S.U.N.Y.

Fashion Institute of Technology

The Inexact Art of Authentication: Who Decides?

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Master of Arts in
Art Market: Principles and Practices

By
Alexandra Annamária Halidisz

New York, October 2009

 ©2009
Alexandra Annamária Halidisz
All Rights Reserved
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Illustrations……….……..……………...........................................i

Dedication……………….…….………....................................................ii

Acknowledgment……….…..………………...........................................iii

Text…………………….…………............................................................1

Bibliography……..…….………………..................................................48

Illustrations……………………………...................................................51
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE PAGE

1-2. Teri Horton’s Jackson Pollock recto and verso………………………….….......51

3-4. Enlarged views of the fingerprints found on Teri Horton’s painting and Jackson
Pollock’s Red Painting Number 4.........………....................................................52

5-6. Close up photographs of a strand of hair embedded in the paint of Jackson

Pollock’s East Hampton studio floor and on the recto of Teri Horton’s
painting……………………………….................................................................53

7. Photograph of Jackson Pollock’s studio floor in East Hampton, New York.

Photographed by Jeff Heathley……………………………….............................54

8. Andy Warhol: Self Portrait, 1964, owned by Joe Simon.…………..………..…55

9. Verso of Self Portrait with the two denied stamp on lower left corner…………56

10. Frederick Hughes’ authentication on the stretcher of Self Portrait………….….57

 DEDICATION

To Dr. Joseph Masheck, who has been my most encouraging and inspiring mentor
throughout this process.

And to my husband, Hektor, who has been supporting me through thick and thin in
order to get the education I desire.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to acknowledge the following individuals who were kind enough to take
time from their busy schedules to answer my questions.

Harriet Irgang Alden, Art Conservator at Rustin Levenson Art Conservation

Associates

Richard A. Altman, Attorney at Law

Peter Paul Bíró, Bíró Fine Art Restoration

John Cahill, Attorney at Law

Dr. Joseph Masheck, Art Historian and Critic

Dr. Katherine Jánszky Michaelsen, Art Historian

Lucille A. Roussin, Attorney at Law

Joe Simon, Film Writer and Producer

Ronald D. Spencer, Attorney at Law

Shelley Souza and Brigita Krasauskaite, Trustees of the Francis Newton Souza
Foundation

Pierre Valentin and Laura Wheatley, Whiters LLP

Ernest van de Wetering and Margaret Oomen, Rembrandt Research Project

Introduction

Hans Tietze has written “works of art have been counterfeited as long as they

have been collected.”1 It is astonishing to see how many forgeries there are and how

long they can go undetected soiling the art market, and many perhaps never will be

exposed. The authentication specialists are challenged as they have the responsibility

of vetting such works. Authenticating artwork is an intense process: the specialists

must look at the work’s composition, its texture, its pigment, its medium and

ultimately decide on authenticity. There are many people involved in authenticating

artworks, from the scholar to the art dealer, and in court cases, expert testimony and

the presiding judge. In the end, one might ask who is exactly the one who decides

what is authentic and what is not? Who has the last word? The answer to that question

is as challenging as the task of each authentication case.

The Importance of Art Authentication

Art authentication is important for more than one reason. When people think

of art as a global consciousness where the artist express his or her cultural truth, then

art authentication is most important in order to be sure what that cultural truth is.

Shelley Souza, trustee of the Francis Newton Souza Foundation, explained why art

authentication is vital for the cultural values:

Art is the measure of the progress of society, and the goal of society is
to evolve. If it's true that an artist's work is the measure of cultural
progress then ideally an artist would be at the cutting edge, he or she
would lead people. You don't want adoption, you want progress. You

1 Hans Tietze, Genuine and False: Copies, Imitations, Forgeries (London: Max Parrish & Co.
Limited, 1948), 16.
 want authentication because if you consider art as a marker in your
culture that expresses the highest aspirations then you want those
aspirations to be authentic.2

Forgery alters cultural truth, and when a forgery is authenticated as real it can

cause, and indeed has caused, alteration in historical data. According to Hans Tietze,

there are two types of forgeries, creative and reproductive. Creative forgery allows

the forger to express his own imagination in the process of the work, but it is easier to

detect. Reproductive forgery imitates different eras in the history of art. Reproductive

forgers are not aiming to forge a particular artist, they forge an era. Forgeries of this

kind are harder to expose. Reproductive forgeries also shape historicity.3 Once a

creative or reproductive forgery enters into the art market, publications of the

‘artwork’ begin, and they can change the course of art history. Ideas and theories

spread through the world and art historians try to prove a forged fact that never

existed. The consequences of such deeds are immeasurable.

Art authentication is also important when making acquisitions and sales of an

artwork. It can be crucial to obtain an authentication letter when the artwork being

sold is questionable. It is important for an art dealer to have a letter of authentication

when he sells a work; a buyer might not purchase the artwork if there is no proof of

authenticity. Provenance can serve as proof of identity, but since provenance can be

forged, one would imagine that for a more expensive purchase a buyer would want a

letter of authentication from the foundation of the artist or a well-respected

2 Shelley Souza (trustee of the Francis Newton Souza Foundation), interview by Alexandra
Halidisz, December 30, 2008.

3 Sándor Radnóti, The Fake: Forgery and its Place in Art (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999),

41.
connoisseur. Authentication affects the monetary value of an artwork. It goes without

saying that an authentic Picasso sells for far more than an artwork that is just an

authentic twentieth century decorative piece.

The Connoisseurs

Connoisseurship is part of the authentication process. For some people it is the

only way to authenticate and until scientific examination was possible it was the

golden mean of art authentication. Even today, when scientific examination is an

established way to authenticate, most people rely on the opinion and verdict of art

experts and scholars, who are the most respected in the field. People like Thomas

Hoving, Eugene Thaw, Hans Tietze, and the late Bernard Berenson, just to name a

few, all have had intuitive responses when they feel something is wrong with an

artwork. Most connoisseurs are well trained art historians and many are also

collectors. Thomas Hoving says this type of ability is a sixth sense and calls people

with this gift fake busters.4 In his book, False Impressions he describes what goes

through his mind when looking at a false image:

I know when I scrutinize a work I can hear myself rapidly cataloguing

the stylistic elements I know I should expect from the artist, and those
that seem incongruous. It’s automatic. Sometimes I think I’m hearing
someone talking to me, making an inventory of the expected artistic
episodes and emphasizing the unexpected or inexplicable. When I
describe to myself a work I begin to suspect is a fake, I find myself
sometimes using obscene language.5

4 Thomas Hoving, False Impressions: The Hunt for Big-Time Art Fakes (New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1997), 19-20.
5 Ibid., 20.
Hoving believes that the first two seconds, the so-called blink of an eye, is very

important when he is introduced to an artwork he has to examine. Whatever his

impression is in those two seconds, he writes down the first word that comes to his

mind. He uses this method every time he inspects an artwork. Other connoisseurs,

such as Evelyn Harrison, Georgios Dontas and Federico Zeri, support Hoving’s

practice. They were all involved in the investigation of the famous-infamous Getty

kouros in 1983 and all four of them had intuition of falsity when they first looked at

the statue.6

The Business of Art Institutions

Although there are great art experts who help foundation boards and museums

with acquisitions or lend their expertise when an artwork has a questionable quality,

institutions do not always take their advice. In the case of the Getty kouros the

museum board decided to purchase the statue even though the four experts,

mentioned above and their assistants warned them not to. There was not much todo

about the Getty’s decision. It was a young institution in the early 1980’s that wanted

to buy as much art as they could, in order to present a great collection in a short time,

and this is why they made a series of mistakes.

The Getty spent countless hours, invested a great deal of money to

scientifically examine the kouros, called in the leading experts, and sent the piece to

Greece for further investigation. In the end, after all the negative feedback, the Getty

6 Malcolm Gladwell, Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking (New York: Little Brown and
Company, 2005), 3-8.
Museum still went through with the acquisition. Given various other purchases, some

of which turned out to be fakes, and how the museum spent too much money on

originals worth less than what they paid,7 it can be concluded that it was neglect on

their part. Such carelessness occurs at every museum, big or small; making mistakes

is only human. Thomas Hoving admitted to having purchased out of eagerness

certain artworks for his own collection and for the Metropolitan Museum of Art,

which he later discovered to be fakes. One such purchase for the Metropolitan

Museum of Art was a small German wooden sculpture of the Madonna and Child that

Hoving bought for the Cloisters in 1962 from a New York gallery. His desire to

acquire an artwork before any one else laid eyes on it cost him a fake.8 There is a

difference between making an impulse purchase as Hoving did, and having an

artwork examined by top experts and still turning a deaf ear to their advice, as the

Getty Museum did.

