Landscape Fakes by Jessica Hoare

Due to his involvement with the failed civilian uprising of 1871, known as the Paris

Commune of 1871, Gustave Courbet was arrested and imprisoned. Following his

arrest and subsequent exile to Switzerland, his work remained popular but was

boycotted by the French State until his death in 1877. The artist Jean-Louis Ernest

Meissonier, in his role as a judge for the 1872 Salon, announced that ‘Courbet must

be excluded from the Salons, henceforth; he must be dead to us.’1 However the

controversy did not hamper Courbet’s ability to sell on the private market. Despite

Courbet’s inability to sell at the Salon, the popularity of landscapes with the clients of

private dealers led to his increasing dependence on the genre after 1873.

                                                                                                               1 Avis Berman, Larger than Life, Smithsonian Magazine (2008) <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/larger-than-life.html?c=y&page=3> [accessed 14th January 2012]

Unable to keep up with demand for his work and meet debts imposed by the State

he turned to collaborators.2 His exile to Switzerland had followed in 1875 when the

newly established Republican government charged Courbet with the cost of

rebuilding the Vendôme column. Unable to meet these costs Courbet fled. In

Switzerland he was joined by Cherubino Pata, who by this time had been assisting

Courbet with the production of his works for several years.

While in Switzerland his escalating alcohol problem, failing health and looming debts

called for several assistants who learnt to produce works, which he only needed to

tweak and sign. Resultantly Courbet’s late paintings are plagued by issues of

attribution and Amgueddfa Cymru’s The Mill at Orbe is no exception. There are

several factors that exacerbate attribution further. First, it is difficult to establish a

sense of stylistic evolution as he erratically changed how he painted.

                                                                                                               2 Anik Morrow, Gustave Courbet: Materials, Techniques and the Problems with The Attribution of a Painting Entitled "The Mill" (Unpublished doctoral thesis, Harvard University, 1989). p. 4.

Gustave Courbet, The Mill at Orbe, 1875, oil on canvas, 49.6 x 60cm, purchased with funds from the James Pyke Thompson bequest, 1912 (NMW A 2446)  

These changes are so pronounced that there is almost a sense that he painted

differently depending on his mood, health and, arguably, sobriety. As his health

declined, Pata took over the studio supervising copyists and arranged sales. Pata

also continued to produce pseudo ‘Courbets’. Two particular weaknesses in Pata’s

painting style have been identified in contrast with Courbet’s own work and these are

his muddied grey tones and heavy-handedness in application.3 These two issues are

certainly present in the museum’s painting and support the doubts over the painting’s

authenticity.

The Mill at Orbe requires further study before we are able to make further

judgements on its attribution. Courbet was certainly not alone in his deceit. There is

a joke within the art history community that illustrates the issue, it says that: ‘of the

1500 paintings by Courbet, 3000 are in the United States’. It is not uncommon to find

the joke’s figures altered with Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot’s name inserted instead.

Manner of Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot, A Lake at Sunset, oil on canvas, 22.6 x 34.9cm, bequeathed by Gwendoline Davies, 1951 (NMW A 3494)                                                                                                                3 Morrow, p. 6.

The Lake at Sunset , in the museum’s collection, was previously thought to be by

Corot but has been confirmed a fake. As with Courbet, it appears that Corot may

have collaborated in this deception to a certain degree. As acts of charity he would

sign works for artists that needed to make a quick sale.4 Our attitude to fakes and

forgeries is particularly interesting and reveals how we as a society define value and

creative genius. Despite the fact that these issues appear to be less of a concern for

some of the artists who colluded in the process and these works still serve to deepen

our understanding of the situation and temperaments of particular artists.

 

                                                                                                               4 Gary Tinterow and others, Corot (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1996) p. 389.