The Flood of Posthumous Forgeries and Double Standard at the Art Institute of Chicago

UPDATED: October 4, 2015

NOTE: Footnotes are enclosed with [FN ].

The Faun, 1986, forgery, falsely attributed to Paul Gauguin (d 1903) by the forger Shaun Greenhalgh, acquired in 1994 by the Art Institute of Chicago
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

For too many decades, the Art Institute of Chicago has been violating their own endorsed ethical guidelines by accepting, as donations, a proverbial flood of non-disclosed posthumous forgeries to their museum's collection.

As a member of the Association of Art Museum Directors, the Art Institute of Chicago endorses the College Art Association ethical guidelines on sculptural reproduction which, in part, states: “any transfer into new material unless specifically condoned by the artist is to be considered inauthentic or counterfeit.”[FN 1]

Yet, the Art Institute of Chicago, in practice, has "a set of principles permitting greater opportunity or greater lenience for one class of people than for another"[FN 2] which is one legal definition of -double standard-.

This monograph documents these contentious issues of authenticity.

INTRODUCTION

www.artic.edu/aic/aboutus/press/Gauguin_Statement.pdf

ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO's THE FAUN STATEMENT

On December 12, 2007, in their "Art Institute's Statement on Gauguin's 'The Faun'" Press Release, the Art Institute of Chicago stated:

•  “The Faun, a sculpture acquired by the museum in 1997 as a work by Paul Gauguin, is a creative, well-researched forgery... produced by the recently sentenced Greenhalgh family from Bolton England.”[FN 3]

On page 661 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 4]

Additionally, in their December 12, 2007, in their "Art Institute's Statement on Gauguin's 'The Faun'" Press Release, the Art Institute of Chicago stated:

• "Doubts about the work's authenticity first came to light as part of a Scotland Yard investigation of the Greenhalgh family, who pled guilty to charges of conspiring to defraud art institutions and financial improprieties with the proceeds."[FN 5] 

Those doubts were predicated on the fact The Faun, attributed to Paul Gauguin [d 1903] was actually done by Shaun Greenhalgh on or about 1986, some 83 years after Paul Gauguin' death.

On page 1195 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -precedent- is defined as: "A decided case that furnishes a basis for determining later cases involving similar facts or issues."[FN 6] 

So, the Art Institute of Chicago's published admission: “The Faun, a sculpture acquired by the museum in 1997 as a work by Paul Gauguin, is a creative, well-researched forgery... produced by the recently sentenced Greenhalgh family from Bolton England," it is  the -precedent- to document the proverbial flood of non-disclosed forgeries in their collection.

The dead don't create art.

COLLECTION OF FORGERIES

Bacchus Consoling Ariadne, Dalou, Aimé Jules, French, 1838-1902, Modeled c.1892, cast 1903/07, Bronze, 7 1/2 in. (19 cm), Signed: "Dalou," Foundry stamp: "cire perdu Hebrard," Restricted gift of Mrs. Arma Wyler, 1983.26, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Currently not on view
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/100051
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

Allegory of Science, Dalou, Aimé Jules, French, 1838-1902, c.1886 Wax and plaster, 10 3/8 x 9 x 6 in. (26.4 x 23 x 15.2 cm), Restricted gift of the Old Masters Society, 1984.15, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Currently not on view, Provenance A. A. Hébrard, Paris, before 1978. Galerie Delestre, Paris, by 1978; sold to the Art Institute, 1983; accessioned by the Art Institute, 1984.
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/102086
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

TWO DALOU FAKES

On the Art Institute of Chicago’s website their two so-called Jules Aime Dalou[s]: 1) Bacchus Consoling Ariadne bronze, listed as: “cast 1903/07 - Signed: Dalou”[FN 7] with the “Foundry stamp: “cire perdu Hebrard,”[FN 8] and 2) Allegory of Science wax, listed with a “c.1886”[FN 9] date and “Provenance A.A. Hebrard, Paris, before 1978,”[FN 10] that are “something that is not what it purports to be”[FN 11] which is one legal definition of -fake-.

Jules Dalou, who died in 1902, obviously could not have approved any posthumous casting, much less "signed" anything and as will be documented -never- worked with the Hebrard foundry.

HEBRARD FOUNDRY POSTHUMOUSLY CAST DALOU’S WORK

This is confirmed on page 234 of Pierre Kjellberg’s 1994 Bronzes OF THE 19TH CENTURY, Dictionary of Sculptors, where the author wrote: “These posthumous bronzes were first cast by the lost wax method by Hebrard.”[FN 12]

The dead don’t sculpt.

WHOSE IDEA WAS IT TO POSTHUMOUSLY REPRODUCE DALOU WORK?

This is documented also on page 234 of Pierre Kjellberg’s 1994 Bronzes OF THE 19TH CENTURY, Dictionary of Sculptors, where the author wrote: “The executors of Dalou’s will made the decision to authorize the reproductions of these works, according to them in order to enhance the glory of the artist and insure the revenues of the Orphelinat des Arts (which they did).”[FN 13]

WHAT WOULD DALOU THINK OF ALL THIS?

This is also answered, on page 234 of Pierre Kjellberg’s 1994 Bronzes OF THE 19TH CENTURY, Dictionary of Sculptors, where the author wrote: “Before enumerating the works and the facts of Dalou’s career. it is important to determine what significance the numerous bronzes carrying his signature had for the artist’s work. Details indicate that the large majority were executed after his death. Except for the some subjects cast under his control during his visit to London, and later, between 1898 and 1899, two or three figurines and the bust of Henri de Rochefort (as well as some rare castings in sandstone made by Haviland in Limogesi, Dalou never envisioned his works being reproduced in material other than the one had initially chosen. Moreover, he opposed it: “A work,” he said, “is made for one material and one dimension; to change it is to distort it.”[FN 14]

WHAT IS PROVENANCE?

