How to check fakes is a huge challenge artscope

■ Legality notwithstanding ethically curators were responsible for pointing out discrepancies if any. Or is it a game of claiming insurances while the real works are stashed away elsewhere? That can boomerang badly...

The ongoing controversy about the recently concluded Italian artist and sculptor Amedeo Modigliani’s exhibition in Genoa has taken the art world by storm. It turned out that 20 of the 21 works displayed at a highly publicised exhibition at the Ducal palace were claimed to be fake. To my mind it smacks of many suspicious things.

First and foremost, it makes no sense that the curator didn’t notice the discrepancy or fakes of the celebrated 20th century artist who has only 300 known paintings. And in Europe where art is taken genuinely seriously, the exhibits are planned months if not a year or so in advance.

The curators, museums or private owners of specific painters agree on the exhibits, agreements are signed for loaning of works, any restoration that might be required is carried out before any period painting or important painting comes into the exhibition space.

Thanks to in- gallery CCTV surveillance it couldn’t have been done after the works were hung and if there was criminal intent and the works where changed in transit — even that is not particularly easy again thanks to electronic surveillance, at least when the works were hung or being hung it should have been noticed.

How come in the 10 months from March to December 2017 while the show was on, there were no questions raised? Why rake up the issue after the show is over and visitors have paid exorbitant entry fees, travelled from afar to see the exhibition? Even if they are given refunds, how many refunds are possible in real time is anybody’s guess. Red- faced the Ducal Palace claims that it had outsourced the exposition and that they would seek “legal protection for its rights and public image”.

The owners of the paintings were planning on “legal protection for its rights and public image,” since the works are worth millions of an artist who died in penury in 1920 in Paris.

As expected, the papers of ownership and provenance were all there for the curator to scrutinize and legally the curators might not be responsibl e, there is something called gut feelings and ethics of curatorial practice.

Legality notwithstanding ethically curators were responsible for pointing out discrepancies if any. Or is it a game of claiming insurances while the real works are stashed away elsewhere? That can boomerang badly and drag many people in the purview of the law and criminal justice, but having said that how many privately held works are ever out in the public arena?

Closer home in India where any artist, gallery owner, or just anyone gets up and “curates” a show practically overnight, I shudder to think what can happen.

It reminded me of the S H Raza controversy where his sister’s grandson had invited Raza to come from Paris and inaugurate a show of his own works from his sister’s collection that he must have left behind when he moved to France. The moment Raza was wheeled into the show he started saying that all the works were fake! It beats me as to why would a relative invite Raza to inaugurate the show if that was the case. The same artist in abject old age was allegedly surrounded by people who it was rumoured were making his paintings and he was merely signing them.

Another very celebrated Indian artist and sculptor is able to barely sign his name and holds regular exhibitions of works purported by him that need a lot of physical strength. He has a bevy of junior artists working in his studio to create works. To my mind these tantamount to fake works.

For the simple reason – and I can speak with complete authority on the matter as a practicing artist myself – that no matter how clear the vision of the artist, the sheer physicality of putting brush to canvas with your own hand and getting a junior atelier to do

Closer home in India where any artist, gallery owner, or just anyone gets up and ‘ curates’ a show practically overnight, I shudder to think what can happen.

it, is what is the difference between a good work and a great work.

This has been the other big problem area for centuries especially in Europe where painting was formally taught to understudies and junior ateliers who perfected the style of the maestros and every once in a while a vintage copy of the junior artist is discovered and finds its way into the market.

And if it is of the same time period, even carbon dating will be of no use to find the chaff from the grain.

And I don’t set too much store by authentication certificates of dead artists – if anyone can fake a painting, how long does it take to forge a certificate?

Thankfully laws are now in place but as they say, laws are for the shareef log, not criminals and that doesn’t prevent people from breaking them.

Also I feel there should be some way for buyers, collectors to be clearly told that these were assisted works.

It is strictly speaking not connected but I remember a few years ago Arpana Caur had gone to press with a work done in her style and very close to a similar work that was hers so technically it was not an exact copy but still fell into the dubious category.

Many figurative and especially popular artists find their works faked.

I have pointed out fakes on several occasions when even families were releasing fakes into the market. Fakes are simply a matter of greed for the price difference is gargantuan.

And there is no medicine to ensure honesty and integrity – all one can do is be careful when one exhibits and acquires works.

The writer is a curator, an artist and a writer and can be contacted on alkaraghuvanshi@ yahoo. com