Picasso Looks at Degas -forgeries- at the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute

NOTE: Footnotes are enclosed as follows: [FN].

Updated: August 29, 2010 with quote attribution to Arthur Beale.























Little Dancer Aged Fourteen, 1879–81
Bronze, with gauze tutu and silk ribbon, on wooden base, height: 99 cm
Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts (1955.45)
http://www.clarkart.edu/exhibitions/picasso-degas/content/checklist.cfm
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

All so-called “bronzes by Degas,”[FN 1] much less in the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute’s June 13 to September 12, 2010 Picasso Looks at Degas exhibition, are non-disclosed posthumous -forgeries-.

On page 660 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -forgery- is defined as: "The act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine."[FN 2]

ALL DEGAS BRONZES ARE POSTHUMOUS FORGERIES
Here are three references that confirm all bronzes, attributed to Edgar Degas, are posthumous forgeries:

1. On page 180 of the National Gallery of Art’s published 1998 Degas at the Races catalogue, in the “The Horse in Wax and Bronze” essay, the authors Daphne S. Barbour and Shelly G. Strum wrote: “Degas never cast his sculpture in bronze, claiming that it was a “tremendous responsibility to leave anything behind in bronze -- the medium is for eternity.”[FN 3]

2. On page 609, of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s published 1988 Degas catalogue, in his “A Note on Degas’s Bronzes” essay, the curator Gary Tinterow wrote: “The bronzes included in this exhibition, like those widely distributed throughout the world, are posthumous, second-generation casts of the original wax sculptures by Degas.”’[FN 4]

3. On page 152 of the Art Institute of Chicago’s published 1984 Degas catalogue by Richard R. Brettell and Suzanne Folds McCullagh, 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.” [FN 5]

Therefore, the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute’s “act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine," is confirmed by the following facts:

FIRST, on the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute’s checklist’[FN 6] for their Picasso Looks at Degas exhibition, all ten so-called “bronzes by Degas” have dates that predates his 1917 death:

1. “Dressed Dancer at Rest, Hands behind Her Back, Right Leg Forward, c. 1895 Bronze, height: 42.9 cm The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. H. O. Havemeyer Collection, Bequest of Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, 1929 (29.100.392)

2. “Fourth Position Front, On the Left Leg, c. 1880s Bronze, height: 57.5 cm Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts (1955.49)

3. “Grand Arabesque, First Time, c. 1880s Bronze, height: 48.2 cm Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts (1955.46)

4. “Grand Arabesque, Second Time, c. 1880s Bronze, height: 48.2 cm Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts (1955.47)

5. “Head of a Woman (Mlle Salle), 1892 Bronze, height: 25.5 cm Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Bequest of Margarett Sargent McKean (1979.509)

6. “Little Dancer Aged Fourteen, 1879–81 Bronze, with gauze tutu and silk ribbon, on wooden base, height: 99 cm Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts (1955.45)

7. “Nude Study for “Little Dancer Aged Fourteen,” c. 1878 Bronze, height: 72.4 cm The National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh (NG 1624)

8. “Pregnant Woman, c. 1896–1911 Bronze, height: 43.2 cm Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. The Joseph H. Hirshhorn Bequest, 1981 (HMSG 86.1415)

9. “The Tub, c. 1889 Bronze, height: 22.2 cm The National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh (NG 2286)

10. “Woman Arranging Her Hair (La Coiffure), c. 1896–1911 Bronze, height: 46.7 cm Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn, 1966 (HMSG 66.1305)”

Irrefutably, by posting this Picasso Looks at Degas exhibition checklist on their website, Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute believes or wants the admission paying public to believe or both that the so-called “bronzes by Degas” in this exhibition were cast in bronze during his lifetime.

SECOND, the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute contradicts itself on its’ website when an online audio for their Picasso Looks at Degas exhibition, the moderator stated the museum’s -Little Dancer Aged Fourteen- is "one of number of casts made from Degas’ wax original after the artist’s death." [FN 7]

This contradiction is further confirmed on page 1 in the “Introduction” of the Joslyn Art Museum’s published 1998 Degas and the Little Dancer catalogue by Richard Kendall (one of two Picasso Looks at Degas exhibition curators), where the author wrote: “More than its illustrious companions, the Little Dancer has achieved a special kind of fame through multiplicity; made originally by Degas in wax and dressed by him in a fabric tutu, hair wig, and silk ribbon, the figure was replicated after the artist’s death...”[FN 8]

Aside that Edgar Degas -never- worked exclusively in wax and replicate[FN 9] by definition is an original work of visual art created by a living artist, we now discover that Picasso Looks at Degas exhibition curator Richard Kendall knew that Edgar Degas was dead when the so-called -Little Dancer Aged Fourteen- was forged.

The dead don’t bronze.

THIRD, as a member of the Association of Art Museum Directors’[FN 10], the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute’s director Michael Conforti (and former AAMD president), not to mention other thirteen participating AAMD museum members (see Addendum) in the Picasso Looks at Degas exhibition, endorses the College Art Association's ethical guidelines on sculptural reproductions which in part state: "any transfer into new material, unless specifically condoned by the artist, is to be considered inauthentic or counterfeit and should not be acquired or exhibited as works of art."[FN 11]

The dead don’t condone.
























Page 101, Joslyn Art Museum’s 1998 Degas and the Little Dancer catalogue by Richard Kendall
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

FOURTH, on page 101 of the Joslyn Art Museum’s published 1998 Degas and the Little Dancer catalogue by Richard Kendall, a contributor Arthur Beale, in his "Little Dancer Aged Fourteen: The Search for the Lost Modele" essay, wrote of the museum's posthumously (1920-21) forged plaster: “Quite simply put, if one looks for a stable sculptural medium that brings us through time close to the hand of Degas, then plaster meets the criterion. In addition, if my observations and conclusions are correct, the Joslyn Art Museum plaster cast (fig. 71) also possesses significant historic importance in that it represents the mother of the some twenty-three or more bronze casts of the sculpture now found world wide (cat. 45).”[FN 12]

So, the Picasso Looks at Degas exhibition curator Richard Kendall knew in 1998 that the -Little Dancer Age Fourteen- bronzes were posthumously forged, not from any waxes that Edgar Degas did not work exclusively in, but from posthumous plasters forged by the hands of the Hebrard foundry workers.

The dead don't plaster.
























Edgar Degas, Pregnant Woman, c. 1896—1911. Bronze, height: 43.2 cm. Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. The Joseph H. Hirshhorn Bequest, 1981 (HMSG 86.1415) / Photo by Lee Stalsworth.
http://blog.clarkart.edu/2010/08/10/behind-the-scenes-of-picasso-looks-at-degas/pregnant-woman-degas/
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERY

FIFTH, on the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute’s website, in the same audio for their Picasso Looks at Degas exhibition, the moderator stated: “It is not surprising... Degas should have depicted pregnancy in a notably sympathetic manner on several occasions... the startling sculpture of a completely naked pregnant woman that now belongs in the collection of the Hirshhorn museum...”[FN 13]

On the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden’s website, this same “Pregnant Woman,” ie., "startling sculpture" as characterized by the moderator, on loan to the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute’s Picasso Looks at Degas exhibition, is listed as: “cast 1919-1925.”[FN 14]

Edgar Degas died in 1917.

The dead don't sculpt.

SIXTH, are we to suspend disbelief or just believe when the Picasso Looks at Degas exhibition catalogue is promoted by the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute as -this groundbreaking study- by “noted Degas scholar Richard Kendall and Picasso expert Elizabeth Cowling” who “present well-documented instances of Picasso's direct responses to Degas's work, as well as more conceptual and challenging affinities between their oeuvres?”’[FN 15]

On page 922 of the Random House College Dictionary, -oeuvre- is defined as: “the works of a writer, painter, or the like.’[FN 16]

The dead don’t have an oeuvre.

SEVENTH, to go from the ridiculous to the sublime, in the “Behind the Scenes: ‘Picasso Looks at Degas’” posted on the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute’s blog, one of the exhibition curators Professor Emeritus of History of Art at Edinburgh University Elizabeth Cowling wrote: “All the works, whatever their medium, seem to interact with each other, and the more you look the more connections between them you notice. It’s almost dizzying, to the point where one forgets who—Picasso or Degas—made what.”[FN 17]

The dead don't make what.























Page 104 of Joslyn Art Museum's published 1998 Degas and the Little Dancer by Richard Kendall
POSTHUMOUS COUNTERFEIT DEGAS SIGNATURE

EIGHTH, to add insult to injury, all posthumous bronze forgeries, falsely attributed to Edgar Degas, have a so-called “Degas” signature inscribed to them.

Edgar Degas -never- signed his original mixed-media sculptures.

This is confirmed on the National Gallery of Art’s www.nga.gov/education/degas-11.htm website, where it stated: “By comparing the sculpture to stylistic changes in Degas' paintings and pastels, we are developing a chronology for the sculpture, which Degas did not date or sign.”

On page 1387 in the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, the term -signature- is defined as: “A person’s name or mark written by that person or at the person’s direction.”[FN 18]

Yet, on page 103 of the Joslyn Art Museum's published 1998 Degas and the Little Dancer catalogue by Richard Kendall, a contributor Arthur Beale, in his "Little Dancer Aged Fourteen: The Search for the Lost Modele" essay, wrote: "Degas' signature was added by the Founder by a stamp impressed in wax and added when the model version was still in wax."[FN 19]

The dead don't sign.
















Resting on the Bed, c. 1876-77
Monotype, 12.1 x 15.9 cm
Private collection, Switzerland
Works by Edgar Degas (1835-1917)
http://www.clarkart.edu/exhibitions/picasso-degas/content/checklist.cfm
Photo: http://www.clarkart.edu/exhibitions/picasso-degas/content/brother-scenes.cfm

NINTH, and finally, the American Association of Museum’s Board of Directors approved July 2000 Guidelines on Exhibiting Borrowed Objects. In part, it stated: “Before considering exhibiting borrowed objects, a museum should have in place a written policy, approved by its governing authority and publicly accessible on request, that addresses the following issues:"'[FN 20]

One of those issues is: “requiring the museum to examine the lender's relationship to the institution to determine if there are potential conflicts of interest, or an appearance of a conflict, such as in cases where the lender has a formal or informal connection to museum decision making (for example, as a board member, staff member or donor).”[FN 21]

How can this be transparently accomplished when many of the lenders (See Addendum Private Collections for complete list) in this Picasso Looks at Degas exhibition are anonymous?

Additionally, it stated: “Adhering to an ethical standard that exceeds legal minimums. AAM's Code takes as given that museums comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws and international conventions. The Code also makes clear that museums must abide by ethical standards that frequently exceed legal minimums because the purpose of the Code is to foster conduct that merits the confidence of the public. Without public confidence, museums cannot effectively carry out their missions.”[FN 22]

In other words, without transparency on who the lenders are, much less what they are truly lending, how will the public ever know there is no inherent conflict of interest?

