Cet article se compose de 2 pages.
1
2
| |
Now, if the painting comes to be formally considered as a fake, Mr Goto could sue Christie's for having carried out a fraudulent sale. This would result in a long judicial battle with enormous financial consequences for the auction house if it were to lose the case. One year after the 1987 sale, some researchers challenged the provenance mentioned in the Christie's catalogue and supported the Schuffenecker version and also tentatively thought of the possibility of a gift from Johanna Van Gogh to the Pont Aven artist. However, the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam did not come up with any document sustaining such provenance. It is still possible that Schuffenecker was in possession of a painting of sunflowers by Van Gogh but it might well be a version of the 12 sunflowers instead of the 14.
The Van Gogh Museum would be in a difficult position to act as an arbitrator in the case since Mr Goto, so much pleased with his acquisition, offered the institution some US $ 20 millions to help build a new extension to its existing building. So far the Museum has stressed that the painting sold to Mr Goto was genuine but it might well find itself in a fragile position, firstly following the pending dispute over some 100 dubious Van Gogh works and secondly , the magnate's gift might be considered as a bribe by its detractors. For a long time, the Museum was regarded as the sole authority regarding Van Gogh's paintings but with the catalogue raisonné and Mr Goto's piece being challenged it now faces the dire prospect of having to share its prerogatives with those nasty researchers or at least other specialists. Now, Mr de Robertis and Mr Landais must prove on their side that they have enough knowledge of Van Gogh's works to stake their claims because it would be rather childish to believe that the artist's letters to his brother Theo constitute the only element enabling to determine whether a painting is genuine or not. It would be utterly ridiculous to claim that Van Gogh listed all his paintings in the letters sent to his brother. In addition, he travelled a lot, firstly in Belgium, then in England (his London period is not so much documented), in Paris, in Brittany and in Arles and its region.
As a result, it was probable that he forgot to inform his brother about what he did once in a while. Most of his works were recovered by his family after his death but there were many others which had been lost or given away and it is again hard to imagine that Van Gogh referred in these letters to everything, studies, drawings and paintings, he was producing. Only a close scientific examination of Mr Goto's painting will help give a definite answer regarding the authenticity of this work because it now cannot be sold back as a result of the suspicion surrounding it. All the more, there are some collectors who have found in the past 20 years several so-called lost works by Van Gogh in flea markets, fairs and other places in France, Britain and Belgium. Most of the time, the Amsterdam museum rejected these as fakes without giving any real close attention to them. Then, it may well be that there are some genuine pieces among those pieces rejected abruptly by the museum. This at least tends to prove that the Van Gogh controversies are surely going to poison the art market for quite a time.
|
|
|
Vincent Van Gogh's painting of sunflowers sold by Christie's in March 1987 for a record price of US $ 39,921 millions to Japanese insurance magnate Yasuo Goto might simply be a fake, following claims made by two researchers in July 1997. The sale of this now challenged work in London caused sensation on the art market ten years ago but in 1993 Antonio de Robertis, an Italian researcher, claimed that it was a copy produced by the French painter Emil Schuffenecker, a master of the Pont Aven School who had been a close friend of Van Gogh. However, nobody wanted to believe de Robertis who was then considered as a little known researcher with no capacity to cope with top experts. But he still had solid arguments to develop. Meanwhile, several dozens of Van Gogh's works have been classified as fakes or copies by de Robertis and other researchers and his claims have now been strongly supported, notably by Benoit Landais, a French writer who sifted through the artist's letters to trace back all listed works. The painting of sunflowers sold in London on March 30th 1987 is a weak copy of the work now exhibited by the National Gallery there, according to Benoit Landais who has pinpointed at least 12 flagrant mistakes in Mr Goto's acquisition. In his letters sent to his brother Théo, Van Gogh only referred to two sunflowers paintings, with 14 flowers each, produced in 1888. He first painted a canvas with 12 flowers and then another one with 14 and duplicated both. Therefore, there are only two
«14 sunflowers » paintings mentioned in his letters, one now in London and the second in Amsterdam. There is thus no proof of a third canvas. The one sold in London belonged to Schuffenecker and his brother Amédée who have been strongly suspected of having produced copies of Van Gogh's works. But when put on sale by Christie's the catalogue mentioned that it originated from the artist's family.
Now, if the painting comes to be formally considered as a fake, Mr Goto could sue Christie's for having carried out a fraudulent sale. This would result in a long judicial battle with enormous financial consequences for the auction house if it were to lose the case. One year after the 1987 sale, some researchers challenged the provenance mentioned in the Christie's catalogue and supported the Schuffenecker version and also tentatively thought of the possibility of a gift from Johanna Van Gogh to the Pont Aven artist. However, the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam did not come up with any document sustaining such provenance. It is still possible that Schuffenecker was in possession of a painting of sunflowers by Van Gogh but it might well be a version of the 12 sunflowers instead of the 14.
The Van Gogh Museum would be in a difficult position to act as an arbitrator in the case since Mr Goto, so much pleased with his acquisition, offered the institution some US $ 20 millions to help build a new extension to its existing building. So far the Museum has stressed that the painting sold to Mr Goto was genuine but it might well find itself in a fragile position, firstly following the pending dispute over some 100 dubious Van Gogh works and secondly , the magnate's gift might be considered as a bribe by its detractors. For a long time, the Museum was regarded as the sole authority regarding Van Gogh's paintings but with the catalogue raisonné and Mr Goto's piece being challenged it now faces the dire prospect of having to share its prerogatives with those nasty researchers or at least other specialists. Now, Mr de Robertis and Mr Landais must prove on their side that they have enough knowledge of Van Gogh's works to stake their claims because it would be rather childish to believe that the artist's letters to his brother Theo constitute the only element enabling to determine whether a painting is genuine or not. It would be utterly ridiculous to claim that Van Gogh listed all his paintings in the letters sent to his brother. In addition, he travelled a lot, firstly in Belgium, then in England (his London period is not so much documented), in Paris, in Brittany and in Arles and its region.
As a result, it was probable that he forgot to inform his brother about what he did once in a while. Most of his works were recovered by his family after his death but there were many others which had been lost or given away and it is again hard to imagine that Van Gogh referred in these letters to everything, studies, drawings and paintings, he was producing. Only a close scientific examination of Mr Goto's painting will help give a definite answer regarding the authenticity of this work because it now cannot be sold back as a result of the suspicion surrounding it. All the more, there are some collectors who have found in the past 20 years several so-called lost works by Van Gogh in flea markets, fairs and other places in France, Britain and Belgium. Most of the time, the Amsterdam museum rejected these as fakes without giving any real close attention to them. Then, it may well be that there are some genuine pieces among those pieces rejected abruptly by the museum. This at least tends to prove that the Van Gogh controversies are surely going to poison the art market for quite a time.
|
Home