Auction houses look at artworks solely as commodities and treat the works

accordingly. Even though they all have in-house specialists now, they used not to

necessarily examine every single work before their sales. If a work has a good

provenance, a believable solid looking provenance, then the auction house has no

reason to question its authenticity. Forgers know this all too well, which is why

master forgers Eric Hebborn and John Drewe could pass their works through auction

sales. At times auction houses use previous sales as provenance for artworks in their

7 Thomas Hoving in False Impressions’ chapter 18 tells the story of the Getty kouros as well as the
man who is possibly responsible for it, Jiri Frel, former curator of Greek and Roman art at the Getty
Museum. Frel was also the man who had the Getty purchase fakes and less expensive authentic works
for which he kept the profit. 279-310.
8 Hoving, False Impressions, 136.
catalogues, but the problem is that previous sales are not considered provenance. This

can make auction houses liable for forgeries because they do not always take every

necessary measure to stop fakes and forgeries from entering the market through their

doors.

A good example is Greenwood v. Koven9 where the defendant, Jane Koven

sold a Braque pastel through Christie’s, New York to Barbalee Diamonstein, a well-

known New York socialite, for $600,000. At the request of Diamonstein the Braque

was examined by in-house specialists at Christie’s in order to prove the authenticity.

The two specialists approved the Braque and gave their authentication in writing.

Diamonstein was not satisfied with the result and urged Christie’s to send the artwork

to Paris where the holder of the droit de suite of the Braque family estate would do a

more thorough examination. Since Diamonstein is a very important person in New

York’s social circles, and also a regular customer at Christie’s, the pastel was sent to

Paris. The family’s representative came to the conclusion that the Braque was, in fact,

a fake. Christie’s sought the return of the $600,000 from Koven who sued the auction

house for acting inappropriately in rescinding the sale. At the end of the trial Koven

lost. The important issue in this case is that Christie’s should have done a more

thorough examination before the sale.10 They made a mistake and if Barbalee

Diamondstein had not pressed for authentication, then she would still have a fake

Braque pastel on her wall for which she paid over a half million dollars.

9 Greenwood v. Koven. 92 Civ. 2574 (CSH) (S.D.N.Y. 1993).

10 Patty Gerstenblith, Art, Cultural Heritage and the Law: Cases and Materials (Durham: Carolina
Academy Press, 2005), 322-328.
 It is not uncommon for art experts to make mistakes and get confused over

works of arts; even with the help of scientific examination there can be error at times.

A co-administrator for a well-known artist’s foundation, who would like to remain

anonymous, admits that it is not uncommon for the first impression of a fake to be

deceptively realistic. This person also states that one cannot jump to conclusions and

rather must take time before accepting or denying an artwork. Pressure is another

negative force that can drive experts into authenticating an artwork that turns out to

be a forgery later on. Pressure on a foundation is not unusual as they face problems on

a daily basis. Pressure at an auction house is even higher as they have deadlines with

each upcoming sale. When asked about authentication, and how the foundation knows

what they are looking at, my source said that by knowing exactly how the artist

worked, and having a deep knowledge of his art and brush strokes, ultimately tells

them what they are looking at. Dr. Joseph Masheck, art historian, reinforced the

importance of authenticating the right way in order to avoid forgeries.

When our faith in a work of art is called into question everything that
depends upon it for confirmation and generalization is undermined. So
those who devote themselves to studying signs of authenticity and
authenticity in artworks are as indispensable as the credentials
committee of a political congress where important things are at stake,
yet by the same token they must generally be unsung, since everyone
else has other things to worry about, even though those things could be
sabotaged if that committee didn't do good work.11

Artist’s foundations are probably under more pressure than anyone else in the

art market. Many of them stopped authenticating artworks because of lawsuits they

11 Dr. Joseph Masheck (art historian and critic), interview by Alexandra Halidisz, August
27, 2009.
had to defend due to dissatisfied collectors. Many foundations, for example, the

Warhol Foundation, the Pollock-Krasner Foundation, the Lichtenstein Foundation, the

Boetti Foundation, state in their contract that they cannot be sued if the outcome of

their opinion is negative. However, collectors still take them to court. The Pollock-

Krasner Foundation, for example, stopped authenticating for this reason. The Warhol

Authentication Board probably has the most unorthodox way of evaluating works

presented to them by collectors. They will not give an explanation if they deny

authenticity of an artwork. They can also take back their own ruling on artworks if

they decide that the submitted work is not by Warhol even though they authenticated

it earlier as one. Joe Simon-Whelan, film writer and producer, sued the Warhol

Foundation because of his belief that the Warhol Foundation was manipulating the art

market. Given their practice toward collectors and art dealers, it is not surprising that

the Warhol Foundation is constantly being questioned.

The Alexander Calder Foundation is currently being sued by composer Joel

Thome for not authenticating his Calder theatre set, and for ignoring his request for

over ten years. Joel Thome reconstructed the theatre set in question under the

supervision of Alexander Calder, a Calder restoration specialist, a fine arts professor,

and an architect in 1975 and 1976 for the revival of the French musical, Socrate.12

Calder gave specific instructions to Thome and his team on how to reconstruct the set

and in the end approved it, but Alexander Calder died before the first performance. At

the end of the musical’s run Thome placed the set in storage. Some years later Thome

12 Alexander Calder designed the originally theatre set for Socrate in 1936 but once the show’s
running time came to an end, the set was destroyed.
wanted to sell the theatre set, but the potential buyer wanted an authentication letter

from the Calder Foundation. Thome submitted his documents in 1997 and spoke to

Alexander Rowe about possibly including it in the Alexander Calder catalogue

raisonné. There is no written document of Rowe ever agreeing to include the theatre

set in the catalogue as it was a verbal agreement. Thome waited patiently, but the

Calder Foundation never responded nor did they ever make a decision about the

theatre set.13 Thome, in the meantime, lost two potential buyers. Ten years later, in

2007, he sued the Calder Foundation with the help of attorney Richard A. Altman.

The lawsuit was dismissed in the spring of 2008, but Thome appealed in the winter of

2009. Richard A. Altman argued the appeal at the Appellate Division of the New York

Supreme Court on April 28, 2009. The fate of the Calder theatre set is not yet known

but there is a good chance that “the Alexander Calder authentication committee is

obligated to rule on the attribution of every artwork submitted to it.”14

Samuel Sachs, former director of the Frick Collection, criticized the

Rembrandt Research Project for being self appointed and to accepting only about

three-hundred works by Rembrandt, which seems impossibly few for the lifespan he

lived and worked. According to Sachs, confusion is created because “art historians

have a way of sanitizing and improving on an artist’s work so that anything that isn’t

100 percent perfect or 100 percent provable is subject to rejection.”15 This problem

13 Joel Thome v. The Alexander & Louisa Calder Foundation Supreme Court of the State of New
York, 600823/07 (2008). The decision is up on appeal.

14 Daniel Grant, “Calder Lawsuit May Raise Bar For Authentication Committees” ARTnewsletter 34,
No. 19 (May 12, 2009), http://artnewsletter.artnews.com/ArchivedIssues.aspx?id=971 (accessed May
5, 2009).

15 Ronald D. Spencer, ed, The Expert Versus the Object: Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the
seems to occur often with old masters who had studios with pupils and assistants.

Sometimes it is hard to tell where the artist’s work ends and where the assistant takes

over. Either way it is still considered a ‘Rembrandt’ and not ‘Rembrandt and

assistant’. This type of collaboration between artist and student becomes something

like a brand. We accept it as the artist‘s work, because the painting was most likely

the artist’s vision with the students and assistants helping him realize it.

Scientific Examination

Scientific examination is a great tool in helping to determine authenticity. As

technology evolves scientists have more refined and sensitive machines for in-depth

research. As much as some art experts dismiss scientific examination (as Thomas

Hoving and Jeffrey Bergen did for the scientific examination of Teri Horton’s Jackson

Pollock described in Field Study I) it is still used for art authentication as well as for

art conservation. Without scientific examinations people would know far less about

an artist’s intention. Take, for example, infrared photography. Harriet Irgang Alden

from Rustin Levenson Art Conservation Associates talks about how this method can

help them see what is underneath a composition:

It’s a video technique actually. It’s in black and white, it’s a camera
that has a filter on it that blocks out all of the wavelengths except for
the infrared. It allows you to see through the paint layer. Remarkably
what that does, it makes certain colors transparent so you’re actually
seeing through certain colors, any drawings that might be underneath.
If an artist drew with charcoal on a white ground you would then be
able to see it. So infrared can be very helpful, again, if there are
comparisons on a particular artist and what their drawings looked like.

Visual Arts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 104.

 It can indicate restoration areas because they show up differently in
infrared.16

Beside infra red photography, a non-destructive technique, scientists and

conservators also do pigment analysis, a destructive technique, by which they analyze

the pigment under different microscopes to see its content. It determined, for

example, the fate of Alex Matter’s Jackson Pollock paintings, which apparently were

painted with pigment that was not available when Jackson Pollock was alive. Alden

was an advisor for the Pollock-Krasner Foundation for this case. Her role was to help

the foundation understand the technical report of the scientific examination done by

Harvard and Orion Analytical.17

Scientific examination also resolved the questions about The Polish Rider by

Rembrandt at the Frick Collection. The Rembrandt Research Project, a group of art

experts committed to examine the works of Rembrandt van Rijn, were baffled about

this piece as much as other connoisseurs. There was confusion about whether it was

painted by Rembrandt or his student, Willem Drost. Joshua Bruyn, former chairman

for the Rembrandt Research Project, published his doubts in a book review. This

review opened a flood of opinions about the attribution of the painting. The

Rembrandt Research Project reviewed The Polish Rider and admitted that “that are

parts that are, indeed, too weak in execution and handling of form to be regarded as

the work of Rembrandt, while others are typically Rembrandtesque in style, quality

and execution.”18 The Rembrandt Research Project had done a comprehensive

16 Harriet Irgang Alden (art conservator), interview by Alexandra Halidisz, March 4, 2009.

17 Ibid.

18 Ernest van de Wetering, “Thirty Years of the Rembrandt Research Project: The Tension Between
scientific analysis with X-ray technology that showed that the painting was not

entirely painted by Rembrandt. The underlining of the painting showed two different

hands, one belonging to Rembrandt, the other to possibly a student, maybe even

Willem Drost. The conclusion of the Rembrandt Research Project was that the The

Polish Rider is an authentic Rembrandt, but in order to reach this conclusion they had

to do a scientific analysis.

Conclusion

Art authentication is very difficult and there is not one group of people who

have the final word on the attribution of an artwork. Connoisseurs, curators and art

experts dedicating their lives to the study of art will always be more trusted than

others, because normally they do not have monetary interest in giving their opinion.

Authentication boards are less credible because of suspicion that they may be trying

to monopolize the art market to keep prices inflated. Collectors often sue foundations

because their decisions dictate whether an artwork is authentic or not and therefore

determine the value of a work. It is very unlikely that Joe Simon and Joel Thome

would be able to sell their artworks for a fair price in the art market without

authentication letters from the foundations. It is also very important to give credit to

scientific examination, as it can affirm the attribution of an artwork, even though it is

not what will ultimately determine the decision. So who decides in the end? It is

different with every authentication case. It could be the connoisseur, the foundation or

in the case of a lawsuit, the judge.

Science and Connoisseurship in Authenticating Art”. IFAR Journal 4 (2001): 23.

Field Study I. (Figures 1-7)

A short history of the Pollock-Krasner Foundation and Authentication Board

The Pollock-Krasner Authentication Board stands as the oldest artist’s

authentication commission. Between 1956, the year of the death of Jackson Pollock,

and 1971, his wife Lee Krasner reviewed all incoming submissions with her lawyer,

Gerard Dickler and Donald McKinney, vice president of the Marlborough Gallery in

New York. The Jackson Pollock Authentication Committee was established in 1971

when Eugene Thaw took over the Jackson Pollock catalogue raisonné. Its board

members, Lee Krasner, William Lieberman (former director of the drawing

department at the Museum of Modern Art), Donald McKinney and Francis O’Connor,

as well as Eugene Thaw, reviewed about forty artworks by Jackson Pollock submitted

to them between 1972 and 1978, when the catalogue raisonné on the works of

Jackson Pollock was published. Lee Krasner decided on authentications until her

death in 1984. In 1990 the Pollock-Krasner Foundation was established with board

members Eugene Thaw, Francis O’Connor, William Lieberman and Ellen G. Landau,

author of the Lee Krasner catalogue raisonné.19 In the mid 1990’s the board was sued

by a lawyer who was a specialist on U.S. trust law. He said that the committee gave

him a false authentication in order to control the market. The case was dismissed by

the court because of the statue of limitations. However, the lawyer returned to court

19 Ronald D. Spencer, 21.

with another client. The litigation was in 1996 and the foundation won the case.20 The

board members thought that even though collectors sign a contract agreeing not to sue

them if their opinion is not favorable, the same collectors break the contract hoping

that in court they can prove otherwise. Therefore, they stopped giving their opinion

on Jackson Pollock and Lee Krasner artworks and instead decided to forward all

authentication requests to the International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR)

where a panel of experts, put together by IFAR, decides on the authenticity of Jackson

Pollock and Lee Krasner’s artworks.

The Case of Teri Horton

Ronald D. Spencer, lawyer for the Pollock-Krasner Foundation, said that

“provenance insulates liability...if you can trace the possession of the work from the

artist to the present owner, there is strong evidence that the artist created the work.”21

This is one thing that Teri Horton, a retired truck driver from California, would need

to have in order to have her painting accepted by scholars. Horton purchased a large

oil painting from Dot’s Thrift Shop in San Bernardino, California for five dollars

sometime in 1992 or 1993.22 She bought it for a friend who lived in a trailer park. The

painting did not fit in the trailer and the friend had no desire for it anyway. Horton put

it in a yard sale where a local art teacher spotted the painting and told her that it might

20 Attorney Ronald D. Spencer, interview by Alexandra Halidisz, January 21, 2009. The case in
question was David Kramer v. The Pollock-Krasner Foundation, 890 F. Supp. 250 (S.D.N.Y.1995)

21 Harry Moses, Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock? DVD, Directed by Harry Moses, (Hewitt
Group-New Line Cinema, 2006).
22 Peter Paul Bíró, “Teri’s Find: A Forensic Study in Authentication. 2001-2007.” Biro Fine Art
Restoration. http://www.Bírófineartrestoration.com/Pollock/Pollock.htm (accessed July 5, 2009).
be a Jackson Pollock.23

The composition is painted in emulsion paint and acrylic, measuring 66 ¾ x

47 5/8 inches. It had never been varnished and it is untouched by restoration or any

type of wear. The canvas is stretched and stapled to a stretcher and appears to be cut

from a roll after it was painted. There is a small arrow drawn on the stretcher with a

blue ballpoint pen perhaps indicating its vertical direction. The painting is not signed

and has been dated circa 1948 (Figures 1 and 2).24

The painting drew attention in the art world, but the reviews from art experts

were rather pessimistic. Art historians like Thomas Hoving firmly held that the

painting is not by Jackson Pollock. Hoving said that his instant impression of the

painting was “neat” and “compacted” which is a bad omen because Pollock was

neither. He also stated that the painting is “superficial” and “frivolous” and it has “no

appeal.”25 Hoving explained further in an article he wrote for Artnet why he does not

believe that Horton's painting is by Jackson Pollock.

It is too neat and too sweet, using soigné colors that Pollock never
used. Some lines are perfectly straight. It's hard to drip straight lines.
The canvas is commercially sized, which means that paint does not
come through the back of the canvas. All real Pollocks are unsized and
his paint patterns can easily be seen from the back. The thing is
painted with acrylics. Pollock never used acrylics.26

23 Harry Moses, Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?

24 Peter Paul Bíró, “Teri’s Find: A Forensic Study in Authentication. 2001-2007.”

25 Moses, Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?

26 Thomas Hoving, “The Fate of the $5 Pollock.” Artnet

http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/hoving/hoving11-6-08.asp (accessed May 3,
2009).
Nick Carone, artist and friend of Jackson Pollock’s also questioned the painting’s

authenticity, saying that even in his lifetime Pollock was copied. Ben Heller, art

collector and a connoisseur of Jackson Pollock said it makes him feel uncomfortable.

“This…doesn’t look like a Pollock. Doesn't feel like a Pollock, doesn't sing like a

Pollock, doesn't fail [feel?] like a Pollock."27 The painting was submitted to IFAR for

examination. IFAR also said it is not by Pollock, would not authenticate it, would not

sign the report, and would not give out the names of the panel of experts who

examined it.28 In this situation IFAR’s conclusion that the painting is not a Jackson

Pollock can be disregarded because the people who made this decision and how they

arrived at that conclusion are unknown. Why they would not sign the report and why

they would not give out the names of the panel members is also unknown. Ronald

Spencer admitted that it is “fundamental to know who make these decisions.”29 This casts IFAR in a

bad light. How can someone rely on an organization if they are unwilling to disclose

information that the public is entitled to know?

