Gary Arseneau: October 2009

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Maxfield Parrish reproductions are not lithographs, yet the Trust for Museum and the Delaware Art Museum would have the public believe otherwise

NOTE: Footnotes are enclosed with [FN ].

POSTSCRIPT: At end of monograph.

The Lantern Bearers, 1910, Maxfield Parrish (1870-1966),

Lithograph, 11 1/2 x 8 3/4 inches.

http://www.delart.org/exhibitions/fantasies_fairytales.html

Maxfield Parrish reproductions are -not- lithographs.

The Delaware Art Museum and the Museum Trust are using the term "lithographs," in the Delaware Art Museum’s October 31, 2009 - January 10, 2010 Fantasies and Fairy-Tales: Maxfield Parrish and the Art of the Print exhibition, as a euphemism for reproductions.

On page 114 of Webster's New World Pocket Dictionary, -euphemism- is defined as: "mild word replacing an offensive one."[FN 1]

Lithographs, by law and definition, are original works of visual art “that must be wholly executed by hand by the artist”[FN 2] and “excludes any mechanical and photomechanical processes.”[FN 3]

In other words, lithographs would -never- be trivialized as a reproduction of anything, much less from Maxfield Parrish's "original paintings."[FN 4]

This monograph will document these contentious issues of authenticity surrounding these non-disclosed reproductions falsely attributed as original works of visual art ie., lithographs to Maxfield Parrish and at best a lack of connoisseurship by the lender Trust for Museum and the Delaware Art Museum, who as a member of the Association of Art Museum Directors, is violating their own endorsed ethical guidelines “that reproductions must be clearly indicated as reproductions.”

FIVE PUBLISHED REFERENCES

Here are five published references documenting Maxfield Parrish had his paintings reproduced resulting in reproductions.

LATEST AND BEST METHODS OF COLOR REPRODUCTION

First reference is the 1913 published American art directory, Volume 10 publication, where on page xv there is a full page advertisement by Lane Company (located at 113A West Street, New York) offering for sale six reproductions "for twenty-five cents each or one dollar for the portfolio of six,"[FN 5] one of which is titled: "'Dies Irae' By Maxfield Parrish."[FN 6] Those reproductions are described as follows: “A portfolio of six exquisite paintings by modern masters done into full colors by the latest and best methods of color reproduction. These plates were executed in England, where the art of color reproduction has reached its highest perfection. The size of the plates, with borders suitable for framing, is 13 by 10 inches.”[FN 7]

ILLUSTRATIONS INTENDED FOR REPRODUCTION

Second reference is the 1973 published Maxfield Parrish[FN 8]catalogue by Coy L. Ludwig. On page 190, the author wrote: "The poster designs and magazine illustrations made by Maxfield Parrish were intended for reproduction and it was necessary, therefore, for him to understand the method of reproduction in order for the publisher to obtain the best results.”[FN 9]

REPRODUCTIONS RIGHTS TO HIS ILLUSTRATIONS

Third reference is the Delaware Art Museum's published 1975 American painting and sculpture[FN 10]catalogue by Elizabeth H. Hawkes. On page 82, the author wrote: "In 1904, Maxfield Parrish signed a contract with Collier’s which provided $1,250 a month for reproduction rights to his illustrations."[FN 11]

PAINTINGS EXPECIALLY FOR REPRODUCTION

Fourth reference is the Brandywine River Museum's published 1991 Catalogue of the collection, 1969-1989.[FN 12] On page 121, it states: "Thereafter, Parrish was approached to create paintings especially for reproduction, of which his most famous was Daybreak (1922; issued as a print in 1923)."[FN 13]

THE MOST-REPRODUCED ARTIST EVER

Fifth and finally reference is the 2001 published Maxfield Parrish: the masterworks[FN 14]catalogue by Alma Gilbert-Smith. On page 165, the author wrote: "The artist’s work with Reinthal and Newman’s House of Art catapulted Parrish to the status of most-reproduced artist ever... His association with the House of Art came about through a series of events that snowballed to a veritable avalanche. The events can be traced back to 1904, when the Ladies’ Home Journal, to generate publicity for its 250th issue, announced a cover design competition with the first prize of $1,000. Six prominent illustrators participated. Among the others were Jessie Wilcox Smith and Harrison Fisher, who received second and third prizes, respectively, Parrish was awarded the coveted first prize for his painting Air Castles. Additional color reproductions of his paintings were offered to readers for ten cents. this was the beginning of what would become an avalanche of demand for Parrish prints. ...it was not a publisher or magazine that finally convinced Parrish to engage the art market with paintings created for the purpose of reproduction as art prints. It was the candy manufacturer, Clarence Crane, who pointed the way. Crane asked Parrish to produce a painting that would convert his candy boxes into works of art (thereby raising the price of the candy). Each box would carry an order blank inside so that customers could send for additional reproductions of the paintings.”[FN 15]

HOUSE OF ART ASKED TO REPRODUCE

Additionally, on page 167, the author wrote: "Parrish received nearly $50000 in royalties from the sale of prints of those three subjects. Crane’s little order blanks for the Parrish prints created an unprecedent demand for his reproduction, a demand which gained gigantic momentum. The House of Art asked to reproduce Garden of Allah, Rubaiyat, and Cleopatra, becoming in 1920 the exclusive publisher of all Parrish works designed for color reproduction for the art print market. (This was when Parrish was still creating the calendars for General Electric Mazda lamps.)"[FN 16]

Ironically, the Amazon.com's "Product Description," for the Maxfield Parrish, Master of Make-Believe catalogue, states: "The book accompanies an exhibition by the same name organised by the Trust for Museum Exhibitions, Washington, DC.[FN 17]

In other words, these five references, one of which was excerpted from the catalogue accompanying this October 31, 2009 - January 10, 2010 Fantasies and Fairy-Tales: Maxfield Parrish and the Art of the Print exhibition at the Delaware Art Museum, documents clearly that Maxfield Parrish had his paintings reproduced resulting in reproductions, not lithographs.

