The Online Hermann-Paul Project

As I mentioned earlier, art theft is relatively rare since it’s extremely difficult to re-sell stolen art. Unfortunately, one type of theft remains prevalent: forgery. The history of art is riddled with stories in which hucksters sold forgeries as original works by master artists.  For anyone familiar with this aspect of the art world, the news out of London that a 17th Century painting in the Courtland Institute is actually a 20th Century fake should come as no surprise.

As recently as 2009, it was reported that curators at the Courtland along with ones from the National Gallery thought the painting had “every appearance of being of 17th-century origin.”  On one aspect most curators agreed: it was not an original work. The Courtland piece was thought to be a 17th Century anonymous copy of a 1620s brothel scene by Dutch master Dirck van Baburen.

Scientific tests commissioned by the BBC program Fake or Fortune? revealed its actual origins. A detailed examination of the paint determined that it contained a “synthetic resin similar to Bakelite” which is added to mimic age. Consensus now holds that it was the work of the famous 20th Century forger Han van Meegeren.

One of my favorite movies is Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? It’s a documentary about foul-mouthed, dumpster diving, grandmother named Teri Horton.  In 1992, she purchased a painting in a thrift shop for $5.00. As luck would have it, there’s a chance it was painted by Jackson Pollock. When she tried to authenticate it, she ran into a wall of skepticism erected by art world insiders. Who could blame them? It lacked provenance, a signature and it was found in a thrift shop. If Pollocks sold for fifty thousand dollars, then it might be a Pollock. Since they sell for fifty million dollars, it’s not a Pollock.

Undeterred, Ms. Horton went to great lengths to authenticate the painting and sell it as a Pollock. She hired Peter Paul Biro, a forensics expert from Montreal, who matched finger prints on the canvas with some taken from Pollock’s Long Island workshop. Based on this evidence, Ms. Horton received a $9 million dollar offer for the painting. She declined. Bolstered by Mr. Biro’s forensics work, she was determined to sell the painting for $50 million.

Last year, David Grann published a piece in the New Yorker in which he suggests that Biro may have fabricated the fingerprints he found on clients’ paintings, including those on Ms. Horton’s “Pollock.”  Working with a crime lab technician, Grann discovered aspects that were inconsistent with normal fingerprints but matched a fingerprint cast that Biro made from a paint can in Pollock’s studio.

The Biro filed a defamation suit against David Grann and Conde Nast last month. The alleged forger accuses Grann of publishing a forgery. Will it be poetic justice or egg in the face? Stay tuned.