There is no way of proving the provenance of Horton's Pollock for now. The

thrift shop where it was purchased was demolished years ago and the owner passed

away. There was an indication from Horton’s son, Bill Page, that the painting was

purchased from an estate in the Victorville, California, but there is no purchase

invoice that could serve as proof even though Pollock’s brother, Charles Cecil

27 Moses, Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.
Pollock, lived close by Victorville in Apple Valley.30 That does not prove anything

either and is merely hypothetical which is unfortunately useless when it comes to

authentication. If there is no clear provenance and experts cannot agree then this

painting will not be accepted as genuine in the art world. It could be sold if there is a

collector who does not care about the authentication letter but it would not sell for the

price Horton is asking.31 It is said that if this were an authentic Jackson Pollock then

the selling price could be as high as fifty million dollars. Horton received an offer for

nine million dollars from a private collector in Saudi Arabia but she turned it down.32

She received several other offers for more or less the same price but she turned all of

them down saying that the offers are not fair for what it could be worth. After being

rejected many times over by the American art experts, Horton decided to try to sell

her painting in Canada. It was exhibited at Gallery Delisle in east Toronto from

November 13 to the 27 in 2008.33 As of now, the painting is still at the gallery waiting

to be sold.

Scientific Analysis

Scientific examination played a major role in the case of Teri Horton's

Pollock. A complete forensic analysis done by Peter Paul Bíró proved that the paint

30 Peter Paul Bíró, “Teri’s Find: A Forensic Study in Authentication. 2001-2007.”

31 Moses, Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?

32 Daniel Schorn, “A Thrift-Shop Jackson Pollock Masterpiece?” CBS News. (May 6, 2007)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/03/60minutes/main2758110_page3.shtml?
tag=contentMain;conte (accessed August 15, 2009).

33 Vicky Tam, “Controversial Pollock for sale in Toronto.” CBC News Canada. (October 29, 2008)
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/artdesign/story/2008/10/29/pollock-sells-in-toronto.html (accessed August 15,
2009).
and fingerprint found on the painting’s verso can be undeniably traced to the Pollock-

Krasner studio in East Hampton, Long Island. The evidence is strong that this

painting could very well be a Jackson Pollock based on the forensic report. It is

important to consider the methodology of scientific examination because it provides

an alternative to the opinions of the connoisseurs. Scientific examination has become

essential to the art market, although it is expensive to acquire it, nevertheless, it can

prove or disprove authenticity. It is more common in the museum world to rely on

forensic art examination, whereas individuals usually hire an expert. After the

rejection of the art experts, this was the only way for Teri Horton to prove her

painting’s authenticity.

Horton hired Canada based art forensic scientist Peter Paul Bíró. Bíró, a

Hungarian living in Montreal, who grew up in the restoration world. His father was

an art restorer to the Budapest Museum of Fine Arts. Bíró was exposed to art, artists

and their techniques from an early age. He has worked exclusively as an art forensic

scientist since 1990 and has been pioneering fingerprint identification on artworks

since 1984. He says, “ I look at a painting like a crime scene but not who committed a

murder, I am looking for who committed the art.”34 Bíró has been called upon to do

work for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Tate Gallery, the National Gallery in

London, the National Gallery in Washington D.C., and for the Palazzo Pitti in

Florence.35

Bíró spent two days on the painting analyzing everything from the canvas to

34 Moses. Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?

35 Peter Paul Bíró, “Teri’s Find: A Forensic Study in Authentication. 2001-2007.”

the substance of the paint and collected samples such as scrapings of paint, embedded

hair and fiber.36 He was also looking for validation such as fingerprints. He found

“two fingerprints left in wet paint…one was located along the folded edge of the

canvas verso…not clear enough for comparison. The second fingerprint was

discovered on the verso…was found to have 16 identifiable characteristics and it was

considered usable for comparison.”37

The next problem was to ascertain whether if it was Jackson Pollock’s fingerprint.

The dilemma was that Pollock never served in the Army, nor was he ever

fingerprinted by the police. Nobody knew what his fingerprint looked like because

there was no official record of it. At first, Bíró started to look through catalogues

hoping to find his fingerprint on another painting. Thanks to his in-depth research he

found a painting with Pollock’s fingerprint in a private collection in Berlin that he

compared to Horton’s painting. Bíró concluded that Red Painting Number 4, was

painted by Pollock circa 1950, had partial fingerprint with twelve characteristics that

matched the one on Horton’s (Figures 3 and 4). Comparing images from a catalogue,

even if it is a high-resolution image, is hard but Bíró was able to distinguish between

the fingerprint and the weave of the canvas by carefully following the “color index of

each ridge’s paint- deposit-on the microscopic scale.”38 With the help of technology he

removed any extra noise “created by the offset dots from the reproduction” in order to

make a distinction between the different textures, and was able to compare the

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid., Part I, Point 6, a-c.

38 Ibid., Part I, Point 6, i.

characteristics of the two fingerprints, which are the bifurcations, islands and ridges.39

“The correspondence of 12 characteristics is confirmation that the fingerprint in [Red

Painting Number 4] was left on the painting by the same finger as what left its mark

on [Horton's Pollock].”40

Although the result was satisfactory Bíró felt that it would not be enough as

the fingerprint on Red Painting Number 4 was larger than the one on Horton’s. This

could be attributed to a swollen finger as Bíró explained in his article, although others

disputed it.41 In order to provide the most accurate research Bíró traveled from

Montreal to East Hampton to investigate Jackson Pollock’s studio where he

photographed thirty-three fingerprints altogether. “The way, really the only valuable

way to interpret evidence is through its relationship to its environment. This is plain,

old fashioned forensic approach.”42 From the thirty-three fingerprints Bíró was only

able to use a few because many of them were too partial to be useful. The ones he

thought were the clearest were found on a can of paint and a brush. “My focus was on

finding fingerprints that preserve a core, the central region of the fingerprint, because

the Teri’s Find fingerprint also appears to have a core.”43 The fingerprint on Horton's

Pollock and on the can in Pollock’s East Hampton studio were a match.44 To verify his

results, Bíró called in Sergeant Andrei Terkov, a fingerprint expert who was in charge
39 Ibid., Part I, Point 6, j.

40 Ibid., Part I, Point 6, m.

41 Ibid., Part II.

42 Moses, Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?

43 Peter Paul Bíró, “Teri’s Find: A Forensic Study in Authentication. 2001-2007.”

44 Ibid.
of the crime lab of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for fifteen years. After his

thorough examination, Terkov came to the conclusion that the two fingerprints were

indeed a match.45

According to Bíró, Pollock’s studio floor is an important part of his

Investigation (Figure 7).

…because these samples come from the accumulations of years of

spills and painting, the floor can be approached as an archeological
site. The question of provenance in the case of the floor of course
never needs to be raised. Thus it is an open window to understanding
just how and why he blended and diluted paint the way he did…one
must also recognize that great skill and understanding of his materials
was required. Such skills likely came from those who inspired him but
also had to have come from endless experimentation. The studio floor
is a fantastic record of that.46

Bíró compared the consistency of the paint from Horton's Pollock to the paint

samples on Pollock’s studio floor. He took several samples from Pollock’s studio

floor and from Horton's Pollock for testing. Horton's Pollock is a “mixture of

different type of paint.”47 Bíró found seven different specimens, which he compared to

the paint samples taken from Pollock’s studio floor. “Color for color each one

exhibited the same optical characteristics when compared to samples taken from

Pollock’s studio floor. Among the characteristics compared were color, particle size,

shape, transparency, reflectivity and birefringence.”48 Bíró also performed

microchemistry to examine the mediums in which every sample coming from

45 Moses, Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?

46 Peter Paul Bíró, “Teri’s Find: A Forensic Study in Authentication. 2001-2007.” Part III,
Pigment Analysis.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid.
Horton's Pollock showed the same consistency as the paint from Pollock’s studio

floor. Many of the paint samples are still soft to this day and according to Bíró that is

possibly because Pollock was experimenting with paint and some of the chemicals in

his mixtures slowed down the drying process.

Bíró also goes into detail on how to distinguish between commercially primed

canvas and manually primed canvas, as well as his finds of hair embedded in Horton's

Pollock and on the floor of Pollock’s studio (Figures 5 and 6). Unfortunately, because

of the lack of funding on Horton’s side, the DNA test on the hair finds and the

analytical examination of the priming has to wait. It would be interesting to see what

the DNA test might say about the hair samples found. Perhaps that would be the key

to an ultimate resolution.

The Reaction of the Art World to the Scientific Evidence

Bíró’s scientific examination received mixed reviews in the art world. Thomas

Hoving and Ronald Spencer dismissed it. Spencer agreed that scientific evaluations

are valuable, but his problem with Bíró’s fingerprint analysis goes back to the issue

that no one knows what Pollock’s fingerprints looked like. To Spencer,

connoisseurship is always going to be a part of the judgment on authenticity.

According to him people cannot test everything scientifically as it is very expensive

and too time consuming.49 Hoving agrees that “Scientists are very interesting but they

come after the true connoisseurs. Fingerprints are kind of that lovely what if. It’s not

49 Attorney Ronald D. Spencer, interview by Alexandra Halidisz, January 21, 2009.

essential to the heart and artistic soul of that thing and that has no heart and soul of

Pollock.”50 Hoving dismisses the idea that the fingerprint from the blue can could be

Pollocks. “It’s a fantasy built on dreams. That could be the guy who cleaned out his

room and who knows even painted the painting.”51 He felt very strongly about the

painting being a copy and how it would be a fraud if it were marketed as a Jackson

Pollock.

