THE ART NEWSPAPER
No. 72, JULY-AUGUST 1997
An investigation by The Art
Newspaper
At least forty-five Van
Goghs may well be fakes
By Martin Bailey
More than one hundred
paintings by the Dutch master have been questioned in recent studies: of the forty-five
doubted in the canonical Hulsker catalogue, sixteen are in the Van Gogh Museum,
Amsterdam; leading scholars Dorn and Feilchenfeldt consider another twenty-one
dubious, and there is scepticism also about some drawings. But there is good
news as well: over the last ten years, twelve new works have been accepted as
being by Van Gogh.
London. Some of our favourite Van Goghs are not the real
thing, according to new evidence. Claims are being made that fakes hang in many
of the world's leading museums, including such great institutions as the
Metropolitan Museum and the Musée d'Orsay, and even the Van Gogh Museum. Other
experts are equally convinced of the authenticity of the questioned paintings
Vincent van Gogh may well have been forged "more frequently
than any other modern master," according to John Rewald, the greatest
scholar of Impressionism and Post-Impressionism. Rewald added that there have
certainly been "more heated discussions and differences of opinion, more
experts attacking other experts over the authenticity of Van Gogh's works than
that of any other artist of the period." The American scholar, who died
three years ago, would not have been surprised by the furore over "Jardin
à Auvers," which failed to sell in Paris last December. The debate over
the painting's attribution was testimony to the passions aroused over Van
Gogh's work, as well as a reminder of the huge sums of money which can be at
stake.
Jan Hulsker, the doyen of Van Gogh studies, claims that the
artist's accepted oeuvre is littered with fakes. In The new complete Van
Gogh, published late last year (J.M. Meulenhoff/John Benjamins), the
Canadian-based Dutch expert admitted that "not all the works reproduced
here should be considered authentic." Citing Van Gogh's period in Auvers-sur-Oise,
he pointed out that "the number of paintings attributed to Van Gogh far
exceeds the amount of work he could have done in the seventy days he stayed
there before his death." Mr. Hulsker catalogues seventy-six oil paintings
from Auvers, which represents just over one a day.
At first glance, Mr. Hulsker has failed to weed out the
fakes since the first edition of his catalogue was published in 1977. Out of
2,125 works, only two have been dropped, a townscape of Amsterdam (H945; works
are referred to by Hulsker catalogue numbers) and a portrait of a Parisian
woman (H1205).
But a closer examination reveals a rather different story. In contrast to the
1977 edition, a number of the listed works now have question marks after their
date. Most catalogue users would assume from this that Mr. Hulsker is uncertain
of the dating, but he told The Art Newspaper that these are cases where he is
"very doubtful" about the authenticity of the works.
Top catalogue questions forty-five paintings
Mr. Hulsker questions no fewer than forty-five paintings and
drawings, including world famous works such as the Metropolitan Museum's
"Arlésienne" (H1624) and the Musée d'Orsay's "Dr. Gachet" (H2014). Others are
in the Kröller-Müller Museum (H371, 390), the Boijmans van Beuningen Museum
(H1497a), Oslo's National Gallery (H1780) and Lille's
Musée des Beaux-Arts (H2095).
Perhaps most surprising is that sixteen of the forty-five
questioned works are at the Van Gogh Museum itself. Because nearly all the
Amsterdam museum's pictures came from the collection of Theo van Gogh, brother
of the artist, their authenticity has generally been assumed.
Unfortunately, Mr. Hulsker does not explain the reasons for
this doubts in The new complete Van Gogh. To question the authenticity
of a work in a publication which describes itself as a catalogue raisonné is
obviously damaging to the reputation of the picture. But by failing to give the
reasons for his doubts, it is difficult for curators and scholars to respond.
Mr. Hulsker argues that he is drawing attention to a problem
which goes far deeper. He told The Art Newspaper that in addition to the
forty-five Van Goghs questioned in his latest catalogue, he has "very
strong doubts about the authenticity of many more works."
Why then do there appear to be so many Van Gogh fakes? The
obvious answer is money. Although Van Gogh was unable to sell his work, within
two decades of his death his pictures were already selling for large sums. By
the 1920s, Van Gogh had already been selling for large sums. By the 1920s, Van
Gogh had already been established as one of the most expensive modern artists.
Since then prices have spiralled upwards, continually breaking the records.
Van Gogh's failure to sell his work in his lifetime also
means that there are no contemporary dealers' records which can be used for
authentication. Although Vincent gave most of his paintings to his brother
Theo, he also presented pictures to friends, while some were exchanged with
fellow artists and others simply abandoned. All this provided later fakers with
convenient stories to explain the emergency of unknown works.
The first scandal, in 1932
Theo died just seven months after Vincent, and his widow Jo
Bonger had had very little direct contact with the artist. Nearly all that she
knew about Vincent and his works came from what she had been told by Theo.
Despite Jo Bonger's vigorous efforts to preserve Van Gogh's reputation, it was
not easy to question the authenticity of works which did not come from the
family collection. Sometimes Van Gogh had made replicas of paintings for
friends or sitters, so fakers could do other versions of authentic works. Van
Gogh sketched extensively, and fake paintings could be based on authentic
drawings. Van Gogh's letters were published, so fakers could base a work on a
lost painting mentioned in the correspondence.
