and volume."[FN 47]

A year before the so-called -making Maggy- in 1957, Raymond Duchamp-Villon (d. 1917) was some 40 years dead.

"Raymond Duchamp-Villon, French, 1876-1918, Horse and Rider II [ Cheval et chevalier II, 1914, Bronze, 10 3/4 x 7 1/2 x 4 in., (27.3 x 19 x 10.2 cm.), Markings: Top of base: “Duchamp-Villon” Side of base at left: “Alexis Rudier/Fondeur Paris", page 146, A CENTURY OF MODERN SCULPTURE,

The Patsy and Raymond Nasher Collection"
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

NOTE: This forgery is not listed on Nasher Sculpture Center's website.

6. RAYMOND DUCHAMP-VILLON’S HORSE AND RIDER II

On page 146-147 in the 1987 A CENTURY OF MODERN SCULPTURE, The Patsy and Raymond Nasher Collection catalogue, it states: “The date of casting of the Nasher bronze [Horse and Rider II] is also uncertain, although its provenance and publication by Alexis Rudier are signs of relatively early origin (bronze casts had been made by the time of the Duchamp-Villon exhibition at Galerie Pierre in 1931). A later edition of eight numbered bronzes was issued by Louis Carrie and marked with his name.”[FN 48]

In 1931, Raymond  Duchamp-Villon [d 1918] was some 12 years dead.

Despite the admission in the 1987 A CENTURY OF MODERN SCULPTURE, The Patsy and Raymond Nasher Collection catalogue that the date of reproduction/casting of the Horse and Rider II is "uncertain," it is still listed with a -1914- date that coincidentally and conveniently pre-dates the death in 1918 of the artist Raymond Duchamp-Villon.

In addition, to the admission in this catalogue that these editions were posthumously promoted as limited to eight despite the presence of this additional reproduction/cast, Raymond Duchamp-Villon name was also posthumously applied to these reproductions to create the false illusion he signed them, much less approved them.

Then on the Nasher Sculpture Center's website, it goes from the ridiculous to the sublime, when it states: "Although vestiges of a horse's form are still apparent in Duchamp-Villon's Large Horse, he has almost completely reinterpreted the animal's form into a mechanical dynamo of gears, flywheels, pistons, and tie-rods. Viewing the work from all sides reveals the complexity of the composition. Natural and machine forms merge into an enthusiastic tribute to the displacement of horsepower by machine power, what Duchamp-Villon referred to as the 'audacity' and 'sublimity' of modern engineering."[FN 49]

The dead don't reinterpret, much less sculpt.

"Raymond Duchamp-Villon, French, 1876-1918, Portrait of Professor Gosset, 1918 (cast 1960’s), Bronze, 3 3/8 x 3 1/4 x 3 3/8 (8.6 x 8.3 x 8.6 cm.), Markings: Right side of head: “Duchamp-Villon 5/9” Right jaw: “Georges Rudier Fondeur Paris” Bottom: “Louis Carre, editeur”

www. nashersculpturecenter.org
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

NOTE: As of May 2009 or earlier, this forgery is no longer listed on Nasher Sculpture Center's website.

7. RAYMOND DUCHAMP-VILLON’S PROFESSOR GOSSET

On pages 148-149 in the 1987 A CENTURY OF MODERN SCULPTURE, The Patsy and Raymond Nasher Collection catalogue, it states: “The Nasher cast {Professor Gosset} is from a modern edition of authorized by the artist’s family and published by Louis Carre in the sixties. The edition totals nine plus artist’s proofs.”[FN 50]

In the 1960’s, the artist Raymond Duchamp-Villon [d 1918] was dead 42 to 51 years, so there could not be any so-called -artist proofs- in a posthumously forged edition of his Professor Gosset.

Furthermore, on pages 148-149, the catalogue states: “Following the pattern of posthumous enlargements of The Horse, Professor Gosset underwent a similar transformation; directed by Jacques Villon and executed by Louis Carre in 1957, it resulted in a plaster measuring 30 centimeters and and edition of eight bronzes. Whereas the original small version was modeled with pellets of clay that impart a rough texture, the enlarged version was smoothed to a hard, machinelike finish.”[FN 51]

The combination of posthumously enlarging and altering the surface of Raymond Duchamp-Villon’s Professor Gosset from -rough- to -smooth- clearly documents there are no ethical and legal boundaries some won’t cross in the attempt to cash-in on the legacy of an artist.

