Part 2 of 10
[Elmyr de Hory, Art Forger] I never offered a painting, or a drawing,
to a museum who didn't buy it.
[William Charron, Esq., Partner, Pryor Cashman LLP, New York City] It's probably true that
there are some in museums,
or in the hands of collectors,
or their heirs today, that could be found.
[Jeff Oppenheim] How many are still out there?
[William Charron, Esq., Partner, Pryor Cashman LLP, New York City] It's a mystery.
[Elmyr de Hory, Art Forger]
"Expose the man who holds the art world
on red hot threads."[Robert Wittman, Former Senior Investigator, Arts Crimes Team, FBI] When the art world looks
at a painting, or whatever it is,
and they ooh and aah over it,
and they decide that it's
fantastic, and it's wonderful --
when these kinda sorts find out
that these pieces are not legitimate,
I think there's a certain amount
of egg-on-the-face situation.
And I think it's at that point that
they don't wanna talk about it,
because they made a mistake.
When the art world looks at a painting, or whatever it is, and they ooh and aah over it, and they decide that it's fantastic, and it's wonderful -- when these kinda sorts find out that these pieces are not legitimate, I think there's a certain amount of egg-on-the-face situation. And I think it's at that point that they don't wanna talk about it, because they made a mistake. -- Robert Wittman, Former Senior Investigator, Arts Crimes Team, FBI
In 1896, accompanied by the local Nepalese governor, General Khadga Shamsher, Führer discovered a major inscription on a pillar of Ashoka, an inscription which, together with other evidence, confirmed Lumbini as the birthplace of the Buddha. The pillar itself had been known for sometime already, as it had already been reported by Khadga Shamsher to Vincent Arthur Smith a few year earlier. Führer made his great discovery when he dug the earth around the pillar and reported the discovery of the inscription in a pristine state about one meter under the surface.
Führer claimed that the locals called the site "Rummindei", which he identified with the legendary "Lumbini", whereas it was found that the site was only called "Rupa-devi".
The authenticity of the discovery has long been doubted, and was openly disputed in a 2008 book by British writer Charles Allen.
Following the discovery of the pillar, Führer relied on the accounts of ancient Chinese pilgrims to search for Kapilavastu, which he thought had to be in Tilaurakot. Unable to find anything, he started excavating some structures he said were stupas, and was in the process of faking pre-Mauryan inscriptions on bricks, when he was caught in the act by
Vincent Arthur Smith. The inscriptions were bluntly characterized by Smith as
"impudent forgeries".Around the same time, Führer was selling fake relics
"authentified" but an inexistent inscription of Upagupta, the preceptor of Ashoka, to Shin U Ma, an important monk in Burma. He wrote to the Burmese monk:
"Perhaps you have seen from the papers that I succeeded in discovering the Lumbini grove where Lord Buddha was born", noting that
"you have unpacked the sacred relics of our Blessed Lord Buddha which are undoubtedly authentic, and which will prove a blessing to those which worship them faithfully". An
"authentic tooth relics of the Buddha" sent by Führer in 1896 turned out to have been carved from a piece of ivory, and another sent in 1897 was that of a horse. The forgery was reported in 1898 to the British North-Western Provinces Government in India by Burmologist and member of the Burma commission Bernard Houghton, and started an enquiry which would lead to Führer's resignation on 16 September 1898...
These discoveries, at the time they were made, generated fantastic praise for the work of Führer. According to the New York Post (3 May 1896) the Nigliva discovery
"seems to carry the origin of Buddhism much further back". The Liverpool Mercury (29 December 1896) reports that the discovery that Lumbini (also called Paderia) was
"the actual birthplace of the Buddha ought to bring devout joy to about 627,000,000 people". The Pall Mall Gazette (18 April 1898) related that the Piprahwa discovery "contains no less a relic than the bones of the Buddha himself".
Führer's archaeological career ended in disgrace. Führer came under suspicion from March 1898 following the reported forgeries of the Buddha's relics.
A formal inquiry was launched into his activities, but officials struggled to find a "printable" reason for Führer's dismissal. Führer was officially confronted by Vincent Arthur Smith, who reported the forgeries of the Buddha's relics. Führer was exposed as "a forger and dealer in fake antiquities". Smith also blamed Führer for administrative failures in filing his reports to the Government, and for a false report about his preparations for future publications on his archaeological research: Führer was obliged to admit "that every statement in it [the report] was absolutely false." The false inscriptions supposed to authentify the Buddha relics were not mentioned in the investigations, apparently out of fear of casting doubt on the other epigraphical discoveries made by Führer. Similarly, the false publication of the ancient Burmese inscriptions, were the object of an institutional cover-up, which would not come to light before 1921, with the revelation of their inexistence made by Charles Duroiselle.
