The court recalled that the publisher and the author of a catalogue raisonné, though free to present the works of an artists, were however liable to be held responsible before justice if they were found guilty of a serious neglect in the choice or the analysis of works published by them.
What is also at stake is the formidable power exerted by the Wildenstein Institute on the art market as it has expanded its authority on many painters such as Monet, Manet, Modigliani, Vlaminck, Van Dongen, and now Renoir among others. Several art dealers have challenged such authority lately notably Paris gallery-owner Gilbert Pétridès who lashed out at Wildenstein following the rejection of a work by Vlaminck;
“The Wildenstein Institute have no knowledge of Vlaminck's work and no competence regarding the authentication of paintings. The fact that it publishes the catalogue raisonné regarding this artist is in no way a proof of its competence in this matter but a way to control an important part of the art market. It's main interest is to eliminate mediocre works- and that was the case for this litigious work- in order to keep prices for this painter at their highest level,” Pétridès said.
Daniel Wildenstein defended himself in telling the daily “Le Figaro” that it was utterly untrue that he was exerting some type of control on the art market. “I have never put any of the authors of catalogues raisonnés under pressure. They freely decide what works they will include in these and I consider Marc Restellini, whom I trust totally, as the best connoisseur of Modigliani's oeuvre”, he said.
30-year-old Restellini, who took a deep interest in Modigliani some 10 years ago, confirmed he was totally free to choose the works he wanted to include in his catalogue. “When we decided to work together, Mr Wildenstein told me that if I went to declare as a forgery any work he had himself bought he would then consider I was right and draw the consequences of my decision,” he said.
Asked if the fact that he was publishing so many catalogues raisonnés was likely to cause deep concern among other art dealers regarding his purported influence on the market, Daniel Wildenstein said he would be the first to rejoice if other publishers decided to publish serious catalogues. “However they often have not this possibility or do not wish to have it. Therefore, the best specialists are left to contact me,” he said.
Restellini said that in order to accomplish his task it was important in his eyes to establish an undisputable catalogue raisonné on Modigliani's work. “It was indispensable to start from the very beginning. I thus decided to select 40 works that were indisputably genuine and to analyse them in a laboratory with all possible scientific techniques in order to determine the artist's working methods. Thanks to the results I obtained, I have now serious references at my disposal to carry out comparisons when it comes to study a work that has no clear provenance." The Wildenstein Institute did put a laboratory, thousands of archives and its fabulous library at my disposal and no other publisher was in a position to offer me similar working conditions.
Asked if he would signal in his future publications that the presence of a work in these did not necessarily imply that it was authentic or in its absence, a forgery, Wildenstein answered: “Why not ? We do not pretend to have a 100% intuition. To say that a work is authentic means that one gives a personal opinion, unless there is a clear possibility to trace a work from the day it left the studio of an artist. Personally, I regret not to have been in a position to publish those works we have rejected after studying them carefully. Regarding Edouard Manet, we saw 8 000 works, of which 1800 were selected. We might then be able to express the reasons which have forced us to take such a decision. However we would run the risk of facing 6200 court actions,” he added.
Restellini said that nobody could challenge the seriousness of his work. "Still, after carrying out analyses and all indispensable researches, I am forced to come out with an opinion and a judgement, even well backed up, always had a part of subjectivity,” he stressed.
Asked what would he do if a court forced him to include a work he did not wish to see in one of his catalogues, Daniel Wildenstein replied that he would naturally accept such verdict though he would not fail to mention that such inclusion would have been the result of a court decision.
Regarding Gilbert Pétridès' accusation, Wildenstein said that he had never bought any work by Vlaminck. “If I decided to publish a catalogue raisonné on his artist it was simply for a sentimental reason as my parents liked Vlaminck much. He was a brilliant man and used to come every week to our house. He left me with some good memories,” he said.
Restellini's added that he wondered why certain people tended to accuse Wildenstein of having mercantile aims whereas he was simply a patron of the arts.
The Wildenstein Institute in Paris and the expert in charge of Modigliani's work reacted in an interview with the daily “Le Figaro” published on June 30th 2000 against accusations of trying to control the art market via their new catalogue raisonné on that painter.
The Institute, and Marc Restellini, the expert on Modigliani, have recently been sued by some owners of Modgliani's works for having refused to include them in this catalogue raisonné.
A work not mentioned in a catalogue raisonné would be automatically be suspected as being a forgery and those who sued the Institute and the expert had some reasons in showing their anger since they had bought these works in auction sales.
One work was acquired for 379,000 FF (US $ 54,930) in a Paris sale in June 1985 and the other was bought for 1 737 000 FF ($ 251,739) in March 1991, again at Drouot. On learning that a new catalogue raisonné was in preparation under the auspices of the Wildenstein Institute, their owners submitted them to Marc Restellini but the latter informed them that after a close study, he had no intention, up to the day of the examination, to include these in his catalogue.
