Gary Arseneau

NOTE: Footnotes enclosed [FN ]

One legal definition of fake is “something that is not what it purports to be.”

The University of Pennsylvania and its Arthur Ross Gallery’s January 12 - March 25, 2018 Impression in Ink: Prints from the Arthur Collection exhibition contains numerous non-disclosed fakes and reproductions falsely attributed to dead artists, much less living artists. Posthumous impressions and lifetime reproductions are not original works of visual art i.e., woodcuts, etchings, and lithographs, much less attributable to the dead Paul Gauguin, Edouard Manet, Camille Pissarro, much less the living Paul Cezanne, Edgar Degas and Edouard Vuillard.

The dead don’t woodcut, etch, or litho and reproductions are not original works of visual art.

Yet, the University of Pennsylvania and its Arthur Ross Gallery, with or without intent, would have the public believe and act on the belief that “Impressions in Ink presents thirty exceptional prints by French Impressionists and Post-Impressionists including Cézanne, Daumier, Degas, Gauguin, Manet, Matisse, Pissarro, and Toulouse-Lautrec, drawn from the superb collection of the Gallery’s founder, Arthur Ross.”[FN 1]

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Then to go from the ridiculous to the sublime, the University of Pennsylvania and its Arthur Ross Gallery will hold an Impressions in Ink Symposium where “‘It will present brand-new scholarship on works in the collection,’ says Marsden-Atlass, and will feature Suzanne Boorsch, curator of prints and drawings at Yale University Art Gallery; S. Hollis Clayson, professor in the humanities at Northwestern; and Darcy Grimaldo Grigsby, professor of art history at the University of California, Berkeley.”[FN 2]

The non-disclosed posthumous fakes falsely attributed to dead artists and non-disclosed reproductions falsely attributed to living artists in this exhibition is not an exception for these academic institutions involved with this Impression in Ink Symposium. The Yale University Art Gallery, Northwestern’s Block Museum, University of California’s Berkeley Art Museum and the University of Pennsylvania's own collections have problematic issues of authenticity.

The following documents these contentious issues of authenticity.

24. Paul Gauguin, Noa Noa (Fragrance), 1893–94, Woodcut, image: 35.5 x 20.6 cm (14 x 8 1/8 in.), Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, Impressions in Ink: Masterworks from the Arthur Ross Collection, January 12 – March 25, 2018 Checklist

[number mine]

Artist: Paul Gauguin, French, 1848–1903, Noa Noa (Fragrance), 1893–94, Woodcut, image: 35.5 x 20.6 cm (14 x 8 1/8 in.) sheet: 42.3 x 26.8 cm (16 5/8 x 10 9/16 in.) framed: 65.1 x 54.9 x 2.5 cm (25 5/8 x 21 5/8 x 1 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, Suzanne Boorsch et al., Meant to Be Shared: The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Art Gallery, 2015), 9, fig. 8.
https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178432.
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS IMPRESSION BY POLA GAUGUIN

[Detail] Fig. 8. Paul Gauguin, Noa Noa (Fragrance), 1893-94, Woodcut, 14 X 8 1/8 in. (35.5 x 20.6 cm), Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.91 [page 9, Meant to Be Shared, The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints]
POLA GAUGUIN IMP MEANS I AM THE PRINTER

Paul Gauguin died in 1903.

If one looks closely at the bottom right below the Noa Noa image you will notice that it is signed by "Pola Gauguin."

In the 1920s, Pola Gauguin [b 1893] was the printer for posthumous impressions of his dead father Paul Gauguin's [d 1903] wood blocks. The above non-disclosed posthumous impression titled Noa Noa, like all posthumous impressions from Paul Gauguin's wood blocks, could not have been approved, much less printed by a dead Paul Gauguin. Therefore, posthumous impressions from his wood blocks could never be an original work of visual art i.e., woodcuts, much less attributable to the dead Paul Gauguin [d 1903].

The dead don’t woodcut.

So, the Noa Noa image signed in pencil: "Paul Gauguin fait" and "Pola Gauguin imp" is misleadingly listed by the Yale University Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection with a “1893-94” date.

Pola Gauguin, Paul Gauguin's son, was born in 1893. Since "Pola Gauguin imp," penciled bottom right of the titled Noa Noa, means: "I am the printer," it should be obvious that Paul Gauguin's baby boy Pola could not have signed, much less printed anything in 1893-94.

THE FINISHED PRINT IS APPROVED BY THE ARTIST

In 1965, in A GUIDE TO THE COLLECTING AND CARE OF ORIGINAL PRINTS sponsored by The Print Council of America and authored by Carl Zigrosser and Christa M. Gaehde, the authors wrote: "An original print is a work of art, the general requirements of which are: a. The artist alone has created the master image in or upon the plate, stone, wood block or other material, for the purpose of creating the print. b. The print is made from the said material, by the artist or pursuant to his directions. c. The finished print is approved by the artist."[FN 3]

Remember, Paul Gauguin died in 1903. The dead don't give directions, much less approve.

6. Camille Pissarro, Portrait of Paul Cézanne, 1874, second printing 1920, Etching, stone: 10 5/8 x 8 7/16 in., Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, Impressions in Ink: Masterworks from the Arthur Ross Collection, January 12 – March 25, 2018 Checklist

[number mine]

Artist: Camille Pissarro, French, 1830–1903, Portrait of Paul Cézanne, 1874, second printing 1920, Etching stone: 27 x 21.4 cm (10 5/8 x 8 7/16 in.) framed: 65.1 x 54.9 x 3.2 cm (25 5/8 x 21 5/8 x 1 1/4 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.68
https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178175
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE, NOT INITIALED OR EDITIONED BY PISSARRO

Camille Pissarro died in 1903.

Yet, the so-called etching titled Portrait of Paul Cezanne, printed in “1920,” has what appears to be Camille Pissarro's initials "CP" with an edition number.

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

This is confirmed by U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, where a “work of visual art” is defined as: “a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.”[FN 4]

11. Edouard Manet, The Absinthe Drinker, 1860, Etching and aquatint, plate: 11 1/4 x 6 5/16 in., Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, Impressions in Ink: Masterworks from the Arthur Ross Collection, January 12 – March 25, 2018 Checklist

[number mine]

Artist: Édouard Manet, French, 1832–1883, The Absinthe Drinker, 1860, Etching and aquatint, plate: 28.6 x 16.1 cm (11 1/4 x 6 5/16 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.74,
https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178182
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS IMPRESSION

Édouard Manetn French, 1832-1883, The Absinthe Drinker, 1862, Etching and plate tone in black on ivory laid paper, 248 x 145 mm (image); 289 x 161 mm (plate); 291 x 164 mm (sheet), William McCallin McKee Memorial Endowment, 1953.532
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/79898
LIFETIME ETCHING

Edouard Manet died in 1883.