In 1901, Vincent Arthur Smith, after retirement, chose to reveal the blunt truth about the Nepalese discoveries and published a stark analysis of Führer's activities, apparently worried that "the reserved language used in previous official documents has been sometimes misinterpreted". In particular, Smith said of Führer's description of the archaeological remains at Nigali Sagar that "every word of it is false", and characterized several of Führer's epigraphic discoveries as "impudent forgeries". However Smith never challenged the authenticity of the Lumbini pillar inscription and the Nigali Sagar inscription discovered by Führer.Under official instructions from the Government of India, Führer's resignation was accepted and he was relieved of his positions, his papers seized and his offices inspected by Vincent Arthur Smith on 22 September 1898. Führer had written in 1897 a monograph on his discoveries in Nigali Sagar and Lumbini, Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni's birth-place in the Nepalese tarai, which was withdrawn from circulation by the Government.
-- Alois Anton Führer, by Wikipedia
[Geraldine Norman] In Auvers, Vincent stayed in a little auberge [inn] run by the Ravoux family. He lived there for just over two months and is credited with having painted eighty-three pictures -- which means more than a picture a day. Some of them must be fakes, and were probably painted by the Gachet circle. Dr. Gachet was a painter, and so was his son Paul known as Coco. After he had shot himself, Vincent struggled back to the auberge mortally wounded.
[Dominique Janssens, Institut Van Gogh, Auvers-Sur-Oise] Adeline, the daughter of the innkeeper, had seen that he was [inaudible]. That's why she came up to his room to check what happened. And then they called the local doctor. And the local doctor didn't want to take care of Vincent, because everybody in the village knew it was Dr. Gachet who takes care for the painters. So Dr. Gachet came over, and then when he had seen there was nothing to do, he asked the neighbor, [Perchick?], to go to Paris to pick up Theo. So Theo arrived at about 12 o'clock, and at one o'clock in the morning he died here in his room. Now Dr. Gachet came over with his son, and he said to his son, "Roll, Coco." because the more he was rolling the paintings, the more he could bring them back home. And that's how he got a collection of paintings on Van Gogh, which are today in the museum at Orsay.
[Geraldine Norman] Dr. Gachet and his son seemed to have taken as many paintings as they could. Gachet specialized in mental illness and homeopathy, but had been a keen amateur painter since his student day. His home attracted many artists, including Renoir, Pissarro and Cezanne, who came to him for medical advice, and loved experimenting with his etching press. Dr. Gachet died in 1909, but his son lived on in the house, becoming more and more eccentric and reclusive. He never had a job, and seems to have lived off selling the pictures and antiques that his father had crammed into the house. One villager, who has devoted her life to the study of local history, is Madame Claude [Migon?].
[Madame Claude (Migon?)] [Speaking French] He wouldn't tolerate people coming to the house. Not even local tradesmen, or people interested in the works.
[Geraldine Norman] [Speaking French] How could he live like that? He had to eat!
[Madame Claude (Migon?)] [Speaking French] It's a mystery. Like many things in this man's life. He was truly his father's son.
[Geraldine Norman] He kept very quiet very quiet about the Van Goghs, until he made a series of donations to French national collections in the 1950s. His gifts, now in the Musee d'Orsay, include works by Van Gogh, Renoir, Pissarro, and Cezanne. He also gave the nation paintings by his father and himself. He signed his pictures, including copies of works by other artists, with the pseudonym Louis Van Ryssel. His father called himself Paul van Ryssel. The museum has reacted to the controversy by having the Gachet Van Goghs scientifically investigated, and announcing that they will mount an exhibition of all Gachet's donations to public institutions in the autumn of 44:30 1998. This is sure to spark another explosive argument.
[Dominique Janssens, Institut Van Gogh, Auvers-Sur-Oise] You have seen when you walk up to the cemetery, the countryside is exactly how it was a hundred years ago. Japanese, they don't come only to visit, but also to bring offers for Vincent. And certain days we just clean the cemetery. And you have lots of little pots of sake, brushes, and also a lot of Japanese who died in in Japan, their dream is to be buried with Vincent. So a lot of Japanese bring over the ashes here, and then they put it on the graves of Vincent and Theo.
