funster
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,256
๐๐ป 0
October 2006
|
|
|
funster
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,256
๐๐ป 0
October 2006
|
A sign of the future?..., by funster on Jul 17, 2007 9:11:24 GMT 1, The link doesn't seem to work so here's the article: 
NEW YORK (Reuters) - An American man who says he owns an Andy Warhol self-portrait sued the artist's foundation, estate and authentication board on Monday for refusing to validate his silk-screen piece and defrauding art buyers.
Joe Simon-Whelan, a film producer who lives in London, filed the class action lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan seeking $20 million (10 million pounds) on behalf of himself and others he claims have been duped by the foundation, which was set up after the pop artist's death 20 years ago.
The suit said the foundation controlled the Warhol art market by branding real Warhol paintings fakes to raise the value of Warhol works the foundation holds. It estimated the foundation had sold more than $150 million of Warhol's artwork at artificially inflated prices.
Simon-Whelan claims the foundation formed and controls the authentication board, which was set up in 1995.
K.C. Maurer, the foundation's chief financial officer, said she could not comment on the lawsuit as they had not been served, but she said the foundation made grants to contemporary visual arts organizations and had no role in authenticating works.
The suit claims that before Simon-Whelan acquired the painting, the Warhol foundation and estate authenticated it on multiple occasions in the late 1980s and early 1990s -- before the authentication board was created. The work passed through several major dealers, including Christie's auction house, which vetted the painting's authenticity.
Simon-Whelan's painting, a 1964 Warhol self-portrait called "Double Denied" in the lawsuit, was twice denied authentication by The Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board in 2001 and 2003, according to the suit.
He planned to sell it for $2 million after purchasing it for $195,000 in 1989.
"The authentication board is utilized to remove competing Warhol artwork from the marketplace by falsely declaring it to be inauthentic, thereby raising the value of the foundation's own holdings," the lawsuit said.
Both the foundation and the authentication board "provide a facade of corporate credibility obscuring a deeply corrupt enterprise that enables defendants to benefit from Warhol's art and reputation," the suit said.
It was impossible to sell a Warhol painting without getting a stamp of authenticity, and the board often reversed previous stamps of approval, the lawsuit said.
Calls to the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board were not returned.
The link doesn't seem to work so here's the article: NEW YORK (Reuters) - An American man who says he owns an Andy Warhol self-portrait sued the artist's foundation, estate and authentication board on Monday for refusing to validate his silk-screen piece and defrauding art buyers. Joe Simon-Whelan, a film producer who lives in London, filed the class action lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan seeking $20 million (10 million pounds) on behalf of himself and others he claims have been duped by the foundation, which was set up after the pop artist's death 20 years ago. The suit said the foundation controlled the Warhol art market by branding real Warhol paintings fakes to raise the value of Warhol works the foundation holds. It estimated the foundation had sold more than $150 million of Warhol's artwork at artificially inflated prices. Simon-Whelan claims the foundation formed and controls the authentication board, which was set up in 1995. K.C. Maurer, the foundation's chief financial officer, said she could not comment on the lawsuit as they had not been served, but she said the foundation made grants to contemporary visual arts organizations and had no role in authenticating works. The suit claims that before Simon-Whelan acquired the painting, the Warhol foundation and estate authenticated it on multiple occasions in the late 1980s and early 1990s -- before the authentication board was created. The work passed through several major dealers, including Christie's auction house, which vetted the painting's authenticity. Simon-Whelan's painting, a 1964 Warhol self-portrait called "Double Denied" in the lawsuit, was twice denied authentication by The Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board in 2001 and 2003, according to the suit. He planned to sell it for $2 million after purchasing it for $195,000 in 1989. "The authentication board is utilized to remove competing Warhol artwork from the marketplace by falsely declaring it to be inauthentic, thereby raising the value of the foundation's own holdings," the lawsuit said. Both the foundation and the authentication board "provide a facade of corporate credibility obscuring a deeply corrupt enterprise that enables defendants to benefit from Warhol's art and reputation," the suit said. It was impossible to sell a Warhol painting without getting a stamp of authenticity, and the board often reversed previous stamps of approval, the lawsuit said. Calls to the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board were not returned. |
|
|
|
A sign of the future?..., by graeme501 on Jul 17, 2007 11:18:53 GMT 1, i watched a program on this - the warhol foundation had nothing to do with warhol himself and seem 2 have been self apointed authenticaters
also if u submitted a piece to them they believed was fake, they would stamp the back of the print/canvas with a red FAKE
real ***holes of the art world
i watched a program on this - the warhol foundation had nothing to do with warhol himself and seem 2 have been self apointed authenticaters
also if u submitted a piece to them they believed was fake, they would stamp the back of the print/canvas with a red FAKE
real ***holes of the art world
|
|
Michael Jacob
Artist
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,049
๐๐ป 29
October 2006
|
A sign of the future?..., by Michael Jacob on Jul 17, 2007 13:42:11 GMT 1, Dont jump to conclusions. Ive have two pieces authenticated by them. Both times, they were pleasant to deal with. As a side note, both my pieces are not that valuable, so that might make them easier to push through. Ive also used the Kieth Haring authentication with success. Now... my sour note has been the JM Basquiat estate. NOW THATS A TOUGH ONE TO DEAL WITH!