The Absinthe Drinker, in The Arthur Ross Collection, was posthumously printed in 1906 some 33 years after Edouard Manet’s death in 1883 resulting in a posthumous impression, not an original work of visual art i.e., etching.

The dead don't etch.

This is confirmed when one compares the above lifetime etching titled The Absinthe Drinker, printed in 1862, versus The Absinthe Drinker in The Arthur Ross Collection with the following published reference.

On page 40 of The Prints of Manet by Jay McKean Fisher, the author wrote: “At a later date, c. 1867, Manet went back to several of his old plates; with the probable help of Bracquenmond, he applied a heavy ground of aquatint to each, totally transforming their effect. The three plates were The Absinthe Drinker, Boy with a Sword (no. 48), and At the Prado (no. 47). The Absinthe Drinker was the least successful attempt because the aquatint became so dark that most of the etched lines were hardly visible. Only the face was left with a dramatic touch of light, and the back wall was transformation was undoubtedly made with Goya’s Los Caprichos prints in mind. The plates were not published in this state until 1906-1910 by Porcabeuf, a relative of Bracquemond.”[FN 5]

Remember, in 1906, Edouard Manet was some 33 years dead. The dead don’t etch.

14. Edouard Manet, Portrait of Berthe Morisot, 1872, Lithograph on chine collé, plate: 4 3/4 x 3 1/8 in., Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, Impressions in Ink: Masterworks from the Arthur Ross Collection, January 12 – March 25, 2018 Checklist

[number mine]

Artist: Édouard Manet, French, 1832–1883, Portrait of Berthe Morisot, 1872, Lithograph on chine collé, plate: 12 x 7.9 cm (4 3/4 x 3 1/8 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.79
https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178187
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS IMPRESSION FROM 1884 OR 1892

DETAIL: “Imp Lemercier C Paris”

Edouard Manet died in 1883.

The above posthumous impression, titled Portrait of Berthe Morisot, was printed either in 1884 or 1892, 1 to 9 years after Edouard Manet’s death in 1883.

To belabor a point, the dead don't lithograph.

This is confirmed on page 102 of The Prints of Manet by Jay McKean Fisher, the author wrote: “the standard designation of states for this lithograph includes two stages, one before the letter and one with the address of Lemercier, the printer. In some impressions, these letters have apparently been masked. Such as an impression in the Victoria and Albert Museum is described by Griffiths as without letters, printed on a similar Japon paper, and much poorer in quality than the 1884 edition of the lithograph - the first and only edition published in fifty impressions ( Carey and Griffiths 1978, p 37). Bareau was able to determine accurately the edition size as fifty impressions, not one hundred, through an examination of Depot Legal records, Additionally, she found a document relating to the Manet estate that in 1892 stated that the stones had been destroyed after an edition of 250 impressions (five lithographs from the 1884 edition, fifty impressions each). In considering how to determine the existence of before-the-letter proofs that may have been printed during Manet’s lifetime. Griffiths describes a proof in The Cleveland Museum of Art that shows a subtle application of shading to the right side of Morisot’s face, an effect not visible in the published impressions or the other impressions before letters. Consequently, this work should be hallmark of an early lifetime printing, according to Griffiths.”[FN 6]

The dead don’t edition.

12. Edouard Manet, The Toilette, 1862, Etching, plate: 11 3/16 x 8 3/4 in., Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, Impressions in Ink: Masterworks from the Arthur Ross Collection, January 12 – March 25, 2018 Checklist

[number mine]

Artist: Édouard Manet, French, 1832–1883, The Toilette, 1862, Etching, plate: 28.4 x 22.3 cm (11 3/16 x 8 3/4 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.76
https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178184
LIFETIME ETCHING OR NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS IMPRESSION?

Is the Yale University Art Gallery’s The Toilette, attributed to Edouard Manet with an 1862 date, an actual lifetime etching or a posthumous impression? The following excerpts from The Prints of Manet by Jay McKean Fisher addresses those questions.

1862 OR 1874 EDITION

On page 26 of The Prints of Manet by Jay McKean Fisher, the author wrote: “1862 First Cadart edition, usually on laid paper standard for the Societe des Aquafortistes publications of this period, with Aquafortistes watermark or other watermarks found on Cart publications such as Halliens or Hudelist. It is difficult to distinguish prints in the actual edition of eight etchings form those prints bought separately from the Cardart establishment. The title for this portfolio, known in an intact copy in the Bibliotheque Nationale is “Huit gravures a l’eau-forte par Manet.” It actually included nine images. These impressions are printed in a bistre ink, on paper with the Hallines watermark. - 1874 Second Cadart edition. This edition included nine images, some different from the 1862 edition, printed on Japon paper.”[FN 7]

1906-1910 POSTHUMOUS IMPRESSIONS

On page 27 of The Prints of Manet by Jay McKean Fisher, the author wrote: 1906-1910 Porcabeuf edition. Three plates were published by Bracquemond’s uncle, Porcabeuf: The Toilette (no. 20), Boy Carrying a Tray (Harris 28), and At the Prado (no. 47) are examples of this edition. The size of the edition was thirty, and the plates were printed on heavy Japon paper. - Modern There are several modern editions of certain plates available, including an edition from Bibliotheque Nationale of three canceled plates: The Toilette, Lola de Valence (no. 25) and Line in front of the Butcher Shop (no. 53).”[FN 7]

Remember, its an oxymoron to refer to posthumous derivatives as being limited. Reproductions, by their very nature, have no such limitation.

13. Edouard Manet, Don Mariano Camprubi primer bailarin del teatro royal de Madrid, (Don Mariano Camprubi first dancer of the Teatro Royal de Madrid), 1862, Etching, platemark: 11 3/4 x 7 3/4 in., Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, Impressions in Ink: Masterworks from the Arthur Ross Collection, January 12 – March 25, 2018 Checklist

[number mine]

Artist: Édouard Manet, French, 1832–1883, Don Mariano Camprubi primer bailarin del teatro royal de Madrid (Don Mariano Camprubi first dancer of the Teatro Royal de Madrid), 1862, Etching, platemark: 29.9 x 19.7 cm (11 3/4 x 7 3/4 in.) framed: 62.2 x 49.5 x 2.5 cm (24 1/2 x 19 1/2 x 1 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.77, Bibliography: Suzanne Boorsch et al., Meant to Be Shared: The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Art Gallery, 2015), 37, fig. 24.
https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178185
LIFETIME ETCHING OR A NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS IMPRESSION?

Is the Yale University Art Gallery’s Don Mariano Camprubi primer bailarin del teatro royal de Madrid, attributed to Edouard Manet with an 1862 date, an actual lifetime etching or a posthumous impression? The following excerpts from The Prints of Manet by Jay McKean Fisher addresses those questions.

