Thursday, November 1, 2007

Matisse, painter as sculptor FRAUD at the Baltimore Museum of Art

NOTE: All footnotes are enclosed with [FN ].



“[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 1958 FAKE. MATISSE DIED 1954.


INTRODUCTION
Listed as a “first major U.S. examination of Henri Matisse’s sculpture in nearly 40 years...”[FN 1] for the price of admission: “Adults $15, Seniors $12, Students $10 and Ages 6-18 $6”[FN 2] not including city-state-federal grants[FN 3], corporate sponsorship[FN 4] and “Matisse-Inspired Shopping”[FN 5] in The BMA Shop, the Baltimore Museum of Art’s opening October 28, 2007 to February 3, 2008 Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition is a “knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment”[FN 6] which one legal definition of -fraud-.

The Baltimore Museum of Art’s “Major Retrospective of Matisse’s Sculpture”[FN 7] contains only -one- possible Henri Matisse sculpture, a 1903 “painted plaster”[FN 8] titled: Madeleine I.[FN 9]

Of the seventy-four so-called “sculptures,”[FN 10] listed in this Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition catalogue, fifty-five (74%) are non-disclosed reproductions and thirteen (18%) are posthumous forgeries,[FN 11] with counterfeit signatures and inscriptions and edition numbers applied, making sixty-eight (92%) of them “something that is not what it purports to be”[FN 12] which is one legal definition of -fake-.

So, whether in life, much less in death, when it came to the creation of the so-called Henri Matisse sculptures in this exhibition, it is admitted that “Matisse depended on others.”[FN 13]

This monograph documents these facts and other contentious issues of authenticity.


TABLE OF CONTENTS:
INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTE FROM AUTHOR
1. NINE POSTHUMOUS MATISSE FAKES
2. TWO POSTHUMOUS DEGAS FAKES
3. TWO POSTHUMOUS RODIN FAKES
4. AAMD’s ETHICS ON SCULPTURAL REPRODUCTIONS
5. NEA VIOLATES CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE
6. FIFTY NON-DISCLOSED MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
7. FIVE OTHER NON-DISCLOSED REPRODUCTIONS
8. ONE MATISSE SCULPTURE
9. FIVE OTHER SCULPTURES
10. AMERICA IS NOT A FRENCH PROVINCE
11. U.S. CUSTOMS & ALICE IN WONDERLAND
12. STATE OF MARYLAND STATUTES
13. WIRE FRAUD & MAIL FRAUD
14. MUSEUM’S AVARICE
15. CONCLUSION
PRINCIPALS
MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS ADDENDUM
OTHER REPRODUCTIONS ADDENDUM
FOOTNOTES


NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR
As an artist who creates original lithographs by drawing on a limestone block with a grease pencil who chemically treats the image so I can print my edition, I know what it takes to create artwork.

In 1985, my introduction to lithography accelerated my connoisseurship particularly when I started to personally experience the public’s misconceptions that lithographs, much less mine, were reproductions. At the time, it compelled me to not only explain to the public how I created a lithograph but to back it up with definitions, regulations and laws to support that concept that they were originals. As I was soon to discover too many artists and dealers in the marketplace also had those same misconceptions, resulting in their, with or without intent, misrepresentation of reproductions as lithographs.

Then in 1999, I discovered the misrepresentation of reproductions, much less fakes, as artwork was not exclusive to just artists, art dealers and galleries but also by a good majority of museums, cultural institutions, auction houses and academia. My initial naive attempts to bring that misrepresentation of reproductions as sculpture to the attention of these museums, cultural institutions, auction houses and academic professionals were almost always rebuffed, with very few exceptions, with some of the most nonsensical responses I have ever heard. For example, a director of major foundation refuted me when I said dead men don’t sculpt by stating: “they are posthumously cast but that doesn’t make them reproductions.”

Still, not quite believing what I was hearing, I thought there must be something they were not telling me and/or there was something I was somehow not understanding or was missing, even though I really didn’t think so at the time. Nevertheless, to answer those questions, I began researching extensively.

What my research uncovered was a good majority of the museums, cultural institutions, auction houses and academic, for more decades probably than can be counted, have, with or without intent, abused terminology to the point that up is down and down is up. What I mean is artwork is obviously created by an artist, but now a good majority of those institutions and individuals act on the belief that the living presence of the artist is not required to create artwork. A prime example is the so-called Henri Matisse “Small Nude in a Chair” with a given “1924” date in this Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition. The only problem with it, is it was posthumously reproduced in 1958, some four years after Matisse’s death in 1954. Yet, despite being dead, the museum directors, for the different venues for this Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition, wrote in the exhibition catalogue that Henri Matisse was: “An equally accomplished artist in three dimensions.”

In this case, he must have been a poltergeist.

Therefore, in closing, I feel morally obligated to briefly document as possible for the benefit of the public, in these fifty odd pages, the true facts behind this Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition display of nine non-disclosed Matisse fakes, two non-disclosed Degas fakes, two non-disclosed Rodin fakes, fifty non-disclosed Matisse reproductions, five other non-disclosed reproductions and only six potential sculptures, with just one being a Matisse in this namesake exhibition, not to mention the serious questions of laws, ethics and regulations that are all but ignored by many museums, cultural institutions, auction houses and academia.


1. NINE POSTHUMOUS MATISSE FAKES

1 of 9 MATISSE FAKES

BROADER VIEW OR SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF
“This first major exhibition of his sculpture in America to be held in over twenty years, Matisse: Painter as Sculptor presents this great French master, so widely appreciated for his elegant draftsmanship and brilliant paintings, as an equally accomplished artist in three dimensions.” wrote the Baltimore Museum of Art’s director Doreen Bolger, Dallas Museum of Art’s director John R. Lane and Nasher Sculpture Center’s director Steven Nash on page x in the Matisse, painter as sculpture catalogue’s “Forward.”

“An equally accomplished artist in three dimensions,” is alive to create a sculpture, does not depend on others to do the work for them, consults with those they work with, applies their own signature or initials to their sculpture and is inclined to personally finish their own sculptures, otherwise these so-called sculptures, attributed to them, would be, at best, -reproductions-.

So, how does these museum directors state with a straight face that the “Matisse: Painter as Sculptor takes a broader view of Matisse’s three-dimensional work” when the above Small Nude in an Armchair being attributed as a sculpture, much less to Henri Matisse, was posthumously reproduced in 1958 some four years after his death in 1954?

THE CATALOGUE BAIT
Page 220, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“Henri Matisse,
Small Nude in an Armchair,
1924 Bronze
Stephen Mazoh. Cat. 100”

THE CHECKLIST SWITCH
Page 274, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“100. Small Nude in an Armchair
1924 (cast 1958), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 9/10, Duhuit no. 65
9 1/8 x 8 1/2 x 6 5/8 in. (23.2 x 21.6 x 16.8 cm)
Stephen Mazoh”

2 of 9 MATISSE FAKES

NASHER SCULPTURE CENTER’S FRAUD
Venus in a Shell II was the last sculpture Matisse modeled until 1949” 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” date on page 250 of the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue and on the current Nasher Sculpture Center’s website[FN 14].

Yet, on page 276 of “Checklist” in the back of the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue, it now discloses that it was reproduced ie. “cast 1958” 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 -fraud-.

THE CATALOGUE BAIT
Page 250, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“Henri Matisse,
Venus in a Shell II
1932 Bronze
Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection,
Dallas. Cat 124”

THE CHECKLIST SWITCH
Page 276, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“124. Venus in a Shell II
1932 (cast 1958), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 4/10, Duthuit no. 80
13 3/8 x 6 7/8 x 9 1/8 in. (34.0 x 17.5 x 23.2 cm)
Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas
Page 251”

3 of 9 MATISSE FAKES

DEAD SCULPTORS DON’T TOUCH
“Matisse’s last sculptural project was Standing Nude (Katia)... richly articulated surface of the bronze, eloquent in its testimony to the touch of the sculptor, solicits the caress of the viewer” wrote the Dallas Museum of Art’s curator of painting and sculpture Heather MacDonald in her “Standing Nude (Katia)” on page 254 in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue. On the opposite page 255, is a photograph titled: “Henri Matisse, Standing Nude (Katia), 1950, Bronze, Private collection. Cat, 132.”

This so-called “Standing Nude (Katia) -sculpture,” disclosed in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue’s “Checklist,” was actually posthumously reproduced in 1959 some five years after Matisse’s death in 1954. So, how can it have “the touch of the sculptor?”

THE CATALOGUE BAIT
Page 255, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“Henri Matisse,
Standing Nude (Katia),
1950 Bronze
Private collection, Cat 132”

THE CHECKLIST SWITCH
Page 277, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“132. Standing Nude (Katia)
1950 (cast 1959), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 9/10
Duthuit no. 84
17 3/4 x 3 7/16 x 2 3/4 in. (45.1 x 8.7 x 7.0 cm)
Private collection
Page 255”

4 of 9 MATISSE FAKES

MATISSE HAD NO REASONS FOR CASTING A FINAL BRONZE BECAUSE HE WAS DEAD
“The first, Henriette I, made in 1925... {Matisse} reasons for leaving the pastille in place and casting it into the final bronze are unknown” wrote the Dallas Museum of Art’s curator Heather MacDonald on page 208 in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue.

Yet, on page 273 in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue’s “Checklist,” we find that Henri Matisse had no reasons at all for casting “Henriette II” in bronze in “1958,” because he had died four year earlier in 1954.

THE CATALOGUE BAIT
Page 209, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“Henri Matisse,
Henriette I,
1925. Bronze
Musee departmental Matisse,
La Cateau-Cambresis;
Gift of Maria-Gaetana Matisse (Pontoise), 1999. Cat.92”

THE CHECKLIST SWITCH
Page 273, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“92. Henriette I
1925 (cast 1958), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 1/10, Duthuit no. 66
11 5/8 x 9 1/16 x 7 1/16 in. (29.5 x 23.0 x 18.0 cm)
Musee departemental Matisse, Le Cateau-
Cambresis; Gift of Maria-Gaetana Matisse
(Pontioise), 1999
Page 209”

5 of 9 MATISSE FAKES

IF MATISSE’S ARTWORK DEPENDED ON OTHERS, THEY’D BE REPRODUCTIONS
“Only rarely do artists make their own bronzes, Matisse depended on others” wrote the Baltimore Museum of Art’s Objects Conservator Ann Bolton in her “The Making of Matisse’s Bronzes” essay on page 73 in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue. Additionally, she wrote: “hoped {to} offer insights into how an artwork is made”

If “Matisse depended on others” to reproduce his artwork into bronze, wouldn’t that specific insight, at best, make them -reproductions-, not artwork?

THE CATALOGUE BAIT
Page 162, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“Henri Matisse,
The Back II, 1913, Bronze
Franklin D. Murphy Sculpture Garden,
University of California, Los Angeles;
Gift of the UCLA Art Council Funds
Courtesy of the Hammer Museum. Cat. 49”

THE CHECKLIST SWITCH
Page 270, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“49. The Back II
1913 (cast 1962), Rudier
Bronze, sand cast 6/10, Duthuit no. 57
75 x 48 x 6 3/4 in. (190.5 x 121.9 x 17.2 cm)
Franklin D. Murphy Sculpture Garden,
University of California, Los Angeles;
Gift of Michael J. Connell Memorial Fund;
Courtesy of the Hammer Museum
Page 162”

6 of 9 MATISSE FAKES

DEAD ARTISTS DON’T HAVE CAREERS OR SCULPTURAL ACHIEVEMENTS
“The four bronze iterations of The Back are among the most significant sculptural achievements of Matisse’s career” wrote the Nasher Sculpture Center’s assistant curator Jed Morse in his “The Back” essay on page 160 in the Matisse, painter as sculpture catalogue. Additionally, on page 162 and 163, the dates given for these “four bronze iterations of The Back” range from 1909 to 1930 .