[Geraldine Norman] The number of Japanese tourists who come to worship at the van Gogh shrine in Auvers, got a big boost when Yasuda bought the sunflowers in 1987. It will be a terrible disappointment to the nation if they discover their famous sunflower picture is not really by Van Gogh.
[To Tom Hoving, Ex-Director Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC] What do you think Yasuda is going to say if they actually have to face the fact that they are landed with a fake?
[Tom Hoving, Ex-Director Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC] Oh, I don't think they'll face it. I think they hope it'll go away. I do not think that the people in charge of the insurance company are going to let regiments of experts in to take it off the exhibition, and look at it, and maybe even do some analysis, and so on. I just don't think they're gonna do that. I think it would be a very great loss of face. I think the picture was purchased because the only other Vincent van Gogh in Japan prior to the United States firebombing of Tokyo, was a sunflowers, which was destroyed.
[Geraldine Norman] It is said that the painting was relined after its arrival in Japan, which may mean that important evidence has been lost. We asked Yasuda if we could talk to them about this, and our views on the sunflowers problem. Yasuo Goto, the chairman of the company, replied, "We have no intention of participating in any discussion of sunflowers' authenticity, as we hold no doubts whatsoever that it is genuine. We also have no intention of answering the questions mentioned in your letter." I personally find it impossible to believe that the Yasuda sunflowers is by Van Gogh. There's too much evidence against it. It's not mentioned in the letters, or other early documents. It first appears in the hands of Emile Schuffenecker, whose name has long been linked with faking. And it is generally agreed that it is visually inferior to the other two. It does disturb me, however, that so many experts still think it genuine. They aren't talking to each other, and don't know each other's arguments. Which is why the muddle persists. If the experts, the Van Gogh Foundation, and Mr. Goto from Yasuda, could be persuaded to divulge what they know, the truth about the Yasuda picture could be found. Using secrecy to protect their reputations and huge investments just won't do. Christie's has both money and reputation at stake, and has opted for silence. They refused to be interviewed, and issued a statement saying, "We see no reason, on the evidence so far produced, to alter our original opinion that the sunflowers is an authentic work by Van Gogh."
[Tom Hoving, Ex-Director Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC] You don't ever get a concert of opinion in art. Very seldomly you get it. And so this, I think, will just kind of go on forever. And since it's not going to ever be for resale, does it matter?[Dr. Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov, Prof. History of Art, University of Toronto] Most of us who know Van Gogh -- and I think a lot of us do, or profess to know a lot about Van Gogh -- know that this very simple man, filled with great humility and compassion for mankind, saw these works as different legacies than financial ones. I think he would be horrified, and distraught beyond anything you can imagine, to see himself somersaulted to such tremendous value, and such crass commercialism. I think it would have been something that he couldn't have ever tolerated.
-- Is Van Gogh's 'Sunflowers' A Fake?: The Fake Van Gogh's, with Geraldine Norman, Timeline, World History Documentaries
[William Charron, Esq., Partner, Pryor Cashman LLP, New York City] It's the ultimate game of cat and mouse.
And how purchasers,
unwitting purchasers of fake art,
are supposed to know that,
I think raises a lot
of very, very difficult
to answer questions.
And certainly difficult in a legal sense,
and something that the law
just has to struggle with
on a case-by-case basis.
[Richard Ellis, Former Art Crimes Bureau Chief, Scotland Yard, London] Really, any area of
crime involving art,
reflects what the marketplace
is doing for art.
So if Picasso is selling well,
you'll find there's an influx of
fake Picassos into the market.
Now how they do that,
whether they do a direct copy,
that's the worst thing they can do.
If they do a pastiche of an artist,
perhaps he's not so well-known,
perhaps he's second tier of that
particular area of art,
and therefore it's
unlikely there's gonna be
a complete catalog raisonné
for the art dealer to check on.
But it looks right.
And hey, it's selling well.
And if he takes it,
"If I don't buy it off this person,
he's gonna take it to a competitor
who sure as hell's gonna buy it,
and I've got somebody who is
really interested in buying
this particular commodity right now."
Dealers go for it. They want to believe.
It's the desire of wanting to see it right.