On page 62 of The Prints of Manet by Jay McKean Fisher, the author wrote: “This etching from 1863 reproduces in reverse Manet’s oil of 1862 (R.W. vol. 1, 54, painted about the same time as the canvas Lola de Valence, shortly after the ballet company appeared in Paris in August 1862. Included in his special edition of fourteen etchings distributed to his friends, the print was not again published in his lifetime. The exhibition impression, on heavy laid paper, was designated by Lucus as a modern impression from the Dumont edition. But this impression is probably one of Guerard’s proofs, which were usually printed on a heavy, slightly tinted laid paper (see Legan). The Dumont edition is more frequently found on blue-green paper, with dark brown ink. Manet inscribed the title below, in incorrect Spanish. Bareau suggests that this title may have been copied from a theatre announcement.”[FN 8]

So, does The Arthur Ross Collection have one of those 14 lifetime etchings?

16. Paul Cézanne, Self-Portrait, 1898–1900, Lithograph, stone: 12 3/4 x 11 1/4 in., Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, Impressions in Ink: Masterworks from the Arthur Ross Collection, January 12 – March 25, 2018 Checklist

[number mine]

Artist: Paul Cézanne, French, 1839–1906, Self-Portrait, 1898–1900, Lithograph stone: 32.4 x 28.6 cm (12 3/4 x 11 1/4 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.84
https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178422
LIFETIME LITHOGRAPH?

Was the above Self-Portrait lithograph, attributed to Paul Cezanne with an “1898-1900” date in the Yale University Art Gallery’s Arthur Ross collection, printed with MBM Ingres d’Arches just like the Christie Auction House’s above Autoportrait falsely attributed to Paul Cezanne and sold on December 4, 2014 as one of the posthumous impressions made in 1914 by dealer Ambrose Vollard in Paris?

Notice above-left Self-portrait, attributed to Paul Cezanne as an original work of visual art i.e., etching in the Yale University Art Gallery’s Arthur Ross Collection seems to be printed on the same cream-colored MGM Ingres d’ Arches paper as the following two examples.

Paul Cezanne (1839-1906), Autoportrait, Price realised GBP 1,375, Estimate GBP 1,200 - GBP 1,800, Sale 5882, Prints & Multiples, 4 December 2014, London, South Kensington, Lot 76, three duplicate lithographs, in various tones of grey and black, 1896, on watermarked laid MBM paper, published by Ambrose Vollard, Paris, 1914. each with minor surface defects, generally in good condition. Lithograph: 331 x 275 mm, Sheet 640 x 490 mm. (and similar)

https://www.christies.com/PDF/catalog/2014/KEN5882_SaleCat.pdf
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS IMPRESSION

http://www.lloydgodman.net/tech/tech/Alternative/alt3.html
[Detail] MBM Ingres d’Arches

Paul Cézannek 1839 - 1906, SELF PORTRAIT, lithograph, of the black print of about 100 copies (there was also a print of 100 copies in gray in 1914), on laid paper with watermarked MBM (France) and Ingres d'Arches., pattern: 33 x 29 cm; 13 x 11 3/8 in., leaf: 63.5 x 47 cm; 25 x 18 1/2 in., Designed around 1898, printed by Auguste Clot for publication in the third Album of original prints of Galerie Vollard in 1898 (project which was abandoned), published in 1920., Sold without reserve price, CATALOG NOTE lithograph, circa 1898, from the edition of approximately 100 (there were a further circa 100 impressions printed in gray in 1914) on MBM (France) and Ingres d'Arches.
http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2010/treasures-from-the-vollard-safe-pf1095/lot.30.html
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS IMPRESSION

If so, this additional reference seem to support that the Self-Portrait a.k.a. Autoportrait, attributed to Paul Cezanne as original works of visual art i.e., lifetime lithographs, might actually be posthumous impressions.

17. Paul Cézanne, Head of a Young Girl, 1873, Etching, plate: 5 1/4 x 4 1/4 in., Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, Impressions in Ink: Masterworks from the Arthur Ross Collection, January 12 – March 25, 2018 Checklist

[number mine]

Artist: Paul Cézanne, French, 1839–1906, Head of a Young Girl, 1873, Etching plate: 13.4 x 10.8 cm (5 1/4 x 4 1/4 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.85
https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178424
LIFETIME ETCHING OR NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS IMPRESSION

Paul Cezanne died in 1906.

So, was Paul Cezanne actually alive to print or approve the printing of the above etching titled Head of Young Girl in 1873 attributed to him in The Arthur Ross Collection?

These three examples of a 1,000 non-disclosed posthumous fakes in bogus editions of Paul Cezanne’s Head of a Young Girl a.k.a. Tête de jeune fille certainly may call that into question.

Remember the dead don’t etch, much less edition.

1. Paul Cezanne (1839-1906), Tête de jeune fille (C. 4), Sale 5020, Lot 5, etching and aquatint in brown, on wove paper, a posthumous impression, with margins, in good condition, P. 132 x 110mm., S. 320 x 240mm., Prints and Multiples, 28 June 2006, London, South Kensington, Lot 5, Price realised GBP 300, Estimate GBP 300 - GBP 400
http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/paul-cezanne-1839-1906-4739059-details.aspx
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE

2. CÉZANNE, PAUL. 1839-1906, [Head of a Young Girl], Lot 1030, Sold for US$ 812 inc. premium, PROPERTY FROM SERENDIPITY BOOKS, 12 Feb 2012, 9:00 PST, LOS ANGELES, VOLLARD, AMBROISE. Paul Cézanne. Paris: Gallerie A. Vollard, 1914., Folio (324 x 245 mm). Original etching by Cézanne, and numerous plates. Plain cloth, original wrappers bound in. Some foxing to plates, wrappers toned and with repaired tears, minor shelfwear. LIMITED EDITION, no 631 of 1000 copies, with an original etching by Cézanne.
http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/20200/lot/1030/
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE

[mine]

3. Paul Cezanne (1839-1906) , [Head of a Young Girl], Sale 5418, Lot 31, Price realised GBP 1,188, Estimate GBP 1,000 - GBP 1,500, Paul Cezanne, Ambroise Vollard, Paris, 1915 (Cherpin 4), etching in bistre, on japon, with title, text, reproductions and justification, copy number 117, from the edition of 1000, with full margins, time-staining darkening at the sheet edges, occasional handling marks, severe foxing to the colour plates, bound in the original paper covers, dark time-staining and abrasions to the edges(book)P. 130 x 105 mm., 325 x 250 mm. (overall)
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?from=salesummary&pos=2&intObjectID=5089040
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE

[mine]

Posthumous impressions are not attributable to a dead Paul Cezanne because he did not print them, much less approve their printing.

The dead don’t approve.

Under U.S. Copyright Law 103. “Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works,” it states: “The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work.”[FN 9] The subsequent posthumous impressions from Paul Cezanne’s plates are derivatives. A derivative is a reproduction.

Additionally, under U.S. Copyright Law 106A, the Rights of Attribution "shall not apply to any reproduction.”[FN 10]

Furthermore, under U.S. Copyright Law 101. Definitions, where a -work of visual art- is defined as: "a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in 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 11]

The dead don't sign and consecutively number.

