so what do you do with a forgery?
TRANSCRIPT
So what do you do with a forgery?
Jennifer Ellen Minich, BA 2043339m
Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Museum Studies, History of Collecting and Collection in the Humanities Advanced
Technology and Information Institute.
Word Count: 12,927
HATII School of Humanities
College of Arts University of Glasgow
August, 2013
ii 2043339m
Abstract This study examines the relationship between forgeries and museums through
the analytical evaluation of curatorial perceptions about the value and display of
forgeries. The instinctual reaction to the discovery of a forgery remains divided and
the complexity of the discovery is further complicated by the multiple and varied
responsibilities museums have toward their public, trustees, scholars, and researchers.
The museological value of forgeries and the circumstances of their display through
the study of individual curatorial perceptions of forgeries is discussed. The methods
used include a Curatorial Questionnaire and interviews and the examination of
specific, successful forgery exhibits at the Burrell Collection in Glasgow Museums,
the British Museum, London, and the J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, California.
Research suggests curators are receptive to the display of forgeries in museums
exhibits and that forgery exhibits are viable, popular exhibit options for museums.
Ultimately, this study concludes there is a case for the continued re-examination of
forgeries as valuable museum assets.
iii 2043339m
Table of Contents
Description Page Number
Title Page ....................................................................................................................... i Abstract ........................................................................................................................ ii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................. iv Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... v Declaration of Originality Form ............................................................................... vi 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 2. Literature Review ................................................................................................... 3 3. Methodology .......................................................................................................... 12
4. Chapter One: What Is Forgery? .......................................................................... 15
5. Chapter Two: Forgery Exhibits, 1990-Present .................................................. 19
5.1 Early Forgery Exhibits .............................................................................. 19
5.2 1990 – Present: The Birth of the Modern Forgery Exhibit ...................... 20
5.3 The Burrell Collection .............................................................................. 22
Daumer in the Burrell Collection ....................................................... 22
Joseph Crawhall, 1861-1913: One of the Glasgow Boys ................... 24 Millet Under Investigation at the Burrell Collection ......................... 25
5.4 The British Museum .................................................................................. 26 5.5 The Significance of the Burrell Collection and the British Museum 1990 Forgery Exhibits .............................................................................................. 27 5.6 The J. Paul Getty Museum ........................................................................ 30 Carvers and Collectors: The Lasting Allure of Ancient Gems ........... 30 6. Chapter Three: The Evolution of the Forgery Exhibit ..................................... 31 6.1 The Success of Museum with Forgery Exhibit ......................................... 32 6.2 The Motivations Behind Forgery Exhibits ................................................ 37 6.3 The Value of Forgeries .............................................................................. 38 6.4 Curating a Forgery Exhibit ........................................................................ 42 6.5 The Future of Forgery Exhibits ................................................................. 45 7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 48 Appendix A – Curatorial Questionnaire ................................................................. 50 Appendix B – Curatorial Questionnaire: Kenneth Lapatin Interview ................ 51 Appendix C – List of Forgery Exhibits, 1914-Present ........................................... 52 References .................................................................................................................. 54
iv 2043339m
Table of Contents
Description Page Number
Figure 1. Man investigating artwork at the Victoria and Albert Museum’s
exhibit “The Metropolitan Police Service’s Investigation of Fakes and Forgeries”
....................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2. Curatorial Questionnaire ......................................................................... 12
Figure 3. A visitor looks at “Women at a Window” at the National Gallery’s exhibit “Close Examination: Fakes, Mistakes and Discoveries” .......................... 21 Figure 4. Mapped Visitor Route Through the Citi Money Gallery at the British Museum’s exhibit “Forgery, Suffragettes and Nirvana: Tracking Visitors in the Citi Money Gallery” .................................................................................................. 35
Figure 5. Forgery and Money Case in the Citi Money Gallery at the British Museum’s exhibit “Forgery, Suffragettes and Nirvana: Tracking Visitors in the Citi Money Gallery” ................................................................................................. 36 Figure 6. Gnaios. Mark Anthony. 40-20 B.C. Amethyst Intaglio. J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles ............................................................................................... 40 Figure 7. Unknown. Dutch Painter Hans Van Meegeren (1889-1947), in front of one of his works. Photograph ................................................................................... 43 Figure 8. Countering the Counterfeiters Case at the Currency Museum’s exhibit “Fakes & Forgeries: Yesterday and Today” ........................................................... 47
v 2043339m
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude first and foremost to my supervisor, Dr. Ian G. Anderson for his support and feedback during all stages of my dissertation. Additionally, I want to thank all those who participated in my survey and in interviews for sharing their valuable time and professional insight. Without their support and participation, this project would not have been possible. Lastly, I want to thank my husband for encouraging and supporting me throughout this entire process. and my parents for their help throughout the writing and editing process.
1 2043339m
1. Introduction
Artistic forgery has become a widely recognized byproduct of the art
industry’s growing financial influence. Art fraud crime is a $1 billion a year industry,
and the impetus behind the creation of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
(FBI’s) Art Crime Team and the U.K. Metropolitan Police Department’s (MET)
ArtBeat Specialists. 1 News media sensationalize the discovery of big-ticket forgeries
in museums and well-known forgers like John Myatt are offered TV deals teaching
celebrities to reproduce their favorite Van Gogh.
Fictional television shows, notably USA Network’s popular television drama,
“White Collar,” and movies, such as Catch Me If You Can, portray forgers as suave,
talented, and handsome young men trapped on the wrong side of the law.2 It is
undeniable that the Western world has a fascinating relationship with forgery, fueled
by the discovery of new forgeries every day, in every corner of the world, and in
every well-respected museum and art gallery. So what does a curator do with a
forgery?
The Curatorial Questionnaire, a research tool with specific questions about the
value and display of forgeries developed for this study, introduced the curatorial
perspective on the value of forgeries in museum collections and served as a starting
point for a dialogue with curators who choose to study and exhibit forgeries from their
collections. In addition to curatorial perspectives, this study uses a literature search to
explore the anthropological development of forgeries, the varied motivations of
forgers, the legal and financial implications of forgery, and the media’s
sensationalization of forgeries in an effort to create a context for the treatment and
value of forgeries in museums over the past 100 years. The study focuses on
curatorial definitions of forgeries, the development of forgery exhibits, and the
motivations of the curators who exhibit forgeries to create a tangible and relevant
argument about the value of forgeries in museum collections. The responses to the
1 Ember, Lois. Fakes and Forgeries. September 10, 2007. http://cen.acs.org/articles/85/i37/Fakes-‐Forgeries.html. (Accessed April 14, 2013). 2 Ogden, Katherine. Forging News (Part one of four): The News Media's Misrepresentation of the Art Criminal. April 25, 2011. http://art-‐crime.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/forging-‐news-‐news-‐medias.html (accessed 5 30, 2013).
2 2043339m
Curatorial Questionnaire and curatorial interviews provide context for how forgeries
are perceived and valued by curators.
Chapter One establishes a working curatorial definition of forgery to
contextualize the general curatorial approach to forgeries in museums. Chapter Two
details the thematic development of forgery exhibits from 1990 to the present,
focusing specifically on forgery exhibits at the Burrell Collection, the British
Museum, and the J. Paul Getty Museum and includes a short and relevant history of
the development of forgery exhibits from the 20th century to the present. This chapter
ascertains how the history of forgery exhibits has shaped developing museological
responses to forgeries. The culmination of this chapter is the evaluation of the birth of
the modern forgery exhibit. The focus of Chapter Three is the future of forgery
exhibits, including a practical analysis of the differences between public and private
institutions and the continued success of museums with present and past forgery
exhibits. Chapter three includes an examination of a case study from the British
Museum, which tracked museum visitors and quantified the popularity of a forgery
display case in the British Museum’s Citi Money Gallery, as well as a chart detailing
the forgery exhibits 1990-present.
Throughout this study, the terms “forgery” and “fake” refer to the artistic
forgery of objects and artworks present in both museums and art galleries. The term
“forgery exhibit” refers to any museum or art gallery exhibit that contains forgeries or
forgery themes. The majority of the research conducted for this study focuses on the
presentation of forgeries in the United Kingdom, specifically in at the Burrell
Collection in Glasgow, Scotland, and the British Museum in London, England, each
of which has developed one or more exhibits on forgeries. In an effort to engage as
many curators as possible, research also extends to the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los
Angeles, California. The research focuses exclusively on forgeries, forgers, and
forgery exhibits from the beginning of the 20th century to the present.
3 2043339m
2. Literature Review
To date, little research has been done on curatorial valuation, assessment, and
treatment of forgeries. Surprisingly, up-to-date and consistent scholarly articles and
books on forgeries are sparse, and public perceptions of forgeries have become
increasingly dependent on media coverage and interpretation. The BBC, Daily Beast,
and The New York Times are examples of media outlets that regularly publish articles
interpreting the value of forgeries. Media coverage and discussions of forgeries fill a
gap left by the lack of scholarly coverage of forgery in the mid-20th century and the
first decade of the 21st century. In 1990, a New York Times article, “ART; In London,
A Catalogue of Fakes,” addressed London’s so-called growing “[fascination] these
days with fakery, pastiche, and imitation” through coverage of the British Museum’s
exhibit, “Fake? The Art of Deception.”3 This exhibit was the British Museum’s
second exhibit on fakes and forgeries since 1961.4
The two forgery exhibits at the British Museum, “An Exhibition of Forgeries
and Deceptive Copies” in 1961 and “Fake? The Art of Deception” in 1990 were some
largest and most comprehensive exhibits on forgeries and fakes in the world. Notably,
the 1961 and 1990 exhibits bridged a gap in time in which no other known forgery
exhibits occurred. So what motivated the British Museum’s 1990 exhibit on fakes?
The 1990 article, “ART; In London, A Catalogue of Fakes” by Wendy Steiner
features a rare, candid media interview with the curator behind the British Museum’s
exhibit, Mark Jones. Jones contends that, despite media and public speculation, the
exhibit was not intended to be a “curatorial self-abasement, a desperate attempt to
wipe egg off the museum’s face by public confession, or a subversion of the entire
art-historical enterprise,” but rather a timely exhibit promoted by the museum’s
trustees.5 Jones continues, describing the British Museum’s forgeries as “historical
documents of great value – the best indexes to the state of the art market at a given
moment,” even describing the fakes as “beautifully preserved and exquisitely
executed.”6
3 Steiner, Wendy. ART; In London, A Catalogue of Fakes. April 29, 1990. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/29/arts/art-‐in-‐london-‐a-‐catalogue-‐of-‐fakes.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (accessed June 4, 2013). 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.
4 2043339m
Can a curator really find aesthetic beauty in a piece of forgery? The article
concludes that fakes have a beauty and value that is truly unique and their display in a
museum is the appropriate setting to examine their contributions to art history and to
appreciate their unique aestheticism.
Unsurprisingly, there are many articles and corporate financial websites that
shed light on the negative aspects of forgeries and express concern over the media’s
positive treatment of forgeries. The Association for Research Into Crimes of Art
(ARCA) published the article, “Forging News (Part One of Four): The Media’s
Misrepresentation of the Art Criminal” in April 2011 addressing the media’s
“sensationalization” of art crime, art criminals, and the subsequent effects on the
public’s perception of the art criminal.7 The result, ARCA claims, is that the public is
“unable to distinguish between the real and the fictional art crime criminals.”8
Fictional art criminals, like Neil Caffrey from USA Network’s “White Collar,”
perpetuate media stereotypes, creating a cultural perception of forgers as the ‘sexy art
criminal.’ The result is a media-influenced popularly positive opinion of the art
criminal, which, ARCA argues, takes the focus away from the crime being committed
and creates a narrow, commercially controlled perception of forgery.9 This begs the
question, if the media is creating a popularly acceptable version of forgeries, why
don’t more museums capitalize on the media sensationalization of forgeries by
creating forgery exhibits to attract new visitors and properly contextualize the
historical and public ramifications of the possession and display of art forgeries?
Unfortunately, as of yet, there seems to be no middle ground between the
sensationalization of fakes in the media and the alarmist view of art crime presented
by the police and financial institutions.10 In 2010, the MET presented an article on its
website detailing its joint exhibit at the Victoria and Albert Museum’s studio gallery
titled, “The Metropolitan Police Service’s Investigation of Fakes and Forgeries (Fig,
1).”11 The article and the exhibit had the practical goal “to heighten the awareness of
7 Ogden, Katherine. Forging News (Part one of four): The News Media's Misrepresentation of the Art Criminal. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Metropolitan Police. Art forgery event at V and A museum. http://content.met.police.uk/News/Art-‐forgery-‐event-‐at-‐V-‐and-‐A-‐museum/1260267490421/1257246745756 (accessed June 6, 2013).
5 2043339m
art crime, educate people about what to look for, and encourage further reporting of
these crimes.”12
Fig. 1 Man investigating artwork at the Victoria and Albert Museum’s
exhibit “The Metropolitan Police Service’s Investigation of Fakes and
Forgeries” 13
A similar article, “Fighting forgery in the art world,” appeared in BBC News in
2006 detailing the creation of a room in the Victoria and Albert Museum dedicated to
“duds from the art market.”14 Throughout this article, journalist Clare Babbidge
develops an uncompromising view of forgeries as objects devoid of value. Detective
Sergeant Rapley, of the MET’s Arts and Antiquities Unit, is quoted in the article:
“The money [from art crime] is being used to fund drugs, firearms, and other
offences.”15 In a further attempt to address the growing criminal presence of forgery,
the MET has commissioned Specialist Crime Fraud Teams, known as ArtBeat
12 Ibid. 13 Man investigating artwork at the Victoria and Albert Museum’s exhibit “The Metropolitan Police Service’s Investigation of Fakes and Forgeries.” Photograph. 2011. BlouinArtInfo. http://blogs.artinfo.com/secrethistoryofart/2011/06/28/the-metropolitan-police-services-investigation-of-fakes-and-forgeries-wins-international-award/ (accessed July 19, 2013). 14 Babbidge, Clare. Fighting forgery in the art world. November 23, 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6172206.stm (accessed April 30, 2013). 15 Ibid.
