Fakes, fakes everywhere (ctd.)
October 18 2016
Picture: Sotheby's/TAN
Vincent Noce in The Art Newspaper reports that another picture connected to Giulano Ruffini (the former owner of the recently declared fake Hals and the suspect Cranach) is to be scientifically tested. The picture, a St Jerome sold as Circle of Parmigianino (above) by Sotheby's in New York in 2012, was until recently on display at the Metropolitan Museum. There, its status had been upgraded to 'Attributed to Parmigianino'. It used to belong to Ruffini before it was consigned to Sotheby's.
The testing will be done by Jamie Martin of Orion Analytical in the US. He also tested the Hals, and discovered modern, synthetic materials not available before the 20th Century. He was also involved in exposing the Knoedler fake scandal, and tested a supposed 'Rothko'. In other words, he knows how to spot a fake.
TAN also reports that the dealer for whom Sotheby's sold the Hals, Mark Weiss, has not yet re-imbursed Sotheby's for the monies he recieved from the sale, even though Sotheby's has reimbursed the buyer, the Seattle-based collector Richard Hedreen. Weiss says that he believes further tests should be carried out on the Hals, and that he has 'yet to be convinced' it is a fake.
You can zoom in on the St Jerome on Sotheby's website here. It is an exceptionally good picture, really skillfully painted. The picture was described as 'newly discovered' in 1999. The list of literature references is long and impressive, and it seems the picture was given the enthusiastic endorsement of numerous scholars as a genuine Parmigianino. It was exhibited as a Parmigianino at the Kunsthistorisches Mueum in Vienna in 2003.
In other words, like the Hals sold by Sotheby's (and also handled by Christie's in Paris) this picture enjoyed a clean bill of health. That said, Sotheby's catalogued it cautiously as 'Circle of', after the leading British scholar for Parmigianino, Prof. David Ekserdjian said he didn't think it was by Parmigianino. The description 'Circle of' still means it was thought to be a 16th Century picture.
Is it? I've never seen the painting in the flesh. But I have to say I begin to doubt it. Now that we know how good this faker is, vis the Hals, we can begin to understand how they can also successfully mimic the work of an artist like Parmigianino. For a while, people in the art world, when wondering about this alleged cache of fake pictures, said; 'but that Hals has got to be right, it's too good'. It was considered the best of the bunch. The suggestion was that some of the pictures may be suspect, but that many of them were ok. But as we know now, the Hals is not ok.
Similarly, this St Jerome is seriously impressive - look at the hand, for example. The fingers look just like Parmigianino fingers. The modelling is superb. And yet is there something odd about the craquelure, across the whole panel? Are some of the darker pigments a little muddy, in areas like the wrist, and the junction of the elbow? Are there similarities to other suspect works, in the way the paint is handled (notwithstanding the fact that the faker seems to be a master at impersonating the styles of other artists)? Yes, I think there are. Does this picture follow what appears to be a modus operandi of the alleged faker, in creating a new composition that is based on existing elements of other works (answer, yes)? Must we seriously wonder about the origins of this painting, when we know it came from the collection of someone who (albeit, as I'm sure they would say, uknowingly) has been showed to have at least one proven fake in their collection?
Whether I'd have been able to raise all these questions if I didn't already know the suggestion of fakery had been made, I can't honestly say. I never viewed the sale, but I remember seeing the painting on the cover of the catalogue, and thinking; 'that looks like a nice picture.' So I'd better stop speculating and wait for Orion Analytical to do their thing.
In the meantime, I think we ought to applaud Sotheby's for tackling this issue openly and swiftly.