Maxfield Parrish (1870-1966), The Lantern Bearers, signed and dated 'Maxfield Parrish 1908.' (lower left), oil on canvas laid down on board, 40 x 32 in. (101.6 x 81.3 cm.) http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?from=salesummary&intObjectID=4715256&sid=cef4c7af-855a-4c3e-be96-0c5a12c1bb4e

DELAWARE ART MUSEUM & COLOR LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTS FROM PAINTINGS

Yet, the Delaware Art Museum on their website for their upcoming Fantasies and Fairy-Tales: Maxfield Parrish and the Art of the Print exhibition would have the public believe that the "Fantasies and Fairy Tales is the first traveling exhibition of Maxfield Parrish’s color lithographic prints, made from his original paintings."[FN 18]

Lithographs versus reproductions are not interchangeable, much less the same.

WHAT IS A LITHOGRAPH?

On the International Fine Print Dealers Association's 2008 www.printdealers.com/learn.cfm website, "lithography" is defined as: "Literally, 'stone drawing,' the artist draws or paints the composition on the flat surface of a stone with a greasy crayon or liquid. The design is chemically fixed on the stone with a weak solution of acid and gum arabic. In printing, the stone is flooded with water which is absorbed everywhere except where repelled by the greasy ink. Oil-based printer's ink is then rolled on the stone, which is repelled in turn by the water soaked areas and accepted only by the drawn design. The stone is then run through the press with paper under light pressure, the final print showing neither a raised nor embossed quality but lying entirely on the surface of the paper."[FN 19]

Additionally, on page 574 in the 1991 The Fifth Edition of the Artist’s Handbook of Materials and Techniques by Ralph Mayer, 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 20]

U.S. CUSTOMS REGULATIONS

This perspective is confirmed by the April 2006 U.S. Customs' Informed Compliance regulations that lithographs "must be wholly executed by hand by the artist"[FN 21] and "excludes mechanical and photomechanical reproduction."[FN 22]

Maxfield Parrish (1870-1966), Daybreak, signed and dated 'Maxfield Parrish 1922' (lower right), oil on board, 261⁄2 x 45 in. (67.3 x 114.3 cm.)

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?from=salesummary&intObjectID=4715251&sid=cef4c7af-855a-4c3e-be96-0c5a12c1bb4e

Daybreak, 1922, Maxfield Parrish (1870-1966), Lithograph, 17 3/4 x 29 1/2 inches

http://www.delart.org/exhibitions/fantasies_fairytales.html

TRUST FOR MUSEUM & LITHOGRAPHS FOR LITHOGRAPHIC REPRODUCTION

"Maxfield Parrish and the Art of the Print represents the first comprehensive sampling of Parrish's work in a variety of printed media" and "included in this exhibition is a full set of the calendars Parrish designed to promote General Electric's Edison Mazda Lamps, and many of the lithographs commissioned by the House of Art for the expressed purpose of lithographic reproduction"[FN 23] states the Trust for Museum on their website.

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

WHAT IS A REPRODUCTION?

On page 350 in the 1991 HarperCollins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques by Ralph Mayer, -reproduction- is defined as: “A general term for any copy, likeness, or counterpart of an original work of art or of a photograph, done in the same medium as the original or in another, and done by someone other than the creator of the original.”[FN 24]

This perspective is additionally confirmed on page 574 in the 1991 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 25]

MISREPRESENTATION

On page 1016 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -misrepresentation- is defined as: "The act of making a false or misleading statement about something, usu. with the intent to deceive."[FN 26]

So, when the Delaware Art Museum and the Trust for Museum both misrepresents reproductions of Maxfield Parrish's paintings as original works of visual art ie., lithographs, what is the public to make of such misrepresentation?

FRAUD

On page 670 of 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 27]

So, is it "a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment," when the Delaware Art Museum misleads its' patrons into believing that these non-disclosed reproductions, of Maxfield Parrish's paintings, are original works of visual art ie., lithographs, for the admission price of $12 per adult[FN 28] and "grants from the Delaware Division of the Arts, a state agency dedicated to nurturing and supporting the arts in Delaware, in partnership with the National Endowment for the Arts?"[FN 29]

AAMD STATEMENT OF MISSION

The Association of Art Museum Directors’ “Statement of Mission,” as adopted in June 1996, in part, states: “The purpose of the Association of Art Museum Directors is to aid its members in establishing and maintaining the highest professional standards for themselves and the museums they represent.”[FN 30]

The Delaware Art Museum's executive director Danielle Rice is a member of Association Art Museum Directors.[FN 31]

What are those professional standards?

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES IN ART MUSEUMS

On page 31 of the 2001 Association of Art Museum Director’s Professional Practices in Art Museums booklet, it is written that the: “misleading marketing of reproductions, has created such widespread confusion as to require clarification in order to maintain professional standards. - When producing and/or selling reproductions, museums must clearly indicate, through the use of integral markings on the objects, as well as signs, labels, and advertising, that these items are reproductions."[FN 32]

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 33]

DELAWARE ART MUSEUM MISSION STATEMENT

The Delaware Art Museum's -Mission Statement- states it: "connects people to art, offering an inclusive and essential community resource that through its collections, exhibitions, and programs generates creative energy that sustains, enriches, empowers, and inspires."[FN 34]

TRUST FOR MUSEUM ENSURES INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY

The Trust for Museum Exhibitions states they are: "a non-profit museum service organization founded in 1984 by Ann Van Devanter Townsend. Respected nationally and internationally for its splendid and scholarly exhibitions, the Trust’s hallmark on any fine or decorative arts project ensures intellectual integrity and outstanding aesthetic quality in both content and execution."[FN 35]

Is this AAMD member Delaware Art Museum, much less the Trust for Museum, violating their own professional standards by failing to adhere to their own endorsed ethical guidelines, and Mission Statement by leading potential museum patrons into believing these non-disclosed reproductions, of Maxfield Parrish's paintings, are original works of visual art ie., lithographs?

