Abstract
This chapter reviews the processes that establish whether a given art work is authentic, including scientific tests, consultation with experts and examination of the provenance. Of these, the role of provenance is underscored as a major process. Unfortunately, in numbers of cases, the true authorship of a work proves difficult to determine, leading to contentious situations where the authorship of a work remains in dispute. There are few examples of true fraudulent intent among the instances of non-authentic art, although these few cases are likely to be widely known and reported. While the actual number of such frauds is difficult to state definitively, it seems safe to conclude that most often the assumption of criminal intent in non-authentic art is unwarranted. Therefore, while terms such as “fake” or “forgery” are widely used in discussions of non-authentic art, the hidden assumptions of such words regarding intentionality will prove to be incorrect.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsBibliography
Ashok, R., Spring, M., & Plazzotta, C. (2004). Raphael’s early works in the national gallery: Paintings before Rome. London: National Gallery Technical Bulletin 25, Distributed by Yale University Press.
Bailey, A. (1994). Responses to Rembrandt: Who painted the Polish Rider? A controversy considered. New York, NY: Timken Publishers.
Blackman and Ors v Gant and Anor. (2010). VSC 109.
Brown, G. (2017, April 28). Whiteley art fraud accused exonerated, p. 5, the news section of The Australian.
Charney, N. (2015). The art of forgery. London: Phaidon Press.
Cockington, J. (2016, August 24). Strong appreciation in Streeton works, pp. 2–3, the ‘Money’ section of The Age.
Grishin, S. (2015, March 19). Is that a Whiteley? Why collectors buy Lousy Fakes as masterpieces. The Conversation. Retrieved October 10, 2016, from http://theconversation.com/is-that-a-whiteley-why-collectors-buy-lousy-fakes-as-masterpieces-38832.
Hills, B. (2002, May 23). Judge gives go-ahead to sell 1000 fake paintings. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved January 7, 2017, from http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/22/1022038435765.html.
Hoving, T. (1996). False impressions: The hunt for big-time art fakes. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Keats, J. (2013). Why fakes are the great art of our age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kurz, O. (1967). Fakes (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Dover Publications.
Lanham, D., Weinberg, M., Brown, K., & Ryan, G. (1987). Criminal fraud. Sydney: Law Book Company.
McKenzie-Murray, M. (2016, May 21). Inside the Brett Whitely lavender bay fakes trial. The Age. Retrieved January 7, 2016, from https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/law-crime/2016/05/21/inside-the-brett-whiteley-lavender-bay-fakes-trial/14637528003269.
National Gallery of Victoria (NGV). (2007, September/October). Not a forgery, but not a Van Gogh. Gallery Magazine, p. 10.
Perkel, C. (2016, August 23). Painting owned by Canadian not by famous artist Peter Doig, judge rules. The Star. Retrieved August 26, 2016, from www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/08/23/is-this-painting-a-genuine-peter-doig-or-a-worthless-peter-doige-judge-to-rule-today.html.
Pitman, J. (2006). The Raphael trail: The secret history of one of the world’s most precious works of art. London: Random House.
Porter, L. (2007, December 2). Art imitating art. The Sunday Age, p. 18.
R v Closs. (1858). 169 ER 1082.
Salisbury, L., & Sujo, A. (2009) Provenance: How a Con Man and a Forger Rewrote the History of Modern Art. New York, NY: The Penguin Press.
Shin, J. (2016, September 23). French firm to authenticate controversial Korean painting. Korea Bizwire. Retrieved September 24, 2016, from http://koreabizwire.com/french-firm-to-authenticate-controversial-korean-painting/66764.
Sykes, T (2016, October 8). How Sotheby’s got hoodwinked: The art world’s $20m forgery scandal. The Daily Beast. Retrieved October 11, 2016, from www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/08/how-sotheby-s-got-hoodwinked-the-art-world-s-20m-forgery-scandal.html.
The Rembrandt Research Project. (1983). The Burlington Magazine, 125(968), 661–663.
US State Department (USD). (1998). Washington conference principles on Nazi-Confiscated art. USD. Retrieved January 7, 2016, from http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Washington-Conference-Principles-on-Nazi-confiscated-Art-and-the-Terezin-Declaration.pdf.
White, C. (2015). The Rembrandt project and its denouement. The Burlington Magazine, 157, 71–73.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Polk, K., Chappell, D. (2019). Examining Art Fraud. In: Hufnagel, S., Chappell, D. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook on Art Crime. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54405-6_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54405-6_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-54404-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-54405-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)