What is more disconcerting is: why would a so-called cultural institution, like the Nasher Sculpture Center that professes to be a teaching museum, accept this overtly obvious forgery in their collection?

"Alberto Giacometti, Swiss, 1901-1966, Cubist Composition: Two Heads (Composition cubiste: deux têtes), 1926 (cast 1988-90), Bronze, 26 1/4 x 18 x 15 3/4 in. (66.7 x 45.7 x 40 cm.), Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 2001.A.02"

http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=788
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

8. ALBERTO GIACOMETTI’S CUBIST COMPOSITION: TWO HEADS

Alberto Giacometti died in 1966.

Yet, the Nasher Sculpture Center would have the public suspend disbelief or just believe that between 1988-90, some twenty-two or more years after his death, a dead Alberto Giacometti created, much less approved, a new bronze titled Cubist Composition: Two Heads with an "Inscription" applied "On back of base at proper right side: "Alberto Giacometti 8/8" and "Incised on proper right side of base: 'Susse Fondeur Paris'."[FN 52]

How'd a dead Alberto Giacometti do that?

Since 1991, the Nasher Sculpture Center's documented the past exhibition history, for this non-disclosed forgery as beginning at the "Museé d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Alberto Giacometti, Sculptures, Peintures, Dessins, November 30, 1991 - March 15, 1992," "Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt, Alberto Giacometti: Werke und Schriften, October 9, 1998 - January 3, 1999," "From Rodin to Calder: Masterworks of Modern Sculpture from the Nasher Collection, Nasher Sculpture Center, Dallas, October 20, 2003 - September 2004," and "The Evolution of the Nasher Collection, Nasher Museum of Art at Duke University, Durham, NC, October 2005 - May 2006."[FN 53]

After 1966, Alberto Giacometti [d 1966] was history.

FTC POLICY STATEMENT ON UNFAIRNESS

On December 17, 1980, the Federal Trade Commission published a letter titled: "FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness" to the Senator Wendell H. Ford, Chairman on the Consumer Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. In part, it stated: "A seller's failure to present complex technical data on his product may lessen a consumer's ability to choose, for example, but may also reduce the initial price he must pay for the article."[FN 54]

Additionally, it went on to state: "However, it has long been recognized that certain types of sales techniques may prevent consumers from effectively making their own decisions, and that corrective action may then become necessary. Most of the Commission's unfairness matters are brought under these circumstances. They are brought, not to second-guess the wisdom of particular consumer decisions, but rather to halt some form of seller behavior that unreasonably creates or takes advantage of an obstacle to the free exercise of consumer decisionmaking."

Respectfully, what kind of questions of law and the penalties should those in the museum industry have when they suspend disbelief, with or without intent, for admission fees, city-state-federal grants, corporate sponsorship, outright sales and tax write-offs, so that death is not just the end of an artist's life but just a career move by the dead to a more posthumous, prolific and profitable oeuvre?

"Julio Gonzalez, Spanish, 1876-1942, Woman with a Mirror (Femme au miroir), ca. 1936-37 (cast ca. 1980), Bronze, 80 15/16 x 26 3/8 x 14 3/16 in. (205.6 x 67 x 36 cm.), Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1982.A.05, Markings: Bottom of left leg: “E. Godard Fondeur” Back of foot: “J. Gonzalez © 1/2”

http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=68
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

9. JULIO GONZALEZ’S WOMAN WITH A MIRROR

On page 160 in 1987 A CENTURY OF MODERN SCULPTURE, The Patsy and Raymond Nasher Collection catalogue, the so-called Woman with a Mirror in bronze, attributed to Julio Gonzalez, is described as: “Like numerous other works in iron by Gonzalez, Woman with a Mirror was cast in bronze by the artist’s estate on the grounds that Gonzalez had wished and intended, but could not afford, to make casts of many of his sculptures. This particular work exists in an edition of four bronzes, marked HC, EA, 1/2 and 2/2. The Nasher cast is number 1/2. The original iron is still in the estate of the artist in Paris. The casts, in iron, pivot on a bolt just below the head.”[FN 55]

Julio Gonzalez [d 1942] was dead some thirty-eight years in 1980 when this so-called Woman with a Mirror was cast in bronze and inscribed "J. Gonzalez."

How'd he do that?

Unfortunately, once Julio Gonzalez died, the “rights of attribution” under U.S. Copyright Law died with him. Therefore, anything posthumously reproduced from his work would be forever, at best, a reproduction.

