Fakes of Raza & Swaminathan at Christies auction?

Christies on the unsold Raza: 'Yes, it was a disappointment'

17 December 2015: Moments before the Christies team assembled to address the media post their third India auction on Tuesday, Syed Haider Raza's 'Bindu' was taken down. It was replaced by an untitled piece of Vasudev Gaitonde. In the spirit of the evening, Gaitonde had triumphed, Raza disappointed.

William Robinson, international head of world art, Christies said, "The large 'Bindu' did not sell and yes, it was a disappointment. I know there were some stories circulating in the press. But we stand by the painting. However, it may have affected bidding."

Robinson was perhaps alluding to claims made by a Dubai-based art house just days before the auction, that 'Bindu' and an untitled work by Jagdish Swaminathan were fakes. These allegations appear to have worked against 'Bindu'.

Raza's 1983 Bindu, Oil - touted to be fake

J Swaminathan's 1988, untitled - fake or authentic?

As for claims about the works being fake, Christies refuted them, Sonal Singh said, "If you look at Mr. Raza website, he has uploaded a picture. He, himself is authenticating it. We have got it from someone who has bought it directly from the artist."

William Robinson

(Source: Economic Times, 17 December 2015, masoom.gupte@timesgroup.com)

Related Posts:
1. Dubai art house claims paintings at Christies auction fake - Business Standard, 14 Dec, 2015
2. Gaitonde Record & An Unsold Raza at Christie’s Mumbai Sale - Blouinartinfo, 16 Dec 2015  
3. Christies's denies 'fake' claim by art house - FPJ, 16 Dec 2015

Legal notice to auction house Christies

The Mystery of a Missing Gaitonde: CHRISTIE'S IN TROUBLE - TAKEN POSSESSION OF FOR AN NY AUCTION, NO SIGN OF AN OIL-ON-CANVAS FOR FOUR YEARS NOW

Collector and JJ School of Arts graduate files a police complaint; alleges an attempt to usurp the painting worth crores.

10 December 2015: An artist and a JJ School of Arts graduate has filed a police complaint against Christie's for not returning a Gaintonde oil-on-canvas the auction house took possession of in 2011 with a promise to put it up for sale in New York. 

The artist, Delhi-based Durga Kainthola, has said in her complaint that she has been demanding the painting back for four years now but all she has got so far from Christie's is evasive answers. At least three legal notices she sent to the auction house too have not elicited any response. 

Kainthola, a post-graduate from M S University, Vadodra, last week approached the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi police and lodged a complaint against Christie's India Private Limited, which has its head office in Mumbai. 

The complaint, a copy of which is available with Mumbai Mirror, says that Kainthola and her husband handed over the painting to Christie's in 2011 for sale at an auction in New York. This had followed an approach made by the auction house in 2010 to let it lead the 60 inches-by-40 inches painting's auction abroad. A 'consignment agreement' was signed by the two parties on February 7, 2011. 

Kainthola's complaint at EOW filed through her lawyer K C Jha says that she first became suspicious after the auction house did not display the painting in the preview exhibition of the South Asian Modern + Contemporary Art held on March 23, 2011 at New York. 

When Kainthola wrote to Christie's demanding to know why the painting was not put out in the preview show despite it having left India on March 4 giving the auction house ample time to display it, there was no response from their end. 

Sonal Singh

Kainthola's complaint says the painting did not even get a bid at its reserve price at the auction mainly because it was not there at the preview show when potential buyers size up the artworks on display and decide what they will bid for and how far they will go to bag it. 

On the Pundole Art Gallery website, an untitled work of Gaitonde of similar dimensions as that of the painting Kainthola gave to Christie's is estimated to be worth anywhere between Rs 9 crore to Rs 15 crore. 

Following the New York fiasco, Kainthola and her husband asked for the painting to be returned to them. At this point, Christie's requested a little more time and promised to conduct a private sale for it. "The vice-president called several times from New York and pleaded that the painting be allowed to be taken to London for a successful sale at the South Asian Modern & Contemporary Art, Lot 70, scheduled for June 9 the same year. And they took the painting to London without my or my  husband's consent," Kainthola says in her complaint. 

The response at the London auction too was less than encouraging. Disillusioned, the Kaintholas wrote to the auction house that the painting be sent back to their residence in Delhi as soon as possible. It's been more than two years since and Christie's has not only not returned the artwork, but have also failed to give the Kaintholas any convincing reply on its whereabouts. "Their malafide intention is clear that Christie's wants to grab this precious painting," the complaint says. 

In August 2015, Kainthola started a legal process against the auction house. Three legal notices since have not been responded to and the only response given to her once has been that the matter has been referred to Christie's legal department. 

When Mumbai Mirror contacted Christie's, its India head Sonal Singh in an email reply said: "We understand that this complaint concerns a work of art by Vasudeo S Gaitonde, owned by the complainant and which they consigned for sale at Christie's New York in 2011. Christie's takes all complaints very seriously and will investigate thoroughly before responding any further to external requests." 