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 23]

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 24]

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 25]

FRAUD
Furthermore, 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 26]

CONCLUSION
The Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute's Picasso Looks at Degas exhibition contains at least ten non-disclosed posthumous forgeries, with counterfeit "Degas" signatures applied, misrepresented to the public as "bronzes by Degas" and "sculptures" for the $15 price of adult admission, city-state-federal grants, corporate sponsorship and potentially future monetary benefits such as tax-write-offs and outright sales.

In an heighten sense of hyprocrisy, the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute and thirteen of the participating museums, as members of the Association of Art Museum Directors, are violating their own endorsed ethical guidelines that state: "any transfer into new material, unless specifically condoned by the artist, is to be considered inauthentic or counterfeit and should not be acquired or exhibited as works of art."

Remember, the dead don't bronze, condone, sculpt, plaster, have oeuvres, or make what, much less sign.

The Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute's "Mission," posted on its' website, in part states: "The Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute is an art museum and a center for research and higher education, dedicated to advancing and extending the public understanding of art."[FN 27]

Therefore, in support of the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute's dedication "to advancing and extending the public understanding of art," this monograph documents the contentious issues of authenticity with all so-called "bronzes by Degas" so that with full and honest disclosure the museum patrons might be able to give informed consent on whether or not to attend this Picasso Looks at Degas exhibition, much less pay the price of admission.

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. http://www.clarkart.edu/exhibitions/picasso-degas/content/the-ballet.cfm

2. © 1999 By West Group, ISBN 0314022864

3. © 1998 National Gallery of Art ISBN 0-300-07517-0

4. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1988, ISBN 0-88884-581-2 (National Gallery of Canada)

5. Copyright © 1984 by The Art Institute of Chicago, ISBN 0-8109-0804-2 (hard: H.N. Abrams)

6. http://www.clarkart.edu/exhibitions/picasso-degas/content/checklist.cfm

7. http://www.clarkart.edu/exhibitions/picasso-degas/content/audio.cfm

8. Copyright © 1998 by Joslyn Art Museum, ISBN 0-936-36428-9

9. On page 350 of Ralph Mayer’s Definitions of Art Terms & Technique, -replica- is defined as: “an exact copy or duplicate of a work, done in the same size and in the same medium, and done by the artist who created the original.” Copyright © 1991 by Bena Mayer, ISBN 0-06-461012-8 (pbk.)

10. http://www.aamd.org/about/#Members

11. www.collegeart.org/caa/ethics/sculpture.html “A Statement on Standards for Sculptural Reproduction and Preventive Measures to Combat Unethical Casting in Bronze Approved by the CAA Board of Directors, April 27, 1974. Endorsed by the Association of Art Museum Directors and the Art Dealers Association of America.”

12. Copyright © 1998 by Joslyn Art Museum, ISBN 0-936-36428-9

13. http://www.clarkart.edu/exhibitions/picasso-degas/content/audio.cfm

14. http://hirshhorn.si.edu/visit/collection_object.asp?key=32&subkey=5998

15. http://www.clarkart.edu/exhibitions/picasso-degas/content/catalogue.cfm

16. Copyright © 1980 by Randon House Inc., ISBN 0-394-43500-1

17. http://blog.clarkart.edu/2010/08/10/behind-the-scenes-of-picasso-looks-at-degas/

18. © 1999 By West Group, ISBN 0314022864

19. Copyright © 1998 by Joslyn Art Museum, ISBN 0-936-36428-9

20. http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/borrowb.cfm

21. Ibid

22. Ibid

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

24. Ibid

25. Ibid

26. Ibid

27. http://www.clarkart.edu/about/content.cfm?ID=37



ADDENDUM:

CURATORS:
Elizabeth Cowling is Professor Emeritus of History of Art at Edinburgh University, and an independent scholar and exhibition curator.
History of Art: School of Arts, Culture and Environment (ACE)
The University of Edinburgh
20 Chambers Street
EH1 1JZ
Scotland
United Kingdom
elizabeth.cowling@ed.ac.uk

Richard Kendall is Curator-at-Large at the Clark, as well as an independent scholar and exhibition curator.

Cécile Godefroy is a researcher at the Fundación Almine y Bernard Ruiz-Picasso para el Arte in Madrid.

Sarah Lees is Associate Curator of European Art at the Clark.

Montse Torras is Exhibitions Coordinator at the Museu Picasso in Barcelona.


ASSOCIATION OF ART MUSEUM DIRECTORS MEMBERS:
1. Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Richard Koshalek
PO Box 37012
MRC Code 350

2. Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Michael Govan
5905 Wilshire Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90036

3. The Phillips Collection, Washington, D.C.
Dorothy Kosinski
1600 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009

4. Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts
Michael Conforti
225 South Street
P.O. Box 8
Williamstown MA 01267

5. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Malcolm Rogers
465 Huntington Ave of the Arts
Boston MA 02115

6. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York
Richard Armstrong
1071 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10128

7. The Baltimore Museum of Art, Maryland
Doreen Bolger
10 Art Museum Drive
Baltimore MD 21218-3898

8. The Museum of Modern Art, New York
Glenn Lowry
11 W. 53rd Street
New York NY 10019

9. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Thomas Campbell
1000 Fifth Avenue
New York NY 10028-0194

10. Brooklyn Museum, New York
Arnold L. Lehman
200 Eastern Parkway
Brooklyn NY 11238

11. The Art Institute of Chicago
James Cuno
111 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago IL 60603-6110

12. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Earl A. Powell, III
2000 B South Club Drive
Landover, MD 20785

13. National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa
Marc Mayer
380 Sussex Drive, P.O. Box 427
Ottawa Ontario K1N 9N4

14. Allen Memorial Art Museum, Oberlin College
Stephanie Wiles
87 North Main Street
Oberlin OH 44074

OTHER U.S. MUSEUMS:
15. Dumbarton Oaks House Collection, Washington, D.C.
Jan M. Ziolkowski
1703 32nd Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20007-2961
(202) 339-6401

16. The Kreeger Museum, Washington, D.C.
Judy A. Greenberg
2401 Foxhall Road, NW
Washington, D.C. 20007
(202)337-3050
publicrelations@kreegermuseum.org

FORIEGN MUSEUMS:
17. Museu Picasso, Barcelona
C/ Montcada, 15-23
08003 Barcelona, España
933 196 310
museupicasso@bcn.cat

18. Musée National Picasso
5 Rue Thorigny
75003 Paris, France
01 42 71 25 21

19. Museum Ludwig, Cologne
Heinrich-Böll-Platz 1
50667 Köln, Deutschland
0221 221-26165

20. Museo del Novecento, Milan
Piazza del Duomo, 12
20122 Milano, Italia
02 72095659

21. Kunstmuseum Basel, Kupferstichkabinett
Dr. Bernhard Mendes Bürgi
St. Alban-Graben 16
CH-4010 Basel
Telefon 0041 (0)61 206 62 62

22. Sainsbury Centre, Norwich, England
Nichola Johnson, Director
University of East Anglia/Earlham Road
Norwich NR47TJ, United Kingdom
01603 593193
n.johnson@uea.ac.uk

23. Bibliothèque de l’Institut national d’histoire de l’art, Paris


24. The National Gallery, London
Trafalgar Square
London
WC2N 5DN
44 (0)20 7747 2885
information@ng-london.org.uk
NOTE: The National Gallery, London ironically has a current June 30 - September 12, 2010 exhibition titled: Close Examination: Fakes, Mistakes and Discoveries.

25. Tate, London
44 (0) 20 7887 8888
pressoffice@tate.org.uk
NOTE: The Tate collection contains numerous non-disclosed forgeries falsely attributed to Edgar Degas, as well as other artists. Here are links to two examples: http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=3705&searchid=29067
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=4031&searchid=29073

26. Musée d’Orsay, Paris
1 Rue de la Légion d'Honneur
75007 Paris, France
01 40 49 48 14

27. The National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh
The Mound
Edinburgh, City of Edinburgh EH2 2EL, United Kingdom
0131 624 6200
enquiries@nationalgalleries.org

28. Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery, England
Chamberlain Square
Birmingham B3 3DH, United Kingdom
0121 303 1966
rita.mclean@birmingham.gov.uk

29. British Museum, London
Great Russell Street
London WC1B 3DG, United Kingdom
020 7323 8000
communications@britishmuseum.org


PRIVATE COLLECTIONS:

Works by Pablo Picasso (1881–1973)

An Artist (Portrait of Degas), 6 February 1968
Oil on canvas, 81 x 65 cm
Private collection

Bather, 1931
Bronze, height: 40 cm
Private collection. Courtesy Fundación Almine y Bernard Ruiz-Picasso para el Arte (55297)

Nude Wringing Her Hair, 7 October 1952
Oil on wood panel, 150.5 x 119.4 cm
Private collection

Running Woman, 1931–32
Plaster and wood, height: 52 cm
Private collection

Seven Dancers, 1919–20
Ink and watercolor on paper, 26.3 x 39.5 cm
Private collection

Two Seated Dancers, 1925
Pencil on paper, 50 x 40 cm
Private collection


Works by Edgar Degas (1834–1917)

Conversation, c. 1876–77
Monotype, 16 x 12.1 cm
Private collection, Switzerland

Resting on the Bed, c. 1876–77
Monotype, 12.1 x 15.9 cm
Private collection, Switzerland

Self-Portrait, c. 1895
Original print with modifications, possibly made by Picasso. Inscribed on the reverse in Picasso’s hand “Portrait P.H. / de E. Degas,” 18.2 x 24.2 cm
Private collection. Courtesy Fundación Almine y Bernard Ruiz-Picasso para el Arte

Studies for the “Little Dancer Aged Fourteen” (Nude), c. 1878–80
Charcoal heightened with white chalk on gray paper; stamped with red signature lower right, 48 x 63 cm
Private collection, London

The Tub, c. 1878–80
Monotype, 16 x 21.1 cm
Private collection

Two Dancers in the Wings, c. 1880–95
Pastel on paper mounted on cardboard on a wooden stretcher, 59 x 46.4 cm
Private collection

Woman Combing Her Hair, c. 1896–99
Charcoal and pastel on tracing paper, 109 x 76.3 cm
Private collection

Renoir Sculptural Forgeries in -The Late Renoir- exhibition & the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s collection

UPDATED: August 7, 2010 w/Table of Content & August 9, 2010 photos w/signatures

NOTE: Footnotes are enclosed with [FN ].

















European Painting before 1900, Johnson Collection, Head of Coco, Made in France, Modeled in plaster 1908; cast in bronze c.1920, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, French, 1841 - 1919, Bronze cast by C. Valsuani, Paris., Bronze, 10 3/4 x 7 5/8 x 7 1/2 inches (27.3 x 19.4 x 19.1 cm), Currently not on view, 1950-92-47, Bequest of Lisa Norris Elkins, 1950
http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/52099.html?mulR=31958
NON-DISCLOSED FORGERY

There are -no- sculptures by Pierre-Auguste Renoir in the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s The Late Renoir exhibition.

With the exception of the non-disclosed reproduction titled: Coco (bronze medallion), the other eighteen so-called Pierre-Auguste Renoir sculptures in this exhibition and the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s collection, are -forgeries-.

On page 660 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -forgery- is defined as: "The act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine."[FN 1]

J. Paul Getty Museum, under their Getty Research, defines -counterfeit- 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 2]

One example of these eighteen forgeries is the titled “Head of Coco” attributed to Pierre-Auguste Renoir as a “sculpture”[FN 3] and listed as: “cast in bronze c. 1920,” in the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s collection and The Later Renoir exhibition.

Pierre-Auguste Renoir died December 3, 1919.

The dead don’t sculpt, much less give permission.

Then going from the ridiculous to the sublime, on page 346 of the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art’s Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue, this non-disclosed forgery is listed as: “Coco, Circa 1920, 10 3/4 x 7 5/8 x 7 1/2 in. (27.3 x 19.4 x 19.1 cm), Signed at the front on the right: RENOIR; foundry stamp: 20/20 Cire perdue C. Valsuani, Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of art, Bequest of Lisa Norris Elkins, 1950, 1950-92-47.”[FN 4]

Remember, Pierre-Auguste Renoir died in 1919.

The dead don't sign.

Yet, on page 17, in the “Preface” for the Renoir in the 2oth Century catalogue, the Administrateur general Reunion des Musees Nationaux Thomas Grenon, Musee d’Orsay President Guy Cogeval, Los Angeles County Museum of Art Director Michael Govan and Philadelphia Museum of Art Director Timothy Rub wrote: “The purpose of the present exhibition is to look into the artist’s late years.”[FN 5]

Therefore, the -purpose- of this monograph will be to document that The Late Renoir exhibition, organized by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Reunion des Musees Nationaux and the Musee d’Orsay in collaboration with the Philadelphia Museum of Art, misrepresented one reproduction and eighteen lifetime & posthumous forgeries as sculptures by Pierre-Auguste Renoir who did not create them.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Table of Contents
Checklist

1. Entirely with His Own Hands, Renoir's Two Sculptures
2. Not only an Old Man but a Helpless Paralytic
3. Renoir Crippled by Illness - Worked with Guino
4. Ambroise Vollard, Man Behind the Scheme
5. How is a Sculpture Really Created?
6. Reproduction & Forgeries in -The Late Renoir-
7. Association of Art Museum Directors
8. Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Program
9. Law, Ethics and The Visual Arts

Conclusion

-Association of Art Museum Directors members participating in The Late Renoir exhibition
-Honorary Committee (The Late Renoir)
-Exhibition Committee (The Late Renoir)
-Renoir in the 20th century catalogue Coordinated By
-Sponsors & Support (The Late Renoir)
-Footnotes



CHECKLIST
Lifetime cast/reproduction:
1907-08
1. Coco, Circa 1907-08

Eighteen lifetime & posthumous forgeries
1913-1918
1. The Judgment of Paris (Le Jugement de Paris), 1913-14
2. The Judgment of Paris (Le Jugement de Paris), 1914
3. Venus Victrix (Venus Victrix [Venus victorieuse], 1913-15
4. Venus Victrix, 1913-15
5. Hymn to Life (Hymne a law vie)
6. Fire, or Small Blacksmith (Feu, or Petit Forgeron), 1914-16 or post-1916
7. Water or Small Washerwoman (Eau or Petite Laveuse), 1916
8. Water or Small Washerwoman (Eau or Petite Laveuse), 1916
9. Water or Large Washerwoman (Eau or Grande Laveuse), 1917?
10. Large Washerwoman, Circa 1918

Pierre-Auguste Renoir died 1919.

After 1919
11. Fire, or Small Blacksmith (Feu, or Petit Forgeron), 1914-16 or post-1916
12. Coco, Circa 1907-08
13. Coco, Circa 1920

1950’s
14. Dancer with Tambourine I (Danseuse au tambourine I)
15. Dancer with Tambourine II (Danseuse au tambourine II)
16. Flute Player (Jouerur de fluteau)
17. Dancer with Tambourine II, Made in France, c. 1918-19
18. Pipe-Player III, Made in France, c. 1918-19





















“Renoir in his old age, sitting in his studio 1912, Gelatin-silver print, 11 1/2 x 9 1/4 in. (29.3 x 23.5 cm), Paris, Musee National Picasso Archives Picasso” (detail), p 124, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue
RENOIR IN 1912

1. ENTIRELY WITH HIS OWN HANDS, RENOIR'S TWO SCULPTURES

In the 1947 Renoir Sculptor biography by Paul Haesaerts, the author wrote that Pierre Auguste Renoir created, in 1907, “entirely with his own hands, which even at that time were partially paralyzed,”[FN 6] only two sculptures, Medallion and the Bust of his son Coco.

AFTER 1910 RENOIR’S HANDS WERE ENTIRELY RIGID

Additionally, in Paul Haesaerts’ 1947 Renoir Sculptor biography, the author wrote that when Pierre Auguste Renoir “wanted to go back to modeling three or four years later, his hands were entirely rigid.”[FN 7]

RENOIR’S HANDS TERRIBLY DEFORMED FROM RHEUMATISM

Pierre Auguste Renoir’s devastating disability is further confirmed in Barbara Ehrlich White’s 1984 Renoir, His Life, Art and Letters biography where on page 245 the author wrote that in early 1919 Renoir’s “hands were terribly deformed. Rheumatism had cracked the joints, bending the thumb toward the palm and the other fingers toward the wrist. Although his fingers were paralyzed, he retained the ability to move his wrists and arms. Jean explained: "His hands, with the fingers curled inward, could no longer pick up anything. It has been said, and written, that his brush was fastened to his hand. That is not entirely accurate. The truth is that Renoir's skin had become so tender that contact with the wooden handle of the brush injured it. To avoid this difficulty, he had a little piece of cloth inserted in the hollow...”[FN 8]

Renoir, Aline and Coco, 1912, Cat. 157, p 273,
Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue
RENOIR IN 1912


2. NOT ONLY AN OLD MAN BUT A HELPLESS PARALYTIC

On page 10 of the Paul Haesaerts’ 1947 Renoir Sculptor biography, the author wrote: “With the exception of a very few earlier attempts, Renoir devoted himself to sculpture on the eve and at the beginning of the war of 1914-1918, in other words between his seventy-third and seventy-fifth years. At the time he was not only an old man but a helpless paralytic. He was carried from his bed (where often enough he needed a cage to keep the bedclothes from touching his aching limbs) either in a sedan chair or in a wheelchair. His body was almost mummified. Not only was he deprived of the use of his legs, but his hands were stiffened and shrived. To allow him to paint, a brush was fixed between his rigidly curled fingers; thenceforth the work was done by arm movements, not by those of the hand and fingers.”[FN 9]

HOW RENOIR COPED WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

To fully appreciate how severe Pierre-Auguste Renoir’s disability was and how it progressively affected his ability to paint, much less to sculpt[sic], I have excerpt from the British Medical Journal’s published December 20, 1997 “How Renoir coped with rheumatoid arthritis” correspondence by rheumatologist Annelies Boonen, 13th European congress of rheumatology president Jan van de Rest, rheumatologist Jan Dequeker and rheumatologist Sjef van der Linden. [FN 10]

The rheumatology doctors wrote: “Few people know that Pierre-Auguste Renoir, who lived from 1841 to 1919, suffered from severe rheumatoid arthritis for the last 25 years of his life. At the 13th European congress of rheumatology in Amsterdam in 1995 Mr Paul Renoir, the artist's 70 year old grandson, revealed several previously unpublished aspects of his grandfather's disease.”[FN  11]

"Fig 4 With these deformed hands Renoir continued to roll his own cigarettes and completed more than 400 works of art. The bandages served to absorb the sweat to prevent maceration." (Photograph from British Medical Journal's published December 20, 1997 "How Renoir coped with rheumatoid arthritis" article)

THE DISEASE LEAD TO POOR HAND FUNCTION

From photograph albums offered from the grandson Paul Renoir, the rheumatology doctors made the following observations: “In a photograph of 1896, when he was 55, the swelling of the metacarpophalangeal joints can be clearly seen (fig 1). Five years later, in 1901, when he was 60, he could still use his hands fully as witnessed in the way he holds his pipe (fig 2). Then the arthritis became more aggressive, and in the photograph of 1903 (fig 3), at the age of 62, we see the dramatic change where he tries to hold his inseparable cigarette in his deformed hands. The aggressive nature of the disease resulted in the destruction and ankylosis of his right shoulder and ruptures of several extensor tendons of fingers and wrists, leading to poor hand function, as shown in the picture of his hands of 1912 (fig 4), when he was 71.”[FN 12]

1912 STROKE LEFT RENOIR PARTIALLY PARALYZED

As if Pierre-Auguste Renoir did not suffer enough from the progressive nature of the disease, the doctors wrote: “In 1912, at the age of 71, a stroke was reported, which partially paralyzed his arms and legs. It is more likely that the paralysis was due to rheumatoid arthritis, affecting the cervical spine. From then on he could not walk anymore and he was confined to a wheelchair.”[FN 13]

"Fig 10 Renoir in 1915, when rheumatoid cachexia was clearly visible."(Photograph from British Medical Journal's published December 20, 1997 "How Renoir coped with rheumatoid arthritis" article)


PLEURITIS, FACIAL PALSY, LOST WEIGHT & BEDSORES

Finally, the doctors wrote: “There is evidence that the rheumatoid arthritis affected not only his joints. At the beginning of the disease a pleuritis is reported and later a facial palsy, which was treated with electrotherapy. From 1904 onwards, at the age of 63, he began to lose weight because of rheumatoid cachexia (fig 10). He reports this quite cynically in a letter: "I can't stay seated because I'm so thin. Forty six kilos, that can't be called fat. My bones are sticking through my skin and this despite a good appetite." Renoir's rheumatoid arthritis was nodulous and the nodules on his back became particularly troublesome after 1912, the year he became wheelchair bound. These nodules were removed by Dr Prat, a surgeon at the Belvédère Hospital in Nice. In 1918 gangrene of his foot was described. Despite good care, he also developed bedsores. Finally, in 1919, on his return from Paris to his house in the south of France, he caught pneumonia and died on 3 December, having spent several hours painting that evening on a still life of apples in a basket that his youngest son, Coco, had brought him.”[FN 14]

So, how does the Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue and the principals, who wrote it, reconcile Pierre-Auguste Renoir’s progressively deteriorating physical condition the last six years of his life, with the prolific attribution of sculpture to him during those same six years, much less since his death?