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 36]

Is the commingling of reproductions and lithographs as if they are interchangeable, much less the same by the Delaware Art Museum and the Trust for Museum organization just a lack of connoisseurship ?

Someday, this Delaware Art Museum, much less the Trust for Museum organization, may successfully argue they did not understand the difference between lithographs and reproductions and had no idea of the ethical guidelines they endorse as a member of the AAMD but that would be an explanation, not an excuse.

CONCLUSION

What needs to be accomplished is the full and honest disclosure of reproductions as -reproductions- by all museums, auction houses, academia, galleries and art dealers. If the Delaware Art Museum, Trust for Museum and all other participants, in this October 31, 2009 - January 10, 2010 Fantasies and Fairy-Tales: Maxfield Parrish and the Art of the Print exhibition, will give full and honest disclosure to all reproductions as: -reproductions-, it would allow consumer the potential to give informed consent on whether to attend an exhibition of reproductions, much less pay the $12 price of adult admission.

But if those reproductions are not disclosed as -reproductions-, then potential serious consequences of law may come into play for those who chose to misrepresent those reproductions for profit.

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

PRINCIPALS:

1) Danielle Rice

Executive Director

Delaware Art Museum

2301 Kentmere Parkway

Wilmington, Delaware 19806

302.571.9590 ext. 537

drice@delart.org

2) Ann Van Devanter Townsend

The Trust For Museum Exhibitions

1424 16th St NW Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 745-2566

atownsend@tme.org

VENUES:

Crocker Art Museum - Sacramento, CA

May 8 - July 17, 2009

Venue 1

Wichita Art Museum - Wichita, KS

July 30 - October 11, 2009

Venue 2

Delaware Art Museum - Wilmington, DE

October 29, 2009 - January 10, 2010

Venue 3

R.W. Norton Art Gallery - Shreveport, LA

January 28 - April 11, 2010

Venue 4

Everson Museum of Art - Syracuse, NY

April 29 - July 11, 2010

Venue 5

Fresno Metropolitan Museum of Art- Fresno, CA

July 29 - October 10, 2010

Venue 6

Montgomery Museum of Fine Arts - Montgomery, AL

October 28, 2010 - January 9, 2011

Venue 7

Available

January 27th, 2011- March 27th, 2011

Venue 8

FOOTNOTES:

2)www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs/icp061.ctt/icp061.pdf

3) Ibid

4)http://www.delart.org/exhibitions/fantasies_fairytales.html

5)http://books.google.com/books?id=B_k5qJ8KnOsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Florence+Nightingale+Levy,+American+Federation+of+Arts%22&ei=6ijhSpyvEKT8ygS73ICnDA#v=onepage&q=maxfield%20parrish&f=false

6) Ibid

7) Ibid

8) Publisher: [New York Watson-Guptill Publications [1973] (January 1, 1973), ISBN-10: 0823038971, ISBN-13: 978-0823038978, ASIN: B0026PVW40

9)http://books.google.com/books?ei=gTjhSr24E6CMygS695SMDA&id=BkEWAQAAIAAJ&dq=Maxfield+Parrish+By+Coy+L.+Ludwig&q=reproduction#search_anchor

10)Avant-Garde Painting & Sculpture in American 1910-25: Delaware Art Museum April 4 - May 18, 1975 (Paperback), Publisher: Delaware Art Museum (January 1, 1975), ASIN: B002TENWUU

11)http://books.google.com/books?ei=iy3hSu-VE4OwywSUt7nWCw&id=NVOwAAAAIAAJ&dq=American+painting+Delaware+Art+Museum&q=%241%2C250#search_anchor

12)Brandywine River Museum: Catalogue of the Collection, 1969-1989 (Paperback), by James Duff, Publisher: Brandywine Conservancy; First Edition edition (December 1, 1991), ISBN-10: 9992442808, ISBN-13: 978-9992442807

13)http://books.google.com/books?ei=_TDhSqPjPKq-ygSKoNDbCw&id=QaFPAAAAMAAJ&dq=Catalogue+of+the+collection%2C+1969-1989&q=DAYBREAK#search_anchor

14)Maxfield Parrish: The Masterworks [BARGAIN PRICE] (Hardcover)

by Alma Gilbert, Publisher: Ten Speed Press; 3 edition (March 1, 2004), ISBN-10: 1580083293, ASIN: B002IKLMG6

15)http://books.google.com/books?id=l9JDROoxawoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Maxfield+Parrish:+the+masterworks&ei=uDLhSq_aEJTazQTFkoidDA#v=onepage&q=reproduction&f=false

16) Ibid

17)http://www.amazon.com/Maxfield-Parrish-Make-Believe-Alma-Gilbert/dp/0856676012/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256273409&sr=1-1

18) http://www.delart.org/exhibitions/fantasies_fairytales.html

19) http://www.printdealers.com/learn.cfm

21)www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs/icp061.ctt/icp061.pdf

22) Ibid

23)http://www.tme.org/Exhibition%20Fantasies%20and%20Fairy-Tales.htm

27) Ibid

28) http://www.delart.org/visit/visit_info.html

29) Ibid

30) www.aamd.org/AAMDmission.shtml

31) http://aamd.org/about/#Members

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

33) Ibid

34) http://www.delart.org/visit/visit_info.html

35) http://www.tme.org/About%20Us.htm

36) rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/teach/eah/

POSTSCRIPT (October 31, 2009):

On Friday, October 23, 2006, someone from the Delaware Art Museum (confirmed by their IP) anonymously commented on this monograph that the "posters you buy today and the images in newspapers are no less lithographs than those hand-created and printed by Daumier" and that this scholar was -ignorant-.

Sometime over the weekend, by Monday, October 26, 2009, the Delaware Art Museum changed their website, promoting their Fantasies and Fairy-Tales: Maxfield Parrish and the Art of the Print exhibition, from "color lithographic prints" to "color prints" with the following admission: "By the 1930s, Parrish realized he could free himself from the restrictions of advertising and magazine work and rely solely on color reproductions of his art."