“Sculptural achievements” require a living sculptor. That premise is contradicted on page 270, of the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue’s “Checklist,” where these so-called “four bronze iterations of The Back” are now disclosed with dates ranging from 1962 to 1966, some eight to twelve years after Henri Matisse’s death in 1954.

THE CATALOGUE BAIT
Page 163, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“Henri Matisse,
The Back III,
1916-17, Bronze
Franklin D. Murphy Sculpture Garden,
University of California, Los Angeles;
Gift of the UCLA Art Council Funds
Courtesy of the Hammer Museum. Cat. 50”

THE CHECKLIST SWITCH
Page 270, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“50. The Back III
1916-1917 (cast 1964), Rudier
Bronze, sand cast 6/10, Duthuit no. 60
75 x 45 x 6 1/2 in. (190.5 x 114.3 x 16.5 cm)
Franklin D. Murphy Sculpture Garden,
University of California, Los Angeles;
Gift of the UCLA Art Council through the generosity
of Mrs. Robert E. Gross and Mrs. Charles E. Ducommun;
Courtesy of the Hammer Museum
Page 163”

7 of 9 MATISSE FAKES

CONNOISSEURSHIP OR A LACK THEREOF
“Object-based study is a crucial tool for connoisseurship, yet no technical examination of Matisse’s sculptures has been published to date” wrote the Baltimore Museum of Art’s Objects Conservator Ann Bolton in her “The Making of Matisse’s Bronzes” essay on page 73 in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue.

So, why in her “The Making of Matisse’s Bronzes” essay would this Objects Conservator admit: “Matisse depended on others” to reproduce his artwork in bronze and yet in her essay she would refer to these reproductions as “sculptures?”


THE CATALOGUE BAIT
Page 162, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“Henri Matisse,
The Back I,
1909, Bronze
Franklin D. Murphy Sculpture Garden,
University of California, Los Angeles;
Gift of the UCLA Art Council Funds
Courtesy of the Hammer Museum. Cat. 48”

THE CHECKLIST SWITCH
Page 270, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“48. The Back I
1909 (cast 1965), Rudier
Bronze, sand cast 6/10
Duthuit no. 48
75 x 46 x 6 1/2 in. (190.5 x 116. 8 x 16.5 cm)
Franklin D. Murphy Sculpture Garden,
University of California, Los Angeles;
Gift of Michael J. Connell Memorial Fund;
Courtesy of the Hammer Museum
Page 162”

8 of 9 MATISSE FAKES

FOUNDRIES PICKED THE COLOR OF MATISSE BRONZES IN LIFE AND DEATH
“Differences in patination seem to be the result of foundry techniques rather than of any particular aesthetic choice on Matisse’s part” wrote the Baltimore Museum of Art’s Objects Conservator Ann Bolton in her “The Making of Matisse’s Bronzes” essay on page 85 in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue.

So, whether Matisse pick the color or not of his bronze reproductions when alive, Matisse certainly did not when the above The Back IV was reproduced in bronze in 1965, some eleven years after his death in 1954.

THE CATALOGUE BAIT
Page 163, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“Henri Matisse,
The Back IV,
1930, Bronze
Franklin D. Murphy Sculpture Garden,
University of California, Los Angeles;
Gift of the UCLA Art Council Funds
Courtesy of the Hammer Museum. Cat. 51”

THE CHECKLIST SWITCH
Page 270, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“51. The Back IV
1930 (cast 1965), Rudier
Bronze, sand-cast 6/10
Duthuit no. 77
75 x 45 x 6 1/2 in. (190.5 x 114.3 x 16.5 cm)
Franklin D. Murphy Sculpture Garden,
University of California, Los Angeles; Gift
of Mr. and Mrs. Sidney F. Brody in honor
of the UCLA Art Council; Courtesy of the
Hammer Museum
Page 163”

9 of 9 MATISSE FAKES

COUNTERFEIT HENRI MATISSE INITIALS POSTHUMOUSLY APPLIED
“At the Valsuani foundry Matisse, for instance, typically put his initials into the wax; when he was absent, the mold maker used an oval stamp to apply the artist’s initials” wrote the Baltimore Museum of Art’s Objects Conservator Ann Bolton in her “The Making of Matisse’s Bronzes” essay on page 83 in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue,

Therefore, since, Henri Matisse “depended on others” to make these bronzes, when alive much less dead, why would it be any different with the posthumous application of counterfeit Henri Matisse initials, particularly for the above Jeannette III reproduced in 1966, some twelve years after he died?

THE CATALOGUE BAIT
Page 274, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“Henri Matisse,
Jeannette III, 1911, Bronze
Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden,
Smithsonian Institution,
Washington D.C., Gift of the Joseph H. Hirshhorn
Foundation, 1972. Cat. 85”

THE CHECKLIST SWITCH
Page 272, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“85. Jeannette III
1911 (cast 1966), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 9/10, Duthuit no. 52
23 3/4 x 9 3/8 x 12 1/8 in. (60.2 x 23..7 x 30.6 cm)
Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., Gift
of the Joseph H. Hirshhorn Foundation, 1972
* Baltimore only
Page 274”


2. TWO POSTHUMOUS DEGAS FAKES

1 OF 2 DEGAS FAKES

“Our exhibition Matisse: Painter as Sculptor embraces works - by other artists: ...Degas...” wrote the Baltimore Museum of Art’s curator Dorothy Kosinski in her “Matisse and His Contemporaries” essay on page 17 in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue.

The only problem is the two so-called Edgar Degas sculptures in this exhibition dated and titled as: “1896-1911 Woman Getting out of the Bath, fragment” and as “1900-1905 Seated Woman Wiping her Left Side” are actually non-disclosed posthumous third-generation-removed -fakes- with counterfeit “Degas” inscriptions applied.

DEGAS NEVER CAST HIS SCULPTURE IN BRONZE
“Degas never cast his sculpture in bronze, claiming that it was a “tremendous responsibility to leave anything behind in bronze -- the medium is for eternity” wrote Daphne S. Barbour’s and Shelly G. Strum in their “The Horse in Wax and Bronze” essay in the National Gallery of Art’s published 1998 Degas at the Races catalogue.

THE CATALOGUE BAIT
Page 252, Matisse, painter as sculptor
Edgar Degas, Seated Woman
Wiping Her Left Side,
1900-1905. Bronze
The Detroit Institute of Arts,
Gift of Edward E. Rothman. Cat. 151”

THE CHECKLIST BAIT
Page 278, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“151. Seated Woman Wiping her Left Side
1900-1905
Bronze
13 1/2 x 14 x 9 in. (34.3 x 35.6 x 22.9 cm)
The Detroit Institute of Arts, Gift of Edward E. Rothman
* Dallas and San Francisco only
Page 252”

2 OF 2 DEGAS FAKES

COUNTERFEIT DEGAS SIGNATURES APPLIED
“The revelation of Degas’s sculptures in an exhibition at Galerie A.A. Herbrard in 1921 may also have provided another source for Matisse’s Venus. Many of Degas’s depictions of bathing women were included in the exhibition, among them Seated Woman Wiping Her Left Side” wrote Nasher Sculpture Center assistant curator Jed Morse in his “Venus in a Shell” essay on page 244 in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue.

Once again, the only problem is the two so-called Edgar Degas bronze sculptures in this exhibition dated and titled as: “1896-1911 Woman Getting out of the Bath, fragment” and as “1900-1905 Seated Woman Wiping her Left Side” are non-disclosed posthumous third-generation-removed -fakes- with counterfeit “Degas” inscriptions applied.

“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” scholarly declaration can be found on the National gallery of Art’s www.nga.gov/education/degas-11.htm website.

THE CATALOGUE BAIT
Page 177, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“Edgar Degas,
Woman Getting out of the Bath,
fragment, 1896-1911. Bronze
Noortman Master Paintings,
Maastricht. Cat 152”

THE CHECKLIST BAIT
Page 278, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“152. Woman Getting out of the Bath, fragment
1896-1911
Bronze
16 5/8 x 6 15/16 x 8 1/16 in. (42.2 x 17.6 x 20.5 cm)
Noortman Master Paintings, Maastricht
Page 177”


3. TWO POSTHUMOUS RODIN FAKES

1 OF 2 RODIN FAKES

DEAD ARTIST DON’T SCULPT
“Sculptures such as Rodin’s guilt-ridden, self-hugging Eve (fig. 60, p.62) and his Meditation” wrote the Baltimore Museum of Art’s curator Oliver Shell in his “Madeleine” essay on page 114 in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue.

The problem is the so-called Auguste Rodin sculpture titled: Meditation, in this exhibition, misrepresented with a “1885” date on page 118 in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue is disclosed at the back of this same catalogue on page 278 in the “Checklist,” as being actually reproduced/cast in “1926 “ some nine years after Auguste Rodin’s death in 1917.

THE CATALOGUE BAIT
“Page 118, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“Auguste Rodin,
Meditation,
1885, Bronze
Philadelphia Museum of Art,
Bequest of Jules E. Mastbaum,
1929. Cat. 162”

THE CHECKLIST SWITCH
Page 278, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“162. Meditation
1885 (cast 1926)
Bronze
29 x 11 x 11 in. (73.7 x 27.9 x 27.9 cm)
Philadelphia Museum of Art, Bequest of
Jules E. Mastbaum, 1929
Page 118”

2 OF 2 RODIN FAKES

COMPARE A POSTHUMOUS FAKE TO A LIFETIME REPRODUCTION
”One might compare Dance Movement Pas de Deux ‘B’ (cat.164, p.175) by Rodin with the Dance (cat 59, p.174) by Matisse” wrote the Baltimore Museum of Art’ curator Dorothy Kosinski in her “Matisse and His Contemporaries” essay on page 19 in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue.

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.”

The so-called Dance Movement Pas de Deux ‘B’, falsely attributed to Auguste Rodin, was posthumously reproduced in 1965 some 48 years after Auguste Rodin’s death in 1917. The Dance, falsely attributed to Henri Matisse, was reproduced in 1930, some twenty-four years before his death in 1954.

Does the title: "Alice in Wonderland" strike a chord?

THE CATALOGUE BAIT
Page 175, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“Auguste Rodin,
Dance Movement Pas de Deux ‘B,’
c. 1910-1911. Bronze
Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Collection, Cat. 164”

THE CHECKLIST SWITCH
Page 279, Matisse, painter as sculptor
“164. Dance Movement Pas de Deus ‘B’
c. 1910-1911 (cast 1965), Bronze
13 x 7 1/8 x 5 in. (33.0 x 18.1 x 12.7 cm)
Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Collection
Page 175”


4. AAMD ETHICAL GUIDELINES
The museums venues participating in this Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition, the Baltimore Museum of Art, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Nasher Sculpture Center and the Dallas Museum of Art are all members of the Association of Art Museum Directors.

