Posthumous plaster reproductions and bronze forgeries falsely and ridiculously attributed to a dead Edgar Degas

NOTE: Footnotes enclosed as: [FN ]

Photo: Joseph P. Coscia Jr./Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FORGERIES

All 75 plasters found at the Valsuani foundry, falsely attributed to Edgar Degas [d 1917], are at best non-disclosed posthumous plaster reproductions by hands, fingers and fingerprints of someone other than a dead Degas.

FIRST, the hands, fingers and fingerprints of others is addressed in "Degas The Sculptor" monograph by exhibition curator Walter Maibaum. On page 6 of his monograph, the exhibition curator Walter Maibaum wrote: "Most likely the plasters were made by Paul-Albert Bartholome (1848-1928), the artist's close friend and colleague who was also a sculptor."[FN 1]

If true, Paul-Albert Bartholome hands, fingers and fingerprints would be all over these non-disclosed posthumous plaster reproductions.

SECOND, the exhibition curator Walter Maibaum further speculated: "Bartholome could have gone into the artist's studio in early 1918 after the waxes were photographed and decided to make the plasters for two reasons: (1), they would provide a record of what the waxes looked like upon the artist's death (and before the waxes deteriorated); and (2), since the heirs were interested in casting bronzes, he made masters thinking they would be used as masters to cast the editions."[FN 2]

Yet, in the National Gallery of Art's published 2010 Edgar Degas Sculpture catalogue Walter Maibaum's speculation is contradicted by Suzanne Glover Lindsay's "Degas' Sculpture After His Death" monograph. On page 15, Suzanne Glover Lindsay wrote: "Degas' artist friend Paul-Albert Bartholome, claimed [critic Paul] Gsell, 'exhumed' and 'restored' the fragile works that the artist himself had left 'abandoned,' not only by having them cast in bronze but by storing the originals in the cellar of the founder charged with executing the bronzes, A.A. Hebrard, to protect them from the bombs that rocked Paris in the last year of World War 1."[FN 3]

[mine]

Those Edgar Degas "fragile works that the artist himself had left abandoned"[FN 4] were actually mixed-media sculpture that critic Paul Gsell says in 1918 were posthumously "exhumed" and "restored" by Paul-Albert Bartholome. This is confirmed in the National Gallery of Art’s published 2010 Edgar Degas Sculpture catalogue by Daphne S. Barbour and Shelley G. Sturman. On page 35, the authors wrote: “As a material readily available, corks are found inside Degas’ sculpture thoughout his oeuvre, from his earliest to his latest works. In addition to cork, matches, paintbrushes, and rope are also found; perhaps, for the sake of economy and convenience, Degas used what was near at hand.”[FN 5]

So, once again, according to critic Paul Gsell in 1918, Paul-Albert Bartholome "exhumed" and "restored" Edgar Degas' "fragile works" a.k.a. mixed-media sculptures.

THIRD, Walter Maibaum's speculation that Paul-Albert Bartholome was responsible for making the plasters is further muddled when on page 6 of his monograph, he wrote: "Upon first seeing the waxes and realizing their fragility, Hebrard's master caster, Albino Palazzolo (1883-1973), could have decided to make the plasters for the same reasons as Bartholome would have done."[FN 6]

After Edgar Degas death in 1917, Hebrard foundry was contracted by Edgar Degas' heirs to cast Edgar Degas' mixed-media sculptures in brass [not bronze]. Hebrard foundry's Albino Palazzolo (1883-1973) was the one in charge of the serial production of them. So, does Walter Maibaum's speculation that Paul-Albert Bartholome or Albino Palazzolo "could have" made the plasters confirm that either one of them did?

FOURTH, on page 32 in Joseph Czestochoewki's published 2002 Degas Sculptures and the "Degas and His Castings" monograph by Ann Pingeot, the former curator at the department of sculpture at the Louvre and the Musée d'Orsay quoted historian Jean Adhemar stating: "I asked M. Palazzolo if he would be able to recognize a false Degas bronze. Smiling, he said that he could, because he knew where to find his own fingerprints on the originals."[FN 7]

Therefore, whether it was Paul-Albert Bartholome, Albino Palazzolo, and/or someone else including but not limited to someone from the Valsuani foundry that were responsible for making the plasters, those who made them would be chromists. A chromist is someone who copies with their hands, fingers and fingerprints the work of another resulting, at best, in reproductions.

Under U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, a derivative work is defined as: “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as art reproduction.”[FN 8] Additionally, under U.S. Copyright 106A, it states the “Rights of Attribution - shall not apply to any reproduction.”[FN 9]

In other words, under U.S. Copyright Law, reproductions are derivatives which cannot be -attributed- to a living artist, much less a dead one.