Dont jump to conclusions. Ive have two pieces authenticated by them. Both times, they were pleasant to deal with. As a side note, both my pieces are not that valuable, so that might make them easier to push through. Ive also used the Kieth Haring authentication with success. Now... my sour note has been the JM Basquiat estate. NOW THATS A TOUGH ONE TO DEAL WITH!
|
|
BlackRatPress
Art Gallery
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 352
๐๐ป 0
June 2006
|
A sign of the future?..., by BlackRatPress on Jul 17, 2007 14:30:13 GMT 1, this raises some important points about the current street art market. It is dangerous when the only person who can authenticate the work of a particular artist may have political reasons for not doing so on some occasions. V frightening. I am sure Mr Lazrides would never do such a thing because he has integrity but you could imagine a situation in which a client bought a painting lost the provenance letter sold it to another dealer and then Laz refused to authenticate it or would only do so if he could sell it himself. The obsession with letters of authenticity (which is almost unkown in the artworld generally and a bit of a made up obsession) and their effect on the value of artworks comes with some potential problems. Effectively he could ransom the letter and the work would be almost worthless unless the client sold through him. I'm sure he wouldn't do it but it might be a good reason not to piss him off.
this raises some important points about the current street art market. It is dangerous when the only person who can authenticate the work of a particular artist may have political reasons for not doing so on some occasions. V frightening. I am sure Mr Lazrides would never do such a thing because he has integrity but you could imagine a situation in which a client bought a painting lost the provenance letter sold it to another dealer and then Laz refused to authenticate it or would only do so if he could sell it himself. The obsession with letters of authenticity (which is almost unkown in the artworld generally and a bit of a made up obsession) and their effect on the value of artworks comes with some potential problems. Effectively he could ransom the letter and the work would be almost worthless unless the client sold through him. I'm sure he wouldn't do it but it might be a good reason not to piss him off.
|
|
streetgirl
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 731
๐๐ป 35
May 2007
|
A sign of the future?..., by streetgirl on Jul 17, 2007 16:28:33 GMT 1, Is there a Banksy one yet? I know we can mail Dora, but if you don't have your hands on the original owners details, is there another way round it?
I might set one up. 
Is there a Banksy one yet? I know we can mail Dora, but if you don't have your hands on the original owners details, is there another way round it? I might set one up. |
|
RBK
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,925
๐๐ป 104
September 2006
|
A sign of the future?..., by RBK on Jul 17, 2007 17:24:03 GMT 1, this raises some important points about the current street art market. It is dangerous when the only person who can authenticate the work of a particular artist may have political reasons for not doing so on some occasions. V frightening. I am sure Mr Lazrides would never do such a thing because he has integrity but you could imagine a situation in which a client bought a painting lost the provenance letter sold it to another dealer and then Laz refused to authenticate it or would only do so if he could sell it himself. The obsession with letters of authenticity (which is almost unkown in the artworld generally and a bit of a made up obsession) and their effect on the value of artworks comes with some potential problems. Effectively he could ransom the letter and the work would be almost worthless unless the client sold through him. I'm sure he wouldn't do it but it might be a good reason not to piss him off.
Agree with your points fazeley - hopefully when a Catalogue Raisonnรฉ is produced it will help break up the provenance/authenticity monopoly.
this raises some important points about the current street art market. It is dangerous when the only person who can authenticate the work of a particular artist may have political reasons for not doing so on some occasions. V frightening. I am sure Mr Lazrides would never do such a thing because he has integrity but you could imagine a situation in which a client bought a painting lost the provenance letter sold it to another dealer and then Laz refused to authenticate it or would only do so if he could sell it himself. The obsession with letters of authenticity (which is almost unkown in the artworld generally and a bit of a made up obsession) and their effect on the value of artworks comes with some potential problems. Effectively he could ransom the letter and the work would be almost worthless unless the client sold through him. I'm sure he wouldn't do it but it might be a good reason not to piss him off. Agree with your points fazeley - hopefully when a Catalogue Raisonnรฉ is produced it will help break up the provenance/authenticity monopoly. |
|