 















Richard Guino dans son atelier de la rue Daguerre, en 1912
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Richard_Guino_1912.jpg/250px-Richard_Guino_1912.jpg
RICHARD GUINO IN 1912


3. RENOIR CRIPPLED BY ILLNESS - WORKED WITH GUINO

These contentious issues of authenticity are glossed over or ignored in the "Renoir the Sculptor?" essay by Reunion des Musees Nationaux’s Emmanuelle Heran in the Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue. In part, the author wrote: “Most of the sculptures were in fact created a the end of his life, at a time when the painter was crippled by illness and could hardly use his hands. So, he worked with a young sculptor, Richard Guino, a collaboration that produced some twenty reliefs and sculptures in the round.”[FN 15]

Suspending disbelief that stroke-ridden paralytic old man who could barely hold a brush somehow contributed anything to the so-called sculptures attributed to him that were ultimately forged by Richard Guino and others, what explanation will be offered for the posthumous forgeries in The Late Renoir exhibition?

 

















“Ambroise Vollard in front of Renoir’s Great Bathers, the version the dealer had commissioned in 1903, Circa 1920-30” (detail), p 403, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue
AMBROISE VOLLARD, CIRCA 1920-30


4. AMBROISE VOLLARD, MAN BEHIND THE SCHEME

In 1913, the art dealer Ambroise Vollard hatched a scheme to cash-in on the popularity of the artist Pierre Auguste Renoir by hiring, “at his own expense,”[FN 16] sculptor Richard Guino to forge work and pass those forgeries off as Pierre Auguste Renoir’s sculpture.

On page 1346, of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -scheme- is defined as: “an artful plot or plan usu. to deceive others.”[FN 17]

Once again, on page 660 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -forgery- is defined as: "The act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine."[FN 18]

When paralytic Pierre-Auguste Renoir was approached about the idea of sculpture by Ambroise Vollard, what was the artist’s response?

MY DEAR FRIEND, DON’T YOU SEE THE STATE I’M IN?

On pages 17-18 in the 1947 Renoir Sculptor biography by Paul Haesaerts, author wrote: Ambroise Vollard “still had to persuade Renoir, whose scruples persisted, to put himself seriously to work. It was not easy. Poor Renoir, perfectly aware of his condition, could do nothing but hold out his twisted, inert hands and say: 'But my dear friend, don't you see the state I'm in?'"[FN 19]

VOLLARD HAD HIS WAY BY TIRING OUT HIS VICTIM

Unfortunately, as Paul Haesaerts wrote "The painter's entourage could not help being annoyed by Vollard's importunity. It was noted with displeasure that this stubborn merchant always had his way by tiring out his victim."[FN 20]

So, the paralytic Pierre Auguste Renoir “who at first was somewhat surprised and hesitant about the arrangement"[FN 21] abdicated his scruples, as they were, to Ambroise Vollard’s avarice.

How did this so-called collaboration work between Pierre-Auguste Renoir and Richard Guino?

GUINO MODELED & DESIGNED
On page 74 in her “Renoir the Sculptor?” essay in the Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue, Emmanuelle Heran wrote: “Now the role played by Guino went far beyond that of a simple practitioner or assistant. He modeled clay for an artist who was not a trained sculptor and who was no longer able to model because of the paralysis crippling his hands. He helped to design the works, from both a theoretical and aesthetic perspective...”[FN 22]

GUINO WILL ARRANGE THINGS WITH VOLLARD NOT RENOIR

Additionally, on page 74 in her “Renoir the Sculptor?” essay in the Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue, Emmanuelle Heran wrote: “Vollard initially informed Guino: “I have agreed it with Monsieur Renoir; he will not have anything to do with your work. You will arrange things with me.”[FN 23]

GUINO CAST, MOLD, RETOUCH, ENLARGE, REPAIR & PROOF

Furthermore, on page 74-75, Emmanuelle Heran wrote: “[Cast in plaster] would normally be a mold-maker who carried out this work, but we know Guino took responsibility for this personally - even retouched the plasters - enlargement of the Venus - receive the casts in his own studio in order to repair them before sending them to the metal founder [and] Renoir probably did not see all the proofs sold by Vollard, on the other hand it is possible, even probable, that Guino, the first-rate sculptor, validated them.”[FN 24]

So, what was Pierre-Auguste Renoir’s contribution to this collaboration?

RENOIR HOLDING A CANE DICTATING ORDERS

This is addressed, on page 74, where Emmanuelle Heran wrote: ‘Vollard described the painter as holding “a long stick in his hand, dictating the volumes of his Venus Victrix to his practitioners,’ but also talks of a ‘cane.’”[FN 25]

RENOIR SAW IT AFTER THE PIECE WAS FINISHED

In the Telegraph published May 5, 2002 "The Renoir Wars" article by Alix Kirsta, the reporter wrote: “Some claim that Guino carried out only the heavy moulding and chiseling Renoir was too frail to undertake, while he issued instructions using a baton. According to Michel and his sister Marie, the truth was different. They often heard their father describe how he worked alone at the bottom of the garden, making preparatory sketches and sculpting all the bronzes, including Venus Victrix. 'Indoors, Renoir painted in his studio on the first floor, unable to walk. So he couldn't constantly supervise the work,' Marie says. 'When my father finished a work, he cut a piece of clay, Renoir put his name on it and it went on to the sculpture. Papa told me no one saw him making La Grande Laveuse. Renoir saw it in Paris after the piece was finished.”[FN 26]

VOLLARD NEVER MENTIONED THE DREADED NAME OF GUINO

Ambroise Vollard’s avarice and lack of credibility was never more evident when on page 21 in Renoir Sculptor biography, the author Paul Haesaerts wrote: “He maneuvered in such a way as to have the exclusive right to sell these sculptures; he made himself practically their sole proprietor, or at the very least their 'publisher'. There after it was in his interest to create the impression that the works he was holding and selling were by Renoir alone. He never mentioned the dreaded name of Guino (the 'Assistant,' he called him, and changed the subject). He spoke freely of several 'executants' whose intervention, he implied, was quite as important as Guino's.”[FN 27]

SCULPTURES MADE IN MY ABSENCE I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT

If there was any doubt that Pierre Auguste Renoir understood that he was involved in a scheme with the art dealer Ambroise Vollard and forger Richard Guino, the art critic George Besson answered that question when he quoted Renoir stating: “‘I no longer want to be the author of sculptures made in my absence, from my old sketches.’ Another concern being: ‘Vollard has the stamp of my signature. Will he use it, like a brand name, on all sorts of pieces, some of which may be successful but which I do not know about?”[FN 28]

There is no honor among thieves.


5. HOW IS A SCULPTURE REALLY CREATED?

On page 372 in Ralph Mayer’s HarperCollins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques, -sculpture- is defined as: “the creation of three dimensional forms by carving, modeling or assembly. In carving, the sculptor removes unwanted material.... In modeling on the other hand, the sculptor creates a form by building it up...”[FN 29]

WHO IS A SCULPTOR?

The J. Paul Getty Trust’s Getty Vocabulary Program, defines -sculptor- as: “artists who specialize in creating images and forms that are carried out primarily in three dimensions, generally in the media of stone, wood, or metal.”[FN 30]

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

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 31]

In other words, sculptures are created by sculptors, much less signed by them.

As noted earlier, but important to mention again, J. Paul Getty Museum, under their Getty Research, defines -counterfeit- 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 32]

Therefore, would “reproductions of whole objects when the intention is to deceive,” such as the bronzes cast from plasters made from Richard Guino’s hand and subsequently misrepresented as Renoir sculptures, qualify as forgeries?

PHILADELPHIA MUSEUM OF ART IN PENNSYLVANIA, USA

Despite, The Late Renoir exhibition current venue in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, located in the State of Pennsylvania of the United States of America, some may argue that French Law is applicable to explain away these contentious issues of authenticity.

FRENCH DECREE - FULL DISCLOSURE OF REPRODUCTIONS

This is quickly dispelled by the March 3, 1981 French decree no. 81.255, Article 9, which states: “All facsimiles, casts of casts, copies, or other reproductions of an original work of art as set out in Article 71 of Appendix III of the General Code of Taxes, executed after the date of effectiveness of the present decree, must carry in a visible and indelible manner the notation ‘Reproduction’.”[FN 33]

So, whether it is U.S. Copyright Law or a French decree, reproductions are -reproductions-, unless of course they are forgeries.

Aside the $24 per adult admission to view The Late Renoir exhibition, “The exhibition is supported in part by The Annenberg Foundation Fund for Major Exhibitions and by an indemnity from the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities. Major foundation support for this exhibition is provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts, 1675 Foundation, and The Robert Lehman Foundation. Additional support is provided by The Women's Committee of the Philadelphia Museum of Art; Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Abramson, Barbara B. and Theodore R. Aronson, Maude de Schauensee, Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Linck, Martha Hamilton Morris and I. Wistar Morris III, Mr. and Mrs. John M. Thalheimer, Harriet and Larry Weiss, and other generous contributors to the Renoir Salon; and other individual donors. Promotional support provided by NBC 10 WCAU; Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau (PCVB) and the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation (GPTMC); The Philadelphia Inquirer, Daily News, and Philly.com; and Amtrak.”[FN 34]

So, would misrepresenting reproductions, much less forgeries, as original works of visual art ie., sculptures, for $24 per adult admission, city-state-federal grants, corporate sponsorship, tax write-offs, and other monetary considerations, be considered “a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment”[FN 35] which is one legal definition of -fraud-?

6. REPRODUCTION & FORGERIES IN -THE LATE RENOIR-

One Lifetime Cast/REPRODUCTION
“Cat.89, Coco, Circa 1907-08, Lost-wax cast bronze medallion, 8 5/8 (diam.) x 13/4 in. (22 x 4.5 cm), Inscribed signature: Renoir; on the edge: 1/4, Paris, Musee d’Orsay, RF 1999. [pages 346 Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

On page 19 of the Paul Haesaerts’ 1947 Renoir Sculptor biography, the author wrote: “The medallion, which is only 8 1/2 inches (22 cm.) in diameter, was undertaken in 1907, and was intended to decorate the fireplace of the dining room in Cagnes, where it was set when finished. Its outline is irregular, conforming with Renoir’s ideas on the virtues of what he calls ‘irregularism” (he left an essay on this subject.”[FN 36]

1 of 18 FORGERIES

“Cat. 68, Pierre Auguste Renoir and Richard Guino, The Judgment of Paris (Le Jugement de Paris), 1913-14, Haut-relief, plaster, patinated terracotta, 30 x 37 1/4 x 4 in. (76.2 x 94.5 x 10 cm), Signed and dated bottom right: Renoir 1914, Paris, Musee d’Orsay, RF 2745, -Exhibited in Paris.” [pages 306 & 311, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

2 of 18 FORGERIES

“Pierre Auguste Renoir and Richard Guino, The Judgment of Paris (Le Jugement de Paris), 1914 Haut-relief, bronze, 29 1/4 x 35 1/2 x 6 3/4 in. (74.3 x 90.2 x 17.2 cm), Signed and dated bottom right: Renoir 1914, Cleveland, The Cleveland Museum of Art, Purchased 1941.591, - Exhibited in Los Angeles and Philadelphia Not illustrated-.” [page 306 Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

RENOIR ASKED GUINO TO ROUGH OUT A BAS-RELIEF

On page 26 of Paul Haesaerts’ 1947 Renoir Sculptor biography, the author wrote of Renoir asking Guino “his sculptor to rough out a bas-relief which might eventually serve to ornament the base of the Small Venus.” “For this purpose,” Pierre-Auguste Renoir gave Richard Guino “as a basic outline, the photograph of a drawing done in 1908, the same year in which he had also painted a Judgment of Paris in oils on canvas.”[FN 37]

RICHARD GUINO WORKED IN HIS STUDIO & LES COLLETTES

Additionally, on page 26, Paul Haesaerts wrote: “in his Paris studio, Guino worked on this small plaque in low relief “ [then] “Guino started another treatment of the theme, this time in high relief. He worked on this at Les Collettes during the year of 1918.”[FN 38]

EXECUTED BY GUINO UNDER RENOIR GUIDANCE

Yet, on page 40, Paul Haesaerts wrote that the “Large Judgment of Paris” (“Height: 30 in.; width 36 in. {73 x 91 cm.}”) was: “executed by Guino on Vollard’s order and under Renoir’s guidance.[FN 39]

There seems to be no record of Pierre-Auguste Renoir ever being carried to Richard Guino’s studio to supervise the forger at work.