DETAIL from Photo: Joseph P. Coscia Jr./Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

NO SIGNATURE

DETAIL from Photo: Joseph P. Coscia Jr./Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

COUNTERFEIT "DEGAS" SIGNATURE

FIFTH, as if that was not enough, non-disclosed posthumous counterfeit "Degas" signatures were inscribed on these non-disclosed posthumous 2nd-generation-removed bronzes to deceptively foster the illusion that Edgar Degas [d 1917] signed them, much less created and approve them.

Edgar Degas never signed his lifetime mixed-media sculptures.

This is confirmed on page 32-33 in Charles W. Milliard’s 1976 The Sculpture of Edgar Degas, where the author wrote: “Each cast is stamped with the legend 'cire perdue A.A. Hebrard' in relief, and incised with the signature ‘Degas.’” Later on page 34, the author wrote: “At least some of the casts were set on wooden bases into which the signature “Degas” was burned.”[FN 10]

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 11]

Since, all Hebrard foundry casts in brass [not bronze] of Edgar Degas' mixed-media sculptures are posthumous, a signature attributed to dead Edgar Degas could not have been "written by that person or at the person's direction."

Notice in the above photograph of the wooden base for the late 20th-century - early 21st-century Valsuani foundry cast of a so-called Little Dancer Aged Fourteen attributed to Edgar Degas, has an inscribed "Degas" signature on the wooden base.

Edgar Degas died in 1917, the early 20th-century. The dead don't sign.

On page 661 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -forgery- is defined as: "The act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine."[FN 12]

Rhetorically, would posthumous inscribed counterfeit "Degas" signatures to posthumous bronze casts reproduced from posthumous plasters be: "the act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine?"

SIXTH, in "Degas The Sculptor" monograph, exhibition curator Walter Maibaum wrote: "The art historian, Dr. Gregory Hedberg, Director of European Art for New York's Hirschl & Adler Galleries, found strong evidence leading to his conclusion the Little Dancer plaster was made between 1887 and 1903. Dr. Hedberg also proposed that with the exception of numbers 3(b) and 59, it is possible that Bartholome could have made all the plasters during Degas' lifetime for (Bartholome's) personal collection. If so, the plasters would have been made over a period of years, from 1887 to 1912. Under this proposal the plasters most likely would have remained in the Bartholome family's collection until 1955 when they were brought to Valsuani."[FN 13]

Then in Dr. Gregory Hedberg's "Degas' The Little Dancer, Aged Fourteen, The Unknown First Version" monograph for an exhibition, he wrote: "All of the other Degas bronzes in this exhibition were also cast by Valsuani foundry from plasters that were made by Bartholome for his own collection while Degas was still alive.[FN 14]

So, whether the plasters were made by Paul-Albert Bartholome and/or someone else before or after Edgar Degas' death in 1917, at best they would be chromist-made reproductions that could not be attributable to Edgar Degas because he did not create them and not attributable to Paul-Albert Bartholome and/or someone else because it was not their work.

SEVENTH, what may be the motivation for the nonsense of attributing chromist-made plaster reproductions done by the hands, fingers and fingerprints of someone other than Edgar Degas and falsely attributing to Degas the subsequent non-disclosed posthumous 2nd-generation-removed bronze forgeries with posthumously inscribed counterfeit "Degas" signature?

This is potentially addressed in an ArtNews published August 15, 2011 "Adding to the Confusion" article by William D. Cohen. In part, the author wrote: "In June 2006, at the request of Maibaum, [New York art dealer Stewart] Waltzer appraised a set of the 73 bronzes at just above $19 million, and another appraiser, Alex Rosenberg, valued the set at $20.5 million. In 2009, Waltzer appraised the Valsuani version of Little Dancer at $12 million, also at Maibaum’s request."[FN 15]

[mine]

EIGHTH in this same published article, the William D. Cohen wrote: “This appraisal is accompanied by various letters and [a]ttestations from Leonardo Benatov, owner of the Valsuani foundry, stating explicitly that the plasters, which serve as the basis for the 74 Edgar Degas bronze sculptures from the 1998 Valsuani Edition marked ‘Set VII/XI,’ are authentic,” Waltzer wrote in his 2010 appraisal. “Therefore, these works have been appraised as authentic works by Edgar Degas. This appraiser and this appraisal [do] not warrant the authenticity of the 74 Edgar Degas bronze sculptures from the 1998 Valsuani Edition marked ‘Set VII/IX.'”[FN 16]

Rhetorically, how can anything be considered "authentic works by Edgar Degas" if they were made in 1998 some 81 years after Edgar Degas died in 1917?