To view the Delaware Art Museum's anonymous comment in totality and this scholar's reply, please read comments below.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

COUNTERFEIT -Sforza Horse- in the High Museum of Art's "Leonardo da Vinci: Hand of the Genius" exhibition

Updated: November 15, 2009

NOTE: Footnotes are enclosed with [FN ].

After Leonardo da Vinci, ((Italian, 1452 - 1519) Life size re-creation of the Sforza Horse, 2007

http://www.high.org/leonardo/discover-leonardo.html

Photo: http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=33679

The Sforza Horse, in the High Museum of Art's October 6, 2009 to February 2010 Leonardo da Vinci: Hands of a Genius exhibition, is -counterfeit-.

On page 354 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -counterfeit- is defined as: "to forge, copy, or imitate (something) without a right to do so and with the purpose of deceiving or defrauding."[FN 1]

This 26 foot-high non-disclosed -counterfeit- was posthumously (2007) enlarged and forged in resin from a 1/7th-scale posthumous (circa 2007) clay forgery by the Italian company -Opera Laboratori Fiorentini S.p.A.-.

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 2]

In 2007, Leonardo da Vinci (d 1519) was 488 years dead.

The dead don't sculpt or approve a 1/7th scale posthumous forgery in clay, much less its' posthumous enlargement in resin.

This monograph will document these contentious issues of authenticity surrounding this non-disclosed -counterfeit- titled the Sforza Horse, the High Museum of Art and the J. Paul Getty Museum's violation of their own endorsed ethical guidelines on sculptural reproduction and who actually forged it.

http://aamd.org/

WHAT ARE THOSE ETHICAL GUIDELINES?

The High Museum of Art's director Michael E. Sharpiro and the J. Paul Getty Museum's director Michael Brand, as members of the Association of Art Museum Director[FN 3], endorse the College Art Association’s "A Statement on Standards for Sculptural Reproduction and Preventive Measures to Combat Unethical Casting in Bronze."[FN 4]

http://www.collegeart.org/

ALL UNAUTHORIZED ENLARGEMENTS - ARE COUNTERFEIT

The College Art Association’s "A Statement on Standards for Sculptural Reproduction and Preventive Measures to Combat Unethical Casting in Bronze," under the subtitle "Unauthorized Translation Into New Materials," states: “All bronze casting from finished bronzes, all unauthorized enlargements, and all transfers into new materials, unless specifically condoned by the artist, all works cast as a result of being in the public domain should be considered as inauthentic or counterfeit. Unauthorized casts of works in the public domain cannot be looked upon as accurate presentations of the artist’s achievement. Accordingly, in the absence of relevant laws and for moral reasons, such works should: -- Not be acquired by museums or exhibited as works of art.”[FN 5]

SFORZA HORSE, MANUFACTURED BY THE OPERA LABORATORI FIORENTINI S.P.A.

The Sforza Horse, in the High Museum of Art's September 1, 2009 "Exhibition Featuring Work of Leonardo da Vinci to Open at High Museum in Atlanta, October 2009" press release under the subtitled "Leonardo, Sculptor," is described as follows: "The initial section of the exhibition, “Leonardo, Master Sculptor,” will feature drawings associated with Leonardo’s plans for works of sculpture, including an in-depth examination of Leonardo’s plans to create the world’s largest and most technically complex statue, a work which was to depict Duke Francesco Sforza mounted on horseback. By November of 1493, Leonardo had completed a 26-foot tall clay model of the horse alone. When war interrupted his work the planned bronze casting was halted and the clay model was subsequently destroyed. A 26-foot-high recreation of the Sforza horse, manufactured by the Opera Laboratori Fiorentini S.p.A., will be on display on the Sifly Piazza at the High."[FN 6]

The High Museum of Art is using "recreation" as an euphemism for -forgery-.

On page 114 of Webster's New World Pocket Dictionary, -euphemism- is defined as: "mild word replacing an offensive one."[FN 7]

A horse in right profile and from the front, c.1490, Leonardo da Vinci, Probably acquired by Charles II; Royal Collection by 1690, Metalpoint on blue prepared paper, 21.4 x 16 cm

http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/eGallery/object.asp?searchText=da+vinci&x=0&y=0&pagesize=20&object=912321&row=47

Photographs: http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=33679

http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/eGallery/object.asp?searchText=da+vinci&x=0&y=0&pagesize=20&object=912321&row=47

LEFT HIND LEG STEPPING FORWARD

Notice the above meticulously rendered circa 1490 drawing, by Leonardo da Vinci, has the horse's left hind leg stepping forward that mirrors the posthumously (2007) enlarged and forged in resin from a 1/7th-scale posthumous (circa 2007) clay forgery by the Italian company -Opera Laboratori Fiorentini S.p.A.-.

ROYAL COLLECTIONS PROVENANCE

The above metalpoint on blue prepared paper was drawn circa 1490 by Leonardo da Vinci. The authenticity of this Leonardo da Vinci drawing is provided by the provenance documented and posted on the Queen of England's Royal Collection's website. It states: "All the drawings and manuscripts in Leonardo’s studio at his death were bequeathed to his pupil Francesco Melzi, who took them back to his family villa near Milan. After Melzi’s death, around 1570, the collection was sold to the sculptor Pompeo Leoni (c.1533-1608), who pasted the drawings into the pages of several albums. These were dispersed some time after Leoni’s death in Madrid, and one was brought to England, probably through the agency of Thomas Howard, 2nd Earl of Arundel, who owned the album by 1630 (though there remains the possibility that it was acquired in Madrid during the visit of the future Charles I in 1623 - either by Charles or by his companion, the 1st Duke of Buckingham - and like the Holbein volume subsequently passed to Arundel). During the Civil War, Arundel left England, and there is no further trace of the Leonardo volume until 1690, when it was recorded at Whitehall Palace. How the album entered the Royal Collection is unknown, though it is most likely that it was acquired by Charles II."[FN 8]

WHAT IS PROVENANCE?

On the auction house Sotheby's www.sothebys.com website, it 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 9]

PROVENANCE FOR THE SFORZA HORSE RESIN FORGERY

What is the provenance for the Sforza Horse resin forgery manufactured by Italian company Opera Laboratori Fiorentini S.p.A.?

