A Posthumous Fake, Non-disclosed Reproductions, The Bruce Museum and A Lack of Connoisseurship

Updated March 5, 2009.

NOTE: Footnotes are enclosed with [FN ].

http://www.brucemuseum.com/sculpture_site/images.html
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE

The Bruce Museum’s Innovations in the Third Dimension: Sculpture of Our Time exhibition contains at least one non-disclosed fake and numerous non-disclosed reproductions.

Yet, the Bruce Museum’s January 13, 2009 press release for this exhibition states: “This exhibition offers the viewer not only unexpected moments of discovery and connection among these exciting new artists and styles, but also insight into how sculpture draws on the past while pioneering new directions toward the future.”[FN 1]

These contentious issues of authenticity are some of those -unexpected moments of discovery- that this monograph will document.

THE KISS - A POSTHUMOUS FAKE

The so-called Auguste Rodin -The Kiss- with the “c. 1889” date, in the Innovations in the Third Dimension: Sculpture of Our Time exhibition at the Bruce Museum, is “something that is not what it purports to be”[FN 2] which is one legal definition of -fake-.

Auguste Rodin died in 1917.

This non-disclosed fake was posthumously reproduced by the Alexis Rudier Foundry after 1919 in the 20th century with a counterfeit -A. Rodin- signature applied.

The dead don’t sculpt, much less sign anything.

Yet, in the Bruce Museum’s January 13, 2009 “Innovations in the Third Dimension: Sculpture of Our Time” release for this exhibition, this non-disclosed posthumous 20th-century fake is promoted as: “Early works in the exhibition include examples by the late 19th-century genius Auguste Rodin.”[FN 3]

So, what proof is there that this so-called Auguste Rodin "The Kiss," listed above in a Bruce Museum photograph/description as “cast by the Alexis Rudier” foundry with a “c. 1889” date, is a posthumous fake with a counterfeit signature?

ALEXIS RUDIER FOUNDRY WENT INTO BUSINESS IN 1902

The Alexis Rudier foundry was in business from 1902 to 1952 some thirteen years after the listed date of “c. 1889” for "The Kiss." The dates for the Alexis Rudier foundry are confirmed on page 290 in the former Musee Rodin curator Monique Laurent’s RODIN AND HIS FOUNDERS essay published in the National Gallery of Art’s 1981 Rodin Rediscovered[FN 4] exhibition catalogue.

Obviously, that doesn't mean this so-called "The Kiss" could not have been reproduced into bronze by the Alexis Rudier foundry between 1902 and Auguste Rodin's death in 1917 except for the following fact.

LEBLANC-BARBEDIENNE FOUNDRY CAST THE KISS TILL 1919

The Leblanc-Barbedienne foundry owned the "exclusive rights" for reproducing "The Kiss," in bronze, till 1919 . This is confirmed on page 289 in the former Musee Rodin curator Monique Laurent's RODIN AND HIS FOUNDERS essay published in the National Gallery of Art's 1981 Rodin Rediscovered exhibition catalogue. The author wrote: “Leblanc-Barbedienne thus owned exclusive rights to the working of reductions for the Eternal Spring and of The Kiss except for the original size which the sculptor reserved for himself, but with the obligation to reserve the casting for the same firm."[FN 5]

THE KISS CAST BY ALEXIS RUDIER FOUNDRY AFTER 1919

Therefore, the earliest the Alexis Rudier foundry could have legally reproduced “The Kiss,” in bronze, would have been in 1919 some two years or more after Auguste Rodin’s death in 1917 till as late as 1952 when the Alexis Rudier foundry went out of business.

So, how could so-called museum professionals like Bruce Museum Senior Curator of Art Nancy Hall-Duncan much less the Bruce Museum Lillian Butler Davey Resident intern Anna Juliar and a so-called authority on modern sculpture Dr. Joan Pachner, be so mistaken?

Could it be a lack of connoisseurship?

WHAT IS CONNOISSEURSHIP?

In Paul Duro & Michael Greenhalgh’s published Essential Art History, -connoisseurship- is defined as: “that of the art expert able to distinguish between the authentic and non-authentic, for example between an original and a copy.”[FN 6]

For example, one of the biggest misconceptions often perpetuated, with or without intent, by many in the museum and academia industry is: "These sculptures are considered original Rodins because they were cast from his original molds in accordance to the terms of Rodin’s will.”[FN 7]

There are two serious factual flaws to that perspective.

