Provenance

Provenance: How a Con Man and a Forger Rewrote the History of  Modern Art

By Laney Salisbury and Aly Sujo

It is the astonishing narrative of one of the most far-reaching and elaborate cons in the history of art forgery. Stretching from London to Paris to New York, investigative reporters Laney Salisbury and Aly Sujo recount the tale of infamous con man and unforgettable villain John Drewe and his accomplice, the affable artist John Myatt. Together they exploited the archives of British art institutions to irrevocably legitimize the hundreds of pieces they forged, many of which are still considered genuine and hang in prominent museums and private collections today.

I really enjoyed this book.  I have a semi-jaundiced eye towards art collecting to begin with, and this only proves my point: if the value of art is no longer based on the piece itself but some other extrinsic factor, then it is no longer art, but commodity.  The artist/forger Myatt makes the point (as do several others): the painting has not changed, only the name of the producer.  Why then does the price drop by the order of several hundred thousand?  Apparently the answer to Shakespeare's famous question is: no, a rose would not smell as sweet by any other name. Nor would a Giacometti.

Provenance is a really interesting book about a very specific fraud on the art world, but also about greater questions in personal responsibility, confidence, and the many cracks and seams that are available to be exploited by people without care for collateral damage, both in general terms in our modern society and also very specifically in the fine art forum.

Just this week as I'm reading it, the New York Times had two articles about long lost or newly discovered art pieces of great artists, an unearthed Caravaggio, found in an attic, and some purported Rembrandts, discovered in a collection held for six generations.  Honestly, both made me barking mad, since it seems like each loses sight of the forest for the trees. Look, all of this rush to decide whether this painting or that is painted by a "master" - authorship is more fluid than that (at least in paintings).  Stop attaching such importance to an unimportant feature.  In Provenance, they kinda wrap up the whole escapade by talking about art fraud via a broader lens, and mention that Picasso (and possibly other artists as well) would sign works done by other artists.

I've also been watching Fake or Fortune on Netflix, which is a fascinating look as the show people take paintings and try to authenticate them. It shows some of the avenues that people would use to support the provenance. It all seems to me like a giant guessing game, but there are definitely people out there who dedicate their lives to art, and in some cases, specific artists, so closely that they "know" immediately if something is off or not.  That sixth sense there is almost like a superpower.  What's interesting about this fraud perpetrated here is that it was able to succeed despite multiple people finding the forgeries lacking, because the provenance allayed all doubts.  That was the true con (obviously, otherwise they wouldn't have called the book Provenance). 

All of my aggravation about provenance aside, I am absolutely appalled at the utter gall of Drewe to callously upend historical archives for his own personal agenda and pleasure.  I am definitely a black and white seer, a rules follower, and no matter how silly I think it is to search for value in a trail of owners, I am utterly disgusted at his behavior.  Obviously, not only in this regard, but also in his refusal to acknowledge what it is. Just admit you did it for personal gain!  You're a piece of shit, John Drewe, have the self awareness to admit it.

48: Two Books That Share The Same Title