It was three years after Jo Bonger's death that the Wacker
fakes scandal broke. In January 1928 a major exhibition of Van Gogh paintings
was held at Paul Cassirer's gallery in Berlin with many works coming from
another dealer, Otto Wacker. These previously unknown Wacker pictures were said
to have belonged to a mysterious Russian aristocrat who had fled to Switzerland
and who could not be named because his family would face persecution from the
Soviet authorities. Although accepted by Van Gogh scholar Baart de la Faille,
who had published his first catalogue raisonné a few months earlier, the Wacker
paintings were quickly denounced as fakes when they went on show. Wacker was
charged with fraud and in 1932 he was sentenced to nineteen months'
imprisonment.
De la Faille issued an addendum to his catalogue, rejecting
the fakes and in 1939 he published a second edition of his catalogue. After the
war he began work on a third edition, but this remained uncompleted on his
death in 1959 and his draft was revised by a committee of experts and
eventually published in 1970. De la Faille still remains the definitive Van
Gogh catalogue. Seven years later Mr. Hulsker produced the first edition of his
catalogue, which presents paintings and drawings together in a clearer
chronological presentation.
There is now growing concern that further fakes still need
to be weeded out, despite the efforts of the two main Van Gogh cataloguers. The
most serious work in this field is being undertaken by Dr. Roland Dorn and
Walter Feilchenfeldt, both acknowledged experts. German art historian Dr. Dorn
wrote his thesis on Van Gogh's Arles paintings and he has curated the
exhibitions "Vincent van Gogh and the Modern movement" (Essen and
Amsterdam, 1990-91) and "Van Gogh and the Hague School" (Vienna and
Madrid, 1996). Mr. Feilchenfeldt is a Zürich-based dealer and scholar, with a
special interest in provenance research (he helped complete Rewald's catalogue
raisonné of Cézanne, published late last year). His father worked with the
dealer Paul Cassirer, where he was instrumental in exposing the Wacker fraud.
Using the gallery's records, Mr. Feilchenfeldt wrote a study on Vincent van
Gogh and Cassirer (Van Gogh Museum/Waanders, 1988). Four years ago Dr. Dorn and
Mr. Feilchenfeldt collaborated on an article entitled "Genuine or
fake?" published in Kodera Tsukas's The mythology of Vincent van Gogh
(Asahi/John Benjamins).
If the provenance dates from the 1890s or earlier, you're
safe
The Dorn/Feilchenfeldt team are now questioning the
authenticity of at least twenty-one pictures in the latest Hulsker catalogue.
Their method involves two main lines of inquiry. First of all, provenance. Most
of the reasonably convincing Van Gogh fakes did not appear until the early
years of the twentieth century. It is therefore important to track back
ownership, and to be cautious about works without a secure provenance going
back to the 1890s. Second, materials, technique and style are ultimately more
important in reaching a judgement on authenticity. This requires the
traditional skill of connoisseurship, as well as the use of modern scientific
methods, such as x-radiography and infra-red reflectography.
Van Gogh's early Dutch pictures have been less frequently
faked than his later French work, mainly because they have never fetched such
high prices. But the artist's Paris period in 1886-88 has offered fakers rich
opportunities to introduce unknown pictures. Little documentation survives from
Van Gogh's stay in the French capital, but rumours abound about paintings which
he gave away or which were lost.
Still lifes too pleasing to be by Van Gogh
The Dorn/Feilchenfeldt team are dubious about the
authenticity of a series of still lifes of vases of flowers which Mr. Hulsker
dates to Paris. Some are simply too "sensuous" for Van Gogh (H1103, 1104, 1231), including
pictures at the Wadsworth Atheneum in Connecticut and Wuppertal's Von der Heydt
Museum. Other flower pictures, including one at the Gemeentemuseum in The
Hague, are technically unlike the artist's work because the paint is mixed on
the canvas (H1127,
1128). A still
life of carnations at the Detroit Institute of Arts is on a type of canvas
which Van Gogh never used (H1129).
Other doubted Paris pictures include the exuberant
"Celebration of Bastille Day" (H1108), a painting
of three pairs of shoes at the Fogg Art Museum in Massachusetts (H1234) and two
still lifes with bread at the Van Gogh Museum (H1121, 1232).
Self-portraits at the Gemeentemuseum, the Wadsworth Atheneum, Vienna's
Kunsthistorisches Museum and the Metropolitan Museum are also questioned (H1198, 1299, 1344, 1354).
While working in Arles, Van Gogh sent most of his paintings
to Theo in Paris, although some were presented to friends. The fact that fewer
were dispersed means that it is more difficult to introduce previously unknown
works. But Van Gogh's Arles period represents the artist's most highly valued
work, so it is still a tempting area for fakers.
The Dorn/Feilchenfeldt team reject "Coal barges"
at the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid (H1571), mainly
because the topography of the river scene is much less precise than in a
similar authentic painting in the Van Gogh Museum. They suggest that
"Wheatfield with sheaves and mower" (H1482), at Stockholm's National
Museum, is a fake based on an authentic picture in the Toledo Museum of Art
(catalogued by Mr. Hulsker as from Van Gogh's Arles period, but dated to Auvers
by the Toledo museum).
Van Gogh's year at St.-Rémy has offered rather more scope
for faking. Partly because of his illness, a considerable number of works were
abandoned, while others were given away. Among the works questions by the
Dorn/Feilchenfeldt team are "Landscape with Les Alpilles" (H1744),
"Wheatfield with sheaves" (H1478), a self-portrait at the National
Gallery in Oslo (H1780)
and "Saint-Paul asylum garden" at the Musée d'Orsay (H1840). From Van
Gogh's last weeks at Auvers, "Street with two figures (H2110) is
rejected, partly because it is executed in a similar style to the Alpilles
landscape, with unclear topography.
