Landais wrote that the painter Judith Gérard, who lived on the ground floor of the house in which Leclercq occupied the first floor and was in a position to observe the goings on at Leclercq's, wrote in her memoirs: “The canvases (from Holland) had been rolled by inexpert hands, with the paint on the inside, and at some places the paint peeled off. Leclercq resorted to a technician: he called upon Emile Schuffenecker, drawing master at the schools of the city, who, for a modest fee, came every day and, armed with a big box of colours, filled the holes and glued back the flakes.”
Judith's observation that the paintings, amongst which she mentions “Sunflowers”, had been “rolled by inexpert hands, with the paint on the inside” is indirectly confirmed by Leclercq's advice to Johanna (in a letter from February 1901): “You could perhaps send me the two canvases rolled up, taking good care to roll them with the paint outside and not at the inside as one rolls an engraving”.
That Judith Gérard gave an accurate description of the technicians work on the inexpertly rolled canvases and that she identified the restorer correctly is according to Landais corroborated by another of Leclercq's letters to Johanna: “The Sunflowers cannot be relined. The repairer has undertaken a job which is not difficult but very painstaking and lengthy: with the help of a small syringe he injects glue under all the places which have become unglued and he waits for a spot to be dry before he goes on to the next one. […] I have not seen Schuffenecker for a fortnight he has been ill in bed.” As the wooden slat affixed to the top of the stretcher would have prevented the Amsterdam picture from being taken off the stretcher, the rolled painting was the London picture, Landais asserted.
“Leclercq and his associate Schuffenecker had at least half a year in which to copy the London painting,” he suggested.
“In his letters to Johanna Leclercq always talks about an anonymous “restorer” whilst at the same time he constantly refers to Schuffenecker, who was her main customer, by name. He took great pains to make her believe that the restorer and her customer were two different persons. Why? Had Johanna known that Schuffenecker was the restorer, she might have smelled a rat, when later an exact copy of her London picture would hit the market. Leclercq's letters were a smoke screen behind which the honourable collector Schuffenecker could safely operate as a forger”, he stated.
“The van Tilborgh/Hendriks study, referring to Judith Gérard, states: “she wrote down many unpleasant things about the painter, but never exposed him as a forger.” In fact she does accuse the two Schuffenecker brothers (and not just Amédée) of having falsified her copy of Vincent's “Self-portrait for Gauguin” and putting it on the market as a genuine van Gogh”, he added.
A FORGER
“Van Tilborgh/Hendriks remind us of Meier-Graefe's testimony at the Wacker trial. Julius Meier-Graefe lived in Paris and was the first scholar who attempted to establish a catalogue of Vincent's work. He is the author of the first van Gogh biography. He knew all the major Paris dealers and artists personally. As late as 1912, he praised the honesty of the Paris art merchant. If, in 1934, he testified “under oath” that Schuffenecker “has copied many paintings” and that “these had sometimes been sold as real van Goghs” this testimony has to be taken seriously,” Landais indicated.
“Even if we disregard the later testimony of Judith Gérard and of Meier-Graefe during the Wacker trial, Meier-Graefe's “Entwicklungsgeschichte der modernen Kunst” (published in 1904) unmasks Schuffenecker as a fraudster. Planning a van Gogh catalogue raisonné Meier Graefe, in 1903, visited both Schuffeneckers (Amédée in Meudon and Emile in Paris) in order to view the van Goghs in their possession. Emile Schuffenecker showed him a Van Gogh Self-Portrait which made Meier-Graefe swoon with admiration. In “Entwicklungsgeschichte” he declared it the masterpiece amongst Vincent's self-portraits. This “masterpiece” was the innocent copy that the 17 year old Judith Gérard had made from Vincent's Self-Portrait dedicated to Gauguin. Amédée Schuffenecker had bought it from her. And then Emile had doctored it by adding flowers to the background of her copy and by making other alterations, Schuffenecker transformed the innocent copy into a “van Gogh” that he then presented as such to the expert Meier-Graefe. He had also painted over Judith's inscription and signature. Schuffenecker's favourite dealer Eugène Druet later sold the falsified copy as a genuine van Gogh to the Berlin banker Paul Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. The same Eugène Druet also sold the Tokyo Sunflowers to the same Paul Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. Judith Gérard's copy touched up and altered by Schuffenecker is a known Schuffenecker forgery. The Bührle collection in Zurich which acquired it as an authentic van Gogh after World War II has now banished it to its storage room,” he said.
“There are about two dozen “second versions” and “adaptations” of original works by Vincent that can be laid at the door of Emile Schuffenecker. This is not the place to discuss these false van Goghs that Schuffenecker produced from genuine paintings in his possession or from photographs. (Further evidence about Schuffenecker's activity as a forger will be presented in our “Schuff's Sunflowers”, a forthcoming book)”, Landais stated.