3 of 18 FORGERIES

“Cat. 69, Richard Guino and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Venus Victrix (Venus Victorious), or Small Venus Standing on a Socle (Venus Victrix [Venus victorieuse] or Petite Venus debout au socle), 1913-15, Bronze statuette on a socle, cast by Alexis Rudier, Statuette without socle: 23 1/2 x 11 3/4 x 8 1/8 in. (59.7 x 29.8 x 20.5 cm.), Socle: 9 1/2 x 9 5/8 x 9 1/2 in. (24.2 x 24.5 x 24 cm), Signature inscribed on the upper side of the base: Renoir, Stanford, Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Center for Visual Arts at Stanford University, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Ben C. Deane, 1978-230, Exhibition, New York, 1941, no. 87 (first exhibition of the small Venus).” [pages 312 & 316 Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

RENOIR WANTED RODIN TO BELIEVE HE CREATED THE WORKS

Once again as noted earlier, in the Telegraph published May 5, 2002 “The Renoir Wars” article by Alix Kirsta, the reporter wrote: ”The suppression of Guino's contribution began early, Michel says. 'My father knew he was trapped after coming back to Les Collettes from a day off and finding the cloths he had placed over the Venus Victrix he was working on had been removed. Asking who had moved them, Renoir replied, "Monsieur Rodin".' It dawned on Guino that Renoir had told him to go and relax in Monaco that day because Rodin, with Vollard, had been invited to Les Collettes and would be shown the sculptures. 'He realized they intended to give Rodin the impression that Renoir had created the works and Guino was merely the assistant.'”[FN 40]

Another example of Pierre Auguste Renoir’s complicity in this deception.






















4 of 18 FORGERIES

“Cat. 70, Richard Guino and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Venus Victrix, 1913-15, Patinated plaster, 72 1/2 x 44 7/8 x 29 7/8 in. (184 x 114 x 76 cm), Signature inscribed on the upper side of the base: Renoir Paris, private collection, Exhibition: Paris 1913, no. 152 (“second proof of 1st state” bronze) -Exhibited in Paris-.” [pages 312 & 315 Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

TRANSFORMED INTO A SCULPTURE
On page 313 in the Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue, Emmanuelle Heran wrote: “Venus Victix is unquestionably a triumph.” The author later wrote: “The figure of Venus is based on the image of the goddess in Renoir’s Judgment of Paris Cat. 65-68 who, lifted from the canvas, has been transformed into a sculpture in the round.”[FN 41]























RENOIR IN 1914-15
“Renoir and Coco in the garden of Les Collettes 1914-15,

” (detail), page 398 Renoir in the 20th Century catalogueSculptures, like any original work of visual art, are created by the sculptor. So, who took Renoir image on canvas and “transformed into a sculpture?”

GUINO SCULPTED FOR RENOIR & PRODUCED MULTIPLE COPIES

This is answered on page 314 of the Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue, where Emmanuelle Heran wrote: “in June, Guino received the sum of 5,000 francs for “alterations to the statue of Venus and a plaster proof.” Did he go back and work on the bronze? It is possible he did, because in addition to sculpting for Renoir, Guino was also charged by Vollard with producing multiple copies of all or part of the Venus right away.”[FN 42]

In other words, Pierre-Auguste Renoir was -not- the sculptor for the Venus Victix, Richard Guino was the forger.

5 of 18 FORGERIES

“Cat. 91, Richard Guino and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Hymn to Life (Hymne a law vie), Bronze clock, lost-wax casting, 28 x 20 1/8 x 10 7/8 in. (71 x 51.2 x 27.5 cm.), Signed and dated at the back of the socle, level with the woman’s left foot: Renoir 1914; foundry stamp: No 1/cire perdue/Bisceglia/aParis; other mark: C. Alfred Daber Paris, Paris, Musee d’Orsay, Gift of Alfred Daber, OAO 567” [page 348, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

Ambroise Vollard and his employee Richard Guino were wholly responsible for the forging in plaster and its’ subsequent casting in bronze the so-called Hymn to Life, falsely attributed to a paralytic Pierre Auguste Renoir.

VOLLARD TO GUINO - COULD YOU FINISH THE CLOCK

This is confirmed on page 348 in the Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue, where using his private archives, Emmanuelle Heran wrote the:: “clock was not completed before the summer of 1914. We know this from a letter sent by Vollard to Guino and dated June 16, 1914: ‘Dear Monsieur Guino, Renoir has arrived. Could you bring him the clock. If you can finish it at his house, all the better.’ But then, between November 1915 and June 1916, Guino proceeded to retouch the piece, as we know from an invoice that Vollard settled by paying 3,000 francs for work executed by Guino at Renoir’s house in Cagnes during this period. Haesaerts dates the final completion to as late as 1917. -- On June 30, 1914, Vollard again wrote to Guino: “I have seen Monsieur Renoir who has told me what he wants for the man on the clock; he wants someone to find him a male model with feminine grace but at the same time something in his attitude that say: ‘Look at me... Try to flush out this rare bird.’”[FN 43]

Ambroise Vollard letter to Richard Guino seems to sum up Pierre Auguste Renoir’s so-called career as a sculptor: “Could you bring him the clock, If you can finish it at his house, all the better.”

RENOIR IN CIRCA 1916
“Attributed to Pierre Bonnard, Pierre Auguste Renoir
and his son Jean Circa 1916” (detail), p 401,
Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue


6 of 18 FORGERIES

“Richard Guino and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Fire, or Small Blacksmith (Feu, or Petit Forgeron), 1914-16 or post-1916, Lost-wax cast bronze, 12 3/4 x 8 1/4 x 12 5/8 in. (32.5 x 21 x 32.3 cm.), Signed on the socle, near the left foot: RENOIR, Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Bryant W. Langston, 1957, 1957-43-1,-Exhibited in Los Angeles and Philadelphia, Not illustrated-.” [page 350, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

Since Richard Guino was Ambroise Vollard’s employee and paralytic Pierre Auguste Renoir gave, with or without intent, Ambroise Vollard free rein over these forgeries, they multiplied with impunity.

VALSUANI APPARENTLY CAST A SECOND SERIES

This is never more evident on page 351 in the Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue, where Emmanuelle Heran wrote: “It seems that Vollard immediately produced ten bronzes of Fire, Then, on behalf of the Galerie Renou et Poyet, Valsuani apparently cast a second series of ten bronzes, which included the one now kept at the Musee d’Orsay. However, this is not certain, as there are few of these bronzes in museums. We have located bronzes with the stamps of Ruder, Susse, and Godard. Vollard appears to have had Water cast by Alexis Rudier. There are also bronzes made from one or another version by various casters, including that given by Vollard to the Musee Leon-Dierx in Saint-Denis-de-la-Reunion. there are several examples of the large version of Water cast by Rudier, including the bronze at the Musee d-Orsay which has not stamp but was acquired from Rudier in 1950. Other examples can be found in Amsterdam, Berlin, London, New York, Philadelphia, Sao Paulo, Toledo and Winterthur. Only the Musee d’Orsay is in a position to exhibit all three of these works, although the small version of Water does not belong to the museum; it was recovered after World War II and placed in the care of the French national museums. The owner still remains unknown.”[FN 44]

RENOIR IN 1916-17
“Claude Renoir, Renoir painting under a
parasol 1916-17,” (detail), p 399,
Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue






















7 of 18 FORGERIES

Cat. 93, Richard Guino and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Water or Small Washerwoman (Eau or Petite Laveuse), 1916, Lost-wax cast bronze, 13 3/8 x 7 1/2 x 12 1/4 in. (34 x 19 x 31 cm.), Signed on the socle on the right: Renoir, Paris, Musee d’Orsay, work rediscovered in Germany after WW II and placed into the keeping of the National Museums, attached to the Louvre Museum by the Office des Biens et Inerets prives in 1951, RFR 58. -Exhibited in Paris-. [page 350, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

8 of 18 FORGERIES

Richard Guino and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Water or Small Washerwoman (Eau or Petite Laveuse), 1916, Lost-wax cast bronze, 13 1/4 x 7 1/8 x 12 3/8 in. (33.7 x 20 x 31.3 cm.), Signed on the socle, near the left leg: RENOIR, Philadelphia Museum of Art, The Louis E. Stern Collection, 1963, 1963-181-100, -Exhibited in Los Angeles and Philadelphia- Not illustrated. [page 350, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

GUINO MADE STUDIES CAST IN PLASTER & REWORKED

On page 31 of Paul Haesaerts’ 1947 Renoir Sculptor biography, the author wrote: “Several preliminary studies [Washerwoman] were made, on which Guino worked at Cagnes in 1916 and 1917. Renoir gave him the general handling of them by tracing a few sketchy drawings. The originals of these first sculptured studies were in terra cotta, about 14 inches high (35 cm.). They were then cast in plaster to reworked.”[FN 45]

MADE BY GUINO ON VOLLARD’S ORDER

On page 35, Paul Haesaerts wrote the “Small Stooping Washer Woman” was: “first in terra cotta; they were made by Guino at Cagnes on Vollard’s order and under Renoir’s direction. Several copies were made in plaster, to be reworked in preparation for the rendering of the statue in larger dimensions.”[FN 46]

Sculpture requires the hands on participation of the sculptor for which these published references sadly documents that Pierre-Auguste Renoir was incapable of.