1996 AAMD’s “STATEMENT OF MISSION”
The Association of Art Museum Directors’ “Statement of Mission,”[FN 15] 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.”

1974 ETHICAL GUIDELINES ON SCULPTURAL REPRODUCTION
Those highest professional standards began, in part, in 1974, when the Association of Art Museum Directors organization endorsed the College Art Association ethical guidelines on sculptural reproductions.[FN 16]

In part, these ethical guidelines state: “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.”

The disclosure of reproductions as reproductions was further expanded by the AAMD’s 2001 publication of their Professional Practices in Art Museums booklet.

REPRODUCTIONS MUST BE CLEARLY INDICATED AS REPRODUCTIONS
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 17]

Unfortunately, except for museum gift shops, the majority of the AAMD’s members do not do not fully disclose reproductions in museum exhibits as “reproductions.”

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.”

A LACK OF CONNOISSEURSHIP
Unfortunately, throughout the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue for this exhibition, the museum professionals, who hold themselves to be experts, have misrepresented and commingled reproductions and non-disclosed -fakes- as original works of visual ie. sculptures as if it makes no difference. Here are just five brief examples of several dozens examples found throughout this exhibition’s Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue:

Remember, reproduction, by definition, is a “general term for any copy, likeness, or counterpart of an original work of art... done in the same medium as the original or in another, and done by someone other than the creator of the original.”[FN 18]

FIRST, from the very beginning of her “The Making of Matisse’s Bronzes” essay,  on page 73, the Baltimore Museum of Art’s Objects Conservator Ann Bolton confirms Matisse bronzes are, at best, reproductions when she wrote: “The complex fabrications process used to convert an artist’s original work from clay to castings in bronze is often poorly understood , even by art historians, curators, and collectors.”

Yet, she immediately contradicts herself two lines later, when she refers to the Matisse reproductions as “Matisse sculptures” and how her essay will “offer insights into how artwork if made.”

SECOND, as documented earlier, on page 73 of her essay, the Baltimore Museum of Art’s Objects Conservator Ann Bolton wrote: “Only rarely do artists make their own bronzes; Matisse depended on others.”

Yet, six lines later, she contradicts herself again, when she wrote: “lower section of the armature is replicated in the bronze casts (cat. 132, p.55).” Replica, by definition, is “an exact copy or duplicate of a work, done in the same size and in the same medium, and done by the artist.”[FN 19]

THIRD, on page 77, this Objects Conservator wrote: “The term model here means a sculpture from which a mold is made in order that a copy, in either plaster or bronze, may be cast.”

Which amazingly sounds exactly like one definition of -cast- ie. “to reproduce an object, such as a piece of sculpture, by means of a MOLD.”[FN 20]

FOURTH, on page 87, this Objects Conservator wrote: “Matisse, unlike some sculptors, was not physically engaged in finishing his bronzes.”

FIFTH, and once again, the Objects Conservator Ann Bolton abuses the term -replica-, when she immediately wrote: “{Matisse} concern that the finished product would replicate his artfully modeled and molded surfaces and his trust in the foundries chosen to do so.”

In other words, this Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue does more to expose, at best, the lack of connoisseurship of the museum professionals who wrote it than the sixty-eight reproductions and posthumous -fakes- that are falsely attributed in this exhibition to Henri Matisse and others.

5. NEA VIOLATES CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE
MATISSE, PAINTER AS SCULPTOR EXHIBITION IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE NEA
“The exhibition is supported by an indemnity from the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities. Additional organizing support is provided by the National Endowment for the Arts” states the Baltimore Museum of Art in their August 15, 2007 “The BMA Present Major Retrospective of Matisse’s Sculpture” Press Release.

WHAT IS THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS’ MISSION?
On its’ www.nea.gov/about/Facts/AtAGlance.html website, as an independent federal agency and the official arts organization of the United States government, the National Endowment for the Arts states their “Mission” is: “a public agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education.”

U.S. CONGRESS DEFINES THE PUBLIC PURPOSES OF PUBLIC FUNDS
“Public funds provided by the Federal Government must ultimately serve public purposes the Congress defines.” states “Section 951. Declaration of findings and purposes” in the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965.

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE ARTS MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INDEMNITY
Within the National Endowment for the Arts, listed under Section 955, National Council on the Arts, there is a “National Council on the Arts” referred to as the “Council.” In part, the “Council’s” responsibilities are to “make recommendations to the {NEA} Chairperson concerning - whether to approve particular applications for financial assistance” and whether it has “artistic excellence and artistic merit.”

CONGRESS STATES WORKS OF ART CAN BE INDEMNIFIED
“The Council may make a indemnity agreement under this chapter with respect to - 1) works of art, including tapestries, paintings, sculpture, folk art, graphics and craft arts” states Section 972. Items eligible for indemnity agreements (a) under the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act.

WHAT IS A WORK OF ART?
A “work of visual art” ie. -sculpture-, under U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, 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.”

WHAT IS A REPRODUCTION?
A "derivative work,” under U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as - art reproduction,

REPRODUCTIONS CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ARTIST
The Rights of Attribution, under U.S. Copyright Law 106A, “shall not apply to any reproduction.”

FOUNDRY PROFESSIONALS MADE MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
So, as documented earlier, if the Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition is more about the foundry professionals who “likely did not consult Matisse in the casting process,” who “applied the artist’s initials when he was absent” who finished the work because Matisse “was not so inclined,” who’s “foundry techniques {seemed to be the result in the differences in patination} rather than of any particular aesthetic choice on Matisse’s part” and the false attribution of them as sculptures to Henri Matisse who “was not physically engaged in finishing his bronzes,” that would seem to fit U.S. Copyright Law’s definition of a “reproduction” which cannot be attributed to the artist, in this case Henri Matisse.

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE ARTS VIOLATES THEIR OWN GUIDELINES
Unfortunately, the [National] Council for the Arts has, in violation of Congressional mandates and law, indemnified this Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition that contains sixty-eight non-disclosed -reproductions- and -fakes-.

So, what kind of “leadership in art education,” much less “dedicat{ion} to supporting excellence in the arts, is the National Endowment for the Arts really providing when they violate their own guidelines mandated by U.S. Congress?


6. FIFTY NON-DISCLOSED MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“Matisse’s sculpture is examined within the continuum of a rich sculptural tradition, stretching from the late nineteenth-century French sculpture that served as Matisse’s first inspiration to the international work of his contemporaries. This perspective, inspired in part by the Nasher Sculpture Center’s mission and collection, provides the best view of the role of Matisse’s sculpture played within the history of twentieth-century art.” collaboratively written by the Baltimore Museum of Art director Doreen Bolger, the Dallas Museum of Art director John R. Lane and the now former Nasher Sculpture Center director Steven Nash.

That would sound very impressive, if there was any “Matisse sculpture,” with one exception, to examine in this Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition at the Baltimore Museum of Art.

These fifty non-disclosed reproductions are listed separately below in numerical order (mine), chronologically (mine), title and “cast” dates when listed. (For additional information on these reproduction go to the Matisse Reproductions Addendum)


1900’s
1. 76. Head with Necklace, 1907, (cast 1906 - 1908)
2. 4. The Serf, 1900-1903, (cast 1908)
3. 37. Torso with head (La Vie), 1906, (cast c. 1908)

1910’s
4. 5. The Serf, 1900-1903, (cast c. 1912)

1920’s
5. 24. Woman Leaning on Her Hands, (cast 1922)
6. 65. Small Crouching Nude without an Arm, 1908, (cast 1922)
7. 73. Small Head with Comb, 1907, (cast 1922)
8. 12.. Madeleine I, 1901, (cast 1925), Valsuani
9. 13. Madeleine I, 1901, (cast 1925)
10. 111. Figure with Cushion, 1918, (cast c. 1925)
11. 6. The Serf, 1900-1903, (cast before 1929)
12. 93. Henriette II, 1927, (cast 1929)
13. 113. Reclining Nude III, 1929, (cast 1929)

1930’s
14. 30. Reclining Figure with Chemise, 1906, (cast 1930)
15. 12. Seat Nude with Arms on Head, 1904, (cast 1930)
16. 45. Reclining Nude I (Aurora), 1907, (cast c. 1930)
17. 58. The Serpentine, 1909, (cast c. 1930)
18. 59. The Dance, 1911, (cast c. 1930)
19. 66. Decorative Figure, 1908, (cast 1930)
20. 68. Seated Nude Clasping Her Right Leg, 1918, (cast 1930)
21. 74. Head with Necklace, 1918, (cast 1930)
22. 75. Head with Necklace, 1907, (cast 1930)
23. 77. Tiari, 1930, (cast c. 1930)
24. 78. Tiara (with Necklace), 1930, (cast 1930)
25. 82. Jeannette II, 1910, (1930)
26. 97. Crouching Venus, 1918-1919, (cast 1930)
27. 98. Large Seated Nude, 1922-1929, (cast 1930)
28. 118. Small Thin Torso, 1929, (cast 1930)
29. 119. Small Thin Torso, 1929, (cast 1930)
30. 123. Venus in a Shell I, 1930, (cast 1931)
31. 120. Small Torso 1929, (cast before 1936)

1940’s
32. 112. Reclining Nude II, 1927, (cast 1948)

1950’s
33. 36. Standing Nude, Arms on Head, 1906, (cast c. 1950)
34. 25. Thorn Extractor, 1906, (cast 1951)
35. 32. Standing Nude, 1906, (cast 1951)
36. 4. Reclining Nude I, (Aurora), 1907 (cast 1951)
37. 86. Jeannette IV, 1912, (cast 1951)
38. 57. Torso Without Arms or Head, 1909, (cast 1952)
39. 67. Seated Nude (Olga), 1909-1910, (cast 1952)
40. 80. Jeannette I, 1910, (cast 1952)
41. 83. Jeannette II, 1910, (cast 1952)
42. 84. Jeannette III, 1911, (cast 1952)
43. 99. Large Seated Nude, 1922,-1929 (cast 1952)
44. 1. Jaguar Devouring a Hare, copy after Barye, 1899-1901, (cast 1953)
45. 15. Madeleine II, 1903, (cast 1953)
46. 81. Jeannette I, 1910, (cast 1953)
47. 94. Henriette III, 1929, (cast 1953)
48. 87. Jeannette IV, 1911, (cast 1954)
49. 88. Jeannette V, 1913, (cast 1954)
50. 89. Jeannette V, 1913, (cast 1954)


7. FIVE OTHER NON-DISCLOSED REPRODUCTIONS

1900’s or later
51. 163. Auguste Rodin, Jean d’Aire, from the Burghers of Calais 1895 (cast early 20th century)

WHY IS THIS RODIN A REPRODUCTION?
Simply because Auguste Rodin understood those bronzes reproduced from his original plasters were reproductions. This is confirmed on page 285 in the former Musee Rodin curator Monique Laurent’s “Observations on Rodin and His Founders” essay, published in the National Gallery of Art’s published 1981 Rodin Rediscovered catalogue. The former Musee Rodin curator Monique Laurent documents that the Auguste Rodin’s Will stated: “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.”