So, with a thousand or more of non-disclosed posthumous fakes titled Head of a Young Girl a.k.a. Tête de jeune fille, falsely attributed to a dead Paul Cezanne as original works of visual art i.e., etchings in a bogus edition that have flooded the marketplace, is the Head of a Young Girl attributed to Paul Cezanne in The Arthur Ross Collection an exception?

18. Paul Cézanne, Landscape at Auvers, 1873, Etching, plate: 5 1/4 x 4 1/4 in., Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, Impressions in Ink: Masterworks from the Arthur Ross Collection, January 12 – March 25, 2018 Checklist

[number mine]

Artist: Paul Cézanne, French, 1839–1906, Landscape at Auvers, 1873, Etching plate: 13.3 x 10.8 cm (5 1/4 x 4 1/4 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.86
https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178425
LIFETIME ETCHING OR NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS IMPRESSION?

Is this above titled: Landscape at Auvers, attributed to Paul Cezanne as an original work of visual art i.e., etching in the Yale University Art Gallery Arthur Ross collection, actually printed and approved by Paul Cezanne during his lifetime?

Paul Cezanne restrike etching "Landscape Near Auvers,” Artist: Cezanne, Paul (French 1839-1906), Title: Paysage a Auvers (Landscape Near Auvers), Date: 1873, Medium: etching, from the posthumous edition, Dimensions: 5 x 4.25 inches, Edition: from the original plate , a posthumous edition, Provenance: Associated American Artists, New York Certificate 3095
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/26042800_paul-cezanne-restrike-etching-landscape-near-auvers
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE

The acknowledged posthumous impression above is falsely promoted as an original work of visual art i.e., “etching” which it is not. The acknowledged posthumous impression above is falsely promoted as a “limited edition” which it is not. Then to go from the ridiculous to the sublime this acknowledged posthumous impression above is falsely promoted with a date of “1873” which precedes Paul Cezanne’s death in 1906.

When auction houses, academic institutions, and museums misrepresent, with or without intent, posthumous impressions as original works of visual art i.e., etchings, how can the public give informed consent on whether to express interest, much less pay the price of admission to view without full and honest disclosure?

22. Paul Gauguin, Portrait of Stéphane Mallarmé, 1891, Etching and drypoint with engraving, platemark: 7 3/16 x 5 5/8 in, Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, Impressions in Ink: Masterworks from the Arthur Ross Collection. January 12 – March 25, 2018 Checklist

[number mine]

Artist: Paul Gauguin, French, 1848–1903, Portrait of Stéphane Mallarmé, 1891, Etching and drypoint with engraving platemark: 18.3 x 14.3 cm (7 3/16 x 5 5/8 in.) framed: 62.2 x 49.5 x 2.5 cm (24 1/2 x 19 1/2 x 1 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.90, Suzanne Boorsch et al., Meant to Be Shared: The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Art Gallery, 2015), 144, pl. 62

https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178431
LIFETIME ETCHING?

Paul Gauguin (1848-1903), Portrait of Stéphane Mallarmé (K. 12), Sale 7282, Lot 183 September 20-21, 2006 auction, Price realised GBP 3,000, Estimate GBP 3,000 - GBP 5,000, etching with drypoint and engraving, printed in dark brown, 1891, on laid paper with a clock-face watermark, Kornfeld's state IIa, one of a few proofs before the posthumous edition, with margins, pale scattered foxing, some light staining at the extreme sheet edges, otherwise in generally good condition
http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/paul-gauguin-1848-1903-portrait-of-stephane-4782683-details.aspx
LIFETIME ETCHING

Portrait de Stéphane Mallarmé, 29/30, Museum number1949,0411.2463, Title (object)Portrait de Stéphane Mallarmé, Description Portrait head of the poet, three-quarter profile, at lower left of composition. 1891 Etching with touches of drypoint and burin, Producer name Print made by: Paul Gauguin , Date 1891, Materials paper, Technique etching, Dimensions Height: 181 millimetres Width: 144 millimetres, Curator's comments This impression comes from the posthumous reprinting of 1913/9 made for the publisher H Floury, shortly before the cancellation of the plate., Registration number1949,0411.2463
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=684617&partId=1&people=123982&peoA=123982-2-60&page=1
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE

The Yale University Art Gallery Arthur Ross collection's Portrait of Stephane Mallarme, attributed to Paul Gauguin, seems to be printed in black ink on gray paper. Christie’s 2006 auction of Portrait of Stephane Mallarme is attributed "as one of the few proofs" by Paul Gauguin.

So, does The Arthur Ross Collection have a true lifetime etching by Paul Gauguin?

On the other hand, the British Museum's Portrait of Stephane Mallarme is being falsely attributed as an original work of visual art i.e., etching despite the acknowledgment that it was posthumously printed in dark brown ink on a cream-colored paper.

To belabor the obvious. posthumous impressions are not original works of visual art i.e., etchings, much less attributable to a dead Paul Gauguin.

Once again, this fact is confirmed by the following, under U.S. Copyright Law 103. “Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works,” it states: “The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work.”[FN 12] A derivative is a reproduction. Under U.S. Copyright Law 106A, the Rights of Attribution "shall not apply to any reproduction.”[FN 13]

Remember, the dead don't etch.

15. Edgar Degas, The Infanta Margarita, 1861–62, Etching and drypoint, platemark: 6 5/8 x 4 3/4 in., Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, Impressions in Ink: Masterworks from the Arthur Ross Collection, January 12 – March 25, 2018 Checklist

[number mine]

Etcher: Edgar Degas, French, 1834–1917, After: Juan Bautista Mart’nez del Mazo, Spanish, ca. 1612–1667, The Infanta Margarita, 1861–62, Etching and drypoint, platemark: 16.9 x 12.1 cm (6 5/8 x 4 3/4 in.) sheet: 27.8 x 18.2 cm (10 15/16 x 7 3/16 in.) framed: 49.9 x 43.2 x 2.5 cm (19 5/8 x 17 x 1 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.83
https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178209
NON-DISCLOSED REPRODUCTION

Edgar Degas was not creating his own original works of visual art i.e., etching, he was copying the work of another resulting in a reproduction.

The term “after” is being used by Yale University Art Gallery as an euphemism for this non-disclosed reproduction titled The Infanta Margarita of Juan Bautista Mart’nez del Mazo’s work by Edgar Degas. The definition of the term “after” is confirmed by the following links:

The phrase “after” Picasso (or “after” any other artist) means that a skilled artisan created the image on the original plate. http://www.jdsmithfineart.com/information/question-by-after-picasso
After. The auction house believes that the work was made by another artist, based on an original work by the named artist. https://auctionet.com/en/help/175-attribution
“After ….” In their opinion a copy (of any date) of a work of the artist. http://www.fineart.co.uk/Buying_Art_at_Auction_Fine_Art_Trade_Guild_guidance.aspx

In other words, it is not attributable to Juan Bautista Mart’nez del Mazo because he did not create it and it’s not attributable to Edgar Degas because he was reproducing the work of another, not creating his own.

