[Previous entry: "The Art of Recollection"] [Next entry: "Alberto Burri"]

05/08/2006: "Authenticity…the Art of the Matter"

News items about the art market in the past months have carried stories of some themes that never seem to go away. Fraud, chicanery, forgery, misrepresentation and other shenanigans have all made their way to mainstream news. Seems like the heirs of famous artists such as Picasso and Renoir disagree with the provenance of some reproductions from the masters.

Costco, the giant warehouse retailer, recently and suddenly halted all its fine art sales. The chain store had received considerable favorable press by selling Picasso crayon drawings. The pieces were priced around $140,000. But when a Picasso heir claimed they were not authentic, Costco immediately got out of the art business. Perhaps that’s a good thing for the art business…and you can take that statement anyway you want to decipher it.



The company providing the art to Costco had been doing so successfully for nearly 10 years and had a good record of accomplishment of bringing in quality art that sold at substantial prices. One could regularly find Chagall, Miro, Dali and other artists’ works on Costco.com. According to sources close to the provider of the works, the piece in question had been vetted by trustworthy sources and at least one prominent auction house that reported it would have sold the piece. Still, Costco didn’t need the bad press.

Thomas Kinkade made the news recently when he lost a lawsuit by former Signature gallery owners. He was ordered to pay $860,000 to the gallery as a result. The owners claimed Kinkade’s company forced them to make bad business deals, undercut them by selling at deep discounts on QVC and misled them about the success of other Kinkade Signature galleries.

An art publisher in Scottsdale lost a lawsuit brought by one of Renoir’s heirs. It was forced to turn over mold and sculptures from them that it planned to sell in the mass market. Turns out that they although they were working with another Renoir descendant, it was not the one with the rights to the master’s works, or at least his sculptures.

Glass artist, Dale Chihuly, is battling in a lawsuit that is testing the limits of copyrighting art. The renowned master, who hasn’t blown glass in years due to injuries, has a team of surrogates that make glass to his specifications. Some of them have broken away and begun to make glass using styles and designs developed under Chihuly. A bylined article from Maureen O’Hagan in The Seattle Times reported this:

When does inspiration cross the line into imitation? That's the question at the heart of a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle claiming two glass blowers have copied Dale Chihuly's designs and are selling knockoffs at several local galleries. The copyright-infringement suit, filed Oct. 27 by Seattle-based Chihuly Inc. and the world-renowned glass artist's publishing company, is asking for at least $1 million in damages.

Neither side has fully laid out its case yet, but because copyright lawsuits involving fine art are relatively rare, especially in Washington state, it's raised some interesting questions.

How does an artist go about proving — or disproving — copyright infringement? How do you differentiate between Chihuly's influence on other glass artists and artistic plagiarism? Can he claim exclusive rights to designs that are modeled on things such as Navajo blankets and sea life? And what does it mean for the world of art glass?…Proving copyright infringement, however, is tricky. Legally, it's a two-part test: The accused artist has to have had access to Chihuly's work and the work has to be "substantially similar."

The first part is easy. Who hasn't seen Chihuly's work? The second test involves literally putting specific pieces side by side. That's impossible at this point because the lawsuit doesn't name specific works of either artist — a point of contention between the two sides.

"If the plaintiffs cannot identify the ... infringing work, then they have no business bringing a copyright-infringement claim in the first place," the lawyer for the defendants wrote in a court filing asking that the case be thrown out.

This report amid a myriad of stories and network broadcasts on Chinese oil knockoffs already roiling the art market. Daily, we are surrounded and assaulted by fake stuff everywhere. Is that a real Rolex? Are those lips and breasts natural? Does he wear elevator shoes and a toupee? Is Donald Trump’s hair real? Did you really rip 5,000 mp3s from your CD collection or legally download them from Itunes? Is that art print real? Local lifestyle magazines are filled with ads from dentists, surgeons, physicians, physical trainers and gurus who all want to transform us into unearthly Botoxed specimens.

Recently, a well-traveled friend from the art business mentioned to me that every town of any size has galleries with prints by Chagall, Picasso, Dali, Miro and others. Far too many in his estimation for them all to be real…kind of a thin-slice of the sort that Malcolm Gladwell describes in his best seller, Blink. The book describes how some people make expert decisions in the blink of an eye with seemingly little information. His first example is how Thomas Hoving of the Metropolitan Museum in New York immediately knew a marble statue being bought by the Getty Museum was not the real deal. Read the book to learn how he knew. Gladwell tells of another expert on Greek antiquities who had the same reaction for different reasons when she saw the piece. These quick and correct decisions came despite a serious and expensive vetting process by the Getty before purchasing the work.