1948
52. 156. Jacques Lipchitz, Gertrude Stein, 1920, (cast before 1948)

WHY IS THIS LIPCHITZ A REPRODUCTION?
On the Marlborough Gallery’s www.marlboroughgallery.com/artists/lipchitz/bio.html website, it states that in 1942 Jacques Lipchitz’s “starts to cast with the Modern Art Foundry in Long Island City, New York.” On the Modern Art Foundry’s http://www.modernartfoundry.com/services.html website it states: “In our long history, we produced over 15,000 sculptures - large and small, for artists like Lipchitz.” This is a red flag since only a sculptor can create sculptures, foundries can only {re}produce them.

1950’s
53. 154. Alberto Giacometti, Headless Woman, 1932-1936, (cast c. 1955)
54. 145. Alexander Archipenko, Torso in Space, also called Floating Torso, 1935, (cast 1957-1958)

WHY IS THIS ARCHIPENKO A REPRODUCTION?
On Artfact.com’s http://www.artfact.com/catalog/viewLot.cfm?lotCode=s23vEY62&l... website, it states: “the casting of the bronze edition of {Archipenko’s} Blue Dancer did not begin until 1960... The casting was begun under the artist's supervision and was finished after his death.” On the Modern Art Foundry’s http://www.modernartfoundry.com/services.html website it states: “In our long history, we produced over 15,000 sculptures - large and small, for artists like... Archipenko.” Once again, this is a red flag since only a sculptor can create sculptures, foundries can only {re}produce them.

1973
55. 160. Pablo Picasso, Head of a Woman, 1931, (cast 1973)

WHY IS THIS PICASSO A REPRODUCTION?
Picasso did not create the majority of the ceramics attributed to him and Picasso, in hundreds, if not thousands of cases participated in and profited from the misrepresentation of reproductions as lithographs. So, one would have to suspend disbelief that Picasso participated in the laborious casting of his work in the last year of his life. The documentation to this fact is too long and numerous to list.


1 OF 6 SCULPTURES
“Henri Matisse,
Madeleine I, 1901, Painted Plaster
Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas. Cat. 14”
Page 120, Matisse, painter as sculptor


8. ONE MATISSE SCULPTURE
Madeleine I is one of the few sculptures by Matisse of which plaster versions survive. One of the most notable examples is the painted plaster in the Nasher Collection, its distinct mold lines bearing the traces of Matisse’s process. The artist is said to have taken the piece molds himself and produced three plaster casts” wrote the Baltimore Museum of Art’s curator Oliver Shell in his “Madeleine” essay on page 116 in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue. In this so-called Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition, there is only -ONE- Henri Matisse sculpture titled Madeleine I.

Who knew it would be the only Henri Matisse sculpture in the Matisse, painter as a sculpture exhibition?

Additionally, some at the Baltimore Museum of Art don’t think well of Henri Matisse’s skill as a sculptor.

MATISSE - AMATEURISH EXECUTION
“One of the extant plasters is that of Madeleine I (cat.14, 0.120) in the Nasher Collection (fig. 18). The original sculpture was modeled in 1903, when Matisse was probably too poor to hire a mold maker. The plaster exhibits many piece-mold lines with strange angles that, to a trained eye, appear poorly aligned, and the mold pieces seem to have slightly displaced the soft material they molded, defects that perhaps Bertault feared when he carefully covered his bases with the description ‘direct sur la terre’ in his bill. Matisse himself might have made this mold, which could account for the amateurish execution.” wrote the Baltimore Museum of Art’s Objects Conservator Ann Bolton in her “The Making of Matisse Bronzes” essay on page 75 in the Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue.

FOUNDRY PROFESSIONALS EXECUTION
So, in reality, is this Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition more about the foundry professionals who “likely did not consult Matisse in the casting process,”[FN 21] who “applied the artist’s initials when he was absent”[FN 22] who finished the work because Matisse “was not so inclined,”[FN 23] who’s “foundry techniques {seemed to be the result in the differences in patination} rather than of any particular aesthetic choice on Matisse’s part”[FN 24] and falsely attributing them to Matisse who “was not physically engaged in finishing his bronzes.”[FN 25]


9. FIVE OTHER SCULPTURES

2 OF 6 SCULPTURES
“{Cat.}146. Antoine Barye
Jaguar Devouring a Hare
1850 (casting date unknown), Bronze
17 1/4 x 19 1/2 x 40 1/16 in. (43.8 x 49.5 x 101.8 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, Purchased
in Honor of Stiles Tuttle Colwill on his
50th Birthday with funds contributed by
his Friends and Colleagues. BMA 2003-199
Page 103, 104”

Antonie Louis Barye died in 1875. In 1876 Ferdinand Barbedienne purchased 125 Barye models and reproduced them through the turn of the century before transferring the rights to a Collector Zoubaloff who eventually donated them to the Louvre. During that time the Barbedienne foundry edited them into different sizes and some were marked with FB seal which according to Barye expert Andre Fabious was used by Barbedienne foundry between “1878 to 1889.”[FN 26] Therefore, the “Jaguar devorant un lievre” or Jaguar Devouring a Hare may be a Antoine Louis Barye 44 cm. high lifetime cast or a posthumous 44 cm. high reproduction by Barbedenne foundry.

3 OF 6 SCULPTURES
“{Cat.} 147. Emile-Antionia Bourdelle
Large Bacchante
1907
Plaster on a pedestal of sculpted wood
72 1/2 x 20 1/2 x 6 1/4 in. (184.2 x 52.1 x 15.9 cm)
Dallas Museum of Art, General Acquisitions Fund
Page 178”

BACCHANTE AU RAISINS
On page 133 of Pierre Kjellberg’s Bronzes of the 19th Century catalogue, is listed an Antoine Bourdelle Bacchante au raisins. 83.5 cm. high bronze cast by Alexis Rudier foundry. Another bronze cast of La Bacchante can be found in the Matsukat Collection at the National Museum of Western Art in Tokyo. On the museum’s www.artmuseums.go.jp website, it is described as: La Bacchante, 1897 bronze 83 x 52 x 22, Signed and titled back of base: La Bacchante/BOURDELLE Foundry mark lower right base: Alexis Rudier/Fondeur.Paris.”

So, was this plaster used to cast these bronzes? Usually a plaster used for casting would show wear and alteration from the molds application and removal. Additionally, were these inscriptions from prior castings applied in this plaster. Finally, has the plaster been restored for aesthetic reasons, whiting and such? These questions and their answers may further confidence in its’ authenticity.

4 OF 6 SCULPTURES
{Cat.}148. Constantin Brancusi
Torso of a Young Girl
c. 1923
White marble on limestone block
13 3/4 x 9 3/4 x 6 in. (34.9 x 24.8 x 15.2 cm)
Base: 6 1/8 x 9 x 8 7/8 in. (15.6 x 22.9 x 22.5 cm)
Philadelphia Museum of Art, A.E. Gallatin
Collection, 1952
Page 240

5 OF 6 SCULPTURES
{Cat.} 153. Charles Despiau
Adolescent Girl (Diana)
1928
Red wax on plaster base
28 x 9 x 8 in. (71.1 x 22.9 x 20.3 cm)
Charles Janoray, LLC New York
Page 241

6 OF 6 SCULPTURES
{Cat.} 155. Henri Laurens
Little Seated Nude
1932
Terra-cotta
H: 12 13/16 in. (32.5 cm)
Musee Matisse, Nice; formerly Collection
of Henri Matisse; Bequest of Madame
Henri Matisse, 1960
* Dallas only
Page 191


10. AMERICA IS NOT A FRENCH PROVINCE
There are quite a few in the museum and academic industry[FN 27] who will defend and have defended the misrepresentation of reproductions, much less posthumous reproductions, as “works of visual art” ie. “sculptures” by making blanket statements that these reproduced objects are originals in exhibits in American museums because they adhere to current “French Law” or that nineteenth-century standards are applicable.

Well, America is not a French province and this is the twentieth-first century.

U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW - WHAT IS A SCULPTURE?
As noted earlier, 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 - WHAT IS A REPRODUCTION?
Additionally, as noted earlier, under U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, a -derivative work- is defined as: “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as {an} art reproduction.” Furthermore, under U.S. Copyright 106A, it states the “Rights of Attribution - shall not apply to any reproduction.”

In otherwords, under U.S. Copyright Law, reproductions cannot be “attributed” to a living artist, much less a dead one.

FRENCH DECREE - FULL DISCLOSURE OF REPRODUCTIONS
The March 3, 1981 French decree no. 81.255, Article 9, in part, states: “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’.”[FN 28]

So, whether it is U.S. Copyright Law or a French decree, reproductions are -reproductions-.


11. U.S. CUSTOMS AND ALICE IN WONDERLAND
In regards to U.S. Customs, welcome to Alice in Wonderland.

U.S. CUSTOMS’ DEFINITION OF SCULPTURE
“Sculptures may be in any material (stone, reconstituted stone, terra-cotta, wood, ivory, metal, wax, etc.), in the round, in relief or intaglio (statues, busts, figurines, groups, representations of animals, etc., including reliefs for architectuaral purposes). {and} may be reproduced by various processes including the following: {1} The artist carving the work directly from hard materials, or {2} The artist modeling soft materials into figures which are then cast in bronze or plaster, or are fired or otherwise the artist in marble or other hard materials” is additionally stated by U.S. Customs’ August 2004 Informed Compliance publication titled: “Works of Art, Collector’s Pieces, Antiques, and Other Cultural Property,” under the subtitle “Original Sculptures and Statuary, in Any Material.

REPLICATED INSTEAD OF REPRODUCED SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED
On page 350 in Ralph Mayer’s The Harper Collins Dictionary of Art Terms and Techniques, -replica- is by definition “in the fine arts, an exact copy or duplicate of a work, done in the same size and in the same medium, and done by the artist who created the original... The word is sometimes loosely used for any copy {ie., reproduction} of a work done in the same medium by someone other than the creator of the original.”

So, as long as the noun -artist- is followed by the verb -replicated-, much less reproduced, whether carved, modeled, cast or fired by that artist, it would be their original works of visual art ie., sculpture.

U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW - WHAT IS A REPRODUCTION?
This perspective is under confirmed U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, where a “derivative work” is defined as: “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as {an} art reproduction.”

REPRODUCTIONS CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO AN ARTIST
Additionally, under U.S. Copyright 106A, it states: “{the} Rights of Attribution - shall not apply to any reproduction.”

ARTIST’S CLAY PLACED IN A MUSEUM SOMEDAY FOR STUDY PURPOSES?
Then, in referencing the artist’s clay maquette, U.S. Customs oddly states: “'clay form’ is seldom sold, but is usually destroyed after it has served for molding a very limited number of copies decided in advance by the artist, or it is placed in a museum for study purposes.”

Odd, in that most artists may want to be famous and have their work in a museum someday but would it be arrogantly presumptuous to an extreme for any artist to think any museum would want their work, much less to study it?

ORIGINAL WHETHER BY THE ARTIST OR BY ANOTHER?
Now U.S. Customs regulations go from the ridiculous to the sublime when it states: “The heading (9703) “Original Sculptures and Statuary, in any material) therefore covers not only the original models made by the sculptor but also copies and reproductions of those models made by the second process described above, whether these are made by the sculptor himself or by another artist.”

