a raging dragon in the 1990s. "There are so many fakes on the market" became the hue and cry by all and sundry, most of them repeating what someone else had told them. And they were not talking about the copies found on the stalls of village markets.
No one seemed to ask for proof of such a damning allegation. I once asked an art historian if he had some real information about these so-called fakes because it's a serious problem for these professionals and affects their research and their books.
"No", he said. "but I know they are there."
"Have you seen any?"
"No", he said
"Do you know who's making them?".
"No one would tell me that", he replied.
"So how can we know for sure?"
He didn't know, he said, so I concluded that we can't.
And we still don't know who started the rumour, but the Lebedev and Larionov
No one seemed to ask for proof of such a damning allegation. I once asked an art historian if he had some real information about these so-called fakes because it's a serious problem for these professionals and affects their research and their books.
"No", he said. "but I know they are there."
"Have you seen any?"
"No", he said
"Do you know who's making them?".
"No one would tell me that", he replied.
"So how can we know for sure?"
He didn't know, he said, so I concluded that we can't.
And we still don't know who started the rumour, but the Lebedev and Larionov
affairs didn't help - and one or the other or both are always cited to support the case. But that was twenty five (25) years ago.
Are we so easily duped, badgered by invisible people and empty phrases? It would seem that we are.
If one is a conspiracy theorist one would claim that these rumours (for that's what they are since there's never a fact to go with them) were seeds planted just to worry the well-meaning collectors - museums and private individuals - enough to control sales of reputable dealers and the auction houses.
Then, when what nobody expected occurred - glasnost - Russia's lost treasures began to appear on the art market. Just as "they" had thought they'd fenced their garden from the rabbits, a landscape appeared. And "they" lost their control. But only for a while, as it's turned out. _____
Are we so easily duped, badgered by invisible people and empty phrases? It would seem that we are.
If one is a conspiracy theorist one would claim that these rumours (for that's what they are since there's never a fact to go with them) were seeds planted just to worry the well-meaning collectors - museums and private individuals - enough to control sales of reputable dealers and the auction houses.
Then, when what nobody expected occurred - glasnost - Russia's lost treasures began to appear on the art market. Just as "they" had thought they'd fenced their garden from the rabbits, a landscape appeared. And "they" lost their control. But only for a while, as it's turned out. _____
The art world of the Russian Avant-Garde was a peaceful place in the 1970s, and easily subject to sudden excitement.
"What? You've discovered a Malevich, a real Malevich? (Or a Goncharova, or a Kandinsky, or a Rodchenko, etc). Can I buy it from you?" was the usual reaction to dealers like Galerie Gmurzynska in Cologne, Galerie Jean Chauvelin in Paris, Annely Juda Fine Art in London, or the two or three New York galleries such as Rosa Easman, Rachel Adler, or Leonard Hutton.
Then one miserable day in the early 1980s there crept into this idyllic world the accusation of "fake".
Maybe it began with the Lebedev affair, or perhaps with (or fueled by) the works on paper attributed to Mikhail Larionov that were shown in reputable museums in Germany and Switzerland, authenticated (and largely owned or having been sold by) by Andréi Nakov. Now the serpent began to coil its way around in paradise, to suddenly become
"What? You've discovered a Malevich, a real Malevich? (Or a Goncharova, or a Kandinsky, or a Rodchenko, etc). Can I buy it from you?" was the usual reaction to dealers like Galerie Gmurzynska in Cologne, Galerie Jean Chauvelin in Paris, Annely Juda Fine Art in London, or the two or three New York galleries such as Rosa Easman, Rachel Adler, or Leonard Hutton.
Then one miserable day in the early 1980s there crept into this idyllic world the accusation of "fake".
Maybe it began with the Lebedev affair, or perhaps with (or fueled by) the works on paper attributed to Mikhail Larionov that were shown in reputable museums in Germany and Switzerland, authenticated (and largely owned or having been sold by) by Andréi Nakov. Now the serpent began to coil its way around in paradise, to suddenly become
Others (or maybe they were part of the "theys") soon climbed on the bandwagon. "Das ist FAKE!" I heard Mrs Hutton of the Leonard Hutton Galleries, New York, shout in the Basel Art Fair some years ago in a stand where there were some Malevich drawings on show. What does a gallery owner do when his or her works are publicly challenged with nothing but a shout? Probably want to crawl under the table. And what makes it particularly embarrassing? The gallery owner has been gagged simply by the circumstance and the apparent "authority" of the likes of a Mrs Hutton.
Many have been imitating her style ever since, especially after she gave a few nudges here and there which helped to fan the flames and to result in (his first formal appearance), Konstantin Akinsha's, "FAKE! The Betrayal of the Russian Avant-Garde", ARTnews, February 1996. It nearly brought the Russian Avant-Garde art world to its knees. The simple effect: dealers were intimidated, collectors became wary, museums even more. It's a highly successful technique. Just shout "fake" and like a gunshot, everyone dives for cover. But what if "fake" were to become the victim of a Peter and the
Many have been imitating her style ever since, especially after she gave a few nudges here and there which helped to fan the flames and to result in (his first formal appearance), Konstantin Akinsha's, "FAKE! The Betrayal of the Russian Avant-Garde", ARTnews, February 1996. It nearly brought the Russian Avant-Garde art world to its knees. The simple effect: dealers were intimidated, collectors became wary, museums even more. It's a highly successful technique. Just shout "fake" and like a gunshot, everyone dives for cover. But what if "fake" were to become the victim of a Peter and the
Wolf syndrome? Now wouldn't that take the wind out of their sails?