Eleven drawings are also called into question
Amid all the debate over fake paintings, Van Gogh's drawings
have received scant attention. But an important study of works on paper has
just been completed by Dutch scholar Liesbeth Heenk. She served as an assistant
curator of the Van Gogh drawings exhibition at the Kröller-Müller Museum in
1990 and is now a specialist at the print department of Christie's, in London.
Dr. Heenk's PhD thesis, deposited this spring at the Courtauld Institute, is
the result of the most detailed examination of Van Gogh's drawings since De la
Faille. We are grateful to her for allowing exclusive access to her study.
Dr. Heenk suggests that eleven works in the new Hulsker
catalogue are not authentic. She rejects a watercolour at the Van Gogh Museum,
"Street scene in Paris" (H1187). "It is on heavy quality paper,
and no other example of this can be found in Van Gogh's oeuvre. The techniques
used and the style are also highly unusual," she explained. Despite Mr.
Hulsker's acceptance, the works had also been downgraded by the Van Gogh
Museum.
Another rejected drawing is "Peasant woman peeling
potatoes" (H790) in the David and Alice van Buuren Museum in Brussels.
According to Dr. Heenk "The regular pencil marks betray the typical care
of a copyist, and it appears to be based on part of a Van Gogh drawing now in
the Kröller-Müller Museum. The lips of the woman have been coloured red, which
would have been very unusual for Van Gogh. The brownish woven paper has not
been used for other Van Gogh drawings and the signature seems spurious."
Other works which Dr. Heenk questions include "Sawmill" (H136),
"Man carrying branches" (H515), "Head of a peasant woman"
(H747), "Houses with two women" (H1997) and "Path between garden
walls" (H2078).
Amateur detectives join the fray
Recently two other figures have joined the fakes debate, but
both are enthusiasts rather than academic scholars. Ben Landais, a Frenchman
based in the Netherlands, caused a major row when he questions the authenticity
of "Jardin à Auvers" (H2107). He points
out that De la Faille recorded that it was once owned by Amédée Schuffenecker,
a dealer thought to have handled fake Van Goghs and brother of the artist Emile
Schuffenecker. Mr. Landais says that the most important evidence for rejecting
the picture is stylistic, and on this point he has the backing of Mr. Hulsker,
who agrees that the painting "does not seem to be by the hand of
Vincent."
Others believe that "Jardin à Auvers" is
authentic. Mr. Feilchenfeldt questions De la Faille's stated provenance, and
recently published documentary evidence showing that the painting was sold by
Jo Bonger to Cassirer in 1908, and therefore comes from the family collection.
He is convinced that it is genuine. Although the picture is also accepted by
the Van Gogh Museum it failed to sell when it came up at Jacques Tajan's
auction in Paris on 10 December 1996. Bidding stopped at FFr32 million and it
still belongs to the heirs of Jean-Marc Vernes. Questions about its
authenticity must have played some part in its failure to sell.
In an unpublished paper,
Mr. Landais questions another important Van Gogh, the Metropolitan Museum's
"Arlésienne" (H1624). He argues that it is not the version of the
picture which Van Gogh gave to Madam Ginoux, and must be a fake. The Metropolitan
picture formerly belonged to the artist Emile Schuffenecker, and the suggestion
is that he could have painted the copy. Mr. Landais even questions the ultimate
icon, the "Sunflowers" bought by the Japanese insurance company
Yasuda ((H1666),
and here too the culprits are said to be the Schuffeneckers.
Mr. Landais argues that
other fakes may well have originated from Dr. Paul Gachet, Van Gogh's friend in
Auvers and an amateur artist. Among the works he rejects are the Van Gogh
Museum's "Asylum garden" (H1850),
"Cows" (H2095)
at the Musée des Beaux-Art in Lille and "Daubigny's garden with black
cat" (H2105)
on loan to Basel's Kunstmuseum. Mr. Hulsker has expressed similar doubts about
all the works questioned by Mr. Landais (other than the Yasuda "Sunflowers,"
which he accepts). But few other scholars agree with Mr. Landais' arguments,
and he admits he is fighting a "crusade" against the established
experts.
A campaign is also being waged on the Internet by Antonio de
Robertis, a Milan-based Van Gogh enthusiast. He too says he is "at war
with the same conspiracy of silence of institutions, critics and collectors,
already denounced in 1930 by De la Faille." Like Mr. Landais, he singles
out the Yasuda "Sunflowers" and "Daubigny's garden with black
cat" as fakes from the Schuffeneckers. Mr. de Robertis has also provided
The Art Newspaper with a list of twenty-seven other works in the latest Hulsker
catalogue which he believes are not authentic, although only two of these are
also questioned by Mr. Hulsker (H1624, 2107).
Although the Van Gogh museum is unwilling to discuss
pictures in other collections, last month curator Louis van Tilborgh commented
on their "Asylum garden." He told The Art Newspaper that "Dr.
Gachet's artistic talent was limited and he would not have been able to make a
painting of this outstanding quality." Although provenance can help, in
the end it is important to look at the work of art. "In our 'Asylum
garden' you find the trademarks of Van Gogh's style; the same length of the
brushstrokes, the heavy impasto, and the obvious energy and attention to the
painting process."