Thirty-eight years later the potential to cash-in on an artist’s legacy does not change that fact.

Furthermore, the posthumous application of the artist’s name and edition numbers to create the illusion the artist created it much less limited them makes these posthumously cast bronzes “something that not what it purports to be” which is one legal definition of -fake-.

The dead don't sculpt, proof, edition, or sign.

"Gaston Lachaise, American, born France, 1882-1935, Elevation, also called Standing Woman, 1912-1927 (cast 1964), Bronze, 70 3/4 x 30 x 19 9/16 in. (179.7 x 76.2 x 49.7 cm.), Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1987.A.13"

http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=195
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

10. GASTON LACHAISE’S ELEVATION

Twenty-nine years after Gaston Lachaise death in 1935, his Elevation is posthumously reproduced/cast into bronze in 1964 and yet listed with the following inscription on the Nasher Sculpture Center's  website as: "Top of base: 'G. LACHAISE c 1927,' 'Lachaise Estate 2/4' and 'Modern Art Fdry NY.'"[FN 56]

So, how did these posthumous forgeries of Gaston Lachaise's work with counterfeit inscriptions and misleading dates come about?

GASTON LACHAISE’S WIDOW DIED IN 1957

On page 173, in Gerald Nordland’s 1974 published "monograph” titled Gaston Lachaise: The Man and His Work, the author wrote: “Isabel Dutaud Nagle Lachaise, the artist’s widow lived until 1957, twenty-two years after his death. - At her death the control of the artist’s work passed through her estate to the Lachaise Foundation, under the Trusteeship of her great-nephew, John b. Pierce Jr., of Boston.”[FN 57]

LACHAISE FOUNDATION

Additionally on page 173, in his Epilogue, the author Gerald Nordland wrote: “Under Pierce’s watchful management casts have been made from existing plaster originals made by the artist. A limitation on the total number of bronze casts of any one sculpture has been set by the Foundation. Editions range from six to twelve bronze casts, the total number of each edition having been established to take account of bronze casts known to the Foundation to have been made prior to its organization. All casts made by the Foundation bear the stamp and are numbered consecutively according to the size of its limited Foundation edition. After all casts of the edition have been made, the molds are destroyed and the plaster retained or disposed of by the Foundation in a manner designed to safeguard against further casting either by destruction of the plaster or by sale or donation, with appropriate restrictions against further castings, to an established museum of other responsible institution. All Lachaise Estate bronzes have been cast at The Modern Art Foundry, 18-70 Forty-first Street, Long Island City, New York, under the supervision of Robert Spring, Proprietor, and Robert Schoelkopf, the New York art dealer.”[FN 58]

FOUR LIFETIME CASTS

In a 2001 Catalogue essay: GASTON LACHAISE written by Gerald Nordland for the Hackett-Freedman Gallery, the author wrote: “The four lifetime casts of Elevation (Standing Woman, 1912–1927) are owned by: the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo, NY; the Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL; the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY; and the St. Louis Art Museum, St. Louise, MO.”[FN 59]

Therefore, would the posthumous application of a counterfeit -G Lachaise- inscription and misleading date of -1927- to a reproduction reproduced in 1964 some 29 years after Gaston Lachaise's death in 1935 be considered "a false or altered document made to look genuine by someone with the intent to deceive" which is one legal definition of -forgery-?

"HENRI LAURENS, French, 1885-1954. Maternity (Grande Maternité), 1932 (cast 1965). Bronze, 21 1/2 x 55 x 22 1/2 in. (54.6 x 139.7 x 57.2 cm.). Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1984.A.09"
http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/artist.aspx?ConstituentID=1375
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

11. HENRI LAUREN’S MATERNITY

On page 164 in the 1987 A CENTURY OF MODERN SCULPTURE, The Patsy and Raymond Nasher Collection catalogue, the so-called Henri Laurens' Maternity is described as: “Grande Maternite is an enlargement of Laurens’ Petite Maternite (18.5 centimeters long) from the same year. A plaster of the large version (probably the one illustrated in Cahiers d’Art 10, nos. 1-4, 1935, p. 52) remains in the collection of M. and Mme Claude Laurens in Paris, together with a terra-cotta of the small one. The posthumous edition of eleven bronzes issued by the Laurens family and made by Valsuani consists of seven casts marked 0/6 to 6/6, three artist’s proofs, and one proof donated to the Musee National d’Art Moderne, Paris. The edition was cast over several years, and the Nasher cast dates from 1965.”[FN 60]

WHAT IS AN ARTIST PROOF?