And this is what the forger
and the conman is playing on.
Dealers go for it. They want to believe. It's the desire of wanting to see it right. And this is what the forger and the conman is playing on. -- Richard Ellis, Former Art Crimes Bureau Chief, Scotland Yard, London
[Robert Wittman, Former Senior Investigator, Arts Crimes Team, FBI] Well, the actual art market
itself, worldwide,
is about $200 billion a year.
That's the consumer part
of that art market.
The largest consumer country in the world
for this type of market
is the United States.
40% of the $200 billion market
is here in the U.S.
Almost $80 billion a year.
To put it in perspective,
if you take the four major
sports in the United States --
baseball, football, hockey, and basketball --
the total receipts each year
is about $26 billion.
[Jeff Oppenheim] How much of that $80 billion
do you think is caused by fakes?
[Robert Wittman, Former Senior Investigator, Arts Crimes Team, FBI] The FBI, Scotland Yard, Interpol,
we put together some estimates
as to what the possible
illicit cultural property market
could have been.
And at that time we said,
maybe $6 billion a year.
When we talk about that market,
we are not just talking about theft.
We are talking about frauds,
forgeries, and fakes,
as well as theft.
And from my experience, what I've seen,
probably 75% of that market
is frauds, forgeries, or fakes.
It is not theft.
When we talk about that market, we are not just talking about theft, we are talking about frauds, forgeries, and fakes, as well as theft. And from my experience, what I've seen, probably 75% of that market is frauds, forgeries, or fakes. -- Robert Wittman, Former Senior Investigator, Arts Crimes Team, FBI
(Wildenstein & CC)[William Charron, Esq., Partner, Pryor Cashman LLP, New York City] All you know is you went
to a gallery of some repute
and bought something with the name "Matisse".
And it looks like a Matisse,
and you spent a lot of money on it.
Are you supposed to suspect
that maybe it was by de Hory all along?
[Elmyr de Hory, Art Forger] It doesn't want to be a Matisse.
It just wants to demonstrate
how, in short minutes,
close I can get to Matisse.
[Jeff Oppenheim] Clearly, I wasn't the first to be fooled.
And probably not the last.
So I packed up a few
questionable works of art
that I had acquired, and headed to Texas,
where apparently one of the greatest cases
against Elmyr and his associates
had been formed by a gentleman of the name
"Algur Meadows,"
"He thought he'd create a tiny Prado in Texas."who had been fooled not once, not twice,
but, well, in his own words...
Voice of Meadows From NBC Interview[Voice of Algur Meadows, from NBC Interview] Of the 40 paintings I have
acquired from two Frenchmen,
38 of them were fakes.
[Allen Olson-Urtecho, Fine Arts Adjuster, Texas] Well, there's different tracks
that you need to do.
A lot of it is a track that is focused
on the paintings themselves,
and where they're located,.
And another track is following
the forger himself.
Visualize a three-legged stool.
Those three aspects
are: provenance, forensics,
and connoisseurship.
[Jeff Oppenheim] So provenance is --
that's getting to where it came from, yes?
[Allen Olson-Urtecho, Fine Arts Adjuster, Texas] Provenance is the history of it.
It includes conservation done to it.
People emphasize the sale,
but they should also focus
on the conservation,
and other things that were
done throughout its history.
[Jeff Oppenheim] Tell me about the connoisseurship side.
[Allen Olson-Urtecho, Fine Arts Adjuster, Texas] Connoisseurship is the oldest
of all of the practices.
It's looking at the painting.
Does it correspond with
the style of the artist?
Does it have that air,
that aura, that says,
"This is it.
This is the brush stroke.
This is the content.
The subject matter is correct."
On the forensic side, there's
a lot of new developments.
A lot of this technology
being brought in
to identifying, attributing,
authenticating works of art,
are technologies that were initially done
for other industries.
There's different tracks that you need to do. A lot of it is a track that is focused on the paintings themselves, and where they're located. And another track is following the forger himself. Visualize a three-legged stool. Those three aspects are: provenance, forensics, and connoisseurship. Provenance is the history of it. It includes conservation done to it. People emphasize the sale, but they should also focus on the conservation, and other things that were done throughout its history. Connoisseurship is the oldest of all of the practices. It's looking at the painting. Does it correspond with the style of the artist? Does it have that air, that aura that says, "This is it. This is the brush stroke. This is the content. The subject matter is correct." On the forensic side, there's a lot of new developments. A lot of this technology being brought in to identifying, attributing, authenticating works of art, are technologies that were initially done for other industries. -- Allen Olson-Urtecho, Fine Arts Adjuster, Texas
[Narayan Khandekar, Director, Straus Center for Conservation & Technical Studies, Harvard Art Museums] Traditionally, understanding a work of art
has been the world of the art historian,
the curator.