The results of The Art Newspaper's survey reveal that
altogether over a hundred Van Gogh works are now being questions, but with
hardly any agreement between the various scholars over which are dubious. In a
few cases (primarily works in the Van Gogh Museum which came from Theo's
collection), the works raise issues of attribution. Pictures given to the Van
Gogh brothers in the 1880s may have been later mistaken for Vincent's work. But
in most instances the fakes are works which are forgeries, made to deceive.
It is striking that of the forty-five works now doubted by
Mr. Hulsker, only two are also being publicly questioned by the
Dorn/Feilchenfeldt team, "Landscape with Les Alpilles" (H1744) and
the self-portrait in Oslo (H1780).
None of the eleven drawings rejected by Dr. Heenk is
questioned in the new Hulsker catalogue. This lack of agreement among the
experts is strong evidence of the need for a detailed reexamination of Van
Gogh's oeuvre.
The Van Gogh Museum has launched a vast catalogue
The Van Gogh Museum has already taken a step in this direction,
by initiating an eight-volume catalogue of its own collection. Vincent van
Gogh Drawings 1880-1883, by drawings curator Sjraar van Heugten, was
published last year (Van Gogh Museum/V+K/Lund Humphries). This year there will
be further volumes on drawings (1883-85) and paintings (1881-85), and the
remaining volumes will be out by the end of 2001. The first volume is a model
of scholarship and problems of authenticity are being tackled. As former museum
director Ronald de Leeuw (now director of the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) explained
"in his forward, questionable works are excluded because the museum simply
cannot lend itself to creating yet more legends around the oeuvre of an artist
which is already surrounded by such a forest of myths."
The other major Van Gogh collection is at the Kröller-Müller
Museum in Otterlo, and it too is considering a scholarly catalogue, although
this is likely to be some years away. Together the Amsterdam and Otterlo
museums hold a third of Van Gogh's oeuvre, but the majority is scattered in
collections around the world. Van Gogh Museum chief curator Louis van Tilborgh
and his colleagues have examined many of these works, "Our policy is that
we do not normally comment on questions of authenticity, and only then at the request
of the owner," said Mr. van Tilborgh. He stresses that the museum is keen
on encouraging research, and publishes documentary material in its Cahier
series and articles in its annual journal.
Ultimately the fakes will not be weeded out until Van Gogh's
entire oeuvre is systematically reexamined for a new catalogue raisonné. As
director John Leighton points out, "The Van Gogh Museum is the natural
focal point for serious scholarly research and any initiative towards a new
catalogue raisonné should begin here in Amsterdam. The detailed catalogues of
our collection are the logical first step and when these are complete we will
turn our attention to the wider task of a new catalogue raisonné, involving
outside scholars as possible.
Case studies
Gemeentemuseum: a suspiciously pleasing self-portrait
The image we have of Van Gogh, the man, comes from the
series of incisive portraits which he painted of himself. His facial features
have become so well imprinted on our minds that it is difficult to question the
authenticity of a self-portrait. This helps to explain why until recently the
self-portraits have not been sufficiently scrutinised by those intent on
weeding out the fakes.
The self-portrait at the
Gemeentemuseum depicts a rather wistful figure, with a neatly trimmed ginger
beard, smartly dressed in a blue jacket and collard shirt (H1198). It is
regarded as one of Van Gogh's early self-portraits, normally dated to 1886, the
year of his arrival in Paris. Stylistically, it harks back to his years in the
Netherlands and the colouring is typical of the Hague School, with the dark
background, the artist's sober clothes and its relatively realistic flesh
tones.
Until recently the authenticity of the Gemeentemuseum's
picture had never been questioned, but the Dorn/Feilchenfeldt team now say it
is not by Van Gogh. Dr. Dorn points particularly to the ear, which is unduly
prominent and scarlet red. "It is quite different from the ears in the
other self-portraits. The interior of the ear is just an oval shape, not
painted with any detail," he explained.
Dr. Dorn believes it is probably the work of a student.
"It is too smooth to be by Van Gogh, and is too sentimental," he
said. The idea that it is by a pupil may come as something of a surprise, since
Van Gogh is not generally thought of as a master with students. We tend to
think of him toiling away alone and unable to sell his works, and it is
difficult to imagine pupils coming to his makeshift studio for lessons.
The clue which alerted Dr. Dorn to the idea that the
Gemeentemuseum picture might be the work of a student lies on the reverse,
where there is a second painting of a still life (H528). This dark
and sombre work depicts a tall jar, a bottle, several pots and a small bowl. It
has been dated to November 1884, when Van Gogh was living in his parents'
village of Nuenen, and it is one of thirteen still lifes from this period.
Although Van Gogh had taken up oil painting only three years
earlier, it was in Nuenen (close to Eindhoven) that he had his first pupils.
Early in November 1884 Vincent wrote to his brother Theo: "I now have
three people in Eindhoven who want to learn to paint, and I am teaching them
how to do still lifes." A few days later Vincent explained that he was not
asking them for money, but hoped to get "tubes of paint."
Dr. Dorn says that one of these three students may have
painted the Gemeentemuseum picture. He believes that the pupil might have done
the still life, and then turned over the canvas and reused it for a portrait of
their teacher. Van Gogh's first pupil was Antoon Hermans, a goldsmith and
antiques dealer who had commissioned him to decorate his dining room. Hermans
offered to lend Van Gogh some "old jars" for still life painting, and
they probably include some of the objects on the reverse of the Gemeentemuseum
picture. Another student was Anton Kerssemarkers, a tanner, and he later
recalled doing a series of still lifes with "a few jars." The third
pupil was postal worker Willem van de Wakker.
As further evidence that the still life is by a pupil, Dr.
Dorn points out that exactly the same group of objects depicted from a slightly
different angle appear in another picture (H531). He believes that Van Gogh
painted this other version, while his pupil sat to his right and did the same
still life which is now on the reverse of the Gemeentemuseum portrait. Dr. Dorn
says that it is possible that the student's still life may then have been
touched up by Van Gogh.
Gemeentemuseum curator John Sillevis admits that the Van
Gogh picture is "constantly on my mind," although so far he remains
convinced of its authenticity. He points to the provenance. It is believed to
have belonged to Vincent's sister Elisabeth du Quesne-van Gogh, who reproduced
it as the frontispiece in the original Dutch edition of her book Personal
recollections of Vincent van Gogh, published in 1910. Eight years later the
painting was sold to the Gemeentemuseum through the D'Audretsch Art Gallery in
The Hague. It appears to have been accepted as a self-portrait by Elisabeth du
Quesne and was never questioned by Theo's widow, Jo Bonger.
Mr. Sillevis points out that it was acquired by the
Gemeentemuseum's first director Hendrik van Gelder, who was very careful in his
acquisitions: "If there was a shadow of doubt, he would never have bought
it. He was making a very serious effort to build up an avant-garde
collection." Mr. Sillevis also points out that Vincent's letters to Theo
survive from this period, and it would be curious if Van Gogh had not written
about such an important portrait made by a pupil of his.
Stylistically the Gemeentemuseum picture stands up well
compared to Van Gogh's other early Paris self-portraits, which are also painted
in the traditional Hague School colouring. Mr. Sillevis is not unduly concerned
about the slightly clumsily painted ear, having recently compared it to
self-portraits in the Van Gogh Museum.
Further evidence of the Gemeentemuseum picture's
authenticity is the existence of two sheets of self-portrait drawings in the
Van Gogh Museum (H1196-7). Dated to 1886, they depict a similar image and are
arguably studies for the oil painting. The drawings would not have been widely
known when the Gemeentemuseum picture surfaced.
Overall, the Gemeentemuseum picture is a fine portrait, and
it is difficult to believe that a work of this quality was produced by an
inexperienced student. The directness of the piercing eyes also suggests a
self-portrait, produced with the aid of a mirror.
Mr. Sillevis also believes that the still life on the
reverse is authentic, comparing it to the dozen similar pictures. He argues
that Vincent must have painted the still life in November 1884 and sent the
canvas to Theo, who was then in Paris. When Van Gogh moved to Paris in 1886 he
then reused the canvas, a procedure which he sometimes did to save money.
The painting is one of the highlights of the
Gemeentemuseum's collection, and last year it was shown at Van Gogh exhibitions
in Vienna (Bank Austria Kunstforum) and Madrid (Sala de las Alhajas). Although
Mr. Sillevis remains convinced of its authenticity, he hopes to arrange for the
picture to be subjected to a detailed scientific examination.
The Met: a self-portrait with much too random brush strokes
The Metropolitan Museum's
self-portrait (H1354)
could hardly be more different from that of the Gemeentemuseum, although just a
year separates them. Instead of the neat brushstrokes of the Gemeentemuseum
picture, the Metropolitan's composition is created with whirling strokes and
dots of colour, mainly radiating from Van Gogh's face and encircling his straw
hat. The artist has also created a more informal and jaunty image, emphasised
by the hat.
Most experts date the Metropolitan picture to late 1887, a
few months before Van Gogh's departure for Arles. By this time he had
assimilated the latest developments in Paris, and had seen the work of the
Impressionists and their followers. But accurate dating of Van Gogh's Paris
works is difficult, since so few of his letters survive.
Mr. Feilchenfeldt first questioned the Metropolitan picture
at a symposium at the Van Gogh Museum. Initially, his doubts were raised by its
provenance. Vincent gave most of his self-portraits to his brother Theo, and
these are recorded in an unpublished family inventory compiled soon after his
death in 1891. A few self-portraits were also presented to close friends, such
as Gauguin, Charles Laval, Emile Bernard and Dr. Paul Gachet. Mr. Feilchenfeldt
argues that any self-portrait not listed in the 1891 family inventory is known
to have come from Van Gogh's friends should be closely examined. Along with the
Gemeentemuseum picture, this includes self-portraits at the Wadsworth Atheneum
(1299), Oslo's
National Gallery (H1780),
Vienna's Kunsthistorisches Museum (H1344) and the
Metropolitan Museum.
Of these five works, the Metropolitan's is the most
celebrated. Its provenance has been traced back to three dealers: the
Charpentier Art Gallery in Paris at an unknown date in the 1920's, the Hans
Bammann Art Gallery in Düsseldorf (where it was exhibited in 1928) and Justin
K. Thannhauser. To add to the mystery, Bammann once claimed that the picture
originally came from an unnamed "Russian collection."
It was first published by De la Faille in 1927, but it has
no secure provenance before that date. This is relatively late for a Van Gogh
to surface and the artist's work was already fetching substantial sums. In the
early 1930s the painting was bought by Adelaide Milton de Groot, who offered it
on long-term loan to the Metropolitan in 1936. It was bequeathed to the museum
on her death in 1967.