What does all this mean to you? As a buyer, caveat emptor. As an artist, you must be asking yourself how do your ensure your work is authentic to your galleries and collectors. I’m not talking about some gimmickry like aforementioned Thomas Kinkade who signs his prints with his DNA pen, whatever that is. I’m talking about something more real and yet more ethereal as well. I don’t have some one size fits all magic solution for this problem. I am more posing this concept of authenticity as something artists need to consider in the creation of their pieces, and in the reproduction of their works if they choose that as part of their business plan and marketing mix.

Already fourteen states have laws on their books detailing how Certificates of Authenticity need to be handled. This is yet another indication that there has been far too many ill deeds done in the name of profit when art is sold and for the need to be authentic in every way for artists, publishers and galleries.

Futurists, Watts Wacker and James Taylor in their seminal work, The 500 Year Delta, talked about the sweeping changes coming over us now and how there is a yearning for authenticity. I couldn’t agree more with them. I love the possibilities that the digital press has created for artists. At the same time, its development has opened the door for even more potential fraud. It is in part why I continue to champion for open editions of digital prints. It’s a false pretense anyway, built on a legacy of printmaking from another time. Purely limiting digital prints is solely done for marketing purposes...so why keep it up when everybody knows it is unnecessary. I contend collectors will still pay premiums for good art, even if it is unlimited. I don’t care if some Broadway play has been performed 10,000 times before I see it. If I want to enjoy, I buy the ticket.

There have been some attempts at creating databases and registering art prints. None have really taken off for a variety of reasons. Mostly, artists and publishers don’t see the need for the additional expense, as most consumers are not demanding such stringent measures before buying. And, gaining enough influence to truly matter for such for profit companies is a huge struggle.

It seems to me that it comes down to integrity, thoroughness and uniqueness, and a healthy dose of creativity to be truly authentic. The devolution of the Decor Expo New York show is a window into what happens when creativity is no longer valued by the marketplace, at least those who control the volume buying of prints. The show is rumored to be possibly on its last legs. Its swift decline mirrors other changes in the art print market.

If it weren’t enough to have Chinese knockoffs to deal with, print publishers are increasingly relying on fewer outlets with larger open to buy budgets. The buyers at those outlets have very specific demands, which are quite limiting. It’s not unlike what has happened to free radio, which is a serious dumbing down of the creative process, at least at the outlet level. Even though there are thousands upon thousands of tunes to play, most stations have 600 songs in rotation and actually play half or less. This fact comes from Steven Van Zandt, in an interview in a Denver Post article titled, “Rockers turn tables – Musicians grab radio microphones, spin their favorites. The article reports that Alice Cooper, Eminem, Sammy Hagar, Tom Petty, Snoop Dogg, Charlie Daniels and others have all launched shows. You can thank satellite radio for this development.

Van Zandt, aka, “Little Steven” from Bruce Springsteen’s E Street Band, and of The Sopranos fame, hosts a weekly radio show using a playlist of 2,600 songs. The article goes on to mention that none other than Bob Dylan is getting ready to air a weekly show with music and Dylan musing on music, lyrics and life. That’s as authentic as something can be. Whether it will be entertaining is yet to be seen, but it certainly has my interest.

When I went to my first Artexpo New York in 1988, there was a palpable rebellious, outrageous creative bent to the show. That streak no longer exists. Sure, even then there was plenty of safe homogenous art to go around, but there was still a spirit there, not unlike the early days of FM radio when a jock might play Arlo Guthrie’s “Alice’s Restaurant” even though it was 17 minutes long. Or a whole side of the Allman Brothers at the Fillmore East despite extended jams, just because it felt right. There was no corporate decision maker wheedling down and dictating the playlists.

I mention the development about the breakout of rockers as jocks playing what they like to hear because I have hopes that a parallel of sorts might happen in the art market. That is, with new distribution channels and yes, digital prints, among other things, that the art market can loosen up and find a way to be free of stifling decisions about what is good to print and publish. I trust the public is far more eclectic in its taste in both music and art. Though I don’t see the path clearly yet for the art business, I remain optimistic that in this age of a desire for authenticity that the art market will find its own way to embrace and fulfill the desire for it.

Replies: 4 Comments

on Wednesday, May 10th, Andrew said

I don't know about the print or painting market, but in sculpture production, of which Chihuly is a part, sculptors rarely do their own work. This is not a new phenomenon, having its origins in the massive equipment and manpower needed to do large bronze castings. Rodin cast in Paris, and his own participation pretty much ended when he walked through the foundry doors.
What is new is the use of subcontractors in the types of work that can easily be done by the artists themselves. I have seen, on canvasses taken out of their frames, pencil marks indicating the presence of a grid system under the entire work, used for enlargement. While this may be done by an artist themselves, usually it points to assistants copying and enlarging. Is this the work of the artist? No, it is not, any more than illegal Chinese copies are.
If it is not, then neither is the work of an artist taking a bite out of an apple, handing it to an Italian marble carver, and saying, "Make this ten feet high in something close to red," Authenticity, in my book, requires a little more active participation and control on the part of the artist themselves.
Jeff Koons came to Pietrasanta and had his portrait with Cicciolina, the famous porn star, done by Cervietti, one of the best figurative studios here. He posed for it, and then signed the work. Here the discussion becomes slightly different, as the participation of a hired marble carver becomes part of the concept of the piece. When an artist hides that part, that is when they commit the worst kind of fraud, and deserve to be exposed. You have to be rich, because this kind of stuff costs real money. Those who produce more than two life size marbles a year are the bad guys. I just sat down yesterday with a guy who did nine in six months. He told me all he had was four days to polish all of them, since the client, a cruise liner, had given him a deadline. The carvers had been late with delivery.