Ronald Spencer states that fingerprints are not something that the art world

understands and questions the meaning of a fingerprint match. Would that mean that a

match only matches one person’s fingerprint or could that mean that more than one

person has the same fingerprint. According to the FBI: “No two persons have exactly

the same arrangement of ridge patterns, and the patterns of any one individual remain

unchanged throughout life.”52 This means that a match indicates that the fingerprint

indeed comes from one person. The question remains, is that person Jackson Pollock

or someone else?

Jeffrey Bergen, a New York based art dealer, agrees with Hoving when saying

that “forensic science is fascinating but in itself it’s not enough, we have to have the

scholarship, too. There has to be a consensus behind the painting by experts or you

can end up in a pile of problems.”53 Bergen’s concern is understandable. When an

artwork is not accepted by scholars and experts, as well as the estate of the artist then

50 Moses, Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?

51 Moses, Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?

52 “Fingerprint Investigation: An Overview” Federal Bureau of Investigation.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/ident.htm (accessed on July 5, 2009).

53 Moses, Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?

the reputation of the dealer who buys it is tarnished because he or she did not

investigate before they purchased. The art world is a small universe in which

everyone knows everyone else. To make a purchase of something that is not accepted

by the main players is risky. Even the formerly incarcerated Tod Volpe,54 who tried to

sell Horton's Pollock in shares, said that “nobody is interested until the art world says

it’s OK.”55

The Question of the Pigment

Another controversial debate over Horton's Pollock is the use of acrylic paint

in the composition. It raises questions as to whether Pollock painted his drip paintings

with acrylic in the 1940’s and whether acrylic paint was even invented at this time. To

refer back to Thomas Hoving’s article for Artnet he stated that “The thing is painted

with acrylics. Pollock never used acrylic” and that the “canvas is commercially

sized.”56 Peter Paul Bíró is of a different opinion. His examination of the pigments

showed that “there is only one color on Horton's Pollock that is an acrylate.”57 Bíró

also researched what paint Pollock used and spoke to several art conservators such as

Jim Coddington, Chief Conservator at the Museum of Modern Art, James Martin of
54 Tod Volpe spent a year in jail for art fraud. He sold paintings to the Hollywood elite, which he
never delivered.

55 Moses, Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?

56 Hoving, The Fate of the $5 Pollock.

57 Peter Paul Bíró, “Teri’s Find: A Forensic Study in Authentication. 2001-2007.” Part IV, Epilogue.
Orion Analytical, and Susan Lake, Chief Conservator, Hirshhorn Museum and

Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution to see what the earliest date of Pollock’s

use of acrylic paint was. According to Bíró “it was not possible to establish an earliest

date for his use of acrylic.”58 As for Pollock never using acrylic, this also has been

refuted by Bíró’s research on Leonard Bocour’s interview with journalist Paul

Cummings on June 8, 1978. Leonard Bocour was the founding father of Bocour

Artists Colors Incorporated, and the interview reveals that Bocour already made

acrylic paint with his partner, Harry Levinson, in 1947. He said, “I was the first to

make an acrylic resin which could mix with both oil and turpentine.” The name of the

paint was Magna and according to Bocour Jackson Pollock used it, and in fact “all the

late Pollocks were painted with Magna.”59

All this research, as well as the public argument between Bíró and Hoving,

does not prove that Horton's Pollock is by Jackson Pollock, but it definitely does not

prove that it is not. The possibility is open and as the scientific research indicates, it

comes from Pollock’s era and from his studio in East Hampton. The experts and the

lawyers are not challenging the fact that it is from Pollock’s studio, they argue that it

is not by Pollock’s hand. Could he have had someone in his studio at any given day

who tried to paint like him? Possibly, but that person could not have been an amateur

art lover. Perhaps one day the DNA test on the hair samples will be carried out and

shed more light on this situation. Although, it makes one wonder, would the DNA

58 Peter Paul Bíró, “Teri’s Find: A Forensic Study in Authentication. 2001-2007.” Part III, Acrylic.

59 Paul Cummings, “Oral History Interview with Leonard Bocour, 1978 June 8.” Smithsonian
Archives of American Art. http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/oralhistories/transcripts/bocour78.htm
(accessed August 5, 2009).
result make any difference? The art experts are very confident in their opinion and

Teri Horton, along with Peter Paul Bíró and a handful of other people, are convinced

otherwise. As of right now, it is the art connoisseurs who decide on Teri Horton’s

Jackson Pollock and the verdict is: not by Pollock.

Field Study II. (Figures 8-10)

Joe Simon-Whelan v. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.

Introduction

Andy Warhol was one of the most renowned artists of the twentieth century.

His innovation and contribution to Pop art and filmmaking is unique as was his

fascination with fame and the Hollywood scene. One of his famous sayings “in the

future everyone will be world famous for fifteen minutes” is legendary and even

correct if we think of the Reality TV stars of today’s popular culture. The work of

Andy Warhol, however, cannot be attributed to him alone, but also to his tireless

associates and assistants at the Factory where most of his works were produced.

When people discuss the art of Andy Warhol, every hand behind the man is included.
The Factory was the modern version of the artist‘s atelier of yore. Productivity was

very important to Warhol, but he did not make every work on his own. After he

gained popularity as a pioneer of Pop art, he let his assistants and even people he

knew outside of his circle such as Richard Ekstract make his artworks. Sam Green, a

New York art dealer, organized Warhol’s first retrospective in 1965. Warhol

authorized Green to sign a poster he made for the retrospective as well as several

other works of art because Warhol was not signing any of his artworks that year.

Green said in an interview with the BBC that Sotheby’s would authenticate his

signatures as Warhol’s but only his, because Warhol “delegated the responsibility to

me of making his art.”60 According to Green, art was not valuable because of who

made it or who signed it, but because it was an image and that image’s concept

belonged to the artist. All these components create problems today when it comes to

authenticating Warhol’s works, because he is still one of the most forged artists in the

world. It is also problematic to answer the question what is considered a Warhol and

what is not, what is accepted as a Warhol and what is not? The lawsuit discussed here

concerns the problem of Andy Warhol giving creative direction to someone else,

which twenty two years after his death has led to a whirlwind of charges among art

specialists, dealers, collectors, critics and artists.

Joe Simon is an American film writer and producer living in London,

England. On 25 August 1989 he purchased a self-portrait said to be by Andy Warhol

for $195,000 from the art dealers Jonathan O‘Hara, Michael Hue-Williams and Max

60 Imagine... Warhol: Denied. Directed by Chris Rodley, London, U.K.: BBC network special, 2006
(originally aired January 24, 2006).
Lang (the former Lang & O‘Hara Gallery in New York City).61 The self-portrait was

not made by Andy Warhol, but by Richard Ekstract who was authorized by Warhol to

make this work as part of a series of self-portraits of Warhol (Figure 8). The artwork,

hereafter titled Double Denied, has been denied twice by the Warhol Authentication

Board (Figure 9), which led Simon to sue both the estate and the foundation for

$20,000,000 on nine counts of misconduct in 2007.

Description and Provenance

The artwork is silkscreen ink on synthetic polymer paint on canvas and

measures 24 x 20 inches. Before the portrait was auctioned at Christie’s on 4

November 1987 Warhol’s signature was stamped on the upper right edge of the

stretcher twice and once on the lower left edge of the stretcher said to be by Vincent

Fremont, a former Factory associate (Figure 10). Fremont at this time was serving as

the agent of the Andy Warhol Estate and trustee of the Andy Warhol Foundation. The

painting was purchased by Daniel Templon, a French art dealer, for $28,600. Templon

sold the piece in March of 1988 to Ronald Feldman, owner of the Ronald Feldman

Gallery in New York City. Before Feldman purchased Double Denied he allegedly

requested an authentication certificate from Fred Hughes, an associate of Andy

Warhol, who was the sole executor of the Andy Warhol Estate until his death in 2001.