The owners of the controversial works thus seized justice in order to have a thorough examination carried out and as a result the Wildenstein Institute tried to defend itself in signalling that it was only the publisher of that catalogue and not its author, stressing in addition that Restellini's opinion could not in no way be interpreted as an appreciation on the authenticity of these works meaning that the author might be led, “by some future revelation” to change his mind before the catalogue was issued. It added that the Modigliani's new catalogue would not pronounce itself on the authenticity or not of works published. Such assertion was however strange in the mind of the plaintiffs' counsels while the court found the Wildenstein Institute rather modest as it could not deny its participation in the publication of such catalogue. It also pinpointed that its response to the owners of these works could be interpreted as suggesting the existence of a doubt on their authenticity.
The court recalled that the publisher and the author of a catalogue raisonné, though free to present the works of an artists, were however liable to be held responsible before justice if they were found guilty of a serious neglect in the choice or the analysis of works published by them.
What is also at stake is the formidable power exerted by the Wildenstein Institute on the art market as it has expanded its authority on many painters such as Monet, Manet, Modigliani, Vlaminck, Van Dongen, and now Renoir among others. Several art dealers have challenged such authority lately notably Paris gallery-owner Gilbert Pétridès who lashed out at Wildenstein following the rejection of a work by Vlaminck;
“The Wildenstein Institute have no knowledge of Vlaminck's work and no competence regarding the authentication of paintings. The fact that it publishes the catalogue raisonné regarding this artist is in no way a proof of its competence in this matter but a way to control an important part of the art market. It's main interest is to eliminate mediocre works- and that was the case for this litigious work- in order to keep prices for this painter at their highest level,” Pétridès said.
Daniel Wildenstein defended himself in telling the daily “Le Figaro” that it was utterly untrue that he was exerting some type of control on the art market. “I have never put any of the authors of catalogues raisonnés under pressure. They freely decide what works they will include in these and I consider Marc Restellini, whom I trust totally, as the best connoisseur of Modigliani's oeuvre”, he said.
30-year-old Restellini, who took a deep interest in Modigliani some 10 years ago, confirmed he was totally free to choose the works he wanted to include in his catalogue. “When we decided to work together, Mr Wildenstein told me that if I went to declare as a forgery any work he had himself bought he would then consider I was right and draw the consequences of my decision,” he said.
Asked if the fact that he was publishing so many catalogues raisonnés was likely to cause deep concern among other art dealers regarding his purported influence on the market, Daniel Wildenstein said he would be the first to rejoice if other publishers decided to publish serious catalogues. “However they often have not this possibility or do not wish to have it. Therefore, the best specialists are left to contact me,” he said.
Restellini said that in order to accomplish his task it was important in his eyes to establish an undisputable catalogue raisonné on Modigliani's work. “It was indispensable to start from the very beginning. I thus decided to select 40 works that were indisputably genuine and to analyse them in a laboratory with all possible scientific techniques in order to determine the artist's working methods. Thanks to the results I obtained, I have now serious references at my disposal to carry out comparisons when it comes to study a work that has no clear provenance." The Wildenstein Institute did put a laboratory, thousands of archives and its fabulous library at my disposal and no other publisher was in a position to offer me similar working conditions.
Asked if he would signal in his future publications that the presence of a work in these did not necessarily imply that it was authentic or in its absence, a forgery, Wildenstein answered: “Why not ? We do not pretend to have a 100% intuition. To say that a work is authentic means that one gives a personal opinion, unless there is a clear possibility to trace a work from the day it left the studio of an artist. Personally, I regret not to have been in a position to publish those works we have rejected after studying them carefully. Regarding Edouard Manet, we saw 8 000 works, of which 1800 were selected. We might then be able to express the reasons which have forced us to take such a decision. However we would run the risk of facing 6200 court actions,” he added.
Restellini said that nobody could challenge the seriousness of his work. "Still, after carrying out analyses and all indispensable researches, I am forced to come out with an opinion and a judgement, even well backed up, always had a part of subjectivity,” he stressed.
Asked what would he do if a court forced him to include a work he did not wish to see in one of his catalogues, Daniel Wildenstein replied that he would naturally accept such verdict though he would not fail to mention that such inclusion would have been the result of a court decision.
Regarding Gilbert Pétridès' accusation, Wildenstein said that he had never bought any work by Vlaminck. “If I decided to publish a catalogue raisonné on his artist it was simply for a sentimental reason as my parents liked Vlaminck much. He was a brilliant man and used to come every week to our house. He left me with some good memories,” he said.
Restellini's added that he wondered why certain people tended to accuse Wildenstein of having mercantile aims whereas he was simply a patron of the arts.
Home
