Fakes and Frauds: The impact of art fraud in Australia and how it can be minimised.
Written by Danica Firulovic
Masters of Art Administration
2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract I Acknowledgements II
List of Figures III
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Outline 1 1.2 Overview of art fraud in Australia 2 1.3 Research methods 3
Chapter Two: Historical and scholarly background
2.1 A brief history of art fraud in Australia 5
2.2 Scholarly context 6
Chapter Three: The impact of art fraud
3.1 On the artist 11 3.2 On art buyers 12 3.3 On the Australian art market 13
Chapter Four: Recent Australian Case Studies
4.1 Case Study: Robert Dickerson and Charles Blackman vs Peter Gant 16
4.2 Case Study: Ronald Coles 18 4.3 Case Study: William Blundell 19
Chapter Five: Detection and the law
5.1 Problems with detecting art fraud 21 5.2 Legal loopholes 22
Chapter Six: Minimisation and prevention
6.1 Recommendations for decreasing art fraud in Australia 24
Conclusion 29 Bibliography 31
Abstract
This research paper tests the hypothesis that art crime, specifically fraud, negatively affects the artist, art buyers and art market and that effective solutions are vital in decreasing art crime cases in Australia. The purpose of this paper is to explore how art fraud can affect the artist, the consumer and the Australian art market, and will do so by examining case studies in art fraud in Australia over the last fifty years. In addition, the paper will promote the need to further improve solutions to art fraud through registers/databases, scientific examinations, and more precise laws against art fraud. This research uses the quantitative research method of case studies involving the infamous fraudster, William Blundell, the unscrupulous art dealer Ronald Coles, and unsuspecting artists Charles Blackman and Robert Dickerson, as examples of recent cases of art fraud in Australia. Furthermore, the paper will analyse the loopholes that exist in the minimisation or prevention of art fraud, centring on the problems inherent in the nine different criminal jurisdictions of Australia. The results of this research will offer an insight into the seriousness and impact of art fraud, and assess the most viable ways to reduce it. This paper will therefore be of greatest benefit to those who draw an income from art. It will also be of interest to those concerned with art and notions of copyright and intellectual property.
I
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Arianne Rouke for her support and guidance throughout the duration of the course, and for her understanding during this busy period in my life. The most helpful of research consultants, Francoise Rodriguez, for her timely and effective assistance in researching this topic. She taught me the many channels available for researchers. Rilka Oakley, for her feedback on my draft paper and for answering the numerous questions I asked her. Last but not least, I would like to thank Gregory Carosi for his patience and editing skills and advice throughout the entire writing process.
II
List of Figures
Figure 1: The image of the drawing ‘Three Schoolgirls’ was ascribed to Charles Blackman. The image is from the transcript of the court proceedings in the case of Blackman and Others v Gant and Another, VSC 229, 2010, Supreme Court of Victoria, p. 336
Figure 2: The image of drawing ‘Street Scene with School Girl’ fraudulently claimed to be by Charles Blackman. The image is from the transcript of the court proceedings in the case of Blackman and Others v Gant and Another, VSC 229, 2010, Supreme Court of Victoria, p. 335
Figure 3: The image of the work ‘Pensive Woman’ sold as a genuine Robert Dickerson work. The image is from the transcript of the court proceedings in the case of Blackman and Others v Gant and Another, VSC 229, 2010, Supreme Court of Victoria, p. 337.
III
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Outline
The aim of this paper is to bring into the open the impact of art fraud on Australia and how vital it is to take measures to prevent and minimise fraud in order to ensure a healthy art market in Australia. Fraud has the potential to negatively impact all parties involved – the artists, the dealers, buyers and, ultimately, Australian culture.
It is important to understand what is categorised as fraud in art and therefore preceding this outline is an overview of art fraud, which defines the term and how it will be used in the rest of the paper. The final element of Chapter One will explain the methods used in researching this topic.
Chapter Two: Historical and scholarly background will provide a brief history of art fraud in Australia, followed by a literature review of some of the texts that will be referenced in this paper and how they link to the themes of this analysis.
The third chapter provides information regarding the impact of art fraud on the various stakeholders – the artist, the buyer and those in the art market, particularly the secondary art market. It will allow the reader to understand how these parties are affected and make evident the importance of finding effective methods of prevention.
Chapter Four presents three case studies; the Robert Dickerson/Charles Blackman case, the Ronald Coles case, and a case study on William Blundell. These case studies reveal how art fraud can impact the artist, the dealer and the consumer, as well as the difficulty of legal proceedings once the case has reached court. It is important to explore recent cases as they provide an insight into the current legal loopholes in establishing fraud and the inconsistent legal outcomes of these cases.
Chapter Five: Detection and the law follows logically from Chapter Four in addressing the problems Australia faces in detecting fraud, including a more detailed exploration of the various legal loopholes. It investigates the reasons behind the vulnerability of the art market and the lack of security art buyers face when purchasing art. It therefore becomes a pivotal chapter not only because it explores the issue of detection, but because it is leads to suggestions as to how art fraud can be minimised and prevented.
Chapter 6: Minimisation and prevention reflects the core purpose of this paper and that is to examine the efficacy of structures such as databases and registers, centres for scientific examinations, and additionally, the relative merits of educating police, buyers, galleries and artists about fraud, in order to minimise fraud in the future. The chapter makes reference to a number of sources that explore prevention strategies, placing emphasis on the importance of safeguarding the Australian art market against those who seek to undermine its integrity for personal gain.