BY THE SCULPTOR OR NOT, SAME SIZE OR NOT, ALIVE OR DEAD - ORIGINAL?
Unbelievable as it sounds that an artist can get credit for something someone else reproduced but U.S. Customs really lets the -cat out of the bag- when they state: “Heading 9703 covers not only original sculpture made by the sculptor, but also the first 12 casting, replicas or reproductions made from a sculptors’s original work or model, by the sculptor himself or by another artist, with or without a change in scale and whether or not the sculptor is alive at the time of castings, replicas or reproductions are completed”

This U.S. Customs’ statement has nothing to do with defining what is an original but more so with its’ dismantling.

ARTIST OR SKILLED CRAFTSMEN
Now that the U.S. Customs have lowered the concept of -original- to next to nothing, they now state: “The term ‘original’ has been judicially defined as original in design, conception and execution, as distinguished from the works of skilled craftsmen that are representative of the decorative or industrial arts.”

The U.S. Customs regulation’s definition of sculpture is not only wrong but subjective. One person trash is another person’s sculpture.

INDEPENDENT DEFINITION OF ORIGINAL
In the J. Paul Getty Trust’s www.getty.edu website that “supports limited research and cataloging efforts,” under their Getty Vocabulary Program, -original- is defined as: “Use to distinguish from reproductions or other types of copies.”

In other words, by definition, an -original- work of visual art would never be trivialized or commingled with -reproductions- as is they were the same, much less interchangable, but that doesn’t stop U.S. Customs.

ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS OR PUBLICLY EXHIBITED WORKS MAKES ONE A SCULPTOR?
U.S. Customs states: “The standard used in determining whether a creator or a work is a professional sculptor rather than a skilled craftsman is that he be a graduate of a course in sculpture at a recognized school of art (free fine art, not industrial art) or that he be recognized in art circles as a professional sculptor by the acceptance of his work in public exhibitions limited to the free fine arts. Thus, one who has not received the formal education may nevertheless be recognized as a professional sculptor by the merit of his publicly exhibited works.”

Be careful you Van Goghs of the artworld, unless you have academic credentials or are popular, you not a sculptor, rather, at best, a “skilled craftsman.”

BRANCUSI SCULPTURE JUST A TAXABLE BIT OF METAL
This bias perspective is documented on the art-history2.tripod.com/20centsculpture.htm website, which stated: “Brancusi's efforts towards simplification owe much to Rodin's truncations of the figure - "Torso of young man", "Torso of young girl", Mlle Rogany (1913). A move into animal forms gave "Bird in Space" (1919). In 1926 to 1928 Brancusi was involved in a law suit with the U.S Customs service which refused to admit "Bird in Space" duty free as a work of art. They insisted that it was a taxable bit of metal, the official view demanding it should have head, feathers, legs and beak.”

This is further discussed, on the Yale University’s webtext.library.yale.edu/xml2html/ beinecke.MCBRIDE.con.html website it states: “Henry McBride, the dean of American art critics, wrote for The New York Sun (1913-49),The Dial (1920-29), and The Art News (1950-59), and edited Creative Art (1928-32). He was one of the first American critics to recognize and appreciate the modernist movement. - In fact, McBride's testimony in 1927 that "Bird in Flight" was a work of art helped dissuade U.S. Customs from charging Brancusi extra duty on his sculpture as raw material.”

U.S CUSTOMS NONSENSICAL AND BIAS PERSPECTIVE IS MONETARILY DRIVEN
U.S. Customs nonsensical and bias perspective for monetary considerations is confirmed when it states: “The limit of sculptures that we allow under heading 9703 in an edition is 12. The reason 12 is used (previously 10) is that fine art is normally very limited. If an artist such as Edgar Degas creates 15 of a particular sculpture only the first 12 or cast numbers 1 through 12 will be allowed in duty free.”

For U.S. Customs regulations to cite Edgar Degas as an example of editions in sculpture, much less cast in bronze, not only impeaches their scholarship but their credibility.

Edgar Degas never cast in bronze or in sculpture editions.

BAD TO WORSE
Furthermore, U.S. Customs states: “When an artist such as Salvadore Dali produces more than 50 in an edition, it is no longer fine art and none will be allowed duty free.”

U.S. Customs may charge duty on any import, mandated by law, but there arbitrary number of twelve is contradicted by U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, where 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.”

LITHOGRAPHS MEANS WHOLLY EXECUTED BY HAND BY THE ARTIST
Respectfully, whoever wrote these passages on sculpture for U.S. Customs may be, at best, extremely uninformed and bias and yet, under the same U.S. Customs regulations, it states: “The expression “original engravings, prints and lithographs” means impressions produced directly, in black and white or in color, of one or of several plates wholly executed by hand by the artist, irrespective of the process or of the material employed by him, but excluding any mechanical or photomechanical process.”

DOUBLE TALK AND DOUBLE STANDARDS
So, if a lithograph, under U.S. Customs regulations, must be “wholly executed by hand by the artist” then why is it any different for sculpture?

Unfortunately, in America, like any legislation, there are special interests who many times influence and/or wrote the very law they want passed. Those artists who create original lithographs, should be thankful, in part, that those special interests did not focus on distorting that part of U.S. Customs just cited. Those artists would find it hard enough to compete with those living artists who misrepresent reproductions as lithographs. Just imagine how disconcerting to an extreme it would be for those artists who create in the labor intensive original creative medium of lithography, if that kind of deception and fraud was legitimized by legislation.

12. MARYLAND STATUTES 14-501 TO 14-505
The Baltimore Museum of Art is located in the State of Maryland.


As documented in this news release the Baltimore Museum of Art is misrepresenting non-disclosed reproductions and posthumous -fakes- as “sculptures” by Henri Matisse, Auguste Rodin, Edgar Degas and others in their Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition for the price of admission.

What if any laws in Maryland may be applicable?

Under Maryland Statutes 14-503 (c), it states: "If a fine print is described as a 'reproduction,' the information required by § 14-504 of this subtitle is not required to be disclosed, unless the print allegedly was published in a limited edition, an edition of numbered or signed prints, or any combination of them.”[FN 29]

Additionally, under Maryland Statutes 14-502, it states: “ This subtitle does not apply to: (1) A fine print printed before July 2, 1974; or (2) A fine print offered for sale or sold at retail or wholesale for: (i) $25 or less, if unframed; or (ii) $40 or less, if framed.”

Granted, Baltimore Museum of Art is not selling two-dimensional reproductions for $25 or more, nor does the $15 price per adult admission cross that $25 threshold mandated by Maryland law but should the Baltimore Museum of Art and other participating museums argue that they be held to a lesser standard of disclosure than required by all Maryland artists and art dealers?

Furthermore, under Maryland Statutes 14-501 (b) , the following terms are defined: "’Artist’ means any person who conceived or created: (1) The master image for a fine print; or (2) The master image which served as the model for a fine print. (c) (1) "Fine print" means a printed image on paper or any other suitable substance which has been taken off a plate by printing, stamping, casting, or any other process commonly used in the graphic arts. (2) "Fine print" includes an engraving, etching, woodcut, lithograph, or serigraph. (g) "Signed print" means a fine print autographed by the artist, whether it was signed or unsigned in the plate.”

Those definitions, in the Maryland Statutes 14-501, for “artist” and “signed” would seem to impeach the -Alice In Wonderland- perception promoted by the Baltimore Museum of Art and other participating museums that dead artist can “sign,” much less apply their “initials” to anything, much less that reproductions and posthumous -FAKES- can be considered “Matisse,” “Degas” and “Rodin” sculptures.


13. WIRE FRAUD AND 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.”

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, much less a museum, that misrepresents reproductions, much less posthumous -fakes- with posthumously applied counterfeit signatures or inscriptions, as original “work of visual of arts” ie. sculptures for potential admission fees-city-state,-federal grants-corporate sponsorships and gift shop sales, 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-.


14. BALTIMORE MUSEUM OF ART’S AVARICE
The Baltimore Museum of Art’s representation, for their Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition in their August 15, 2007 “The BMA Presents Major Retrospective of Matisse’s Sculpture” Press Release, is: “the first major exhibition of Henri Matisse’s sculpture in the U.S. in nearly 40 years.”

WHAT IS 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.”

For the Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition, the Baltimore Museum of Art’s is offering a contract with the public to view the exhibition for the admission fees of $15 for each adult, $12 for each Senior, $10 for each Students and $6 for each Ages 6-18 child.

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.”

Unfortunately, in reality, the disclosure is, as documented, this Matisse, painter as sculptor exhibition is riddled with non-disclosed reproductions and non-disclosed -fakes- and only one Matisse sculpture.

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.”

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 exhibit 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?
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.”

So, would a museum’s misrepresentation of non-disclosed reproductions and posthumous -fakes- as “sculptures,” for monetary considerations, be committing “a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment?”

In other words, it is called “greed for money”[FN 30] which is one definition of -avarice-.


15. CONCLUSION
What needs to be accomplished is the full and honest disclosure of all reproductions as -reproductions- by all museums, auction houses and art dealers. If the Baltimore Museum of Art will give full and honest disclosure for all reproductions as: -reproductions- it would allow museum patrons to give informed consent on whether they wish to attend an exhibit of reproductions, much less pay the price of admission

But if these objects are not reproductions by definition and law, but posthumous -fakes- with or without counterfeit signatures or inscriptions posthumously applied to create the illusion the artist created it, much less approved and signed it, then serious consequences of law may come into play for those who chose to misrepresent these -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.





PRINCIPALS
Matisse: Painter as Sculptor exhibition is co-organized by The Baltimore Museum of Art, Dallas Museum of Art, and the Nasher Sculpture Center.

“The exhibition tour opened in Dallas at both the DMA and the Nasher (January 21–April 29, 2007), and is presented at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (June 9–September 16, 2007) and The Baltimore Museum of Art (October 28, 2007–February 3, 2008).

