Can you tell the difference between forgery and the real thing? Most of us cannot but connoisseurs and clients can right? Or so we thought. For the past fifteen years, there has been a huge surge in purchasing works from abstract expressionists. These “titans of modernism” include artists Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, Mark Rothko, Franz Kline and Robert Motherwell who have all produced works sold up to $17 million a piece. However, it has been recently discovered that 63 of these pieces were in fact, painted by an unknown Asian artist in his garage in Queens.
Did he do it alone? No. In Patricia Cohen’s and William K. Rashbaum’s article, “One Queens Painter Created Forgeries That Sold for Millions, U.S. Says,” we learn that he was discovered by an art dealer while selling his art on the streets. The dealer who has helped turn his art into fraud has been revealed to be Glafira Rosales who is now charged with wire fraud and money wiring. She sold 40 of the “counterfeit works” to a well-known Upper East Side gallery, Knoedler & Company. The company was able to earn $63 million from their sale before quickly closing in November of 2011. They kept $43 million to themselves and credited $20 million to Rosales. Additionally, through another art dealer, they were able to reap in another $17 million but how much did the artist earn? Not even close to a million. He was paid $5,400 for a painting in December of 2005 and $7,000 for another in February of 2008.
How did these paintings quietly slip by unnoticed? Rosales’ boyfriend assisted in transforming these recent paintings into seemingly older paintings by methods such as heating and cooling. The Asian artist was also very well educated in the practices of the artists he was imitating. However, they were exposed when art expert Mr. Flam noticed that the backs and frames of the canvases seemed off. After running tests on several pieces, it was confirmed that they were not authentic. Knoedler & Company claimed that they did not know that these paintings were forged though there was a sudden increase in the quantity of rare works.
I feel like this is an example of how art can be abused. How can a well-known art gallery not notice if they are being sold frauds? They are not dealing with a small quantity of paintings—63 is a lot. Either Knoedler blindly believed in Rosales or they knowingly sold inauthentic paintings, taking advantage of their reputation. This shows us how big of an influence a respected company has on society’s opinions. Because of that, most clients did not doubt or even begin to question if they were being sold forgeries.
I also feel like the Asian artist has wasted his gifted abilities. Take a look at one of the paintings he imitated:
“Untitled” by Jackson Pollock
I can only imagine how much time he spent making sure that the layers of layers of splatter matched to that of Jackson Pollack’s. There is so much going on in this painting that I am shocked to know that this one was of the frauds. How was he able to create the same texture? Instead of putting his efforts into imitating another artist, he should have continued selling his own art. I understand that he was assured money from painting replications for Rosales but compared to what Rosales and Knoedler earned he was largely underpaid. Despite financial issues, there is a moral aspect to think about. It is obviously wrong to copy another artist’s work to sell as an authentic.
This makes me ponder upon what is categorized as art. Is art only claimed art when it is first made or can one imitate or duplicate the original and still count it as art? How about Knoedler’s situation? Do you believe that they had no idea about the forgery or did they knowingly sell unauthentic pieces despite disrespecting the artists and their works?
Works Cited:
Cohen, Patricia and Rashbaum, William K. “One Queens Painter Created Forgeries That Sold for Millions, U.S. Says.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 18 Aug. 2013. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.
Wow, this article made me realize how common forgery of art is. I always was curious as to how curators were able to identify if an artwork was authentic or not. I know that experts with signatures go by the consistency of the handwriting. I don’t know about you, but my signature is rarely the same in everything I sign.
I agree that the Asian man’s talents have been wasted on forgery, and that he could’ve made a name for himself through his own artwork, not someone else’s work. The money the Asian artist “earned” is basically nothing in comparison to the amount Rosales received.
I believe art is always be art whether it is the real thing or not. The duplicates, although much less in comparison to the authentic ones, can be sold and bought for some dollars, which shows that the forged artwork is still valuable.
Wow, it’s hard to think about how much time the artist put into imitating every detail that the original artist had created. But it just goes to show that many artists today are not considered artists, and they cannot live off of their own art pieces, so they imitate others and sell them.
The company however should be ashamed. They made millions through fraud, and yet the artist got almost nothing in comparison. I understand that a company that is capable of selling fake originals is unethical, and it should not be expected that they reward their accomplice, and yet it seems ridiculous to me. They should not be forging art in the first place..
Ethics. I posted on Jessamyn’s post supporting unethical behavior, but this is too extreme to agree with. We may never know how whether Knoedler & Company knowingly sold imitations or not and it makes me wonder. Money is the main concern for most businesses, but companies delving in art seem,now seemed, impervious to greed and tarnish. If I was more involved in the art I might have used a passionate tone, but I am not so I can only empathize for those who are. Knoedler & Company might have had harmless intentions. Probably not.
It is shocking how they were able to find that the pieces of art they sold were not authentic. I could understand if the forgers sold an unauthentic painting once, but they sold 63 (and maybe even more, who knows). That is unacceptable and extremely immoral. I agree with you that it is a waste of artistic talent. I believe the artist should use his/her talent to create their own paintings instead of copying famous artists and selling the fake paintings for money. I would not be able to live with myself if I knew I was cheating other people of millions of dollars. Justice was served.
It’s unfortunate that people didn’t realize the art was forged until much longer. I guess this article just goes to show that humanity can be pretty shallow sometimes. Yes, maybe the Asian artist needed the money, but did he feel no remorse for copying famous pieces of art? I agree with you in that instead of wasting his talent on others’ art, he should have created his own pieces and sold those since he certainly has the talent to do so. People nowadays have to be extremely careful with buying art. I feel bad for the people who paid so much money for a counterfeit. It’s a good thing that the art expert realized those pieces were fake. It would have been terrible if this kind of forgery continued with no one realizing it and continuing to pay a lot of money for imitation pieces.
This article really reminded me of a series on the USA network called White Collar, which is about a former con artist who acts as a consultant for the FBI in their white collar division. Throughout the series, the protagonist (said former con artist) shows himself to be quite the forger, and nobody could tell that his work was forgery either unless they scrutinized it. A few times, his boss/overseer remarks on how he seemed to be wasting his talent by replicating works that other people created, but he views it differently: he creates an art out of replication.
That being said, could it not be considered art in art when one replicates a famous piece of artwork? I loved that you brought up the issue of the categorization of art, because it begs to be considered. What if forgery is an art form in and of itself? The precision required, the mastery in application of texture and angles–and that last bit was just for paintings! At the same time, these are people who, for the most part, want to capitalize on their talents without waiting until they’re dead for the return. Perhaps they keep in mind those artists who suffered for their work, and strive to live a more financially secure life.