9 of 18 FORGERIES

Cat. 94. Richard Guino and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Water or Large Washerwoman (Eau or Grande Laveuse), 1917?, Bronze, cast by Alexis Rudier, 48 3/8 x 27 1/8 x 53 1/8 in. (123 x 69 x 135 cm.), Signed on upper side of base, near the right knee: Renoir O Paris, Musee d’Orsay, RF 2703 [page 351, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

RENOIR SAW IT AFTER THE PIECE WAS FINISHED

In the Telegraph published May 5, 2002 "The Renoir Wars" article by Alix Kirsta, the reporter wrote: “Some claim that Guino carried out only the heavy moulding and chiseling Renoir was too frail to undertake, while he issued instructions using a baton. According to Michel and his sister Marie, the truth was different. They often heard their father describe how he worked alone at the bottom of the garden, making preparatory sketches and sculpting all the bronzes, including Venus Victrix. 'Indoors, Renoir painted in his studio on the first floor, unable to walk. So he couldn't constantly supervise the work,' Marie says. 'When my father finished a work, he cut a piece of clay, Renoir put his name on it and it went on to the sculpture. Papa told me no one saw him making La Grande Laveuse. Renoir saw it in Paris after the piece was finished.”[FN 47]

Therefore, despite, Emmanuelle Heran’s admission in her essay that Richard Guino worked for Ambroise Vollard, not Renoir, for modeling and molding work with little or no oversight by Renoir, the Reunion des Musees Nationaux “Commissaire pour la sculpture” still has the hubris to state: “’Renoir’s sculpted works are certainly inseparable from his work as a painter.”[FN 48]

That nonsensical statement is only plausible if Pierre Auguste Renoir did not create his paintings any more than the forgeries passed off as his sculptures.

March 11, 1918, page 402, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue

RENOIR IN 1918


10 of 18 FORGERIES

Richard Guino and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Large Washerwoman, Circa 1918, Bronze, 48 x 50 1/2 x 30 in. (121.9 x 128.3 x 76.2 cm.), Signed on the base near the left knee: RENOIR O; dated on the base, on left 1917;stamp below the right foot: Alexis Rudier Paris, Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Purchased with the Diamond Jubilee Fund subscribed by Members and Friends of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1952, 1952-84-1 [page 351, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

GUINO ENLARGED AND RENOIR HARDLY INTERVENED

On page 31 of Paul Haesaerts’ Renoir Sculptor biography, the author wrote: “Guino undertook the roughing-out the Stooping Washerwoman on a larger scale. - At no time did Guino use a model; he was guided by the already completed small statue of the Washerwoman, by certain drawings of Renoir which later became Vollard’s property. - In its present state, even though unfinished (Renoir hardly intervened at all in its’ elaboration).”[FN 49]

It should be clear now Pierre-Auguste Renoir was not only physically incapable of creating sculpture but was a pawn of Ambroise Vollard’s scheme to cash-in on the artist’s popularity and impending death.

Essoyes Cimetiere, Essoyes, Aube. Champagne-Ardenne Region, France
"In December 1919, he contracted pneumonia which resulted in a heart attack that took his life. He was interred in the village cemetery at Essoyes, France.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=8087
RENOIR DIED DECEMBER 3, 1919






















11 of 18 FORGERIES

Cat. 92, Richard Guino and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Fire, or Small Blacksmith (Feu, or Petit Forgeron), 1914-16 or post-1916, Lost-wax cast bronze, 12 3/4 x 8 1/4 x 12 5/8 in. (32.5 x 21 x 32.3 cm.), Signed on the left of the socle: Renoir; foundry mark at the back: cire perdue / C. Valsuani; stamp of the Renoir estate, Paris, Musee d’Orsay, RF 2741, -Exhibited in Paris-. [page 350, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

On page 567 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -estate- is defined as: “The property that one leaves after death; the collective assets and liabilities of a dead person.”[FN 50]

Since the above titled Fire or Small Blacksmith has the “stamp of the Renoir estate,” it had to be posthumously forged with a counterfeit “Renoir” signature applied.

The dead don’t sign.























12 of 18 FORGERIES

Cat. 90, Coco, Circa 1907-08, Bronze bust, cast by Valsuani, 14 5/8 x 7 7/8 x 7 7/8 in. (37 x 20 x 20 cm), Signed on the left of the base; Renoir; foundry stamp: cire perdue/Valsuani/ 21/20, Paris, Petit Palais, Musee des Beaux-Arts de la Ville de Paris, PPS 3420 - Exhibited in Paris-. [page 346, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

13 of 18 FORGERIES

Coco, Circa 1920, Bronze Bust, 10 3/4 x 7 5/8 x 7 1/2 in. (27.3 x 19.4 x 19.1 cm.), Signed at the front: Renoir; foundry stamp: 20/20 Cire perdue C. Valsuani, Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Bequest of Lisa Norris Elkins, 1950, 1950-92-47 -Exhibited in Los Angeles and Philadelphia, not illustrated here. [page 346, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

CAST AFTER RENOIR’S DEATH

On page 346 in the Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue, Emmanuelle Heran wrote: “The bronzes of the bust were all cast after Renoir’s death from this unlocated plaster piece, which carries certain telltale marks, in particular some notches on the lip, on the nose above the right nostril, and on the left cheek, close to the ear -- Robida claims that Gabrielle Renard dropped it on the Nice tram!”[FN 51]

Both Coco bronzes are listed, in Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue, as “Signed Renoir,” despite the admission by Emmanuelle Heran that they are posthumous.

On page 1386 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -sign- is defined as: “to identify (a record) by means of a signature or other symbol with intent to authenticate it as an act or agreement of the person identifying it.”[FN 52]

p. 189, “Girl in a Red Ruff (Femme a la collerette rouge), Circa 1896, Oil on canvas, (16 1/4 x 13 1/8 in. (41.3 x 33. cm), Signed top right: Renoir”[FN 53] & "Renoir" signature detail.

PAINTINGS SIGNED BY RENOIR

Throughout the Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue, Pierre-Auguste Renoir’s paintings are listed as: -Signed Renoir-. Here are just three examples of paintings being signed by Pierre-Auguste Renoir:

1. p 184, "Caryatids (Cariatides), Circa 1897, Oil on canvas, 51 1/8 x 16 3/4 in. (130 x 45 cm), Signed bottom right: Renoir”[FN 54]

2. p. 189, “Girl in a Red Ruff (Femme a la collerette rouge), Circa 1896, Oil on canvas, (16 1/4 x 13 1/8 in. (41.3 x 33. cm), Signed top right: Renoir”[FN 55]

3. p. 292, “Washerwoman (Les Laveuses), Circa 1912, Oil on Canvas, 25 3/4 x 21 1/2 in. (65.5 x 54.5 cm), Signed bottom right: Renoir.”[FN 56]






 

p 354, "Louis Morel and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Dancer with Tambourine I, called “with garland and extended arms” (Danseuse au tambourine I, called “avec guirlande et les bras etendus”) Terracotta relief, edition of Renou and Colle, Paris, 23 1/4 x 16 1/8 x 5 1/8 in. (59 x 41 x 13 cm.), inscribed signature bottom left, at the foot of the figure: Renoir" & "Renoir" signature detail.

POSTHUMOUS FORGERIES LISTED AS SIGNED RENOIR

Yet, here are three of the non-disclosed posthumous forgeries in The Late Renoir exhibition that are listed as -Signed Renoir- or listed as having his -signature Renoir-:

1. p 350, "Richard Guino and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Fire, or Small Blacksmith (Feu, or Petit Forgeron), 1914-16 or post-1916, Lost-wax cast bronze, 12 3/4 x 8 1/4 x 12 5/8 in. (32.5 x 21 x 32.3 cm.), Signed on the left of the socle: Renoir,"

2. p 346, "Coco, Circa 1920, Bronze Bust, 10 3/4 x 7 5/8 x 7 1/2 in. (27.3 x 19.4 x 19.1 cm.), Signed at the front: Renoir,"

3. p 354, "Louis Morel and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Dancer with Tambourine I, called “with garland and extended arms” (Danseuse au tambourine I, called “avec guirlande et les bras etendus”) Terracotta relief, edition of Renou and Colle, Paris, 23 1/4 x 16 1/8 x 5 1/8 in. (59 x 41 x 13 cm.), inscribed signature bottom left, at the foot of the figure: Renoir."

Therefore, what are we to make of those “Honorary Committee” of museum directors & presidents who created The Late Renoir exhibition and the “Exhibition Committee” of curators who wrote this Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue who promote themselves as scholars and connoisseurs but either don’t know the true definition of -sign- or don’t want the public to know or both?

14 of 18 FORGERIES

Cat. 96, Louis Morel and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Dancer with Tambourine I, called “with garland and extended arms” (Danseuse au tambourine I, called “avec guirlande et les bras etendus”) Terracotta relief, edition of Renou and Colle, Paris, 23 1/4 x 16 1/8 x 5 1/8 in. (59 x 41 x 13 cm.), inscribed signature bottom left, at the foot of the figure: Renoir, Cagnes-sur-Mer, Musee Renoir, 51.16.1 -Exhibited in Paris- [page 352, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

ALL THE CASTINGS OF THESE RELIEFS ARE POSTHUMOUS

On page 352, in the Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue, where Emmanuelle Heran wrote: “It was the sculptor Louis Fernand Morel who assisted Renoir in the execution of this traid” and “According to Haesaerts, Morel worked in fresh plaster, not clay. All the castings of these reliefs, whether in terracotta or bronze, are posthumous. ”[FN 57]

Emmanuelle Heran left out one very important point Paul Haesaerts made on page 43 of his Renoir Sculptor biography about those fresh plasters Louis Fernand Morel forged for Pierre Auguste Renoir.

The plasters were “not signed.”

ORIGINAL PLASTERS NOT SIGNED

Once again, that disclosure is found on page 43 of Paul Haesaerts’ 1947 Renoir Sculptor biography, for Dancer with a Tambourine I, Dancer with a Tambourine II and Pipe Player a.k.a. “The Flute Player.” The Paul Haesaerts wrote not only were the plasters “not signed”/“unsigned” but that a so-called “Renoir” signature was “signed”/“scratched” on the terracottas:

• "DANCER WITH A TAMBOURINE I
• “High-relief in terra cotta. Height 23 in.; width 16 in. (58 x 42 cm.), Executed in 1918. Original plaster not signed: terra cotta replicas signed “Renoir” at the foot of the figure. Not dated. Published by Renou and Colle, Paris.
• "DANCER WITH A TAMBOURINE II
• “High-relief in terra cotta. Height 23 in.: width 16 in. (58 x 41 cm.). Executed in 1918. Original plaster unsigned: signature “Renoir scratched on the terra cotta at the feet of the figure. Undated. Published by Renou and Colle, Paris.
• "PIPE PLAYER
• “High-relief in terra cotta. Height 23 in.: width 16 in. (58 x 41 cm.). Executed in 1918. Original plaster unsigned: signature “Renoir scratched on the terra cotta in lower left. Undated. Published by Renou and Colle, Paris.”[FN 58]

Remember, in her "Renoir The Sculptor?" essay, Emmanuelle Heran wrote: “All the castings of these reliefs, whether in terracotta or bronze, are posthumous. ”

On page 1387 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -signature- is defined as: “a person’s name or mark written by that person or at the person’s direction.”[FN 59]

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 60]

Therefore, when the Renou and Colle, Paris [gallery] posthumously cast an unsigned plaster into terracottas with “Renoir” inscriptions posthumously applied, would that be “to forge, copy, or imitate (something) without a right to do so and with the purpose of deceiving or defrauding?”

