Can you believe the expertise in the modern art market?

A fake painting by Marc Chagall, owned by a businessman from Leeds and bought for £ 100,000 in 1992, was publicly burned last month, and the Istanbul Art Gallery closed an entire exhibition of Juan Miro in 2013 after a comment by one of the experts that some works at the exhibition are fakes.

After loud exposures of fakes, committees headed by the descendants of artists grow like mushrooms after rain, but, as one of the leading art critics in Britain believes, the methods that scientists use in this case to verify the authenticity of works can be regarded as “professional shame”.

Martin Kemp, Honorary Professor of Art History at Oxford University and creative expert Leonardo da Vinci, argues that in determining authenticity, many rely on “dubious data” and use a spontaneous approach to this critical and highly sensitive process. He said he was alarmed by the ease with which historical, visual and scientific data are being manipulated in order to increase academic reputation or obtain direct financial benefits from attributing paintings to fakes.

“A lot of things are happening, from academic incompetence to really dirty things,” Kemp said. Manipulations in this matter became possible due to the “chaotic” approach to the profession. “Documentation, scientific analysis, and judgment on the eye are used depending on opportunistic goals and the means of influence of supposedly disinterested parties.”

Kemp added: “Most experts are usually very selective and, even if there is mention of other evidence, then, as a rule, a certain kernel that seems to be the most secure is still chosen. Less confirmed information is discarded. Thus, the various types of evidence, their status, and the impact they have on the basic facts, almost never undergo a thorough analysis. ”

As a scholar and art historian, Martin Kemp began to realize that modern art criticism very rarely uses a rigorous and systematic approach to authenticating. As a rule, scientific examination of authenticity is carried out by individuals at the expense of museums and galleries. Recognizing that some of the experts work perfectly, Kemp said: “And, nevertheless, they often have a superficial approach to work acquired, say, through unreliable sources. They accumulate tons of technical data that mean almost nothing for serious analysis. For example, dating carbon decay work, which in fact has very little benefit. ”

Kemp is alarmed by the facts when the owners of large companies and private galleries obviously benefit greatly from assigning a “necessary” authorship to a particular painting. Such "businessmen" often gather the opinions of various experts for years until they find someone who confirms their interests. After that, the work is sold to another owner, with a good margin.

“Money is motivation,” Kemp says. The situation is aggravated by the fact that some scientists are afraid to express their opinions openly, fearing legal consequences. So, the Andy Warhol Foundation does not authenticate his work after he spent $ 7 million on litigation with collector Joe Simon-Whelan in 2011.

“Part of the problem is training,” says Kemp. “In any profession, you need to consider a wide variety of types of evidence. This is not taught in the history of art, at least I have never seen it at the proper level. " As a result, the situation on the art market sometimes resembles the “wild west” with its elemental laws and their consequences.

Anna Sidorova © Gallerix.ru