Mr. Feilchenfeldt also questions the picture on stylistic
grounds, arguing there are weak areas. He points particularly to the area just
beneath the straw hat "where it is difficult to distinguish between hair
and shadow." The brush strokes in this area appear haphazard and in the
picture as a whole "the handling of colour does not match Van Gogh's
work." Mr. Feilchenfeldt believes that it may well have been painted in
the mid 1920s as a forgery.
This view is rejected by the Metropolitan's assistant
curator Susan Stein. "The first question is whether it looks right, and
believe that it does. Van Gogh was not aiming at a photographic likeness."
"In examining the Metropolitan picture, one has to bear
in mind what the artist was setting out to achieve. Most of Van Gogh's Paris
self-portraits were exploratory exercises in colour theory and brushstrokes. In
his self-portraits, Van Gogh was experimenting with the juxtaposition of
colour. He was making use of the ideas of the Impressionists and
Neo-Impressionists, but developing his own brand of pointillist
technique." She points out that the Metropolitan self-portrait has been
discussed with colleagues at the Van Gogh Museum, who have dismissed questions
about its authenticity.
Like the Gemeentemuseum self-portrait, there is another
picture on the reverse: a seated peasant woman peeling potatoes (H654). This
has been dated to late February 1885, when Van Gogh was at Nuenen. It is a
sombre picture, probably painted by lamplight, and the woman's profile suggests
that it is a study for "The potato eaters." Writing to Theo, Vincent
explained "I paint not only as long as there is daylight, but even in the
evening by the lamp in the cottages, where I can hardly distinguish anything on
my palette."
Mr. Feilchenfeldt dismisses the picture of the woman peeling
potatoes as a pastiche, describing it as "flat". Ms. Stein disagrees
and argues that the "handling and restricted palette of dark tones are
convincing for the period."
She says that the double-sided canvas provides further
evidence of its authenticity. There are five other double-side self-portraits
in the Van Gogh Museum, which from their provenance we can presume to be
authentic. The reverses of these pictures, all with Nuenen scenes, would not
have been well known when the Metropolitan picture first surfaced in 1927. De
la Faille's catalogue raisonné, in which they were described, was not published
until the following year, and when some of the Van Gogh family's double-side
self-portraits were exhibited in the early 1900s it was very unlikely that the
reverses would have been shown. How then would a faker have known that there
were Nuenen pictures on the backs of the other self-portraits? And why would he
have gone to the extra trouble of painting a fake on the reverse?
The picture on the reverse is therefore strong evidence in
favour of authenticity. Once again, a full scientific examination of the
Metropolitan painting might resolve the question. A provenance that does not
stretch back before 1927 does raise doubts. Although this does not unduly
concern Ms. Stein, she points out that much more research still needs to be
done on the early history of Van Gogh works.
Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam: an overly realistic still life
The Dorn/Feilchenfeldt team
have already been proved right over one picture, "Still life with bottle
of wine, two glasses and a plate with bread and cheese" (H1121). The
painting came from the collection of Theo and with this provenance its
authenticity had gone unquestioned. The Van Gogh Museum's 1987 catalogue dates
it so soon after the artist's arrival in Paris, in the spring of 1886.
Four years ago Dr. Dorn pointed out that the style seems too
realistic for Van Gogh: "the rolls look edible, the red wine drinkable and
the silver glistens." He argued that since the picture came from Theo's
collection, it must have been done by a friend of the two brothers. Important
evidence for his theory is that after Theo's death in 1891 the painting was not
listed in the unpublished inventory of the works by Van Gogh. Presumably years
later Jo Bonger assumed the still life was by Vincent and it was then wrongly
attributed.
Modern scientific techniques have no confirmed Dr. Dorn's
doubts. Three years ago the picture was x-rayed, revealing the image of a woman
was underneath, at right angles to the still life (in the x-ray, the plate is
just next to the woman's face). The hidden picture appears to be a conventional
head-and-shoulders portrait, and as Van Gogh Museum curator Mr. Van Heugten now
admits, it has "little in common" with Van Gogh.
This discovery was made during a project to x-ray 130 oil
paintings in the Van Gogh Museum. No fewer than twenty canvases were found to
have been reused, with earlier images underneath. But this still life was the
only case where an x-ray examination led to a work being downgraded as a Van
Gogh.
The canvas of the woman's portrait had been scraped before
the still life was started, making it difficult to examine the technique of the
original picture. But in the x-ray, some brushstrokes are visible in the
woman's garment. "Though the artist was apparently working rapidly, one
cannot help but notice a certain dullness: the strokes lack both the strength
and structure of Vincent," admitted Mr. Van Heugten.
Mr. Van Heugten says that "from a stylistic point of
view it is indeed difficult to situate the canvas in Vincent's oeuvre." He
explained: "Only the handling of the bread is somewhat reminiscent of his
free brush work, whereas the rest is distinguished by a manner that is
reversed, if not lacklustre. There is nothing of interest in the background,
while the glasses, plate and knife are arranged against them with no more than
technical competence." He concludes that as another artist was responsible
for the hidden portrait, this appears to confirm that the still life is not by
Van Gogh and it should be attributed to an anonymous artist. The painting has
now been removed to the vaults.