The auction house Sotheby’s, on their website, defines -provenance- as: "The history ownership of the property being sold. This can be an important part of the authentication process as it establishes the chain for ownership back (if possible) to the time the piece was made.”[FN 15]

The Art Institute of Chicago’s listed -Provenance- for their two so-called Dalou[s] are respectively listed as: “Michael Hall Fine Arts, New York, by 1982 [according to invoices and copies of shipping receipts in curatorial file]; sold to the Art Institute, 1983” and “A. A. Hébrard, Paris, before 1978.”[FN 16]

So, what are we to make of -Provenance[s]- for two so-called Dalou[s] that only begins at the earliest in 1978, some seventy-six years after Jules Dalou’s death in 1902?

Arabesque, Edgar Degas, French, 1834–1917, modeled 1885/90 (cast 1919/21), Bronze, 54.6 x 61 cm (21 1/2 x 24 in.), Gift of George F. Porter, 1925.1641, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Gallery 226
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/18901
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

Horse with Jockey; Horse Galloping, Turning Head to the Right, Feet Not Touching the Ground, Edgar Degas, French, 1834–1917, modeled mid-1870s (cast before 1951), Bronze, H. 28.6 cm (11 1/4 in.), Bequest of Brooks McCormick, 2007.291, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Not on Display
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/191567
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

Spanish Dance, Edgar Degas, French, 1834–1917, modeled c. 1883 (cast 1919/21), Bronze, H. 43.2 cm (17 in. ); base: 21 x 15.2 cm (8 1/4 x 6 in.), Wirt D. Walker Endowment, 1950.111, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Gallery 226
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/133719
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

The Tub, Edgar Degas, modeled 1889, cast 1919/21, Bronze, 18 1/2 in. (47 cm); base: 16 1/4 x 16 3/4 in. (41.3 x 42.6 cm), Mark: "26 [over] HER.D", Signature: "DEGAS", Foundry mark: "CIRE PERDUE A.HEBRARD," Wirt D. Walker Endowment, 1950.114. Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Currently not on view
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/68369
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

Dancer Putting on her Stocking, Degas, Hilaire Germain Edgar, French, 1834-1917, modeled c.1900/12,, cast 1919/21, Bronze, 13 3/4 in. (34.9 cm), 1960.5, modeled c.1900/12, cast 1919/21, Bronze, On base: "CIRE PERDU A. HEBRARD", Gift of Robert Edelmann, 1960.5, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Currently not on view
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/111551
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

Edgar Degas. Little Dancer Aged Fourteen, c. 1879–81. Private collection.

http://www.artic.edu/exhibition/degas-track-stage

Little Dancer Aged Fourteen
"The Griffins have been generous supporters of the Art Institute of Chicago, lending important paintings, drawings and sculpture from their distinguished collection of Impressionist, Post-Impressionsit, and modern art to the museu, both for long-terms display in the galleries and for exhibitions organized by the museum. The most recent acquisitions include Paul Cezanne's Curtain, Jug, and Fruit Bowl as well as his tender, revealing late Self-Portrait from 1895; Little Dancer, Aged Fourteen and Green Dancers by Edgar Degas, and Claude Monet's Water Lilies of 1905."
www.artic.edu/aic/aboutus/griffin_gift.pdf
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

SIX DEGAS FAKES

The Art Institute of Chicago’s so-called Edgar Degas Arabesque, Horse with Jockey; Horse Galloping, Turning Head to the Right, Feet Not Touching the Ground, Spanish Dance, The Tub, Dancer Putting on her Stocking, and Little Dancer, Aged Fourteen (on loan to the Art Institute of Chicago from the “Griffin collection”)[FN 17] are “something that is not what it purports to be” which once again is one legal definition of -fake-.

Edgar Degas (d 1917) has never seen the work falsely attributed to him by the Art Institute of Chicago because he was dead (1919-1951) when these third-generation-removed forgeries were cast.

The dead don’t sculpt.

OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE NOR THE SUPERVISION OF DEGAS

This is confirmed in the Art Institute of Chicago’s own published 1984 Degas in The Art Institute of Chicago catalogue by Richard R. Brettell and Suzanne Folds McCullagh. In part, on page 152, the authors wrote: “Because they were cast posthumously with neither the knowledge nor the supervision of the artist, Degas’s bronzes have a problematic existence as works of art.... Degas’s bronzes resemble the originals in form, but differ considerably in hue, density, and surface quality.... From all this, several conclusions can be drawn: First, Degas did not intend that the majority of this sculpture endure forever; second, he made extensive use of the medium for purposes of study; and third, by casting a wax into bronze, Hebrard was unable to translate the original’s real sculptural values.”[FN 18]

WHAT WOULD DEGAS THINK OF THIS POSTHUMOUS CASTING?

It is amazing how many in the museum/academic world, much less the huge majority of the public does not have a clue that Edgar Degas never cast his sculptures in bronze and expressly did not want his sculptures cast into bronze.

This widespread misconception is addressed in a College Art Association’s published spring 1995 “art journal,” in a “Degas Bronzes?” article by Roger J. Crum. On page 95, the author wrote: “In Wilken’s essay we read that in 1921 Francois Thiebault-Sisson recalled that Degas had once said: I modeled animals and people in wax for my own satisfaction, not to take to rest from painting or drawing, but to give more expression, more spirit, and more life to my paintings and drawings. They are exercises to get me started. My sculptures will never give that impression of completion that is the ultimate goal of the statue-maker’s trade and since, after all, no one will ever see these efforts, no one should think of speaking about them, not even you. After my death all that will fall apart by itself, and that will be better for my reputation. (p. 23).”[FN 19]

Horse, Raymond Duchamp-Villon French, 1876-1918, 1914, original, 1955-57 version, Bronze, from an edition of 7, 39 3/8 x 24 x 36 in. (99 x 61 x 91.4 cm), Numbered, inscribed and dated, proper right of rear base: "6/6 R DUCHAMP-VILLON/1914"; inscribed, center of rear base: "Susse Fondeur Paris," Gift of Margaret Fisher in memory of her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Walter L. Fisher, 1957.165, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Gallery 232
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/5580
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

TWO DUCHAMP-VILLON FAKES

On the Art Institute of Chicago’s website their so-called Raymond Duchamp-Villon Horse is listed as: “39 2/8 in.” high 1955-57 version, Bronze, from an edition of 7... Numbered, inscribed and dated, proper right of rear base ‘6/6 R DUCHAMP-VILLON 1914”[FN 20] which makes it “something that is not what it purports to be” which once again is one legal definition of -fake-.