AFTER LEONARDO DA VINCI, (ITALIAN, 1452-1519)

The High Museum of Art which did not disclose the manufacturing date of this non-disclosed forgery in their September 1, 2009 "Exhibition Featuring Work of Leonardo da Vinci to Open at High Museum in Atlanta, now in their -October 2009- press release gives the following disclosure: "After Leonardo da Vinci, (Italian, 1452 - 1519) Life size re-creation of the Sforza Horse, 2007."[FN 10]

WHAT DOES -AFTER- MEAN?

On page 8 of Harper Collins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques by Ralph Mayer, -after- is defined as a: "word used in an artist's inscription to indicated that his or her picture or sculpture was modeled on the work of another artist."[FN 11]

MODEL ON THE WORK OF LEONARDO DA VINCI

Since Leonardo da Vinci's original clay model was destroyed and no bronze was cast, how could the Italian company Opera Laboratori Fiorentini S.p.A.'s 21st-century clay forgery be a "model on the work of " Leonardo da Vinci's 15th-century original clay model when it does -not- exist and has not existed for almost 500 years?

WHAT SCHOLARS BELIEVE - IT MIGHT HAVE LOOKED LIKE

This devastating question is addressed on the High Museum of Art's website, under the subtitled "Sforza Horse Monument," where it states: "For more than seventeen years, from 1482 to 1499, Leonardo da Vinci worked on a spectacular monument honoring Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan. This image is a modern re-creation of what scholars believe Leonardo’s 26-foot-high model of just the horse might have looked like. Leonardo made a model from clay and intended to cast the final sculpture in a single piece in bronze. This re-creation is assembled from six enormous pieces of special resin treated to look like bronze."[FN 12]

Should scholars, much less anyone else, substitute their judgment for a dead artist on how a posthumously enlarged forgery, much less a sculptural reproduction of their lifetime work, "might have looked like?"

http://www.collegeart.org/

POSTHUMOUS ENLARGING IS PRESUMPTUOUS & UNETHICAL

This issue on who can or cannot ethically substitute their judgment for a dead artist is further addressed by the AAMD in their endorsed College Art Association's ethical guidelines, concerning posthumous enlargement. In part, 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 13]

RECONSTRUCTED FROM LEONARDO DA VINCI MANUSCRIPTS

In the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's published September 25, 2009 "Enormous Sforza horse lifted over 70-foot wall at High Museum" article by Jamie Gumbrecht and Howard Pusner, the authors quoted a "da Vinci scholar" Andrea Bernardoni stating: "The big horse in front of the museum doesn't have to be seen as Leonardo's horse because he never made it. It is a reconstruction from his manuscripts to give the idea of the majesty and the impressiveness of his project."[FN 14]

Andrea Bernardoni is profiled on www.linkedin.com website as a "history of technology scholar at Institute and Museum of the History of Science and Research Consultant"[FN 15] in Florence, Italy.

So, if the "big horse in front of the museum," as characterized by "da Vinci scholar" Andrea Bernardoni, was "never made" by Leonardo da Vinci then who did?

This question was answered in a October 17, 2009 email from Opera Laboratori Fiorentini SpA's Laura Stiattesi.

Saturday, October 17, 2009, 8:55AM email from Opera Laboratori Fiornentini representative Laura Stiattesi

OUR LAB HAS BEEN BUSY CREATING THE SCULPTURE

The Opera Laboratori Fiornetini SpA representative Laura Stiattesi wrote: "The head of art which followed the sculpture detailed design is prof. Niccolo Niccolai, Florentine artist who still works for Opera Laboratori Fiorentini SpA. Tommaso Cannavale was the work technical manager while the undersigned has followed and directed the work in general. In order to complete the project executive's monumental sculpture, or the horse high 8 meters, we have made several preliminary studies that have produced an initial small model in bronze. From this model, once defined all details, We have produced a horse in scale 1:7. To obtain the life-size sculpture was constructed by a analog pantograph which helped to bring forms of the horse on blocks of polystyrene which were then carved. The technique is comparable to the production of sculptures in stone as was used in historical periods, from the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Renaissance, etc.. The University of Florence, to get a digital model, has scanned (using 3D scanning) the horse in 1:7 scale. Of course, the conceptual project and the scientific studies are of the Institute and Museum of the History of Science in Florence. Our lab has been busy creating the sculpture."

U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW - WHAT IS A SCULPTURE?

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.”

WHAT IS A SCULPTOR?

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

In other words, by law and definition, sculptures are created by sculptors.

So, if Leonardo da Vinci's original 15-century Sforza Horse clay sculpture does not exist since it was destroyed some 500 years earlier and no bronze was ever cast, how in the 21st-century could Opera Laboratoria Fiornetinia SpA and Niccolo Niccolai "followed the sculpture detail design" for "creating the sculpture," much less reproduce it?

As ludicrous as that question may seem to be, the answers are even more troubling.

IV.5C.a1, Clay model for casting the horse for the Sforza monument

Reconstruction in scale of 1:7 after Leonardo da Vinci, Madrid Ms. II and Royal Collection, Windsor, 12321r; P 92r Opera Laboratori Fiorentini, The original model was destroyed by Gascon archers during the French occupation of Milan in 1499.

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13379&xsl=1

RIGHT HIND LEG STEPPING FORWARD

Notice the above reconstructed 1/7 scale "clay model," by Italian company Opera Laboratori Fiornentini S.p.A., has the horse's right hind leg stepping forward.

CLAY MODEL FOR CASTING THE HORSE

On the website of the Institute and Museum of the History of Science, under the subtitle "The Moulding Process," it states: "Clay model for casting the horse for the Sforza monument - Reconstruction in scale of 1:7 after Leonardo da Vinci" with "Opera Laboratori Fiorentini."[FN 16]

On page 1279 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -reconstruction- is defined as: "The act or process of building, re-creating or reorganizing something."[FN 17]

Remember, since Leonardo da Vinci's original clay model was destroyed and no bronze was cast, how could Italian company Opera Laboratori Fiorentini S.p.A.'s 21st-century clay forgery be a "model on the work of " Leonardo da Vinci when the object in question does not exist and has not existed for almost 500 years?