So how do we do it?
Difficult when we're confronted by the reappearance of the "Fakeer", Konstantin Akinsha. (Yes, that's a good name for them, the "Fakeers" - sounds like a religious cult - oops, it probably is - it's certainly the opposite of Quakers).
Then there's Andréi Nakov who takes other people's property - works by Alexandra Exter - off the internet, reproduces them on his website, and stamps "FAKE" across them. I thought such misappropriation of other people's property was against the law. Just before that he started sending lawyer's letters to auction houses, galleries, et. al., threatening legal action if the offending article wasn't removed. He'd never seen these works, and his threats didn''t materialise since he doesn't have the authority he claims to have. (Message: don't be intimidated by him.)
And then there's Peter Aven who in early June shouted, "Fakes, all fakes" in the stand of a gallery in the Russian Fair that ran concurrently with the auction house sales of Russian Week in London. This was reported in the press in several cities. (Mr. Aven must have a good press officer.)
So how do we do it?
Difficult when we're confronted by the reappearance of the "Fakeer", Konstantin Akinsha. (Yes, that's a good name for them, the "Fakeers" - sounds like a religious cult - oops, it probably is - it's certainly the opposite of Quakers).
Then there's Andréi Nakov who takes other people's property - works by Alexandra Exter - off the internet, reproduces them on his website, and stamps "FAKE" across them. I thought such misappropriation of other people's property was against the law. Just before that he started sending lawyer's letters to auction houses, galleries, et. al., threatening legal action if the offending article wasn't removed. He'd never seen these works, and his threats didn''t materialise since he doesn't have the authority he claims to have. (Message: don't be intimidated by him.)
And then there's Peter Aven who in early June shouted, "Fakes, all fakes" in the stand of a gallery in the Russian Fair that ran concurrently with the auction house sales of Russian Week in London. This was reported in the press in several cities. (Mr. Aven must have a good press officer.)
Sometimes he does it in private galleries, too - if you're a gallery owner with some Russian Avant-Garde works on the wall, beware. Museums the same.
And now there's the return of Konstantin Akinsha for whom such phrases like, "the numbers of fakes to flood the West" just trip off his leaky pen.
I would suggest that "fake" is akin to "wolf", like "Fakeers" are akin to Wolves (and they are certainly of the same species). They are empty words which used to terrify us all but now, well, it's the war cry of the weak and trembling, those who are terrified of losing their power in the control of the art market - and of us.
That should make us think - is art about the art market, or about art itself and those who created the things that inspire us, give us pleasure, and reveal the world to us. That's what I think art is, and I WILL NOT relinquish my right to art, especially to those scoundrels (definition: those who behave dishonourably towards other people).
So, away with you lot, or if you think you're not vanquished, then just wait awhile.
The rest is up to us, all of us. _______
And now there's the return of Konstantin Akinsha for whom such phrases like, "the numbers of fakes to flood the West" just trip off his leaky pen.
I would suggest that "fake" is akin to "wolf", like "Fakeers" are akin to Wolves (and they are certainly of the same species). They are empty words which used to terrify us all but now, well, it's the war cry of the weak and trembling, those who are terrified of losing their power in the control of the art market - and of us.
That should make us think - is art about the art market, or about art itself and those who created the things that inspire us, give us pleasure, and reveal the world to us. That's what I think art is, and I WILL NOT relinquish my right to art, especially to those scoundrels (definition: those who behave dishonourably towards other people).
So, away with you lot, or if you think you're not vanquished, then just wait awhile.
The rest is up to us, all of us. _______
The Russian Avant-Garde Rag
Welcome to the first issue of The Russian Avant-Garde Rag©, ragRag© (a "rag' is newyorkese, but not only newyorkese, for a newspaper with a twist of lemon). Now we shall tell you how it came about. We woke up one morning, happy as a lark. The sun was shining, the birds were singing, and it was a lovely summer's day. Until the phone rang. "Have you read that article in ARTnews?", the caller said. Suddenly we were plunged into the deepest gloom. "Not again", we thought, "not another one", we said. So we couldn't stand it any longer. And that's how ragRag was born. - Now we should tell you about our publishing policy. Although we have our own correspondents, ragRag welcomes contributions from readers. The decision to publish is ours alone, and final. For we are not democratic in these matters since we refuse to publish libelous, slanderous, malicious, uninformed, misleading, unsubstantiated attacks and claims about art, artists, people, or institutions. Nor are we the playground for those seeking to settle old scores or create new ones, for vendettas or other personal affairs and vested interests. - ragRag will be published as news comes in, so keep a look-out and be surprised, or dismayed, by what you will read. Everyone of good faith - and who is scandalised, outraged, bewildered by events - can have a voice in ragRag. Authors of all contributions are confidential and anonymous unless they wish to be named. - NOW TO ANNOUNCE - ragRag HAS ITS FIRST SCOOP! An article by "An Artworld Insider" has been circulated by email and ragRag was also sent a copy. We are very proud to have been given exclusive rights to publish it on our pages. You will find it after our lead article and comments on and corrections to the ARTnews article of 7 July 2009 by Konstantin Akinsha and Sylvia Hochfield, "The Faking of the Russian Avant-Garde".