A SCHUFFENECKER FORGERY?
The detailed study written by Louis van Tilborgh and Ella Hendriks — the official opinion given by the Van Gogh Museum on the authenticity of the Tokyo Sunflowers — has the great merit of clarifying the debate, Benoit Landis reckoned.
“The question now boils down to a simple alternative : either the Tokyo Sunflowers is an authentic work by Vincent van Gogh, painted at the time of Gauguin's stay in Arles, or it is a copy made by Emile Schuffenecker in 1901. Other dates have been excluded”, he said.
“The 14 Sunflowers, that are now in Tokyo, are painted on jute, a support that Vincent only used during November and December 1888, when he and Gauguin experimented with this awkward material. It is now enough to prove that Vincent did not paint the Tokyo Sunflowers in November/December 1888 to expose the painting as a copy by another hand. If the picture is by another hand, its only possible author is Emile Schuffenecker, who owned it at the time of its first recorded appearance in February 1901”, Landais added.
THREADBARE EVIDENCE
“The van Tilborgh/Hendriks study, although it covers most aspects of the controversy, fails to come up with incontrovertible evidence for the authenticity of the painting”, Landais argued.
“The only argument that the authors themselves declare “conclusive” — “nullifies the forgery theory once and for all” — lies in their discovery that the Tokyo picture was modelled not only on the “14 Sunflowers on yellow background”, the London picture, but also, partly, on the “14 Sunflowers on yellow green background”, the Amsterdam picture. According to them the London picture dates from August 1888 and the Amsterdam picture from January 1889”, he added.
“In their study they write: “It would have been plainly impossible for him [Schuffenecker] — unless one believes in miracles — to introduce changes in form and colour that precisely match the details of a version he definitely would not have seen.”
“In December 1888 it would also have been plainly impossible, unless one believes in miracles, for Vincent to introduce changes that precisely match the details of a version he, according to the same authors, definitely had not painted yet”, he stressed.
“As far as their other main argument is concerned - the jute support - the authors admit that they have no incontrovertible evidence: “The fact that the Tokyo picture is painted on precisely the same kind of cloth provides compelling if not conclusive evidence of its authenticity.” The technical investigation, that could have given a better answer than "same kind of…", did not take place, due to “the owner's refusal to allow the painting to be subjected to further physical and scientific testing,” he noted.
THE DATE OF THE AMSTERDAM PICTURE
“According to conventional opinion, Vincent's original 14 Sunflowers, painted in August 1888, is the London picture and the ”repetition”, made in January 1889, is the Amsterdam picture. Conventional opinion is wrong”, Landais said.
“The Amsterdam picture is the original, the London picture the repetition: — The background of the picture “with 14 Sunflowers” that Vincent painted in August 1888 is “yellow green”. In his letter 528 (circa 27 August 1888) he writes: “The Sunflowers are getting on, there is a new bunch of 14 flowers on yellow green (“jaune vert”) ... size 30 canvas..."
” The background of the London picture is yellow, whereas the background of the Amsterdam picture is “yellow green”. In talking about a painting it is customary to refer to a background by its dominant colour. This explains why Vincent, Gauguin and many writers subsequently call the “yellow green” background of the Amsterdam picture “yellow”. For Gauguin the feature that distinguished the two size 30 Sunflowers decorating his room was not the number of flowers depicted but the very different backgrounds, one yellow, the other green. One cannot disregard Vincent's own description of the background of his 14 Sunflowers by insisting that it was “ just once” that he described it as “jaune vert”. He, indeed, “just once”, took the pain to give a precise characterisation of the background. That was when he described it to his brother. In the first draft of a letter, which he did not send, he wrote “jaune”. In the letter he did send, he corrected to “jaune vert”. When first describing a new picture to his art dealer-brother, Vincent usually made a point of giving precise descriptions of the colours he used. For later identification “jaune” was sufficient. The only candidate for the painting described as having a “jaune vert” background is the Amsterdam picture”, Landais suggested.
“The 14 Sunflowers were in Gauguin's room. When, at the end of December, Gauguin did the portrait of Vincent as the Painter of the Sunflowers, he put a blue heart into the highest flower of the bunch. He borrowed the unexpected colour from one of the flowers in the Amsterdam painting. It has been argued that the “blue heart” in the Amsterdam was a sign of the stylisation typical for second versions. This particular blue heart is indeed a stylisation: it derives from the blue hearts in Vincent's Five Sunflowers on royal blue background painted earlier in August 88,” Landais stated.
“Van Tilborgh/Hendriks claim (as does the exhibition catalogue) that the London picture is the original because they consider it a less stylised version than the Amsterdam picture. A careful examination of the two paintings shows that the London version is more stylised. Comparing any flower in the two paintings, one notices that in the Amsterdam version Vincent sticks close to nature, whilst in the London version the treatment is freer — note the rhythm in the petals,” he added.
"Van Tilborgh/Hendriks point out that in the Amsterdam painting “Van Gogh returned to the use of charcoal to redefine certain contours at a later stage of painting.”
“This going back is a sign of hesitation which one expects to find in a first version rather than in a replica done by the same artist”, Landais stressed.
“Vincent added a wooden slat to the stretcher of the Amsterdam original. Van Tilborgh/Hendriks confirm this: “In the case of the Amsterdam work, Van Gogh enlarged the picture area by painting directly onto the wooden lat affixed to the top side of the stretcher.” Before hanging his two size 30 Sunflowers in Gauguin's room — the 14 Sunflowers on a yellow background and the 12 Sunflowers on green background—Vincent made a frame consisting of simple rods, which he nailed to the stretcher. When, at the end of April 1889, he sent the painting (as a gift) to Theo it was still on the stretcher surrounded by the four rods. Vincent simultaneously sent the repetition (intended for Gauguin). The repetition was not on a stretcher but loose. This can be deduced from Vincent's comment that he considered the Sunflowers worthy of being put on a stretcher (letter 588) and from Theo's comment "Pour le tournesol, je laisse le petit bord de bois qui est autour " letter T. 12). As the August version of 14 Sunflowers was sent to Theo on a stretcher, and as the repetition was sent loose, it was the Amsterdam work that Vincent painted in August 1888. Consequently the London picture is the January repetition. The physical evidence provided by the wooden slat affixed to the stretcher is conclusive”, Landais noted.
“ Vincent added the wooden slat because he needed more space at the top of the painting. He had miscalculated. To an experienced artist like him, this could happen when painting an original, not when doing a copy”, he suggested.
“The Amsterdam 14 Sunflowers was painted in August 1888. The London 14 Sunflowers — a copy, by Vincent, of the Amsterdam picture — was painted in January 1889. As the Tokyo 14 Sunflowers is a copy of the London picture, the Tokyo copy was not painted in December 1888”, he claimed.
NO COPY BEFORE MID-JANUARY 1889
Unambiguous references in letters by both artists confirm that there were only two size 30 Sunflowers paintings when Gauguin left Arles on Christmas 1888, Landais wrote.
“During the time Gauguin stayed in Arles, it would have been impossible for Vincent to copy the original 14 Sunflowers hanging in Gauguin's room without his colleague being aware of this. If after Gauguin's departure both artists had no knowledge of a copy of the 14 Sunflowers, there was no such copy”, he claimed.
“In early January 1889 Gauguin asked Vincent for “your Sunflowers on yellow background” (referring to one painting) and indirectly confirmed that he knew of only one such painting by saying he considered them as “UNE page parfaite d'un style essentiellement Vincent.” (“one perfect page”, not two),” he noted.
He added: “In his answer, on January 22/23 1889, Vincent refers six times to one painting, thus excluding the existence of a copy. “You talk to me in your letter about ONE of my paintings, THE SUNFLOWERS ON YELLOW BACKGROUND, to tell me that you would like to have IT […] after what has happened it is my intention to categorically contest your right to THE picture in question. But as I approve of your intelligence in choosing THIS picture, I will make an effort in order to paint two exactly alike. In that case it would definitely be possible to come to an amiable arrangement which would allow you to have yours (LA VÔTRE) all the same.” By his wording Vincent indicates his intention to do an identical copy of the original for his friend. He knows that there is no previous copy and he knows that Gauguin knows it.”
“On the same day Vincent wrote to Theo: “I said that I should not like to return (to the Goupils) with too innocent a painting. But if you like, you can exhibit there THE TWO PICTURES OF SUNFLOWERS. Gauguin would be pleased to have ONE OF THEM, and I should like to do Gauguin a real favour. So if he wants ONE OF THESE TWO canvases, all right, I will do ONE OF THE TWO over again, whichever he likes.” (letter 573).
“On January 22nd or 23rd Vincent had two size 30 Sunflowers, not one less and not one more,” Landais stated.
TWO REPETITIONS AND ONLY TWO
“Shortly afterwards Vincent changed his mind. Instead of just doing “one of the two” over again, he made repetitions of both. On January 28, Vincent writes to his brother : “During your visit I think you noticed THE TWO SIZE 30 CANVASES OF SUNFLOWERS in Gauguin's room. I have just put the finishing touches to the ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL REPETITIONS. I think I have already told you that besides these I have a canvas of La Berceuse the very one I was working on when my illness interrupted me. I now EQUALLY HAVE TWO VERSIONS OF THIS ONE.” (letter 574) Having “equally” two copies of the Berceuse means “equally” two versions of each of the large Sunflowers pictures, excluding a third,” Landais claimed.
