The Russian Avant-Garde Rag
Editors: Jack Jones, Sally Smart
Catalogue "raisonné". No 50%, no Malevich.
Catalogue "raisonné" is put in quotation marks because "raisonné" means "reasoned" and hence reliable and without bias, which this work is not. Dubious attributions are included while good paintings have been excluded for reasons of vested interest. According to our sources there is a significant number of dealers who refused to share 50% of a potential sale with this compromised art historian. Consequently their works
Catalogue "raisonné" is put in quotation marks because "raisonné" means "reasoned" and hence reliable and without bias, which this work is not. Dubious attributions are included while good paintings have been excluded for reasons of vested interest. According to our sources there is a significant number of dealers who refused to share 50% of a potential sale with this compromised art historian. Consequently their works
were not included in this Catalogue "raisonné" and so have been deleted from the artist's body of works by implication. This is a terrible indictment on Malevich and his creativity. But never mind. Revenge is sweet. The art historian - cum - dealer feels vindicated.
Similarly, a number of collectors are reported to have refused to be blackmailed into selling their works or to drop their price to below market value. So their works are also missing from the Catalogue "raisonné". Same story: Author's sweet revenge. But
Similarly, a number of collectors are reported to have refused to be blackmailed into selling their works or to drop their price to below market value. So their works are also missing from the Catalogue "raisonné". Same story: Author's sweet revenge. But
does the author know, as we've learned, that a 2008 judgment in the French courts ruled that using the title "catalogue raisonné" carries a legal responsibility and is a guarantee of the completeness and accuracy of the publication? Otherwise, the author may be subject to legal action.
Interested?
So now something about 2 of these paintings in the Catalogue "raisonné" in which it is said that the author has a financial interest, and one that isn't because he doesn't.
Interested?
So now something about 2 of these paintings in the Catalogue "raisonné" in which it is said that the author has a financial interest, and one that isn't because he doesn't.
Editorial
www.ragrag.info
A No. 1 Mister 50% became famous in the last few years for trying to flout a Suprematist painting by Kazimir Malevich on the art market in 2008 (by Sotheby's, in fact) for the reserve price of $60 million. It didn't sell, although the press reported that Malevich had reached new heights on the art market. Today you can have four of them for the bargain price of $80 million, although the price varies according to the dealer's chutzpah of the moment. No museum will touch these paintings since they actually belong to the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam. Fiddled paperwork and instructions from the higher-ups to keep international peace prevailed. So No. 1 Mister 50% has four unsaleable
paintings by Kazimir Malevich and isn't very happy. He doesn't like being 50% in the hole (c. $30-40 million). Nevermind. His previous 50%s must be keeping him nicely in his luxurious lifestyle until these meager times are over.
A No. 2 "Mister 50%" has been less reported on since his garden is not nearly so public. He works secretively and with deception, with shady individuals on shady deals, masquerading under his other profession as "art historian". No. 2 "Mister 50%" lives in a garden full of even nastier weeds.
No. 2 "Mister 50%" is alleged to also have paintings by Kazimir Malevich for sale - 3 of them - but they may not be
A No. 2 "Mister 50%" has been less reported on since his garden is not nearly so public. He works secretively and with deception, with shady individuals on shady deals, masquerading under his other profession as "art historian". No. 2 "Mister 50%" lives in a garden full of even nastier weeds.
No. 2 "Mister 50%" is alleged to also have paintings by Kazimir Malevich for sale - 3 of them - but they may not be
by Malevich at all. Yet there they are, full page in full colour in one of the four volumes on KAZIMIR MALEWICZ (sic) by Andréi Nakov and they are duly numbered in his Catalogue "raisonné" of the artist (2002). We have been told by informed sources that these paintings are owned, at least in part, by the author, art historian, and now dealer. Many accuse him of using his "authority" as a published art historian to pronounce on works for the sake of a lucrative 50% when they are sold. Due to this so-called "authority" he is also said to command 50% of the sale of any other work that he "authenticates". No 50%, no authentication. No 50%, no sale. No 50%, no inclusion in the
email: ragragjones@gmail.com
RagRag goes from one SCOOP to the next thanks to continuous scandals in the art world. This latest scoop, however, results from an on-going investigation into a neat little subject called CONFLICT OF INTEREST. As it is commonly practised in this otherwise respectable world the topic is so big that we have focused on one individual, someone who is known to a number of people. Over decades he has attracted attention for practising a cleverly conceived formula for success. So this issue is devoted to him. On another note we have received emails inquiring - "Who are we?". To this we reply: We are New York journalists who have been hanging around the art world for a long time, observing scandal after scandal and the duplicity of reporters writing for "respectable" newspapers and magazines who do as they're told and plead the case of the side who pays them. Here conflict of interest has given way to VESTED INTEREST. So who are we? We are tailors showing off the emperors (and there are lots of them) in their new clothes.