Inaugural Editorial
FAKE? DID YOU SAY FAKE?
CORRECTION: Scientific Experts Do NOT "Authenticate". Asserted by Mr Akinsha in his ARTnews article is that Dr Erhard Jägers and his wife Dr Elisabeth Jägers, the scientific experts working near Cologne, Germany, "certify", "attribute", and "authenticate" works of art.
Purporting to quote Dr. Jägers, Akinsha writes that "Erhard Jägers told ARTnews that he authenticates a work 'if nothing speaks against' the attribution - if he can find no reason not to authenticate it. He almost never attributes firmly, and then only in very well documented cases." Thus writes Akinsha.
Now this apparently informative statement is a gross distortion of the truth. Reputable scientists never certify, authenticate, or attribute. That is not their job since they are not art historians. They are scientists and their job is to investigate the materials of a work of art. Please, Mr. Akinsha, let the scientists do their jobs and the art historians do their jobs. Anyway, you know better than to have written this since you are meant to be an art historian yourself.
Not only is it erroneous what Akinsha writes, but exceedingly manipulative in order to deceive. For Akinsha goes on to illustrate his point by describing (with
Now this apparently informative statement is a gross distortion of the truth. Reputable scientists never certify, authenticate, or attribute. That is not their job since they are not art historians. They are scientists and their job is to investigate the materials of a work of art. Please, Mr. Akinsha, let the scientists do their jobs and the art historians do their jobs. Anyway, you know better than to have written this since you are meant to be an art historian yourself.
Not only is it erroneous what Akinsha writes, but exceedingly manipulative in order to deceive. For Akinsha goes on to illustrate his point by describing (with
some important details missing) a situation in a German auction house where he writes that the scientist had "certified" a work that was then questioned due to an apparent anomoly in the Cyrillic.
So now Dr. Jägers is responsible for historical Cyrillic too, as well as being an art historian, as well as being a scientist. What else would Mr Akinsha turn him into?
Such a manipulation of the facts, of knowingly misusing terminology and misrepresenting someone, aims to achieve only one thing: to discredit this well-known scientist, and in turn to discredit the whole field of scientific research into works of art. Dr. Jägers has been scapegoated.
(By the way, we are not being careless in our choice of words. For "manipulation" means: "to control or influence somebody or something in an ingenious or devious way, and to change or present something in a way that is false but personally
So now Dr. Jägers is responsible for historical Cyrillic too, as well as being an art historian, as well as being a scientist. What else would Mr Akinsha turn him into?
Such a manipulation of the facts, of knowingly misusing terminology and misrepresenting someone, aims to achieve only one thing: to discredit this well-known scientist, and in turn to discredit the whole field of scientific research into works of art. Dr. Jägers has been scapegoated.
(By the way, we are not being careless in our choice of words. For "manipulation" means: "to control or influence somebody or something in an ingenious or devious way, and to change or present something in a way that is false but personally
Art historians have been dismissed in their role of establishing whether a work of art is authentic or not. Now it is a clutch of art marketeers who have usurped the traditional task of those who study, investigate, research, write about, think about, and publish on works of art.
These marketeers have been empowered by themselves to decide what we can and cannot see since their cries of "Fake! It's a fake!" are terrorizing museum curators (they would lose their jobs, or at least their rank if a
These marketeers have been empowered by themselves to decide what we can and cannot see since their cries of "Fake! It's a fake!" are terrorizing museum curators (they would lose their jobs, or at least their rank if a
Horror vacuii, goes the saying. And the vacuum in this case is that nobody knows who should be authenticating works of art. The door had been left wide open and the Evildoers just walked in and took control.
Now who are those most qualified to authenticate works of art? Those who study, research, look at works and write about them - the art historians.
Unfortunately for them, archives are so difficult, if not impossible, to access.
Now who are those most qualified to authenticate works of art? Those who study, research, look at works and write about them - the art historians.
Unfortunately for them, archives are so difficult, if not impossible, to access.
But there are ways around this. Fortunately for them, they no longer have to rely solely on their thinking eye but have parallel resources in the work of the scientific experts. Their investigations into pigments and brush-work (etc.) are the "signatures" of an artist, while the newest digital technologies can detect fakes. So,
- auction houses, consult art historians,
- galleries, consult the art historians,
- museums consult art historians and do
- auction houses, consult art historians,
- galleries, consult the art historians,
- museums consult art historians and do
exhibition upon exhibition, even controversial ones, to bring the Russian Avant-Garde to the public eye. Be brave! and set the pace.
