United States: Recap Of "Rethinking Art Authentication" At The New York City Bar

Last Updated: December 10 2015
Article by Nicholas M. O'Donnell

Last week the Art Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association hosted a terrific two-hour event.  Entitled "Rethinking Art Authentication," the discussion aimed to address a way forward from the problems of fakes, forgeries, and authentication lawsuits that have plagued the art market in recent years.  It was a lively and fascinating evening.

The first notable aspect was the composition of the speakers.  The panel consisted of legal practitioners, scholars, and scientists.  This gave the discussion a balance that is often lacking in legal seminars.  The chair of our committee, Dean Nicyper (Withers Bergman LLP), introduced the panel and gave the floor first to Colette Loll, president of Art Fraud Insights, LLC.  Ms. Loll addressed conditions and patterns faced by artists foundations in particular.  The process of authentication needs a paradigm shift, she suggested.  Questions are met with fear and hostility, including whether works sent out of the country may be seized.  The market suffers from all this.  In addition, opinions change over time, and foundations are besieged with requests and threats of lawsuits.

Catalogues raisonée are a further complication.  They are critical tools for provenance research.  Scholarly process is always subject to error, however, and may not even be intended as comprehensive.  The 1958 Ceroni catalogue raisonnée of Amadeo Modigliani is a perfect example: it only included works he saw and he never traveled to the United States.  Gerhard Richter's recent disavowal of his recent work is another example, creating an odd category in the market.

Recent forgery scandals reveal the limitations of technological advances.  The market continues to be vulnerable, exemplified by Knoedler and Beltracchi case.  Beltracchi was savvy about using historical techniques and sources (he posed his wife in a staged "historical" photograph).  Science ultimately caught up with him because he used a titanium white pigment that was anachronistic for the painting in which it was used, but it is still not known how many works he created.  The fictitious Dada artist "Karl Waldmann" scandal is another recent example.  The market's desire to discover lost artists can blind it to proper scrutiny.

Lastly, global online art sales create another vulnerability point.  A level of acceptable documentation is not commonly recognized.

Jennifer L. Mass, Senior Scientist and Director, Scientific Research and Analysis Laboratory, Winterthur Museum and President, Scientific Analysis of Fine Art, LLC, spoke next.  Dr. Mass said she wanted to give a snapshot of the "arms race" of authenticity issues.  She distinguished between bad fakes, good fakes, and excellent fakes.  A good fake is something made with the intent to deceive, for example, the recent claim that La Bella Principessa by Leonardo da Vinci is a super market check out girl from the 1970s made using period materials.  An excellent fake was exemplified by a Chinese porcelain example that used the right kinds of clay and overglaze from an earlier period.

To combat his, scientists like Dr. Mass check the iron composition of clay and compare it to the likelihood that someone had used the exact same source as a more recent source.  Dr. Mass then showed an example of a supposed 19th century clock from Vermont.  "Just really look" she exhorted the audience—this clock's pristine condition belied its supposed age.  To corroborate that impression, a high energy X-ray was used to identify elements in the periodic table.  Titanium paint—not available until the 20th century—was revealed, confirming it as a fake.  If it is too good to be true, she suggested, it probably is.  A harder example involved distinguishing between kinds of titanium white, which became available roughly 20 years apart.  Hyperspectral imaging makes it much easier to understand what exactly the viewer is seeing.  Even for undisputed authentic works, the condition can be informed by looking beneath the surface, which may reveal conservation if not forgery  Reverse engineering paints from known works allows scientists to stay ahead of forgers as well.

Dr. Mass used Picasso's Blue Room as an example of new technology.  Infrared showed a portrait underneath that would not have been visible 50 years ago.  Multispectral analysis showed further the ability to identify the sitter to distinguish whether it was a self-portrait or a friend.

Are fakes and forgeries getting better?  Yes, said Dr. Mass, but so are techniques to combat them, she suggested.  She and Ms. Loll are currently working on analyzing known forger Elmyr de Hory's palette to try to identify other forgeries.

Rick Johnson, Jacobs' Fellow in Computational Arts and Humanities, Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute, Cornell Tech (New York City), was next on the panel.  Dr. Johnson addressed his use of technical algorithms.  He also discussed some of his own experience in scientific analysis.

Professor Amy Adler of New York University addressed a very different and provocative question than the first three speakers.  Specifically, Professor Adler questioned whether the focus on identifying unique originals was in fact worth all the trouble it causes.

She pointed to recent cases where no connoisseur or scholar could state definitively what the work is, which challenges our assumptions about authenticity.  Notions of authenticity are under assault by contemporary artists.

First, Professor Adler identified what she called "fake by fiat."  Artist Cady Noland sometimes questions her own previous work.  Cowboys Milking was to be auctioned, and she didn't like what she saw.  Noland disclaimed the work by objecting to some conservation.  The Visual Artists Rights Act question never had to be answered by the court, but why does the art market care so much about the artist's imprimatur?  Why should the artist have the power to disavow a work she clearly made and reduce its value to zero?

Ever since Duchamp transformed objects merely by calling them art (also recalling a Rauschenberg telegram that says "this is a portrait because I say so"), if an artist has the power to turn a lowly object into a work of art, the corollary is that she can turn a work of art into a lowly object.

Conceptual work and certificates is one way that the art market has tried to manage this problem.  But there has been litigation over refusals to reissue certificates, without which a Dan Flavin work is just a light bulb.  A more recent Flavin controversy involving "posthumous" works are not real Flavins because although he had imagined them, they were not done before he died.

To take another example: the Warhol anti-trust litigation involved multiple silk screen series, one of which the Warhol board considered authentic, one it did not.  The latter involved an outside printer.  Yet, as Professor Adler noted, correspondence from Warhol exists where he talks about a variety of people actually printing works even within his Factory ("ask my assistant, he did most of my paintings")—works the Foundation considers authentic.  Professor Adler suggests that the very question that the lawsuit posed is one that Warhol's work renders a little bit absurd.

Recalling Plato, she asked: given two objects that look exactly alike, how is one a work of art and one not?  Why is one worth $100 million and one is valueless because of these determinations?  Taking the absurdity a step further, Professor Adler showed a work imitating Warhol that the artist sent to the Foundation specifically to obtain a rejected stamp.  All of this harkens back to Walter Benjamin's seminal essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction."

"Exhibition copies"—copies created for a show while the original is taken down elsewhere question what Professor Adler called the "fetishization" of the original or, as she ended with: "Maybe a little bit real and a little bit fake, maybe a 'little bit pregnant'."

Lastly, Mr. Nicyper discussed the pending authentication bill before the New York legislature, the various iterations of which we have addressed before here.  Most importantly, Mr. Nicyper explained the course of this year's changes to the bill, its fate, and its prospects for the future.

Drafted with the impetus of the Art Law Committee, the original bill proposed two years ago would have made a number of changes, including requiring heightened pleading against authenticators, a clear and convincing evidence burden of proof, and a one-way fee shifting attorneys' fees provision.  That bill was opposed by the Trial Lawyers Association.  This year, a revised bill was introduced that did away with the clear and convincing evidence standard.  That bill passed the New York Senate, but no action was taken in the Assembly.  According to Mr. Nicyper, certain lawmakers were opposed and prevented it coming to a vote.

Those lawmakers are no longer in the Assembly, however, according to Mr. Nicyper.  Thus, the chances for passage in the next session actually look promising.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Nicholas M. O'Donnell
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions