The authenticity of any work of art is as crucial, and fragile, as a professional reputation. Once a work's authenticity has been questioned, it will rarely, if ever, recover. Works of art, sold at auction for prices in the $10s of millions, become worthless overnight because new information comes to light.

Perhaps the most famous of these incidents is the case of Van Gogh's "Sunflowers". Bought at auction during the peak of the skyrocketing prices in the late 1980's by a large Japanese Bank and Insurance Company, it was reported 8 years after the fact in the Boston Globe that this painting was most likely a forgery. The negative publicity sparked a lawsuit between the auction house that conducted the sale, Christie's, and the Japanese bank that was seeking the return of the $45+ million they had spent on the painting.
Christie's immediately announced that they were innocent of any wrongdoing and were protected from legal action. According to both their corporate guidelines, which allow five years for the return of any work proven not to be authentic, and New York State's Statute of Limitations, which allows seven years for the return of any items sold under false pretences, they were in the clear. In their legal department’s opinion, neither civil nor criminal legal action could be taken against them and the Japanese Bank would not receive any compensation for their claim.

Although this case was settled quietly out of court, it does raise daunting questions and clearly pinpoints the sheer magnitude of this issue. What protection do art buyers truly have if purchases made for large sums of money are later discovered to be something other than what they were sold as? This problem is further compounded by two significant factors unique to the art world: first, masterpiece art has always been seen as a long-term investment, with paintings rarely being resold within five years of a purchase. Therefore, problems of authenticity often do not come to light until after any legal protection has run out.
Secondly, perhaps the most terrifying fact facing the art world today, rapidly advancing technology and techniques in the forensic sciences are poised to expose century-old flaws in the expert authentication system. What protection will collectors have if art, properly included in the appropriate catalogue raisonné and with full provenance, are suddenly discovered, through these advanced scientific practices, to be forgeries. To fully understand these issues, and even consider possible long-term solutions, one must first understand both authentication techniques and their proper place in the art world.

As was discussed in the first segment in this series, the regulatory standard for any artist is called their catalogue raisonné and it lists the complete works by the artist, with provenance. These catalogues are often put out by either the family and/or descendants of the artist or a world-recognized expert, private institute, or combination of the two. In a few rare cases, such as with the artists Rembrandt and Chagall, a special committee has been formed to oversee the catalogue. These people or organizations carry immense power and can literally determine, without regulation from any outside agency, what paintings by any particular artist can ever be sold.

This absolute power and unregulated nature has historically provided fertile ground for corruption, bribery, and greed. The most common opportunity for just this type of corruption happens with paintings from “the school of" a certain artist. During their lifetime, master artists often became nationally and internationally recognized talents and received financial support from the Royal houses of their country. Quite often these artists have used this financial support to establish art schools in their name where students would specifically come to learn their craft under the tutelage of the master artist.

Perhaps the most famous of these schools was established by Riven von Rembrandt in Amsterdam during the 17th century. At its peak, this school had in excess of 100 students, all attempting to emulate the style of Rembrandt. Many of these students were highly talented themselves and became quite adept in copying his work. Furthermore, Rembrandt would often use students to assist in the creation of some of his pieces. He was also known to assist his students in the creation of their work.

As if this type of collaboration would not be confusing enough to determine nearly 300 years later, the predicament is further compounded by the fact that a painting's value can often be 10 to 100 times greater if it is determined to be a work by the master, as opposed to a cooperative work or merely that of a talented student. A very famous art expert, Bernard Berenson, had his lifelong reputation ruined for accepting a bribe to authenticate a painting in just this situation.

Unfortunately, this is perhaps just the tip of the iceberg. Again, as previously mentioned, the Wildenstein family publishes about 30 catalogue raisonnés for many of the world's most prominent artists, especially from the Impressionist era. This type of unregulated and unchecked authority over such a massive collection of works has long been the basis for a number of rumors contending wide spread corruption and blatant acceptance of bribery in exchange for listings in their catalogues. Again, this is just rumor, but is their any proof to substantiate these rumors? Once again, one need not dig very deep to see the sheer magnitude of this problem.

Among the most controversial catalogue raisonnés published by the Wildenstein Institute is that of Paul Gauguin. At the time of the Wildensteins publishing of the Gauguin catalogue in 1965, Douglas Cooper, the former OSS interrogator who conducted the interrogation of Karl Haberstock (the Wildenstein's primary Nazi coconspirator), launched a withering attack on the catalogue in the New York Times Literary Supplement. As quoted from his review, "Pedigrees and quotations have been juggled to suit private needs; and… Gauguin's oeuvre has been shorn of some authentic works and adulterated with others that do not belong."

The Wildensteins immediately sued Mr. Cooper, but in reaching an out of court settlement Mr. Cooper was paid by the Wildensteins to complete a new Gauguin catalogue. This consumed the rest of his life and upon his death in 1984; the entire body of his work remained in the possession of the Wildenstein Institute. To this day, no one knows what evidence Mr. Cooper had uncovered against the Wildensteins. That knowledge is forever lost, but there are clear indicators as to where his grievances with the Wildenstein catalogue may have existed.