“Two days later Vincent makes it clear that he has now four large Sunflowers pictures: “ When Roulin came I had just finished THE REPETITION OF MY SUNFLOWERS and I showed him the TWO CANVASES La Berceuse between THESE FOUR BUNCHES OF FLOWERS. (Letter 575, 30th January)”, he said.
“On May 22nd, after having sent all the Sunflowers pictures to Theo, Vincent indicates that the Sunflowers are for Gauguin. As there is no lost letter, this means that there are still only four large canvases of Sunflowers, the two originals and the two repetitions: “If Gauguin will accept it, give him a copy of La Berceuse that was not mounted on a stretcher, and another to Bernard as token of friendship. But if Gauguin wants THE SUNFLOWERS, it is only fair that he should give you something that you like equally well in exchange.” (letter 592)”, he added.
“Ten months after the despatch of all the Sunflowers pictures, Vincent confirms that he only sent two repetitions: “… and if he likes, tell him [Gauguin] that he can take THE REPETITIONS OF THE SUNFLOWERS and the Berceuse in exchange for something of his that you would like" (letter 626, 10/11 February 1890). The definite article “the” makes it clear that Vincent talks about all the repetitions. As he wanted Gauguin to have the triptych with the Berceuse flanked by two Sunflowers paintings there can be no question of a third Sunflowers copy,” Landais noted.
THE VERDICT OF THE CORRESPONDENCE
The written references quoted above make it certain that Vincent only painted four size 30 large Sunflowers pictures. This means that the Tokyo picture was not painted in August 1888, as De la Faille stated, nor in January 1889, as the Christie's auction catalogue of 1987 surmised, nor during the “blank spots” in February 1889, as has been suggested by Roland Dorn, and also not in December 1888, as the exhibition catalogue and van Tilborgh/Hendriks claim, according to Landais.
“They write: “The correspondence cannot therefore help us to solve the problem of the painting's authenticity”. The correspondence cannot help to solve the problem of the advocates of the Tokyo picture, but it helps to prove the painting's non-authenticity. It is inconceivable that Vincent should have wanted to give “an experimental study” or a “failure” to “somebody in Arles” (to whom?). Equally unconvincing is the supposition that the picture was painted during a period “of little correspondence” (when?) or had been passed over in silence “for whatever reason” (which?) The authors add : “One thing is certain, the letters do not provide any clues as to which of these options is the most plausible.” This is certain, because none of these options is plausible. The authors of the study write that “everything is possible”. A lot is possible, but not that Vincent painted a fifth size 30 Sunflowers picture,” Landais stressed.
THE INVENTORY
Landais said that there are four size 30 Sunflowers mentioned in the inventory of Vincent's work (the so called “A.B." or “Bonger-list") drawn up by Andries Bonger, Emile Bernard and Julien Tanguy at the end of 1890, beginning of 189l, after Theo's internment. They have the numbers 94, 119, 194 and 195 and evidently correspond to the four Vincent painted. Van Tilborgh/Hendriks, playing the same game of musical chairs as Roland Dorn before them, write that “the four still lifes in Bonger's inventory can be identified as follows: 94, as already stated, is the painting now in Munich ; 119 is the version in Philadelphia or Tokyo; 194 is probably the still life now in Amsterdam ; and 195 either the painting in Tokyo or the Philadelphia version.” The London version painted by Vincent and sent to Theo is the one left standing, whilst the Tokyo picture is given the pick of two chairs, 119 or 195.
“There is no need for playing musical chairs. Mastermind is safer. Documentary evidence reveals the true identity of Vincent's four size 30 Sunflowers in the Bonger inventory. Once the order in which the four pictures were painted is clear, everything falls into place. Numerous references tie the Amsterdam picture to the Munich picture. The London and the Philadelphia pictures share flowers painted over the already finished background. They form a “calm” couple. The sweetness, both in line and tone, of the two repetitions — "répétition calmes" (574), "toiles calmes pas inférieures à d'autres" (580) — help us understand what the artistic debate between Vincent and Gauguin was about. By aiming for douceur, sweetness and lightness, Vincent not only made a concession to his friend but he also pursued a careful public relations strategy. Gauguin had told him that he considered his Sunflowers better than Monet's. Gauguin's “complete crush on the Sunflowers” and the fact that Gauguin had pinned one of Vincent's lithographs on the wall of his Paris studio, led Vincent to suggest the exchange of the two Sunflowers painting and the Berceuse, which Gauguin then would hang as a triptych. The triptych would be seen by the numerous Paris artists and critics who admired Gauguin and who went to his studio. Gauguin was bound to sing the triptych's praises and thus advance Vincent's reputation,” he noted.