The certification of authenticity can be found stamped on the lower left edge of the

stretcher. It reads: “I certify that this is an original painting by Andy Warhol

61 Simon v. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Art, Inc., The Estate of Andy Warhol,
Vincent Fremont, Individual and Successor Executor for the Estate of Andy Warhol, Vincent Fremont
Enterprises, The Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board, Inc., John Does 1-20, Jane Does 1-10, and
Richard Roes 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 44242 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), p.6, point 13.
completed by him in 1964.”62 Shortly after the purchase Feldman sold the piece to the

Aldis Browne Gallery in California who sold it to Richard Polsky, a well-known

Warhol collector. Polsky sold the piece to the Lang & O’Hara Gallery in New York

City, from which Simon purchased it on 25 August 1989.63

The Pursuit of Authentication

Joe Simon first submitted Double Denied to the Warhol Authentication Board

on 21 July 2001 after his offer to sell it to a potential buyer for $2,000,000. He claims

that he had meetings with Vincent Fremont who allegedly urged him to submit the

work to the Authentication Board for an examination. It is important to emphasize

that the defendant’s court file does not contain proof of a promise on the part of

Fremont that Double Denied would be accepted and authenticated by the Andy

Warhol Authentication Board. Simon sent his artwork with documentations such as:

the original bill of sale; a letter from Jonathan O‘Hara; a letter from Ronald Feldman

acknowledging the authentication by Fred Hughes; and a letter from Michael Hue-

Williams acknowledging his previous conversation with Fred Hughes on the

authentication. Simon also noted that Vincent Fremont told him that Double Denied

would be included in the Warhol catalogue raisonné, however, there is no written

document about this promise. On 2 February 2002 the board sent a letter of rejection

62 F.Supp 2d at 11, Point 36.

63 F.Supp 2d at 22, Points 97-106.

for Double Denied. Simon claims that there was no explanation of why the piece was

denied, but he made a phone call to the board and spoke to Claudia Defendi, assistant

secretary, who encouraged Simon to reenter his work with more documentation.

Simon spoke to Vincent Fremont who reinforced Defendi’s suggestion. Within a year,

in early February of 2003, Simon resubmitted his painting with research materials and

historical background that he said took him “hundreds of hours” to complete.64 The

documentation included the following:

A letter from Paul Morrissey, Warhol Factory’s film director in the

1960’s, supporting Double Denied’s authenticity; a letter from Billy
Name, the Factory’s photographer at the time, corroborating
Morrissey’s account; a letter from Ron Cutrone, a Warhol Factory
assistant who helped the artist produce many of his silkscreened
paintings, that supported Double Denied’s validity as a Warhol work;
transcript from the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh of Warhol
himself discussing the making of Double Denied.65

In a letter dated 14 July 2003 Double Denied was once again denied. Simon

stated that around 12 February 2003 Paul Morrissey called him and told him the bad

news that he received from Vincent Fremont the night before. This made Simon think

that the Authentication Board dismissed his painting purposely the second time

because they failed to examine it the first time, and in order to avoid a lawsuit they

had to ask for a second submission. The second rejection letter came on 18 May 2004

but this time with an explanation. The rejection letter of Double Denied reads as

follows:

a. The background of the painting you submitted and

the backgrounds of the nine identical examples are

64 F.Supp 2d at 27, Point 124.

65 F.Supp 2d at 27, Point 125.

 printed, not hand-painted.

b. The eyes, skin tones, and hair in the work you

submitted and in the nine identical examples are
printed, not hand-painted.

c. The only aspect of the self-portraits that Warhol made

in early 1964 that is painted is the black silkscreen
impression, printed over the areas of hand-painted
color. Each impression varies among the works made
by Warhol, as does the registration of the black screen
over the areas of hand-painted color. This is not the
case with respect to the work you submitted and the
nine identical examples.

d. The work you submitted and the nine identical

examples were made of cotton.

e. The density of the halftone in the work you submitted

for our review and in the nine identical examples is
reduced, as compared to the density of the halftones in
Warhol’s early 1964 canvases…

f. Finally, as part of its research, the Board learned that

the work you submitted and the nine identical examples
were painted by a commercial printer in 1965. The
printer claimed that he received materials and
specification from another party, and never had any
contact with Warhol himself.66

The Lawsuit

In 2007 Simon sued both the Andy Warhol Foundation and the Warhol

Authentication Board on nine counts of misconduct. Namely:

1. Violation of §1 of the Sherman Act and New York Donnelly Act

Against All Defendants (Individually and on behalf of others against
the Authentication Board); 2. Violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act
Against All Defendants (Individually and on behalf of others against
the Authentication Board); 3. Lanham Act (Against All Defendants); 4.
66 F.Supp 2d at 28-29, Point 129.
 Fraud (Individually and on behalf of others against the Authentication
Board); 5. Fraud (Against Fremont and the Authentication Board); 6.
Punitive Damages Against All Defendants (Individually and in behalf
of others); 7. Declaratory Judgment Against the Authentication Board
(Individually and in behalf of others); 8. Breach of Contract (Against
the Authentication Board); 9. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good
Faith & Fair Dealing (Against the Authentication Board).67

Joe Simon, along with unnamed art dealers, strongly accuses the estate and the

foundation of monopolizing the art market and scheming against dealers, collectors

and institutes in the past twenty years by controlling who can buy and sell works by

Andy Warhol. He also claims that this has been a large conspiracy whereby if the Warhol

Foundation does not profit from Warhol sales they simply deny authentication and stain the

reputation of original artworks. He singles out Vincent Fremont and Fred Hughes as

major players in this alleged conspiracy. Fremont’s appointment as the sales agent for

the Warhol Foundation allegedly determined who could buy and sell Warhol artworks

and at what price, while receiving first a ten percent commission rate then, after an

investigation, only a six percent commission rate. Simon claims that Fremont and

Hughes authenticated, or refused to authenticate, Warhol artworks depending on the

deal they could make. He also claims that no one in today’s art world is able to sell a

Warhol without an authentication from the Board. According to John Cahill, attorney

at Lynn & Cahill, LLP, and Ronald D. Spencer, attorney at Carter, Ledyard &

Milburn, LLP, this is not the case.68

The two lawyers argue that one can sell and buy artworks without an

67 F.Supp 2d at 30-45, Points 133-206.

68 Ronald D. Spencer represents the Pollock-Krasner Foundation as well as the Andy Warhol
Foundation.
authentication letter. They believe that a collector will know what he is looking at,

and not everyone needs a board’s approval, which can be accepted or rejected.

According to John Cahill, if your work of art is not accepted by the artist’s

authentication board, but specialists in the field acknowledge its authenticity you

should be able to sell it as you please.69 Pierre Valentin, head of the Art and Cultural

Assets Group at Withers LLP, author of the article Trust me, this is a fake also points

out that “auction houses and art dealers are generally unwilling to sell works of art

without the blessing of the prime expert…the refusal by the prime expert to

authenticate a work of art has the drastic consequence of rendering it worthless.”70

Valentin also notes that “auction houses will often decline to auction a work of art if it

is not approved by the committee, which is recognized by the market as holding

ultimate authority over the authentication of an artist’s work.”71 The experts holding

ultimate authority in this case are the board members of the Warhol Authentication

Board. Therefore, without their approval it is most likely that a Warhol owner would

not be able to sell a Warhol. It would be interesting to see if Warhol scholars, such as

William V. Ganis and Jean Wainwright, were to give their blessing to Double Denied

whether the collectors would then be less interested in the Board’s opinion.

The Andy Warhol Authentication Board

The Andy Warhol Authentication Board has five members: Neil Prinz, Georg

69 Attorney John Cahill, interview by Alexandra Halidisz, January 14, 2009.

Attorney Ronald D. Spencer, interview by Alexandra Halidisz, January 21, 2009.

70 Pierre Valentin, Trust me, this is a fake. The Art Newspaper, 149: (2004), 29.

71 Ibid.
Frei, Sally King-Nero, Trevor Fairbrother, in succession of David Whitney, who

passed away in 2005, and Judith Goldman.72 Joe Simon and art critic Richard

Dormant think that the Warhol Authentication Board members are not qualified

experts because they have not contributed as many scholarly publications on Warhol

as other art experts.73 It is important to mention that not all authentication boards are

composed of art experts. The Calder Foundation, for instance, is made up of the

family members of Alexander Calder.

Simon’s class action complaint points out that the Warhol Authentication

Board would not give an explanation of their decision of disapproval. According to

Richard Dormant, by refusing an explanation the board does not leave room for

debate about their decisions.74 Ronald D. Spencer explained that the reason the Board

does not make their decisions public, is that it would give forgers easier access to the

board’s authentication technique.75 However, it is not statistically proven that forgers

are concerned with authentication boards’ examination techniques, nor does it matter

to them how they argue. A forger will forge whether the Warhol Authentication Board

discloses its opinion or not. The intention to safeguard the Warhol Foundation from

more forgeries is honorable, but the outcome angers collectors as well as dealers, and

only raises more suspicion.

Simon, among other unnamed collectors, is also complaining about the

72 An important member to remember was Robert Rosenblum who passed away in 2006 and was a
significant art historian who taught art history at New York University.
73 Imagine... Warhol: Denied.