Richard Brettell, a professor of arts and humanities at the University of Texas in Dallas, co-curator of the "Art of Paul Gauguin", a massive 1992 retrospective of the artist's work organized by the Art Institute of Chicago. He was quoted in the March 1, 1999 issue of Art & Auction as saying "Gauguin brought back 12 paintings from Martinique, and there are already too many 'Martinique' paintings in the catalogue raisonné right now." Upon closer examination, the enormity of this acknowledgement becomes crystal clear. In published personal letters by Paul Gauguin while in Martinique, it is clearly stated that Gauguin did return to Paris with only 12 canvases, yet to this very day, the Wildenstein Catalogue Raisonné for Gauguin contains TWENTY-FOUR works from this period.

This unbelievable discrepancy is not only a published fact, but as the quote from Mr. Brettell indicates, the art world as a whole has, is, and apparently will continue to complacently ignore this painfully obvious distortion of humanity's cultural heritage. How many more examples like this exist? Is there any chance that someone within the art world, or anyone else, will be able to bring this widespread corruption to the public consciousness?

The art world's best chance for uncovering the truth comes from the relatively new field of forensic science. Through a number of different scientific techniques (including radio-carbon dating, molecular pigment analysis, x-ray, infrared and ultraviolet photography, computer enhanced brush stroke analysis), many composition and material science tests, as well as a battery of comparative analyses between similar works new avenues have been opened for determining a painting’s authenticity. Perhaps the most famous example of the application of these scientific tests would be the decades long research into the Shroud of Turin.

Considered to be the most closely examined item in human history, the Shroud of Turin is claimed by the Catholic Church to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth. A number of difficult to explain phenomena are at work in the Shroud and it took science many years of exhaustive testing to unequivocally prove the Shroud to be a hoax, although even today the results are still heavily disputed. Perhaps the most significant testing was the carbon dating done by three separate institutions all arriving at the approximately same conclusion. The Shroud was created around 650 years ago, + or - 50 years. This statistically wide margin of error is irrelevant when one considers that believers in the Shroud would contend that it is nearly 2,000 years old.
Further testing in a number of different disciplines has proven that the Shroud is most likely the product of a cunning medieval forger. Some of the more sensationalist researchers in this area have put forth it was the work of Leonardo Da Vinci, but that seems unlikely. What is much more important is the fact that, as a direct result of the research done on this item, the field of scientific authentication of art has made amazing strides in a very short amount of time.

Even so, the field of expert scientific authentication has its drawbacks. Most importantly, no scientific technique, no test, no expert scientific opinion can prove a painting authentic. Rather it can, with a much higher degree of accuracy than trained historical experts, determine if an artwork is a fake. Although this may seem useful (these practices are beginning to filter into today's art world), in practice, these techniques are at odds with the goals of every art collector in the world. A buyer or seller only wants to know that his or her painting is genuinely authentic, thereby ensuring them the ability to resell the piece. Again, forensic science can ONLY determine if a painting is a fake (or has the characteristics of a fake), and the closer it is to being an authentic piece, the more time consuming and expensive the scientific testing becomes. As most art professionals agree, why even have the tests done if the only news you can get is bad?
Furthermore, many wealthy collectors with significant collections are further deterred by the forensic scientific method because of the possibility that it could perhaps put their entire collection in jeopardy. Many experts speculate that significant collections (public and private) could have upwards of 50% of their contents determined to be something other than what the current system of catalogues and experts purport them to be.

With billions of dollars at stake, many vehemently oppose any type of forensics work being conducted on their collection. Additionally, most gallery owners and art brokers, who may use these scientific tests for their own information, intentionally stay away from showing this data to prospective clients. Their reason being: if it's in the catalogue it's real and there is nothing science can tell me that could help me otherwise.

This attitude, although alarming and clearly motivated by financial reasons, is pervasive and widespread throughout the masterpiece art market. Therefore, the few people who have turned to scientific testing have been those unfortunate few who own works of art not included in an artist's catalogue raisonné. Again, this quickly brings to light the simple truth that for all the advancements made in forensic science these past two decades, we are still far from proving a paintings authenticity through scientific testing.

Often these unfortunate art owners, usually holding a passionate belief in their work’s authenticity, end up spending thousands of dollars and many years having their works examined, but are no closer to having their works accepted for sale. In fact, to date, no painting that was originally turned down for acceptance into a catalogue raisonné, has had that denial overturned on scientific evidence alone.

As so many of these unfortunate art owners will tell you, there is always tomorrow. The scientific authentication community is a rapidly growing force within the art world and technology is ever advancing. The old expert system continues to come under fire and the opposition is quickly gathering momentum. Organizations such as the International Center for Arts Intelligence are gaining national and international notoriety as they begin to take on the awesome challenge of uncovering the truth. As is the case with some things in life, one can't help but feel enraged by the situation and powerless to do anything about it. Our world's cultural heritage has clearly been manipulated for the financial gain of a few extremely wealthy people. One can only hope that some day these same people will be held accountable, although that, too, seems highly unlikely.