1.2 Overview of art fraud
Art fraud exists throughout the art world both in Australia and internationally. It can be said that art fraud will always exist because there are always people who will aim at taking advantage of those vulnerable to such crimes. However, effective measures must be developed and implemented in minimising and preventing art fraud in Australia if the Australian art market is to remain healthy, both economically and culturally.
Art fraud is the copying of a work or style of an artist and claiming it as authentic, usually in reference to a forged signature. Caslon Analytics: Forgery and Fakes is a website which provides information on art fraud, created by Bruce Arnold, states the various mechanisms of art fraud including, fake signatures (adding a recognised artist's signature to an unsigned work not executed by that artist or by deleting an existing signature in favour of one from a more recognised artist), completing unfinished works, misrepresentation, reproduction (reproducing an original and selling that copy as the original), pastiche (copying details from different work by a particular artist for amalgamation as an unrecorded unique work by that artist), and simulated drafts (concocting sketches of figures which are then marketed as ‘studies by the artist’).[1] These acts not only impact on the art market by decreasing buying and selling activity, they also affect dealers and auctioneers, artists’ and their estate’s reputation, as well as consumers. Whether they are one-off buyers or collectors, those have purchased a work unaware that it is a fake and not worth nearly as much as they have paid for it, the loss of money and buyer confidence can be significant. However, the increasing media attention on legal action taken against those involved in art fraud emphasises the rising tide of litigation in relation to this illegal act, and this type of media scrutiny may also be an important policing tool in the future.
1.3 Research Methods
The qualitative method of research has resulted in this paper being completed with the assistance and reference of websites, newspaper articles, journal articles, an ABC documentary and papers on art crime from the 1999 Australian Institute of Criminology Conference.
Useful news articles found online, particularly from the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ website, assisted in the researching and knowledge-building around the case studies by detailing the background to cases and providing up-to-date information on the progress of cases. Similarly, an article entitled Art Fraud: Does it Matter? from ‘Museums Australia’ magazine, written by Robyn Sloggett, was helpful in providing an overview of how the media frenzy over art fraud mirrors the rise in sales. The documentary “Fake!” from ABC’s ‘Four Corners’ program, includes commentary on the art market, and interviews with Robert Dickerson and William Blundell that offer further insight into the expertise required to accurately identify forgeries.
Searching through databases such as Art and Architecture Complete, Australian Public Affairs, AGIS and Factiva resulted in the discovery of reliable and useful journal articles such as Chappell and Polk’s Fakers and Forgers, Deception and Dishonesty: An Exploration of the Murky World of Art Fraud and Douglas Cartwright’s Gallery Directors' Perceptions About Art Fraud and the Justice System, which have provided invaluable information on research conducted on the topic of art fraud and the social, cultural and economic implications surrounding this topic. Articles, especially those published in law journals, provide information on Australian law and ways in which laws concerned with fraud are viewed in legal circles, and how they can be effectively revised and adjusted to minimise art fraud in the future.
Page 4 of 32
Chapter Two
Historical and scholarly context
2.1 A brief history of art fraud in Australia
Growth in the art market during the 1980s, including the increase in auction sales and changes in the Aboriginal art market, sparked media interest in the phenomenon of art fraud. The increase in media attention mirrored the increase in art fraud cases, including fraudulent activity in the Aboriginal art market. By 1988 the Australian art market had reached its zenith, with ‘The Australian Art Sales Digest’ recording sales of $38 474 000. This figure had dropped significantly by 1995 to just under $7 million, but rose again to $50 120 000 in 1998.[2]
It was the success of the Australian art market in 1998 that opened up space for fakes to be injected into the market, fakes which reappeared later and thus resulted in a media frenzy. The pros and cons of increased media reporting are questionable. The media attention raised buyer awareness and, therefore, promoted cautiousness in their approach to buying artworks. On the other hand, this threatened to stall the economic progress of the Australian art market.
What follows is a list of prominent art fraud cases since 1988:
In 1988, Brett Whiteley’s Lavender Bay was removed from auction after doubt was cast over its authenticity. Eight works by Fred Williams, including Green Landscape and Wild Dog Creek were also believed to have been fakes. The forgeries were allegedly identified as such by Williams’ widow.
Russell Drysdale’s Boy Feeding the Dogs was removed from sale in February 1993 by auctioneers after staff from the Queensland Art Gallery questioned its authenticity. Also in 1993, Sidney Nolan’s Siege at Glenrowan was withdrawn from Christie’s auction, due to conflicting reports concerning its provenance.
In 1999, Tom Roberts’ Track to the Harbour, Cremorne and Arthur Streeton’s Banksias bend over the Bay: Garden Island and the Harbour were withdrawn from auction after information received raised scepticism over their validity. It was confirmed that the works were forgeries after a scientific examination conducted by the Ian Potter Art Conservation Centre was undertaken. Additionally, indigenous artist Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri brought a case against art dealer John O’Loughlin after O’Loughlin sold works not painted by Tjapaltjarri as originals.
In 2007, Pamela Yvonne Liberto and Ivan Liberto were sentenced to three years imprisonment after being accused of selling and attempting to sell fake paintings which were claimed to be by artist Rover Thomas. Three years later, artists Charles Blackman and Robert Dickerson won their case against dealer, Peter Gant, closely followed by the former art dealer, Ronald Coles, being charged with 15 counts of art fraud in 2013.
The above outline of recent cases of art fraud in Australia highlights the frequency of art fraud being brought to the media’s attention, the clear and pressing need for prevention, and the importance of safeguarding culture and intellectual property rights for current and future generations. Although there has been an increase in media attention recently concerning art fraud, as victims have begun to come forward and take legal action, there is a limited amount of research being conducted in this area, mainly due to the lack of statistical data and the newness of this area as an area of interest for investigators.