You see, Raymond Duchamp-Villon’s original Horse, found in his studio after his death in 1917, was only a 17 inch high plaster and not 39 3/8 inches high, much less in bronze.

SEVENTEEN-INCH HIGH PLASTER

This is confirmed on the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden’s website, where it states “After [Raymond Duchamp-Villon’s] death, his family authorized a series of posthumous bronze and enlarged editions to be cast from the seventeen-inch plaster [Horse] left in the sculptor's studio in Puteaux.”[FN 21]

PRESUMPTUOUS AND UNETHICAL TO POSTHUMOUSLY ENLARGE

As noted earlier, the Art Institute of Chicago, as a member of the Association of Art Museum Directors, endorses the College Art Association’ ethical guidelines on sculptural reproductions. In part, concerning posthumous enlargement, it states: “A second unethical and pernicious practice of sculptural reproduction is the enlargement of a sculptor's work by his heirs or executors or the owners of his work. Even when an artist had enlarged certain of his own works during his life, to have this done after his death to works he himself had not enlarged is presumptuous and unethical on the part of those responsible. When the artist was alive it was he who decided which works would or would not be enlarged, to what specific scale, in what medium, and whether or not proportions and details had to be changed. The sculptor often knew to whom he could entrust the process of enlargement and he alone could judge whether or not the results were successful.”[FN 22]

In other words, when the Art Institute of Chicago joined the Association of Art Museum Directors, they were immediately violating those 1974 College Art Association ethical guidelines endorsed by the AAMD and as a result grandfathered in an ethical violation for their “Purchased from Galerie Louis Carré, Paris, June 26, 1957, with funds provided by Margaret Fisher [copy of letter from Daniel Catton Rich to Louis Carré, June 26, 1957 in curatorial file]”[FN 23] of a posthumously enlarged bronze forgery of Raymond Duchamp-Villon's Horse.

Portrait of Dr. Gosset, Raymond Duchamp-Villon, French, 1876-1918, 1918 original, 1957 version, Bronze, from an edition of 8, 12 x 9 in., Gift of Mary and Leigh Block, 1963.371, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Not on Display
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/158999
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

RAYMOND DUCHAMP-VILLON DIED IN 1918

In 1957, Raymond Duchamp-Villon (d 1918) was some forty years dead when the above titled Portrait of Dr. Gosset was forged into bronze. Yet, the Art Institute of Chicago accepted in 1963 this posthumous forgery as a gift from Mary and Leigh Block for unknown monetary and tax considerations.

So, aside, the donor and museum cashing in, who signed and number this forgery in 1957?

Remember, Raymond Duchamp-Villon (d 1918) was dead in 1957 and the dead don't sign and number anything.

Panther Seizing a Stag, Barye, Antoine Louis. French, 1795-1875, Cast by: Ferdinand Barbedienne, French, 1810-1892, c. 1855, Bronze, 14 1/2 x 21 x 11 1/4 in. (36.8 x 53.3 x 22.1 cm), 1975.199, modeled c.1833, cast 1889, Signed right: BARYE., Marked base front, right of center: Exposition Universelle, 1889, Paris, Marked rear left: F. Barbedienne, Fondeur., Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Henry F. Hyman, 1975.199, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Currently not on view
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/48741
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

Python and a Gnu, Antoine Louis Barye, French, 1795-1875 , cast c.1934/35, Bronze, 10 9/16 x 15 3/4 x 7 3/4 in. (26.8 x 40.1 x 19.7 cm), Inscribed: Barye and Tiffany & Co., George F. Harding Collection, 1984.35, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Currently not on view
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/102106
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

Theseus Combating the Centaur Bienor, Barye, Antoine Louis, French, 1795-1875, Model c., 1850, Bronze, 50 x 39 1/2 x 15 in., (127 x 100.3 x 38.1 cm), Bronze, 50 x 39 1/2 x 15 in. (127 x 100.3 x 38.1 cm), Signed: BARYE, Marked: F. BARBEDIENNE FONDEUR, Gift of Arthur Rubloff, 1985.769, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Currently not on view
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/104665
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

Equestrian Group: Charles VII Victorious, Antoine Louis Barye French, 1795-1875, 1835, Bronze, 15 1/2 in. (39.4 cm), Artist's handwritten name "BARYE" appears in original cast on proper left side of base., Foundry mark "F. BARBEDIENNE FONDEUR" is also handwritten in original cast and located at proper right side at rear of base., Bequest of Arthur Rubloff, 1988.36.12, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Currently not on view
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/70992
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

FOUR BARYE FAKES

Three of the Art Institute of Chicago’s four Antoine Louis Barye posthumous non-disclosed -fakes- titled: Equestrian Group: Charles VII Victorious, Theseus Combating the Centaur Bienor and Panther Seizing a Stag, are listed on their website with the respective dates: “1838" - "1850" - "cast 1889” and listed as cast by “F. Barbedienne foundry.”[FN 24]

.

The problem, with two of the three listed dates, is the F. Barbedienne foundry posthumously acquired Antoine Louis Barye’s work after his death in 1875 and began editing them in different sizes for sale to the public.