THE CHALLENGE OF THE SFORZA MONUMENT

In the Institute and Museum of the History of Science's "Nuncius, Journal of the History of Science," it stated that "On March 28, the film 'Leonardo's Colossus: The Challenge of the Sforza Monument,' written by Andrea Bernardoni with the advice of Paolo Galluzzi, was shown. The documentary, created by the Multimedia Laboratory and video directed by the Pesci Combattenti company, presents one of the most ambitious artistic and technological challenges of the Renaissance. Thanks to Leonardo's drawings and notes, it was possible to reconstruct the monument's molding and casting process through digital animation techniques."[FN 18]

On the Online Etymology, -Renaissance- is defined as: "great period of revival of classical-based art and learning in Europe that began 14c."[FN 19]

Additionally, on Wikipedia's website, -Renaissance- is further defined as: "French for 'rebirth' Italian: Rinascimento, from re- 'again" and that it was "a cultural movement that spanned roughly the 14th to the 17th century, beginning in Florence in the Late Middle Ages and later spreading to the rest of Europe."[FN 20]

So, how can this 21st-century counterfeiting in clay and the subsequent posthumous enlargement in resin, despite occurring some 400 or more years after the end of the Renaissance in the 17th-century, be "one of the most ambitious artistic and technological challenges of the Renaissance?"

[detail] A horse in right profile and from the front, c.1490, Leonardo da Vinci, Probably acquired by Charles II; Royal Collection by 1690, About this work of art, Metalpoint on blue prepared paper, 21.4 x 16 cm

http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/eGallery/object.asp?searchText=da+vinci&x=0&y=0&pagesize=20&object=912321&row=47

[detail] IV.5C.a1, Clay model for casting the horse for the Sforza monument, Reconstruction in scale of 1:7 after Leonardo da Vinci, Madrid Ms. II and Royal Collection, Windsor, 12321r; P 92r, Opera Laboratori Fiorentini, The original model was destroyed by Gascon archers during the French occupation of Milan in 1499.

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13379&xsl=1

CLAY FORGERY MIRRORS DA VINCI DRAWING

Notice, the Italian company Opera Laboratori Fiorentino S.p.A.'s posthumous (circa 2007) clay forgery (detail) has the right hind leg of the horse stepping forward that -reverses- or mirrors Leonardo da Vinci's circa 1490 drawing in "Metalpoint on blue prepared paper" (detail), which as noted earlier has the left hind leg of the horse stepping forward.

IV.5E.f, Leonardo da Vinci, Madrid Ms. II, 151v, Study on distribution of the furnaces along the casting pit (mold in horizontal position).

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13381&xsl=1

Notice the above "study on distribution of the furnaces along the casting," by Leonardo da Vinci, has the horse's left hind leg stepping forward, just like his meticulously drawn "a horse in right profile and from the front, c.1490" drawing noted earlier.

[detail] contrast enhanced 57 steps} IV.5E.f, Leonardo da Vinci, Madrid Ms. II, 151v, Study on distribution of the furnaces along the casting pit (mold in horizontal position).

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13381&xsl=1

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13379&xsl=1

CLAY FORGERY MIRRORS ANOTHER DA VINCI DRAWING

Once again, the Italian company Opera Laboratori Fiorentino S.p.A.'s posthumous (circa 2007) clay forgery (detail) has the right hind leg of the horse stepping forward that -reverses- or mirrors Leonardo da Vinci's circa 1490 drawing in "study on distribution of the furnaces along the casting" (detail), which as noted earlier has the left hind leg of the horse stepping forward.

LEONARDO DEDICATED GREAT ATTENTION

On the Institute and Museum of Science and History's (Florence, Italy) website describing the "Smelting System" Leonardo da Vinci designed for casting his Sforza Horse, it states: "On the Making a statue of such colossal size as the Sforza monument in a single casting called for a smelting system with multiple furnaces. Leonardo dedicated great attention to studying the optimum typology for the furnaces, their location and the system of channels for feeding the mold."[FN 21]

If "Leonardo dedicated great attention to studying the optimum typology for the furnaces, their location and the system of channels for feeding the mold," these two 15th-century Leonardo da Vinci drawings would tend to support his intention to have the left hind leg stepping forward rather than the Italian company Opera Laboratori Fiorentini S.p.A.'s 21st-century mirror forgery in clay

MARVELOUS DRAWINGS OF HORSES

On the Institute and Museum of Science and History's (Florence, Italy) website, under the subtitle "IV.5B Anatomy, Drawing from Nature and Proportions," it states: "In connection with the project for the Sforza monument, Leonardo engaged in extensive research on the ideal proportions of the horse. The marvelous drawings of horses from nature reveal his concern with effectively representing the continuity between three-dimensional forms (such as those of the horse) and two-dimensional drawings. For this purpose he adopted the solution of depicting the same object from different viewing points."[FN 22]

The above drawings are some of the Leonardo da Vinci drawings posted on the Institute and Museum of Science and History's website to impress some to just believe or suspend disbelief that the Italian company Opera Laboratori Fiornetini S.p.A.'s posthumous (circa 2007) forged clay model represents "the continuity between three-dimensional forms (such as those of the horse) and two-dimensional drawings."

IV.5A.hm Leonardo da Vinci, Royal Collection, Windsor, 12345r; P 107r, Horse at a walk seen in profile. The considerations on the walking pose accompanying this drawing are in relation with the changes made in the project for the Sforza monument between 1489 and 1490.