74 Ibid.

75 Attorney Ronald D. Spencer, interview by Alexandra Halidisz, January 21, 2009.

method the Warhol Authentication Board uses when rejecting a work. They stamp the

back of the artworks with a “denied” sign. This method damages the artworks and at

times the ink bleeds to the recto, as happened to Simon’s portrait. This creates a real

problem. What happens if the Board later realizes that an artwork they stained with a

denied stamp is in fact a Warhol? The stamp mark cannot be removed so it damages

the artwork and reduces its value. On the other hand, if the artwork turns out to be a

fake, the stamp will keep future collectors from buying it, which helps push forgeries

out of the market. Ronald D. Spencer says the ‘denied’ stamp is in the contract, and

that collectors and dealers are aware that it could potentially happen to their work

when they submit it.76 It is doubtful whether a collector would ever think the work is

not authentic when they submit it for authentication, although that is not the reason

why this method is wrong. It is wrong because it damages an artwork that could still

be authentic.

Conspiracy and Market Monopoly

How does the Andy Warhol Foundation control the art market? If everything

Simon complains about is true, then why is this board still operating? Can this

conspiracy be so big and be in effect for so long that it has succeeded to control

everyone in the art world? John Cahill does not agree with the premise that any

foundation can control the art market. He stated:

If they would be doing a bad job deciding on what’s fake and what not,
people would be sure to lose the respect of their opinion. This happens
not just with art but musical instruments and any other valuable object.

76 Ibid.
 It’s all about the market, curators and what people think is genuine or
not, so they don’t control the market. If everyone decides not to
believe the authentication committee tomorrow they could (not believe
them). Let’s say there is a relatively obscure artist and someone who
spent their entire life studying him, has seen every work, read
everything about the artist, looked at every brushstroke then that
person’s judgment on the work is regarded as very important. If that
person says it’s real it’s real, if that person says it’s fake it’s fake as far
as the market concerned. In that sense they control the market but they
really don’t, they just earn the respect of people making decisions. And
that happens all the time with situations where people have influence
based on people’s respect of their acknowledge.77

John Cahill’s statement is true for the most part, however, the Warhol Authentication

Board has a very strong opinion about authenticity and their stamp of approval or

disapproval could potentially influence collectors’ desire to purchase a Warhol. Simon

is understandably upset over his rejection. After all, he has an excellent provenance

approved directly by Fred Hughes, who was Warhol’s right hand and business partner

participating in his productions at the Factory. He was also the president of the

Warhol Foundation and in charge of authenticating Warhol’s work even before the

foundation was even established. If Fred Hughes said this portrait is by Warhol, then

why would the Board think it is not? Would Hughes not know it better than anyone

else? He was there, he knew what deals Warhol made with the artists who produced

his images. Should that not account for something? This portrait went through six

reputable hands before Simon bought it. Simon also traced the other nine portraits

from the same series.

We have learned that one of the series of ten paintings was sold to
Warhol's most important dealer, Zurich based Bruno Bischofberger,
and signed, dedicated and dated 1969 on the back of the painting by
Warhol himself. Warhol chose this painting from my series for the

77 Attorney John Cahill, interview by Alexandra Halidisz, January 14, 2009.

 cover of his 1970 catalogue raisonné edited by Dr. Rainer Crone, an
independent scholar who worked with the artist over a nineteen year
period and has written to the court confirming this. (Catalogue entry
169) Although the Warhol Foundation has confirmed in writing that
my series was created using Warhol's materials and signed dedicated
and dated by the artist, they have not included it in the 2004 raisonné
edited by the most important dealers in Warhol's artwork, Thomas
Ammann Fine Art and the Warhol Foundation, Inc.78

It ultimately brings up the question of what is considered a Warhol artwork?

The Warhol Authentication Board states in their contract that they can revoke

their opinion any time if they want to. Horst Webber von Beeren, a friend of Andy

Warhol’s who produced most of his artworks, had this problem when his Warhol was

first authenticated then revoked without any explanation by the Warhol

Authentication Board. The answer was simply they did not think it was Warhol. But

then why did they think it was a Warhol the first time? Were they careless when first

authenticating it, or did they not have all the necessary documentation? If everything

proved to be right, then what made them later decide it was not authentic? The Board

should explain its reason for reversal of their previous decision. Theirs is not an

acceptable way of conducting business and it leads collectors and dealers to conclude

that the Warhol Foundation is trying to monopolize the market. Even if it is printed in

their contract that they can change their opinion anytime they wish, they should

explain what made them come to that conclusion. This is common decency and

respect towards collectors and dealers. How could the Board authenticate an artwork

then take it back? Did they obtain any external information that this artwork could be

a forgery? There are five people sitting on this board, it is five people’s decision. If

78 Joe Simon, e-mail message to Alexandra Halidisz, September 1, 2009.

three of them think it is a Warhol and two of them oppose to it, then why not collect

more information and wait longer before arriving at their final conclusion? If the

Board is not sure whether the presented work is by Andy Warhol or not, why not

suggest to the owner to have an independent panel of Warhol experts decide on it.

What is worse, losing respect and being accused of monopoly, or admitting that you

are unable to make a decision? According to the Board’s contract, the submitted

artwork will be given a letter A, B or C, which means:

A letter such as the one attached as Exhibit A will be delivered if the

opinion of the Authentication Board is that the Work is a genuine work
created by Andy Warhol; a letter such as the one attached as Exhibit B
will be delivered if the opinion of the Authentication Board is that the
Work is not a genuine work created by Andy Warhol; and a letter such
as the one attached as Exhibit C will be delivered if the Authentication
Board is unable at that time to form any opinion as to whether the
Work is a genuine work created by Andy Warhol.79

Clearly the Board has an option not to make a decision if they are not confident in

their judgment.

Warhol or Not?

Warhol’s art involves every man behind him, assisting him, producing for

him, and often even designing his artworks for him. He was a well-oiled machine

producing art in mediums such as painting, silkscreen, film and photography. He

mass-produced silkscreens on a large scale. With such rich ideas and hundreds of

productions he ran a twentieth century school of art. His collaborators could and did

design art on their own that Warhol approved if he liked it. There were many

79 The Andy Warhol Authentication Board’s client contract.

instances where an artist gave his concept to Warhol and therefore it became a

Warhol.80 It was always a collaboration marketed under one man’s name who was

always the decision maker. Warhol created a large empire, and a brand, which was his

name.

Paul Morrissey, a film director who worked with Warhol from 1965 to 1975,

was in charge of all productions at the Factory except for sales.81 In his recollection

Warhol did not involve himself with the physical making of his art and did not even

mix his colors. Morrissey said that Warhol let his assistants deal with all aspects of

the art. Ronnie Cutrone, who was Warhol’s painting assistant for ten years, says that

even though Warhol may have not physically made silkscreens, he did control the

production. If he did not like a particular design or image he would not let it leave his

studio until it was fixed. Cutrone also said that the idea that Warhol did not care about

his art is a misconception. It was an act he put on because in Warhol’s opinion before

Pop art the art world had been too serious. He wanted his art to be more relaxed, less

severe and make it look as though it was easy.82

Joe Simon did thorough research on Double Denied before submitting it to the

Warhol Authentication Board for the second time. His detective work took him back

to the early 1960’s when Warhol’s focus shifted from making silkscreens to film

making. Allegedly, Richard Ekstract loaned Andy Warhol a domestic video recorder

80 One example was his long-time collaborator Ronnie Cutrone, who had the idea to Shadows, which
he gave to Warhol, who painted a hundred and two images using Cutrone’s idea. In this case there is no
question about the authenticity because Warhol did the actual execution.

81 “Biography.” http://www.paulmorrissey.org/bio.html (accessed August 15, 2009).

82 Imagine... Warhol: Denied.

in exchange for which Warhol gave Ekstract and his crew ten silkscreen portraits, one

of which is Simon‘s. Warhol commissioned Ekstract to create the portraits as a gift to

him and to the people making the loan possible.

Because Warhol was so busy, Ekstract added, and because the self-
portraits were for barter, not cash, Warhol delegated more of the
creative work than usual. Typically, Warhol sent the image he’d chosen
to a downtown studio to have a silkscreen made. When the silkscreen
came back to the Factory, Warhol and an assistant produced the
painting from it. This time, however, Warhol told Ekstract to have a
silkscreen printer do that final step with Andy’s guidance. The point,
Ekstract said with a laugh, was to save money. He was too cheap to do
it himself!83

Ekstract had the portraits printed in New Jersey. According to Ronald D.

Spencer, because there was no contract between the print shop in New Jersey and

Andy Warhol, the artworks are not by Warhol. However, the idea that the portraits are

not by Warhol cannot be dismissed this easily. There could be multiple reasons why

Warhol did not contact the print shop about these portraits. According to Ekstract,

Warhol was not interested in art making at this period but focused solely on his films.

Horst Webber von Beeren confirmed that Warhol was not interested in supervising his

art productions. Ronnie Cutrone also stated that Warhol “created half the problems

because he was too casual about his own art” by letting others make it.84 Paul

Morrissey also saw the problem first hand.85

Richard Polsky, a connoisseur of Warhol, said: “When it comes to Andy

83 Michael Shnayerson, “Judging Andy” Vanity Fair (November 1, 2003).

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-7037993_ITM (accessed June 3,
2009).