And with conservators and scientists
becoming involved
in the museum environment,
we're finding that
conservators have a certain perspective,
and scientists also can have a perspective
that is valid and different.
Art Forensic Tools
• Carbon Dating
• White Lead
• X-Ray
• Dendrochronology
• Stable Isotope Analysis
• Thermoluminescence
And so these three different areas
have complementary skills.
Art Forensic Tools[Jeff Oppenheim] So using that investigative platform,
how would you go back in now
and look at Elmyr, the master criminal?
[Allen Olson-Urtecho, Fine Arts Adjuster, Texas] From the provenance side,
we would look at dealers
in the cities matching with
the cities he lived in.
Then see if you can find
records of their operations
with, say, a sales receipt,
Sales Receipt from the Algur Meadows Legal Filesa purchase receipt.
[William Charron, Esq., Partner, Pryor Cashman LLP, New York City] I think a big difference between
a forger in Elmyr's day, and a forger today,
is Elmyr could fake his identity,
and have an easier time
getting away with it.
Because, you know, there was no Internet.
There was no mass media in the same way.
Elmyr de Hory; Joseph Dory-Boutin; Hoppmester; Von Hopry; HaurySo Elmyr could present himself
in San Francisco and have one alias,
then he might be in Texas
or Miami with another alias,
Elemer Hoffmann; Elmyr de Hory; Joseph Dory-Boutin; Hoppmester; Von Horry; Haury; Hury; Charles Curiel; Robert Cassou, E. Raynal de Hory; E. Raynal; Elmyr Rainol; Baron de Bouhady; Von Bouhady; Louis Koundjy; Lazslo Elmire; Andre De Herzog; Joseph Alfred Dauryand he just might not be discovered.
I think it's much harder to do that today,
but not impossible.
[Allen Olson-Urtecho, Fine Arts Adjuster, Texas] On the connoisseurship side,
Investigating a possible Fernand Legerif you deal a lot in those works,
you get an eye. You pick up on things.
You get a feel for the artist.
And so, dealers can weed that out.
[Colleen Boyle, Sr. VP-National Sales Manager, Pall Mall Art Advisors, King of Prussia] We look for style,
signature, medium.
The second thing we're gonna do
is, once we document
those particular aspects of a painting,
we're gonna start our research.
And the first thing
we're gonna look for is history.
We're gonna look at catalog raisonnés.
Is the piece in a catalog raisonné?
We're gonna look, uh,
to see if there's any literary references.
We're gonna look at exhibition history.
Has the piece ever been on exhibition?
Is there a record of it
ever being on exhibition?
Thirdly, we're gonna
look at the provenance.
Where did the piece come from?
If there's no traceable
evidence of acquisition,
that does create a red flag.
[First], we look for style, signature, medium. The second thing we're gonna do is, once we document those particular aspects of a painting, we're gonna start our research. And the first thing we're gonna look for is history. We're gonna look at catalog raisonnés. Is the piece in a catalog raisonné? We're gonna look to see if there's any literary references. We're gonna look at exhibition history. Has the piece ever been on exhibition? Is there a record of it ever being on exhibition? Thirdly, we're gonna look at the provenance. Where did the piece come from? If there's no traceable evidence of acquisition, that does create a red flag. -- Colleen Boyle, Sr. VP-National Sales Manager, Pall Mall Art Advisors, King of Prussia
[Jeff Oppenheim] What's your feeling looking at it now?
[Colleen Boyle, Sr. VP-National Sales Manager, Pall Mall Art Advisors, King of Prussia] I'd have to say, well,
the color scheme,
and the composition,
do appear similar to Leger's other studies.
The actual execution, from a gut feeling,
doesn't appear to be in the hand of Leger.
[Jeff Oppenheim] You're suspicious?
Elmyr?[Colleen Boyle, Sr. VP-National Sales Manager, Pall Mall Art Advisors, King of Prussia] Yes, I -- I'm very suspicious.