F BARBEDIENNE FOUNDRY POSTHUMOUS MARK

This is confirmed on page 64 of Pierre Kjellberg’s 1994 Bronzes OF THE 19TH CENTURY, Dictionary of Sculptors, where the author wrote: “All of these bronzes, including some that the sculptor never cast during his lifetime, were reissued in even greater numbers after his death. When Barye’s studio was sold in 1876 after his death, Ferdinand Barbedienne bought one hundred and twenty-five models, along with the reproduction rights. This famous founder , and after 1892 his nephew and successor Leblanc-Barbedienne, produced increasing numbers of castings until the beginning of the twentieth century, and then transferred the rights to the great collector Zoubaloff. Zoubaloff later donated them to the Louvre...Accordingly to Andre Fabious, a leading expert on Barye, it was used by Barbedienne between 1876 to 1889.”[FN 25]

BARBEDIENNE EDITED THESEUS... IN DIFFERENT SIZES

Additionally, the posthumous editing in different sizes is confirmed on page 64 of Pierre Kjellberg’s 1994 Bronzes OF THE 19TH CENTURY, Dictionary of Sculptors, the author wrote: “The 1887 Barbedienne catalog offered a hundred and twenty subjects in bronze, from 3 to 128 cm in height, from 12 Francs (Tortue No. 2) to 10,000 Francs (Grand Lion assis des Tutleries, in original dimensions). A number of these subjects were sold in many sizes. Thesee et le centaure Bienor was offered in it original full size for 6000 F, and in four reductions priced from 550 to 3200 F, not to mention a draft priced at 390 F.”[FN 26]

TIFFANY AND CO. INSCRIBED ON A BARYE IN 1934/35

The Art Institute of Chicago’s fourth Antoine Louis Barye posthumous non-disclosed -fake- titled: Python and a Gnu is listed on their website with a “1934/35”[FN 27] date, some 59 years after Antoine Barye’s death in 1875 and also “Inscribed: Barye and Tiffany and Co.”[FN 28]

WHAT IS CONNOISSEURSHIP?

In Paul Duro and Michael Greenhalgh’s published Essential Art History, -connoisseurship- is defined as: “that of the art expert able to distinguish between the authentic and non-authentic, for example between an original and a copy.”[FN 29]

Aside, the Tiffany and Co. suspension of disbelief in 1934 that they could apply their name, much less Barye’s to a posthumous reproduction falsely attributed to a guy dead some fifty-nine years, what does this say about the Art Institute of Chicago’s connoisseurship when they accept it for their collection?

Figure of a Seated Peasant Girl, Chapu, Henri, French, 1833-1891, Cast by: Ferdinand Barbedienne, French, 1810-1892, 1875/1900, Bronze, 17 5/8 in. (44.8 cm), 1996.603
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/145841
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

Joan of Arc, Henri Chapu, French, 1833-1891, Cast by: Ferdinand Barbedienne, French, 1810-1892, 1875/1900, Bronze, 17 5/8 in. (44.8 cm). H. Chapu and F. Barbedienne, Foundeur, Paris, Bequest of Arthur Rubloff, 1996.603, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Currently not on view
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/120058
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

TWO CHAPU FAKES

On the Art Institute of Chicago’s website, the two so-called Henri Chapu Figure of a Seated Peasant Girl and Joan of Arc bronzes are listed with the following “c1900”[FN 30] and “1875/1900”[FN 31] dates respectively which makes them “something that is not what it purports to be” which once again is one legal definition of -fake-.

Henri Chapu, who died in 1892, has never seen the work the Art Institute of Chicago was so eager to accept to their collection in 1991 from “Edward A. and Inge Maser, Chicago, before 1991; given to the Art Institute, 1991"[FN 32] and “Arthur Rubloff (d. 1986), Chicago, by 1986; bequeathed to the Art Institute, 1988; accessioned by the Art Institute, 1996.”[FN 33]

 

Portrait of Balzac, Auguste Rodin, French, 1840-1917, modeled 1893, (cast 1926/33), Bronze, 127.6 x 73.7 x 59.7 cm (50 1/4 x 29 x 23 1/2 in.), Gift of Silvain and Arma Wyler, 1957.529, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Gallery 201
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/6727
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

ONE RODIN FAKE
Auguste Rodin died in 1917. Auguste Rodin has never seen this so-called Portrait of Balzac because from the Art Institute of Chicago's given dates of 1926 to 1933, he was still dead.

The dead don't sculpt.

Hercules and Lychas, After a lost model by Antonio Canova, French (Paris), Italian, 1757-1822, 1850/1900, Bronze, 41.9 x 28.5 x 19.7 cm (16 1/4 x 11 1/4 x 7 3/4 in.), Gift of the Antiquarian Society in honor of John Maxon, 1977.525, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Not on Display
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/94163
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

ONE CANOVA FAKE

Antonio Canova died in 1822. From 1850 to 1900, is 28 to 78 years after Antonio Canova's death.

So, the Antiquarian Society decide to honor John Maxon in 1977 by donating a forgery with the Art Institute of Chicago's overt acceptance.

 

Alexandre Lecomte, Honoré-Victorin Daumier, French, 1808-1879, modeled c. 1832/35 (cast 1929/40), Bronze, H. 16.5 cm (6 1/2 in.), Gift of Samuel and Marie Louise Rosenthal - Rosenthal-Daumier Collection, 1998.800, Medieval to Modern European Painting and Sculpture, Gallery 225a
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/149970
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

SIXTY-SIX DAUMIER FAKES
The Art Institute of Chicago contains sixty-six posthumous forgeries (1891-1960's) in bronze falsely attributed to Honore-Victorin Daumier (d 1879).

Honore-Victorin Daumier -never- worked in bronze.