84 Imagine... Warhol: Denied.

85 Ibid.
Warhol, you can imagine all of the cardboard Brillo boxes, Campbell's soup cans and

posters that he signed during his career. Are these works of art? Of course not. They

are items of memorabilia...It all comes down to the artist's intent.”86 Yes, perhaps they

are memorabilia, but the collector who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for these

signed “memorabilia” would not think so. And as far as the artist’s intent, according

to Warhol’s dealer, Sam Green, Warhol’s intent was to make money, which explains

the mass production and why he would allow Green to copy his signature on his

posters.87 It is understandable that the Board cannot possibly authenticate everything

that bears Warhol’s signature unless there is an absolute record showing that Warhol

signed the work or if it was authenticated by someone whom he authorized to sign his

name like Sam Green and Fred Hughes. In Simon’s case, Andy Warhol authorized

Richard Ekstract to make a series of portraits of him, one of which Simon purchased.

The Board thinks otherwise. So why are some artworks signed by Sam Green

authentic and portraits made by Richard Ekstract not? Why is one accepted and the

other not? This is a question that keeps coming back again and again. It does not

make much sense and brings up another question: what does the Board consider a

Warhol artwork? Is there such a thing as an authentic Warhol or should it all be called

the School of Warhol, especially since he did not physically participate in every

production even if the concept or the method was his. He continued a practice that

was characteristic in the Renaissance and Baroque where artists such as Ghirlandaio

and Rembrandt worked with a group of pupils on frescoes and paintings. Rembrandt
86 Richard Polsky, “Art Market Guide 2003”. Artnet.
http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/polsky/polsky10-31-03.asp (accessed August 15, 2009).

87 Imagine... Warhol: Denied.

drew the composition and painted the major figures in the foreground and his students

did the less important figures and the background. Would that Rembrandt be a lesser

Rembrandt? No, it is still a Rembrandt and it sells as a Rembrandt. It seems as though

this type of working method is accepted for the Renaissance and Baroque, but not for

modern art. And, in the present case, it is not rejected by scholars, dealers and

collectors, but by an authentication board.

Conclusion

It is easy to sympathize with Joe Simon but one must also look at the other

side and realize the difficulty that an authentication board has to endure in order to

screen forgeries out of the art market. Many questions are still unanswered due to the

fact that the lawsuit is ongoing even though recently the judge dismissed Simon’s

antitrust and Lanham Act claim and the Warhol Foundation countersued him for

breach of contract. The lawsuit, however, is still ongoing.88 Should Simon’s Warhol be

considered an Andy Warhol? Yes, but only because other artworks done by hands

other than Andy Warhol’s are accepted as genuine. If Richard Polsky is right and

many things that Andy Warhol signed should be considered as memorabilia, then

Simon’s should be no exception. Then what would remain as an original Warhol?

Exclude every single artwork that Warhol did not personally create? A lot of

museums, collectors and art dealers would be left with empty walls. This matter is in

the hands of Judge Laura Taylor Swain who will decide the fate of Double Denied.

88 Sharon Flescher and Mary Morabito Rosewater. Dispute Against the Warhol Authentication Board
Allowed to Proceed. IFAR Journal, 11: (2009), 36.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Gerstenblith, Patty. Art, Cultural Heritage and the Law: Cases and Materials.
Durham: Carolina Academy Press, 2005.

Gladwell, Malcolm. Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking. New York:
Little Brown and Company, 2005.

Hoving, Thomas. False Impressions. The Hunt for Big-Time Art Fakes. New
York: Simon & Schuster 1997.

Radnóti, Sándor. The Fake. Forgery and its Place in Art. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield, 1999.

Spencer, Ronald D., ed. The Expert Versus the Object: Judging Fakes and False
Attributions in the Visual Arts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Tietze, Hans. Genuin and False: Copies, Imitations, Forgeries. London: Max
Parrish & Co. Limited, 1948.

JOURNALS

Flescher, Sharon and Mary Morabito Rosewater. “Dispute Against the Warhol
Authentication Board Allowed to Proceed” IFAR Journal 11: (2009), 36.

Valentin, Pierre. Trust me, this is a fake. The Art Newspaper, 149: (2004), 29.

Wetering, Ernest van de. “Thirty Years of the Rembrandt Research Project: The
Tension Between Science and Connoisseurship in Authenticating Art.” IFAR
Journal 4 (2001): 23.

ELECTRONIC ARTICLES

“Biography.” http://www.paulmorrissey.org/bio.html

Bíró, Peter Paul. “Teri’s Find: A Forensic Study in Authentication. 2001-2007.”

Biro Fine Art Restoration.
 http://www.Bírófineartrestoration.com/Pollock/Pollock.htm

Cummings, Paul. “Oral History Interview with Leonard Bocour, 1978 June 8.”
Smithsonian Archives of American Art.
http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/oralhistories/transcripts/bocour78.htm

“Fingerprint Investigation: An Overview.” Federal Bureau of Investigation.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/ident.htm

Grant, Daniel. “Calder Lawsuit May Raise Bar For Authentication Committees”
ARTnewsletter 34, No. 19 (May 12, 2009),
http://artnewsletter.artnews.com/ArchivedIssues.aspx?id=971

Hoving, Thomas. “The Fate of the $5 Pollock.” Artnet

http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/hoving/hoving11-6-08.asp

Polsky, Richard. “Art Market Guide 2003”. Artnet.

http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/polsky/polsky10-31-03.asp

Schorn, Daniel. “A Thrift-Shop Jackson Pollock Masterpiece?” CBS News. (May 6,

2007). http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/03/60minutes/main2758110_
page3.shtml?tag=contentMain;conte

Shnayerson, Michael. “Judging Andy.” Vanity Fair (November 1, 2003).

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-7037993_ITM

Tam, Vicky. “Controversial Pollock for sale in Toronto.” CBC News Canada.
(October 29, 2008)http://www.cbc.ca/arts/artdesign/story/2008/10/29/pollock-
sells-in-toronto.html

LAW CASES

Simon v. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Art, Inc., The Estate of Andy
Warhol, Vincent Fremont, Individual and Successor Executor for the Estate of
Andy Warhol, Vincent Fremont Enterprises, The Andy Warhol Art
Authentication Board, Inc., John Does 1-20, Jane Does 1-10, and Richard
Roes 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 44242 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), p.6, point 13.

Joel Thome v. The Alexander & Louisa Calder Foundation a/k/a the Calder
Foundation, Howard Rower, Alexander S.C. Rower, Mary Calder Rower,
Sandra Calder Davidson and Saun Davidson. Supreme Court of the State of
New York. Index No. 600823/07 (2008).
INTERVIEWS

Harriet Irgang Alden, interview by Alexandra Halidisz, March 4, 2009.

Dr. Joseph Masheck, interview by Alexandra Halidisz, August 27, 2009.

Joe Simon, e-mail message to Alexandra Halidisz, September 1, 2009.

John Cahill, interview by Alexandra Halidisz, January 14, 2009.

Richard A. Altman, interview by Alexandra Halidisz, September 8, 2008.

Ronald D. Spencer, interview by Alexandra Halidisz, January 21, 2009.

MOTION PICTURES

Imagine... Warhol: Denied. Directed by Chris Rodley. London, U.K.: BBC

network special, 2006.

Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock? DVD. Directed by Harry Moses. Hewitt
Group-New Line Cinema, 2006.
 ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1 Figure 2

Teri Horton’s Jackson Pollock recto and verso, c.1948.

Photographs are courtesy of Paul Bíró Fine Art Restoration.
Figure 3 Figure 4

Image 3 is an enlarged view of the fingerprint found on Teri Horton’s painting.

Image 4 is an enlarged view of the fingerprint found on Jackson Pollock’s Red
Painting Number 4.
Photographs are courtesy of Paul Bíró Fine Art Restoration.
Figure 5 Figure 6

Image 5 is a close up photograph of a strand of hair embedded in the paint of

Jackson Pollock’s East Hampton studio floor.
Image 6 is a close up photograph of a strand of hair embedded on the recto of
Teri Horton’s painting.
Photographs are courtesy of Paul Bíró Fine Art Restoration.
Figure 7

Photograph of Jackson Pollock’s studio floor in East Hampton, New York.

Photographed by Jeff Heathley.
Photograph is courtesy of Paul Bíró Fine Art Restoration.
Figure 8

Andy Warhol: Self Portrait (Double Denied), 1964,

owned by Joe Simon.
Photograph is courtesy of Joe Simon.
Figure 9

Close up of Self Portrait’s verso with the two denied stamps on lower left corner.
Photograph is courtesy of Joe Simon.
Figure 10

Frederick Hughes authentication on the stretcher: “I certify that this is an original

painting by Andy Warhol completed by him in 1964.”
Photograph is courtesy of Joe Simon.