6 2043339m
Specialists, to work in conjunction with museum professionals to engage the art
community and prevent the dissemination of fakes and forgeries.16
The FBI and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) are devoting more and more time and resources toward the
education of public awareness of art crime. Financial institutions, notably, Deloitte
Development LLC feature multiple webpages dedicated to informing their clients
about the prevention of art fraud.
So why aren’t more museums working with law enforcement to create
pertinent exhibits? It is undeniable that forgeries exist in museum storerooms around
the world. Is it possible to find a practical balance between the ‘sexy’ fake and the
‘corrupt’ fake? After all, forgeries are a reality and the results of forgery are tangible;
so can’t we find a practical use for them?
The first modern exhibit on forgeries in the 20th century was the Pennsylvania
Museum’s 1916 exhibit, “Fakes and Reproductions.”17 The Museum’s exhibit was
very popular and included artwork from all over the world.18 Most importantly, the
education motive for the exhibit was clear: aid collectors in learning the difference
between fakes and forgeries.19 Furthermore, the exhibit addressed contributed a
response to growing concerns about the discovery of forgeries in early 20th century
museum collections—develop a museological response to fakes because they are a
museological reality.
In his 1934 article, “The Psychology and Aesthetics of Forgery in Art,” Hans
Tietze explores the motivations behind the creation of forgeries and develops the
argument that society drives the market for fakes. He further determines that fakes are
the cause of an eagerness for spiritual or monetary reward or the result of patriotic or
religious zeal.20 Throughout his article, Tietze establishes the theory that forgeries are
created to fill an aesthetic gap created by the art-world elite’s cultivated cultural
16 Metropolitan Police. Artbeat specials on patrol. April 20, 2010. http://content.met.police.uk/News/Artbeat-‐specials-‐on-‐patrol/1260267473067/1257246745756 (accessed May 3, 2013). 17 Barber, Edwin A. "Special Exhibit of "Fakes and Reproductions.” Bulletin of the Pennsylvania Museum (Philadelphia Museum of Art) 14, no. 54 (Apr 1916): 20-‐23. 18 Ibid, 20. 19 Ibid, 23. 20 Tietze, Hans. "The Psychology and Aesthetics of Forgery in Art." Metropolitan Museum Studies (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 5, no. 1 (Aug 1934): 2-‐3.
7 2043339m
preference for antique artwork.21 Consequently, Tietze establishes the argument that
the production of fakes is perpetuated by the very society financially affected by the
sale of forgeries, writing: “[forgery] fills a demand created by the desires of collectors
and thrives on the prejudices of those collectors who blindly admire antiques because
they are old or bear famous names.”22 Through the establishment of this argument,
Tietze’s article on forgery remains relevant as a reference source for scholars who aim
to review the evolution of the perceptions of forgeries from the early 20th century to
the present.
Similar to Tietze’s discussion of forgery is Alfred Lessing’s 1965 article,
“What is wrong with a forgery?” Although this article is almost 50 years old, it is still
quoted and analyzed by forgery experts today. Lessing presents the concept of forgery
as an inherently negative concept23 and establishes the complex and now well-
established argument that the value of forgeries cannot be based on their aesthetic
value.24 Forgeries, Lessing argues, are logical, moral, and legal duplicities,25 asserting
that art critics and connoisseurs derive more historical, biographical, economical, and
sociological value from artwork than aesthetic value.26 Lessing creates an in-depth
argument for non-aesthetic standards of judgment for forgeries and in doing so,
inadvertently confronts why museums are unlikely to either acknowledge or
appreciate a forgery aesthetically because of the duplicitous art historical narrative.
Although Lessing’s article presented the standard for the valuation and study of
forgeries by museums at the time of its publication, there have been significant
subsequent advances in the discussion of the artistic value of forgeries since its
publication.
Increasingly, museums and forgery expert are acknowledging that the lines
between what is fake and what is original artwork have evolved and become more and
more complex, blurring the lines of legality along the way. In her 1990 article, “Art
Forgery and Copyright Law: Modifying the Originality Requirement to Prevent the
Forging of Artworks,” Judith Nelson approaches forgery as a logical, moral, and legal
21 Ibid,18. 22 Ibid. 23 Lessing, Alfred. "What Is Wrong with a Forgery?" The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism (Wiley) 23, no. 4 (1965): 463. 24 Ibid, 461. 25 Ibid, 462 26 Ibid, 463.
8 2043339m
concept by exploring of the relationship between art forgery and modern copyright
laws. Nelson’s article remains a valuable resource to museums deliberating the value
of their forgeries by acknowledging that forgeries remain a lawful gray area. 27 What
do museums see as the difference between originality and forgery? Society must
acknowledge that experts and museums will construe these lines differently, which
will affect the interpretation, evaluation, and display of fakes by museums. Although
Nelson believes forgeries have value in a museum context, she concludes that art
forgery negatively affects those involved in the deceit and that original artists deserve
legal protection.28 The legality of forgery and those affected by forgery is rarely
touched on by museums.
Denis Dutton developed an anthropological perspective of Western society’s
relationship with forgery in his 1974 article, “To Understand it on its Own Terms.”
The article critiques an anthropologist’s claim “that the Indian woman who was in
fact copying the designs of other potters with only the smallest variation was unaware
that she copied, condemned copying as wrong, and had a strong conviction that she
was in fact inventive and creative.”29 So what gives us the right to criticize any
creative process or concept of originality?30 Dutton ultimately concludes one can only
understand the originality of an object when you take the time to understand the
cultural circumstances of its creation.31
Does an examination of a fake’s creation and the artist’s cultural motivations
affect whether and how a museum should display a forgery? In his 1999 article,
“What Is Wrong with an Art Forgery,” Ross Bowden investigates the practice of
removing fakes from museum displays the moment they are discovered to be fake.32
To explore this museological abandonment of fakes, Bowden delves into the value
that Western society places on originality in art by “contrasting European attitudes to 27 Nelson, Judith M. "Art Forgery and Copyright Law: Modifying the Originality Requirement to Prevent the Forging of Artworks." Cardozo Arts & Entertinament Law Journal 8, no. 2 (1990): 683-‐720. 28 Ibid, 720. 29 Dutton, Denis. "To Understand it on its Own Terms." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (International Phenomenological Society) 35, no. 2 (Dec 1974): 248. 30 Ibid, 249. 31 Ibid, 252. 32 Bowden, Ross. "What Is Wrong with an art forgery? An Anthropological Perspective." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism (Wiley) 57, no. 3 (1999): 333.
9 2043339m
these matters with the very different attitudes to art and aesthetic value found in a
society with a radically different intellectual history and a radically different concept
of the person.”33 Bowden uses the artistic and religious artwork of the Kwoma people
from the East Sepik Province of Papua New Guinea to compare and contrast the way
in which artistic value differs between Eastern and Western cultures.34 Unlike
Western society, the Kwoma place no value on original works of art or the works’
history and, therefore, have no concept of art forgery.35 By studying the value the
Kwoma’s place on artistic originality, Bowden establishes an argument for art forgery
as a fluid concept, concluding that the aesthetic value of an artwork depends solely on
the society judging its value.36 Together, Bowden and Dutton develop the Western
concept of originality in art, contextualizing the subsequent devaluation of forgeries in
Western museums.
The most recent scholarly research diverges significantly from the work of
Lessing, Tietze, and Nelson by encouraging the interpretation of forgeries as useful
works of art. This pragmatic view of forgery explores Western society’s philosophical
reactions to forgery and establishes proactive approaches to the treatment of forgeries
in Western museums. In his book, Forged, Jonathon Keats presents the most up-to-
date and timely, if theoretical, research on the historical and aesthetic value that art
forgeries contribute to the art world. The analysis of public anxiety in response to
forgery is a prolific aspect of Keats work, in which he attributes the physical and
philosophical response to forgeries as a rationalization for the proposed appearance of
forgeries in museums.37
In his article “In Praise of a Fake,” in the 2013 edition of the New Statesman,
Keats writes that the anxiety caused by forgeries presents the opportunity to “examine
ourselves and our civilization,” by challenging the accepted boundaries of the art
world.38 Through his article, Keats establishes the argument that fakes play an
important role in the development of art and art history in the modern art world. 39
33 Ibid, 334. 34 Ibid, 333. 35 Ibid, 333. 36 Ibid, 342. 37 Keats, Jonathon. Forged. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013: 23. 38 Keats, Jonathon. In Praise of the Fake. May 3, 2013. http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/05/praise-‐fake (accessed May 30, 2013). 39 Ibid.
10 2043339m
Subsequently, his argument provides multiple contexts for the display of fakes in
museums. Another important aspect of Keats research is the acknowledgement of the
recent media fascination with forgeries and the role this has played in developing a
cultural fascination with forgery.40 Ultimately, Keats concludes that it is important for
the world to begin appreciating how the acknowledgement, discussion, and display of
forgeries by museums can facilitate the ultimate goal of museums “to make art more
assertive and accessible to more people.”41 Perhaps Keats is correct. Why can’t
forgeries be used by museums to attract new visitors?
Theirry Lenain’s 2011 book, Art Forgery, is one of the most recent
contributions to the scholarly discussion of forgeries in museums. Although Lenain
approaches the exhibition of forgeries as a practical problem with a practical solution,
his philosophy of the value of forgeries differs significantly from Keats. Lenain
reflects on how the concept of forgeries is a modern concept created as a result of the
19th century criminalization of forgery in Western society, which developed in
response to the growing industrialized world’s rejection of mechanism and the
subsequent emphasis placed on originality and the rising economic value of artwork.42
Although this theory had previously been explored as early as the Arts and Crafts
Movement of the late 19th century,43 Lenain investigates how the criminalization of
forgery has created a stigma against forgeries, creating “an enemy to fight.”44 Lenain
acknowledges that art forgeries, perceived as “museum enemy number one,” present
unwelcome practical problems for museums.45 So what should a museum do with a
forgery? Lenain accepts that fakes have a relevant place in museums and he
proactively develops suggestions for the display of forgeries in museums. He argues
that the display of fakes in museums is dependent primarily on the willingness of the
museum expert and connoisseur “to rationalize the issue beyond the private moments
of his aesthetic experience and beyond the practical situations in which he is put when
40 Keats, Forged: 25. 41 Keats, Jonathon. The Big Idea: Why Forgeries Are Great Art. April 25, 2010. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/25/the-‐big-‐idea-‐why-‐forgeries-‐are-‐great-‐art.html (accessed May 30, 2013). 42 Lenain, Thierry. Art Forgery: The History of a Modern Obsession. London: Reaktion Books, 2011: 13. 43 M. Bellamy, personal communications, June 19, 2013. 44 Lenain, Art Forgery: The History of a Modern Obsession: 20. 45 Ibid, 23.
11 2043339m
a fake is exposed.”46 For these reasons, Lenain determines the only thing standing
between the display and use of fakes in museums is the valuation of forgeries as
assets by museum curators and trustees. 47 Ultimately, Lenain concludes forgeries
have a legitimate place in art history, stating, “Forgery cannot be erased from art
history, which means that the cultural perversity of the forgers has a place in it.”48
Either as cautionary tales or educational tools, Lenain makes a case for the
development and display of forgeries in museums.
In summation, the current available literature on the treatment of forgeries in
museums and the creation and execution of forgery exhibits are largely theoretical and
lack curatorial perspective. So how do curators define forgery? What are the
motivations behind the creation of forgery exhibits? What are the popular themes of
forgery exhibits? What factors make forgery exhibits viable? These questions are
posed to curators in the Curatorial Questionnaire and interviews to determine whether
forgeries are viable and valuable museological assets. The development of the
questionnaire is the subject of the next chapter
46 Ibid, 29. 47 Ibid, 29. 48 Ibid 324.
12 2043339m
3. Methodology
As shown in the Literature Review, discussions over the past 50 years about
the value of forgeries have primarily been theoretical. There has been little scholarly
dialogue with curators and forgery specialists concerning the development of
curatorial perceptions of the value of and subsequent motivations behind the use of
forgeries in modern-day museums. An eight-question Curatorial Questionnaire,49
designed to elicit curators’ views, formed the research foundation for this study (See
Fig. 2 below and Appendix A). Curatorial Questionnaire responses and subsequent
interviews with curators provided insight into the treatment of forgeries in museums,
the development of forgery exhibits, and how forgery exhibits can be used to benefit
Fig. 2 Curatorial Questionnaire
49 Please note that the Curatorial Questionnaire is intended to be a starting point for discussion for any curators who agree to meet with me or discuss for forgeries on the telephone and that any subsequent discussions may diverge from the questionnaire.
Curatorial Questionnaire
1. How would you define a forgery?
2. What factors do you believe motivate forgery?
3. Do you assign any artistic value to a forgery? Please explain.
4. In your time has your institution ever been involved in acquiring an item that was subsequently revealed to be a forgery?
5. What steps were taken to establish the provenance of items prior to acquisition? Are
processes different now?
6. Why do you believe the steps taken were unsuccessful?
7. Have any known forgeries in the museum’s collection been displayed? If so, in what context? If not, where are the forgeries today?
8. Would you ever consider curating an exhibit on forgery? In what context would this
exhibit occur? What themes would you like to explore?
13 2043339m
both the museum and its visitors. The Curatorial Questionnaire was developed to
address gaps in research uncovered during research for this project’s Literature
Review, which shed light on the lack of curatorial perspective of forgeries, including
the definition, motivation, and value of forgeries. Lastly, the Curatorial Questionnaire
was designed to learn whether or not curators would themselves curate an exhibition
on forgeries.
The Curatorial Questionnaire went through several stages of development. The
finalized Curatorial Questionnaire emphasized the curatorial perspective on the value
and treatment of forgeries, while questions concerning the institutional acquisition of
forgeries were either excluded or de-emphasized in the body of this study as they
became irrelevant during the development of this study (See Appendix A). After the
conclusion of the interviews and surveys, questions #1-3 and #8 were primarily used
to address the research objectives of this project.
The Curatorial Questionnaire and a brief summary of the intent of this study
were e-mailed to curators at Glasgow Museums and the Hunterian Museum in
Glasgow, the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, the
Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, and the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los
Angeles, California. The curators from these institutions were asked to complete and
return the Curatorial Questionnaire and/or participate in a discussion of the Curatorial
Questionnaire on the phone or during an in-person meeting (See Appendix A).