This is confirmed on page 253 of Pierre Kjellberg’s 1994 Bronzes OF THE 19TH CENTURY, Dictionary of Sculptors, the author wrote: “he never saw them, and no doubt never anticipated them.”[FN 34]

Remember, as a member of the Association of Art Museum Directors, the Art Institute of Chicago endorses the College Art Association ethical guidelines on sculptural reproduction which, in part, states: “any transfer into new material unless specifically condoned by the artist is to be considered inauthentic or counterfeit.”

In a National Gallery of Art's published 2000 "biographie" of Honoré Daumier by Suzanne Glover Lindsay, the author wrote: "The many posthumous campaigns to serialize Daumier's sculpture, which lasted well into the 1960s, have provided a subtly altered view of that aspect of his work."[FN 35]

Additionally, in a second National Gallery of Art's published 2000 "biographie" of Honoré Daumier by Lorenz Eitner, the author wrote: "On 10 February 1879 Daumier died after a paralytic stroke. He left behind a large number of paintings in various states of incompletion. When, about 1900, the demand for his work began to rise, many of these remainders, some badly deteriorated, were restored, finished, and supplied with 'signatures,' making it difficult in some instances to determine Daumier's half-effaced authentic part in them."[FN 36]

So, should there be any more confidence that Daumier's unfired clay models would posthumously fare any different?

This troubling perspective is addressed on page 255 of Pierre Kjellberg’s 1994 Bronzes OF THE 19TH CENTURY, Dictionary of Sculptors, where the author wrote: “In 1927, a print merchant and editor named Maurice Le Garrec bought these busts from the descendants of Philppon, to whom Daumier had recently sold them. Le Garrec had them repaired by the sculptor Fix-Masseau, then had them cast in bronze, in lost wax, by Barbedienne.”[FN 37]

Going from the ridiculous to the sublime, between 1927 and 1952, the posthumous forging in bronze from twenty-six of Daumier's posthumously "repaired" busts were promoted as being limited editions of 25 or 3o even though Daumier (d 1879) was not around to number them much less sign them.

Then as if to confirm how ludicrous the concept of posthumous limit editions are, on page 255 of Pierre Kjellberg’s 1994 Bronzes OF THE 19TH CENTURY, Dictionary of Sculptors, the author wrote: "In the 1970's the Valsuani foundry "made three news casting of each of the thirty-six busts, for Mme le Garrec and her two daughters, Mme Henyer and Mme Cordier."[FN 38]

Nave Nave Fenua (Fragrant Isle), from Noa Noa, 1893-94, printed 1921, Woodcut on boxwood, printed in black on light gray chine, 354 x 204 mm (image); 422 x 265 mm (sheet), Monogrammed lower left, in image: "P G O";inscribed lower left, in margin, in graphite: "Paul Gauguin fait"; lower right, in margin, in graphite: "Pola Gauguin imp.," printed by Pola Gauguin (Danish, born France, 1883-1961), published by Chr. Cato, Copenhagen, The Joseph Brooks Fair Collection, 1924.1201, Kornfeld 14 IV/IV, D; Guérin 94 III/III, Paul Gauguin (French, 1848-1903)
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/14331
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

16 MORE GAUGUIN FAKES
Long before the Art Institute of Chicago purchased in 1997 The Faun forgery for their collection, the institute had already accepted, in 1924 some 73 years earlier from a donor Joseph Brooks Fair, a posthumous forgery (1921) titled Nave Nave Fenua falsely attributed as woodcut to a dead Paul Gauguin (d 1903), just one of fifteen posthumous forgeries in their collection, falsely attributed to a dead Paul Gauguin.

Those fifteen posthumous Paul Gauguin forgeries, posthumously forged between 1921 and 1961, some 18 to 48 years after Paul Gauguin's 1903 death in the Art Institute of Chicago's collection, are titled: 1) Nave Nave Fenua, 2) Le Sourire, 3) Le Sourire, 4) L'univers est crée, 5) Mahana Atua, 6) Mahna No Varua Ino, 7) Manao Tupapau, 8) Maruru, 9) Maruru, 10) Maruru, 11) Noa Noa, 12) Portrait of Stéphane Mallarmé, 13) Te Atua, 14) Te Atua, 15) Te Po and 16) Auti Te Pape.

The dead don't woodcut.

Remember, on page 661 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."

Nave Nave Fenua (detail)
"Monogrammed lower left, in image: "P G O"; inscribed lower left, in margin, in graphite: "Paul Gauguin fait"; lower right, in margin, in graphite: "Pola Gauguin imp."

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/14331
POLA GAUGUIN IMP.  POSTHUMOUS IMPRESSION

So, would the promotion of an artist's monogram, inscription of the artist's name and other inscriptions posthumously applied, not including the misrepresentation of them as original works of visual art ie., woodcuts, be considered "the act of fraudulently making a false document?"

WHAT IS A MONOGRAM?
On page 207 of Webster's New World Pocket Dictionary, -monogram- is defined as: "initials of a name made into a design."[FN 39]

Therefore, the Art Institute of Chicago's given description of "Monogrammed lower left, in image: PGO" for their so-called Paul Gauguin Neva Neva Fenua woodcut is deceptive since the printed design is a posthumous forgery.

WHAT IS THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION FOR THE FRENCH TERM -FAIT-?
On page 104 of The Oxford French Dictionary, -fait- is translated to English as "done."[FN 40]

Therefore, the Art Institute of Chicago's given description of "inscribed lower left, in margin, in graphite: Paul Gauguin fait"[FN 41] for their so-called Paul Gauguin Neva Neva Fenua woodcut is deceptive since it could not have been -done- in 1921 by a dead Paul Gauguin (d 1903).