Honourable Art Historians! Take your power and fill that vacuum to overflowing! And write and write and write about all the good works that are out there. That way the artists will be able to breath again - it's been so stuffy in the tombs. ___
Honourable Art Historians! Take your power and fill that vacuum to overflowing! And write and write and write about all the good works that are out there. That way the artists will be able to breath again - it's been so stuffy in the tombs. ___
Presented as the current state of affairs, the article published in ARTnews in early July 2009 authored by Konstantin Akinsha and Sylvia Hochfield, "The Faking of the Russian Avant-Garde", is a potpourri of partial reporting of recent events, unsubstantiated opinions, auction house wrangles, personal vendettas, rare cases of trumped up provenances, and long descriptions of old disputes over one or two artists.
And it all has to do with money. With few exceptions, the situations cited by the author involve the art market, and the real battle is for control of it. I.e., the aim of the article, while appearing to be "investigative journalism", is nothing more than a speaker's platform in a campaign where only one contestant is allowed the floor.
The Heroes
That this is the case is made abundantly clear by the prime place given to Peter
And it all has to do with money. With few exceptions, the situations cited by the author involve the art market, and the real battle is for control of it. I.e., the aim of the article, while appearing to be "investigative journalism", is nothing more than a speaker's platform in a campaign where only one contestant is allowed the floor.
The Heroes
That this is the case is made abundantly clear by the prime place given to Peter
Aven, the President of Alfa Bank Moscow. He is known in the art world for his determination to raise the value of his collection by making it exclusive and he does this by challenging the credibility of other works. He recently attended the early June Russian Art Week in London and shouted loudly, "Fakes, all fakes", in a gallery stand, an event that was reported in the press. These were works he had never seen before, knew nothing of their history, nor of the lengths which had been taken to certify their authenticity. Yet he is the "authority" who is quoted by Akinsha as saying that there are a "colossal" number of fakes, but this is totally unsubstantiated in the article.
Another hero is the Moscow art historian, Alexandra Shatskikh. She has published on Malevich and the Vitebsk school, and should be knowledgeable on the artists involved. But Shatskikh, who is quoted as piously denouncing ("it is tragic") the abuses of art historians who
Another hero is the Moscow art historian, Alexandra Shatskikh. She has published on Malevich and the Vitebsk school, and should be knowledgeable on the artists involved. But Shatskikh, who is quoted as piously denouncing ("it is tragic") the abuses of art historians who
involve themselves in the art market, is known to be in the pay of the Leonard Hutton Galleries, New York, who, although the art historian has never lived in the United States, procured a green card for her and financed the university education of her two sons. One can only wonder what their debt to her was. In return, Shatskikh is the voice of Mrs Hutton and her opinions are dictated by the New York art dealer. Sweeping statements like, "the laundering of fakes in exhibitions" have often been heard to issue from the mouth of Mrs Hutton.
Another spokesman for the camp of "fakes" is Alla Rosenfeld, Akinsha citing her as saying that "there are more fakes than genuine pictures". Again this is entirely unsubstantiated and, as with Aven, is an appeal to a so-called authority rather than an appeal to facts. Rosenfeld is an art historian specialising in Russian non-conformist art from the 1960s who went from Rutgers to Sotheby's in New York,
Another spokesman for the camp of "fakes" is Alla Rosenfeld, Akinsha citing her as saying that "there are more fakes than genuine pictures". Again this is entirely unsubstantiated and, as with Aven, is an appeal to a so-called authority rather than an appeal to facts. Rosenfeld is an art historian specialising in Russian non-conformist art from the 1960s who went from Rutgers to Sotheby's in New York,
then was made redundant at the time of the banking crisis, but for what reasons? She does not know the Russian Avant-Garde, and she is in the art market.
An Attempt to Prove His Case
By way of lending support to these assertions, Akinsha reverts to several known situations that took place 25 years ago.
The author goes to great lengths to describe the dispute over a group of works by the Vitebsk artist, Nina Kogan, involving the Zurich Galerie Schlegel and others. "The earliest Russian Avant-Garde fakes to flood the West were...", writes Akinsha (now convinced of the case he's making), but of the Kogan works sold at Sotheby's or Christie's Akinsha does not report that works were returned - so presumably they weren't fakes. Selective reporting, again.
Also taking place in the 1980s was the Nakov-Larionov affair, the city of Geneva sueing Nakov for defrauding the city museum by exhibiting fakes. The city of Geneva won its case, which Mr Akinsha does not report. Rather, he writes that Nakov won his case against a Geneva newspaper. Now this is plain deception in selective reporting in order to reconfigure the reality and slant it, witholding information to influence the reader's opinion.
An Attempt to Prove His Case
By way of lending support to these assertions, Akinsha reverts to several known situations that took place 25 years ago.
The author goes to great lengths to describe the dispute over a group of works by the Vitebsk artist, Nina Kogan, involving the Zurich Galerie Schlegel and others. "The earliest Russian Avant-Garde fakes to flood the West were...", writes Akinsha (now convinced of the case he's making), but of the Kogan works sold at Sotheby's or Christie's Akinsha does not report that works were returned - so presumably they weren't fakes. Selective reporting, again.