15 of 18 FORGERIES

“Cat. 97, Louis Morel and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Dancer with Tambourine II, called “with garland and arms together” (Danseuse au tambourine II, called “sans guirlande et les bras rassembles”) Terracotta relief, edition of Renou and Colle, Paris, 22 7/8 x 16 1/8 x 2 3/4 in. (58 x 41 x 7 cm.), inscribed signature bottom right, level with the figure’s feet: Renoir Cagnes-sur-Mer, Musee Renoir, 51.16.2 -Exhibited in Paris-” [page 352, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

THE LAST THREE DECADES BEFORE HIS DEATH

The Philadelphia Museum of Art’s Communications Department published a news release, for The Late Renoir exhibition, that stated: ”The Philadelphia Museum of Art will present the first exhibition to survey the achievement of the great impressionist painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1841-1919), during the last three decades before his death?”[FN 61]

THREE DECADES AFTER HIS DEATH

Yet, on page 352, in the Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue, Emmanuelle Heran wrote: “Vollard played no part in this trade, which remained under the control of Renoir’s heirs. The castings first appeared in the early 1950’s, in Paris at the Galerie Renou et Poyet at 164, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Honore.”[FN 62]

At best, the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s Communication Department has not read page 352 in the Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue.

16 of 18 FORGERIES

“Cat.98, Louis Morel and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Flute Player (Jouerur de fluteau), Terracotta relief, edition of Renou and Colle, Paris, 22 7/8 x 16 1/8 in. (58 x 41 cm.), inscribed signature bottom left, at the base of the tree trunk: Renoir Cagnes-sur-Mer, Musee Renoir, 51.16.3 -Exhibited in Paris-” [page 352, Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue]

Furthermore, on page 352, in the Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue, Emmanuelle Heran wrote: “Maurice Renou and Pierre Colle produced an unknown number of lost-wax bronzes during the 1950’s; Valsuani later produced another twenty in all. These were widely disseminated by the Galerie Bignou, hence their success in the United States, as witnessed by their presence in the following museums: San Francisco Museum of Art, Philadelphia Museum of Art, and the Hirshhorn Museum of Sculpture Garden, Washington, DC --the latter being the only institution to own all three motifs. The present terracottas form part of another edition by Renou and Colle and were given to the Musee Renoir in Cagnes by Claude Renoir in 1951. At present, bronzes of questionable quality proliferate on the art market. Terracotta proofs (one of each relief) from Louis Morel’s studio were put up for sale at Troyes on September 28, 2008.”[FN 63]

17 of 18 FORGERIES

“European Painting before 1900, Johnson Collection, Dancer with Tambourine, Dancer with Tambourine II, Made in France, c. 1918-19, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, French, 1841 - 1919. Modeled by Louis Morel under Renoir's supervision. Terracotta, 23 x 16 3/8 inches (58.4 x 41.6 cm), Currently not on view, 1991-183-2, Gift of an anonymous donor, 1991”

http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/86426.html?mulR=21986

The Philadelphia Museum of Art, despite having their curators Joseph J. Rishel and Jennifer A. Thompson on the Exhibition Committee for The Late Renoir exhibition with a Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue as reference, has not updated their collection website, to disclose these terracottas are posthumous and therefore could not have been “modeled by Louis Morel under a Renoir’s supervision.”

The dead don’t supervise.

















18 of 18 FORGERIES

“European Painting before 1900, Johnson Collection, Pipe Player, Pipe-Player III, Made in France, c. 1918-19, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, French, 1841 - 1919. Modeled by Louis Morel under Renoir's supervision., Terracotta, 23 1/8 x 16 5/8 inches (58.7 x 42.2 cm), Currently not on view, 1991-183-1, Gift of an anonymous donor, 1991”

http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/86425.html?mulR=22943

Aside, that it is misleading listed with a “c. 1918-19” date when it was actually forged in the 1950’s, why does the Philadelphia Museum of Art list it under the following subtitle: “European Painting before 1900?”

7. ASSOCIATION OF ART MUSEUM DIRECTORS

The following Association of Art Museum Director members are loaning work to The Late Renoir exhibition: 1. Baltimore Museum of Art, 2. Indiana University Art Museum, 3. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 4. The Brooklyn Museum, 5. The Albright Know Art Gallery, 6. The Art Institute of Chicago, 7. The Cleveland Museum of Art, 8. Columbus Museum of Art, 9. The Detroit Institute of Art, 10. Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 11. New Orleans Museum of Art, 12. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 13. Philadelphia Museum of Art, 14. Virginia Museum of Art, 15. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco- Legion of Honor, 16. Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Center for the Visual Arts at Stanford University, 17. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 18. The Phillips Collection, Washington, D.C., 19. The Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, MA, 20. Art Gallery of Ontario, and 21. National Gallery of Canada.[FN 64]

1996 AAMD’S 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 65]

In 1974, the Association of Art Museum Directors organization endorsed the College Art Association ethical guidelines on sculptural reproductions.

INAUTHENTIC OR COUNTERFEIT

In part, these ethical guidelines state: “All bronze casting from finished bronzes, all unauthorized enlargements, and all transfers into new materials, unless specifically condoned by the artist, all works cast as a result of being in the public domain should be considered as inauthentic or counterfeit. Unauthorized casts of works in the public domain cannot be looked upon as accurate presentations of the artist’s achievement. Accordingly, in the absence of relevant laws and for moral reasons, such works should: -- Not be acquired by museums or exhibited as works of art.”[FN 66]

Therefore, all AAMD member museums, participating in The Late Renoir exhibition, are violating their own endorsed ethical guidelines with the exhibition of posthumous forgeries as works of art ie., sculptures.

Then to go from the ridiculous to the sublime, these inauthentic or counterfeit Renoirs, with “signatures, edition numbers, and/or foundry marks” in The Late Renoir exhibition could not even be sold as -reproductions- in their gift shops.

2001 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 67]

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 68]

8. ARTS AND ARTIFACTS INDEMNITY PROGRAM

The Late Renoir exhibition at the Philadelphia Museum of Art has received an indemnity from the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities.[FN 69]

The objectives of 45.201 “Arts and Artifacts Indemnity” program, authorized by the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965[FN 70] and run by Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities is “to provide for indemnification against loss or damage for eligible art works, artifacts, and objects (1) when borrowed from abroad for exhibition in the U.S.; (2) when borrowed from the U.S. for exhibition abroad, preferably when there is an exchange exhibition from a foreign country; (3) when borrowed from the U.S. for exhibition in the U.S. as part of exhibitions from abroad which include foreign-owned objects; and 4) when borrowed from U.S. collections for exhibition in the United States.”[FN 71]

The Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities “makes final decisions on all awards based on recommendations from consulting panels of professionals in the field.”[FN 72]

Within the National Endowment for the Arts, listed under Section 955. National Council on the Arts, there is a “National Council on the Arts” ie., “consulting panels of professionals in the field” 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 73]

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 74]

It does not mention reproductions or forgeries.

WHAT IS THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS’ MISSION?

As an independent federal agency and the official arts organization of the United States government, the National Endowment for the Arts states their -Mission- is: “a public agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education.”[FN 75]

When it comes to The Late Renoir exhibition, are we to suspend disbelief or just believe?

9. 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 76]

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 77]

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 78]

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 79]

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 Philadelphia Museum of Art, much less all participating museums and lenders, 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 with reproductions, much less pay the $24 price of admission.

But if these objects are not reproductions by definition and law, but -forgeries- with or without counterfeit signatures or inscriptions applied, much less posthumous, 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.

Association of Art Museum Directors members
participating in The Late Renoir exhibition:
1. Baltimore Museum of Art
Doreen Bolger
10 Art Museum Drive
Baltimore MD 21218-3898
(443)-573-1700

2. Indiana University Art Museum
Adelheid M. Gealt
Bloomington IN 47405
(812)-855-5445

3. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Malcolm Rogers
465 Huntington Ave of the Arts
Boston MA 02115
Tel: (617)-369-3200

4. The Brooklyn Museum
Arnold L. Lehman
200 Eastern Parkway
Brooklyn NY 11238
(718)-501-6200

5. The Albright Know Art Gallery
Louis Grachos
1285 Elmwood Avenue
Buffalo NY 14222
(716)-882-8700

6. The Art Institute of Chicago
James Cuno
111 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago IL 60603-6110
(312)-443-3632

7. The Cleveland Museum of Art
Debbie Gribbon
11150 East Boulevard
Cleveland, OH 44106
(216)-707-2253

8. Columbus Museum of Art
Nannette Maciejunes
480 East Broad Street
Columbus OH 43215
(614)-221-6801

9. The Detroit Institute of Art
Graham W.J. Beal
5200 Woodward Avenue
Detroit MI 48202
(313)-833-7895

10. Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Michael Govan
5905 Wilshire Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90036
(323)-857-6001

11. New Orleans Museum of Art
E. John Bullard
P.O Box 19123
New Orleans, LA 70179
(504)-658-4110

12. The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Thomas Campbell
1000 Fifth Avenue
New York NY 10028-0194
(212)-570-3902

13. Philadelphia Museum of Art
Timothy Rub
P.O. Box 7646
Philadelphia, PA 19101-7646
215 684-7705

14. Virginia Museum of Arts
Alexander Lee Nyerges
200 North Boulevard
Richmond, VA 23220-4007
(804)-340-1500

15. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco- Legion of Honor
John Buchanan
Golden Gate Park
50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive
San Francisco CA 94118-4501
(415)-750-3661

16. Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Center for the Visual Arts at Stanford University
Thomas K. Seligman
Stanford University
Lomita Drive and Museum Way
Stanford CA 94305-5060
(650)-725-0462

17. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Earl A. Powell, III
2000 B South Club Drive
Landover, MD 20785
(202)-842-6001

18. The Phillips Collection, Washington, D.C.
Dorothy Kosinski
1600 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 387-3031

19. The Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, MA
Michael Conforti
225 South Street
P.O. Box 8
Williamstown MA 01267
(413)-458-2303 x 323

20. Art Gallery of Ontario
Matthew Teitelbaum
317 Dundas Street West
Toronto Ontario M5T 1G4 Canada
(416)-979-6613

21. National Gallery of Canada
Marc Mayer
380 Sussex Drive, P.O. Box 427
Ottawa Ontario K1N 9N4 Canada
(613)-990-1927


HONORARY COMMITTEE (THE LATE RENOIR):
1. Marie-Christine Labourdette
Directrice des Musees de France

2. Jean-Paul Cluzel
President du Conseil d’Administration de la Reunion des Musees Nationaux

3. Guy Cogeval
President de l’Etablissement Public du Musee d’Orsay

4. Thomas Grenon
Administrateur general de la Reunion des Musees Nationaux

5. Michael Govan
Chief Executive Officer and Wallis Annenberg Director, Los Angeles County Museum of Art

6. Timothy Rub
The George D. Widener Director and Chief Executive Officer, Philadelphia Museum

EXHIBITION COMMITTEE (THE LATE RENOIR):
Paris
1. Sylivie Patry
Conservateur du patrimoine au Musee d’Orsay

2. Emmanuelle Heran
Conservateur du patrimoine, administratrice adjointe de la RMN en charge de la politique scientifigue
Commissaire pour la sculpture

3. Isabelle Gaetan
Charges d’etudes documentaires au Musee d’Orsay
Commissaire pour les dessins et les photographies

Los Angeles
4. Claudia Einecke
Associate Curator of European Painting and Sculpture, Los Angeles County Museum of Art

5. J. Patrice Marandel
The Robert H. Ahmanson Chief Curator of European Art, Los Angeles County Museum of Art

Philadelphia
6. Joseph J. Rishel
The Gisela and Dennis Alter Senior Curator of European Painting before 1900, Senoir Curator of the John G. Johnson Collection and the Rodin Museum, Philadelphia Museum of Art

7. Jennifer A. Thompson
The Gloria and Jack Drosdick Associate Curator of European Painting and Sculpture before 1900 and the Rodin Museum, Philadelphia Museum of Art.


