“A Consumate Fraudster”
Posted by ben on 26 Jun 2008 at 12:48 pm | Tagged as: acquisitions, politics, responses/reviews
The New York Times is covering a lawsuit that Gerard Malanga (a Warhol assistant and Factory fixture) recently brought against sculptor John Chamberlain. Chamberlain had sold a series of silkscreened canvases bearing his likeness, and made in Warhol’s style, to a collector. A panel charged with authenticating Warhol’s works had declared them genuine. Malanga accuses Chamberlain selling the prints in bad faith, claiming that they were made by Malanga himself, not Warhol. And now he wants his canvases back. Chamberlain apparently made $3.8 million off the deal, and Malanga is pissed, calling him “a consumate fraudster.”
Of course, some people would apply that label to Warhol. And I do have to wonder, if Gerard Malanga was going around making “Warhols” after he left the Factory, how much room he has to malign the motives of Chamberlain. I’m reminded that Jed Perl once called Warhol the “evil prophet of the profit motive” in art. Warhol had no problem, though, with other artists mimicing his work — he would even give his original silkscreens to people like Elaine Sturtevant to make the process easier. It’s one thing for collectors to be obsessed with the origins of these easily reproduced “Factory” prints. But for Malanga, who worked alongside Warhol, to split hairs over the identity of the artist seems just a bit petty. Even if John Chamberlain is a liar.
UPDATE: Maybe the real story here is the Warhol Authentication Board.
To Have Done with the Judgement of God
ahhh rich people, is this art anymore
Love is always before you, love
Caricature of Rimbaud drawn by Verlaine in 1872
The following information is included in the $20 million dollar plus $100 million damages class action lawsuit filed against the Andy Warhol Foundation and the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board, Inc.
What has been omitted from the recent numerous articles on the fake Warhol Brillo Boxes (New York Times, International Herald Tribune, the artnewspaper among others) is the fact that both the co-curator for the museum show. Olle Granath, a curator at the Museem Modern in Sweden, and Paul Morrissey publicly stated that the sculptures were made three years after the artists death and yet this information seems to have been ignored by the Warhol authentication board and foundation. The boxes were submitted to the authentication board for the first time in 1995, while Lord Palumbo was director of the foundation. Lord Palumbo and others close to the board own several of these boxes which is acknowledged in the Warhol catalogue raisonne part 2, (page 81) These “sculptures” were estimated by Christies at $150-$200,000 each, giving the 105 boxes an approx value of $21,000,000.
The board and foundation ignores information by those closest to Warhol and who were actually there. Apparently the board relies on information given by dealers and those closest to them who seem to profit. The board refuse to acknowledge the testimony of Paul Morrissey, Warhol’s manager and filmmaker who recently sold the Montauk home he shared with Warhol for approx $30 million dollars and others who were close to the artist. It looks as if they prefer to acknowledge the testimony of favored dealers who stand to profit.
A source close to Warhol sent this comment: “The news media has been pussy-footing for too long handling art corruption with kid gloves. The time is now for the media to take off the gloves and reveal the corruption & lies which lurk beneath the veneer & vanity of what passes off as “art.” Joe Simon has been steadfast & relentless in his pursuit for justice and I know he will be even more relentless as time goes on. No doubt the Warhol Foundation will attempt to spend their way to an acquittal. More funds have been spent by the foundation lawyers and paid to their sales agent Vincent Fremont than donated to any charity.”
http://www.myandywarhol.com
Yes, it seems the real villains are the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board. As the judge says, they didnt even bother to consider the plantiff’s allegations or any evidence other than the word of an important artist.
For a better understanding do have a look at the myandywarhol.com website.
This website is about Joe Simon’s $120 million dollar battle with the Warhol foundation, their dealer Vincent Fremont and its arm the mysterious and evasive Andy Warhol Art
Authentication Board Inc.
Instead of buying a house, Joe Simon bought a 1960’s Warhol. Signed, authenticated by the artists estate and foundation before being defaced by a group without first hand knowledge of Warhol or his working methods. If authentication is so unstable, who is going to invest in art? Apparently, one fo teh dealers who actually works with the board and is co-editing the catalogue raisonne owned one of these denied works, and quickly sold it on although warhol himself had inscribed the painting and sold it to his boss. All of this will be coming up in court.
You make up your own mind, go into the site, read the evidence which has been accumulated, weigh the testimony of Warhol’s friends, colleagues and studio assistants who were there in the early days and who have a thorough knowledge of Warhol’s working methods in general and this portrait in particular.