Also taking place in the 1980s was the Nakov-Larionov affair, the city of Geneva sueing Nakov for defrauding the city museum by exhibiting fakes. The city of Geneva won its case, which Mr Akinsha does not report. Rather, he writes that Nakov won his case against a Geneva newspaper. Now this is plain deception in selective reporting in order to reconfigure the reality and slant it, witholding information to influence the reader's opinion.
Those Silly Art Historians
Those who should have authority should be the art historians, but how can they be relied on? For:
1. they argue over attributions. So, what's new? This happens amongst Rembrandt scholars, Impressionist scholars, and so on.
2. they are biased or unscholarly. Akinsha cites the problems around the Kandinsky Society, a monopoly that considers it has no obligation to explain its decisions, which are hardly based on scholarship. When another Kandinsky scholar arrives on the scene, Valery Turchin, the Society forbids him to sell his two volumes in the West on threat of legal action, but Akinsha does not report this. What he does report is a remark by a member of the Society that Turchin had not consulted the Kandinsky archives in the Pompidou Centre (implication: here in an art historian who does not do proper research. What Akinsha omits to say is that Turchin's third volume, now in preparation, is devoted entirely to the Kandinsky archives. Not only selective reporting but distorted information.
3. auction houses, art historians, and artists' heirs dispute attribution or authenticity. Again, this is not new in the art world, and is not restricted to the world of the Russian Avant-Garde. Take the
Those who should have authority should be the art historians, but how can they be relied on? For:
1. they argue over attributions. So, what's new? This happens amongst Rembrandt scholars, Impressionist scholars, and so on.
2. they are biased or unscholarly. Akinsha cites the problems around the Kandinsky Society, a monopoly that considers it has no obligation to explain its decisions, which are hardly based on scholarship. When another Kandinsky scholar arrives on the scene, Valery Turchin, the Society forbids him to sell his two volumes in the West on threat of legal action, but Akinsha does not report this. What he does report is a remark by a member of the Society that Turchin had not consulted the Kandinsky archives in the Pompidou Centre (implication: here in an art historian who does not do proper research. What Akinsha omits to say is that Turchin's third volume, now in preparation, is devoted entirely to the Kandinsky archives. Not only selective reporting but distorted information.
3. auction houses, art historians, and artists' heirs dispute attribution or authenticity. Again, this is not new in the art world, and is not restricted to the world of the Russian Avant-Garde. Take the
Picasso family, for example.
4. they are being slandered in the Moscow press - in this case, by Peter Aven. Where is the art historian's defence? Certainly not coming from Akinsha.
Indeed, the art historians are presented like squabbling children, incompetent, or compromised by conflict of interest, whereas those who actually are so compromised are presented as a hero (Nakov won his case against a Geneva newspaper), or as an untainted authority (Shatskikh).
Then there is the case of the scientific experts, Dr Erhard Jägers misquoted as "authenticating" works using scientific methods. Such reputable scientists never "authenticate", for their role is the investigation into the material nature of works and the presentation of the results of their investigation. To insinuate that Jägers is implicated in lexigraphical issues is reprehensible and outrageously irresponsible. So now the scientific experts have also been discredited.
And What About Provenance?
Akinsha writes that works have appeared without provenances, brought out of Russia by emigrés, or deaccessioned by provincial .
4. they are being slandered in the Moscow press - in this case, by Peter Aven. Where is the art historian's defence? Certainly not coming from Akinsha.
Indeed, the art historians are presented like squabbling children, incompetent, or compromised by conflict of interest, whereas those who actually are so compromised are presented as a hero (Nakov won his case against a Geneva newspaper), or as an untainted authority (Shatskikh).
Then there is the case of the scientific experts, Dr Erhard Jägers misquoted as "authenticating" works using scientific methods. Such reputable scientists never "authenticate", for their role is the investigation into the material nature of works and the presentation of the results of their investigation. To insinuate that Jägers is implicated in lexigraphical issues is reprehensible and outrageously irresponsible. So now the scientific experts have also been discredited.
And What About Provenance?
Akinsha writes that works have appeared without provenances, brought out of Russia by emigrés, or deaccessioned by provincial .
them well hidden, and many relatives of artists may have had a few paintings - usually rolled up in door "sausages" that prevent the draft from coming in. Otherwise, several collections were made in the 1960s such as the George Costakis Collection, but these works, too, came mostly from the vaults. (See, for example, Waltraud Bayer, Gerettete Kultur. Private Kunstsammler in der Sowjetunion, 1917-1991 / Rescued Culture: Private Art Collections in the Soviet Union 1917-1991, Vienna, 2006.)
Some Thoughts
All these selective so-called "facts" presented by Akinsha of some isolated cases are meant to discredit all the Russian Avant-Garde works of art on the market, and even in museums. With such careless and unsubstantiated claims as "more are fakes than genuine" or "a colossal number of fakes", the intention of the author is to terrorize the art world into submission. And this is a submission to the art market.
For this is a dealers' war and the Russian Avant-Garde its battlefield where the first victims are the artists themselves. Next come the art historians, the museums, the collectors, the reputable art dealers, and the auction houses. And so those powers for whom Russian Avant-Garde art is but a commodity are like rampaging beasts devastating the whole landscape.