No. 2 Mister 50%
composition in a photograph of c. 1920 would also be by Malevich on the grounds that it is "hanging high up" on the wall. Opposite S-309 are two drawings of similar arrangement to which the author refers by way of "proof". These drawings could be by Malevich but that does not mean that the painting is. In the Suprematist section of the Catalogue "raisonné", 567 drawings are reproduced but there are only 54 paintings. Did Malevich paint only 54 Suprematist paintings over a 10 year period? Not much of a "catalogue" or a "reasoned" one since it is known from contemporary documents that he exhibited well over 100 Suprematist paintings during his lifetime - to which must be added those he didn't exhibit. So where are the other 50% (or more) of his works? They are missing from this incomplete catalogue.
A report on this Suprematist painting S-309 was requested from Mr Nakov
A report on this Suprematist painting S-309 was requested from Mr Nakov
in the late 1990s and after ramblings and undocumented assertions he concludes by stating: "I was able to examine the original of this work [sic] personally about 15 years ago. X-ray examination carried out when the work was cleaned then, together with a stylistic analysis of the composition and the very particular manner in which the Suprematist figures are executed allow me to state unhesitatingly that this is an original work by Kazimir Malevich and that it was carried out by his own hand. Furthermore this is one of the finest of the Suprematist works, from the stylistic as well as the formal point of view: its extraordinary sobriety and the absence of secondary elements confer upon the work a monumental dimension that
If it is then it is the only known Suprematist painting in which Malevich used this combination of colours. It is also the only known work in which Malevich paints such a composition. This painting is number S-309 in the Catalogue "raisonné" where Mr. Nakov asserts that a similar
embodies the definite state of a Suprematist idea, taken there to perfection."
But there is no common agreement about the attribution of this painting to Malevich.
Also in the late 1990s this painting S-309 was given to the Conservation Department at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. In her in-depth Conservation Analysis on this painting former Associate Conservator Eugenia Ordonez concludes: "There were other methods used in this work that are also untypical, such as, the extent of which the composition was revised, the extent to which the ground layer appeared in the white background and the types of brushstrokes used in the
But there is no common agreement about the attribution of this painting to Malevich.
Also in the late 1990s this painting S-309 was given to the Conservation Department at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. In her in-depth Conservation Analysis on this painting former Associate Conservator Eugenia Ordonez concludes: "There were other methods used in this work that are also untypical, such as, the extent of which the composition was revised, the extent to which the ground layer appeared in the white background and the types of brushstrokes used in the
background. While none of these deviations from the norm provide proof that the painting is misattributed, there are enough differences in the materials and methods used to strongly encourage further testing be done, for example, analysis of organic red colorant and carbon dating of the canvas."
So who could this painting be by if, in fact, it is old?
It has a strong resemblance to the Suprematist painting of Ivan Kudriachev, a pupil and then friend of the Master. There are a number of watercolours by Kudriashev that are close in composition to this painting.
Moreover, Kudriashev tended to use a range of colours not
So who could this painting be by if, in fact, it is old?
It has a strong resemblance to the Suprematist painting of Ivan Kudriachev, a pupil and then friend of the Master. There are a number of watercolours by Kudriashev that are close in composition to this painting.
Moreover, Kudriashev tended to use a range of colours not
dissimilar to the colours employed in this painting.
So is this painting new or old? Don't know. Is it by Kazimir Malevich? Probably not.
Is this painting by Ivan Kudriashev? Possibly, if it's old. Or by another of Malevich's pupils?
Now is this a case of accidental misattribution? of incompetence? or of price tag? Remember? The author of the expertise is alleged to be (or have been) part owner of this canvas and he wants his 50%.
Dazzled by the glitter of gain, the uncritical eye is blind to the painting and sees only dancing dollar signs. Can Mr. Nakov be classed as an unbiased "Expert"? or an expert at all? Hardly.
So is this painting new or old? Don't know. Is it by Kazimir Malevich? Probably not.
Is this painting by Ivan Kudriashev? Possibly, if it's old. Or by another of Malevich's pupils?
Now is this a case of accidental misattribution? of incompetence? or of price tag? Remember? The author of the expertise is alleged to be (or have been) part owner of this canvas and he wants his 50%.