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13377&xsl=1

PROJECT WAS CHANGED IN FAVOR OF A HORSE IN A WALKING POSE

The Institute and Museum of the History of Science, on their website under the subtitle "The Sforza Monument" stated: "The idea for the equestrian monument came from Galeazzo Maria Sforza, who conceived of a life-size sculptural group that would represent his father Francesco astride a rearing horse. Later on, the project was taken up again by Ludovico il Moro, who commissioned Leonardo to sculpt the monument. Between 1489 and 1490 the project was changed; the dimensions were almost quadrupled and the idea of a rearing horse was abandoned in favor of a horse in a walking pose."[FN 23]

[detail] IV.5A.hm Leonardo da Vinci, Royal Collection, Windsor, 12345r; P 107r, Horse at a walk seen in profile. The considerations on the walking pose accompanying this drawing are in relation with the changes made in the project for the Sforza monument between 1489 and 1490.

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13377&xsl=1

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13379&xsl=1

RIGHT HIND LEG STEPPING FORWARD

Aside that it is a drawing by Leonardo da Vinci of a horse, with stubby legs and an elongated torso, done "between 1489 and 1490" that bears little resemblance to Leonardo da Vinci's meticulous rendered circa 1490 drawing, it does have the same right hind leg stepping forward as the Italian company Opera Laboratori Fiornetini S.p.A.'s 21st-century 1/7th scale clay forgery.

So, is this the Leonardo da Vinci drawing that convinced the Italian company Opera Laboratori Fiornetini S.p.A. that this was Leonardo da Vinci's vision for his "Sforza Monument?"

IV.5C.d, Leonardo da Vinci, Royal Collection, Windsor, 12346r; P 109r, Study of casting core. On the outline of the horse is shown the thickness to be removed to create the hollow space into which the bronze will be poured.

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13379&xsl=1

LEONARDO'S DESIRE TO MAKE THE GIGANTIC MONUMENT

The Institute and Museum of the History of Science, on their website under the subtitle "The Molding Process," states: "Leonardo’s desire to make the gigantic monument in a single casting led him to develop a molding method that would produce a casting of uniform thickness and lighter weight."[FN 24]

[detail] IV.5C.d, Leonardo da Vinci, Royal Collection, Windsor, 12346r; P 109r, Study of casting core. On the outline of the horse is shown the thickness to be removed to create the hollow space into which the bronze will be poured.

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13379&xsl=1

RIGHT HIND LEG STEPPING FORWARD

Aside that this drawing by Leonardo da Vinci of a horse, with elongated torso with the left fore leg further outstretched that bears little resemblance to Leonardo da Vinci's meticulous rendered circa 1490 drawing, it does have the same right hind leg stepping forward as the Italian company Opera Laboratori Fiornetini S.p.A.'s posthumous 1/7th scale clay forgery.

Is this the Leonardo da Vinci drawing that convinced the Italian company Opera Laboratori Fiornetini S.p.A. that this was Leonardo da Vinci's vision for his "Sforza Monument?"

IV.5E.d, Leonardo da Vinci, Madrid Ms. II, 149r, Diagram for feeding the casting mold. In planning to cast the statue in the vertical position, Leonardo thought of using the legs as vent stacks for the gases produced during casting.

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13381&xsl=1

LEONARDO'S DESIRE TO MAKE THE GIGANTIC MONUMENT

The Institute and Museum of the History of Science, on their website under the subtitle "The Smelting System," states: "Making a statue of such colossal size as the Sforza monument in a single casting called for a smelting system with multiple furnaces. Leonardo dedicated great attention to studying the optimum typology for the furnaces, their location and the system of channels for feeding the mold."[FN 25]

[detail] IV.5E.d, Leonardo da Vinci, Madrid Ms. II, 149r, Diagram for feeding the casting mold. In planning to cast the statue in the vertical position, Leonardo thought of using the legs as vent stacks for the gases produced during casting.

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13381&xsl=1

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13379&xsl=1

RIGHT HIND LEG STEPPING FORWARD

Aside that this drawing by Leonardo da Vinci of a horse has left fore leg at a 90% angle and left hind leg that is stretched further back and bears little resemblance to Leonardo da Vinci's meticulous rendered circa 1490 drawing, it does have the same right hind leg stepping forward as the Italian company Opera Laboratori Fiornetini S.p.A.'s 21st-century 1/7th scale clay forgery.

Is this the Leonardo da Vinci drawing that convinced the Italian company Opera Laboratori Fiornetini S.p.A. that this was Leonardo da Vinci's vision for his "Sforza Monument?"

RED HERRING

On page 1282 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -red herring- is defined as: "An irrelevant legal or factual issue."[FN 26]

In other words, what has been, in majority, presented by the High Museum of Art, the Institute and Museum of the History of Science and others is a huge school of red herrings ie., "irrelevant factual issues" to distract the public from the reality that the so-called "Sforza Monument" on exhibit at the High Museum of Art is a 26 foot-high non-disclosed -counterfeit- that was posthumously (2007) enlarged and forged in resin from a 1/7th-scale posthumous (circa 2007) clay forgery by an Italian company -Opera Laboratori Fiorentini S.p.A.-.

HIGH'S COMMITMENT TO - BRING GREAT WORKS OF ART

Yet, in the High Museum of Art's September 1, 2009 "First Exhibition to Explore Leonardo's Significant Role in Renaissance Sculpture; Many Works Traveling to U.S. For First Time" press release, the museum director Michael E. Sharpiro is quoted: "Following in the tradition of 'Verrocchio’s David' and 'Ghiberti’s Gates of Paradise,' this exhibition underscores the High’s commitment to collaborative partnerships that promote new research, advance scholarship, support conservation and bring great works of art to Atlanta and other major U.S. cities.”[FN 27]

"Great works of art" are created by -living- artists, the dead don't sculpt.

This would have been self-evident if the High Museum of Art, much less their collaborative partner J. Paul Getty Museum, would practice what they preach. This is never more certain than when documented under Getty Research, where -counterfeit- is defined as: "forgeries (derivative objects)" with a note stating: "Reproductions of whole objects when the intention is to deceive; includes sculptures cast without the artist's permission."[FN 28]

Remember, Leonardo da Vinci (d 1519) was some 488 years dead when this so-called "Sforza Monument" was posthumous forged into clay and enlarged in resin in 2007.