“The planned exchange of paintings never took place. The “true” triptych, which Vincent imagined that would be shown at Gauguin's place (see Vincent's sketch in letter 592 for the arrangement), in which the Berceuse is flanked by the Philadelphia and the London pictures has never been publicly exhibited. The three pictures have also not been placed side by side in the illustrations of a book (not even by happenstance),” he added.
“The two Sunflowers painting and the Berceuse made for Gauguin, which Vincent sent as loose canvases (not mounted on a stretcher) at the end of April 1889, were kept together for the next two years. They are all three next to one another in the Bonger inventory of 1891. The London picture has number 194, the Philadelphia picture 195 and the Berceuse 196. The framed Amsterdam original, which Vincent would not let Gauguin have, is number 119 and the framed Munich picture 94. They had been exhibited in different locations and were not side by side when the Bonger inventory was drawn up”, he indicated.
“During the many years that Johanna van Gogh was in charge of the family collection, neither the Amsterdam nor the Philadelphia pictures were not mentioned in any of her lists of paintings that she sent to dealers, collectors and exhibitions. The Amsterdam picture that Theo had given pride of place in his apartment — "dans notre salle à manger contre la cheminée. Il fait l'effet d'un morceau d'étoffe brodé de satin et d'or, c'est magnifique" (letter T.12) — always remained with the family and was not for sale. The Philadelphia picture stayed in Paris, when the family collection, including the Munich, the Amsterdam and the London Sunflowers, was shipped to the Netherlands in the spring 1891. The Philadelphia picture was part of a consignment of twenty paintings — all with Bonger numbers — that was left with the art dealer Julien Tanguy. In 1892 Tanguy lent it to the show organised by Emile Bernard at the gallery owned by Le Barc de Boutteville (cat. #12 Soleils). Reviewing the exhibition in La Revue Indépendante, Camille Mauclair mentions the bunch “of radiant sunflowers in bloom” which “astonish and charm par leur douceur.” The rough Tokyo picture with its somewhat faded flowers would not have merited this lavish compliment. Tanguy died without selling the Philadelphia Sunflowers which he had not wanted to let go for less than 600 francs. Immediately after his death in February 1894, Emile Schuffenecker approached Tanguy's widow and (by letter) Johanna van Gogh. He pestered them into selling him the picture for half price. Although he had told Johanna that he would not part with it, two years later the Philadelphia picture turned up with his favourite dealer Ambroise Vollard, who sold it to Schuffenecker's patron and pupil Count Antoine de la Rochefoucauld”, Landais went on to say.
“BONGER 194” IS THE LONDON PICTURE.
The copyist who produced the Tokyo picture used the London version as his model. In 1900/1901 Schuffenecker had access to the Sunflowers picture, which is listed as 194 in the Bonger family inventory and which was then in the hands of his friend Julien Leclercq, Landais claimed.
“According to Van Tilborgh/Hendriks, 194 was “probably” the Amsterdam picture. Consequently Schuffenecker would "probably" not have been in a position to copy the London picture”, he added.
“What occurred? In June 1900 Johanna van Gogh sent eight paintings, amongst them “Sunflowers” with the Bonger number 194 to Paris for a presentation at the home of the critic Julien Leclercq. During the next several months Leclercq made several attempts to buy these Sunflowers, but was not willing to pay Johanna's asking price. On April 5, 1901, he proposed an exchange against the Jardin de Daubigny and added: “If you do not accept, I ask you to give me time to sell the Jardin de Daubigny in order to buy from you the Sunflowers.” This letter signals no willingness to return the painting, which, by always coming up with new excuses, Leclercq had already held on to for 10 months. In June 1901 Leclercq visited Johanna in Holland to discuss a forthcoming exhibition at the Cassirer Gallery in Berlin. He also used the opportunity to reserve Boats at Auvers for himself. In October, Johanna sent 18 works to him in Paris. Leclercq was to have 17 framed, the 18th was the Boats he had ordered. He was to ship Johanna's newly framed paintings, plus the Sunflowers, which still belonged to her, to Cassirer in Berlin. Before he could do so he was struck down by illness and died at the end of October. On November 9th Johanna wrote a letter of condolence to Leclercq's widow, in which she asked her to ship the paintings to Cassirer — "avec celui que Monsieur Leclercq avait l'intention d'acheter" (VGM arch).— and to return to her the price list (“liste de prix”). She wanted the list, which she had earlier sent to Leclercq, because she intended to raise some of the prices. Her price list contains 19 works. All of them have a Bonger inventory number with the noteworthy exception of the Sunflowers. Why? When, in early October 1901, Johanna put together her consignment for Leclercq and drew up her price list, she copied the Bonger inventory numbers from the back of the works (on which they were written in blue). She could not copy the number of the Sunflowers, because they were in Paris with Leclercq. The Sunflowers, together with the other 18 works, were duly shipped to Berlin and exhibited by Cassirer”, he stated.