“The exhibition is curated by Jay Fisher, BMA Deputy Director of Curatorial Affairs and Senior Curator of Prints, Drawings & Photographs; Dr. Dorothy Kosinski, Senior Curator of Painting and Sculpture and The Barbara Thomas Lemmon Curator of European Art at the Dallas Museum of Art; and Dr. Steven Nash, (former) Director of the Nasher Sculpture Center; with the assistance of Dr. Oliver Shell, BMA Associate Curator of European Painting & Sculpture; Dr. Heather MacDonald, The Lillian and James H. Clark Assistant Curator of Painting and Sculpture at the Dallas Museum of Art; and Jed Morse, Assistant Curator at the Nasher Sculpture Center.”[FN 31]



FOOTNOTES
1. August 15, 2007 Baltimore Museum of Art’s “BMA Present Major Retrospective of Matisse’s Sculpture” Press Release.
2. Ibid
3. Ibid “The exhibition is supported by an indemnity from the Federal Council on the Arts. Additional organizing support is provided by the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities, The Richard C. von Hess Foundation and The Pierre and Maria-Gaetana Matisse Foundation.”
4. Ibid “The national tour of Matisse: Painter as Sculptor is presented by Bank of America, the exhibitions’ exclusive corporate partner. Presentation in Baltimore is generously sponsored by the The Rouse Company Foundation and Jeanette C. and Stanley H. Kimmel.”
5. www.artbma.org/
6. page 670, Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, ISBN 0-314-22864-0
7. August 15, 2007 Baltimore Museum of Art’s “BMA Present Major Retrospective of Matisse’s Sculpture” Press Release.
8. page 267, Matisse, painter as sculptor catalogue ISBN-10: 0300115415 ISBN-13: 978-0300115413
9. Ibid
10. August 15, 2007 Baltimore Museum of Art’s “BMA Present Majore Retrospective of Matisse’s Sculpture” Press Release.
11. “The act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine.”
“While it is true that there is a distinction between fraud and forgery, and forgery contains some elements that re not included in fraud, forgeries are a species of fraud. In essence, the crime of forgery involves the making, altering, or completing of an instrument by someone other than the ostensible maker or drawer or an agent of the ostensible maker or drawer.” 37 C.J.S. Forgery 2, at 66 (1997). Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, page 661, ISBN 0-314-22864-0
12. page 617, Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, ISBN 0-314-22864-0
13. page 73, Matisse painter as sculptor catalogue. Ann Bolton’s “The Making of Matisse’s Bronzes” in
14. www.nashersculpturecenter.org/index.cfm?FuseAction=Object&ObjectID=213
15. www.aamd.org/AAMDmission.shtml
16. www.collegeart.org/caa/ethics/sculpture.html “A Statement on Standards for Sculptural Reproduction and Preventive Measures to Combat Unethical Casting in Bronze Approved by the CAA Board of Directors, April 27, 1974. Endorsed by the Association of Art Museum Directors and the Art Dealers Association of America.”
17. Published in 2001 by the Association of Art Museum Directors, 41 East 65th Street, New York 10021 ISBN 1-880974-02-9
18. page 350, Ralph Mayer’s The Harper Collins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques, ISBN 0-06-461012-8 (pbk.)
19. Ibid
20. Ibid, page 70
21. page 78, Matisse painter as sculptor catalogue, Ann Bolton’s “The Making of Matisse’s Bronzes” essay.
22. Ibid, page 83
23. Ibid
24. Ibid, page 85
25. Ibid
26. page 64-71, Pierre Kjellberg’s Bronzes of the 19th Century ISBN 0-88740-629-7
27. In a April 2, 2004 Buffalo News “Letter to Editor” posted on their www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040402/ 1020607.asp website the Albright_Knox Art Gallery’s Curator of Modern Art Kenneth Wayne, in part, wrote “All works in the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation Collection are unquestionably original Rodins, cast in bronze from the artist’s sculpted clay and plaster models. The bronze casts on view were created either during Rodin’s lifetime by his own hired craftsmen, or after his death.”
In a Globe and Mail’s published June 24, 2005 “Rodin’s cast of hundreds” article by Danelle Egan, Vancouver Art Gallery curator Ian Thom did admit that “the hand of Rodin did not touch these sculptures.” However, he added, “that’s not unusual because 19th-century sculptors hired technicians to finish the sculptures.”
28. On page 281, Jean Chatelain’s “Original in Sculpture,” 1981 Rodin Rediscovered, ISBN 0-89468-001-3 (pbk)
Sculpture” Press Release.
29. http://mlis.state.md.us/cgi-win/web_statutes.exe?gcl&14-501
30. page 22 in the Webster’s New World Pocket Dictionary
31. August 15, 2007 Baltimore Museum of Art’s “BMA Present Major Retrospective of Matisse’s


MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS ADDENDUM
1 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“76. Head with Necklace
1907 (cast 1906 - 1908), Bingen and Costenoble
Bronze, sand cast 00/10, Duthuit no. 34
H: 5 9/16 in. (14.1 cm)
Direction des Musees de France, Gift of Jean
Matisse, on deposit at Musee Matisse, Nice, 1978.
* Baltimore only
Page 272”

2 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“4. The Serf
1900-1903 (cast 1908), bingen and Costenoble
Bronze, sand cast 2/10, Duthuit no. 6
36 1/8 x 11 1/4 x 13 1/16 in. (91.8 x 28.6 x 33.2 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone
Collection, formed by Dr. Claribel Cone
and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore, Maryland.
BMA 1950.422 * Baltimore only
Page 266”

3 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“37. Torso with head (La Vie)
1906 (cast c. 1908), Bingen and Costenoble
Bronze, sand cast 2/10, Duthuit no. 23
9 1/8 x 4 x 3 in. (23.3 x 10.2 x 7.6 cm)
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Alfred Stieglitz Collection, 1949
Page 151”

4 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“5. The Serf
1900-1903 (cast c. 1912), F. Costenoble
Bronze, sand cast, 5/10, Duthuit no. 6
36 3/8 x 13 1/4 x 12 3/8 in. (92.4 x 33.7 x 31.4 cm)
Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas
* Dallas only
Page 266

5 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“24. Woman Leaning on Her Hands
1905 (cast 1922), Godard
Bronze, sand cast 5/10, Duthuit no. 17
4 7/8 x 9 3/8 x 6 3/8 in. (12.4 x 23.8 x 16.2 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone Collection,
formed by Dr. Claribel Cone and Miss Etta Cone
of Baltimore, Maryland.
BMA 1950.4224
Page 127, 128”

6 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“65. Small Crouching Nude without an Arm
1908 (cast 1922), Godard
Bronze, sand cast 6/10, Duthuit no. 38
5 x 2 5/8 x 3 5/8 in. (12.7 x 6.1 x 9.2 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone
Collection, formed by Dr. Claribel Cone and
Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore, Maryland.
BMA 1950.432
Page 184, 185”

7 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“73. Small Head with Comb
1907 (cast 1922), Godard
Bronze, sand cast 6/10, Duthuit no. 33
3 1/16 x 2 3/16 x 2 1/2 in. (7.8 x 5.6 x 6.4 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone
Collection, formed by Dr. Claribel Cone
and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore, Maryland
BMA 1950. 427
Page 194”

8 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“12.. Madeleine I
1901 (cast 1925), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 3/10, Duthuit no. 8
23 1/4 x 8 3/4 x 7 1/8 in. (59.1 x 22.2 x 18.1 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone Collection,
formed by Dr. Claribel Cone and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore, Maryland.
BMA 1950.33
* Dallas and Baltimore only
Page 267”

9 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“13. Madeleine I
1901 (cast 1925), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 5/10, Duthuit no. 8
21 1/2 x 7 5/8 x 6 3/4 in. (54.6 x 19.4 x 17.2 cm)
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art,
Bequest of Harriet Lane Levy
* San Francisco only
Page 115”

10 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“111. Figure with Cushion
1918 (cast c. 1925), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 2/10, Duthuit no. 62
5 1/4 x 10 1/2 x 4 1/8 in. (13.3 x 26.7 x 10.5 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone
Collection, formed by Dr. Claribel Cone
and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore, Maryland.
BMA 1950.433
Page 230”

11 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“6. The Serf
1900-1903 (cast before 1929), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast, 6/10, Duthuit no. 6
36 1/8 x 14 7/8 x 13 in. (91.8 x 37.8 x 33.0 cm)
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art,
Bequest of Harriet Lane Levy
* San Francisco only
Page 107, 109

12 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“93. Henriette II
1927 (cast 1929), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 6/10, Duthuit no. 70
13 x 9 x 12 in. (33.0 x 22.9 x 30.5 cm)
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art,
Bequest of Harriet Lane Levy
Page 212”

13 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
”113. Reclining Nude III
1929 (cast 1929), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 5/10, Duthuit no. 71
7 3/8 x 18 1/2 x 5 13/16 in. (18.7 x 47.0 x 14.8 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone
Collection, formed by Dr. Claribel Cone
and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore, Maryland.
BMA 1950.437
Page 229”

14 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“30. Reclining Figure with Chemise
1906 (cast 1930), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 5/10, Duthuit no. 19
5 1/2 x 11 7/8 x 5 7/8 in. (14.0 x 30.2 x 14.9 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, Gift of
Mr. and Mrs. Albert Lion, Jr. BMA 1955.164
Page 133, 134”

15 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“12. Seat Nude with Arms on Head
1904 (cast 1930), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 2/10, Duthuit no. 15
13 3/4 x 6 3/8 x 7 1/8 in. (34.9 x 16.2 x 18.1 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone Collection,
formed by Dr. Claribel Cone and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore,
Maryland.
BMA 1950.431
Page 148, 149”

16 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“45. Reclining Nude I (Aurora)
1907 (cast c. 1930), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 6/10, Duthuit no. 30
13 9/16 x 19 5/8 x 11 in. (34.4 x 49.9 x 27.9 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone Collection,
formed by Dr. Claribel Cone and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore,
Maryland.
BMA 1950.429
* Baltimore only
Page 153, 155, 156”

17 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“58. The Serpentine
1909 (cast c. 1930), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 3/10, Duthuit no. 46
21 1/2 x 11 1/2 x 7 1/2 in. (54.6 x 29.2 x 19.1 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, Gift of a
Group of Friends, BMA 1950.93
Page 170, 172

18 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“59. The Dance
1911 (cast c. 1930), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 1/10, Duthuit no. 54
16 3/4 x 7 1/8 x 7 3/8 in. (42.5 x 18.1 x 18.7 cm)
Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.;
Gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn, 1966
Page 174”

19 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“66. Decorative Figure
1908 (cast 1930), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 2/10, Duthuit no. 41
28 3/8 x 20 3/8 x 12 3/8 in. (72.1 x 51.8 x 31.4 cm)
Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas
Page 181”

20 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“68. Seated Nude Clasping Her Right Leg
1918 (cast 1930), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 6/10, Duthuit no. 61
9 x 8 5/8 x 6 in. (22.9 x 21.9 x 15.2 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone
Collection, formed by Dr. Claribel Cone
and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore, Maryland.
BMA 1950.434
Page 186, 187”

21 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“74. Head with Necklace
1918 (cast 1930), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 8/10, Duthuit no. 34
5 15/16 x 5 1/8 x 4 3/8 in. (15.1 x 13.0 x 11.1 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone
Collection, formed by Dr. Claribel Cone
and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore, Maryland.
BMA 1950.428
*Baltimore only
Page 272”

22 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“75. Head with Necklace
1907 (cast 1930), Valsuani 9/10, Duthuit no. 34
5 7/8 x 5 1/8 x 3 3/4 in (14.9 x 13.0 x 9.5 cm)
Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas
* Dallas and San Francisco only
Page 193”

23 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“77. Tiari
1930 (cast c. 1930), Valsuani 3/10, Duithuit no. 78
8 x 5 1/2 x 5 1/8 in. (20.3 x 14.0 x 13.0 cm)
Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas
Page 195”

24 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“78. Tiaria (with Necklace)
1930 (cast 1930), Valsuani
Bronze with gold and silver necklace,
lost-wax cast 1/10, Duihuit no. 78
8 x 5 5/8 x 7 5/8 in. (20.3 x 14.3 x 19.4 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone
Collection, formed by Dr. Claribel Cone
and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore, Maryland.
BMA 1950.438
Pages 196, 197”

25 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“82. Jeannette II
1910 (1930), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 5/10, Duthuit no. 51
10 1/2 x 12 x 11 in. (26.7 x 30.5 x 27.9 cm)
Los Angeles County Museum of Art; Gift of the Art
Museum Council in memory of Penelope Rigby
Dallas and San Francisco only
Page 201”

26 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“97. Crouching Venus
1918-1919 (cast 1930), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 6/10, Duthuit no. 63
10 3/8 x 9 7/16 x 5f 5/8 in. (26.4 x 24.0 x 14.3 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone
Collection, formed by Dr. Claribel Cone
and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore, Maryland.
BMA 1950.435
Page 220”