First, Auguste Rodin's 1916 Will gives the State of France the posthumous "reproduction rights" to reproduce reproductions. This is confirmed on page 285 in the former Musee Rodin curator Monique Laurent’s “Observations on Rodin and His Founders” essay (published by the National Gallery of Art in their 1981 Rodin Rediscovered catalogue) where the author wrote: "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.”[FN 8]

Second, the Musee Rodin acknowledges on their website that they don't use “the objects given by him” ie., Auguste Rodin's original plasters for posthumous casting in bronze. This is confirmed on the www.musee-rodin.fr/welcome.htm website, where it states: "Consequently, whenever it is decided to release a new "subject", a copy is first made from the old mould which can be sent without risk to the foundry where it undergoes the necessary preparations for casting. It is coated with an unmoulding agent, usually in a dark colour, and cut, before being cast again. This practice not only ensures absolute fidelity to the original but also preserves the old plasters which are obviously more valuable since they were made during the lifetime of Rodin."[FN 9]

Unfortunately, this documents the Musee Rodin violates Auguste Rodin's 1916 Will by not reproducing their posthumous reproductions from "those objects given by him."

http://www.brucemuseum.com/sculpture_site/images.html
NON-DISCLOSED REPRODUCTION

The above Alexander Archipenko -Madonna of the Rocks- with the “1912” date, in the Innovations in the Third Dimension: Sculpture of Our Time exhibition at the Bruce Museum, was reproduced in bronze after 1960 making it “a copy - of an original work of art done in the same medium as the original or another and done by someone other than the creator of the original”[FN 10] which is one definition of -reproduction-.

EARLY 20TH CENTURY

Yet, in the Bruce Museum’s January 13, 2009 “Innovations in the Third Dimension: Sculpture of Our Time” Release, for this exhibition, this non-disclosed reproduction is promoted as: “Early works in the exhibition include examples by - early 20th century modernists such as Alexander Archipenko” and as “a fully realized expression of Cubist principles.”[FN 11]

So, what proof is there that this so-called Alexander Archipenko "Madonna of the rocks," listed above in a Bruce Museum photograph/description with the “1912” date, is a non-disclosed reproduction that was actually reproduced in bronze after 1960?

CAST IN BRONZE AFTER 1960

This factual perspective is confirmed by Katherine J. Michaelsen in her 1986 Alexander Archipenko: A Centennial Tribute exhibition catalogue published by the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. During 1913 to 1914, the author wrote that the artists Alexander Archipenko and Fernand Leger were especially close and "When short of cash they would entertain in the streets, Archipenko singing Russian songs to Léger's accompaniment on the harp" (ibid., p. 19). They traded works, and Léger became the first owner of the painted plaster version of Madonna of the Rocks. The New York dealer Klaus Perls purchased the plaster from Léger's estate in 1960, and with this piece once again in hand, Archipenko supervised the casting of the present bronze version in an edition of six casts. Perls took possession of cast numbers 1/6 - 2/6, including the present sculpture, while the artist retained casts 4/6 - 6/6.”[FN 12]

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF CAST?

-Cast- by definition is: “to reproduce an object, such as a piece of sculpture, by means of a MOLD.”[FN 13]

U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW

Under U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, a -derivative work- is defined as: “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as - art reproduction.”[FN 14]

Additionally, under U.S. Copyright 106A, it states the “Rights of Attribution - shall not apply to any reproduction.”[FN 15]

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

http://www.brucemuseum.com/sculpture_site/images.html
NON-DISCLOSED REPRODUCTION

The so-called Andre Masson -Extase- with the “executed 1986” date, in the “Innovations in the Third Dimension: Sculpture of Our Time” exhibition at the Bruce Museum, is a reproduction.

ANDRE MASSON GAVE UP PAINTING IN 1980

Andre Masson, who died in October 27, 1987 at the age of 91, gave up painting seven years earlier in 1980 when he was no longer able to walk.[FN 16]

EXTASE CAST IN 1986

This non-disclosed reproduction titled -Extase- was reproduced ie., “cast in 1986” by the Brustolin Verona foundry with the publisher’s mark: “Galleria Due Ci, Roma,” “Stamped Andre Masson” and “numbered 1/8.”[FN 17]

Remember, under U.S. Copyright 106A, it states the “Rights of Attribution - shall not apply to any reproduction.”[FN 18]

Additionally, 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.”[FN 19]

So, if a reproduction cannot be attributed to a live artist, it most certainly cannot be attributed to a dead one.

Not to mention, the dead don’t signed and number anything.

Upon Andre Masson’s death in 1987 the posthumous reproduction in bronze of his sculpture began in earnest along with the misrepresentation of its attribution and limitation.

CAST - AFTER 1987

This fact is confirmed when in a 1999 auction of a “Lot 322” attributed to “Andre Masson (1896-1987)” with the following description: “Extase inscribed with the monogram and numbered '8/8' (on the base) bronze with brown patina 35 1⁄2 in. (91cm.) high excluding the base Conceived in 1938 and cast in a numbered edition of eight plus two artist's proof after 1987,”[FN 20] was auctioned in the United Kingdom.

“After 1987,” Andre Masson was dead.


http://www.brucemuseum.com/sculpture_site/images.html
NON-DISCLOSED REPRODUCTION

Is the two-foot-high Stainless Steel -LOVE-, attributed as a -sculpture- to Robert Indiana in this exhibition, a non-disclosed chromist-made reproduction?

A chromist is someone who copies the artist’s artwork, resulting in reproductions.

In the Bruce Museum’s January 13, 2009 Innovations in the Third Dimension: Sculpture of Our Time” Release, it states: “Robert Indiana’s LOVE, one of the most recognizable Pop images of the 20th century, is a highlight of the exhibition.”[FN 21]

To address this contentious issue of authenticity, consider Robert Indiana’s new so-called -Hope sculpture-.

HOPE, by Lauren Holmgren and Josh Dow.Courtesy photo

ROBERT INDIANA SCULPTURE FABRICATED BY LOCAL ARTISTS

On August 21, 2008, a Sanctuary Arts’ press release titled “New Robert Indiana sculpture for DNC fabricated by local artist” press release was posted on seacoastonline.com. In that press release, it stated: “Lauren Holmgren and Josh Dow of Green Foundry, Eliot, Maine, were asked to fabricate a new sculpture for Robert Indiana called ‘HOPE.’ - With only eight weeks to complete the 6-by-6-by-3-foot, 316 stainless steel sculpture, Holmgren and Dow were assisted by many area friends and artists to get the job done.”[FN 22]

In other words, Robert Indiana did not create a sculpture, Green Foundry’s chromists (someone who copies an artist’s original artwork) Lauren Holmgren and Josh Dow, at best, made a chromist-made reproduction.

PORTLAND PRESS HERALD

This devastating conclusion is further confirmed in the Portland Press Herald’s published August 29, 2008 “Vinalhaven artist follows LOVE icon with HOPE sculpture, The sculpture made in Maine proves popular with conventioneers in Denver” article by staff writer Bob Keyes.

CREATED THE SCULPTURE FOR INDIANA

Despite describing it as a “Robert Indiana sculpture,” the staff writer wrote the following startling admission: “Lauren Holmgren and Josh Dow, who run the Green Foundry in Eliot, created the sculpture for Indiana, working with McKenzie.”[FN 23]

That statement is an “combination of contradictory ideas” which is one definition of oxymoron, since sculpture is created by an artist, not by someone other than the artist. That would make it, at best, a reproduction.

WHO ARE LAUREN HOLMGREN AND JOSH DOW?

On the Green Foundry’s website, Lauren Holmgren and Josh Dow are listed as: “graduated from Massachusetts College of Art, 2004/2005, receiving BFA's in sculpture. They were both very involved in the foundry program; Lauren assisted students and classes for three years, while Josh mastered fabrication and built numerous furnaces.”[FN 24]

MEET ALL YOUR CASTING NEEDS

Additionally, the foundry’s website states: “Green Foundry is a fine art sculpture facility designed to meet all your casting needs, from clay to bronze and beyond. We specialize in bronze casting, and also cast aluminum, iron, cement, plaster and cold bronze. Located at Sanctuary Arts art school in Eliot, ME, Green Foundry is a teaching facility as well as a casting service. Artists are always welcome in our foundry to learn the process and help in achieving the final product.”[FN 25]

Remember, -cast-, by definition, is: “to reproduce an object, such as a piece of sculpture, by means of a MOLD.