This fact is confirmed by the following, under U.S. Copyright Law 103. “Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works,” it states: “The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work.”[FN 14] A derivative is a reproduction. Under U.S. Copyright Law 106A, the Rights of Attribution "shall not apply to any reproduction.”[FN 15]

29. Edouard Vuillard, Portrait of Paul Cézanne, 1914, Lithograph, sheet: 12 11/16 x 15 1/2 in., Yale University Art Gallery, The Arthur Ross Collection, Impressions in Ink: Masterworks from the Arthur Ross Collection, January 12 – March 25, 2018 Checklist

[number mine]

Artist: Edouard Vuillard, French, 1868–1940, After: Paul Cézanne, French, 1839–1906, Portrait of Paul Cézanne, 1914, Lithograph, sheet: 32.3 x 39.4 cm (12 11/16 x 15 1/2 in.) framed: 65.1 x 54.9 x 2.9 cm (25 5/8 x 21 5/8 x 1 1/8 in.), The Arthur Ross Collection, 2012.159.157, Suzanne Boorsch et al., Meant to Be Shared: The Arthur Ross Collection of European Prints (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Art Gallery, 2015), 147, pl. 66.
https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/178595
NON-DISCLOSED REPRODUCTION

Edouard Vuillard was not creating his own original works of visual art i.e., lithograph, he was copying the work of another resulting in a reproduction.

The term “after” is being used as an euphemism for a non-disclosed reproduction titled Portrait of Paul Cezanne of Paul Cezanne’s work by Edward Vuillard.

Edouard Vuillard was reproducing Paul Cezanne’s work. Therefore, those reproductions cannot be attributed to him because it is not his work and cannot be attributed to Paul Cezanne because he did not create it.

This factual perspective is confirmed by U.S. Copyright Law 106 A, “The Rights of Attribution - shall not apply to any reproduction.”[FN 16]

All lithographs are original works of visual art wholly executed by hand by the artist, excluding any mechanical and photographic process.

This fact is confirmed by U.S. Custom`s May 2006 An Informed Compliance Publication titled Works of Art, Collector`s Pieces Antiques, and Other Cultural Property, which -in part- states: "The expression original engravings, prints and lithographs means impressions produced directly, in black and white or in color, of one or of several plates wholly executed by hand by the artist, irrespective of the process or of the material employed by him, but excluding any mechanical or photomechanical process.”[FN 17]

To belabor a fact, reproductions of an original work of visual art result in reproductions.

As noted earlier, this factual perspective is confirmed in the 1991 The Fifth Edition of the Artist’s Handbook of Materials and Techniques by Ralph Mayer, the author wrote: “The major traditional graphic-arts processes of long standing and continued popularity are lithograph, etching, drypoint, woodcutting or wood engraving, aquatint, and soft-ground etching. ...The term “graphic arts” excludes all forms of mechanically reproduced works photographed or redrawn on plates; all processes in which the artist did not participate to his or her fullest capacity are reproductions.”[FN 18]

Edouard Vuillard, Edgar Degas and every artist who reproduces another artist’s work is making reproductions, no matter how famous they are or possibly may become.

REPRESENTATION & DISCLOSURE

On page 1303 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -representation- is defined as: “A presentation of fact - either by words or by conduct - made to induce someone to act, esp to enter into a contract.”[FN 19] On page 476 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -disclosure- is defined as: “The act or process of making known something that was previously unknown.”[FN 20]

CERTIFICATES OF AUTHENTICITY: DEALER LIABILITY

In the September 1998 Art World News trade magazine, the attorney Paul Winick (partner in the New York office of Thelen, Marrin, Johnson and Bridges), who specializes in intellectual property law, litigation and represents galleries, publishers and artists, wrote the article "Certificates of Authenticity: Dealer Liability."[FN 21]

In his article, he explains the application of the Uniform Commercial Code as it applies to the “sales of most forms of visual art.” The author wrote: “UCC express warranty arises from two sources: The description of the goods given by the seller, and the seller statements made to induce the sale.” Those statements are said to become part of the “basis of the bargain” made between buyer and seller and, therefore, a basis for legal action if the description or statements turn out later to have been false.”[FN 22]

The author also wrote: “Warranties need not depend on the sale document and can arise in statements made in advertisements or catalogues, so long as the buyer relied on those statements in formulating the bargain with the seller.”[FN 23] and that “Warranties are applicable regardless of fault or intent. It is no defense that the seller did not mean to make a misstatement, or that he thought the misstatement to be true. If the goods (the artwork) do not conform to the promise made (the warranty), the seller is liable, whether or not he knew it to be true.”[FN 24]

When it comes to “disclaimers,” Paul Winick wrote: “Disclaimers are not viewed favorably by courts and, unless there is some way to reconcile the disclaimer and the representation, the disclaimer is disregarded and the representation is given effect.”[FN 25]

As noted earlier, the University of Pennsylvania and its Arthur Ross Gallery will hold an Impressions in Ink Symposium where “‘It will present brand-new scholarship on works in the collection,’ says Marsden-Atlass, and will feature Suzanne Boorsch, curator of prints and drawings at Yale University Art Gallery; S. Hollis Clayson, professor in the humanities at Northwestern; and Darcy Grimaldo Grigsby, professor of art history at the University of California, Berkeley.”

Unfortunately, the collection of these listed academic institutions are also problematic. These examples document that fact.

Jean D'Aire, 1889, Bronze, Auguste Rodin (French, 1840 – 1917), #1983.0009.0001, Auguste Rodin is certainly an impressive figure in art. His work The Thinker is among the most recognized works in all of sculpture and his The Gates of Hell and Burghers of Calais are esteemed for their detail and mastery. As a young artist, Rodin was refused entrance to the prestigious École des Beaux-Arts. He therefore went on to work as an apprentice and partner for a number of artists before his own commissions propelled him to international success. Jean D’Aire is a three-foot nude study for part of Rodin’s six-sculpture masterpiece, Burghers of Calais. The full Jean D’Aire figure in Burghers of Calais depicts a gaunt man with clenched fists and a stoic jaw who, along with five other citizens, walks to his execution. The six men had offered themselves hostages to the English in exchange for the ceasing of the siege on their city. Jeffrey Loria donated this sculpture and Rodin’s Grande Venus to Penn in 1983., Location: Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall Atrium, Philadelphia PA

http://artcollection.upenn.edu/collection/art/48/jean-daire/

NON-DISCLOSED FAKE AT UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Auguste Rodin died in 1917.

At best, the Jean D'Aire bronze, in the University of Pennsylvania's collection above is a non-disclosed posthumous fake with a counterfeit "A Rodin" signature in a bogus edition that is not attributable to Auguste Rodin.

The dead don't sculpt.