on Monday, May 8th, Ed Baron said

When we innaugurated the hand painting business for garment center manufacturers our million dollar company used the original designs by Hyacinthe Baron and employed hundreds of artists to "copy" them. Even done by hand the painted garments were cheaper than silk screening and we could hardly keep up with the demand.

We saved manufacturers a bundle by resurrecting their backpiled garments and adding hand painted designs so the clothes could be sold to the stores.
The reception was fabulous and the demand soon increased to overwhelming proportions. This story was chronicled in the NY Times in 1980.

Years later we repeated the process on home furnishings, pillows, bedspreads, a best selling shower curtain, all hand painted with original designs and copied by our staff.
A big store owner in Japan declared that Hyacinthe had out Japanesed the Japanese and his purchases were astounding.

We trained the artists and many went off on their own and tried to do their own designs without much success so they copied Hyacinthe's designs and colors directly and used their own signatures.

More than 20 years later we still go into Linen stores or thrift shops and find the plagiarized pieces. After all of what concern is it to the consumer if they can purchase an article they like and want.
No room for lawyers here, no point except to accept this as the ultimate form of flattery.
When it comes to commercial creative products the designer must always believe there is more where that came from and just keep on coming up with new, better and more creative designs.
I beleive this is what happened in the art print business.
Prints of all types were oversold and the dealers and galleries were left with no recourse but to do what they could to recoup.
We personally knew several gallery owners who opened galleries, moved merchandise, closed shop and moved on to repeat the process over and over and with enough product in hand to do this.
One guy even went to jail for selling phony Dali prints. When he got out he went right back to business. He still had this enormous stock.
Another dealer opened galleries and used the traffic in foreign art to launder money.
Greed begets more greed.

Is the future for artists to liason with large corporations such as Dia who use real estate as the backup for art values?

Is the artist who creates originals and then sells the right to use the image to a dealer for prints and a percentage now considered a dinasour?

I was reminded the other day of the story of Steiglitz asking $100,00 for a Georgia O'Keefe and holding out for several years until an Englishman agreed and their fortunes were made. He of course was a master of publicity.

Today many artists self publish prints and then distribute them in broken quantities to dealers in the hope of controlling the market for their work.
Thomas Kinkaid was clever to get rid of as much "paper" as possible and turn it into dollars. Without knowing the details and the he said she said there is no way to comprehend what really happened, except that someone was bound to make a bundle so why not the artist?
The artist it seems has always been the low man on the totem pole of art dealing.

on Monday, May 8th, Hyacinthe Baron said

An excellent discussion of the art market past and present. There was a time when average American Art Collectors hungered for originals, wallowed in the validation of owning part of limited editions signed in pencil by the artist and had the money to buy what they loved and what they valued and what they were told by the gallery and art dealers and auctioneers would increase in value.
Now many of these collectors have either passed favorite pieces to their relatives, or the works have been included in estate sales and subsequently resold in thrift and resale shops, often as 'used" art.

Because I have a web presence I am contacted daily by collectors who have my works, some as long as 50 years, others as new acquisitions.

The schizm in the art market is profound. The decorative art market became saturated with every sort of print and technique for framing. Paper has been buried in specific earth sites, collaged, pasted and glued into acrylic boxes. Prints have been floated like so much redwood in thick casings of epoxy resins.

Years ago a Chinese manufacturer etched a small girl holding a flower litho of mine onto a plastic 9x12" panel without the signature of course, and sold them to the 5 and dimes. My lawyer advised that even if we could find the source by tracing the trail of imports, no money could be mine from suing.

Plagarism is rampant today in regard to anything that might sell.

on Monday, May 8th, questions said

A comment about Dale Chihuly and a question of what is authentic.

Chihuly hasn't, as was pointed out, blown any glass for about 16 or 17 years. He is not a glass blower. He has his employees do all of that at his factory. He's the design guy. He's the artist. His employees mere artisans.

or

Are his employees really the artists with significant design input leaving Chihuly as the conceptualist? Remember, he hasn't blown glass in many years. Is the mass production factory owner/conceptualist truly an artist? How authentic can a "Chihuly" piece be if he didn't really have much to do with making or it?