The most recent history of fakes began with the pseudo-Vermeer case. But that didn't mean that the art market was thrown into a turmoil. Although no one likes this to happen, a bad apple does not spoil the barrel - contrary to another interpretation of this proverb.
Some Thoughts
All these selective so-called "facts" presented by Akinsha of some isolated cases are meant to discredit all the Russian Avant-Garde works of art on the market, and even in museums. With such careless and unsubstantiated claims as "more are fakes than genuine" or "a colossal number of fakes", the intention of the author is to terrorize the art world into submission. And this is a submission to the art market.
For this is a dealers' war and the Russian Avant-Garde its battlefield where the first victims are the artists themselves. Next come the art historians, the museums, the collectors, the reputable art dealers, and the auction houses. And so those powers for whom Russian Avant-Garde art is but a commodity are like rampaging beasts devastating the whole landscape.
The most recent history of fakes began with the pseudo-Vermeer case. But that didn't mean that the art market was thrown into a turmoil. Although no one likes this to happen, a bad apple does not spoil the barrel - contrary to another interpretation of this proverb.
An article like Konstantin Akinsha's is meant to spoil the barrel. That's the aim of the article, and the aim of some in the Moscovite art market (but not only Moscow) who will go to any lengths, perjure anyone, claim anything in order to further their own interests, not to say feather their nests.
And who, indeed, financed this "six month investigation" for Akinsha to travel between Russia, Europe and the United States? Certainly not ARTnews. They, too, have been bought (but this wouldn't be the first time).
What About the Good Works?
I continue to wonder why no one speaks about the wonderful works that are being exhibited in museums and galleries in France, Switzerland, and Germany, for example. These works are not fakes, so Akinsha does not mention them. There are far more of these than of works to be challenged, but this does not get reported.
To Conclude
The means used to argue his case is an apparent appeal to reason and fair reporting, while it is actually a fine exercise in selective information and deceptive logic. This comes naturally to such writers because the methods of the Soviet regime do not die quickly in the minds of those who can't kick the habit. These are practices that should be recognised, ferreted out, exposed, and openly condemned.
Konstantin Akinsha has told a weaving, wandering story about events stretching over 25 years (that this is for want of material seems obvious), in order to slander the many good works of Russian Avant-Garde by implication, not by
And who, indeed, financed this "six month investigation" for Akinsha to travel between Russia, Europe and the United States? Certainly not ARTnews. They, too, have been bought (but this wouldn't be the first time).
What About the Good Works?
I continue to wonder why no one speaks about the wonderful works that are being exhibited in museums and galleries in France, Switzerland, and Germany, for example. These works are not fakes, so Akinsha does not mention them. There are far more of these than of works to be challenged, but this does not get reported.
To Conclude
The means used to argue his case is an apparent appeal to reason and fair reporting, while it is actually a fine exercise in selective information and deceptive logic. This comes naturally to such writers because the methods of the Soviet regime do not die quickly in the minds of those who can't kick the habit. These are practices that should be recognised, ferreted out, exposed, and openly condemned.
Konstantin Akinsha has told a weaving, wandering story about events stretching over 25 years (that this is for want of material seems obvious), in order to slander the many good works of Russian Avant-Garde by implication, not by
argument or proof. He made no case whatsoever against the good works and doesn't even mention that there are any, while setting the art world in fear based on fear itself. Akinsha should be ashamed and ARTnews reprimanded - not to contravene freedom of the press but for passing on half truths as truth, and being complicit with, or an instrument of those who are trying to manipulate, the art market itself. This article is not about art, it is about vested interests and lessons in how to destroy reputations.
The success of such an article lies in its ability to persuade the reader that the part represents the whole, that the exception is the rule.
So who is faking the Russian Avant-Garde? Mr Akinsha and those he is speaking for and to whom he is giving a voice. Not that they are making fake works of art. It is much worse than that: they are faking truth - which means to make something appear genuine that is not genuine. This is pure public deception in an attempt to control freedom of information, freedom of idea, and freedom to enjoy the work of the Russian Avant-Garde.
And a final tribute to the artists - have we so easily forgotten that in the 1930s, Kazimir Malevich was emprisoned and interrogated for nearly 3 months accused of being a "formalist" - i.e., an abstract artist; that Alexander Drevin was arrested and shot; that the art historian and friend of the Avant-Garde, Nikolai Punin, was arrested and died in the gulag?
So who are these modern inquisitors? and who gives them power? All those who believe or are intimidated by them.
The success of such an article lies in its ability to persuade the reader that the part represents the whole, that the exception is the rule.
So who is faking the Russian Avant-Garde? Mr Akinsha and those he is speaking for and to whom he is giving a voice. Not that they are making fake works of art. It is much worse than that: they are faking truth - which means to make something appear genuine that is not genuine. This is pure public deception in an attempt to control freedom of information, freedom of idea, and freedom to enjoy the work of the Russian Avant-Garde.