Curators were given the option of an anonymous response. Approximately 50 e-mails
were sent to curators at the aforementioned institutions. In response, three completed
Curatorial Questionnaires were received and two interviews were scheduled. Twenty
curators sent responses declining to participate.
Glasgow Museums approached the project as an institution with a curatorial
interview to discuss three previous exhibits on forgeries at the Burrell Collection. The
interview took place at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 19, 2013, at Glasgow Museums
Resource Center (GMRC) and included Vivian Hamilton, Glasgow Museum’s
Research Manager for Art,50 and Martin Bellamy, Glasgow Museum’s Research and
50 Glasgow Museums. Vivien Hamilton: Research Manager Art. 2013. http://collections.glasgowmuseums.com/person.html?pid=53747 (accessed July 18, 2013).
14 2043339m
Curatorial Manager.51 The interview was not taped at the request of the curators,
however, notes were taken and the author was given an exhibit introduction and
object labels from the Burrell Collection’s “Jean-Francois Millet - Under
Investigation” exhibit, as well as the display introduction for the Burrell Collection’s
Daumier display. After a discussion of the three forgery-themed exhibits held at the
Burrell Collection, Hamilton and Bellamy continued the discussion of forgeries by
discussing the Curatorial Questionnaire to the extent that time would allow. Due to
time restrictions, only questions #1-3 and #8 were addressed in this interview.
Another curator at Glasgow Museums completed and returned the Curatorial
Questionnaire anonymously. Hugo Chapman, Keeper and Curator of Italian and
French Drawings from 1400-1800 at the British Museum, also completed a Curatorial
Questionnaire.52
Dr. Kenneth Lapatin, Associate Curator of Antiquities, from the J. Paul Getty
Museum responded after receiving the e-mail with the Curatorial Questionnaire. 53
Lapatin expressed interest in the study, completed the Curatorial Questionnaire, and
offered to participate in a Skype interview to answer any additional questions (See
Appendix B). 54 The interview occurred through Skype on at 7 p.m. on Thursday, June
27, 2013.
Curators from the Smithsonian Institution, the Hunterian Museum, and the
Victoria and Albert declined to complete the Curatorial Questionnaire or to participate
in an interview. The most frequent reasons cited were that the request was outside of
the scope of the curators’ research or that the curators were too busy to complete the
Curatorial Questionnaire.
51 Bellamy, Martin. Personal Communication. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 19, 2013. 52 Trustees of the British Museum. Hugo Chapman: Keeper and Curator of Italian and French Drawings from c. 1400 to c. 1800. 2013. http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/departments/staff/prints_and_drawings/hugo_chapman.aspx (accessed July 18, 2013). 53 Archaeological Institute of America. AIA Lecturer Kenneth Lapatin. 2013. http://www.archaeological.org/lecturer/kennethlapatin (accessed July 18, 2013). 54 The Curatorial Questionnaire used during the interview with Dr. Kenneth Lapatin can be found in Appendix B. Please note that this questionnaire was intended to be a starting point for discussion.
15 2043339m
4. Chapter One: What Is Forgery?
The curatorial definition of the term “forgery” lies at the heart of the valuation
and utilization of forgeries in museum exhibits. The definition of forgery varies
between curators. To provide context for the treatment, perceptions, and valuation of
forgeries and the development of forgery exhibits discussed in this study, each of the
four curators who responded to the Curatorial Questionnaire were asked to define the
term “forgery.” Hamilton of Glasgow Museums, initially defined forgery as an artistic
deception perpetrated for monetary gain.55 She expanded further, stating that to be
considered a forgery, an artwork must contain an inauthentic signature, and that
without the presence of an inauthentic signature, the artwork may be a case of
misattribution, either by the curator, museum, or art dealer.56 For example, the 2012
“Millet Under Investigation” exhibit at the Burrell Collection, included a work “under
investigation” titled, The Peasant Family – La Famille de Paysans. Although The
Peasant Family – La Famille de Paysans is a painting in the style of Millet and was
acquired by William Burrell as a Millet, it bears no signature.57 The question for
Hamilton must have been, is this a forgery? For Hamilton and the Burrell Collection
exhibit team, The Peasant Family – La Famille de Paysans is not regarded as a fake.
The exhibit label concludes: “The work is not signed, so it’s not a fake.”58
Conclusively, it has been misattributed to the artist Millet. Although Hamilton’s
definition of forgery appears straightforward, she acknowledges that the definition of
forgery is evolving and growing evermore complex.59
The three other participating curators’ definitions of forgery are similar to
Hamilton’s definition. Lapatin from the J. Paul Getty Museum defines forgery as “an
item, or work of art, made, sold, and/or presented under false pretenses as something
it is not, whether of an earlier date, by a particular artist.”60 Chapman of the British
55 Hamilton, Vivien. Interview by author. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 19, 2013. 56 Ibid. 57 The Burrell Collection. Museum label for WHO IS THIS BY?, The Peasant Family – La Famille de Paysans, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2012. 58 Ibid. 59 Hamilton, Vivien. Interview by author. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 19, 2013. 60 Lapatin, Kenneth. “Curatorial Questionnaire.” Questionnaire. 20 June 2013.
16 2043339m
Museum defines forgery as “a work purporting and deliberately made to be something
it is not.”61 Notably, while the definitions of forgery above define forgery as the
deliberate misrepresentation of original works of art, the fourth participating curator’s
definition is broadened to include forged artifacts. Their definition is broader and
more historically complex than the “art” and “artwork” based definitions presented by
the curators above. The fourth participating curator from Glasgow Museums closely
echoes Lapatin’s definition of forgery, writing: “An artifact, which has been
knowingly made by someone with the intention that it should be identified as a
genuine work of art, often linked to a known, famous maker (although other types of
items – not only art-related - can also be made with this intent).“62
All four curators acknowledge there is historical value inherent in forgeries.
The anonymous curator from Glasgow Museums designates forgeries over 100 years
old as valuable because they have the ability to tell us about “the materials, practices,
and stylistic assessments which were applied by its maker during the period of its
making.”63 Lapatin concurs, writing that while forgeries “cannot represent accurately
the historical period it purports to be from...[they] can, however, be quite valuable as
evidence of the modern reception of the specific period, artists, etc.. The successful
ones are closely in tune with modern perceptions and desires, whether historically
accurate or not.”64 Bellamy, for his part, believes that while forgeries will never be
primary evidence, forgeries can develop legitimate places in art history through
extensive research on the part of curators.65
This acknowledgement of the historical value of forgeries may be the first key
to finding a context for forgeries in museum exhibits. These curatorial definitions of
forgery, however, actively separate the historic value of forgeries from the artistic
value. Thus, the artistic value of forgeries and subsequently the aesthetic enjoyment of
forgeries, are treated as negligible and are rarely discussed. Chapman responding to
the question asking whether he assigns any artistic value to a forgery explains: “The
successful forger is adopting another artist’s way of working/thinking so their artistic
61 Chapman, Hugo. “Curatorial Questionnaire.” Questionnaire. 19 June 2013. 62 Anonymous. “Curatorial Questionnaire.” Questionnaire. 13 June 2013. 63 Ibid. 64 Lapatin, Kenneth. “Curatorial Questionnaire.” Questionnaire. 20 June 2013. 65 Bellamy, Martin. Interview by author. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 19, 2013.
17 2043339m
value is negligible.”66 Conversely, Lapatin writes: “An excellent forgery can bring
aesthetic pleasure no less, even more than, a genuine historical work of lesser
technical quality.”67 Here, Lapatin’s valuation of the aesthetic value of forgeries
echoes the growing movement, arguably led by Keats that argues that it is possible to
appreciate and value forgeries on an aesthetic level, separate from its artistic value.
Although all four participating curators agree forgeries are works of art or
artifacts created to deceive, the difference in the details of their definitions appear to
vary by art historical discipline. Lapatin, whose specialization is Ancient
Mediterranean Art and Archaeology (Aegean Bronze Age, Greek and Roman)68
stresses that forged antiquities are rarely signed and mal-intent is usually unclear. For
these reasons, it can be be inferred that the only hallmark of a forged antiquity would
be that it is made in the image of or purported to be something it is not at the time of
acquisition.69 Conversely, Hamilton, whose area of expertise is European Art 1800-
1950 and Scottish Art 1880-1950,70 relies on unauthentic signature to distinguish
between forgery and misattribution.71 The difference in their definitions of forgery is
most likely the byproduct of Hamilton and Lapatin’s distinctive art historical
disciplines. Although their definitions vary slightly, both curators maintain a positive
historical valuation of forgeries.
Lenain, in his book, Art Forgery: The History of a Modern Obsession,
describes the developing “post-modern” approach to the evaluation of forgeries as
“less emotional: They suspend their moral judgment, do not contend themselves with
condemnation, do not rush into oversimplification, consider the problem historically,
and do their very best to take every aspect into account.”72 The post-modern view of
forgeries is based on developing and recognizing the historical value of forgeries.73
This practical evaluation of forgeries relies on the fact that they can be functional
assets to museums that are willing to accept artwork which will “not [be] divided into
66 Chapman, Hugo. “Curatorial Questionnaire.” Questionnaire. 19 June 2013. 67 Lapatin, Kenneth. “Curatorial Questionnaire.” Questionnaire. 20 June 2013. 68 Archaeological Institute of America, AIA Lecturer Kenneth Lapatin. 69 Lapatin, Kenneth. Interview by author. Tape recording. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 27, 2013. 70 Glasgow Museums, Vivien Hamilton: Research Manager Art. 71 Hamilton, Vivien. Interview by author. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 19, 2013. 72 Lenain, Art Forgery: The History of a Modern Obsession, 18. 73 Ibid.
18 2043339m
two neatly separated hemispheres, that of the authentic objects ‘above’ and that of the
spurious ones ‘below.’”74 The definitions of forgery by the participating curators lend
clarity to the historic, artistic, aesthetic, and therefore, practical museological value
and use of forgeries by curators and museums. The next chapter will focus on the
development and motivations behind the participating curator’s forgery exhibitions.
74 Ibid.
19 2043339m
5. Chapter Two: Forgery Exhibits, 1990-Present
5.1 Early Forgery Exhibits
The forgery exhibits discussed in this chapter were not the first forgery
exhibits of the 20th century. The first known forgery exhibit after the turn of the
century was the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s 1914 exhibit of the Riggs Collection
in the Armor Department.75 The goal of the exhibit was to engage students in an
educational study of fakes by letting them handle forgeries and compare and contrast
them with the museum’s authentic objects.76 The article describing the exhibit in the
The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin states: “The purpose of the exhibition is
educational. In placing its collection of forgeries in close proximity to authentic
material of a similar kind, the Museum offers the student a splendid opportunity to
train his eye….”77
Between 1914 and 1954 there were six notable forgery exhibits: the
Pennsylvania Museum (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA) in 1916, the Burlington
Fine Arts Club (London, United Kingdom) in 1924, the Ashmolean Museum
(University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom) in 1952, the Louvre in 1954, the
Grand Palais (Paris, France) in 1955, and the British Museum in 1961. All exhibits
incorporated the same general themes: education, comparison, and illustration.
Between 1960 and 1990, the exhibit of forgeries in museums was negligible. One
reason may have been the fact that a large number of forgeries were disseminated
during the 1950s.78 According to former Brooklyn Museum curator, Donald Spanel,
the Brooklyn Museum acquired the majority of their Coptic forgeries between the late
1950s and early 1970s.79 When the identification of these forgeries occurred in the
late 1970s, they went largely unaddressed and these acquisitions were removed from
75 Grancsay, Stephen V. "An Exhibition of Forgeries." The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 27, no. 2 (February 1932): 46. 76 Ibid, 48. 77 Ibid. 78 Taylor, Kate. Brooklyn to Exhibit Fake Art. July 15, 2008. http://www.nysun.com/arts/brooklyn-‐to-‐exhibit-‐fake-‐art/81900/ (accessed July 18, 2013). 79 Ibid.
20 2043339m
display.80 Whatever the reason, the absence of forgery exhibits led to a theoretical
period of literary discussion dominated by writers such as Goodman, Lessing, and
Tietze.
5.2 1990 – Present: The Birth of the Modern Forgery Exhibit
The treatment of forgeries by curators Hamilton and Lapatin provides insight
into the trends toward exhibiting and assessing value to the forgeries in museums
from 1990 to the present day. The beginning of the shift away from mid-century
theoretical discussions about the display and value of forgeries in museums was the
museological response to a number of high-profile forgery acquisitions by major art
museums and the growing public fascination with and awareness of forgeries, detailed
in Steiner’s 1990 New York Times article, “ART; In London, A Catalogue of Fakes.”81
In the article she describes a London “fascinated with fakery, pastiche, and
imitation.”82 The 1990 British Museum exhibit Steiner refers to, “Fake? The Art of
Deception,” openly acknowledged for the first time in 30 years the existence of
forgeries in the British Museum’s collection and confronted the complexity of valuing
forgeries. That same year, the Burrell Collection executed two exhibits containing
forgeries, “Daumier at the Burrell Collection” and “Joseph Crawhall, 1861-1913, One
of the Glasgow Boys.” Both museums effectively set a precedent for the modern
valuation and treatment of forgeries by curators and museums and emphasized
education and public engagement. The treatment of forgeries by these two institutions
illustrates the growing institutional trend in the late 20th century that encouraged the
acknowledgement of forgeries in museum collections.