On page 217 of the Bronzes of Rodin, the following bronzes for 103 x 30 x 25 cm Jean d’Aire, nude study are listed: “By Alexis Rudier. Then nine casts, no. 0 and 1/8 to 8/8, by Georges Rudier, between 1971 and 1981.”[FN 26]

The dead don't edition.

The Alexis Rudier foundry was in business from 1902 to 1952 and the Georges Rudier foundry from 1952 to the late 1980s. The vast majority of Alexis Rudier casts were posthumously cast a.k.a. reproduced after Auguste Rodin's death in 1917.

Therefore, in the unlikelihood that the University of Pennsylvania’s Jean d’Aire is a lifetime cast ie., reproduction cast by the Alexis Rudier foundry, it is all probability a posthumous cast i.e., reproduction by the Georges Rudier foundry between 1971 and 1981 some 54 to 64 years after Auguste Rodin’s death in 1917.

Remember, as noted earlier, under U.S. Copyright Law 106A, the Right of Attribution shall not apply to any reproduction.

Grande Venus, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, ca. 1915, bronze. Donated in 1996 by Jeffrey and Silvia Loria, long-time patrons of the arts.
https://almanac.upenn.edu/archive/volumes/v58/n01/sculptures.html
NON-DISCLOSED FAKE AT UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pierre-Auguste Renoir died in 1919 a paralytic.

Therefore, any connossieur would know that Grande Venus, attributed to Pierre-Auguste Renoir in University of Pennsylvania's collection, was not created, much less signed by him.

This is confirmed on page 10 of the Paul Haesaerts’ 1947 Renoir Sculptor biography, where 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 27]

These non-disclosed chromist-made fakes by Richard Guino were falsely attributed to Pierre-Auguste Renoir in a scheme by the art dealer Ambroise Vollard to cash in on Renoir's fame.

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 28]

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 29]

To learn more about this fraud link to:

http://garyarseneau.blogspot.com/2010/08/renoir-sculptural-forgeries-in-late.html

Diebenkorn, Richard , (American, 1922–1993), Ochre, 1983, Color woodcut, Mary and Leigh Block Museum of Art, Northwestern University, gift of George Austin Conkey, M.D., 1996.3
http://www.blockmuseum.northwestern.edu/view/collections/search.html
NON-DISCLOSED CHROMIST-MADE FAKE AT NORTHWESTERN’S BLOCK MUSEUM

Richard Diebenkorn did not create the above woodcut titled: Ochre attributed to him.

These non-disclosed chromist-made fakes, falsely attributed as original works of visual art i.e., woodcuts to Richard Diebenkorn, were actually done by the woodcarver Reizo Monjyu and the printer Tadshi Toda. This is confirmed by the following published in the March 5, 2017 Modern Art & Design:

“Shiundo’s printer, Tadashi Toda, worked on Blue with Red, creating a woodcut from a watercolor made by Diebenkorn. The founder of the press, Kathan Brown, said that for this project, “Diebenkorn […] likened himself to an orchestra conductor. He was at the Shiundo Print Shop to guide and adjust, choose, and change, using the skills of the woodcarver Reizo Monjyu and the printer Tadashi Toda to adapt their centuries-old technique to his ends.” This exposure to Japanese methods and materials of print-making opened up an entirely new dimension of the Diebenkorn’s prolific print practice.” [FN 30]

Richard Diebenkorn, and all participants in this fraud, had no shame.

Arp, Hans (Jean), (French, born Germany, 1886–1966), Resting Leaf (Feuille Se Reposant), 1959, cast 1967, Cast Bronze, Mary and Leigh Block Museum of Art, Northwestern University, Gift of Leigh B. Block, 1988.3.1
http://www.blockmuseum.northwestern.edu/view/collections/search.html
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE AT NORTHWESTERN’S BLOCK MUSEUM

Jean Hans Arp died in 1966.

In 1967, Jean Hans Arp was at least one year dead when the Resting Leaf was cast in bronze.

Anything posthumously cast i.e., reproduced at best is a reproduction. Remember, under U.S. Copyright Law the Rights of Attribution shall not apply to any reproductions.

Normally, one would find a posthumous object of this stature in a kiosk in a shopping mall.

Disparate Ridiculo (Ridiculous Folly), from Los Proverbios or Los Disparates, Classification:Print, Artist: Goya, Francisco, Country: Spain, Artist birth Date: 3/30/1746, Artist death Date: 4/16/1828, Date Made: 1816-1875, Dimensions: 12 3/4 x 8 1/4 in., Materials: etching and aquatint, Full BAMPFA credit line: University of California, Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive; Museum Purchase, Century:19 AD
https://webapps.cspace.berkeley.edu/bampfa/search/search/?maxresults=1&displayType=full&idnumber=1967.49
Photo: http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/disparate-ridiculo-ridiculous-folly-from-the-disparates-series-plate-3-94580
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE AT BERKELEY ART MUSEUM

Francisco de Goya died in 1824.

Francisco de Goya never printed during his lifetime his Los Provebios etching plates. This is confirmed by the following source.

On page 366 of Goya, Engravings and Lithographs catalogue by Tomas Harris concerning Los Proverbios Proofs and Editions under the II. Trial Proofs, the author wrote: “Sets of eighteen proofs privately printed in Madrid about 1854 before the plates were cleaned.”[FN 31]

Then on page 367 of Goya, Engravings and Lithographs catalogue by Tomas Harris concerning Los Proverbios Proofs and Editions under the III. Edition Impressions 1. First Edition, the author wrote: “Made in the workshop of Laurenciano Potenciano for the Real Academia in 1864. Sixty sets for presentation to the Academicians were printed between January 29 and March 20, 1864, and by June 1864 at least sufficient first edition sets had been completed for presentation to professors of Fine Arts.”[FN 32]

Yet, the Berkeley Art Museum lists in their collection a Disparate Ridiculo (Ridiculous Folly), from Los Proverbios or Los Disparates as “Date made: 1816-1875.”[FN 33]

Remember, Francisco de Goya died in 1824. The dead don’t etch.

So, between Goya’s death in 1824 and 1875, it is ironic this non-disclosed posthumous fake, falsely attributed to a dead Goya as an original work of visual art i.e., etching by the Berkeley Art Museum, is titled: Ridiculous Folly.

John [Chamberlain], Artist: Chuck Close, American, born 1940, B.F.A. 1963, M.F.A. 1964, HON, 1996, Date: 1997, Medium: 126-color screenprint on heavy wove, Accession Number: 1998.49.1
https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/74325
NON-DISCLOSED CHROMIST-MADE FAKE AT YALE UNIVERSITY

Chuck Close is a paralytic with no shame.

The above 126-color screenprint titled John [Chamberlain] attributed to Chuck Close is “something that is not what it purports to be” which is one legal definition of fake.