WHAT IS IMP?
"Imp." means the "artist had the idea, did the work, originated the first sketch, cut the woodblock, printed the final work of art."[FN 42]

This perspective is confirmed on Encyclopedia Britannica's  website, where it states: “In the 17th and 18th centuries in the West, most prints carried all the relevant information on their margins. The name of the individual was followed by a Latin abbreviation indicating his role in the work. Common examples are del. (delineavit): 'he drew it'; imp. (impressit): 'he printed it'; and sculp. (sculpsit): 'he engraved it.'”[FN 43]

In other words, "lower right, in margin, in graphite: "Pola Gauguin imp.,"[FN 44] in Art Institute of Chicago's so-called Paul Gauguin Neva Neva Fenua, is an admission that Polo Gauguin printed these posthumous forgeries that could never be Paul Gauguin woodcuts.

The dead don't woodcut.

Nave Nave Fenua (Fragrant Isle), from Noa Noa, 1893-94 , Paul Gauguin, French, 1848-1903, Woodcut on boxwood printed in black and touches of brown and hand-colored with red and blue watercolor on cream Japanese paper, 354 x 200 mm (image); 357 x 204 mm (sheet), Monogrammed lower left, in image: "P G O," Clarence Buckingham Collection, 1948.261, Kornfeld 14 II/IV; Guérin 28 II/III; Schniewind 20 II/IVc
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/63049
AUTHENTIC LIFETIME WOODCUT

1893-94 PAUL GAUGUIN WOODCUT
In 1948, The Art Institute of Chicago accepted the donation of 1893-94 Paul Gauguin woodcut titled Neva Neva Fenau. In 1893-94, a living Paul Gauguin (d 1903) did woodcut.

WOODCUTS REALIZED BY GAUGUIN

On page 13, in the 2004 Graphic Modernism: Selections from the Francey and Dr. Martin L. Gecht Collection at The Art Institute of Chicago by Douglas Druick, the Art Institute of Chicago’s Prince Trust Curator of Prints and Drawings and Searle Curator of European Painting wrote: “Nave nave fenua, like the rest of the suite, displays the refinement of the wood engraving as well as the roughness of the woodcut. In the impressions he realized himself, Gauguin increased the expressive valence of the medium by such means as applying inks to the block inconsistently and exerting uneven pressure during the printing. The resulting works appear to move in and out of focus; the images are blurry, indeterminate, and mysterious."[FN 45]

Remember, as a member of the Association of Art Museum Directors, the Art Institute of Chicago endorses the College Art Association ethical guidelines on sculptural reproduction which, in part, states: “any transfer into new material unless specifically condoned by the artist is to be considered inauthentic or counterfeit.”

So, should the Art Institute of Chicago's endorsed ethical guidelines be any different for Paul Gauguin's lifetime woodcuts created and printed by Paul Gauguin versus posthumous forgeries?

Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes, Spanish, 1746-1828, The same man throws a bull in the ring at Madrid, plate 16 from The Art of Bullfighting, 1814/16, published 1876, Etching, burnished aquatint, drypoint and burin on ivory laid paper, 205 x 310 mm (image); 245 x 353 mm (plate); 335 x 495 mm (sheet), W. Moses Willner Fund, 1927.7749, Harris 219 III/III (3rd edition); Delteil 239; Gassier and Wilson III.1182; Pérez Sánchez & Gállego 16

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/55190?search_no=2&index=1

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

ONE GOYA BULLFIGHTING FAKE

The Art Institute of Chicago's so-called Francisco de Goya y Lucientes "etching' titled: "The same man throws a bull in the ring at Madrid, plate 16 from The Art of Bullfighting, 1814/16" was admittedly "published 1876."

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

This ordinary sense perspective is confirmed in A GUIDE TO THE COLLECTING AND CARE OF ORIGINAL PRINTS sponsored by the The Print Council of America and authored by Carl Zigrosser and Christa M. Gaehde, where the authors wrote: "An original print is a work of art, the general requirements of which are: a. The artist alone has created the master image in or upon the plate, stone, wood block or other material, for the purpose of creating the print. b. The print is made from the said material, by the artist or pursuant to his directions. c. The finished print is approved by the artist."[FN 46]

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

Goya y Lucientes, Spanish, 1746-1828, Make way for bulls and wind, from Los Proverbios, c. 1815/24, published 1877, Etching and aquatint on Japanese paper, 212 x 324 mm (image); 245 x 345 mm (plate); 283 x 375 mm (sheet), Charles Deering Print Sale Fund, 1938.174, Harris 269 II/III; Delteil 223; Gassier and Wilson IV.1604; Pérez Sánchez & Gállego 22
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/27159?search_no=105&index=26

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

ONE GOYA LOS PROVERBIOS FAKE

The Art Institute of Chicago's so-called Francisco de Goya y Lucientes "etching' titled: "Make way for bulls and wind, from Los Proverbios, c. 1815/24" was admittedly "published 1877."

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

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 47]

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.”[FN 48]

Goya y Lucientes, Spanish, 1746-1828, She who is ill wed never misses a chance to say so, plate seven from Los Proverbios, c. 1815/24, Etching, aquatint, and drypoint on ivory laid paper with inscriptions in brown ink, 218 x 326 mm (image); 247 x 357 mm (plate); 327 x 440 mm (sheet), Albert H. Wolf Fund, 1948.395, Harris 254 I.2/III; Delteil 208 II; Gassier and Wilson IV.1581; Pérez Sánchez & Gállego 7

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/63455?search_no=28&index=177

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

TWENTY-EIGHT ADDITIONAL LOS PROVERBIOS FAKES

The Art Institute of Chicago's so-called Francisco de Goya y Lucientes "etching' titled: "She who is ill wed never misses a chance to say so, plate seven from Los Proverbios" is one of 28 additional Los Poverbios "etchings" attributed to Goya in their collection and listed with dates "c.1815/24" that predates his death in 1828.