Renoir in the 20th century
catalogue COORDINATED BY:
1. Claudia Einecke and Sylvia Patry

with contributions by:
2. Roger Benjamin
Research Professor in the History of Art, The University of Sydney

3. Guy Cogeval
President de l’Etablissement Public du Musee d’Orsay

4. Flavie Durand-Ruel
Directeur, Durand-Ruel  & Cie

5. Claudia Einecke
Associate Curator of European Painting and Sculpture, Los Angeles County Museum of Art

6. Isabelle Gaetan
Chargee d’etudes documentaires au Musee d’Orsay

7. Emmanuelle Heran
Conservateur du patrimonine, adminstratrice adjointe de la RMN, en charge de la politique scientifique

8. John House
Walter H. Annenber Professor, Coutauld Institute, London

9. Virginie Journiac
Conservatrice des Musees de Cagne-sur-Mer

10. Martha Lucy
Associate Curator, The Barnes Foundation

11. Laurence Madeline
Conservateur du patrimoine au Musee d’Orsay

12. J. Patrice Marandel
The Robert H. Ahmason Chief Curator of European Art, Los Angeles County Museum of Art

13. Monique Nonne
Charges d’etudes documentaires emerite

14. Sylvie Patry
Conservateur du patrimonine au Musee d’Orsay

15. Jennifer A. Thompson
The Gloria and Jack Drosdick Associate Curator of European Painting and Sculpture before 1900 and the Rodin Museum, Philadelphia Museum

16. Elodie Voillot
Doctorante en histoire de l’art


SPONSORS & SUPPORT (The Late Renoir):
1. Iris Cantor
President and Chairman
Iris & B. Cantor Foundation

2. The Annenberg Foundation Fund for Major Exhibitions

3. The Pew Charitable Trusts

4. The Robert Lehman Foundation

5. The Women’s Committee of the Philadelphia Museum of Art


(SOURCE: Renoir in the 20th Century exhibition catalogue)


FOOTNOTES:
1. © 1999 By West Group, ISBN 0314022864

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

3.http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/52099.html?mulR=31958
“Label, Although primarily a painter, Renoir also was interested in sculpture. He often visited the Musée du Louvre to admire ancient and Renaissance sculpture. In his sixties, Renoir tackled sculpture for the first time, modeling with his own hands the portrait of his youngest son, Claude (nicknamed Coco), first as a medallion, then as a bust. These fresh and somewhat naive works were for his personal pleasure only; he did not exhibit or sell them.”

4. Edited by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Philadelphia © Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfidern, and authors, ISBN 978-3-7757-2539-2

5. Ibid

6. p 19-20, Renoir Sculptor by Paul Haesaerts, Published 1947, Printed by V. Van Dieren & Co and J. E. Buschmann, Printed in Belgium. Under the subtitle: "RENOIR'S FIRST SCULPTURES,” "Renoir, wholly absorbed by his discovery of light painting, did not pursure these first attempts, which were rather the work of an artisan and decorator than that of a sculptor. I was not until 1907 that he took up modeling again." - "Coco [son] was his inspiration for a medallion and a head in sculpture. - The head of Coco, executed some months later."

7. p 20, Ibid, "These two sculptures, the Medallion and the Bust, are the only ones which Renoir executed entirely with his own hands, which even at that time were partially paralyzed."

8. Translated from the French by John Shepley, with Claude Choquet, ISBN 0-8109-8088-6

9. Renoir Sculptor by Paul Haesaerts, Published 1947, Printed by V. Van Dieren & Co and J. E. Buschmann, Printed in Belgium.

10. © 1997 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7123/1704?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=renoir&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT

11. Ibid

12. Ibid

13. Ibid

14. Ibid

15. p 70 of the Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue, in the “Renoir the Sculptor?” essay by Conservateur du patrimoine, adminstratrice adjointe de la RMN, en charge de la politique scientifique Emmanuelle Heran

16. p 16, Renoir Sculptor by Paul Haesaerts, Published 1947, Printed by V. Van Dieren & Co and J. E. Buschmann, Printed in Belgium

17. © 1999 By West Group, ISBN 0314022864

18. Ibid

19. Renoir Sculptor by Paul Haesaerts, Published 1947, Printed by V. Van Dieren & Co and J. E. Buschmann, Printed in Belgium

20. p 17-18, Ibid

21. p 16, Ibid

22. p 74 of the Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue, in the “Renoir the Sculptor?” essay by Conservateur du patrimoine, adminstratrice adjointe de la RMN, en charge de la politique scientifique Emmanuelle Heran

23. Ibid

24. Ibid

25. Ibid

26 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3664946/The-Renoir-wars.html

27. Renoir Sculptor by Paul Haesaerts, Published 1947, Printed by V. Van Dieren & Co and J. E. Buschmann, Printed in Belgium

28. p 75 of the Renoir in the 20th Century catalogue, in the “Renoir the Sculptor?” essay by Conservateur du patrimoine, adminstratrice adjointe de la RMN, en charge de la politique scientifique Emmanuelle Heran

29. © 1991 by Bena Mayer, ISBN 0-006-461012-8 (pbk.)

30. www.getty.edu

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

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

33. On page 281, Jean Chatelain’s “Original in Sculpture,” 1981 Rodin Rediscovered ISBN 0-89468-001-3 (pbk)So, whether it is U.S. Copyright Law or a French decree, reproductions are -reproductions-.

34. http://www.philamuseum.org/press/releases/2010/810.html

35. p 670 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, © 1999 By West Group, ISBN 0314022864

36. Renoir Sculptor by Paul Haesaerts, Published 1947, Printed by V. Van Dieren & Co and J. E. Buschmann, Printed in Belgium

37. Ibid

38. Ibid

39. Ibid

40. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3664946/The-Renoir-wars.html

41. Renoir Sculptor by Paul Haesaerts, Published 1947, Printed by V. Van Dieren & Co and J. E. Buschmann, Printed in Belgium

42. Edited by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Philadelphia © Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfidern, and authors, ISBN 978-3-7757-2539-2

43. Ibid

44. Ibid

45. Renoir Sculptor by Paul Haesaerts, Published 1947, Printed by V. Van Dieren & Co and J. E. Buschmann, Printed in Belgium

46. Ibid

47. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3664946/The-Renoir-wars.html

48. Edited by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Philadelphia © Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfidern, and authors, ISBN 978-3-7757-2539-2

49. Renoir Sculptor by Paul Haesaerts, Published 1947, Printed by V. Van Dieren & Co and J. E. Buschmann, Printed in Belgium

50. © 1999 By West Group, ISBN 0314022864

51. Edited by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Philadelphia © Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfidern, and authors, ISBN 978-3-7757-2539-2

52. © 1999 By West Group, ISBN 0314022864

53. Edited by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Philadelphia © Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfidern, and authors, ISBN 978-3-7757-2539-2

54. Ibid

55. Ibid

56. Ibid

57. Edited by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Philadelphia © Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfidern, and authors, ISBN 978-3-7757-2539-2

58. Renoir Sculptor by Paul Haesaerts, Published 1947, Printed by V. Van Dieren & Co and J. E. Buschmann, Printed in Belgium

59. © 1999 By West Group, ISBN 0314022864

60. Ibid

61. http://media-newswire.com/release_1122130.html

62. Edited by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Philadelphia © Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfidern, and authors, ISBN 978-3-7757-2539-2

63. Ibid

64 http://www.aamd.org/about/#Members

65. www.aamd.org/AAMDmission.shtml

66. www.collegeart.org/caa/ethics/sculpture.html “A Statement on Standards for Sculptural Reproduction and Preventive Measures to Combat Unethical Casting in Bronze Approved by the CAA Board of Directors, April 27, 1974. Endorsed by the Association of Art Museum Directors and the Art Dealers Association of America.”

67. Under the title “Reproductions of Works of Art” and documented as “adopted by the membership of the AAMD, January 1979; amended 2001, Copyright 2001 by the Association of Art Museum Directors ( ISBN 1-880974-02-0 ) Address: 41 East 65th Street, New York, New York 10021

“Art museums legitimately generate income through the sale of such educational materials as catalogues, books, postcards, and reproductions. The manufacture and knowledgeable use of reproductions for teaching purposes or in a decorative context is appropriate. However, a proliferation of “art-derived” materials, coupled with 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. Signatures, print edition numbers, and printer’s symbols or titles must not appear in the reproduction if in the original they occur outside the borders of the image. Similarly, signatures, edition numbers, and/or foundry marks on sculpture must not appear on the reproduction.

“Reproductions must be in materials and/or sizes other than those uses by the artist in the original works of art. Although reproductions of decorative arts serving functional purposes may pose special problems in this regard, the fact that they are reproductions should be clearly indicated on the object.

“The touting of exaggerated investment value of reproductions must be avoided because of object or work being offered for purchase is not original and the resale value is highly in doubt.

“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.”

68. Ibid

69. http://www.philamuseum.org/exhibitions/359.html

70. http://www.federalgrantswire.com/arts-and-artifacts-indemnity.html

71. Ibid

72. Ibid

73. Ibid

74. Ibid

75. www.nea.gov/about/Facts/AtAGlance.html
Alice M. Whelihan National Endowment for the Arts
1100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, District of Columbia 20506 Email: whelihaa@arts.gov Phone: 202-682-5574

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

77. Ibid

78. Ibid

79. Ibid