Now that "Still life with bottle of wine, two glasses
and a plate with bread and cheese" is no longer considered to be by Van
Gogh, questions must be asked about a similar work, "A plate with
rolls" H1232).
This other still life, normally dated to early 1887, also comes from Theo's
collection and is at the Van Gogh Museum. It is accepted by Mr. Hulsker and is
in the museum's 1987 catalogue. In this second still life, the plate appears to
be the same as in the downgraded work and the bread and rolls are painted in a
similar style. The same artist is therefore like to have been responsible for
them both.
Musée D'Orsay: "St. Paul's Asylum garden", too
summary to be by Van Gogh
The Musée d'Orsay's "Saint-Paul Asylum garden"
(H1840) is dated to October 1889, when Van Gogh was in St-Rémy. The artist is
assumed to have painted it for the asylum's director, Dr. Theophile Peyron, who
is likely to be the smartly dressed man standing proprietorially next to the
old pine tree. Writing to his brother Theo on 2 November 1889, Vincent reported
that he had "done a canvas for Mr. Peyron, a few of the house with a large
pine." The Musée d'Orsay picture depicts the garden entrance of the asylum,
and the figure in the yellow straw hat coming through the doorway may well
represent the artist. Van Gogh frequently painted in the asylum garden and it
was where he spent much of his time when his health was reasonably good.
The 1970 edition of the De la Faille catalogue records
"Saint-Paul Asylum garden" was given by Dr. Peyron's son Joseph to
Marie Gasquet, the wife of a St.-Rémy poet. She in turn is said to have sold it
to the Bernheim-Jeune gallery in Paris. But this early provenance is undocumented,
and the only firm evidence is that Bernheim-Jeune sold it to Cassirer in 1914.
The St-Rémy painting then passed through several hands and
in 1973 was given by Parisian dealer Max Kaganovich and his wife Rosy in the
Jeu de Paume in Paris (and transferred to the Musée d'Orsay in 1986). Dr. Anne
Distel, chief curator of the Musée d'Orsay, admits that because the picture
arrived as a gift, the museum did not subject its provenance to detailed
scrutiny and the details given in the De la Faille catalogue were accepted.
But Dr. Dorn is dubious about the provenance. "The link
with Peyron is uncertain and Madame Gasquet was a questionable figure. The
established provenance only goes back to 1914," he explained. Dr. Dorn
speculates that the story about Peyron could well have been produced to explain
the picture's late appearance. The existence of Van Gogh's letter of 2 November
1889 would have provided a faker with a suitable subject.
To add to the mystery, there is another authentic painting
which depicts a similar view of the asylum entrance and garden. "Pine
trees in the asylum garden" (H1799), is now in
the Armand Hammer Collection in Los Angeles, was painted from a point slightly
further away from the building and shows a clump of tall pine trees and a large
expanse of sky. This work is dated to early October 1889, a month before the
Musée d'Orsay picture. Those who doubt the authenticity of the Musée d'Orsay
work suggest that a faker could have based his picture on the Hammer painting.
But Van Gogh frequently did different versions of the same subject, so the
existence of the variants is not surprising. An opportunity to compare the two
paintings side-by-side might be revealing.
Dr. Dorn also questions the authenticity of the Musée
d'Orsay picture on other grounds. He believes "the very summary treatment
of the architecture" is unusual in Van Gogh's oeuvre. Dr. Dorn is
concerned about the technical details in the handling of the paint, which he
says is unlike that of the artist, particularly the "dry application"
of the paint and the unprimed twill canvas.
Dr. Distel has an open attitude towards "Saint-Paul
Asylum garden." "At present it is accepted as authentic, but we are
quite willing to look at any new evidence which emerges," she told The Art
Newspaper. We can reveal that the Musée d'Orsay is not subjecting the painting
to detailed scrutiny, following suggestions from Dr. Dorn and other experts.
X-rays and infra-red reflectograms will be taken. These investigations are
expected to be completed shortly.
Real discoveries
Everyone's dream is to discover an unknown Van Gogh, but
very few are lucky. According to former Van Gogh Museum director Mr. de Leeuw,
"We receive a constant stream of queries regarding the authenticity of
works. For staff this is very time-consuming, and it is only very rarely that
their work does not end in disappointment." But it does happen, and works
do emerge. In May this year a drawing of a woman was found in the Netherlands.
The sketch had remained in private hands and had never been published. It came
up for sale at Christie's Amsterdam on 4 June and sold for DFl.231,000
(£73,000), four times more than the estimate.
The Art Newspaper has compiled a comprehensive list of a dozen
works, which have been widely accepted as authentic since the 1980s, although
in some cases not all the experts agree. We have excluded a number of drawings
at the Van Gogh Museum which were not published in the De la Faille and Hulsker
catalogues, but which have been reproduced in the museum's own catalogue or in
Johannes van der Wolk's study of the sketchbooks (although relatively unknown
until recently, these works came from Theo's collection and cannot be regarded
as discoveries).
"Portrait of a woman"
This pencil drawing has been authenticated by Van Gogh
Museum curator Mr. Van Heugten. Dating from the spring of 1882, it is similar
to a slightly smaller work now in a South American collection (H352). Both
drawings depict Sien, the former prostitute the artist was living with in The
Hague, or possibly her mother. The newly-discovered version was found early
this century by critic Hendricus Bremmer, who recommended it to the wealthy
collection Helen Kröller-Müller. She gave it to her daughter and the drawing
was later given to the present Dutch owner as a wedding gift in the 1940s.