For these reasons, the year 1990 is significant to the development of the
modern museological interpretation of forgeries because it marks the revitalization of
the topic of forgery in museums and, moreover, the beginning of the development of
the modern treatment of forgeries in museums exhibits. All subsequent major exhibits
occurred after the success of the 1990 forgery exhibits at the Burrell Collection and
the British Museum. Subsequent forgery exhibits include the Bank of England
Museum’s (London, United Kingdom) 2001 exhibit, “Forgery: the Artful Crime”; the
80 Ibid. 81 Steiner, Wendy. Art; In London, A Catalogue of Fakes. 82 Ibid.
21 2043339m
New Rochelle Council on the Arts (New Rochelle, New York, USA) 2001 exhibit,
“Fabulous Fakes”; the Brooklyn Museum’s (Brooklyn, New York, USA) 2009
exhibit, “Unearthing the Truth: Egypt’s Pagan and Coptic Sculpture”; The Victoria
and Albert Museum’s 2010 exhibit, “The Metropolitan Police Service’s Investigation
of Fakes and Forgeries”; the National Gallery’s 2010 exhibit, “Close Examination:
Fakes, Mistakes and Discoveries” (Fig. 3); the Detroit Institute of Art’s (Detroit,
Michigan) 2010 exhibit, “Fakes, Forgery, and Mysteries”; the Museum of Modern Art
in Paris’ 2010 exhibit, “Second Hand”; and the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology’s
(Ann Arbor, Michigan) 2012 exhibit, “The Art of the Fake: Egyptian Forgeries.”
Fig. 3 A visitor looks at “Women at a Window” at the National Gallery’s
exhibit “Close Examination: Fakes, Mistakes and Discoveries”83
In total, there have been at least 26 known forgery exhibits at major museums
and art galleries since 1990, in comparison with 7 major forgery exhibits between
1900 and 1964 (See Appendix C). Countless other significant museums have taken
the pivotal step of acknowledging the existence of forgeries in their museum
collections, notably the J. Paul Getty Museum’s Statue of a Kouros,84 the
83 A visitor looks at “Women at a Window,” by an unknown artist, in the “Close Examination” exhibition at the National Gallery in London. Photograph. 2010. Boston: Sang Tan/Associated Press, 2010. Boston.com. http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2010/07/10/at_londons_national_gallery_a_show_for_art_detectives/ (accessed July 19, 2013). 84 J. Paul Getty Trust. Statue of a Kouros. 2013. http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=12908 (Accessed July 23, 2013).
22 2043339m
Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Estruscan Warriors,85 and the New Orleans Museum
of Art’s (New Orleans, Louisiana) collection of donated works by the forger Mark
Landis.86 These museums form only the tip of the forgery iceberg, exemplifying a
trend in forgery realization that has picked up steam in the past five years.
Two of the four curators who responded to Curatorial Questionnaire have
displayed forgeries in their museum’s collections. Each discussed the intent, impetus,
and visitor reactions of their forgery exhibits.
5.3 The Burrell Collection
Over the past twenty years, Hamilton, has coordinated three forgery exhibits at
the Burrell Collection located in Pollock Park outside of Glasgow, United Kingdom.87
“Daumier in the Burrell Collection”
The first forgery display at the Burrell Collection, in 1990, was the display,
“Daumier in the Burrell Collection.”88 Born out of years of intensive research of
Daumier and the Burrell Collection’s Daumier collection, Hamilton initiated the
display to showcase the extent of the museum’s research into Daumier and highlight
the significance of the authentic Daumier paintings in the Burrell Collection.89 Honoré Daumier (1808-1879) was one of Sir William Burrell’s favorite artists.90 Burrell
appreciated Daumier for his portrayal of “realistic subjects” and use of color and
85 Mystudies.com. A History of Art Forgery. 2013. http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/forgery/history/forgery-‐1.html (Accessed July 23, 2013) 86 Kennedy, Randy. Elusive Forgery, Giving But Never Stealing. January 1, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/arts/design/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all (Accessed July 23, 2013). 87 Glasgow Museums is owned by The City of Glasgow and consists of nine art gallery’s and museums, including The Burrell Collection. For this reason, Glasgow Museum’s and The Burrell Collection will be referred to interchangeably throughout this dissertation. 88 Hamilton, Vivien. Interview by author. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 19, 2013. 89 Ibid. 90 Wall text, “Daumier in the Burrell Collection,” The Burrell Collection, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 1990.
23 2043339m
shading, which appealed to Burrell’s “keen sense of humor.”91 Over his lifetime,
Burrell collected 18 Daumier’s obtained in good faith by both himself and through
trusted dealers throughout Europe.92 The ultimate goal of the exhibit was the
engagement of visitors, accomplished by highlighting modern methods of art research
and investigation, as well as a discussion of Burrell’s methods of collecting.93
Hamilton describes the Daumier display as a small, internal display, curated
with the input and approval of the trustees of the Burrell Collection.94 According to
Hamilton, the overall response to the Daumier display was positive; the press “loved
the display and reported extensively on it.95 Additionally, the display was popular
with museum visitors.96 The temporary Daumier display included 16 Daumier oils
and watercolors; the attributions for four were questionable during the length of the
display.97 The inclusion of the four questionable Daumier’s in the display, according
to Hamilton, was designed to “encourage [visitors] to compare the works ‘formerly
attributed to Daumier” with the other works on display, and to make up [their] own
minds about whether [they] believe them to be by Daumier or not.”98 The visitors to
the Daumier display at the Burrell Collection were encouraged to record their
opinions in comment books left on the staircase by the display.99 Per Hamilton, the
majority of visitors were unable to tell the difference between the works “formerly
attributed to Daumier” and the “right” Daumiers.100 An important aspect of this
display was the creation a visitor dialogue concerning the differences between
institutional misattribution and intentional forgery.
91 Ibid. 92 Ibid. 93 Hamilton, Vivien. Interview by author. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 19, 2013. 94 Ibid. 95 Ibid. 96 Ibid. 97 Ibid. 98 Ibid. 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid.
24 2043339m
“Joseph Crawhall, 1861-1913: One of the Glasgow Boys”
Hamilton’s second forgery exhibit at the Burrell Collection was the 1990
exhibit, “Joseph Crawhall, 1861-1913: One of the Glasgow Boys.”101 Joseph
Crawhall was a member of the so-called Glasgow Boys, a group of Glaswegian artists
who “rebelled against the minutely detailed and resolved style that was fashionable at
that time.”102 Similar to Daumier, Crawhall’s works are described as “humorous” with
a “focus on light, color, design and composition, rejecting the rigid form of the
previously historical set pieces.”103 The “Crawhall” exhibit represented three years of
intensive research by Hamilton carried out between 1987 and 1990.104 During that
time she researched over 135 works by Crawhall in the Burrell Collection and
Glasgow Museums, discovering the majority to be forgeries.105 As part of her
research, Hamilton studied Crawhalls in private collections around the world and
placed requests for knowledge (RFK) in art history publications in an attempt to
discern the original Crawhalls from the fake Crawhalls in William Burrell’s
collection.106 What was the reason for the abundance of fake Crawhalls in Burrell’s
collection? Through her research, Hamilton discovered that at the turn of the 20th
century the market for Crawhalls was cornered by a select group of collectors.107 In
response to the growing frustrations about the unavailability of Crawhall paintings,
forgers created fake Crawhalls and actively targeted potential patrons.108 The
popularity of Crawhall forgeries at the turn of the 20th century exemplifies the
potential financial impact forgeries present for both collectors and museums.
101 Ibid. 102 Ross, Fern. Joseph Crawhall - An Artist In Morocco And Spain At The Burrell Collection. February 21, 2006. http://www.culture24.org.uk/art/art34457 (accessed August 9, 2013). 103 Ibid. 104 Hamilton, Vivien. Interview by author. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 19, 2013. 105 Ibid. 106 Ibid. 107 Ibid. 108 Ibid.
25 2043339m
“Millet Under Investigation at the Burrell Collection”
Hamilton’s most recent forgery exhibit was the 2012 exhibit, “Millet Under
Investigation at the Burrell Collection.”109 Comparable to the Daumier display and the
Crawhall exhibit, which preceded the Millet exhibit by more than twenty years, the
Millet exhibit, “[celebrated] the richness of the [Burrell’s] collection.”110 Jean-
François Millet (1814-1875) was a popularly forged artist at the turn of the 20th
century.111 Millet forgeries began to appear on the art market shortly after his death in
1875.112 The most notable fakes were perpetrated by his grandson Jean-Charles Millet
and Paul Cazot in the 1930s.113 Like Daumier and Crawhall, Burrell acquired his
Millet artworks in good faith.114
Councilor Archie Graham, Chair of GlasgowLife, described how the Millet
exhibit was conceptualized, writing: “Sometimes examinations raise doubts about the
authenticity of the works [of artists] but we are determined that where questions are
raised, we do our best to answer them.”115 Later in the interview, Graham explains
further: “There are so many unsolved mysteries in the art world and this fantastic
exhibit will not only highlight some beautiful works, but allow the public a better
understanding of the decades of detective work our curators and experts do to
establish the truth.”116 The theme of investigation is prevalent throughout the Millet
exhibit. The exhibit’s introductory panel encourages visitors to give feedback and
“engage in the debate” about the authenticity of the Millet works “under
investigation.”117
109 Ibid. 110 Wall text, “Jean-‐Francois Millet – Under Investigation,” The Burrell Collection, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2012. 111 Wall text, “Jean-‐Francois Millet – Under Investigation,” The Burrell Collection, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2012. 112 Ibid. 113 Ibid. 114 Ibid. 115 GlasgowLife. Millet Under Investigation at The Burrell Collection. July 13, 2012. http://www.glasgowlife.org.uk/news/Pages/Millet-‐Under-‐Investigation-‐at-‐The-‐Burrell-‐Collection.aspx (accessed July 18, 2013). 116 Ibid. 117 Wall text, “Jean-‐Francois Millet – Under Investigation,” The Burrell Collection, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2012.
26 2043339m
The authentic Millet oils, pastels, and drawings were displayed at the
beginning of the exhibit so that by the time visitors made it to the Millet works “under
investigation” at the end of the exhibit they would feel confident about formulating
critical questions about the works “under investigation.”118 All Millet artworks, both
authentic and “under investigation,” were displayed with comprehensive object labels
detailing their acquisition, the original price paid for the artwork, and why the Millet
exhibit team recognized the artwork as either an original or “under investigation.”
Through the conversion of the original price paid for the artwork into today’s
monetary value, it becomes clear just how much the sale and acquisition of forgeries
can affect the art market. Additionally, the exhibit presents a history of each work of
art. For example, the exhibit label for the “under investigation” The Peasant Family –
La Famille de Paysans incorporates the medium used and history of the artwork and
reveals why Hamilton and her team doubt the artwork’s authenticity. The visitor
learns that Burrell purchased The Peasant Family – La Famille de Paysans in
December 1917 from the Glaswegian art dealer Alex Reid for £717 or £49,000 in
today’s art market.119 The exhibit label, “Fakes?” contextualized the theme of the
exhibit by exploring the popularity of Millet’s work and the subsequent creation of a
market for forged Millets.120 By providing museum visitors with information about
the acquisition and research of these artworks “under investigation,” visitors to the
Burrell Collection were given the tools to investigate and engage with forgeries.
5.4 The British Museum
The 1990 forgery exhibit at the British Museum titled “Fake? The Art of
Deception,”121 created a worldwide museological precedent for the development of
forgery exhibits by principal world museums through the display of more than 600
artifacts.122 The artifacts on display represented a collected time period spanning from
118 Hamilton, Vivien. Interview by author. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 19, 2013. 119 The Burrell Collection. Museum label for WHO IS THIS BY?, The Peasant Family – La Famille de Paysans, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2012. 120 Ibid. 121 Note that the participating curator, Hugo Chapman, was not involved in any forgery exhibit at the British Museum discussed in this study. 122 Steiner, Wendy. Art; In London, A Catalogue of Fakes.
27 2043339m
Egyptian antiquity to the present and included Charles Darwin’s assembled Piltdown
Man, The Protocol’s of the Elders of Zion, and Thomas Parnell’s Zinoviev Letter.123
Through this exhibit, the British Museum explored the social, political, scientific, and
historical impact of forgeries and shed light on the untraditional motivations of
forgeries.124
Critics praised the British Museum’s forgery exhibit as a comprehensive and
the exhibit’s catalogue of the same name was widely read and positively reviewed.
Summerfield writes of the exhibit: “The exhibition will undoubtedly prove popular
with the public…”125 Marcia Reed, reviewing the exhibit’s catalogue describes the
theme of the exhibit: “The primary thread which binds the entire project is the
definition of a fake…Definition of extensional qualities is provided by the many
examples in the show which illustrate how widespread are the practices and numerous
the phenomena.”126 She ultimately concludes that the exhibit was “Artfully conceived,
wittily composed, and with extraordinarily full documentation…it is a pure pleasure
to read, reread, rethink, and review.”127 The positive feedback and critical success of
the British Museum’s and the world’s first forgery exhibit in nearly 30 years may
have provided the precedence for future forgery exhibits at other large museological
institutions.
5.5 The significance of the Burrell Collection and the British Museum 1990
Forgery Exhibits
In 1990, the Burrell Collection and the British Museum, arguably set the tone
for the modern and acceptable interpretation of forgeries in the museum space by not
only acknowledging their forgeries, but by creating a space for them and engaging
their visitors in the process of identifying, appreciating, and discussing forgeries. 1990
was not only a significant year for the advancement of forgeries in museums but
represented a period of significant cultural and philosophical advancement,
promotion, and dilemma for both institutions. In 1990 Glasgow became the first city
123 Ibid. 124 Ibid. 125 Summerfield, Angela,"Staking out fakes:" 436. 126 Reed, Marcia. "Fake?: The Art of Deception Review." Art Documentation, Winter 1990: 215. 127 Ibid, 216.
28 2043339m
in the United Kingdom to be name the European Capitol of Culture and 21 years on,
Glasgow remains the second most visited city by tourists, outside of London.128
Robert Palmer, Director of Glasgow 1990 European Capital of Culture remarked on
the effects of the endeavor 20 years on stating: “Glasgow 1990 helped to kick-start
ongoing process of social and community development, with increased access and
participation in the arts…”129 Similarly, the British Museum was presented in the
1990s with a decision, which may have ultimately affected its ability to produce its
notable blockbuster exhibitions, including “Fake? The Art of Deception.”
