Scots artist proves he didn’t paint £8m work
IT was a court case quite unlike any other, in which an artist was forced to prove that a painting was not his work.
Bizarre as it may seem, Peter Doig’s word that he had not created the work in question, once valued at almost £8million, was not enough for a United States court, and so a bitter fouryear legal battle ensued.
The Edinburgh-born artist was drawn into the case by former prison guard Robert Fletcher, who claimed that Mr Doig sold him the painting for $100 while he was imprisoned for drug use in the 1970s.
He argued that the 57-year-old’s refusal to accept that he was the painter had caused the work’s value to plummet – financially disadvantaging him – and so decided to sue.
But Mr Doig claimed that he had been at school more than 800 miles away in Toronto, Canada, to where he had moved from Scotland
Mr Doig is one of the world’s most sought-after living artists. Last year, his painting Swamped sold at Christie’s for £19.3million.
The case finally came to a close in Chicago on Tuesday when Judge Gary Feinerman ruled that Mr Doig ‘absolutely did not paint the work in question’ which is of a desert landscape, and signed ‘Peter Doige’.
The judge said that Mr Doig and his mother, Mary Doig, had ‘testified credibly’ about the artist’s whereabouts when the painting was produced, his employment and education.
Imprecise school and prison records from the 1970s had made the claims difficult to resolve.
Disputes over the authenticity of a work of art normally arise long after an artist has died. When artists are alive, it is widely accepted that their word on whether the work is theirs or not is final.
But Mr Fletcher claimed Mr Doig had renounced the work to avoid admitting he had spent time in prison.
The case was eventually resolved after the judge heard from a Canadian woman, Marilyn Doige Bovard, who said the painting was in fact the work of her late brother Peter Doige, who had been serving a prison sentence at the time the painting was created. In a written statement, Mr Doig said: ‘Today’s verdict is the long-overdue vindication of what I have said from the beginning four years ago: a young talented artist named Pete Edward Doige painted this work. I did not.
‘That the plaintiffs in this case have shamelessly tried to deny another artist his legacy for money is despicable. Thankfully justice prevailed but it was way too long in coming.’