On page 23 of HarperCollins published Dictionary of Art Terms and Techniques by Ralph Mayer, -artist proofs- is defined as: "one of the PROOFS in LIMITED EDITION of ORIGINAL PRINTS. An artist's proof must bear the artist's signature or mark and, since the early 20th century, is usually numbered."[FN 61]

How could a -connoisseur-, much less the Nasher Sculpture Center, promote with a straight face numbered editions with so-called -artist proofs- attributed to an artist Henri Laurens [d 1954] who happened to be dead some eleven years in 1965 at the time they were reproduced/cast in to bronze?

The dead don't number, much less proof.

"Auguste Rodin, French, 1840-1917, Eve, 1881 (cast before 1932), Bronze, 68 x 17 1/4 x 25 1/2 in. (172.7 x 43.8 x 64.8 cm.), Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1982.A.07"

http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=141
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

12. AUGUSTE RODIN’S EVE

The Nasher Sculpture Center’s so-called Eve, attributed to Auguste Rodin, is listed as: “cast before 1932.”

Auguste Rodin died in 1917.

On page 187 of this catalogue in the 1987 A CENTURY OF MODERN SCULPTURE, The Patsy and Raymond Nasher Collection catalogue, it states: “John Tancock (1976, pp. 155-56) catalogs fifteen early bronze casts of the life-size Eve, exclusive of the Nasher cast, most of them marked with the name of the Alexis Rudier foundry. An undetermined number of modern cast have also been made. Four plasters in the large scale are recorded.”[FN 62]

"Fifteen early bronze casts of the life-size Eve" and the posthumous -Nasher cast- titled Eve equals sixteen.

CANNOT IN ANY CASE EXCEED TWELVE

The Musee Rodin is required by a 1957 French decree and the subsequent 1978 French decree that: “the casting from each one of these models cannot in any case exceed twelve exampled.”[FN 63]

If the Musee Rodin and museum professionals cannot keep count, should we count on anything they say?

"Tony Smith, American, 1912-1980, The Snake Is Out, 1962 (fabricated 1981), Painted steel, 180 x 278 x 226 in. (457.2 x 706.1 x 574 cm.), Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas, Texas, 1984.A.08"

http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=158
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

13. TONY SMITH’S THE SNAKE IS OUT

On the Nasher Sculpture Center’s website, it states: “The Snake is Out exemplifies a group of works that Tony Smith constructed in the early sixties from tetrahedral and octahedral shapes. - [This] version in the Nasher collection, was fabricated in 1981 and installed in Doris Freedman Plaza at the Sixtieth Street entrance to Central Park, New York, from July 1982 to March 1983, and subsequently in front of 245 Park Avenue, New York, from July 1983 to April 1984, when it was purchased by the Nashers (documentation from The Pace Gallery, 1986).”[FN 64]

How can the Nasher Sculpture Center’s “Label Text,” for this The Snake is Out, states that it “exemplifies” early 1960’s work by the artist Tony Smith and yet at the same time acknowledge that it was “fabricated in 1981?”

Remember, Tony Smith died in 1980.

It defies reality that anyone would argue, much less state that anything "fabricated in 1981" is “exemplifying” of Tony Smith's authentic lifetime art?

“[Henri Matisse] French, 1869-1954, Venus in a Shell II (Vénus à la coquille II), 1932, Bronze, 13 3/8 x 6 7/8 x 9 1/8 in. (34 x 17.5 x 23.2 cm.). RDN and PRN Foundation, Dallas 1988.A.01, Inscription Back of base: 'HM 4/10'”

www.nashersculpturecenter.org/ index.cfm?FuseAction=Object& ObjectID=213
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

14. HENRI MATISSE'S VENUS IN A SHELL II

“Venus in a Shell II was the last sculpture Matisse modeled until 1949”[FN 66] wrote Nasher Sculpture Center curator Jed Morse in his Venus in a Shell essay on page 224 of the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue. This so-called “last sculpture” is listed with a “1932”[FN 67] date on page 250 of the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue and on the current Nasher Sculpture Center’s  website.[FN 68]

Yet, on page 276 of “Checklist” in the back of the 2007 Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue, it discloses that it was reproduced ie., “cast 1958”[FN 69] some four years after Henri Matisse’s death in 1954.

When someone offers one thing and actually gives something all together different, that is known as the -Bait & Switch-. When a museum does it, considering the perception they are experts, that would make it "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-.