During the 1990s, the British Museum was politically pressured to begin
charging general admission.130 The implications of charging general admission may
have included a drop in visitor numbers and subsequent drops in government and
private funding.131 However, the British Museum chose to remain free of admission
and perhaps as a result of this decision it remains a top five museum in the world and
The Art Newspaper attendance surveys report annual rises in visitor numbers.132
Although in comparison to the British Museum’s 1990 exhibit, the Burrell
Collection’s Duamier display and Crawhall exhibit were small, they created a new
and unique dialogue between visitors and the museum about the existence and value
of the forgeries in its collection.133 In his book, Art Forgery, Lenain argues for this
display of forgeries and believes this will only be accomplished once museums and
curators are able to put aside their aesthetic prejudices and the feeling of being
“caught-out” by the discovery of a forgery in their collection.134
Through the Duamier display and the Crawhall and Millet exhibits and the
British Museum’s Fake? exhibit, the Burrell Collection, Glasgow Museums, and the
British Museum have successfully avoided any issues of institutional, curatorial, or
128 Glasgow Cultural Statistics Digest. Glasgow Cultural Statistics Digest. 2011. http://www.culturesparks.co.uk/intelligence/information/glasgow-‐cultural-‐statistics-‐digest (accessed August 10, 2013). 129 Palmer, Robert. European Capitals of Culture: the road to success from 1985 to 2010. European Capital of Culture, European Union Publications: 18. 130 Pes, Javier. Ten years of free entry, but can it last? February 1, 2012. http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Ten-‐years-‐of-‐free-‐entry-‐but-‐can-‐it-‐last/25518 (accessed August 10, 2013). 131 Ibid. 132 Ibid. 133 Hamilton, Vivien. Interview by author. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 19, 2013. 134 Lenain, Art Forgery: The History of a Modern Obsession, 29.
29 2043339m
public prejudice by facing forgeries head-on, creating institutional transparency
designed to engage and inform museum visitors. Lenain describes the British
Museum’s 1990 forgery exhibit as “one of the first of its kind – a catalogue of calmly
revisited ‘errors,’ free of the negative spirit that conducted previous projects of the
same kind....”135 Lenain’s positive review of the exhibit established the British
Museum as the forerunner in the modern museological treatment of forgeries,
“[departing] from the old (that is, the ‘modern’) logic of denial.”136 The exhibitions at
the Burrell Collection and British Museum created a museological precedence for the
acceptance and display of forgeries long buried in museum storerooms.
The extent of the British Museum’s and the Burrell Collection’s roles in
developing the modern interpretation of forgeries in museums is open to
interpretation. However, there is no doubt that their 1990 forgery exhibits created a
blueprint for forgery exhibits of the present day. For example, the 2013 exhibit,
“Fakes & Forgeries: Yesterday and Today,” at the Currency Museum (Ottawa,
Canada) displays forgeries next to their authentic counterparts and invites the visitor
to “play detective”137 and the 2013 exhibit at the Collection Museum (Lincoln, United
Kingdom) titled “Fakes and Forgeries,” encourages visitors to take their online
“Forgeries Quiz” in an effort to engage visitors on alternate levels.138 The upcoming
2014 exhibit at the Canton Museum of Art (Canton, Ohio), “Intent to Deceive: Fakes
and Forgeries in the Art World,” encourages visitors to “test their detective skills” as
they explore the differences between the fakes and the originals. 139
135 Ibid, 18. 136 Ibid. 137 Bank of Canada. Fakes & Forgeries: Yesterday and Today. 2013. http://www.currencymuseum.ca/exhibit/past-‐exhibit/fake-‐forgeries-‐yesterday-‐and-‐today/ (accessed July 18, 2013). 138 Lincolnshire County Council. Heritage Crime Exhibition 'Fakes and Forgeries' Quiz. February 11, 2013. http://www.thecollectionmuseum.com/?/blog/view/heritage-‐crime-‐exhibition-‐fakes-‐and-‐forgeries-‐quiz (accessed July 18, 2013). 139 Canton Museum of Art. Upcoming Exhibits. 2013. http://www.cantonart.org/20 (accessed July 18, 2013).
30 2043339m
5.5 The J. Paul Getty Museum
In 2009, Lapatin curated an exhibit at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles,
California, which included themes of forgery.
“Carvers and Collectors: The Lasting Allure of Ancient Gems”
Lapatin curated the J. Paul Getty Museum’s 2009 exhibit, “Carvers and
Collectors: The Lasting Allure of Ancient Gems,” incorporated an “Emulation and
Forgery” display, which demonstrated the popularity of gem forgeries from the
Renaissance to the 19th century and provided evidence of the value, popularity, and
importance of cameos and intaglios in that period.140 Similar to the setup of
Hamilton’s Burrell Collection forger exhibits, Lapatin exhibited two pieces of gems
and encouraged visitors to apply their newfound knowledge of forgeries to detect the
differences between the forgery and the authentic gem.141 This “detective game” has
become an overwhelmingly popular and effective museological approach to the
development of forgery exhibits. The old fashioned detective story, Lapatin suggests,
is often the key to engaging museum visitors.142 The inclusion of themes of forgery in
traditional museum exhibits demonstrates the willingness of museum curators to
invest in unconventional research and openly engage with visitors on multiple levels.
The success of this exhibit indicates that traditional forgery exhibits are not the only
option for the display of a museum’s forgeries. The inclusion of forgeries in
traditional exhibits by the Burrell Collection and the J. Paul Getty Museum may
represent the most viable option for the inclusion of forgeries in museum exhibits.
The evolution and future of forgeries and forgery exhibits will be discussed in the
next chapter.
140 J. Paul Getty Trust. Carvers and Collectors: The Allure of Ancient Gems. 2009. http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/gems/ (accessed July 18, 2013). 141 Lapatin, Kenneth. Interview by author. Tape recording. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 27, 2013. 142 Ibid.
31 2043339m
6. Chapter Three: The Evolution of the Forgery Exhibit
As the first chapter has demonstrated there is a great similarity in the treatment
of forgeries and the development of forgery exhibits between different types of
museological institutions. This is in contrast to scholarly and public perceptions of
public museums shying away from the display of forgeries, which presumably
represent tangible reminders of lost public investments. In her 1990 article, “Staking
Out Fakes” published in the Burlington Magazine in response to the British
Museum’s 1990 exhibit, Angela Summerfield writes, “You might think that public
institutions, once aware of their purchasing mistakes, would hastily consign such
worthless errors of judgment to some distant basement.”143 Others consign the success
of forgeries in museological institutions to particular countries. The “fakebuster”
Giuseppe Cellini contends, “American museums tend to keep their fakes quiet or
secret due to their having sold out to their wealthy donors and trustees.”144 In truth,
American museums have resisted Cellini’s stereotypes by accounting for one third of
the forgery exhibits from 1990 to the present in five public museums and three private
museums. And, since 1990, more and more museums are dusting off their fakes and
displaying them (See Appendix C)
When confronted with these museological stereotypes Lapatin stresses the
treatment of forgeries in museums must be examined on a case-by-case basis. The
display of forgeries may denote a commitment to institutional transparency. What
factors influence the promotion of institutional transparency? Lapatin suggests the
factors are complicated and depend ultimately on the agenda of the museum. At times
of budget cutting, a museum is more likely to not “make a big deal” of the forgeries in
its collection.145 On the other hand, if the museum wants to become more transparent
and refocus its exhibits on the research being conducted and on engaging visitors,
than forgery exhibits can be valuable assets. Lapatin’s comments could be interpreted
as implying that the valuation and treatment of forgeries may have less to do with
143 Summerfield, Angela. "Staking out fakes." Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce 138, no. 5406 (May 1990): 434. 144 Hoving, Thomas. False Impressions: The Hunt for Big Time Art Fakes. New York, NY: Touchstone, 1996: 17. 145 Lapatin, Kenneth. Interview by author. Tape recording. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 27, 2013.
32 2043339m
hesitance on the part of embarrassed curators, where they are located or even if they
are part of public or private museological institutions, and more to do with the
institutional goals and budget of the museum or gallery.
Comparing public institutions to private institutions only yields insight into
the similar way in which they approach forgery exhibits. No data uncovered shows
hesitancy on the part of public museums to display forgeries. Since 1990, there have
been 26 forgery exhibits in 20 different institutions (See Appendix C). Of these
institutions, more than half are classified as public institutions. Due to this, it can be
inferred, statistically, that public museums are placing a premium on transparency and
knowledge, a sentiment echoed in 2012 by a British Museum spokesperson who
stated to BBC News and Entertainment following The Art Newspaper’s release of the
world’s most visited museums that, “The museum is committed to ensuring we show
the world the world….”146
6.1 The Success of Museums with Forgery Exhibits
The National Gallery and British Museum’s blockbuster forgery exhibits of
2010 and 2012, respectively, demonstrate their commitment to visitor engagement. To
quantify the success of the National Gallery and the British Museum in the wake of
forgery exhibits, this study will examine their visitor rankings. The results of The Art
Newspaper’s most visited art venue poll in 2010 ranked the British Museum #2 with
5,842,138 visitors and the National Gallery #5 with 4,954,914 visitors. 147 These
rankings are an improvement from the British Museum’s #4 rank with 4,837,878
visitors and the National Gallery’s #8 rank with 4,159,485 visitors in 2007.148 The
National Gallery ranked #5 and the British Museum ranked #3 at the start of 2012 and
their visitor numbers continue to rise.149
146 BBC News . Louvre in Paris tops most visited art venue poll. March 23, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-‐arts-‐17472587 (accessed July 18, 2013). 147 The Art Newspaper. “Exhibition & Museum Attendance Figures 2010.” The Art Newspaper no. 223 (April 2011): 24. 148 The Art Newspaper. “Exhibition & Museum Attendance Figures 2007.” The Art Newspaper no. 189 (March 2008): 27. 149 BBC News. Louvre is most visited venue of 2012. March 28, 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-‐arts-‐21965220 (accessed August 10, 2013).
33 2043339m
A common denominator between the most visited museums in the United
Kingdom, specifically the British Museum and the National Gallery, was not only
past forgery exhibits, but a well-publicized willingness to engage the public and the
ability to stage blockbuster exhibitions. The Art Newspaper’s deputy editor, Javier
Pes, ascribed the enduring and increased popularity of these topped-ranked
institutions to their resourcefulness and their willingness to explore their
collections.150 The National Gallery attributed its success to “the strength of engaging
exhibits with a wide appeal.”151 This commitment to engaging the public and staging
popular exhibitions to draw in large number may be the impetus for the further
development of forgery exhibits. The foundation of the British Museum’s mission is
“the practical principal that the collection should be put to public use and be freely
accessible.”152 This foundation is continually being expanded through the
development of new British Museum initiatives, which aim to “[engage museum
visitors] not only with the collections that the Museum has, but the cultures and
territories that they represent, the stories that can be told through them, the diversity
of truths that they can unlock and their meaning in the world today.”153 Likewise, the
National Gallery’s current objectives outline the Gallery’s mission to “encourage all
aspects of scholarship on the collection” and ensure “access to the collection for the
education and enjoyment of the possible public.”154
Museums that put on forgery exhibits tend to be some of the most popular
museums nationally, consistently receiving high visitor numbers. Studies and polls
that list the most visited and most popular museums in the Association of Leading
Visitor Attractions (ALVA) show that during the years of forgery exhibits, according
to ALVA visitor number figures accessible from 2004 onwards, those British museums
ranked highly among the most visited museums of the year in the United Kingdom. In
150 BBC News . Louvre in Paris tops most visited art venue poll. 151 Ibid. 152 Trustees of the British Museum. About Us. 2013. http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/management/about_us.aspx (accessed July 18, 2013). 153 Ibid. 154 The National Gallery. Constitution: Objectives. 2013. http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/about-‐us/organisation/constitution/constitution/*/viewPage/3 (accessed July 18, 2013).
34 2043339m
2006, the Victoria and Albert Museum was ranked #7155 and #6 in 2010, the National
Gallery was ranked #3 in 2010,156 and in 2012 the British Museum was ranked #1.157
This is compared to the Victoria and Albert’s #9 and the British Museum’s #2 and #3
ranking in 2005158 and 2004, respectively.159
The overall success of forgery exhibits bodes well for the viability of future
forgery exhibits. Museum metrics play an important role in gauging the success of an
exhibit and forgery exhibits are proving to be very popular with museum visitors. A
study by Ben Alsop at the British Museum lends evidence to the popularity of forgery
exhibits.160 In 2012, during the Olympic and Paralympics Games in London, a study
of a new exhibit in the Citi Money Gallery in the British Museum titled, “Forgery,
Suffragettes and Nirvana: Tracking Visitors in the Citi Money Gallery,” was
published on the British Museum Blog.161 The goal of the study was to ascertain
which cases were most popular with museum visitors. To accomplish this, Alsop and
his team observed visitors, mapped visitor routes through the gallery, and analyzed
visitor Curatorial Questionnaires (Fig. 5).162 In the eight weeks the study was active,
data was captured from visitors of over 25 different nationalities with an age range
from 12 to 70.163 According to the study, the most popular case was the “Forgery and
155 Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. Visitors Made in 2006 to Visitor Attractions in Member with ALVA. 2006. http://alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=601 (accessed July 18, 2013). 156 Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. Visits Made in 2010 to Visitor Attraction in Membership with ALVA. 2010. http://alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=596 (accessed July 18, 2013). 157 Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. Visits Made in 2012 to Visitor Attraction in Membership with ALVA. 2012. http://alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=598 (accessed July 18, 2013). 158 Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. Visits Made in 2005 to Visitor Attraction in Membership with ALVA. 2005. http://alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=602 (accessed August 10 18, 2013). 159 Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. Visits Made in 2004 to Visitor Attraction in Membership with ALVA. 2004. http://alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=603 (accessed August 10 18, 2013). 160 Alsop, Ben. Tracking visitor paths through the gallery, in Forgery, Suffragettes and Nirvana: tracking visitor in the Citi Money Gallery. December 17, 2012. http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2012/12/17/forgery-‐suffragettes-‐and-‐nirvana-‐tracking-‐visitors-‐in-‐the-‐citi-‐money-‐gallery/ (accessed July 18, 2013). 161 Ibid. 162 Ibid. 163 Ibid.