27 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
”98. Large Seated Nude
1922-1929 (cast 1930), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 7/10, Duthuit no. 64
30 3/16 x 31 5/8 x 14 in. (76.7 x 80.3 x 35.6 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone
Collection, formed by Dr. Claribel Cone
and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore, Maryland.
BMA 1950.436
* Baltimore only
Page 217”

28 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“118. Small Thin Torso
1929 (cast 1930), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 1/3, Duthuit no. 73
3 1/8 in. (7.9 cm)
Private Collection
* Baltimore only
Page 276”

29 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“119. Small Thin Torso
1929 (cast 1930), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 3/3, Duthuit no. 73
H: 3 1/8 in. (8 cm)
Direction des Musees de France, Gift of Jean
Matisse, on deposit at the Musee Matisse, Nice, 1978
* Dallas and San Francisco only
Page 236, 238”

30 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“123. Venus in a Shell I
1930 (cast 1931), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 3/10, Duthuit no. 79
12 1/16 x 7 x 8 in. (30.6 x 17.8 x 20.3 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone
Collection, formed by Dr. Claribel Cone
and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore, Maryland.
BMA 1950.439
Page 245, 246, 248”

31 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“120. Small Torso
1929 (cast before 1936), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 1/10, Duthuit no. 74
3 7/8 in. (9.8 cm)
Pivate collection, New York
Page 235”

32 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“112. Reclining Nude II
1927 (cast 1948), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 8/10, Duhuit no. 69
11 1/4 x 19 3/4 x 6 in. (28.6 x 50.2 x 15.2 cm)
The Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Gift of
the Dayton-hudson Corporation
Page 228”

33 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“36. Standing Nude, Arms on Head
1906 (cast c. 1950), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 3/10, Duthuit no. 22
10 1/4 x 5 1/4 x 4 1/4 (26.0 x 13.3 x 10.8 cm)
Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas
Page 144”

34 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“25. Thorn Extractor
1906 (cast 1951), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 7/10, Duthuit no. 26
8 1/2 x 5 7/8 x 6 in (21.5 x 14.9 x 15.2 cum)
Collection, Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto;
Gift of Sam and Ayala Zacks, 1970
Page 129”

35 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“32. Standing Nude
1906 (cast 1951), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 0/10, Duthuit no. 20
19 x 5 x 6 1/2 in. (83.0 x 12.7 x 16.5 cm)
The metropolitan Museum of Art, New York;
The Pierre and Maria-Gaetana Matisse
Collection, 2002
Page 137, 140”

36 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“4. Reclining Nude I (Aurora)
1907 (cast 1951), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 10/10, Duthuit no. 30
13 1/16 x 19 3/4 x 11 in. (33.2 x 50. 2 x 27.9 cm)
Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas
* Dallas and San Francisco only
Page 269”

37 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“86. Jeannette IV
1912 (cast 1951), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 4/10, Duthuit no. 53
24 x 11 x 11 in. (61.0 x 27.9 x 27.9 cm)
Los Angeles County Museum of Art; Gift
of the Art Museum Council in memory
of Penelope Rigby
* Dallas and San Francisco only
Page 203”

38 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“57. Torso Without Arms or Head
1909 (cast 1952), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 8/10, Duthuit no. 44
9 11/16 x 2 11/16 x 11/16 in. (24.6 x 6.8 x 6.8 cm)
Private collection
Page 176”

39 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“67. Seated Nude (Olga)
1909-1910 (cast 1952), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 6/10, Duthuit no. 49
H: 16 7/8 in. (43 cm)
Private collection, Courtesy of Ivor Braka, Ltd.,
London
Page 183”

40 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“80. Jennette I
1910 (cast 1952), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 4/10, Duthuit no. 50
12 7/8 x 11 x 11 in. (32.7 x 27.9 x 27.9 cm)
Los Angeles County Museum of Art; Gift
of the Art Museum Council in memory
of Penelope Rigby
* Dallas and San Francisco only
Page 200”

41 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“83. Jeannette II
1910 (cast 1952), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 7/10, Duthuit no. 51
10 3/8 x 8 7/8 x 10 1/4 in. (26.5 x 22.4 x 26. cm)
Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.,
Gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn, 1966
* Baltimore only
Page 273”

42 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“84. Jeannette III
1911 (cast 1952), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 4/10, Duthuit no. 52
23 1/2 x 12 x 12 in. (59.7 x 30.5 x 30.5 cm)
Los Angeles County Museum of Art; Gift
of the Art Museum Council in memory
of Penelope Rigby
* Dallas and San Francisco only
Page 202”

43 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“99. Large Seated Nude
1922-1929 (cast 1952), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 9/10, Duthuit no. 64
30 1/2 x 31 5/8 x 13 5/8 in. (77.5 x 80.3 x 34.6 cm)
Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas
* Dallas and San Francisco only
Page 275”

44 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“1. Jaguar Devouring a Hare, copy after Barye
1899-1901 (cast 1953), Valsuani Bronze,
lost-wax cast 4/10, Duthuit no. 4
8 1/2 x 23 x 8 in. (21.6 x 58.4 x 20.3 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, Purchase with
exchange funds from the Nelson and Juanita
Greif Gutman Collection. BMA 1999-3
Pages 101,102, 105”

45 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“15. Madeleine II
1903 (cast 1953), Valsuani
Bronze, last-wax cast 5/10, Duthuit no. 10
23 7/8 x 7 5/16 x 7 7/8 in. (59.5 x 18.5 x 20 cm)
Centre Pompidou, Paris; Musee national d’art
moderne/Centre de creation industrielle; Remittance
in lieu of inheritance taxes to the government of France, 1991
Page 119”

46 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“81. Jeannette I
1910 (cast 1953), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 7/10, Duthuit no. 50
13 x 9 1/4 x 10 1/8 in. (33.0 x 23.4 x 25.7 cm)
Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.,
Gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn, 1966
* Baltimore only
Page 273”

47 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“94. Henriette III
1929 (cast 1953), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 6/10, Duthuit no. 75
16 1/2 x 8 3/8 x 10 1/2 in. (41.8 x 21.2 x 26.6 cm)
Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. ;
Gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn, 1966
Page 214”

48 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“87. Jeannette IV
1911 (cast 1954), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 3/10, Duthuit no. 53
24 1/8 x 8 7/8 x 11 1/8 in. (61.2 x 22.5 x 28.1 cm)
Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.,
Gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn, 1966
* Baltimore only
Page 274”

49 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“88. Jeannette V
1913 (cast 1954), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 1/10, Duthuit no. 55
22 7/8 x 8 1/2 x 9 1/4 in. (58.1 x 21.6 x 23.5 cm)
Los Angeles County Museum of Art; Gift
of the Art Museum Council in memory
of Penelope Rigby
* Dallas and San Francisco only
Page 206”

50 of 50 MATISSE REPRODUCTIONS
“89. Jeannette V
1913 (cast 1954), Valsuani
Bronze, lost-wax cast 2/10, Duthuit no. 55
22 3/4 x 8 1/4 x 11 5/8 in. (57.7 x 20.8 x 29.5 cm)
Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., Gift
of the Joseph H. Hirshhorn Foundation, 1972
* Baltimore only
Page 274”

OTHER REPRODUCTIONS
51. ARCHIPENKO REPRODUCTION
“145. Alexander Archipenko
Torso in Space, also called Floating Torso
1935 (cast 1957-1958), Bronze
6 3/4 x 22 1/2 x 5 1/2 in. (17.1 x 57.23 x 14.0 cm)
Nancy A. Nasher and David J. Haemisegger
Page 242”

52. GIACOMETTI REPRODUCTION
“Alberto Giacometti
154. Headless Woman
1932-1936 (cast c. 1955), Bronze
57 3/4 x 9 1/2 x 14 1/4 in. (146.7 x 24.1 x 36.2 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, Alan and Janet
Wurtzburger Collection. BMA 1966.55.9
Page 243”

53. LIPCHITZ REPRODUCTION
“156. Jacques Lipchitz
Gertrude Stein
1920 (cast before 1948)
Bronze
13 7/8 x 8 1/4 x 10 5/8 in. (34.1 x 21.0 x 27.0 cm)
The Baltimore Museum of Art, The Cone
Collection, formed by Dr. Claribel Cone
and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore, Maryland.
BMA 1950.277
* Baltimore only
Page 159”

54. PICASSO REPRODUCTION
“160. Pablo Picasso,
Head of a Woman
1931 (cast 1973)
Bronze
34 x 14 3/8 x 19 1/4 in. (86.4 x 36.5 48.9 cm)
Raymond and Patsy Nasher Collection, Dallas
Page 207”

55. RODIN REPRODUCTION
“163. Auguste Rodin
Jean d’Aire, from the Burghers of Calais
1895 (cast early 20th century)
Bronze
81 x 28 x 24 in. (205.7 x 71.1 x 61.0 cm)
Dallas Museum of Art, Given in memory of
Louie N. Bromberg and Mina Bromberg by
their Essie Bromberg Joseph
Page 111”

14 Comments:

Anonymous Linda Smith said...

As anyone familiar with art history knows, bronzes are made via a mold created from a sculpture originally done in clay or plaster. Most art lovers are aware that Matisse, Rodin, Degas, and others did not themselves pour the hot metal into the molds. This was always done by other craftsman and assistants (Rodin supervised a whole crew). The artist did not need to be present for this process to take place and for the work to be considered authentic. Indeed, he didn't even have to be alive. His work was done when he created the clay original. These clay pieces served only to create the mold for the bronze to be poured into. They were never intended to be exhibited. There are several of Degas' "Little Dancer" sculptures, as well as several Rodin "Thinkers" in various museums. Since they all came from the same mold they are considered equally authentic and in no way should be thought of as "frauds".

1:19 AM, November 15, 2007  
Anonymous Ellen said...

Bravo Linda!
In doing a search of the name Gary Arseneau, I have discovered a person who has nothing positive or accurate to say about anything, and who is stuck in a rant about something he doesn't know enough about. I can only question his stated credentials. ARTIST? As we all know, anyone can post anything on the internet! This proves it.

2:17 AM, November 15, 2007  
Blogger Gary Arseneau said...

Dear Ms. Smith, I thank you for your very interesting perspective. Since you believe an artist does not "even have to be alive" for something to be attributed to them, did you actually write this comment or did someone else?

Dear Ellen, As a scholar, I reference everything I write either directly or with footnotes. Now, whether I am an artist is not argumentative, whether I am talented, much less accomplished is. I'll let my work do the talking. Link to: garyarseneau.com

7:09 PM, April 04, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4:17 PM, November 23, 2009  
Anonymous Term Papers said...

I have been visiting various blogs for my term papers writing research. I have found your blog to be quite useful. Keep updating your blog with valuable information... Regards

2:46 AM, May 10, 2010  
Anonymous Harry said...

Gary,

You seem to be a tenacious and thorough writer, but I agree with Linda and Ellen, you do not know what you are talking about.

Its a shame you put so much effort into only proving that you are an imbecile.

Your frustration with the dead or alive issue has nothing to do with if the work is fake, but only if the work is authorized. Posthumous castings are made to document and share the artists work in an archival material (other than clay).