Finally, on page 670 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -fraud- is defined as: “a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment.”[FN 17]

In closing, to learn more about one of the largest art frauds in the 20th/21st-century, link to:

• http://garyarseneau.blogspot.com/2007/05/all-degas-bronze-sculptures-are-fake.html

Caveat Emptor!

FOOTNOTES:

1.http://degassculptureproject.org/Degas_the_Sculptor-Walter_Maibaum_Museum_Catalog_Essay.pdf

2. Ibid

3. National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogues, Publisher: Princeton University Press (January 2, 2011), ISBN-10: 069114897X, ISBN-13: 978-0691148977

4. Ibid

5. Ibid

6.http://degassculptureproject.org/Degas_the_Sculptor-Walter_Maibaum_Museum_Catalog_Essay.pdf

7. Publisher: The Torch Press (2002), ISBN-10: 0971640807, ISBN-13: 978-0971640801

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

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

10. Publisher: Princeton University Press (March 21, 1980), ISBN-10: 0691003181, ISBN-13: 978-0691003184

11. Publisher: West Group, ASIN: B00HMVMPKI

12. Ibid

13.http://degassculptureproject.org/Degas_the_Sculptor-Walter_Maibaum_Museum_Catalog_Essay.pdf

14. http://www.bhartex.com/Degas_The_Little_Dancer__Unknown_First_Version__Hedberg_.pdf

15. http://www.artnews.com/2011/08/15/adding-to-the-confusion/#

16. Ibid

17. Publisher: West Group, ASIN: B00HMVMPKI

The Coverup, University of Richmond and the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation's attempts to evade and impede investigations into the non-disclosed posthumous 2nd-generation-removed forgeries with counterfeit "A Rodin" signatures in bogus editions misrepresented as "Sculptures by Auguste Rodin"

NOTE: Footnotes are enclosed as: [FN]. Click on jpg[s] of text to enlarge.

SUMMARY AUTHORIZED POSTHUMOUS CASTING OF THE WORK OF AUGUSTE RODIN

[2 pages] Written and Distributed by the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation Director Judith Sobol

The term cover up is "given to mean to hide a thing that is unlawful or to evade and impede investigations."[FN 1]

The Rodin, The Human Experience: Selections from the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Collections exhibition at the University of Richmond's Joel and Lila Harnett Museum of Art contains 29 non-disclosed posthumous [1925-1995] 2nd-generation-removed bronze forgeries with counterfeit "A Rodin" signatures in bogus editions falsely attributed as "thirty-two bronze sculptures by French artist Auguste Rodin (1840-1917)."[FN 2] 

The dead don't sculpt.

Yet, in an attempt to to defuse and confuse the public, news media, exhibition venues and other interested parties seemingly to "evade and impede investigations" into legitimate issues of authenticity, the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation and many of its cultural museums and venues, such as the University of Richmond's Joel and Lila Harnett Museum of Art that exhibit the foundation's collection of non-disclosed posthumous 2nd-generation-removed forgeries with counterfeit "A Rodin" signatures in bogus editions, have received and distribute a 2 page "Summary: Authorized Posthumous Casting of the Work of Auguste Rodin" paper. 

Hence, the coverup.

This monograph documents that fact.

SUMMARY AUTHORIZED POSTHUMOUS CASTING OF THE WORK OF AUGUSTE RODIN

[Excerpt from page 1 of 2] Written and Distributed by the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation Director Judith Sobol

Under U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, a “work of visual art” i.e., -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 3]

In other words, since the 29 non-disclosed 2nd-generation-removed forgeries with counterfeit "A Rodin" signatures in bogus editions in the University of Richmond's Rodin A Human Experience exhibition were posthumously cast between 1925 and 1995 some eight to seventy-eight years after Auguste Rodin’s death in 1917, it should be overtly obvious Auguste Rodin could not have “consecutively numbered” anything, much less applied his “signature.”

The dead don't sculpt, much less sign and number.

To read monograph documenting this avarice, link to: 

• http://garyarseneau.blogspot.com/2016/08/double-standard-forgeries-in-university.html

Under U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, a -derivative work- is defined as: “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as art reproduction.”[FN 4] Also, under U.S. Copyright 106A, it states the “Rights of Attribution - shall not apply to any reproduction.”[FN 5]

In other words, under U.S. Copyright Law, reproductions are derivatives which cannot be -attributed- to a living artist, much less a dead one.