"The wording of the review by Hans Rosenhagen leaves no doubt that the Sunflowers shown in Berlin was the London picture. The London picture is "Bonger 194", he claimed.
“The scenario in the van Tilborgh/Hendriks study differs from the above presentation of the evidence. The authors suggest that Sunflowers194 that was sent to Paris was "probably" the Amsterdam picture; that Leclercq "probably" brought back the picture to Johanna in May 1901 (mid June? There is no recorded visit in May); that she kept the Amsterdam picture at home whilst sending the London picture to Berlin via Paris; that she was unable to give an inventory number on her price list "from which one can only conclude that the work did not actually have a number, as otherwise Jo would surely have added it." This ingenious theory of "the unnumbered painting sent to Leclercq" is presented as "proving Dorn's thesis correct (although his supporting arguments are different)". It fails to give logical answers to a number of crucial questions”, he stressed.
“How did a painting that was mounted and framed come to be included amongst a shipment of loose canvases? Why should Johanna have sent a painting that was an engagement present from Vincent for Theo and herself (“pour ton intimité de ta femme et de toi ”, letter 573) to a man she hardly knew and did not trust? Why should she have sent a painting that she never intended to sell for display in a private sales show? Why should Leclercq, who in April still wanted to buy the painting and had hung on to it for ten months, now bother to lug it along with him on his journey to Bussum. Why did she then replace it with the London painting for the Berlin exhibition? Why should the London picture which undoubtedly was painted by Vincent and undoubtedly was in Theo's collection at the time the Bonger inventory was drawn up, not have a number?,” he asked.
“Before the attempt by van Tilborgh/Hendriks to find room for the Tokyo picture in Johanna's collection, Roland Dorn and Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov had already tried to convince the world that 2 + 2 is 5. Dr. Dorn counted the Amsterdam canvas twice and Professor Welsh invented an exchange with Gauguin. Neither of the two earlier hypotheses, which since have fallen by the wayside, nor the new one stand up to scrutiny. The Tokyo picture was not painted by Vincent and is not in the Bonger inventory. It only saw the light of day in 1901, after the restorer Schuffenecker had laid hands on the London model”, he said.
IN SCHUFFENECKER'S HANDS
Landais wrote that the painter Judith Gérard, who lived on the ground floor of the house in which Leclercq occupied the first floor and was in a position to observe the goings on at Leclercq's, wrote in her memoirs: “The canvases (from Holland) had been rolled by inexpert hands, with the paint on the inside, and at some places the paint peeled off. Leclercq resorted to a technician: he called upon Emile Schuffenecker, drawing master at the schools of the city, who, for a modest fee, came every day and, armed with a big box of colours, filled the holes and glued back the flakes.”
Judith's observation that the paintings, amongst which she mentions “Sunflowers”, had been “rolled by inexpert hands, with the paint on the inside” is indirectly confirmed by Leclercq's advice to Johanna (in a letter from February 1901): “You could perhaps send me the two canvases rolled up, taking good care to roll them with the paint outside and not at the inside as one rolls an engraving”.
That Judith Gérard gave an accurate description of the technicians work on the inexpertly rolled canvases and that she identified the restorer correctly is according to Landais corroborated by another of Leclercq's letters to Johanna: “The Sunflowers cannot be relined. The repairer has undertaken a job which is not difficult but very painstaking and lengthy: with the help of a small syringe he injects glue under all the places which have become unglued and he waits for a spot to be dry before he goes on to the next one. […] I have not seen Schuffenecker for a fortnight he has been ill in bed.” As the wooden slat affixed to the top of the stretcher would have prevented the Amsterdam picture from being taken off the stretcher, the rolled painting was the London picture, Landais asserted.
“Leclercq and his associate Schuffenecker had at least half a year in which to copy the London painting,” he suggested.
“In his letters to Johanna Leclercq always talks about an anonymous “restorer” whilst at the same time he constantly refers to Schuffenecker, who was her main customer, by name. He took great pains to make her believe that the restorer and her customer were two different persons. Why? Had Johanna known that Schuffenecker was the restorer, she might have smelled a rat, when later an exact copy of her London picture would hit the market. Leclercq's letters were a smoke screen behind which the honourable collector Schuffenecker could safely operate as a forger”, he stated.