35 2043339m
Money” case.164 The “Forgery and Money” case encouraged visitors to compare their
pound coins to the coins in the case, asking them if they could tell the difference
between the forgeries and their real coins (Fig. 6).165 The case proved so popular with
visitors that it had to be cleaned daily.166 The shared fascination of the contents of the
forgery case by visitors consisting of such a wide range of nationalities and age
indicates a growing global fascination with forgery and authenticity.167
Fig. 4 Mapped Visitor Route Through the Citi Money Gallery at the British
Museum’s exhibit “Forgery, Suffragettes and Nirvana: Tracking Visitors in
the Citi Money Gallery”168
164 Ibid. 165 Ibid. 166 Ibid. 167 Ibid. 168 Ibid.
36 2043339m
Fig. 5 Forgery and Money Case in the Citi Money Gallery at the British
Museum’s exhibit “Forgery, Suffragettes and Nirvana: Tracking Visitors in
the Citi Money Gallery” 169
BBC News Art Editor Will Gompertz attributes the evolution of the treatment
of forgeries in museums to changes in museum management in the 1980s, writing:
“Until fairly recently a museum saw itself as an academic institution that
begrudgingly opened to the public as part of its state funding deal…. But then, at
some point in the 1980s, a new breed of impresario-cum-museum director emerged
and turned their institutions into visitor attractions.”170 This restructuring of museums
into “visitor attractions,” Gompertz argues, is in response to “the rise of mass-
participation event culture.”171 If Gompertz is correct, the earliest forgery exhibits in
1990 were in response to current changes occurring in museums across the world and
continuing today. According to this data it can be inferred that forgery exhibits are
becoming increasingly popular with the public and increasingly viable exhibit choices
for museums in both Europe, America, and throughout the world.
169 Ibid. 170 BBC News . Louvre in Paris tops most visited art venue poll. 171 Ibid.
37 2043339m
6.2 The Motivations Behind Forgery Exhibits
While the curatorial process of studying and researching and the development
of the presentation of forgeries is complex, the motivations behind the creation of
forgery exhibits simple. The primary motivations behind the inclusion of forgeries in
Hamilton’s Duamier display and the Crawhall and Millet exhibits was the
engagement of the public and the display of the depth of research undertaken by the
curators to understand the museum’s collection and artists.172 Lapatin’s 2009 exhibit,
“Carvers and Collectors: The Lasting Allure of Ancient Gems,” incorporated an
“Emulation and Forgery” section to demonstrate how gem forgeries, perpetrated from
the Renaissance to the 19th century, are valuable evidence of the popularity and
importance of cameos and intaglios in that period. Similar to the arrangement of
Hamilton’s Millet exhibit, Lapatin exhibited two pieces of gems and encouraged
visitors to apply their newfound knowledge of forgeries to detect the differences
between the forgery and the authentic gem.173 Ultimately, the exhibits were designed
to engage museum visitors and the development of the “detective game” has become
an overwhelmingly popular and effective museological approach for forgery exhibits.
The old fashioned detective story, Lapatin suggests, is often the key to engaging
museum visitors.174
The overwhelmingly positive media representations of forgers perpetuate
popular stereotypes of the “sexy” and the “heroic” art forger. Do media stereotypes
impact a museum’s decision to create an exhibit containing forgeries? The short
answer is yes. According to Lapatin, museums are learning to capitalize on the
public’s fascination with “crime stories. If the experts don’t know [an artwork is a
forgery], they like that kind of thing; if rich people waste a lot of money and are
duped, that’s a good story. All those things sell.”175 The Burrell Collection, the British
Museum, the J. Paul Getty Museum, and the National Gallery, among many others,
have exhibited authentic objects alongside forgeries, giving visitors the tools to
compare and contrast authenticity and forgery and encouraging visitors to “play
172 Hamilton, Vivien. Interview by author. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 19, 2013. 173 Lapatin, Kenneth. Interview by author. Tape recording. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 27, 2013. 174 Ibid. 175 Ibid.
38 2043339m
detective.” The words “investigate,” “examine,” and “detective” are overwhelmingly
prevalent in the descriptions and titles of forgery exhibits from 1990 to the present. In
contrast to the media-controlled discussions of forgery, the development of forgery
exhibits present museums with an opportunity to own the forgery discussion and
contextualize the forgeries in their collection and highlight the research being
conducted by its curators.
In his 2009 exhibit “Carvers and Collectors: The Lasting Allure of Ancient
Gems,” Lapatin included forgeries “to mix things up.”176 This treatment of forgeries
arises from museological research and may represent the future treatment of forgeries
in museums. While forgery exhibits, in the strictest terms, rely heavily on a museum’s
budget, focus, and level of transparency, Lapatin believes that forgeries, as
emulations, as stories of transformation and reception, “may continue to rear their
heads, as parts of different projects.”177 This treatment of forgeries suggests that while
forgery exhibits are on the rise, the use of forgeries and forgery stories as components
in traditional exhibits will become commonplace as a way of providing depth and
variation to exhibits.
6.3 The Multidimensional Value of Forgeries
Forgeries have multiple layers of value and what Lapatin wants visitors to take
away from a forgery exhibit is that “quality is not a criterion for authenticity.”178
Forgeries have value as historical documents of the history of taste, desire, reception,
and surprisingly, as works of art.179 Conversely, this means that original works of art
cannot always be identified as aesthetically accomplished. In plain terms, “bad” work
is not necessarily a fake and “good” work is not a hallmark of authenticity.180 What
does this mean for forgeries? The successful forgeries, Lapatin argues, including
some of the gem forgeries in the Getty’s Carvers and Collectors exhibit are “really,
really stunning [works].”181
176 Ibid. 177 Ibid. 178 Ibid. 179 Ibid. 180 Ibid. 181 Ibid.
39 2043339m
In his book, False Impressions: The Hunt for Big Time Art Fakes, Thomas
Hoving describes art authenticity as “a matter of human trust,” and for this reason, “I
have to know the true condition of everything I come across. I have to know that they
are real.”182 Does the “anxiety” that Keats discusses in his major works on forgery,
manifest as the ultimate need to know whether an artwork is original or not?183
Lapatin describes how he felt when studying the snake goddesses for his 2001 book,
Snake Goddess, Fake Goddess. “For the longest time I was fighting this battle with
myself, is it genuine or is it fake? Then I realized that’s where the exhibits can be
really interesting for educating [visitors].”184
What drives the popularity of forgery exhibits? Is it media popularization, is it
fabulous stories of forgers and forgeries, or is it as Hoving, Lapatin, and Keats imply,
a deeply seated human need to know what is “right” and what is “wrong?” Whether a
forgery is “right” or “wrong,” all the curators who participated in this study admit that
forgeries have multiple layers of museological value, including, in some cases,
aesthetic value. Prior to conservation in 1997, Head of a Young Girl, a work “under
investigation” in the Millet exhibit, was a significant piece of artwork in The Burrell
Collection.185 The object label describes a “beautiful pastel study,” reminiscent of
Millet’s technique and style.186 This description can be seen to signify an aesthetic
appreciation for a forgery. Notwithstanding the knowledge that Head of a Young Girl
is a forgery, Hamilton states her appreciation of the painting’s aesthetic
accomplishments and freely admits an abiding love for the artwork.187 Although
Lapatin clearly states that he is not in love, per say, with a forgery, there is a gem that
he admires—a Mark Antony amethyst intaglio, which he describes as “interesting
technically and visually and it comes close to that [love] (Fig. 7).”188
182 Hoving, Thomas. False Impressions: The Hunt for Big Time Art Fakes: 17. 183 Keats, Jonathon. Forged. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013: 23. 184 Lapatin, Kenneth. Interview by author. Tape recording. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 27, 2013. 185 Hamilton, Vivien. Interview by author. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 19, 2013. 186 The Burrell Collection. Museum label for WHO IS THIS BY?, Head of a Young Girl, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2012. 187 Hamilton, Vivien. Interview by author. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 19, 2013. 188 Lapatin, Kenneth. Interview by author. Tape recording. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 27, 2013.
40 2043339m
Fig. 6 Gnaios. Mark Anthony. 40-20 B.C. Amethyst Intaglio. J. Paul Getty
Museum, Los Angeles 189
The emotional attachments and aesthetic appreciation curators develop for the
forgeries they study demonstrate the complexity of valuing a forgery. Although
Chapman describes the artistic value of forgeries as “negligible,” asserting that the
value of forgeries is what the artwork can tell us about “the perception of the artist at
the time the fake was made…what they convey about the art market.”190 The other
three curators concur with Chapman’s analysis of the historical value of forgeries.
On the subject of the value of forgeries, Lapatin insists: “forgeries should not
be tossed in a basement once they are discovered; their value is threefold and the
discovery of a forgery provides valuable opportunity for research and public
engagement.”191 The threefold value of forgeries can be seen as historic, aesthetic,
and visitor engagement. Keats is a strong advocate of seeing forgeries as aesthetically
merited. “If museum art is housebroken,” Keats writes, “forgeries are feral.”192 Keats
sees forgeries as a way to question what museum visitors, professionals, and
institutions see as aesthetically pleasing, provoking, and acceptable. For Keats,
discussion of the value of forgeries is not limited to historical merit or novel
engagement. There is evidence that museums who have philosophy as Lapatin and 189 Gnaios. Mark Anthony. 40-‐20 B.C. Amethyst Intaglio. J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles. http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/gems/ (accessed July 19, 2013). 190 Chapman, Hugo. “Curatorial Questionnaire.” Questionnaire. 19 June 2013. 191 Lapatin, Kenneth. Interview by author. Tape recording. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 27, 2013. 192 Rose, Mathew. Letter from Berlin – Forgeries, pheromones and clones, ten questions for Jonathon Keats. May 13, 2013. http://www.theartblog.org/2013/05/letter-‐from-‐berlin-‐forgeries-‐pheromones-‐and-‐clones-‐ten-‐questions-‐for-‐jonathon-‐keats/ (accessed July 21, 2013).
41 2043339m
Keats are beginning the process of utilizing all aspects of their forgeries, to
increasingly popular appeal.
For this reason, the identification and use of forgeries will continue to
be a complex and time-intensive process for museums. Perhaps, most controversially,
this means that “successful” forgeries are not only valuable in a historical context but
have the ability to be recognized as aesthetically accomplished. Michelangelo and
Leonardo da Vinci, after all, were undoubtedly forgers, in addition to being some of
the most famous, most ingenious artists of all time. Today these men are revered for
their pioneering spirits and ingenuity, and their forgeries are among the most valuable
pieces of artwork in the world. Experts who speculate that da Vinci created the
Shroud of Turin praise him for his forethought and his use of photographic
technology, writing: “He had a hunger to leave something for the future, to make his
mark on the future.” 193 Michelangelo may be the best-known and most respected
forger in history. Among the forgeries attributed to Michelangelo, the Sleeping Cupid
is perhaps the most famous. At the end of an article titled, “Famous Fake Friday:
Michelangelo’s Sleeping Cupid,” the unidentified author writes: “Michelangelo’s
pranks were treated as impressive feats of ingenuity and raw talent rather than willful
deception, which ironically is how forgeries are still treated over five centuries
later.”194 Today, Michelangelo is still praised for his ingenuity and talent at a time
when most forgers are being sent to jail when their duplicity is discovered. The
treatment of Michelangelo the forger throughout history is similar to the treatment of
today’s fictional, ‘sexy’ forger. Michelangelo’s and da Vinci’s forgery tales illustrate
the difference in value and treatment of antique or Renaissance forgeries and modern
day forgeries and help to narrate the complex forgery issues facing curators and
museological institutions.
The dual nature surrounding value conversely means that “successful”
forgeries may have the same potential and inherent museological value than some
193 Jamieson, Alastair. Was the Turin Shroud faked by Leonardo da Vinci. July 1, 2009. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5706640/Turin-Shroud-is-face-of-Leonardo-da-Vinci.html (accessed July 21, 2013). 194 Lost in the Louvre: Not Just Another History Blog. Famous Fake Friday: Michelangelo’s Sleeping Cupid. March 22, 2009. http://lostinthelouvre.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/famous-fake-friday-michelangelos-sleeping-cupid/ (accessed July 24, 2013).
42 2043339m
“bad” original works of art.195 Proponents of the aesthetic value of forgeries are fond
of presenting the forgery conundrum: ‘Would you rather have an aesthetically
superior forgery or a aesthetically inferior original?’ As recognition of the aesthetic
value of some forgeries grows alongside the already accepted historical value of
forgeries, what does this mean for the development of forgery exhibits? Most
importantly, it suggests forgery exhibits are not outside the realm of possibility for
curators. All four participating curators answered yes to the Curatorial Questionnaire
question: Would you ever consider curating a forgery exhibit?
6.4 Curating a Forgery Exhibit
Given the opportunity to curate an exclusive forgery exhibit, Lapatin stated
that he would focus on parallel structures present in the stories of forgery.196 For
example, Lapatin finds stories of “the forger who has to prove that his work is fake”
interesting.197 This theme is common in forgery stories and results from the
commonly held belief that forgers must be “bad” artists. The most famous example of
forgers being stereotyped as “bad” artists is the story of the forger Hans Van
Meegeren who was forced to demonstrate his artistic talents to the jury during his
1947 trial for the sale of his forged “Vermeer,” The Supper at Emmaus to the
Nazis.198 Essentially, Van Meegeren “could prove his innocence only by establishing
his guilt (Fig. 8).”199 When his guilt as a forger was established, the Saturday Evening
Post described the upheaval that occurred in the art world, explaining: “The
knowledge and integrity of many experts, upon whose judgments museums and
private collectors were dependent…stood on trial.”200 Even Michelangelo, Lapatin
notes, attempted to claim credit for his Sleeping Cupid, but was dismissed.201
Lapatin would also consider a forgery exhibit that focuses on the theme of the
forger who must update his techniques to correspond to evolving museological tools 195 Lapatin, Kenneth. Interview by author. Tape recording. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 27, 2013. 196 Ibid. 197 Ibid. 198 Keats, Forged, 91. 199 Ibid. 200 Ibid, 91-‐92. 201 Lapatin, Kenneth. Interview by author. Tape recording. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 27, 2013.