“In response to your fax of 26 January, I precise that when the edition of a new subject shall be decided, we derive a new ordeal in the molds that our listings have to avoid sending the originals platres a foundry. These molds are the molds of Rodin, and we therefore provide a perfect fidelity. This way the original plasters remain intact.” [Google Translate]

Musee Rodin curator Antoinette Le Normand-Romain

[February 1, 2000 FAX]

So, in a February 1, 2000 email correspondence, the Musee Rodin curator Antoinette Le Normand-Romain confirms the Musee Rodin posthumously cast in bronze from posthumous plasters "to avoid sending the [Auguste Rodin's] original plasters" to a foundry," the following French decree would be redundantly applicable.

The March 3, 1981 French decree no. 81.255, Article 9, in part, states: “All facsimiles, casts of casts, copies, or other reproductions of an original work of art as set out in Article 71 of Appendix III of the General Code of Taxes, executed after the date of effectiveness of the present decree, must carry in a visible and indelible manner the notation ‘Reproduction’.”[FN 6]

So, whether it is U.S. Copyright Law or a French decree, reproductions are at best -reproductions-, not a "'rare' work of art."

SUMMARY AUTHORIZED POSTHUMOUS CASTING OF THE WORK OF AUGUSTE RODIN

[Excerpt from page 1 of 2] Written and Distributed by the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation Director Judith Sobol

The Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation would have the public, news media and other believe and act on the belief that Auguste Rodin's lifetime plasters, made by his employed assistants, were used to "produce editions in bronze, " not reproduce.

Yet, on page 504 of the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation assisted published 1993 Rodin, Shape of Genius biography by Ruth Butler, the author wrote: “a draft of an act of donation was drawn up and signed in Meudon on April 1, 1916, in the presence of Clementel, Valention (representing the Ministere des Beaux-Arts), and Antole de Monzie, the lawyer and deputy who had helped prepare the deed. The document included a number of safeguards for Rodin: at the Hotel Biron--thenceforth to be called the Musee Rodin--he was to be in charge of personnel. He would have the right to use the building until the end of his life, and the state would install heat. All reproduction rights to his art would remain with Rodin during his lifetime.”[FN 7]

En consequence il gardait soigneusement ses moules et le musee, conscient de leur valeur, en a pris grand soin a son tour et les complete d'ailleurs au fur et a mesure. Ainsi, lorsqu'est decidee l'editions d'un nouveau 'sujet," commence-t-on par realiser dans le moule ancien une epreuve que l'on pourra envoyer sans crainte a la fonerie ou elle subirea le traitment indispensable a la presration de la fonte: elle sera enduite d'un agen de demoulage, de couleur generalement foncee, et coupee, avant d'etre a nouveau moulee. Cette pratique perment de preserver les platres anciens, evidemment plus precieux a nos yeux puisqu'ils ont ete realises du vivan de Rodin, tout en assurant une fidelite absolue a l'original." 

http://www.musee-rodin.fr/meudon.htm [April 7, 2000]

Then to go from bad to worse, we find out the Musee Rodin posthumously reproduces in bronze from posthumous plaster reproductions not from Auguste Rodin's lifetime plasters. These two references confirm this devastating fact:

• In a February 1, 2000 Fax from the Musee Rodin curator Antoinette Normand-Romain, the curator wrote: “In response to your fax of 26 January, I precise that when the edition of a new subject shall be decided, we derive a new ordeal in the molds that our listings have to avoid sending the originals platres a foundry. These molds are the molds of Rodin, and we therefore provide a perfect fidelity. This way the original plasters remain intact.” [Google Translate]

• As late as April 2000, on the Musee Rodin's website, Musee Rodin curator Antoinette Le Normaid-Romain wrote: “Consequently, whenever it is decided to release a new ‘subject,’ a copy is first made from the old mould which can be sent without risk to the foundry where it undergoes the necessary preparations for casting. It is coated with an unmoulding agent, usually in a dark colour, and cut, before being cast again. This practice not only ensures absolute fidelity to the original but also preserves the old plasters which are obviously more valuable since they were made during the lifetime of Rodin.”[FN 8]

In other words, by the Musee Rodin avoiding sending the hypothetical original plasters to the foundry, they have willingly given up the authentic original surface details made by the working fingers of Auguste Rodin himself or that Auguste Rodin approved through his collaboration with his “sculpteur reproducteur habituel”[FN 9] Henri Lebosse and other assistants. Each time the surface of one of these subjects is approximated by the necessary crude handling of the materials used in the reproduction processes, there is visible change. The resulting pieces may be interesting to look at, but it is an absurdity to pretend they are just the way Rodin would have wanted and intended for them to appear.