“The van Tilborgh/Hendriks study, referring to Judith Gérard, states: “she wrote down many unpleasant things about the painter, but never exposed him as a forger.” In fact she does accuse the two Schuffenecker brothers (and not just Amédée) of having falsified her copy of Vincent's “Self-portrait for Gauguin” and putting it on the market as a genuine van Gogh”, he added.
A FORGER
“Van Tilborgh/Hendriks remind us of Meier-Graefe's testimony at the Wacker trial. Julius Meier-Graefe lived in Paris and was the first scholar who attempted to establish a catalogue of Vincent's work. He is the author of the first van Gogh biography. He knew all the major Paris dealers and artists personally. As late as 1912, he praised the honesty of the Paris art merchant. If, in 1934, he testified “under oath” that Schuffenecker “has copied many paintings” and that “these had sometimes been sold as real van Goghs” this testimony has to be taken seriously,” Landais indicated.
“Even if we disregard the later testimony of Judith Gérard and of Meier-Graefe during the Wacker trial, Meier-Graefe's “Entwicklungsgeschichte der modernen Kunst” (published in 1904) unmasks Schuffenecker as a fraudster. Planning a van Gogh catalogue raisonné Meier Graefe, in 1903, visited both Schuffeneckers (Amédée in Meudon and Emile in Paris) in order to view the van Goghs in their possession. Emile Schuffenecker showed him a Van Gogh Self-Portrait which made Meier-Graefe swoon with admiration. In “Entwicklungsgeschichte” he declared it the masterpiece amongst Vincent's self-portraits. This “masterpiece” was the innocent copy that the 17 year old Judith Gérard had made from Vincent's Self-Portrait dedicated to Gauguin. Amédée Schuffenecker had bought it from her. And then Emile had doctored it by adding flowers to the background of her copy and by making other alterations, Schuffenecker transformed the innocent copy into a “van Gogh” that he then presented as such to the expert Meier-Graefe. He had also painted over Judith's inscription and signature. Schuffenecker's favourite dealer Eugène Druet later sold the falsified copy as a genuine van Gogh to the Berlin banker Paul Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. The same Eugène Druet also sold the Tokyo Sunflowers to the same Paul Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. Judith Gérard's copy touched up and altered by Schuffenecker is a known Schuffenecker forgery. The Bührle collection in Zurich which acquired it as an authentic van Gogh after World War II has now banished it to its storage room,” he said.
“There are about two dozen “second versions” and “adaptations” of original works by Vincent that can be laid at the door of Emile Schuffenecker. This is not the place to discuss these false van Goghs that Schuffenecker produced from genuine paintings in his possession or from photographs. (Further evidence about Schuffenecker's activity as a forger will be presented in our “Schuff's Sunflowers”, a forthcoming book)”, Landais stated.
A FORGER
“Van Tilborgh/Hendriks remind us of Meier-Graefe's testimony at the Wacker trial. Julius Meier-Graefe lived in Paris and was the first scholar who attempted to establish a catalogue of Vincent's work. He is the author of the first van Gogh biography. He knew all the major Paris dealers and artists personally. As late as 1912, he praised the honesty of the Paris art merchant. If, in 1934, he testified “under oath” that Schuffenecker “has copied many paintings” and that “these had sometimes been sold as real van Goghs” this testimony has to be taken seriously,” Landais indicated.
“Even if we disregard the later testimony of Judith Gérard and of Meier-Graefe during the Wacker trial, Meier-Graefe's “Entwicklungsgeschichte der modernen Kunst” (published in 1904) unmasks Schuffenecker as a fraudster. Planning a van Gogh catalogue raisonné Meier Graefe, in 1903, visited both Schuffeneckers (Amédée in Meudon and Emile in Paris) in order to view the van Goghs in their possession. Emile Schuffenecker showed him a Van Gogh Self-Portrait which made Meier-Graefe swoon with admiration. In “Entwicklungsgeschichte” he declared it the masterpiece amongst Vincent's self-portraits. This “masterpiece” was the innocent copy that the 17 year old Judith Gérard had made from Vincent's Self-Portrait dedicated to Gauguin. Amédée Schuffenecker had bought it from her. And then Emile had doctored it by adding flowers to the background of her copy and by making other alterations, Schuffenecker transformed the innocent copy into a “van Gogh” that he then presented as such to the expert Meier-Graefe. He had also painted over Judith's inscription and signature. Schuffenecker's favourite dealer Eugène Druet later sold the falsified copy as a genuine van Gogh to the Berlin banker Paul Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. The same Eugène Druet also sold the Tokyo Sunflowers to the same Paul Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. Judith Gérard's copy touched up and altered by Schuffenecker is a known Schuffenecker forgery. The Bührle collection in Zurich which acquired it as an authentic van Gogh after World War II has now banished it to its storage room,” he said.