In the NewsOk's published December 15, 2013 "Video and interviews: Chuck Close maps faces, experiment with printmaking techniques in new Oklahoma City Museum of Art exhibit" blog by Entertainment Reporter Brandy McDonnell, the reporter wrote:

"Along with admiring his artistic prowess, [Curtis Jones, an associate professor of printmaking at the University of Oklahoma] said he considers Close an inspirational person. Close overcame dyslexia as a child and went on to graduate from UW and later Yale. In 1988, a collapsed artery in his spine that left Close partially paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair; he was able to continue painting using a brush strapped to his arm with a Velcro harness."[FN 34]

Rhetorically, if the paralytic Chuck Close has to have a brush strapped to his hand to paint, how could he create, with his hands and fingers, hundreds of stencils and printing those colors for the original works of visual art i.e., silkscreens attributed to him?

The answer is: the paralytic Chuck Close did not create the stencils, much less print them. The following confirms that devastating fact.

In the Princeton University Press, Blaffer Gallery and the Art Museum of the University of Houston's published 2003 Chuck Close Prints, Process and Collaboration catalogue by Terrie Sulton with an essay by Richard Shiff, the following admissions were made.

On page 97 of the Chapter titled: "Silk Screen" with the subtitle: "Robert Blanton and Thomas Little, Brand X Editions," Thomas Little is quoted stating:

"Once it was decided that we would work on Lyle, I went to see the painting. I had my Pantone color guide, the book that most printers use for color matching and mixing, and we spread the pages and began to look at color. We planned to go from light to dark, warm to cool, yellow to purple. Then, form a transparency of the painting, we generated a Duratrans, which is like a big 35-millimeter slide. It's translucent and gives a good representation of the mark, which is very important in Chuck's work. From the Duratrans, we made decisions about color separations, and then I hand drew the many layers of Mylars that we needed for the print. From there we made the screens."[FN 35]

In other words, Chuck Close is knowingly having others reproduce his work which he in turn -falsely- claims as original works of visual art attributable to him.

On page 137 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, -bait and switch- is defined as: "Most states prohibit the bait and switch when the original product is not actually available as advertised."[FN 36]

Portrait of the Engraver Joseph Tourny, Artist: Edgar Degas, French, 1834–1917, Date: 1857, Medium: Etching, Accession Number: 1981.5.6, Culture: French, Period: 19th century, Classification: Works on Paper - Prints
https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/54583
NON-DISCLOSED POSTHUMOUS FAKE AT YALE UNIVERSITY

Edgar Degas died in 1917.

The above Portrait of the Engraver Joseph Tourny, attributed as an original work of visual art i.e., etching to Edgar Degas with a “1857” date, is actually a non-disclosed posthumous impression made sometime between 1919 and 1981 or later.

The dead don’t etch.

The following sources confirm that fact:

On the Spaightwood Galleries' website, it states: "Degas was a dedicated print collector (at his death he owned 1700 Daumier lithographs and 1900 prints by Gavarni). He made etchings, for the most part, from live subjects, sketching with an etching needle on a copperplate, and printed to please himself. Most of his prints are known only because after his death, his dealer, Ambroise Vollard, printed editions of 150 from the cancelled plates found in his studio."[FN 37]
On the Pasquale Iannetti Art Gallery's website, it states: "An edition of 150 impressions was printed for Ambroise Vollard circa 1919-20 from 21 copper plates which had been etched by Degas between 1855 and 1884, but which had since been canceled."[FN 38]
On JD Smith Fine Art's website, it states: "The original copper plate [for The Laundresses] was executed in 1879-80. This is a fine impression of Reed and Shapiro's fourth state after cancellation of the plate. It was printed as part of Ambroise Vollard's 1919 edition of ~150 impressions from Degas' cancelled plates. Catalog raisonne reference: Reed and Shapiro, Edgar Degas: The Painter as Printmaker, 48. Adhemar and Cachin, Degas: The Complete Etchings, Lithographs and Monotypes, 32."[FN 39]

THE FINISHED PRINT IS APPROVED BY THE ARTIST

As noted earlier, in A GUIDE TO THE COLLECTING AND CARE OF ORIGINAL PRINTS sponsored by The Print Council of America and authored by Carl Zigrosser and Christa M. Gaehde, the authors wrote: "An original print is a work of art, the general requirements of which are: a. The artist alone has created the master image in or upon the plate, stone, wood block or other material, for the purpose of creating the print. b. The print is made from the said material, by the artist or pursuant to his directions. c. The finished print is approved by the artist."[FN 40]

The dead don't approve.

LATER IMPRESSIONS ARE USUALLY NOT THE DESIRE OF THE ARTIST

As for printing impressions from an artist's canceled plates, JD Smith Fine Art, on their website, states: "When an artist finishes printing the number of impressions they want of a work (the total edition size), they usually “cancel” the plate. To cancel the plate, they typically scribe noticeable crosshatch or “X” lines across the plate. These lines cross the image and will show up on any later impressions made from the plate. The lines indicate that any later impressions were not part of the original edition. Cancelling a plate is the best way an artist has to protect the value of the impressions in the official edition. - Usually impressions from cancelled plates are done by a dealer or printer to make additional money from a popular artist’s work. These later impressions are usually not the desire of the artist."[FN 41]

The dead don't desire.

Then to go from bad to worse, the posthumous impressions from these Edgar Degas' canceled plates and the misrepresentation of those posthumous impressions as original works of visual art ie., etchings falsely attributed to Edgar Degas was continued, by Frank Perls Gallery [1939-1981][FN 42], after Ambroise Vollard's death on July 21, 1939.

FRANK PERLS GALLERY

The A & R Gallery, located in Birmingham, UK, who is offering for sale on their website a titled The Laundress impression attributed to Edgar Degas as an "Original Etching and aquatint, Fourth state, 1879/80," makes the following astonishing admission on their website: "Our piece was made by Frank Perls Gallery of 350 N Camden Drive, Beverley Hills, California and was one of 26 etchings made in a limited edition at that time. These were printed by Lacouriere in Paris on Vieux Japan paper. The pieces from the small edition (quantity unstipulated) were made with the printers blindstamp but a number of additional printers proofs were made, of which ours is an example, without this blindstamp. The piece must be a rarity since it is hardly ever seen."[FN 43]

In The Fifth Edition of the Artist`s Handbook of Materials and Techniques by Ralph Mayer, the author wrote: "The major traditional graphic-arts processes of long standing and continued popularity are lithograph, etching, drypoint, woodcutting or wood engraving, aquatint, and soft-ground etching. ...The term `graphic arts` excludes all forms of mechanically reproduced works photographed or redrawn on plates; all processes in which the artist did not participate to his or her fullest capacity are reproductions."[FN 44]

The dead don't participate.

LAW, ETHICS AND THE VISUAL ARTS

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 45]

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 46]

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 47]

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 Pennsylvania and its Arthur Ross Gallery will give full and honest disclosure to these non-disclosed posthumous fakes and lifetime reproductions it would allow museum patrons informed consent on whether they wish to attend this exhibition, much less this symposium.

