10
   

What do you think is the biggest art scandal in the past century?

 
 
Gala
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 12:34 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Now, that is so juicy information...
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 12:40 pm
@tsarstepan,
There's an article in Vanity Fair about the heist of The Mona Lisa which took place in the early 1900s, which is a book...here's the link:

http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/05/mona-lisa-excerpt200905
Merry Andrew
 
  4  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 04:53 pm
@Gala,
Gala wrote:

There's an article in Vanity Fair about the heist of The Mona Lisa which took place in the early 1900s, which is a book...here's the link:

http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/05/mona-lisa-excerpt200905


Yeah, that's a classic caper. The interesting part here is that the thieves never intended to keep the painting. They just wanted to be able to make remarkably good, hard to detect forgeries and -- while the painting was thus known to be mssing -- to sell these forgeries to unscrupulous millionaires who would pay a fortune to own the Mona Lisa even though they couldn't display it without being in serious trouble. They did okay. Once they had their money, they returned the real Mona Lisa to the Louvre.

The venality of some people is simply unbelieveable. There are people today would pay millins of dollars for a painting they can't even admit they own, let alone display. These rae not art lovers. They call themselves investors.
Gala
 
  3  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 06:07 am
@Merry Andrew,
On that note, about investors... in the 1980s someone named Kennedy Fraser wrote a book of essays called The Fashionable Mind, where she argues how art became fashionable in the 1980s. She used the example of how Donald Trump considered buying Van Gogh's Irises, not because of the gorgeous painting, rather because of its value.

http://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Mind-Reflections-Fashion-1970-1981/dp/039451775X
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 12:47 pm
On another forum, someone PMed me this article:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article569187.ece
Quote:
September 22, 2005
Tate pays its own trustee £600,000 for ape paintings
Hard-up gallery denies any conflict of interest over payment to Chris Ofili for paintings of monkeys

THE Tate paid more than £600,000 for an artwork by Chris Ofili " the artist famous for working with elephant dung " even though he is one of the gallery’s trustees, it has emerged.
The gallery refused at first to reveal how much it paid for Ofili’s installation of 13 paintings of monkeys but it has now been forced to disclose the figures under the Freedom of Information Act.

It has confirmed that £295,000 " £120,000 from its own funds, £100,000 from Tate members and £75,000 from the National Art Collections Fund, the art charity " amounted to less than half the price.

The rest came from private benefactors reportedly brought together by the artist’s dealer, Victoria Miro, although the precise amount is exempt from enforced disclosure.

The artist Charles Thomson said: “Sir Nicholas Serota [the Tate director] mentions Victoria Miro’s generosity in constructing this deal. Victoria Miro’s ‘generosity’ would seem to be in attracting benefactors who will give money to the Tate " so that the Tate can then give it back to her.”

Each canvas in The Upper Room depicts a monkey clad in hat and waistcoat, displayed to suggest a simian Last Supper.

That such a large amount of money was found for the installation is surprising. Only a year ago the Tate claimed that it could no longer afford to buy works by the artists that it helped to make famous.

It appealed last October to Damien Hirst, David Hockney and other leading names to donate works.

Sir Nicholas Serota said last year that the level of government funding for the gallery had steadily been reduced over the past 20 years, while market prices had risen by as much as 1,000 per cent. The Tate’s annual budget for acquisitions is £1.5 million.

Ofili’s previous record price is $1 million (£555,000) for a 1996 paper collage with oil paint, glitter and dung, which sold in New York in May.

Ofili was born in Manchester to a Nigerian family and studied at Chelsea School of Art and the Royal College of Art. He stumbled across the idea of using dung in Zimbabwe and has since attached lumps of it to canvases dealing with his experience of being black in a mainly white community.

His works divide audiences. Tate curators have likened his work to the visionary imagery of William Blake, but David Lee, editor of The Jackdaw, an art newsletter, has dismissed the use of dung as a gimmick, saying: “If he was just a painter, you wouldn’t look twice.”

The Tate said that it did not acquire work by serving trustees “except under special circumstances”. A spokeswoman said: “The trustees felt this was an exceptional work.”

The Tate also purchased works by Michael Craig-Martin and Bill Woodrow while they were serving trustees. In Woodrow’s case, negotiations had started before he took up the post.

The gallery dismisses any suggestion of a conflict of interest and says that Ofili left the trustees’ meetings when his work was discussed.