SUMMARY AUTHORIZED POSTHUMOUS CASTING OF THE WORK OF AUGUSTE RODIN

[Excerpt from page 1 of 2] Written and Distributed by the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation Director Judith Sobol

The Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation website defines cast as: "a sculpture produced from a mold; (v) to make sculpture from a mold"[FN 10] which seems to fit into their mythology of "casting sculptures." 

Yet, on page 70 of Ralph Mayer’s 1999 HarperCollins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques, -cast- is defined as: “to reproduce an object, such as a piece of sculpture, by means of a MOLD”[FN 11] which obviously results in reproductions.

So, which definition is accurate? 

Once again, under U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, a “work of visual art” i.e., -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 12] Also, under U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, a -derivative work- is defined as: “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as art reproduction.”[FN 13] Additionally, under U.S. Copyright 106A, it states the “Rights of Attribution - shall not apply to any reproduction.”[FN 14]

In other words, under U.S. Copyright Law, reproductions are derivatives which cannot be -attributed- to a living artist, much less a dead one.

On page 285 in the former Musee Rodin curator Monique Laurent’s “Observations on Rodin and His Founders” essay, published in the National Gallery of Art’s published 1981 Rodin Rediscovered catalogue the curator wrote about Auguste Rodin's 1916 Will: “notwithstanding the transfer of artistic ownership authorized to the State of M. Rodin, the latter expressly reserves for himself the enjoyment, during his life, of the reproduction rights of those objects given by him.”[FN 15]

These specific details of Auguste Rodin’s Will are additional confirmed on page 504 of the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation assisted published 1993 Rodin, Shape of Genius biography by Ruth Butler. In part, the author wrote: “a draft of an act of donation was drawn up and signed in Meudon on April 1, 1916, in the presence of Clementel, Valention (representing the Ministere des Beaux-Arts), and Antole de Monzie, the lawyer and deputy who had helped prepare the deed. The document included a number of safeguards for Rodin: at the Hotel Biron--thenceforth to be called the Musee Rodin--he was to be in charge of personnel. He would have the right to use the building until the end of his life, and the state would install heat. All reproduction rights to his art would remain with Rodin during his lifetime.”[FN 16]

Therefore, aside "high standards of craftsmanship" which is argumentative, what is not argumentative is the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation's definition of cast is contradicted not only by independent published definitions but by Auguste Rodin, the State of France, some of the same Rodin scholars it funds for catalogues and the Musee Rodin it purchases the vast majority of their collection of non-disclosed posthumous 2nd-generation-removed forgeries with counterfeit "A Rodin" signatures in bogus editions.

SUMMARY AUTHORIZED POSTHUMOUS CASTING OF THE WORK OF AUGUSTE RODIN

[Excerpt from page 2 of 2] Written and Distributed by the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation Director Judith Sobol

Aside a wave of a hand dismissing issues of authenticity as "purity," did Auguste Rodin have any reasons not to trust the executors of his estate and the State of France? On their website, the Musee Rodin states: 

• "Not until 1917 did Léonce Bénédite, the Musée Rodin’s first curator, manage to persuade the sculptor to allow him to reconstruct his masterpiece in order to have it cast in bronze. Rodin died before seeing the result of all these long years of effort." [FN 17]

This statement is contradicted by Albert Elsen's "The Gates of Hell: What They Are About and Something of Their History" monograph in the 1981 Rodin Rediscovered exhibition catalogue published the National Gallery of Art. In Footnote 33, on page 79, Albert Elsen wrote:

• "Benedite insisted that the montage was done under 'the master's direction,' but from what we know of Rodin's health, this is extremely doubtful. If the montage was done at the Depot de marbres, it even more doubtful, as Rodin was very much retricted to Meudon the last year of his life. Benedite, Dante: Melanges de Criture et d'Eruditions Francaises (Paris: Librairie Francasie, 1921), 32. The first director of the Musee Rodin was not a paragon of truthful reporting, according to Rodin's more reliable long-time friend and biographer, Judith Cladel. In an article that appeared 16 December 1917, in Le Courrier de la Presse, one month after Rodin died, we read: 'M. Benedite and Mademoiselle Judith Cladel work without rest to arrange the Musee Rodin. They have begun by restoring the chapel of the Hotel Biron where a selection of the master's work will be installed. They will set up the plaster cast of the Porte de l'Enfer.' In the article Benedite makes no mention of Rodin having given the authorization for or supervising the assembly of the portal. In fact the article states, 'During Rodin's last days, M. Benedite gathered in the studio of the rue de l'Universite, all the morceaux of the Porte de l'Enfer, and he was greatly surprised to notice that the monument was complete. It was not lacking one piece. It was a question of joining together and superposing the parts of the portal in order to see it set up in its radiant ensemble.' Surely, if Rodin had initiated the final assembly, his first director would have so indicated to the world in 1917 rather than in 1921. Benedite took a large number of initiatives without Rodin's knowledge and consent, and, ethics asie, he seems to have had the legal authority to do so. Disturbing evidence of Benedite's meddling with Rodin's arrangement of The Gates of Hell is given by Judith Cladel when writing with bitterness during the years 1933-1936 about the last weeks of Rodin's life and the insensitive removal of the artist's sculpture from Meudon to Paris: 'Some of Rodin's scandalized assistants who cast his plasters made it known to me that charged with the reassembly of The Gates of Hell they received orders to place certain figures in a different arrangement than that which the artist wanted, because 'that would be better,' or because the figure of a woman representing a spring (une source) 'must not have the head below.'"[FN 18]