Dazzled by the glitter of gain, the uncritical eye is blind to the painting and sees only dancing dollar signs. Can Mr. Nakov be classed as an unbiased "Expert"? or an expert at all? Hardly.
This painting, S-284 in Andréi Nakov's Catalogue "raisonné" of the art of Kazimir Malevich, we have been told, is also said to be owned by Andréi Nakov in joint partnership with a New York dealer. It's current asking price, dealers have told us, is $25 million.
Need one say more?
Other than the fact that the author of the Catalogue "raisonné" cannot now even cite drawings in support of its attribution to Kazimir Malevich since there is not one among the 567 reproduced. So if by Malevich it has to be taken on faith.
Need one say more?
Other than the fact that the author of the Catalogue "raisonné" cannot now even cite drawings in support of its attribution to Kazimir Malevich since there is not one among the 567 reproduced. So if by Malevich it has to be taken on faith.
There are works by Nikolai Suetin, on the other hand, that could point to his authorship, an artist who was one of Malevich's pupils then a collaborator on many projects. Indeed, this artist is given as the previous owner of the painting.
But a Suetin painting is worth much less than a Malevich painting, so when in doubt let's just call it, well, a Malevich, shall we? Especially when you are, as has been alleged, part-owner.
Any more questions?
But a Suetin painting is worth much less than a Malevich painting, so when in doubt let's just call it, well, a Malevich, shall we? Especially when you are, as has been alleged, part-owner.
Any more questions?
IS THIS PAINTING BY KAZIMIR MALEVICH?
THIS PAINTING IS BY KAZIMIR MALEVICH
seven years of "studying" the painting, it was not included in the Catalogue "raissoné" because the art historian, now dealer, couldn't get his price. The collector simply refused to sell it. Punish the collector or punish Malevich? The art historian doesn't understand this kind of subtlety, it would seem. Or if he does he doesn't care.
Oh that wily 50%.
How do we know that this painting IS by Malevich? Well, several analyses by highly respected and professional scientists have found no argument against this painting having been executed by 1930 and undoubtedly before, while several highly respected art historians have shown detailed reason to attribute the painting to Malevich, c. 1917.
And there are drawings for it. One is in the Ludwig Museum in Cologne and is No. S-271 in the Catalogue "raisonné".
Oh that wily 50%.
How do we know that this painting IS by Malevich? Well, several analyses by highly respected and professional scientists have found no argument against this painting having been executed by 1930 and undoubtedly before, while several highly respected art historians have shown detailed reason to attribute the painting to Malevich, c. 1917.
And there are drawings for it. One is in the Ludwig Museum in Cologne and is No. S-271 in the Catalogue "raisonné".
On it, Malevich indicated the colours he would use for the painting, which he did.
But such art historical evidence of an annotated drawing in the artist's own handwriting is now very inconvenient. So Mr. Nakov just discounts it. Art dealer has bestowed his twisted grin on art historian in this Jekyll and Hyde tale. Hyde seems to win every time.
A particularly angry European dealer didn't even manage to get his painting back. He shared his experience of 2002 with us: "We were heavily abused by Nakov [and his partner]. Nakov, to whom I had given the painting but could never get it back, then sold it. However Nakov refused to acknowledge the real price. Summing up, my partner and I were robbed."
From what we've been told this dealer wasn't the only one.
But such art historical evidence of an annotated drawing in the artist's own handwriting is now very inconvenient. So Mr. Nakov just discounts it. Art dealer has bestowed his twisted grin on art historian in this Jekyll and Hyde tale. Hyde seems to win every time.
A particularly angry European dealer didn't even manage to get his painting back. He shared his experience of 2002 with us: "We were heavily abused by Nakov [and his partner]. Nakov, to whom I had given the painting but could never get it back, then sold it. However Nakov refused to acknowledge the real price. Summing up, my partner and I were robbed."
From what we've been told this dealer wasn't the only one.
But the owner, a Moscow collector, who lent the painting to Mr. Nakov to "study" it so that it could be included in the Catalogue "raisonné", had to threaten the art historian with legal action to recover his property. After
So that's obviously not all there is to this story of a man who indulges in a profit-yielding pastime to create money for himself while destroying the fortunes of others. Two questions remain:
1 - Did any of this happen to you? Tell us about it.
2 - Does the author of the Catalogue "raisonné" own a real painting by Malevich? Or would he even know if he did?
2 - Does the author of the Catalogue "raisonné" own a real painting by Malevich? Or would he even know if he did?
©ragrag2010
IS THIS PAINTING BY KAZIMIR MALEVICH?
Number 3 - 1 November 2010
Cont / embodies