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AUTHENTICATE?

On page 127 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -authenticate”- is defined as: “to prove the genuineness of (a thing).”[FN 70]

“MUSEUMS EXIST FOR THEIR AUTHENTICITY”

Does it really matter whether an object exhibited in a museum, is “authentic?” This issue is addressed in the January 2, 2001 New Zealand News editorial article titled: “Museums exist for their authenticity.”[FN 71] This editorial powerfully addresses the issues of authenticity and museums. It states: 

• “Museums have been enthusiastically brightening themselves in recent times. They are no longer content to be serious, rather austere storehouses of cultural treasure. They aim to be lively, entertaining places with interactive displays and other imaginative methods of engaging people in order to educate them.
• “That is fine, so long as they remember that their distinguishing value still lies in authenticity. That is what we look for in a museum. We do not need a museum simply to discover what something looked like. Drawings and photographs in books can do that well enough. In a museum we expect to encounter the real thing. A replica, no matter how faithful to the original it might be, is not the same thing.
• “That assumes, of course, that we know it is a replica. It is not hard for a museum to deceive people if it is so inclined. And there is a danger these days that well-meaning theorists will convince one another that it really does not matter. What is reality anyway, they may ask? If something is made in the exact image of the authentic object, the imitation is real in its own way. And if people believe it is a relic of the past, well it is in a way.
• “If museums ever succumb to that philosophy, they will not survive. Their credibility will crumble if they become no more than theme parks filled with plastic and plaster representations of reality. There is a place for artifice in museums but it must be carefully presented as such. Patrons have a right to know when looking at a cast of a fossil, for example, whether they are seeing the actual stone in which the plant or animal was preserved, or a cast of the cast. When an ancient urn or a life-sized skeleton is only partly authentic, the public should be able to clearly discern the real bits.
• “The value of museums is the opportunity they provide for people to feel a connection with others long ago or far away. There is nothing quite like seeing an object that has survived the centuries to sense that connection. Those who seek that connection need museums. They must not be deceived.”

LAW, ETHICS AND THE VISUAL ARTS

On page 816 in the 1998 Law, Ethics and the Visual Arts by John Henry Merryman and Albert E. Elsen, the authors wrote: "The most serious harm that good counterfeits do is to confuse and misdirect the search for valid learning. The counterfeit object falsifies history and misdirects inquiry. - 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 expense of others. Counterfeit objects distort the process. - There remains the most obvious harm of all: counterfeit cultural objects are instruments of fraud."[FN 72]

CONCLUSION

What needs to be accomplished is the full and honest disclosure of reproductions as -reproductions- by all museums, auction houses, academia, galleries and art dealers, not to mention the news media. If those directors, curators and educators responsible for administrating the Nasher Sculpture Center will give full and honest disclosure to all reproductions as: -reproductions-, it would allow museum patrons the potential to give informed consent on whether to attend an exhibition of reproductions, much less pay the price of admission.

But if those reproductions are not fully disclosed as -reproductions- and/or -forgeries- if applicable however many generations removed and/or with counterfeit signatures/inscriptions/edition numbers applied, then potential serious consequences of law may come into play for those who chose to misrepresent those reproductions and/or -fakes- for profit.

The reputations and legacy of living and past artists, present and future consumers ie., 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. Copyright © 1999, By West Group, ISBN 0-314-22864-0

2. www.getty.edu

3. Copyright © Bena mayer, Executrix of the Estate of Ralph Mayer, 1991, ISBN 0-0670-83701-6

4. Ibid

5. Ibid

6. www.getty.edu

7. Copyright © Bena mayer, Executrix of the Estate of Ralph Mayer, 1991, ISBN 0-0670-83701-6

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

9. Ibid

10. www.nashersculpturecenter.org/.../Sculpture---Materials---Methods.aspx 

11. Ibid

12. Ibid

13. Ibid

14. Ibid

15. Ibid

16. Ibid

17. Ibid

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

19. http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=22

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

21. http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=113

22. www.getty.edu

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

24. Ibid

25. Bloomsbury Pub Ltd (July 1995), ISBN-10: 0747515859, ISBN-13: 978-0747515852

26. www.nashersculpturecenter.org

27. http://americanheritage.yourdictionary.com/scholarship

28. www.nashersculpturecenter.org

29. www.getty.edu

30. www.conseildelasculpture.ca

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

32. Ibid

33. “In 1919-20 Hebrard’s founder Albino Palazzolo, made a first set of {Degas} bronzes. -- Those “masters” served to make molds for casting edition of twenty-two bronzes. Technically, all bronzes except the master set are surmoulages.” (page 78 of the 2001 Degas and America The Early Collectors catalogue in the article Degas: The Sculptures by Hirshhorn Curator of Sculpture Valerie J. Fletcher)

