Portrait of a Woman, attributed to Goya(1746-1828). X-ray images taken of this painting in 1954, revealed a portrait of another woman, circa 1790, beneath the surface. X-ray diffraction analysis revealed the presence ofzinc white paint, invented after Goya’s death. Further analysis revealed that the surface paint was modern and had been applied so as not to obscure the craquelure of the original. After analysis, the conservators left the work as you see it above, with portions of old and new visible, to illustrate the intricacies of art forgery, and the inherent difficulty of detecting it.
Art forgery refers to creating and, in particular, selling works of art that are falsely attributed to be work of another, usually more famous, artist. Art forgery is extremely lucrative, but modern dating and analysis techniques have made the identification of forged artwork much simpler.
Art forgery dates back more than two-thousand years. Roman sculptors produced copies of Greek sculptures. Presumably the contemporary buyers knew that they were not genuine. During the classical period art was generally created for historical reference, religious inspiration, or simply aesthetic enjoyment. The identity of the artist was often of little importance to the buyer.
During the Renaissance, many painters took on apprentices who studied painting techniques by copying the works and style of the master. As a payment for the training, the master would then sell these works. This practice was generally considered a tribute, not forgery, although some of these copies have later erroneously been attributed to the master.
Following the Renaissance, a redistribution of the world’s wealth created a fierce demand for art by a newly prosperous middle class. Near the end of the 14th century, Roman statues were unearthed in Italy, intensifying the populace’s interest in antiquities, and leading to sharp increases in the value of these objects. This upsurge soon extended to contemporary and recently deceased artists. Art had become a commercial commodity, and the monetary value of the artwork came to depend on the identity of the artist. To identify their works, painters began to mark them, these marks later evolved in to signatures. As the demand for certain artwork began to exceed the supply, fraudulent marks and signatures began to appear on the open market.
During the 16th century imitators of Albrecht Dürer’s style of printmaking added signatures to them to increase the value of their prints. In his engraving of the Virgin, Durer added the inscription “Be cursed, plunderers and imitators of the work and talent of others”. Even extremely famous artists created forgeries. Michelangelo forged a marble cupid for his patron,Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici.
The 20th century art market has favored artists such as Salvador Dalí, Pablo Picasso, Klee and Matisse and works by these artists have commonly been targets of forgery. These forgeries are typically sold to art galleries and auction houses who cater to the tastes of art and antiquities collectors.
There are essentially three varieties of art forger. The person who actually creates the fraudulent piece, the person who discovers a piece and attempts to pass it off as something it is not, in order to increase the piece’s value, and the third who discovers that a work is a fake, but sells it as an original anyway.
Copies, replicas, reproductions and pastiches are often legitimate works, and the distinction between a legitimate reproduction and deliberate forgery is blurred. For example, Guy Hainused original molds to reproduce several of Auguste Rodin’s sculptures. However, when Hain then signed the reproductions with the name of Rodin’s original foundry, the works became deliberate forgeries.
An art forger must be at least somewhat proficient in the type of art he is trying to imitate. Many forgers were once fledging artists who tried, unsuccessfully, to break into the market, eventually resorting to forgery. Sometimes, an original item is borrowed or stolen from the owner in order to create a copy. Forgers will then return the copy to the owner, keeping the original for himself. In 1799, a self portrait by Albrecht Dürer which had hung in the Nuremberg Town Hall since the sixteenth century, was loaned to Abraham Küffner. The painter made a copy of the original and returned the copy in place of the original. The forgery was discovered in 1805, when the original came up for auction and was purchased for the royal collection.
Although many art forgers reproduce works solely for money, some have claimed that they have created forgeries to expose the credulity and snobbishness of the art world. Essentially the artists claim, usually after they have been caught, that they have performed only “hoaxes of exposure”.
Some exposed forgers have later sold their reproductions honestly, by attributing them as copies, and some have actually gained enough notoriety to become famous in their own right. Forgeries painted by the late Elmyr de Hory, featured in the film F for Fake directed by Orson Welles, have become so valuable that forged de Horys have appeared on the market.
A peculiar case was that of the artist Han van Meegeren who became famous by creating “the finest Vermeer ever” and exposing that feat eight years later in 1945. His own work became valuable as well, which fact in turn attracted other forgers. One of these forgers was his son Jacques van Meegeren who was in the unique position to write certificates stating that a particular piece of art that he was offering “was created by his father, Han van Meegeren”.
Forgers usually copy works by deceased artists, but a small number imitate living artists. In May 2004, Norwegian painter Kjell Nupen noticed that the Kristianstad gallery was selling unauthorized, signed copies of his work.