And a final tribute to the artists - have we so easily forgotten that in the 1930s, Kazimir Malevich was emprisoned and interrogated for nearly 3 months accused of being a "formalist" - i.e., an abstract artist; that Alexander Drevin was arrested and shot; that the art historian and friend of the Avant-Garde, Nikolai Punin, was arrested and died in the gulag?
So who are these modern inquisitors? and who gives them power? All those who believe or are intimidated by them.
By the time you will have read this first issue of ragRag it will be Bastille Day, 14 July, the day of liberation of the prisoners. It's a day of celebration for ragRag, too, because the muffled voices have also been liberated and are free to speak on its pages. Hoorah!
Www.ragrag.info email: ragragjones@gmail.com Number 1 / 14 July 2009
Editors: Jack Jones, Sally Smart
FAKE? DID YOU SAY FAKE? continued
Throwing Down the Gauntlet
Who is Faking the Russian Avant-Garde?
NOW OUR SPECIAL SCOOP
From an Artworld Insider
From an Artworld Insider
Page 2 Who is Faking the Russian Avant-Garde
Contrary to the way it was reported in the ARTnews article, Valery Turchin has read every single word of the Kandinsky archives held by the Centre Pompidou in Paris. Unlike, it has been said, most of the Kandinsky "scholars" of the Kandinsky Society.
The Curator, Christian Derouet, of the Musée d'art moderne in the Centre Pompidou is quoted by Mr Akinsha as saying that he had "met Turchin in Paris a few years ago. 'I was surprised that the Russian art historian didn't express any interest in seeing our archival collection.'"
The Curator, Christian Derouet, of the Musée d'art moderne in the Centre Pompidou is quoted by Mr Akinsha as saying that he had "met Turchin in Paris a few years ago. 'I was surprised that the Russian art historian didn't express any interest in seeing our archival collection.'"
advantageous." Well that's it, isn't it?)
For those who are unaware, scientific analysis of works of art is the up and coming means of establishing that a work of art is at least 60 years old (or is not) - plus many other things - using new digital technologies. Akinsha's brief to wipe them off the planet was handled cunningly. Gone, in one-fell swoop.
Did he achieve his goal?
How could he? Using such overt and blatant factual misinformation is there for all to see, exposed. And you don't destroy the reputation of acknowledged scientists that easily - let alone by an Akinsha or an ARTnews.
This is yet another reason for ragRag - we might just devote a whole issue to this increasingly sophisticated scientific technology for the information of the public.
Wait for it! _____
For those who are unaware, scientific analysis of works of art is the up and coming means of establishing that a work of art is at least 60 years old (or is not) - plus many other things - using new digital technologies. Akinsha's brief to wipe them off the planet was handled cunningly. Gone, in one-fell swoop.
Did he achieve his goal?
How could he? Using such overt and blatant factual misinformation is there for all to see, exposed. And you don't destroy the reputation of acknowledged scientists that easily - let alone by an Akinsha or an ARTnews.
This is yet another reason for ragRag - we might just devote a whole issue to this increasingly sophisticated scientific technology for the information of the public.
Wait for it! _____
Now that is certainly a curious assertion. Dr Turchin has published two beautiful and well-researched volumes on Kandinsky, Kandinsky in Russia (2005) and Kandinsky - Theories and Experiments From Various Years (2008). Volume 3, the publisher informs us, is soon to appear and it consists mainly of Kandinsky archives and writings.
And speaking of the Kandinsky Society, the author of the ARTnews article obviously chose not to report (or didn't know - good reporter?) that the Turchin publishers have been threatened with legal
And speaking of the Kandinsky Society, the author of the ARTnews article obviously chose not to report (or didn't know - good reporter?) that the Turchin publishers have been threatened with legal
action if the Russian art historian's Kandinsky volume sare sold commercially in the West "without their consent". Is this a monopoly on scholarship, or just plain tyranny?
Despite what they might claim, this is not in the interests of Kandinsky whatsoever. A profoundly honourable man and for whom fairness was a way of life, the artist must be turning in his grave.
For Valery Turchin's books mail: KANDINSKY_V@MAIL.RU _____
Despite what they might claim, this is not in the interests of Kandinsky whatsoever. A profoundly honourable man and for whom fairness was a way of life, the artist must be turning in his grave.
For Valery Turchin's books mail: KANDINSKY_V@MAIL.RU _____
work is questioned).
These art marketeers don't look at works, they just shout "Fake". And they don't mind where they do it - in art fairs (at the London Russian Art Fair this past June, for example), in newspapers ("95% of the works on the market are fakes", said ArtConsulting (Moscow) as reported in Die Zeit in May this year), and so on. They never feel obliged to substantiate what they say, they just say it. No proofs, no need to prove, just a little throwaway remark that damages fortunes and personal reputations, but, hey what, who
These art marketeers don't look at works, they just shout "Fake". And they don't mind where they do it - in art fairs (at the London Russian Art Fair this past June, for example), in newspapers ("95% of the works on the market are fakes", said ArtConsulting (Moscow) as reported in Die Zeit in May this year), and so on. They never feel obliged to substantiate what they say, they just say it. No proofs, no need to prove, just a little throwaway remark that damages fortunes and personal reputations, but, hey what, who
Turchin, a Fine Scholar
Art Historians - Hang Up Your Hats
cares? They certainly don't because they
are the new inquisitors disguised in fine clothes unashamedly sporting the tarnished badges they had won in times of valour.