Once Auguste Rodin became an invalid, he did not stand a chance. Of course, once Auguste Rodin died all bets were off.

SUMMARY AUTHORIZED POSTHUMOUS CASTING OF THE WORK OF AUGUSTE RODIN

[Excerpt from page 2 of 2] Written and Distributed by the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation Director Judith Sobol

In 2003 the Oxford University Press 2003 published Rodin's Art, The Rodin Collection Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Center for Visual Arts Stanford University by Albert E. Elsen [d 1995] with Rosalyn Frankel Jamison and edited by Bernard Barryte. On page 174, The Thinker bronze, attributed to Auguste Rodin, is listed as: 

The Thinker, (Le penseur), 1880-81, enlarged 1902-04, Title variations: The Poet, The Thinker-Poet, Bronze, George Rudier Foundry, cast 1972, 10/12, 79 x 51 1/2 x 55 1/4  in (200 x 130.8 x 140.3 cm), Signed on bases, to left: A Rodin, Inscribed on back of base: Georges Rudier/Fondeur Paris, Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation, promised gift to the Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Center for Visual Arts at Stanford University, 1988.106"[FN 19]

The Thinker,  in the Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Center for Visual Arts at Stanford University listed as number "10/12," is the chronologically the 20th of 22 cast in bronze. This chronology listed below was gleaned from pages 586-587 in the Bronzes of Rodin published by the Musee Rodin in 2007.[FN 20]

A.A. Hebrard Foundry
1 of 22 1903, University of Louisville, Alle R. Hite Art Institute,
2 of 22 1904, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek,

Alexis Rudier Foundry
3 of 22, Detroit Institute of Art,
4 of 22 1904, [transferred to the Musee Rodin, 1921],
5 of 22 1906, Buenos Aires, Plaza de los Dos Congresso,
6 of 22 1909, Stockholm, Prince Eugens Waldemarsudde,
7 of 22 1914, San Francisco, California Palace of the Legion of Honor,
8 of 22 1916, Cleveland Museum of Art,

Auguste Rodin died November 17, 1917

9 of 22 1917, Rodin's Tomb [commissioned 1917, delivered 1918],
10 of 22 1919, Philadelphia, Rodin Museum
11 of 22 [acq. 1923], Kyoto, National Musesum [Japan],
12 of 22 1925, Bruxelles, Laeken cemetary
13 of 22 [acq. 1926], Tokyo, National Museum of Western Art
14 of 22 1928, Baltimore Museum of Art
15 of 22 1930, New York, Columbia University
16 of 22 1942, Moscow, Pushkin Museum
17 of 22 1950, Kansas City Parks and Recreation Department, on loan to, Nelson Atkins Museum of Art

Georges Rudier Foundry
18 of 22 1965, Shizuoka Prefectoral Museum of Art
19 of 22 1966, Bielefeld Kunsthalle
20 of 22 [acq. 1968], Stanford Universtiy, Cantor Arts Center
21 of 22 [acq. 1969], Pasadena, Norton Simon Art Foundation
22 of 22 1974, Nagoya City Museum

Rhetorically, would it seem the Musee Rodin can't count and the scholarship of the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation can't be counted on?

SUMMARY AUTHORIZED POSTHUMOUS CASTING OF THE WORK OF AUGUSTE RODIN

[Excerpt from page 2 of 2] Written and Distributed by the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation Director Judith Sobol

FIRST, on page 10 of the U.S. Customs Informed Compliance publication titled: Works of Art, Collector's Pieces, Antiques and other Cultural Property under the subtitle "Original Sculptures and Statuary, in any material," in part, states:

• "Heading 9703 covers not only original sculpture made by the sculptor, but also the first 12 castings, replicas or reproductions made from a sculptor’s original work or model, by the sculptor himself or by another artist, with or without a change in scale and whether or not the sculptor is alive at the time the castings, replicas or reproductions are completed."[FN 21]

Then as if it was bad enough the artist did not even have to create the work attributed to them, in complete contradiction to U.S. Copyright Law 106a Rights of Attribution "shall not apply to any reproduction,"[FN 22] the museum committee recommendations, on page 10 of the U.S. Customs Informed Compliance publication titled: Works of Art, Collector's Pieces, Antiques and other Cultural Property under the subtitle "Original Sculptures and Statuary, in any material," discriminates against artists that do not fit their criteria on what constitutes a sculptor, when it states:

• "The term 'original' has been judicially defined as original in design, conception and execution, as distinguished from the works of skilled craftsmen that are representative of the decorative or industrial arts.
  