43 2043339m
of forgery detection.202 As new techniques are being developed to determine
authenticity, the race to keep up is compelling. Tales of forgers who employ Pollock’s
fingerprints on the back of their Pollock forgery and forgers who are willing to risk it
all to break into the National Art Library or the Victoria and Albert Museum to doctor
catalogues fascinate Lapatin.203 Ultimately, these stories illustrate the “evolution” of
forgeries from the perspective of both the forger and the museum experts.204
Technology based forgery exhibits are popular because they can be used to engage
visitors on multiple levels, encouraging visitors to play “detective” and investigate the
museum’s scientific approach to the detection of forgeries.
Fig. 7 Unknown. Dutch Painter Hans Van Meegeren (1889-1947), in front of one
of his works. Photograph 205
Conversely, Bellamy of Glasgow Museums would continue to facilitate
forgery exhibits in the context of “showing off” research undertaken by Glasgow
202 Ibid. 203 Ibid. 204 Ibid. 205 Unknown. Dutch Painter Hans Van Meegeren (1889-‐1947), in front of one of his works. Photograph. 1947. Amsterdam. http://www.expatica.com/nl/leisure/arts_culture/Dutch-‐museum-‐honours-‐forger_16051.html (accessed July 19, 2013).
44 2043339m
Museums.206 Although the execution and theme of Bellamy’s forgery exhibit is
different from Lapatin’s, developing a dialogue with visitors is still the end goal.207
Future forgery exhibits may indeed be in Glasgow Museum’s future. Bellamy stressed
there is no reason for Glasgow Museums to be ashamed of any forgeries that are
found in their museum storerooms because the majority of their artworks and objects
are still being researched and furthermore, were acquired through donations, acquired
by collectors in good faith and accepted in good faith by Glasgow Museums.208
Glasgow Museums are not afraid of discovering fakes or experiencing a negative
impact as the result of a discovery of fakes because they are confident in their “vast
numbers” of wonderful objects.209 Bellamy concludes: “[Glasgow Museums is] quite
secure in our status. [This is] just real life and it is quite interesting.”210
It is important to note that these approaches to forgery exhibits are not new.
Bellamy’s ideas for future forgery exhibits at Glasgow Museums mirrors Glasgow
Museums original and on-going focus for forgery exhibits. This is not surprising due
to the fact that their formula for forgery exhibits has proven not only popular, but
continues to highlight the collection and the research capabilities of its staff. Other
museums have employed the same approach. The Bank of England’s 2001 exhibit,
“Forgery: The Artful Crime,” dealt with the “[examination of] various methods by
which the Bank’s notes have been illegally reproduced or altered.”211 The exhibit also
“touched on some of the anti-forgery devices which have been developed over three
centuries.”212 In this way, the Bank of England’s exhibit contained aspects of both
Bellamy and Lapatin’s exhibit ideas by focusing not only on the history of research
undertaken by the Bank of England, but also on the evolution of the methods of
detection used by the Bank of England over three hundred years. Similarly, the
National Gallery’s 2010 exhibit, “Close Examination: Fakes, Mistakes, and
Discoveries,” focused heavily on the processes used in the technical identification of
206 Bellamy, Martin. Interview by author. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 19, 2013. 207 Ibid. 208 Ibid. 209 Ibid. 210 Ibid. 211 Bank of England. Forgery: The Artful Crime. 2001. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/museum/exhibitions/past2.aspx (accessed July 18, 2013). 212 Ibid.
45 2043339m
forgeries by the Museum and their development throughout the institution’s
history.213 The ultimate goals of all the museums’ forgery exhibits remain the same;
engage visitors.
6.5 The Future of Forgery Exhibits
Although the production of forgery exhibits does not appear to be declining,
the next step in the development of the forgery exhibit is uncertain. Similar to his
earlier statement regarding museological transparency and institutional priorities,
Lapatin believes forgery exhibits will evolve simultaneously with the next phase of
museological development, asserting, “I don’t think forgeries are driving how they are
being shown, I think the interests of the museums are driving how forgeries are being
treated within them.”214 The inference is that the next step in the evolution of
museums will signify the next step for forgeries and forgery exhibits. The current
museological trend suggests that museums are refocusing not only their exhibits but
also their mission statements to encourage education, engagement, and interaction
through institutional, museological transparency. GlasgowLife’s strategic objectives,
encompassing Glasgow Museums, pledge to “encourage participation, involvement,
and engagement in culture [for all]” by “[creating] a culture of learning and
creativity….”215 The interactive, detective-themed forgery exhibits of the late 20th and
early 21st century epitomize the goals put forth by GlasgowLife, designed to be
engaging and educational exhibits that showcase institutional transparency.
Perhaps, the next step for forgery exhibits in Western museums will coincide
with the recent discussions of global of art and authenticity in art.216 For this reason, it
can be surmised that forgery exhibit trends may develop in response to the
globalization of museums in general. Currently, the British Museum is developing a
213 The National Gallery. Close Examination: Fakes, Mistakes, and Discoveries. 2010. http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/whats-on/exhibitions/close-examination-fakes-mistakes-and-discoveries (accessed July 24, 2013). 214 Lapatin, Kenneth. Interview by author. Tape recording. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 27, 2013. 215 GlasgowLife. Our Strategic Objectives. 2013. http://www.glasgowlife.org.uk/about-‐us/Pages/Glasgow-‐Life-‐Strategic-‐Objectives.aspx (accessed July 18, 2013). 216 Lapatin, Kenneth. Interview by author. Tape recording. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 27, 2013.
46 2043339m
World Conservation and Exhibits Centre. Opening in 2014, the Centre “will ensure
the [British] Museum is able to host major international exhibits in the future.”217
Touring exhibits are becoming commonplace. During a “re-vamp” of the Burrell
Collection’s location in Pollok Park, taking place from 2016 to 2020, arrangements
have been made for Burrell’s artwork to go on tour.218 Dr. Ellen McAdam, head of
museum and collections for GlasgowLife, says of the decision to travel the collection:
“It’s very important for any museum service to have an international profile and the
Burrell Collection is generally of international significance.”219 Museums are
becoming ever more concerned with the international impact of their collections and
are making the moves to ensure their collections reach global audiences.
The trend in the globalization of museums, exhibits, and collections is leaving
its mark on the discussion of forgeries through the development of travelling forgery
exhibits. In 2013, the Royal Ontario Museum (Ontario, Canada) organized the
travelling exhibit, “Fakes and Forgeries: Yesterday and Today (Fig. 9).”220 The
exhibit will travel across Canada, exhibiting at the Currency Museum of Canada, the
Barr Colony Heritage Cultural Centre (Lloydminster, Canada), and the Niagara Fall
History Museum (Niagara Falls, Canada).221
217 Trustees of the British Museum. Exhibitions Gallery. 2013. http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/the_museums_story/new_centre/explore_the_centre/exhibitions_gallery.aspx (accessed July 18, 2013). 218 BBC News. Private Bill bid to let Burrell Collection 'go on loan'. May 29, 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-‐scotland-‐glasgow-‐west-‐22694888 (accessed July 18, 2013). 219 BBC News. British Museum director to advise on Burrell Collection revamp. April 26, 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-‐scotland-‐glasgow-‐west-‐22312066 (accessed July 18, 2013). 220 Bank of Canada Currency Museum. Countering the Counterfeiters, in Fakes & Forgeries: Yesterday and Today. 2013. http://www.currencymuseum.ca/exhibition/past-‐exhibition/fake-‐forgeries-‐yesterday-‐and-‐today/ (accessed July 18, 2013). 221 Ibid.
47 2043339m
Fig. 8 Countering the Counterfeiters Case at the Currency Museum’s exhibit
“Fakes & Forgeries: Yesterday and Today"222
Ultimately, the value and viability of forgeries in museums lies in the hands of
curators. Discourse between curators of Western art and Eastern art about the
definition and value of forgeries is the key to facilitating a dialogue about the
definition of authenticity in art on a global scale. Lapatin describes the evolution of
the definition of authenticity in art as representing the development of a “global trend
in museums.”223 Moving forward, forgery exhibits will have the opportunity to offer
visitors an opportunity to engage in the discussion: What is a forgery and how does it
relate to global definitions of authenticity in art?
222 Ibid. 223 Lapatin, Kenneth. Interview by author. Tape recording. Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 27, 2013.
48 2043339m
7. Conclusion
This study confirms that forgeries have aesthetic, economic, artistic, and
historical value for museums and establishes the viability and popularity of forgery
exhibits. The primary goal of forgery exhibits is the engagement and engagement of
museum visitors and the current museological trend encourages visitor comparisons
of original and forged objects through “detective” works.
In general, museums and curators are focused on becoming more transparent
about the forgeries in their collections, demonstrated by a general willingness to
display them for education and visitor engagement. Forgeries have the power to bring
people inside museums and, in addition to engaging them in discussions of forgery,
inform them about the remainder of the museum’s collections and research. This
reaffirms recent scholarly and philosophical writings by Keats in which he asserts his
belief that forgeries have the power to “make art more assertive, and more accessible
to more people.”224
Although this study is based on a small number of curatorial opinions and a
sampling of Western exhibits, the findings suggest the number of forgery exhibits will
continue to grow and that forgery themes will become increasingly common in
museum exhibits. Finally, a number of important limitations must be considered.
First, only four curators were interviewed as part of this study. Second, the current
study has only examined forgery exhibits in Western museums. Third, of the curators
interviewed for this study, none were curators of Eastern, African, or South American
art. This presents a gap in world-view and facilitates the creation of one-sided,
Western definitions of authenticity and forgery. In this way, the findings of this study
are limited. More research is required about how world-views of forgery and
authenticity would affect the themes and creation of forgery exhibits in both Western
and Eastern museums. For example, it would be interesting to assess how a curator of
Eastern Art, in either a Western or an Eastern museum, would structure a forgery
exhibit—what themes would be explored and what objects would be considered
forgeries. It also would be interesting to assess the popularity of forgery exhibits in
Eastern and Western museums through visitor surveys and tracking, similar to
Alsop’s study at the British Museum. This data would be possible to compare and
224 Keats, Jonathon. The Big Idea: Why Forgeries Are Great Art.
49 2043339m
contrast the popularity of these exhibits with the themes discussed ad the findings
would bring into focus a more complete picture of how forgery exhibits affect the
museological reception and approach to forgeries. Ultimately, a more complete study
of forgery exhibits would present museums with a greater understanding of the
viability of forgery exhibits and the museological value of their forgeries.
These findings suggest a clear course of action for museums. The growing
awareness and popularity of forgeries in museums and the general willingness of
curators to research and explore themes of forgeries suggest that museums should take
advantage of the forgeries currently in their museum storerooms. This study has found
that those museums that create forgery exhibits, including Glasgow Museums, the
National Gallery, the British Museum, and the J. Paul Getty Museum continue to be
among the most visited museums in the world. This suggests institutional
transparency and a commitment to visitor engagement and education, traits prevalent
in forgery exhibits, make forgery exhibits, not only museologically viable but also
valued by museum visitors.
50 2043339m
Appendix A – Curatorial Questionnaire
Tentative title: What is wrong with a forgery? Curatorial Questionnaire The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the treatment of forgeries in a museum context. Through the evaluation of curatorial perceptions of the artistic value, motivations, and definitions of forgery I will attempt to contextualize the multiple pressures faced by museums in possession of forgeries and the representation of forgeries in museum.
1. How would you define a forgery?
2. What factors do you believe motivate forgery?
3. Do you assign any artistic value to a forgery? Please explain.
4. In your time has your institution ever been involved in acquiring an item that was subsequently revealed to be a forgery?
5. What steps were taken to establish the provenance of items prior to
acquisition? Are processes different now?
6. Why do you believe the steps taken were unsuccessful?
7. Have any known forgeries in the museum’s collection been displayed? If so, in what context? If not, where are the forgeries today?
8. Would you ever consider curating an exhibit on forgery? In what context
would this exhibit occur? What themes would you like to explore?
51 2043339m
Appendix B – Curatorial Questionnaire: Kenneth Lapatin Interview So what do you do with a forgery? Curatorial Questionnaire: Kenneth Lapatin Interview Note: The Curatorial Questionnaire provided the basis for the interview with Kenneth Lapatin.
1. In general, what do you believe are the chief motivations behind creating a forgery exhibit? What was your motivation for including forgeries in the J. Paul Getty Museum’s 2009 exhibit “Carvers and Collectors: The Lasting Allure of Ancient Gems?”
2. Media coverage of the acquisition of forgeries, forgery exhibits and forgers
themselves is growing and gaining popularity among the public. TV shows like USA Network’s “White Collar” and movies like “Catch Me If You Can,” have popularized the image of forgers and forgeries as “sexy.” Do you think the media’s sensational portrayal of forgers and forgeries impacts the decision to create an exhibit? How do you believe the media’s sensationalization portrayal of forgers and forgeries impacts the development of exhibits on forgery? In your opinion, does the media portrayal of forgers and forgeries impact how museums with forgery exhibits dialogue with their visitors?
3. The exhibit and acknowledgment of forgeries in museums has become
increasingly prevalent beginning in the 1990s. The popular museological approaches in the development of forgery exhibits are to designate the museum visitor as “detective” and to display forgeries alongside authentic artwork. Why do you think these treatments of forgery exhibits are such a popular approach for museums? In what ways do you think forgery exhibits will evolve in the next ten years?
4. Do you believe there is a difference in the treatment of forgeries between
private and public museological institutions? In what ways do you believe a privately owned institution approaches the acknowledgement and presentation of forgeries differently than a public institution?
5. Are you involved in any upcoming forgery exhibits?
6. Are there any forgeries that you have come across that find particularly
interesting? Why?
7. If you were to create a forgery exhibit, what general themes about forgeries would you discuss? What would you want your visitors to learn from your forgery exhibit?