Christie's sold the work on 4 June.
"Windy landscape with a woman and child"
Rejected by De la Faille in 1930, this drawing was long
dismissed as a fake, but last year it was accepted by the Van Gogh Museum. The
pencil drawing, touched up with ink, is on brownish-pink watermarked paper
which is similar to three authentic works. Curator Mr. Van Heugten dates it to
April-May 1883, when Van Gogh was in The Hague. The work was in a German
private collection and was bought by Hamburg dealer Thomas le Claire in 1994.
On 2 December 1996 it sold at Christie's for £155,000.
"Still life with flowers"
Discovered in Switzerland, this bouquet with asters was
brought to Mr. Feilchenfeldt’s Zürich gallery and in 1995 it was authenticated
by the Van Gogh Museum. Although it is prominently signed Vincent in red paint,
it had been purchased in a flea market in France after World War II and was
later consigned to an attic. The oil painting is now dated to the autumn of
1886, when Van Gogh was in Paris. The picture had never been restored, which is
extremely unusual for a Van Gogh. It is still in a private collection.
"Man in a snow-covered landscape"
This watercolour, also made with pencil and ink, is a copy
of a lithograph of a work by Josef Israëls, entitled "Winter." Van
Gogh's own reproduction of the print survives in one of his scrapbooks. Signed
Vincent, his watercolour copy probably dates from his stay in Amsterdam in mid
1877, when he was preparing to study theology. The watercolour was acquired in
a Dutch provincial sale by the Bockweg Gallery in Epe. Museum curator Mr. Van
Heugten describes the Van Gogh attribution as "fairly secure."
"Vase with flowers"
The Paris still life appeared in Milwaukee in 1990. It was
said to have been bought by a Zürich banker between 1910 and 1930 and later
inherited by an American couple. The oil painting was authenticated by the Van
Gogh Museum, which concluded that the typical brushstrokes, colouring and
composition were similar to still lifes from the summer of 1886, when the
artist was in Paris. The signature, a simple "Vt," occurs in only one
other Van Gogh painting. In March 1991 the picture was sold in Chicago by
Leslie Hindman Auctioneers, fetching £750,000.
"Landscape with trees"
The watercolour was first exhibited in 1990 at the
exhibition of Van Gogh drawings at the Kröller-Müller Museum. Curator Mr. Van
der Wolk dated it to September, 1883, when Van Gogh was in Drenthe. The paper
has the same watermark as another authenticated work. It had originally been
acquired by the Rotterdam dealer Oldenzeel, who bought work left behind at Van
Gogh's studio in Nuenen, and was auctioned in 1904. It is now in a private
collection.
"Bowl with daffodils"
In a private collection since the 1920s, this still-life was
not published until 1988. Ronald Pickvance dated the picture to April 1885 in
Nuenen, although it could also come from Van Gogh's period in Paris the
following spring. X-rays have revealed that there was an earlier landscape
underneath. Unusually, the oil painting is on cardboard. After being displayed
at the Van Gogh Museum, it is back in private hands.
"Cottage"
This oil painting is dated to Nuenen, June-July 1885. Newly
discovered, it was auctioned by Sotheby's in 1988, selling for £83,600. On 22
March last year it was sold at Drouot (Laurin-Guilloux-Buffetaud) at the
request of L'Adminstration des Douanes. It is now in a Dutch collection.
"Peasant kneeling in front of a hut"
This watercolour is dated to September, 1883, when Van Gogh
was in Drenthe. It was in several Dutch private collections and remained
unpublished. It sold at Christie's in 1986 for £41,000 and its authenticity is
accepted by Dr. Heenk.
"Peasant and studies of pitchforks"
The charcoal drawing dates from Van Gogh's stay in Nuenen in
1885. On the reverse is another sketch of a peasant man. The work first
appeared at Sotheby's in 1984, when it sold for £16,500.
"Olive trees at Montmajour"
The fine ink drawing was done by Van Gogh in July 1888 at
Montmajour, the ruined abbey just outside Arles. It was left to the Musée des
Beaux-Art in Tournai by Belgian collector Henri van Cutsem in 1925, but it was
uncatalogued and not recognised by museum curators as a Van Gogh until 1957. It
remained unknown to most Van Gogh scholars until 1984, when it was exhibited by
Ronald Pickvance in his "Van Gogh in Arles" show at the Metropolitan
Museum.
"Man, standing with arms folded"
The pencil drawing was first published in 1983 by Martha Op
de Coul, who dated it to March-April 1882. It is a sketch for a figure in the
drawing "Fishdrying barn" (H152) from May 1882. Scheveningen, the
port outside The Hague. It is in a private collection.
"People strolling in a park"
The oil painting is dated to Paris, in the autumn of 1886.
It was first exhibited in Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov's exhibition, "Vincent
van Gogh and the birth of Cloisonnism" held in Toronto and Amsterdam in
1981. The picture, previously unrecorded, came from the heirs of art critic
Albert Aurier and is now in a private collection.
Martin Bailey is author of Young Vincent: The story of
Van Gogh's years in England, and Van Gogh: letters from Provence,
and selector of the Barbican Art Gallery's 1992 exhibition "Van Gogh in
England."
The address of the publisher of The Art Newspaper is:
Umberto Allemandi and Co
27-29 Vauxhall Grove
London
SW8 1SY
Reprinted with permission
Return
to Van Gogh fakes page