But Charles Thomson, co-founder of the Stuckists, an international group promoting traditional artistry, said that there was a clear conflict of interest. He said: “Under the Nolan rules, which they are bound by, they shouldn’t benefit from their office.”

He called on Ofili to refuse the money and for the chairman and director to resign.

Both Victoria Miro and Chris Ofili declined to comment.

The Ofili purchase was made shortly before the Tate rejected a gift of 160 paintings by the Stuckists, even though they attracted thousands to the Walker Gallery in Liverpool.
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 01:22 pm
@tsarstepan,
So why do art thieves bother to go to the trouble of forced entry into museums when it's so easy to rip 'em off quite legally?
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2011 05:04 pm
@tsarstepan,
Quote:
05/30/2011

Steve Martin Swindled
German Art Forgery Scandal Reaches Hollywood

The scope of what is believed to be Germany's biggest art forgery scandal since World War II has reached as far as Hollywood. American actor Steve Martin bought one of the fake paintings in 2004 and later sold it at a loss of some 200,000 euros



Quote:
Their files indicate that total losses to the art community from the sale and resale of just 14 of the forgeries reached nearly €34.1 million ($48.6 million).


http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,765658,00.html
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2011 05:09 pm
@tsarstepan,
Oh, nuts, I'm a Steve Martin afficianada...

tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2011 05:19 pm
@ossobuco,
He's supposed to be a well renown art expert to boot.
ossobuco
 
  3  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2011 05:37 pm
@tsarstepan,
He's pretty smart about art far as I know, but I like him for liking it.


Tangent
By the way - I just read last night an article about a conceptual/whatever artist that I can really get behind; well, I haven't quite finished the article, but not too many paragraphs left. I tend to sleep, wake up, read, sleep, and so on. Anyway, it's a show I'd see if I were in NYC. I'm not a bandwagon follower of conceptual art, arguably the movement behind much of what has been going on for the last decades and that has mostly bored me, so listen up, I like this one -

onward and upward with the arts
FUTURISM
Cory Arcangel plays around with technology
by Andrea K. Scott

Alas, only an abstract (still, check it).
It's in this week's issue, May 30, 2011 - probably still on NY news stands.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/30/110530fa_fact_scott


tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2011 05:47 pm
@ossobuco,
I'll try and grab a copy of the New Yorker tomorrow if I can find it.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2011 05:51 pm
@tsarstepan,
I don't know when they change on the news stands - ask if you don't see it, maybe they're in a pile under a blanket.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2011 10:56 am
Quote:
– Rodin and Calder Sculptures Lost in 9/11: A recent AP report details the mystery surrounding lost records and art on 9/11, which, though they pale in comparison to the loss of life, include letters written by Helen Keller, a cast of Rodin's "The Thinker," and 40,000 photographic negatives of John F. Kennedy. Eerily, a group of librarians had scheduled to meet at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 to discuss the fate of some of the archives stored in the building, but the meeting was rescheduled at the last minute. [AP]


http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/38240/barnes-foundation-defenders-take-quixotic-last-stand-the-met-sends-king-tuts-doggy-back-to-giza-and-more-must-read-art-news/?utm_source=nlda&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
0 Replies
 
Marsilly
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Aug, 2011 11:52 pm
@tsarstepan,
Winning bidders not paying for art at Sothbys and Christies
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Aug, 2011 08:52 am
@Marsilly,
Does this happen often? What happens to the art after this discrepency? Do bidders have to sign a legal contract prior to the auction regarding the legal consequences of not paying for an object after winning the bid?
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  3  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 10:21 am

New Allegations Against Knoedler Gallery Claim It Sold Yet Another Fake Rothko
http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/861990/new-allegations-against-knoedler-gallery-claim-it-sold-yet
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 11:45 am
Can Bankrupt Detroit Save Its Art Collection From Being Sold?
There is no law protecting the sale of the city’s most prized art works that are worth billions of dollars.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/can-bankrupt-detroit-save-its-art-collection-from-being-sold
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 12:38 pm
@tsarstepan,
What a pickle..
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Jul, 2013 06:50 pm
@tsarstepan,
Here's Scheldahl of the New Yorker on the situation -

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/07/sell-your-art-detroit.html

I'm not as sanguine as he is about selling the art.
Wish some benefactor would show up and buy the art and the building, and keep it going. Pipe dream.
ossobuco
 
  3  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2013 04:05 pm
@ossobuco,
And, Scheldahl retracts that point of view:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/07/what-should-detroit-do-with-its-art-the-sequel.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/30/2023 at 08:43:47