52 2043339m
Appendix C – List of Forgery Exhibits, 1914-Present
Museum Year of Exhibit Exhibit Name Metropolitan Museum of Art 1914 Riggs Collection, Armor
Department Pennsylvania Museum 1916 Information Unavailable Burlington Fine Arts Club 1924 Information Unavailable Ashmolean Museum 1952 Information Unavailable The Louvre 1954 "Salon of Fakes" The Grand Palias 1955 Information Unavailable British Museum 1961 "An Exhibition of Forgeries and
Deceptive Copies" British Museum 1990 "Fake? The Art of Deception" The Burrell Collection 1990 "Daumier at the Burrell Collection" 1990 "Joseph Crawhall, 1861-1913: One
of the Glasgow Boys" The Walters Art Gallery (Tour) 1990 "Artful Deception: The Craft of
the Forger" Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art 1996 "Discovery and Deceit:
Archaeology and the Forger's Craft"
The Israel Museum 1997 "The Secret of the Golden Tiara - Works by Israel Rouchomovski"
Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art 1998 "Treasures of Deceit"
New Rochelle Council on the Arts
2001 "Fabulous Fakes"
Bank of England's Museum 2001 "Forgery: The Artful Crime" Victoria and Albert Museum 2006 Permanent Display Room Brooklyn Museum 2009 "Unearthing the Truth, Egypt's
Pagan and Coptic Sculpture" J. Paul Getty Museum 2009 "Carvers and Collectors: The
Lasting Allure of Ancient Gems" Victoria and Albert Museum 2010 "Metropolitan Police Service's
Investigation of Fakes and Forgeries"
National Gallery 2010 "Close Examination: Fakes, Mistakes and Discoveries"
Detroit Institute of Arts Museum 2010 "Fakes, Forgery and Mysteries"
Museum of Modern Art, Paris 2010 "Second Hand"
Museum of Archaeology in Neuchatel
2011 "The Age of Forgery"
53 2043339m
British Museum 2012 "Forgery, Suffragettes and Nirvana: Tracking Visitors in the Citi Money Gallery"
Kelsey Museum of Archaeology 2012 "The Art of the Fake: Egyptian Forgeries"
The Burrell Collection 2012 "Millet Under Investigation at the Burrell Collection"
Currency Museum of Canada 2013 "Fakes & Forgeries: Yesterday and Today"
Collection Museum 2013 "Fakes and Forgeries" Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum
2013 "Art Detectives: Investigating Bosch and Bruegel"
Royal Ontario Museum 2013 "Fakes and Forgeries: Yesterday and Today" (Travelling)
Círculo de Bellas Artes 2013 "Proyecto Fake" Canton Museum of Art 2014 "Intent to Deceive: Fakes and
Forgeries in the Art World"
54 2043339m
References
Books Hoving, Thomas. False Impressions: The Hunt for Big Time Art Fakes. New York, NY: Touchstone, 1996. Keats, Jonathon. Forged. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013. Lenain, Thierry. Art Forgery: The History of a Modern Obsession. London: Reaktion Books, 2011. Journal Articles Barber, Edwin A. "Special Exhibit of "Fakes and Reproductions"." Bulletin of the Pennsylvania Museum (Philadelphia Museum of Art) 14, no. 54 (April 1916): 20-23. Bowden, Ross. "What Is Wrong with an art forgery? An Anthropological Perspective." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism (Wiley) 57, no. 3 (1999): 333-343. Dutton, Denis. "To Understand it on its Own Terms." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (International Phenomenological Society) 35, no. 2 (December 1974): 246-256. Grancsay, Stephen V. "An Exhibition of Forgeries." The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 27, no. 2 (February 1932): 46-48. Lessing, Alfred. "What Is Wrong with a Forgery?" The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism (Wiley) 23, no. 4 (1965): 461-471. Nelson, Judith M. "Art Forgery and Copyright Law: Modifying the Originality Requirement to Prevent the Forging of Artworks." Cardozo Arts & Entertinament Law Journal 8, no. 2 (1990): 683-720. Palmer, Robert. European Capitals of Culture: the road to success from 1985 to 2010. European Capital of Culture, European Union Publications, 15-‐18. Reed, Marcia. "Fake?: The Art of Deception Review." Art Documentation, Winter 1990: 215-‐216. Summerfield, Angela. "Staking out fakes." Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce 138, no. 5406 (May 1990): 434-‐436. The Art Newspaper. “Exhibition & Museum Attendance Figures 2007.” The Art Newspaper no. 189 (March 2008): 27-31. The Art Newspaper. “Exhibition & Museum Attendance Figures 2010.” The Art Newspaper no. 223 (April 2011): 24.
55 2043339m
Tietze, Hans. "The Psychology and Aesthetics of Forgery in Art." Metropolitan Museum Studies (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 5, no. 1 (August 1934): 1-19. Law Enforcement & Related Websites Metropolitan Police. Artbeat specials on patrol. April 20, 2010. http://content.met.police.uk/News/Artbeat-specials-on-patrol/1260267473067/1257246745756 (accessed May 3, 2013). Metropolitan Police. Art forgery event at V and A museum. http://content.met.police.uk/News/Art-forgery-event-at-V-and-A-museum/1260267490421/1257246745756 (accessed June 6, 2013). Online Periodicals & Articles Alsop, Ben. Forgery, Suffragettes and Nirvana: Tracking Visitors in the Citi Money Gallery. December 17, 2012. http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2012/12/17/forgery-suffragettes-and-nirvana-tracking-visitors-in-the-citi-money-gallery/ (accessed July 18, 2013). Archaeological Institute of America. AIA Lecturer Kenneth Lapatin. 2013. http://www.archaeological.org/lecturer/kennethlapatin (accessed July 18, 2013). Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. Visits Made in 2004 to Visitor Attraction in Membership with ALVA. 2004. http://alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=603 (accessed August 10 18, 2013). —. Visits Made in 2005 to Visitor Attraction in Membership with ALVA. 2005. http://alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=602 (accessed August 10 18, 2013). —. Visitors Made in 2006 to Visitor Attractions in Member with ALVA. 2006. http://alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=601 (accessed July 18, 2013). —. Visits Made in 2010 to Visitor Attraction in Membership with ALVA. 2010. http://alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=596 (accessed July 18, 2013). —. Visits Made in 2012 to Visitor Attraction in Membership with ALVA. 2012. http://alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=598 (accessed July 18, 2013). Babbidge, Clare. Fighting forgery in the art world. November 23, 2006. http://news.”.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6172206.stm (accessed April 30, 2013). Bank of Canada. Fakes & Forgeries: Yesterday and Today. 2013. http://www.currencymuseum.ca/exhibit/past-exhibit/fake-forgeries-yesterday-and-today/ (accessed July 18, 2013).
56 2043339m
Bank of England. Forgery: The Artful Crime. 2001. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/museum/exhibitions/past2.aspx (accessed July 18, 2013). BBC News . Louvre in Paris tops most visited art venue poll. March 23, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17472587 (accessed July 18, 2013). —. Louvre is most visited venue of 2012. March 28, 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-‐arts-‐21965220 (accessed August 10, 2013). —. British Museum director to advise on Burrell Collection revamp. April 26, 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22312066 (accessed July 18, 2013). —. Private Bill bid to let Burrell Collection 'go on loan'. May 29, 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22694888 (accessed July 18, 2013). Canton Museum of Art. Upcoming Exhibits. 2013. http://www.cantonart.org/20 (accessed July 18, 2013). Ember, Lois. Fakes and Forgeries. September 10, 2007. http://cen.acs.org/articles/85/i37/Fakes-Forgeries.html. (accessed April 14, 2013). Glasgow Cultural Statistics Digest. Glasgow Cultural Statistics Digest. 2011. http://www.culturesparks.co.uk/intelligence/information/glasgow-‐cultural-‐statistics-‐digest (accessed August 10, 2013). GlasgowLife. Millet Under Investigation at The Burrell Collection. July 13, 2012. http://www.glasgowlife.org.uk/news/Pages/Millet-Under-Investigation-at-The-Burrell-Collection.aspx (accessed July 18, 2013). Glasgow Museums. Vivien Hamilton: Research Manager Art. 2013. http://collections.glasgowmuseums.com/person.html?pid=53747 (accessed July 18, 2013). GlasgowLife. Our Strategic Objectives. 2013. http://www.glasgowlife.org.uk/about-us/Pages/Glasgow-Life-Strategic-Objectives.aspx (accessed July 18, 2013). J. Paul Getty Trust. Carvers and Collectors: The Allure of Ancient Gems. 2009. http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/gems/ (accessed July 18, 2013). —. Statue of a Kouros. 2013. http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=12908 (accessed July 23, 2013). Jamieson, Alastair. Was the Turin Shroud faked by Leonardo da Vinci. July 1, 2009. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5706640/Turin-Shroud-is-face-of-Leonardo-da-Vinci.html (accessed July 21, 2013).
57 2043339m
Keats, Jonathon. In Praise of the Fake. May 3, 2013. http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/05/praise-fake (accessed May 30, 2013). Keats, Jonathon. The Big Idea: Why Forgeries Are Great Art. April 25, 2010. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/25/the-big-idea-why-forgeries-are-great-art.html (accessed May 30, 2013). Kennedy, Randy. Elusive Forgery, Giving But Never Stealing. January 1, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/arts/design/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all (accessed July 23, 2013). Lincolnshire County Council. Heritage Crime Exhibition 'Fakes and Forgeries' Quiz. February 11, 2013. http://www.thecollectionmuseum.com/?/blog/view/heritage-crime-exhibition-fakes-and-forgeries-quiz (accessed July 18, 2013). Lost in the Louvre: Not Just Another History Blog. Famous Fake Friday: Michelangelo’s Sleeping Cupid. March 22, 2009. http://lostinthelouvre.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/famous-fake-friday-michelangelos-sleeping-cupid/ (accessed July 24, 2013). Mystudies.com. A History of Art Forgery. 2013. http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/forgery/history/forgery-1.html (accessed July 23, 2013) Rose, Mathew. Letter from Berlin – Forgeries, pheromones and clones, ten questions for Jonatthon Keats. May 13, 2013. http://www.theartblog.org/2013/05/letter-from-berlin-forgeries-pheromones-and-clones-ten-questions-for-jonathon-keats/ (accessed July 21, 2013). Ross, Fern. Joseph Crawhall - An Artist In Morocco And Spain At The Burrell Collection. February 21, 2006. http://www.culture24.org.uk/art/art34457 (accessed August 9, 2013). Pes, Javier. Ten years of free entry, but can it last? February 1, 2012. http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Ten-‐years-‐of-‐free-‐entry-‐but-‐can-‐it-‐last/25518 (accessed August 10, 2013). Steiner, Wendy. ART; In London, A Catalogue of Fakes. April 29, 1990. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/29/arts/art-in-london-a-catalogue-of-fakes.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (accessed June 4, 2013). Taylor, Kate. Brooklyn to Exhibit Fake Art. July 15, 2008. http://www.nysun.com/arts/brooklyn-to-exhibit-fake-art/81900/ (accessed July 18, 2013). The National Gallery. Close Examination: Fakes, Mistakes, and Discoveries. 2010. http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/whats-on/exhibitions/close-examination-fakes-mistakes-and-discoveries (accessed July 24, 2013).
58 2043339m
—. Constitution: Objectives. 2013. http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/about-us/organisation/constitution/constitution/*/viewPage/3 (accessed July 18, 2013). Trustees of the British Museum. About Us. 2013. http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/management/about_us.aspx (accessed July 18, 2013). —. Exhibitions Gallery. 2013. http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/the_museums_story/new_centre/explore_the_centre/exhibitions_gallery.aspx (accessed July 18, 2013). —. History of the British Museum. 2013. http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/the_museums_story/general_history.aspx (accessed July 18, 2013). —. Hugo Chapman: Keeper and Curator of Italian and French Drawings from c. 1400 to c. 1800. 2013. http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/departments/staff/prints_and_drawings/hugo_chapman.aspx (accessed July 18, 2013). Ogden, Katherine. Forging News (Part one of four): The News Media's Misrepresentation of the Art Criminal. April 25, 2011. http://art-crime.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/forging-news-news-medias.html (accessed May 30, 2013). Vartanian, Hrag. 2012 Museum Attendance Numbers Show a Diverse Global Art Scene. April 3, 2013. http://hyperallergic.com/68051/2012-‐museum-‐attendance-‐numbers-‐show-‐a-‐diverse-‐global-‐art-‐scene/ (accessed August 10, 2013). Museum Text “Wall text, “Jean-Francois Millet – Under Investigation,” The Burrell Collection, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2012. Wall text, “Daumier in the Burrell Collection,” The Burrell Collection, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 1990. The Burrell Collection. Museum label for WHO IS THIS BY?, Head of a Young Girl, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2012. The Burrell Collection. Museum label for WHO IS THIS BY?, The Peasant Family – La Famille de Paysans, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2012. Images Alsop, Ben. The forgery case in the money gallery, in Forgery, Suffragettes and Nirvana: tracking visitor in the Citi Money Gallery. December 17, 2012. http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2012/12/17/forgery-suffragettes-and-nirvana-tracking-visitors-in-the-citi-money-gallery/ (accessed July 18, 2013).
59 2043339m
—. Tracking visitor paths through the gallery. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 2012. http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2012/12/17/forgery-suffragettes-and-nirvana-tracking-visitors-in-the-citi-money-gallery/ (accessed July 19, 2013). Bank of Canada Currency Museum. Countering the Counterfeiters, in Fakes & Forgeries: Yesterday and Today. 2013. http://www.currencymuseum.ca/exhibition/past-exhibition/fake-forgeries-yesterday-and-today/ (accessed July 18, 2013). Gnaios. Mark Anthony. 40-20 B.C. Amethyst Intaglio. J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles. http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/gems/ (accessed July 19, 2013). Tan, Sang. A visitor looks at “Women at a Window,” in the “Close Examination” exhibition at the National Gallery in London. Photograph. Boston: Associated Press, 2010. Boston.com. http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2010/07/10/at_londons_national_gallery_a_show_for_art_detectives/ (accessed July 19, 2013). Unknown. Dutch Painter Hans Van Meegeren (1889-1947), in front of one of his works. Photograph. 1947. Amsterdam. http://www.expatica.com/nl/leisure/arts_culture/Dutch-museum-honours-forger_16051.html (accessed July 19, 2013). Unknown. Man investigating artwork at the Victoria and Albert Museum’s exhibit “The Metropolitan Police Service’s Investigation of Fakes and Forgeries.” Photograph. 2011. BlouinArtInfo. http://blogs.artinfo.com/secrethistoryofart/2011/06/28/the-metropolitan-police-services-investigation-of-fakes-and-forgeries-wins-international-award/ (accessed July 19, 2013).