So, unless an -always welcome- artist shows up to personally participate in the creation of their sculpture, the -final product-, at best, would be a reproduction.

RIGHT OF ATTRIBUTION

Remember, as noted earlier, under U.S. Copyright 106A, it states the “Rights of Attribution - shall not apply to any reproduction”[FN 26] and under U.S. Copyright Law, reproductions cannot be “attributed” to a living artist, much less a dead one.

A PERFECT REPRODUCTION

The use of the term reproduction is well understood and disclosed by the Green Foundry instructors: Lauren Holmgren and Josh Dow in their class titled: “Driftwood & Lace: Organic to Bronze.” The class is described as follows: “Green Foundry presents the most exciting class yet; direct burn-out bronze casting. This class will focus on using organic materials to create bronze castings. The process allows for a direct burn out of the organic matter from the mold. This mold is cleared out of debris and bronze is cast into it, leaving a perfect reproduction of the original piece of driftwood, or lace!”[FN 27]

WHO IS MICHAEL MCKENZIE?

Additionally, in the Portland Press Herald article, the staff writer Bob Keyes wrote: “Michael McKenzie of American Image Atelier, an art-production facility in New York, who has worked with Indiana many times over the years.”[FN 28]

So, when the Portland Press Herald staff writer quotes Michael McKenzie stating: "Bob wanted to be sure the sculpture was made in Maine," are we to suspend disbelief or just believe?

LAW, ETHICS AND THE VISUAL ARTS

On page 816 in the 1998 Law, Ethics and the Visual Arts by John Henry Merryman and Albert E. Elsen, the authors wrote: "The most serious harm that good counterfeits do is to confuse and misdirect the search for valid learning. The counterfeit object falsifies history and misdirects inquiry. - Museum and art historical resources are always limited. What gets acquired, displayed, conserved and studied is the result of a continuous process of triage, in which some objects can be favoured only at the expense of others. Counterfeit objects distort the process. - There remains the most obvious harm of all: counterfeit cultural objects are instruments of fraud."[FN 29]

MISSION STATEMENT

The Bruce Museum’s -Mission Statement- states it: “promotes the understanding and appreciation of Art and Science to enrich the lives of all people.”[FN 30]

This monograph hopefully assists in that goal of the understanding and appreciation of art, much less reproductions and/or fakes if applicable.

CONCLUSION

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

FOOTNOTES:
1. Bruce_Sculpture_PR.doc

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

3. Bruce_Sculpture_PR.doc

4. ISBN 0-89468-001-3 (pbk)

5. Ibid

6. rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/teach/eah/ImageServe

7.http://media.www.lsureveille.com/opinion/letter_to_the_editor_01_29_09_response_rodin_s_art_questioned_at_museum_exhibit-1.1316377
Daily Reveille Opinion, Letter to the Editor 01/29/09: Response: Rodin’s art questioned at museum exhibit by Victoria Cooke - Asst. Director for Curatorial Affairs -LSU Museum of Art- Shaw Center for the Arts

8. ISBN 0-89468-001-3 (pbk)

9. http://www.musee-rodin.fr/

10. p. 350, HarperCollins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques by Ralph Mayer, ISBN 0-06-461012-8 (pbk.)

11. Bruce_Sculpture_PR.doc

12. :http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/alexander-archipenko-1887-1964-1-c-4soxcs0jd1

13. p. 70, Harper Collins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques by Ralph Mayer, ISBN 0-06-461012-8 (pbk.)

14. www.copyright.gov

15. Ibid

16. http://www.connectotel.com/masson/masschr.html

17. http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/andre-masson-1-c-tkk27yz1lh

18. www.copyright.gov

19. www.copyright.gov

20.http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/andre-masson-1896-1987-1-c-njbx5nnqc8

21. Bruce_Sculpture_PR.doc

22:http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080821/NEWS/80821048

23 http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=207230&ac=PHnws

24. http://www.sanctuaryarts.org/green-foundry/

25. Ibid

26. www.copyright.gov

27. http://www.sanctuaryarts.org/green-foundry/

28. http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=207230&ac=PHnws

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

30. http://www.brucemuseum.org/aboutus/

LOCATION:
Bruce Museum
One Museum Drive
Greenwich, Connecticut 06830
203-869-0376
webmasters@brucemuseum.org