FIRST LOS PROVERBIOS EDITION PRINTED 1864

Yet, on page 367 of the GOYA, Engravings and Lithographs II catalogue raisonne by Tomas Harris, the author wrote the Los Proverbios First Edition was "made in the workshop of Laurenciano Potenciano for the Real Academia in 1864. Sixty sets for presentation to the Academicians [that] were printed between January 29 and March 20, 1864, and by June 1864 at least sufficient first edition sets had been completed for presentation to professors of Fine Arts."[FN 49] [mine]

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

This factual perspective is confirmed in The Fifth Edition of the Artist`s Handbook of Materials and Techniques by Ralph Mayer, where the author wrote: "The major traditional graphic-arts processes of long standing and continued popularity are lithograph,  etching,  drypoint,  woodcutting or wood engraving, aquatint, and soft-ground etching. ...The term `graphic arts` excludes all forms of mechanically reproduced works photographed or redrawn on plates; all processes in which the artist did not participate to his or her fullest capacity are reproductions."[FN 50]

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

Additionally, under U.S. Copyright Law’s 101. Definitions, a -work of visual art- is defined as: “a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.”[FN 51]

So, aside ordinary sense, much less U.S. Copyright Law, in 1864 a dead Francisco de Goya y Lucientes [d 1828] could not have created any  etchings ie.,works of visual art,  much less signed and consecutively  number any limited edition.

Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes, Spanish, 1746-1828, What courage!, plate seven from The Disasters of War, c. 1810/12, published 1863, Etching, aquatint, drypoint, burin, and burnishing on ivory wove paper with gilt edges, 137 x 187 mm (image); 153 x 205 mm (plate); 240 x 339 mm (sheet), Gift of J. C. Cebrian, 1920.1312, Harris 127 III/III (1st edition); Delteil 126; Gassier and Wilson III.1000; Pérez Sánchez & Gállego 7

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/124845?search_no=9&index=43

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

EIGHTY-THREE GOYA DISASTERS OF WAR FAKES

The Art Institute of Chicago's so-called Francisco de Goya y Lucientes "etching" titled: "What courage!, plate seven from The Disasters of War, c. 1810/12," is one of eighty-three so-called Disasters of War -etchings- that were admittedly "published 1863."

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

This is legally supported by U.S. Customs May 2006 An Informed Compliance Publication titled Works of Art, Collector`s Pieces Antiques, and Other Cultural Property, which 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."[FN 52]

Remember Francisco de Goya y Lucientes died in 1828. The dead don't "wholly execute." 

Then as if misrepresenting posthumous impressions as original works of visual art ie., etchings was not enough, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes' original Disasters of War plates were posthumously reworked and altered by the Royal Academy, Madrid in or around 1863 to fit arrogant sensibilities of the mid-19th-century.

RETOUCHING TO THE AQUATINT BACKGROUNDS

This is confirmed in The Disasters of War by Francisco Goya y Lucientes catalogue published in 1967 by Dover Publications, on page 1 of the "Introduction to the Dover Edition," Harvard University Library Department of Graphic Arts' Philip Hofer wrote: "Then a year later, in 1863, the Academy issued the prints publicly, with a newly engraved title page, and printed preface, in eight paper-covered, numbered parts, with some retouching to the aquatint backgrounds and even to Goya’s etching itself!”[FN 53]

THE PLATES WERE ALTERED

Additionally, this posthumous reworking and alterations of Goya etching plates with aquatint is further confirmed by Janis A. Tomlinson in her 1992 Goya In the Twilight of Enlightenment catalogue published by Yale University Press. After Goya's "Disasters of War" etching plates were acquired by the Academy of Fine Art of San Fernando in 1862, the author writes: "To make the first edition of the series most of the plates were altered, completing the lines framing the scenes, adding scratches, and even brunienclo areas of aquatint (7) and tinkering with drypoint (1, 77), chisel (38) or etching (43, 57). Besides printing was performed following the style of the time by the effects of entrapado, a procedure which passes a muslin cloth over the plate and inked on the surface leaving a certain amount of ink that produces a very soft toned overall. The result was far from the force and clarity that can be seen in the many state tests are preserved."[FN 54] 

ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN GOYA FAKES

In other words, the Art Institute of Chicago contains 113 non-disclosed posthumous [after 1863] forgeries, from reworked and altered plates, falsely attributed to a dead Francisco de Goya y Lucientes [d 1828] as original works of visual art ie., etchings.

 Édouard Manet (French, 1832-1883), after Nadar Gaspard Félix Tournachon (French, 1820 - 1910), printed by Andre Salmon (French, 1880-1969), Charles Baudelaire, Full Face III, 1869, Etching on ivory laid paper, 90 x 76 mm (image); 96 x 82 mm (plate); 292 x 203 mm (sheet), Gift of Dr. Joel Handler, 1973.503, Harris 61 IV/IV; Guérin 38 IV/IV; Moreau-Nélaton 16 VII/VII

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/45380?search_no=70&index=1

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

ONE MANET FAKE

The so-called Charles Bauderlaire etching, attributed to Edouard Manet [d 1883] with an "1869" date in Robert Flynn Johnson's collection, has an inscription on the bottom right of the image: "I.M.P  A. Salmon." I.M.P stands for -I am the printer-. A. Salmon a.k.a. Andrea Salmon was born in "1880," according to the Art Institute of Chicago, just three years before Edouard Manet's death in 1883.

In other words, the printer Andrea Salmon [b 1880] was not even alive in "1869," the date given for this so-called Charles Bauderlaire etching, attributed to Edouard Manet [d 1883].

Then to go from the ridiculous to the sublime, Andrea Salmon, as a toddler, was three years old when Edouard Manet died in 1883. Rhetorically, Andrea Salmon and Edouard Manet may have met each other but would a sixty-one year old artist entrust the printing of his work to a three-year-old toddler?

LAW, ETHICS AND THE VISUAL ARTS

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 55]

TRUTH

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 56]

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

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 57]

FRAUD

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 58]

The Art Institute of Chicago is located in the State of Illinois. What statutes may be legally applicable, much less in spirit?