Claims have surfaced recently, alleging that art dealers and auction houses have been overly eager, by accepting forgeries as genuine, and selling them quickly, to turn a profit. If a dealer finds the work is a forgery, he may quietly withdraw the piece and return it to its previous owner—giving the forger an opportunity to sell it elsewhere.
Some forgers have created false paper trails relating to a piece, in order to make the work appear genuine. British art dealer John Drewe created false documents of provenance for works forged by his partner John Myatt, and even inserted pictures of forgeries into the archives of prominent art institutions. Experts and institutions may also be reluctant to admit their own fallibility. Art historian Thomas Hoving estimates that various types of forged art comprise up to 40% of the art market.
Methods of detection
The most obvious forgeries are revealed as clumsy copies of previous art. A forger may try to create a “new” work by combining the elements of more than one work. The forger may omit details typical to the artist they are trying to imitate, or add anachronisms, in an attempt to claim that the forged work is a slightly different copy, or a previous version of a more famous work. To detect the work of a skilled forger, investigators must rely on other methods.
Tests of this painting, revealed that the purportedly ancient wormholes in the panel had been made with a drill (they were straight, not crooked) and that the Virgin’s robe was painted usingPrussian Blue, a pigment not invented until the 18th century. It is thought that this painting was created in the 1920s by an unknown Italian forger.
Technique of examination
Often a thorough examination (sometimes referred to as Morellian Analysis.) of the piece is enough to determine authenticity. For example, a sculpture may have been created obviously with modern methods and tools. Some forgers have used artistic methods inconsistent with those of the original artists, such as incorrect characteristic brushwork, perspective, preferred themes or techniques, or have used colors that were not available during the artist’s lifetime to create the painting. Some forgers have dipped pieces in chemicals to “age” them and some have even tried to imitate worm marks by drilling holes into objects.
While attempting to authenticate artwork, experts will also determine the piece’s provenance. If the item has no paper trail, it is more likely to be a forgery. Other techniques forgers use which might indicate that a painting is not authentic include:
- Frames, either new or old, that have been altered in order to make forged paintings look more genuine.
- To hide inconsistencies or manipulations, forgers will sometimes glue paper, either new or old, to a painting’s back, or cut a forged painting from its original size.
- Recently added labels or artist listings, onto unsigned works of art, unless these labels are as old as the art itself, suspicion should be aroused.
- While art restorers legitimately use new stretcher bars when the old bars have worn, new stretcher bars on old canvases might be an indication that a forger is attempting to alter the painting’s identity.
- Old nail holes or mounting marks on the back of a piece, might indicate that a painting has been removed from its frame, doctored and then replaced into either its original frame or different frame.
- Signatures, on paintings or graphics, that look inconsistent with the art itself (either fresher, bolder, etc.).
- Unsigned work that a dealer has “heard” is by a particular artist.
More recently, magnetic signatures used in the ink of bank notes are becoming popular for authentication of artworks.
If examination of a piece fails to reveal whether it is authentic or forged, investigators may attempt to authenticate the object using some, or all, of the forensic methods below:
- Carbon dating is used to measure the age of an object up to 10,000 years old.
- “White Lead” Dating is used to pinpoint the age of an object up to 1,600 years old.
- Conventional X-ray can be used to detect earlier work present under the surface of a painting (see image, left). Sometimes artists will legitimately re-use their own canvasses, but if the painting on top is supposed to be from the 17th century, but the one underneath shows people in 19th century dress, the scientist will assume the top painting is not authentic. Also x-rays can be used to view inside an object to determine if the object has been altered or repaired.
- X-ray diffraction (the object bends X-rays) is used to analyze the components that make up the paint an artist used, and to detectpentimenti (see image, right).
- X-ray fluorescence (bathing the object with radiation causes it to emit X-rays) can reveal if the metals in a metal sculpture or if the composition of pigments is too pure, or newer than their supposed age. Or reveal the artist’s (or forger’s) fingerprints.
- Ultraviolet fluorescence and infrared analysis are used to detect repairs or earlier painting present on canvasses.
- Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry (AAS) and Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry(ICP-MS) are used to detect anomalies in paintings and materials. If an element is present that the investigators know was not used historically in objects of this type, then the object is not authentic.
- Dendrochronology is used to date a wooden object by counting the number of tree rings present in the object. This is of limited use, though, as to date the piece accurately the wood needs to have about 100 rings.
- Stable isotope analysis can be used to determine where the marble used in a sculpture was quarried.
- Thermoluminescence (TL) is used to date pottery. TL is the light produced by heat, older pottery produces more TL when heated than a newer piece.
- A feature of genuine paintings sometimes used to detect forgery is craquelure.
Statistical analysis of digital images of paintings is a new method that that has recently been used to detect forgeries. Using a technique called wavelet decomposition, a picture is broken down into a collection of more basic images called sub-bands. These sub-bands are analyzed to determine textures, assigning a frequency to each sub-band. The broad strokes of a surface such as a blue sky would show up as mostly low frequency sub-bands whereas the fine strokes in blades of grass would produce high frequency sub-bands. A group of thirteen drawings attributed to Pieter Brueghel the Elder was tested using the wavelet decomposition method. Five of the drawings were known to be imitations. The analysis was able to correctly identify the five forged paintings. The method was also used on the paintingVirgin and Child with Saints, created in the studios of Pietro Perugino. Historians have long suspected that Perugino painted only a portion of the work. The wavelet decomposition method identified that at least four different artists had worked on the painting.
Problems with authentication
Art specialists, whom we now refer to as experts, began to surface in the art world during the late 1850s. At that time they were usually historians or museum curators, writing books about paintings, sculpture, and other art forms. Communication amongst the different specialties was poor, and they often made mistakes when authenticating pieces. While many books and art catalogues were published prior to 1900, many were not widely circulated, and often did not contain information about contemporary artwork. In addition, these specialists lacked many of the important technological means that experts use to authenticate art today.
The fact that experts do not always agree on the authenticity of a particular item makes the matter of provenance more complex. Some artists have even accepted copies as their own work – Picasso once said that he “would sign a very good forgery”. Jean Corot painted over 700 works, but also signed copies made by others in his name, because he felt honored to be copied. Occasionally work that has previously been declared a forgery is later accepted as genuine; Vermeer’s Young Woman Seated at the Virginals had been regarded as a forgery from 1947 until March, 2004, when it was finally declared genuine, although some experts still disagree.
At times restoration of a piece is so extensive that the original is essentially replaced when new materials are used to supplement older ones. An art restorer may also add or remove details on a painting, in an attempt to make the painting more saleable on the contemporary art market. This, however, is not a modern phenomenon – historical painters often “retouched” other artist’s works by repainting some of the background or details.
Many forgeries still escape detection; Han van Meegeren, possibly the most famous forger of the 20th century, used historical canvasses for his Vermeer forgeries and created his ownpigments to ensure that they were authentic. He confessed to creating the forgeries only after he was charged with treason, an offense which carried the death penalty. So masterful were his forgeries that van Meegeren was forced to create another “Vermeer” while under police guard, to prove himself innocent of the treason charges.
A recent, thought-provoking instance of potential art forgery involves the Getty kouros, the authenticity of which has not been resolved. The Getty Kouros was offered, along with seven other pieces, to The J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu, California in the spring of 1983. For the next twelve years art historians, conservators, and archeologists studied the Kouros, scientific tests were performed and showed that the surface could not have been created artificially. However, when several of the other pieces offered with the Kouros were shown to be forgeries, its authenticity was again questioned. In May 1992, the Kouros was displayed in Athens, Greece, at an international conference, called to determine its authenticity. The conference failed to solve the problem; while most art historians and archeologists denounced it, the scientists present believed the statue to be authentic. To this day, the Getty Kouros’ authenticity remains a mystery and the statue is displayed with the date: “Greek, 530 B.C. or modern forgery”.
Recently, photographs have become the target of forgers, and as the market value of these works increase, so will forgery continue. Following their deaths, works by Man Ray and Ansel Adams became frequent targets of forgery. The detection of forged photography is particularly difficult, as experts must be able to tell the difference between originals and reprints.
In the case of photographer Man Ray print production was often poorly managed during his lifetime, and many of his negatives were stolen by people who had access to his studio. The possession of the photo-negatives would allow a forger to print an unlimited number of fake prints, which he could then pass off as original. Fake prints would be nearly indistinguishable from originals, if the same photographic paper was used. Since unused photographic paper has a short (2–5 years) useful life, and the composition of photographic paper was frequently changed, the fakes would have had to be produced not long after the originals.
Further complicating matters, following Man Ray’s death, control of printing copyrights fell to his widow, Juliet Man Ray, and her brother, who approved production of a large number of prints that Man Ray himself had earlier rejected. While these reprints are of limited value, the originals, printed during Man Ray’s lifetime, have skyrocketed in value, leading many forgers to alter the reprints, so that they appear to be original.