The dead don't give permission.

AAMD -CODE OF ETHICS-

As current members of the Association of Art Museum Directors, the High Museum of Art's director Michael E. Shapiro and J. Paul Getty's director Michael Brand endorses the Association of Art Museum Director's "Code of Ethics," which in part states: "The position of a museum director is one of trust. The director will act with integrity and in accordance with the highest ethical principles. The director will avoid any and all activities that could compromise his/her position or the institution."[FN 29]

In other words, by exhibiting this non-disclosed counterfeit Sforza Horse for the price of admission and other monetary considerations, would the High Museum of Art's director Michael E. Sharpiro and the J. Paul Getty Museum's director Michael Brand be acting "with integrity and in accordance with the highest ethical principles?"

WHAT ARE THOSE MONETARY CONSIDERATIONS?

Aside the adult admission fee of $18 per person, the monetary support for this Leonardo da Vinci; Hands of a Genius exhibition is substantial and documented in the High Museum of Art's September 1, 2009 "Exhibition Featuring Work of Leonardo da Vinci to Open at High Museum in Atlanta, October 2009" press release. In part, it stated: "Leonardo da Vinci: Hand of the Genius” is organized by the High Museum of Art in association with the J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, and in collaboration with the Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore and the Opificio delle Pietre Dure in Florence, Italy. The exhibition is generously supported by Lead Corporate Partner Delta Air Lines and sponsor Campanile Plaza. Support has also been provided by The Samuel H. Kress Foundation and Leonardo Society members Loraine P. Williams, Lanier-Goodman Foundation, Morgens West Foundation, and Mr. and Mrs. Gary W. Rollins, with additional support from the Atlanta Foundation. This exhibition is supported by an indemnity from the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities. Generous support for the Sforza horse is provided by Art Partners. In-kind support comes from Superior Rigging and UPS. The accompanying publication, “Leonardo da Vinci and the Art of Sculpture,” is supported by the Friends of Florence, a non-profit international foundation based in the United States. The exhibition is curated by Gary M. Radke, Dean’s Professor of the Humanities at Syracuse University and Consulting Curator of Italian Art at the High Museum of Art. Restoration of Rustici’s “John the Baptist Preaching to a Levite and a Pharisee” from the façade of the Baptistery in Florence was sponsored by the Friends of Florence."[FN 30]

EXHIBITION IS SUPPORTED BY AN INDEMNITY

In other words, this 26 foot-high non-disclosed -counterfeit- Sforza Horse that was posthumously (2007) enlarged and forged in resin from a 1/7th-scale posthumous (circa 2007) clay forgery by an Italian company -Opera Laboratori Fiorentini S.p.A.- is being insured by the American public through the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities.

http://www.nea.gov/

WHAT IS THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE ARTS?

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.”[FN 31]

Furthermore, under Section 972. Items eligible for indemnity agreements (a), it states: “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.”[FN 32]

So, unless this Sforza Horse was exempt from this indemnification, indemnifying an obvious posthumous forgery, much less a reproduction, would be a direct violation of the National Endowment of the Arts' Section 972.

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 33]

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 34]

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 35]

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 36]

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 High Museum of Art, much less J. Paul Getty Museum, 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 -forgeries- 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 -forgeries- 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:

1) Michael E. Shapiro

Nancy and Holcombe T. Green, Jr. Director

High Museum of Art

1280 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

404-733-4444

2) Michael Brand

Director

J. Paul Getty Museum

1200 Getty Center Drive

Los Angeles, CA 90049–1679

(310) 440-7300

3)Institute and Museum of the History of Science

Piazza dei Giudici, 1

50122 Florence, Italy

39 055 265 311

4) National Endowment for the Arts

1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20506

202.682.5400

5) Gary M. Radke

Dean’s Professor of the Humanities at Syracuse University

Department of Art and Music Histories

308 Bowne Hall

Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1200

(315) 443-4184

FOOTNOTES:

2) Ibid

3) http://www.aamd.org/about/

4) www.collegeart.org/caa/ethics/sculpture.html

5) Ibid

6)http://www.high.org/main.taf?erube_fh=erblog&erblog.submit.PostDetail=true&erblog.blogid=31&erblog.BlogPostID=859

8)http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/eGallery/object.asp?searchText=da+vinci&x=0&y=0&pagesize=20&object=912321&row=47

9) http://www.sothebys.com/help/ref/ref_liveterms.html#c9

10) 21) http://www.high.org/leonardo/discover-leonardo.html

12) http://www.high.org/leonardo/discover-leonardo.html

13) www.collegeart.org/caa/ethics/sculpture.html

14) http://www.accessatlanta.com/atlanta-events/enormous-sforza-horse-lifted-146830.html

15)http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrea-bernardoni/3/311/734

16)http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13379&xsl=1

18) http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/nuncius/enln.asp?c=24215

19)http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=renaissance&searchmode=none

20) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance

21)http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13381&xsl=1

22)http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13378&xsl=1

23)http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13377&xsl=1

24)http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13379&xsl=1

25)http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/emdl.asp?c=13419&k=13363&rif=13381&xsl=1

27)http://www.high.org/main.taf?erube_fh=erblog&erblog.submit.PostDetail=true&erblog.blogid=31&erblog.BlogPostID=859

28)http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATFullDisplay?find=counterfeit&logic=AND&note=&english=N&prev_page=1&subjectid=300121305

29) http://aamd.org/about/#Code

30)http://www.high.org/main.taf?erube_fh=erblog&erblog.submit.PostDetail=true&erblog.blogid=31&erblog.BlogPostID=859

31) http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/20/26/I/955

32) Ibid

34) Ibid

35) Ibid

36) Ibid

Gary Arseneau

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Maxfield Parrish reproductions are not lithographs, yet the Trust for Museum and the Delaware Art Museum would have the public believe otherwise

Sunday, October 18, 2009

COUNTERFEIT -Sforza Horse- in the High Museum of Art's "Leonardo da Vinci: Hand of the Genius" exhibition

About Me

Links

Previous Posts

Archives