“There are about two dozen “second versions” and “adaptations” of original works by Vincent that can be laid at the door of Emile Schuffenecker. This is not the place to discuss these false van Goghs that Schuffenecker produced from genuine paintings in his possession or from photographs. (Further evidence about Schuffenecker's activity as a forger will be presented in our “Schuff's Sunflowers”, a forthcoming book)”, Landais stated.
THE JUTE
“Van Tilborgh/Hendriks write: “The jute fabric used by the two artists at Arles is thus a distinctive material, with its own particular characteristics. The fact that the Tokyo picture is painted on precisely the same kind of cloth provides compelling if not conclusive evidence of its authenticity.” The non-conclusive evidence is not even compelling. For whatever reason the painting's owners did not permit a scientific and technical examination of the Tokyo picture. It is somewhat surprising that reputable institutions like the Chicago Art Institute and the Van Gogh Rijksmuseum should have accepted to undertake a study under preconditions that precluded any serious analysis of paint and support. Only a scientific examination would have told us whether the cloth support of the Tokyo picture was from the roll of jute fabric used by Vincent and Gauguin in Arles. The “same kind of cloth” does not mean anything. All over Europe jute was mass produced by machines which came from Dundee's in the U.K. The authors found precisely the "same thread count” as in the Tokyo painting in material that was manufactured in 1908. Cloth used by Vincent and Gauguin in 1888 was available to Schuffenecker in 1901”, Landais retorted.
“The use of jute as a forger's trick to let potential customers and experts believe that the painting was a work by Vincent would only have occurred to a copyist who knew that Vincent had worked with this type of support. Schuffenecker was among the happy few who did know,” he claimed.
“As early as December 13th 1888, when both Gauguin and Vincent were still busy painting on jute, he wrote to Gauguin to let him know what he thought of jute as support — not much. Examining a freshly painted study that Gauguin had sent to Theo in Paris, Schuffenecker noticed at once the drawbacks of the support. After precipitately leaving Arles on Christmas day Gauguin went straight to Schuffenecker where he stayed for several weeks. Whilst staying at Schuffenecker's home he wrote to Vincent asking for the Sunflowers. Schuffenecker always envied Gauguin and coveted what Gauguin admired. In 1901, when he copied the London Sunflowers he owned at least four of the Arles pictures that were painted on jute, two by Gauguin as well as “L'Arlésienne” and “Memories of the Garden of Etten” by Vincent. A Sunflowers picture, copied from an authentic painting by Vincent and painted on material demonstrably used by Vincent in Arles had a good chance of being accepted as a genuine van Gogh. The cunning use of jute also makes it clear that the Tokyo Sunflowers was not an innocent copy but a deliberate forgery”, he added.
GREEN
“What remains of all the “evidence” that might lead us to believe that the Tokyo picture is an authentic work by Vincent? Nothing", said Landais.
“The colour of the background of the Tokyo Sunflowers is another nail in the coffin in the thesis proposed by the advocates of the painting. This background is midway between the yellow of the London picture that Schuffenecker copied and the blue green of the Philadelphia picture that he used to own and that, in 190l, belonged to Schuffenecker's former pupil and admirer Count Antoine de La Rochefoucauld”, he said
“Forgers do not create. They combine different elements from authentic paintings. In the Tokyo picture one notices a lack of definition and contrast. To achieve definition and contrast when both the flowers and the background are yellow is devilishly difficult. The pale green background did not help and neither did the too dark green of the stalks, which are not to be found in Vincent's subtle harmonies nor in his pallet. Schuffenecker would have needed to know how to darken a background and still preserve the contrast. He did not, unlike a certain Vincent who had undergone his apprenticeship in the gloomy straw-huts of his native land”, Landais noticed..
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
“A thorough house-cleaning is overdue”, wrote Benoit Landais in responding to the study produced on behalf of the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam.
“The Tokyo Sunflowers are not Vincent's work. He painted differently. The copy has to be laid at the door of their true author: Emile Schuffenecker. It is also high time that all the other “van Goghs” fabricated by Schuffenecker and still attributed to Vincent are removed from the canon – once and for all”, he stressed.
“ A start could be made with two other offspring of Schuffeneckers's brush that are a blemish in the otherwise magnificent “Studio of the South” exhibition : Mme Roulin with her Baby (Philadelphia Museum of Art) unpleasant pastiche Schuffenecker concocted from two authentic paintings that he owned”, he added.
“L'Arlésienne with Books (New York Metropolitan Museum of Art) copy-pastiche after the original painting (Paris, Musée d'Orsay), which Schuffenecker had bought from Theo and sold several years after the appearance of the forged ‘second version',” he concluded
Home
