An extremely costly High Court battle commenced on 26th April 2012 and is estimated to last 19 days as billionaire oil tycoon and art collector Viktor Vekselberg takes on Christie’s, suing the auction house for a refund of £1.69 million as his legal team claim that he has been sold a counterfeit painting.
Vekselberg, bought the painting called Odalisque alleged to be by Russian artist Boris Kustodiev in 2005 through his arts fund called Aurora Fine Arts.
By mid 2006 Aurora brought it’s doubts about the painting’s authenticity to Christie’s attention, the painting was then returned to Christie’s for tests to be conducted and sometime later the claim was then brought.
According to the Art Newspaper, Christie’s in their catalogues state they allow a guarantee for a five year period on the authenticity of art work sold by them. If a buyer disputes the authenticity and provides two expert opinions that are by experts accepted by both the buyer and Christie’s, the auction house will then annul the sale. It is reported that Aurora provided 4 expert reports, signed by 8 experts on the artist all of whom confirmed the painting was not genuine. It is also reported that there was even an expert opinion by Tretyalov gallery who is considered by Christie’s to be the leading experts on Kustodiev.
The case has started with legal argument over custody of the painting as the legal team for Aurora, represented by Henry Legge QC have argued that they would like their experts to conduct further tests on the painting.
The Claimants want cross sectional tests to be conducted which will analyse whether there is a layer of dust between the artist’s signature and date on the painting and the painting itself; this should determine when the signature and date were applied to the painting. The Claimant’s argue that the forger has applied the signature and date in the late 1940’s sometime after the artist’s death in 1927; this can be shown by the fact that signature runs over existing cracks in the paint, however it was argued that more forensic tests need to be done to show this.
The painting was brought to the High Court for Mr Justice Newey to view.
Henry Legge QC argued that there are other technical aspects such as the aluminium-based pigment in the painting that makes the painting unlikely to be a genuine work by Kustodiev. This is because this type of paint was not commonly used in this period and was used much later on.
Christie’s who are represented by James Aldridge are not objecting to further tests being done, however they do object to extremely invasive tests being conducted that can potentially damage the painting. Mr Aldridge argued that photography would be a less invasive way of analysing the signature’s position on the painting.
Christie’s stand by the attribution and will call evidence to show that comparisons with the artist’s other works and known techniques will show that the attribution was correct. It is also argued that the aluminium-based pigment was being used by artists by 1919.
Scholars or Science?
This is a case that will again rely heavily on the opinions of experts, who will be called by both parties to establish their respective cases.
Art gallery owner Philip Mould who is also an expert on fakes as a subject, is reported in the Daily Telegraph as saying that he believes that there are likely to be more cases like this in the future.
He said “I’m not saying anyone will ever seriously doubt that the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo da Vinci,” …..But I have no doubt that over the next 100 or so years, paintings currently accepted as authentic will be downgraded.”
What is interesting about this case is that it comes at a time when the art market is becoming increasingly alive to fake art work being sold on the market place.
What remains to be seen is the extent to which the Courts will rely on experts who will be called upon to give their opinions on authenticity and the extent to which science may ultimately prevail in its usefulness in determining these issues.
The last few cases involving forged art work has revealed the extent to which science is playing an increasing role in helping the Courts get to the truth.
Although the Jesus James Ossuary trial, is perhaps a cautionary tale of how Judge Aharon Farkash was ultimately not aided by the many experts called in that case, as the experts could not agree on whether the inscriptions were fake or not and unfortunately in a case that lasted several years even the science tests proved unhelpful due to some errors made by the police forensic teams.
Science is more likely to be called upon as some of the frauds are so good now that the art experts and appraisers can no longer trust connoisseurship. (See my articles about the Master forgers – the Beltracchi Gang and Shaun Greenhalgh (the “Bolton Forgers”) and the recent sentencing at Southwark Crown Court of the Mumford gang.)
In some high value sales, the auctioneers may be now do well to call on expert advice at an early stage and also consider forensic testing.
Some scientists argue that had the Beltracchi forged paintings undergone scientific analysis the fakes would have been detected at an early stage and the auction houses would not face their current predicament of having to settle many claims in relation to the forged paintings that were sold by them.
The experts in the Viktor Vekselberg case are expected to be called to examine the painting in the middle of May. Watch this space as I review this case once judgment has been reached. See my blog for a forthcoming article on the importance of Science in the authentication process.