But, if these objects are not reproductions by definition and law but "something that is not what it purports to be" i.e., fake and/or forgeries made to look genuine, then serious consequences of law may come into play for those who chose to misrepresent those fakes and/or forgeries for monetary consideration including but not limited to: admission fees, "gifts and donations,” city-state-federal grants, corporate sponsorships, 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.

NOTE: This is not Yale University Art Gallery's first foray into touring their collection of non-disclosed fakes and reproductions in academic venues. To learn more about their prior avarice, link to:

http://garyarseneau.blogspot.com/2017/02/200-arthur-ross-fakes-not-meant-to-be.html

FOOTNOTES:

1. http://www.arthurrossgallery.org/events/event/impressions-in-ink-the-arthur-ross-collection/

2. http://thepenngazette.com/ink-tones/

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

5. Publisher: International Exhibitions Foundation; 1st edition (1985), ISBN-10: 088397083X, ISBN-13: 978-0883970836

6. Ibid

7. Ibid

8. Ibid

9. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html103

10. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html106A

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

12. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html103

13. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html106A

14. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html103

15. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html106A

16. Ibid

17. Works of Art, Collector's Pieces, Antiques, and Other Cultural Property, http://www.cbp.gov/document/publications/works-art-collectors-pieces-antiques-and-other-cultural-property

18. Viking Adult; 5 Rev Upd edition (May 31, 1991), ISBN-10: 0670837016, ISBN-13: 978-0670837014 [This fifth edition has been prepared by Steven Sheehan, Director of the Ralph Mayer Center, Yale University School of Art.]

20. Ibid

21. http://www.artworldnews.com/

22. Ibid

23. Ibid

24. Ibid

25. Ibid

26. Publisher: Lund Humphries; New edition edition (November 28, 2007), ISBN-10: 2711849392

ISBN-13: 978-2711849390,

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

28. Ibid

29. 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

30 https://lamodern.com/2016/10/just-in-richard-diebenkorn-blue-with-red/

31. Alan Wofsy Fine Arts; 2nd revised with new illustrations edition (September 1, 1983), ISBN-10: 0915346729, ISBN-13: 978-0915346721

32. Ibid

33. https://webapps.cspace.berkeley.edu/bampfa/search/search/?maxresults=1&displayType=full&idnumber=1967.49

34. http://newsok.com/video-and-interviews-chuck-close-maps-faces-experiments-with-printmaking-techniques-in-new-oklahoma-city-museum-of-art-exhibit/article/3914930

35. Publisher: Princeton University Press (August 25, 2003), ISBN-10: 069111577X, ISBN-13: 978-0691115771

37. http://www.spaightwoodgalleries.com/Pages/Degas.html

38. http://www.pasqualeart.com/degas/index.html

39. http://www.jdsmithfineart.com/degas_laundress_main.html

J D Smith Fine Art, Happy Valley, OR, USA, 97086

41. http://www.jdsmithfineart.com/question_cancelled_plate.html

What is a cancelled plate? Why do dealers sometimes sell etchings and lithographs printed from cancelled plates?

When an artist finishes printing the number of impressions they want of a work (the total edition size), they usually “cancel” the plate. To cancel the plate, they typically scribe noticeable crosshatch or “X” lines across the plate. These lines cross the image and will show up on any later impressions made from the plate. The lines indicate that any later impressions were not part of the original edition. Cancelling a plate is the best way an artist has to protect the value of the impressions in the official edition.

So then ... impressions from cancelled plates are bad, right?

The answer varies. Usually impressions from cancelled plates are done by a dealer or printer to make additional money from a popular artist’s work. These later impressions are usually not the desire of the artist. They are valued less than impressions from the official edition.

But they are not always “bad” or without value. Artists like Degas often produced very few impressions of a work before cancelling the plate. Later in life he gave about 20 cancelled plates to his dealer Ambroise Vollard for Vollard to publish an extended edition. Thus, the Vollard edition of Degas’ etchings from cancelled plates were the artist’s intent ... hence they are good. Since impressions of Degas’ prints from the pre-cancelled state of the plate are more rare, and therefore much more expensive, collectors often purchase impressions from the cancelled plates. For many of these Degas etchings, the cancellation marks are not very obtrusive.

42. Records in the Smithsonian Institution Research Information System documents the Frank Perls Gallery dates "from its opening in 1939 until its closure in 1981," Smithsonian Institution Research Information System

http://siris-archives.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?uri=full=3100001~!211805!0

43. http://www.art-art.co.uk/Degas.htm

Title: The Laundresses

Medium: Original Etching and aquatint , Fourth state,1879/80

Size: Plate size : 118 x 160 mms. Paper size 420 x 280 mms

Reference: Reed & Shapeiro Edgar (Degas, the Painter as printmaker) No 48, page 149, Delteil 37 ; Adhemar 32

Condition: In good condition with some creasing on the outer right hand side margins not affecting the image. Framed

1) A later striking from the cancelled plate showing cancellation marks 2)The subject matter, although unique in the artists oeuvre, does relate to other etchings from this period in the examination of space. The etching was made on a daguerreotype plate. The fourth state exhibits considerable scraping of the image, especially on the seated laundress, the chair, cat, stovepipe and wall to the left of the doorway. Only 8 impressions are known of this state. 3)Our piece as mentioned before comes from a cancelled plate. There were later impressions from cancelled plates made of some of this artists prints by the famous art publisher Ambroise Vollard but our piece is not one of those series. Vollard did include this print in the oeuvre in his edition of 120 on Japan Paper made in 1919/20 measuring 323 x 250 mms. His impressions are noted for being rather pale. For a discussion on those pieces see "Una Johnson 'Ambroise Vollard; Prints, books, bronzes' The Museum of Modern Art, New York, page 131, no 28. Our piece was made by Frank Perls Gallery of 350 N Camden Drive, Beverley Hills, California and was one of 26 etchings made in a limited edition at that time. These were printed by Lacouriere in Paris on Vieux Japan paper. The pieces from the small edition (quantity unstipulated) were made with the printers blindstamp but a number of additional printers proofs were made, of which ours is an example, without this blindstamp. The piece must be a rarity since it is hardly ever seen. Details of the edition were published in a scarce leaflet of which we have a copy entitled "Twenty six original copperplates engraved by Degas" . A copy of this work, if required, will be sold with the etching. In the forward Frank Perls states that the copper plates "are exhibited here for the first time. They were acquired by me recently from a friend of the Degas-Fevre family". Marguerite De Gas Fevre was the artists younger sister who he etched in 1860/62 (Delteil 17, Reed & Shapeiro 14 - included in the group).

Price £: 900

46. Ibid

47. Ibid

Impressions in Ink: Masterworks from the Arthur Ross Collection

January 12 – March 25, 2018

[numbers mine]

1. Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot

Le dormoir des vaches (The Cow Pasture), 1871

Lithograph printed in red, image: 6 1/4 x 5 3/8 in,