These sculptures your are in a tizzy about where sculpted by the hands of the artists, perhaps with the assistance of helpers. The bronze castings are reproductions of the originals, correct, but that is like saying your prints are reproductions of your original lithographic blocks. They are, but you are not being a scholar, you are being an a-hole.

Would you freak out if you went into a Wolfgang Puck restaurant and he wasn't there behind the grill? It is his creation, the recipes, the theme, the organization, the processes, the brand. Is it not his food if he doesn't prepare it?

Would you deny a photograph is an original unless the photographer printed it himself in a dark room?

Is an architects building only his building if he builds it himself?

Is a songwriter not a songwriter if it is performed by someone else?

You are caught up in an argument you can't win because you are, despite what talents you have as an artist, only arguing with yourself.

I have not looked at your work, but I assume it is great, and wish you well with it. Unfortunately people don't typically like the art of self-righteous baffoons.

1:50 PM, October 29, 2013  
Blogger Gary Arseneau said...

Part 1 of 3

October 29, 2013

Harry
Baltimore, Maryland

NOTE: Footnotes enclosed as [FN ].

Dear Harry:

Aside the ad hominen attacks, I thank you for your interest in commenting.

If I may as a courtesy share some facts of interest.

U.S. Copyright law § 101. Definitions, states: "A “work of visual art” is — (1) a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in 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."[FN 1]

The dead don't create "works of visual art," such as etchings, lithographs and sculpture, much less "sign and consecutively number" and /or apply their "signature."

Additionally, under U.S. Copyright Law under § 101. Definitions, states: "A work of visual art does not include — (A)(i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication."[FN 2]

Yet, self-servingly some collectors, museum professionals and others, in an attempt to legitimize their non-disclosed reproductions and posthumous forgeries, have made the argument that a published book from an author's manuscript is still their work, recorded music by an artist copied to CDs and the like is still their music and therefore a reproduction, whether posthumously reproduced or not, of an artist's art is still their work.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Under U.S. Copyright Law, a “derivative work” is defined as: "a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'."[FN 3]

2:42 PM, October 29, 2013  
Blogger Gary Arseneau said...

Part 2 of 3

Some have defended a collection of non-disclosed reproductions and forgeries with the argument that they are no different that an audio recordings of music.

Under U.S. Copyright Law a Phonorecord is defined as: "a material object in which sounds are fixed and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. A phonorecord may include a cassette tape, an LP vinyl disk, a compact disk, or other means of fixing sounds. A phonorecord does not include those sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work."[FN 4]

In other words, sounds reproduced to a material object, such as a CD would result in a derivative work a.k.a. reproduction.

Some have defended a collection of non-disclosed reproductions and forgeries with the argument that they are no different that the publication of a book.

Under U.S. Copyright Law, -publication is defined as: "Publication has a technical meaning in copyright law. According to the statute, “Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending."[FN 5]

In other words, a manuscript published as books, the resulting copies would be considered derivative works a.k.a. reproductions.

Some have defended a collection of non-disclosed reproductions and forgeries with the argument that they are reproduced from the artist's work and therefore still their work.

Under U.S. Copyright Law, § 106A. -Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity - states: "(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art — (1) shall have the right — (A) to claim authorship of that work, and (3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction."[FN 6]

The rights of attribution shall not apply to any reproduction.

CRITERIA FOR DEACCESSIONING AND DISPOSAL
On page 22 of the Association of Art Museum Directos' published 2001 Professional Practices in Art Museum publication, under the subtitle -Criteria for Deaccessioning and Disposal-, it states: “The authenticity or attribution of the object lacks sufficient aesthetic merit or art historical importance to warrant retention. In disposing of or retaining a presumed forgery, the museum shall consider all ethical issues including the consequences of returning the object to the market.”[FN 7]

2:43 PM, October 29, 2013  
Blogger Gary Arseneau said...

Part 3 of 3

On page 660 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -forgery- is defined as: "The act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine."[FN 8]

Rhetorically, reproductions, much less forgeries have no authenticity and cannot be attributed to a living artist much less a dead one,

On page 816-817 of Kluwer Law International’s published 1998 Law, Ethics and the Visual Arts, Third Edition by John Henry Merryman and Albert E. Elsen wrote about “Counterfeit Art.”[FN 9]

Under the subtitle “Truth,” the authors wrote: “The most serious harm that good counterfeits do is to confuse and misdirect the search for valid learning. The counterfeit objects falsifies history and misdirects inquiry.”[FN 10]

Additionally, under the subtitle “Resource Allocation,” the authors wrote: “Museum and art historical resources are always limited. What gets acquired, displayed, conserved and studied is the result of a continuous process of triage, in which some objects can be favoured only at the expenses of others. Counterfeit objects distort the process.”[FN 11]

Finally, under the subtitle “Fraud,” the authors wrote: “There remains the most obvious harm of all: counterfeit cultural objects are instruments of fraud. Most are created in order to deceive and defraud, but even “innocent” counterfeits can, and often will, be so used. The same considerations of justice and social order that make deliberate fraud of others kinds criminal apply equally to fraud through the medium of counterfeit art...”[FN 12]

In closing, I hope the enclosed will empower you to better understand these contentious issues of authenticity.

All the best,


Gary Arseneau


FOOTNOTES:
1. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

2. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

3. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/definitions.html

4. Ibid

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

6. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a

7. www.collegeart.org/guidelines/sculpture

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

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

10. Ibid

11. Ibid

12. Ibid

2:43 PM, October 29, 2013  
Anonymous Harry said...

Gary,

I have visited your site and viewed your work and I like it. Furthermore I respect that you do the work yourself.

That doesn't take away from the fact that you are very good at making irrelevant points. What are you trying to prove? That you don't understand that an authorized casting in bronze by an artist, living or dead, is by nature a reproduction of the original, and that everyone in the art world (except you) gets this.

I think you are wasting your own time, as well as anyone who you have bothered or harassed with your annoyed and self righteous opinions.

I would be thrilled to have you as a researcher because you are very thorough.

Unfortunately I think all of your points are mute. Did you answer any of my questions regarding the chef, the songwriter, the architect etc.

My "attack" on you personally is only an honest opinion of what I see from your thorough yet blind and counterproductive arguments.

I have actually done work in authentication of fraudulent sculpture.

Inasmuch I have identified both surmolauges and unauthorized fakes by the artists you mention. I don't disagree that there are frauds out there. You are just barking up the wrong tree.

What is your motivation? It appears you are trying to fight for something, but I can't figure out just what. No one gives a crap about all of your footnotes and legal terminology because it add up to a waste of irrelevant time.

Nice lithographs though...

5:12 PM, October 29, 2013  
Blogger Gary Arseneau said...

October 29, 2013

Harry
Baltimore, Maryland

Re: "These sculptures your are in a tizzy about where sculpted by the hands of the artists, perhaps with the assistance of helpers. The bronze castings are reproductions of the originals, correct, but that is like saying your prints are reproductions of your original lithographic blocks. They are, but you are not being a scholar, you are being an a-hole."

Dear Harry:

As an artist/printmaker of over 12,000 original lithographs, I speak from considerable experience and as a scholar I document with authority.

So, when you refer my authentic lithographs as reproductions, you undermine your connoisseurship and when you refer to posthumous reproductions and/or forgeries as original works of visual art ie., sculptures, you go from the ridiculous to the sublime.

The dead don't sculpt.

In closing, I hope someday my civil response to you might assist you come to realize you have been mislead to believe and to act on the belief the living presence and participation of the artist, though nice, is not required for work to be attributed to them if in fact it is attributed to them, much less signed by them.

All the best,

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs & scholar

11:00 PM, October 29, 2013  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gary,

"The Dead Don't Sculpt" and Sculptors don't necessarily cast.

If a writer doesn't print the book, is it not his work?

And if you printed every single lithograph, GOOD FOR YOU! I really truly respect that. I respect everything about your art - you design it with your process, then you reproduce it, your self (apparently), it appears you color them individually.

And as I said before, I like it! If you do all of it yourself, even better - more power to you. I am sure your audience appreciates it.

Let's put all the name calling aside (I am guilty of this of course).

But what is your point about all of these sculptures? What is the difference to you between an authorized casting of a sculptors "sculpted clay" made by a chosen foundry for a living sculptor and the same by the same foundry after his death.

I am not suggesting that this specific example is relevant to all of the "frauds" you allege, however I do believe that your references imply that my example would be a 'forgery" in your eyes?

Civilly, can you please explain?

Also, what are your credentials as a scholar?

2:44 AM, October 30, 2013  
Anonymous Harry said...

FYI Gary, the last Anonymous post was me, Harry

12:10 PM, October 30, 2013  
Blogger Gary Arseneau said...

October 30, 2013

Harry
Baltimore, Maryland

Dear Harry:

I thank you for your followup.

First, if I may, lithographs are original works of visual art that "must be wholly executed by hand by the artist and excludes any mechanical and photomechanical processes." [U.S. Customs May 2006}

Second, reproductions, by definition, are -copies of original works of visual art and those subsequent reproductions are copied by someone other than the original artist-. [Ralph Mayer's Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques]

Therefore, lithographs versus reproductions are not interchangeable, much less the same.

To belabor the point, lithographs are -original- works of visual art that would never be trivialized as a copy of anything.

In other words, the artist drawn image on the stone, plate or mylar is the tool not the original, the artist printed lithographs, from their tool ie., matrix, are the original works of visual art.

The public has been mislead for decades on in to believe original means one of a kind because of the misrepresentation of reproductions, of pre-existing one of kind works of art such as painting, watercolors and the like, as lithographs.

As for your statement: "What is the difference to you between an authorized casting of a sculptors "sculpted clay" made by a chosen foundry for a living sculptor and the same by the same foundry after his death," it should be obvious.

After the artist's death, as tragic as that may be, their career as an artist is over. So, anything posthumously reproduced is at best a reproduction which by definition is done be someone other than the original artist. That includes the posthumous inscription of the artist's name/initials/monogram and edition numbers to these posthumous objects. The dead don't sign, much less edition. That fact is supported by U.S. Copyright Law 101 that a work of visual art, such as a sculpture, to be considered limited must be signed and numbered by the author.

For example, notice despite the death of the artist, the foundry and/or estate continue to inscribe the artist name and/or edition number on the posthumous reproduction as if the dead artist somehow signed and/or number it. Then when the public gazes upon that non-disclosed forgery, they have little to no idea the dead artist themselves have never seen, much less signed and/or numbered, the object that some are so eager to give the artist credit for.

They have no shame.

Finally, you ask: "If a writer doesn't print the book, is it not his work?" Remember, as noted in my earlier response, I wrote: Under U.S. Copyright Law, -publication is defined as: "Publication has a technical meaning in copyright law. According to the statute, “Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending."

In other words, an author of a manuscript who has it published, ends up selling, under U.S. Copyright Law, “derivative works” ie., reproductions. The author owns the right of reproduction to the underlying original manuscript but they are not selling the original manuscript but derivative works ie., reproductions of the original manuscript. So, anyone who may purchase the published book reproduced from the original manuscript, owns a derivative work ie., reproduction of the author's work.

In closing, aside writing and publishing hundreds of monographs and four books on contentious issues of authenticity that pervade the art industry, not to mention the hundreds of print, radio and television stories/articles/broadcasts that I am the source for over the last fifteen years, the -facts- are my credentials.

All the best,

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs & scholar

2:53 PM, October 30, 2013  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com