34. “But none of his sculpture ever got beyond the wax or clay stage. he always said that he could not take the responsibility of leaving anything behind him in bronze; that metal, he felt, was for eternity.” (page 89, Ambroise Vollard’s DEGAS, An Intimate Portrait - ISBN 0-486-25131-4 © 1986 by Dover Publications)

35.  “By comparing the sculpture to stylistic changes in Degas' paintings and pastels, we are developing a chronology for the sculpture, which Degas did not date or sign.”

(National Gallery of Art’s www.nga.gov/education/degas-11.htm website)

36. www.nga.gov/education/degas-11.htm

37. www.nga.gov/education/degas-11.htm

38. www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/ pinfo?Object=109848+0+ins

39. “The history of the early bronze casts of this work is a complex matter but it seems possible that there were two bronze editions of Ratapoil made at the Siot-Decauville foundry in the 1890's, the first an edition of about six, made before 1892 and paid for by the state, and the second, an edition of about twenty, made for Geoffroy-Dechaume after Madame Daumier's death (Daumier Sculpture, a Critical and Comparative Study, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University, 1969, p. 168). The present work is from the larger edition. Two subsequent editions of the bronze, cast by Rudier in the 1920s and by Valsuani in the 1950s, are less clear and distinct in the form and details of the sculpture.” (Sotheby Sale RATAPOIL, Session 1 May 10, 1999) (http://search.sothebys.com/jsps/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=XDGP)

40. “The many posthumous campaigns to serialize Daumier's sculpture, which lasted well into the 1960s, have provided a subtly altered view of that aspect of his work at the same time they made examples widely available.” (“By Suzanne Glover Lindsay, in European Sculpture of the Nineteenth Century, published 2000”) (www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pbio?7350)

41 ASSOCIATION OF ART MUSEUM DIRECTORS Administrative Office: 41 East 65th Street New York, NY 10021 Phone: 212-249-4423 Fax: 212-535-5039 E-mail: aamd@amn.org

42, www.collegeart.org/caa/ethics/sculpture.html website

43. Ibid

44. New York: Rizzoli; 1St Edition edition (1987), ASIN: B002KR90EI

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

46. New York: Rizzoli; 1St Edition edition (1987), ASIN: B002KR90EI

47.  http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=47

48. New York: Rizzoli; 1St Edition edition (1987), ASIN: B002KR90EI

49. http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=22

50. New York: Rizzoli; 1St Edition edition (1987), ASIN: B002KR90EI

51. Ibid

52. http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=788

53. http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=788&content=History

54.  http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-unfair.htm

55. New York: Rizzoli; 1St Edition edition (1987), ASIN: B002KR90EI

56.http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=195&content=Inscription

57. Copyright © 1974 by Gerald Nordland, Standard Book Number 0-8076-0762-2, paper

58. Ibid

59. www.realart.com/hfg/html/archive-html/mod-01-02-html/lachaise-essay.html

60. New York: Rizzoli; 1St Edition edition (1987), ASIN: B002KR90EI

61 Ibid

62. Ibid

63 On September 5, 1978 a French decree was issued by the French Ministries of Culture and Finance. “Article 1” of that decree states: “The reproduction of the works of Rodin and the editions sold by the Musee Rodin consist of: 1) Original editions in bronze. These are executed from 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.” (p. 281 in Jean Chatelain’s “13. An Original in Sculpture” essay published in the National Gallery of Art’s 1981 Rodin Rediscovered catalogue ISBN 0-89468-001-3 (pbk.) AACR2)

64. http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=158

65.www.nashersculpturecenter.org/index.cfm?FuseAction=Object&ObjectID=213

66. Yale University Press; 1St Edition edition (January 28, 2007), ISBN-10: 0300115415, 

ISBN-13: 978-0300115413

67. Ibid

68. http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/object.aspx?ObjectID=213

69. Yale University Press; 1St Edition edition (January 28, 2007), ISBN-10: 0300115415, 

ISBN-13: 978-0300115413

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

71. January 2, 2001 New Zealand News editorial article titled: “Museums exist for their authenticity.”

72. ISBN 90-411-0697-9 © Kluwer Law International 1998