  
  "The standard used in determining whether a creator of a work is a professional sculptor rather than a skilled craftsman is that he be a graduate of a course in sculpture at a recognized school of art (free fine art, not industrial art) or that he be recognized in art circles as a professional sculptor by the acceptance of his work in public exhibitions limited to the free fine arts. Thus, one who has not received the formal education may nevertheless be recognized as a professional sculptor by the merit of his publicly exhibited works.
  
  
  "The limit of sculptures that we allow under heading 9703 in an edition is 12. The reason 12 is used (previously 10) is that fine art is normally very limited. If an artist such as Edgar Degas creates 15 of a particular sculpture only the first 12 or cast numbers 1 through 12 will be allowed in duty free. When an artist such as Salvadore Dali produces more than 50 in an edition, it is no longer fine art and none will be allowed duty free. "[FN 23]

So, this is a massively false market created by a museum committee and others in 1959 to legitimize non-disclosed lifetime and/or posthumous reproductions and/or forgeries as "originals." Obscenely, it perpetuates the a mythology that a living artist, though nice to have to create and approve their work attributed to them, is no longer necessary. The driving force behind this absurd and discriminatory practice is monetary considerations for the museums and collectors including but not limited to: duty fee customs, admission fees, city-state-federal grants, corporate sponsorship, tax write-offs and outright sales.

They have no shame.

SECOND, the College Art Association's Statement of Standards for Sculptural Reproductions and Preventative Measures to Combat Unethical Casting in Bronze was updated in February 17, 2013. The motivation for this updated version by the College Art Association has never been publicly acknowledged but had everything to do with eliminating the term "counterfeit" from the original 1974 text. On March 10, 2011, WTSP and investigative reporter Mike Deeson broadcast investigative piece titled  "Tampa Museum's Degas exhibit called counterfeit." The byline was "Jacksonville Artist Gary Arseneau says the Edgar Degas bronze exhibit at the Tampa Museum is one of the largest art frauds in the 20th and 21st century." This exhibition encompassed so-called "Degas Sculptures" from the following museums and cultural institutions: 

• Ball State University Museum of Art,
• Baltimore Museum of Art,
• Columbus Museum of Art,
• Dallas Museum of Art,
• Denver Art Museum, 
• Flint Institute of Arts,
• Musee d'Orsay,
• Museum of Fine Arts, Houston,
• Nahmed Collection,
• National Gallery of Art, Washington, 
• San Diego Museum of Art,
• Smart Museum of Art,
• Smithsonian Institution, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden,
• Art Institute of Chicago,

and several from corporate collections: Rozven Company Limited and Ravidor Investments Inc. along with two "anonymous" donors.

These so-called "Degas Sculptures," in this exhibition at the Tampa Museum of Art, were non-disclosed 3rd-generation-removed brass [not bronze] forgeries with counterfeit "Degas" signatures in bogus editions that under the College Art Association's 1974 Standards and Guidelines, Statement on Standards for the Production and Reproduction of Sculpture would be considered "in authentic or counterfeit." Specifically, it states: "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 24]

Among many subsequent changes made in 2013 guidelines to these 1974 guidelines, the term "counterfeit" was eliminated. The term "counterfeit," referencing the non-disclosed posthumous 3rd-generation-removed brass [not bronze] forgeries with counterfeit "Degas" signatures in bogus editions, just happened to have been used over and over again by WTSP and its investigative reporter Mike Deeson in their March 10, 2011 broadcast investigative piece titled "Tampa Museum's Degas exhibit called counterfeit."

