A recent launch by an independent organization challenging the De Chirico authentication board brings much attention and question regarding the issue of authentication of an artist’s work. Two former friends and De Chirico foundation board members, current President Paolo Picozza of the De Chirico foundation and Paolo Baldacci, former board member of the De Chirico foundation and now Vice President of the independent organization challenging the De Chirico authentication board, are at a standoff about several works of art by De Chirico.
Giorgio de Chirico received much praise for his metaphysical paintings. However, De Chirico’s style changed significantly in the 1930's, moving away from the metaphysical to a newly adopted style heavily influenced by Rubens that did not receive the same praise his metaphysical art did. In response to the lack of recognition of the maturity of his art, and an evident resentment towards the public, De Chirico began producing back-dated paintings of his earlier style to benefit from his earlier success and followed this with denouncements of many of his paintings as forgeries, creating further spectacle and controversy regarding the authenticity of his art.
As the Art Newspaper states, “Baldacci believes the artist made “around 140” of these backdated paintings, but Picozza estimates that there are only “around 40”. Baldacci says that he and Roos are now working on the second edition of a monograph on De Chirico’s metaphysical period, to include all works from 1909 to 1942 with “ascertained dates.” The debate between these men is something to consider when looking at the issue of authentication. Are there limitations to the authority of a foundation and its determination of authorship and authenticity? What constituents define and ultimately determine who has the final say-so in matters of authenticity?
This new publication is Baldacci’s final attempt to set right what he believes the foundation had done wrong. A few years after Baldacci resigned from the De Chirico board, the foundation sued Baldacci for “knowingly attempting to sell fake paintings by De Chirico.” The case, which went to trial in 2009 in Milan, found Baldacci guilty and sentenced him to 20 months in jail, charges of which Baldacci vehemently denies. Baldacci is now considering taking his case to the Supreme Court.
This brings to mind the concern among experts and foundations in the U.S. who have grown increasingly silent for fear of legal repercussions. In 2011, the Andy Warhol authentication board, for example, dissolved after several costly lawsuits including the battle over the authenticity of Joe Simon’s 1864-65 Red Self-Portrait that cost nearly $7 million in legal fees, according to ARTnews. With lawsuits against experts and foundations growing and the risks and potential costs in determining authenticity so high, it should be asked, would I be willing to risk financial prosecution or even imprisonment if my testimony as an expert was challenged and over ruled? And what, if any, safeguards could be established in the future so that authentication boards and even those of us entering into the museum art field might be protected from these types of occurrences?
No comments:
Post a Comment