[MSN] Indian art auctions - half theatre, half casino

[Museum Security Network Mailinglist]

Indian art auctions - half theatre, half casino
Fake! Is there another word that can cause such a tizzy in the art world,
especially when applied to one of Vincent Van Gogh's iconic 'Sunflowers' for
which a Japanese company paid $40 million in 1987, a record at the time?

2006-04-30 03:24:40
Fake! Is there another word that can cause such a tizzy in the art world,
especially when applied to one of Vincent Van Gogh's iconic 'Sunflowers' for
which a Japanese company paid $40 million in 1987, a record at the time?

Fast forward to Indian art auctions in New York on March 29-30, this year.
The news of 12 fakes being withdrawn from Christie's and Sotheby's Indian
art auctions have ignited a furious debate about provenance, authentication
and the manner of affirming real works in international auctions. 

It is, however, essential to understand the umbilical cord connecting the
art of functioning in the auction world. The emergence of fakes even at the
highest level with two auction houses of great prestige is an example of
deception in an ambience of trust. 

Who gives works to the auction houses? Dealers, galleries, institutions and
sometimes individuals who are deep into the practice of speculation. The art
dealer becomes the auction house's most intimate ally. 

Judging from the doubt of provenance and authenticity of the 12 works that
were withdrawn, it is clear that while dealers and galleries have a unique
vantage point, putting up a fake for sale in an auction is an example of
breach of trust and deception.

A case in point is the Bowring auction held at the Oberoi Hotel in New Delhi
some years ago. The Hemen Majumdar turned out to be stolen, while the Bendre
turned out to be a dubious double - the original one hanging at a museum in
Baroda. 

The occurrence of fakes in an auction is a reminder that the debate about
authenticity is about the present as well as the past. 

Rumours in Delhi suggest that Majumdars at other auctions were also fake.
When asked why it was not brought to light, an artist from the Bengal school
said, 'Why be singled out and then be harassed by everyone?' 

These are serious implications for any auction house that wants to deal
credibly with collectors across the board. 

'Nothing new about fakes,' Christies had said in an interview. One would
have to be a little more honest in answering that query in terms of public
interest. 

Fakes reflect badly on an auction house's ability to achieve its own goals.
Surveying the record prices that auction houses have enjoyed over the past
five years in the bull run for Indian art, one would like an honest
articulation in terms of details.

Who can say for sure that a great artwork is the real deal? It depends on
whom you ask and when. Attributions of authorship often flip-flop from
generation to generation, and a painting's journey from real to not-real and
back again can mean windfall profits for the lucky and despair for those who
sell or buy too soon. 

Art historians in the West have long used scientific tools to help them
decide whether drawings and paintings are real or fakes, like counting
isotopes in lead-based paints to spot anachronisms or shining X-ray and
infrared radiation on oil portraits to discover what lies beneath.

Nothing like that has been done in India. The public, if not the art world,
has always harboured a secret admiration for the true masters of art forgery
- men like Han van Meegeren who hoodwinked experts in the 1930's with his
fake Vermeers. 

Then there was Eric Hebborn. As a self-proclaimed forger of old masters,
Hebborn has few modern equals. The 60-year-old English-born artist claims to
have counterfeited '500' works that have infiltrated private collections,
auction houses, galleries and museums the world over. 

The withdrawal of 12 fakes in Indian art brings to light the nature of
revelation and the integrity of dealers in the auction network. People talk
confidently about art and auctions, but it is not clear whether even the
most ardent collector can spot a fake from a real. 

K.G. Subramanyan had stated an instance of Delhi's most celebrated collector
being duped by a fake. The fake turned out to be from a gallery of repute.
The preoccupation with a signature is the product of the bull run.

When the million-dollar mark achieves such spectacular results, it seems as
if a deeply probed interrogation of authentication is no longer considered a
valid path to distinguishing a fake from a real. 

The rush for acquiring art often results in misplaced certainty, often
unwittingly aided by media which also work obsessively on aggressive
marketing and public relations.

Art auctions today command the largest following and the highest prices in
history. From New York to Hong Kong, the graveling goes at an ever-faster
rate for virtually everything people collect. And, increasingly, collectors,
dealers and institutions are taking the auction route to buy and sell
precious wares.

With the fake racket, the auction scene is now turning half theatre, half
casino. At Christie's latest Indian art auction, abstract master Gaitonde's
record was washed away by the news of the fakes. 

There is more to art than meets the cursory eye. Art fraud's new trick is to
add fakes to archives.

What is more valuable in the long run, style or authenticity? That question
is increasingly redefining the rules of connoisseurship, especially in an
era when a small folding table worth around $100 can bring more than $12,000
simply because Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis owned it.

(Uma Nair is an art critic based in New Delhi. She can be reached at
umatnair at gmail.com.)