Now contrast those ethical guidelines on sculptural reproductions to 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 25]

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES IN ART MUSEUMS

On page 32, Appendix D of the June 2009 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 26] The AAMD requires of their members that:

• “When producing and/or selling reproductions - signatures, edition numbers, and/or foundry marks on sculpture must not appear on the reproduction.,
• "...the fact that they are reproductions should be clearly indicated on the object,  [and]
• "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 27]

Rhetorically, does it seem the AAMD's Professional Practice in Art Museum's guidelines versus the College Art Association's 1974 and updated 2013 Standards and Guidelines, Statement on Standards for the Production and Reproduction of Sculpture and the current May 2016 U.S. Customs Informed Compliance publication titled: Works of Art, Collector's Pieces, Antiques and other Cultural under the subtitle "Original Sculptures and Statuary, in any material," are very much like the left and right hand are unaware of each other?

SUMMARY AUTHORIZED POSTHUMOUS CASTING OF THE WORK OF AUGUSTE RODIN

[Excerpt from page 2 of 2] Written and Distributed by the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation Director Judith Sobol

Once again, by the Musee Rodin avoiding sending the hypothetical original plasters to the foundry, they have willingly given up the authentic original surface details made by the working fingers of Auguste Rodin himself or that Auguste Rodin approved through his collaboration with his “sculpteur reproducteur habituel”[FN 28] Henri Lebosse and other assistants. Each time the surface of one of these subjects is approximated by the necessary crude handling of the materials used in the reproduction processes, there is visible change. The resulting pieces may be interesting to look at, but it is an absurdity to pretend they are just the way Rodin would have wanted and intended for them to appear.

Additionally to be obvious, it is the 21st-century, not the "twentieth-century" and the pressing tongue-in-check question that should be on everyone's mind: When in the near future will a dead Auguste Rodin stop coming out with new sculpture? 

LAW, ETHICS AND THE VISUAL ARTS

Once again, on pages 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, the authors wrote about “Counterfeit Art.” 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 29]

  

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 30]

  

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 other kinds criminal apply equally to fraud through the medium of counterfeit art…”[FN 31]

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 University of Richmond, its museums and the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation will  give full  and honest  disclosure for all reproductions as reproductions, it would allow museum patrons informed consent on whether they wish to attend an exhibition of reproductions, much less forgeries, not to mention whether to "support the Museums, including donating art or objects to the collections, making financial contributions to help extend the mission of the Museums, and volunteering your time or services."[FN 32]

But, if these objects are not reproductions by definition and law but forgeries, then serious consequences of law may come into play for those who chose to misrepresent these forgeries for monetary consideration including but not limited to: admission fee, city-state-federal grants, corporate sponsorship, tax write-offs and outright sales.

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://thelawdictionary.org/cover-up/

2.http://museums.richmond.edu/exhibitions/page.html?eventid=10501&informationid=casDataMuseumExhibition,startdate:2016-09-05,enddate:2016-12-04

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

4. Ibid

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

6. Page 281, Jean Chatelain’s “Original in Sculpture,” 1981 Rodin Rediscovered ISBN 0-89468-001-3 (pbk)

7. Publisher: Yale University Press; First Edition edition (October 27, 1993), ISBN-10: 0300054009, ISBN-13: 978-0300054002

8. www.musee-rodin.fr/meudo-e.htm

9. page 249, Publisher: National Gallery of Art,Washington (October 26, 1981), ISBN-10: 0894680005, ISBN-13: 978-0894680007

10. http://www.cantorfoundation.org/resources/glossary-of-terms/

11. Publisher: Collins; 2 edition (January 15, 1992), ISBN-10: 0064610128, ISBN-13: 978-0064610124

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

13. Ibid

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

15. Publisher: National Gallery of Art,Washington (October 26, 1981), ISBN-10: 0894680005, ISBN-13: 978-0894680007

16. Publisher: Yale University Press; First Edition edition (October 27, 1993), ISBN-10: 0300054009, ISBN-13: 978-0300054002

17. http://www.musee-rodin.fr/en/collections/sculptures/gates-hell

18. Publisher: National Gallery of Art,Washington (October 26, 1981), ISBN-10: 0894680005, ISBN-13: 978-0894680007

19. Publisher: Lund Humphries; New edition edition (November 1, 2007), ISBN-10: 2711849392, ISBN-13: 978-2711849390

20. Musee Rodin: 978-2-9014-2892-3 © Musee Rodin, Paris 2007, 19, boulevard des Invalides, 75007 Paris

21. https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/icp061_3.pdf

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

23. https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/icp061_3.pdf

24. http://www.collegeart.org/guidelines/sculpture

25. www.aamd.org/AAMDmission.shtml

26. https://aamd.org/sites/default/files/document/2011ProfessionalPracitiesinArtMuseums.pdf

27. Ibid

28. Publisher: National Gallery of Art,Washington (October 26, 1981), ISBN-10: 0894680005, ISBN-13: 978-0894680007

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

30. Ibid 

31. Ibid

32. http://museums.richmond.edu/about/support.html