ILLINOIS FINE PRINT DISCLOSURE ACT

Illinois’ Fine Print Disclosure Act 815 ILCS 345/{37} require -reproductions- sold for $50 or more must be disclosed in writing as -reproductions-. Failure to comply to this act may include but not limited to: refund, interest, treble damages and a up to a $1,000 fine per occurrence.

Section 9, of the Illinois Fine Print Disclosure Act 815 ILCS 345/, states: “Proof that no person has been misled or deceived or otherwise damaged by any violation of this Act shall not constitute a defense in any prosecution under this Act.”[FN 59]

Now the Art Institute of Chicago could argue that they are not selling reproductions but only charging admission to view reproductions.

So, the question is: should the Art Institute of Chicago argue that they should be held to a lesser standard of disclosure than ordinary Illinois artists, art dealers and galleries?

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits “unfair---acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” In part, it states: “A seller’s failure to present complex technical data on his product may lessen a consumer’s ability to choose, for example, but may also reduce the initial price he must pay for the article.”[FN 60]

Would the “consumer’s ability to choose” be undermined if they were not informed that the so-called sculptures, woodcuts and the like they are paying directly or indirectly to view are, at best, reproductions?

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.”[FN 61]

Would anyone that misrepresents a posthumous reproduction, much less forgeries, as a “work of visual art” ie. “sculpture,” for the price of admission, city-state-federal grants, corporate sponsorship, outright sales and tax write-offs, be committing “a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment?”

CONCLUSION

What needs to be accomplished is the full and honest disclosure of all reproductions as -reproductions- by all museums, auction houses and art dealers. If the Art Institute of Chicago 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.

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, abuse 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.

Therefore, in closing, I feel morally obligated to briefly document as possible for the benefit of the public, in these dozen or so pages, the true facts behind the Art Institute of Chicago’s non-disclosed -forgeries-, 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.

Caveat Emptor!

Gary Arseneau

artist, creator of original lithographs and scholar

Fernandina Beach, Florida

PHOTOGRAPHS:

From the Art Institute of Chicago’s www.artic.edu/aic/collections/ website.

FOOTNOTES:

1. www.collegeart.org/caa/ethics/sculpture.html

2. Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, ISBN 0-314-22864-0

3. Gauguin_Statement.pdf

4. Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, ISBN 0-314-22864-0

5 Gauguin_Statement.pdf

6. Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, ISBN 0-314-22864-0

7. www.artic.edu/aic/collections/citi/search?artist=dalou&keyword=&search=search

8. Ibid

9. Ibid

10. Ibid

11. p. 617, Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, ISBN 0-314-22864-0

12.  ISBN 0-8109-0804-2

13. Ibid

14. Ibid

15. www.sothebys.com

16. www.artic.edu/aic/collections/citi/object?id=102086&artist=dalou&keyword=

17. www.artic.edu/aic/modern_wing/campaign/griffin.html

18. ISBN 0-8109-0804-2

19. Art Journal © 1995 College Art Association, http://www.jstor.org/pss/777513

20. http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/5580

21.hirshhorn.si.edu/collection/record.asp?Artist=Duchamp-Villon&hasImage=1&ViewMode=&Record=3

22. www.collegeart.org/caa/ethics/sculpture.html

23.www.artic.edu/aic/collections/citi/object?id=5580&artist=duchamp%20villon&keyword=

24.www.artic.edu/aic/collections/citi/search?artist=barye&keyword=&search=search

25. ISBN 0-8109-0804-2

26. Ibid

27. http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/102106

28. Ibid

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

Publication Date: July 1995

This guide to the history of Western art combines a comprehensive essay, outlining the development of the discipline and its major movements, with more than 300 detailed entries, organized alphabetically from Abstract Expressionism to Zeitgeist, on the movements, terminology, writers, bibliography and philosophy significant to the development of art history. Extensive bibliographical information and cross-references are included.

http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Art-History-Paul-Duro/dp/0747515859/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329636465&sr=1-1-fkmr0

30. http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/145841

31.http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/120058

32. http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/145841

33. http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/120058

34. ISBN 0-8109-0804-2

35. http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/tbio?tperson=1209 

36. Ibid

37. ISBN 0-8109-0804-2

38. Ibid

39. July 3, 2000 | ISBN-10: 0764561472 | ISBN-13: 978-0764561474

40.  July 7, 2009 | ISBN-10: 0425228614 | ISBN-13: 978-0425228616

41. http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/14331

42. http://saga.monmouth.edu/sagaarticleRSloat.htm (woodcut artist Evelyn Domjan, Society of American Graphic Artists' website)

43. http://www.britannica.com/ EBchecked/topic/477079/printmaking

44.  http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/14331

45. Publisher: The Art Institute of Chicago / Hudson Hills Press; 1st edition (December 11, 2003), ISBN-10: 0865592071, ISBN-13: 978-0865592070

46.© 1965 by Print Council of America, Library of Congress, Catalog Card Number: 65-24325, Seventh Printing, March, 1971

47. Published in 2001 by the Association of Art Museum Directors, 41 East 65th Street, New York 10021 ISBN 1-880974-02-9

48. Ibid

49. The edition is a slightly reduced reprint of the original edition, which was published in 1964 by Bruno Cassire, Oxford, England., First Printing 1983, Second Printing 2001, using new illustrations, Alan Wofsy Fine Arts, San Franicsco, CA 94126, art-books.com, © Hilda Haris 1964, ISBN 0-915346-72-9

50. Copyright © 1991 by Bena Mayer, ISBN 0-06-461012-8 (pbk.)

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

52. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs/

53. Copyright  © 1967 by Dover Publications,  Inc.,  ISBN: 0-486-21872-4)    

54. New  Haven: Yale  University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-3-005462-9

55. ISBN 90-411-0697-9

56. Ibid

57. Ibid

8. Ibid

58.  law.justia.com/illinois/codes/chapter67/2334.html

60. www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/promises.html

61. p. 670, Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, ISBN 0-314-22864-0