Can you believe it? Even the New York Times has been duped, printing what ARTnews says. So ARTnews is the latest authority on the Russian Avant-Garde? We're dead if they are. See, it's just as we said - it's the marketeers that are the art police and on the march, so art historians may just as well pack their bags and go on a prolonged vacation. For there's nothing else for them to do.
are the new inquisitors disguised in fine clothes unashamedly sporting the tarnished badges they had won in times of valour.
Can you believe it? Even the New York Times has been duped, printing what ARTnews says. So ARTnews is the latest authority on the Russian Avant-Garde? We're dead if they are. See, it's just as we said - it's the marketeers that are the art police and on the march, so art historians may just as well pack their bags and go on a prolonged vacation. For there's nothing else for them to do.
museums in Russia "although the practice is strictly forbidden", or to have been confiscated then sold by the KGB "although experts say there is not a single documented case of Avant-Garde works emerging from KGB vaults". Of course not. Here, Akinsha is on safe ground since what is strictly forbidden is to admit that these practices are taking place. And confiscated they were in the 1930s. We are confronted with a political regime and the problem is purely political. If Akinsha were to draw the obvious conclusion to what he writes, then he would have to admit that these works could be nothing else than entirely authentic, having been put into vaults around 1930 when Stalin issued his decree against modern art. Over 3000 works that had been purchased by the Museum of Artistic Culture between 1919 and the mid 1920s (Directors: Vasily Kandinsky, then Aleksandr Rodchenko in Moscow, Kazimir Malevich in Petrograd/ Leningrad), were put into museum and church vaults, while several thousand additional works were also housed there, originally deposited in the over 30
Page 3 Who is Faking the Russian Avant-Garde
Museums of Artistic Culture or their art schools. These works come directly from the artists themselves. What better provenance could there be?
The author devotes long paragraphs to auction house sales of works from unknown collections - Akinsha's "unreliable provenances" - but this does not make the works fake, nor does it make all provenances "unreliable". To draw such conclusions is a fault of logic. But this kind of reasoning is the very subtle fabric of Akinsha's article. A PS to this - Akinsha also cites in this context the case of works attributed to the 19th century landscape artist, Shishkin, an artist not of the Russian Avant-Garde but it obviously helps him to pad out his material and make his case. It is inobtrusively just slipped in out of context in order to now discredit Tretiakov Gallery curators. (Just who is Akinsha working for?)
Then there is the "authoritative" assertion of Peter Aven that the only way to be sure of a work's authenticity is that there should be "iron-clad" provenances. Now everyone knows that for centuries there have been invented provenances,
The author devotes long paragraphs to auction house sales of works from unknown collections - Akinsha's "unreliable provenances" - but this does not make the works fake, nor does it make all provenances "unreliable". To draw such conclusions is a fault of logic. But this kind of reasoning is the very subtle fabric of Akinsha's article. A PS to this - Akinsha also cites in this context the case of works attributed to the 19th century landscape artist, Shishkin, an artist not of the Russian Avant-Garde but it obviously helps him to pad out his material and make his case. It is inobtrusively just slipped in out of context in order to now discredit Tretiakov Gallery curators. (Just who is Akinsha working for?)
Then there is the "authoritative" assertion of Peter Aven that the only way to be sure of a work's authenticity is that there should be "iron-clad" provenances. Now everyone knows that for centuries there have been invented provenances,
from Pompeii antiquities to Rubens, etc., so why is the "iron-clad provenance" now held to be a guarantee for the Russian Avant-Garde? Elizabeth the Queen Mother of England had "iron-clad provenances" for works in her collection that have turned out to be less than secure.
But in the context of Russia, this is a statement of unbelievable ignorance of the political situation between 1930 and 1990. Since it was Mr Aven - a Russian and an ex-Soviet citizen - who is quoted as saying this, it is not ignorance, then. So what are his motives for championing something he knows to be almost impossible? He is counting on Westerners' ignorance of Soviet realities.
With the Revolution, all private collections were nationalised. And the only purchasers of Russian Avant-Garde art - remember, we're talking about abstract works - was the Museum of Artistic Culture. Large private collections were not permitted, and who would want such works at the time anyway? Those few who had the vision when the Museums of Artistic Culture were closed and some works became available, kept
But in the context of Russia, this is a statement of unbelievable ignorance of the political situation between 1930 and 1990. Since it was Mr Aven - a Russian and an ex-Soviet citizen - who is quoted as saying this, it is not ignorance, then. So what are his motives for championing something he knows to be almost impossible? He is counting on Westerners' ignorance of Soviet realities.
With the Revolution, all private collections were nationalised. And the only purchasers of Russian Avant-Garde art - remember, we're talking about abstract works - was the Museum of Artistic Culture. Large private collections were not permitted, and who would want such works at the time anyway? Those few who had the vision when the Museums of Artistic Culture were closed and some works became available, kept
Page 4 Who is Faking the Russian Avant-Garde
© ragRag 2009