Christie's are scheduled to have their second auction in India in Mumbai on December 11 where the sale will be led by masterpieces from leading figures of Indian art including Tyeb Mehta, Jehangir Sabavala and Bhupen Khakhar. 

Speaking for Kainthola, her lawyer said: "It is rather unfortunate that my clients have had such a sad experience with an international auction house of such repute. We have started the legal process to get the painting back from them. The matter is now sub-judice, hence we will not be able to divulge any more details."

Source: Mumbai Mirror, 10 December 2015

Related Posts:

1. Govt may take legal action against Christies | DNA | 29 June 2007
2. Legal notice to Christie's? | Hindustan Times | 30 June 2007 

Are Souza’s prices being buoyed?

'Birth' by F N Souza that sold at $4.1 million at Christies

An overdose of Agatha Christie novels coupled with an unabashed admiration for Sherlock Holmes has rendered me incorrigibly inclined towards investigation especially when clues are falling like showers of meteors. It is not shrewish suspiciousness but a serious desire to “get to the bottom of it” usually for my own understanding. It has almost become second nature to add up clues to make the larger picture and being proven correct too often has made me more convinced about its veracity. This twitchy nose for news in years of working in journalism, exploring dimensions of the art world has not gone waste: After all, one can figure out whether the rice is cooked by the proverbial single grain of rice.

The reason of these self-congratulatory musings is the recent spate of developments in the art world that has catapulted Francis Newton Souza to center stage in a far bigger way than ever before. It is not as if the cartels that control art have suddenly awoken to the fact he was part of the Progressive Group or that his lines have suddenly become more expressive. The very same art world that shunned his rather explicit nudes as repulsive and obscene is now running after his works with bushels of bucks to grab those same nudes. And interestingly it is not new collectors who are acquiring them, but senior and older investors who have seen 

Souzas floating around for a while. So it makes me wonder if investors have acquired a big cache of his works and want to prop up his prices. 

My Sherlock Holmes brain is twitching away for there seems to be an almost orchestrated attempt to buoy up his prices especially in the international arena. Actually it is about time he got his share in the sun, shunned as a pervert for his nudes in his lifetime. I remember in the 90s he had come to meet me in my office with his then muse and companion Shrimati Lal. His cap, smile and intense eyes are vivid in my mind still. 

At the recent Christie’s New York auction Souza sold for a mind boggling $ 4.1 million bought by the Delhi-based Kiran Nadar Museum that is an amazing piece where a woman in labour is seen delivering a child with a still life on a window sill and through the window a landscape can be seen. 

At the Saffronart auction in New Delhi too, the top lot was Souza’s Man and Woman Laughing (1957) that sold for Rs 16,84,00,000 (US$ 2,590,769) breaking all previous records for the artist at auction. Formerly from the collection of Harold Kovner, Souza’s most important patron, it belongs to a particularly vital period of the artist’s career. 

Kovner discovered Souza’s work in 1956 and financially supported the artist to promote his works. The duration of this patronage, which lasted four years, was instrumental in allowing Souza more freedom to paint, and achieve greater creative success than ever before. As a strong modernist Souza’s early work made an impact both in India and abroad. His strong, bold lines delineated the head in a distinctive way where it was virtually re-invented the circles, hatchings and crosses. In later years his forms retained their plasticity but became less inventive.

The other favourites at the auction remained the evergreen stable buys M.F. Husain and Tyeb Mehta. S.H. Raza’s market seems to be looking up too, after a slump. 

It is auction time again in Delhi with the Artdeal coming up with its autumn auction ‘Framed Sentiment’. This time the most promising attraction is a ceramic bowl by Pablo Picasso, a medium he began experimenting with in 1946 after visiting the Madoura pottery workshop in Vallauris. There are drawings and paintings by modern masters like F.N. Souza, M.F. Husain, S.H. Raza, Ramkumar, Krishen Khanna. The Souza work is a passionately created canvas that emulates a raw energy with its powerful form, a remarkable work of the artist. The auction also boasts of unusual works by celebrated Bengal Masters like some early works by Jamini Roy and letters by Nandalal Bose. 

This time Rajasthani miniatures that are hard to come by will also go under the hammer. These belong to the known schools of miniature art in India such as Nathdwara, Jaipur and Jodhpur, among others. There is one with a beautiful depiction of the battle of Kurukshetra in Jodhpur style; the gold still lustrous despite its age. Another Mewar-style miniature depicting a wedding scene with text describing it is an exemplary artwork of the time. 

For me, only those pieces that are important works from the point of the artists’ journey or those that have an artistic/historic importance or are one of a kind deserve to be part of the auction circuit and not just any work of any artist. And auctions cannot be used as watermarks to decide/position prices. Hope investors and buyers are listening.

(Source: The Asian Age, 24 September 2015)

Wrong person hampered progress

The new wing of the Lalit Kala Akademi in Lucknow

It is so easy to blame the government for all the ills that befall us but in the name of autonomy the reins of institutions shouldn’t also be handed over to self-serving, arbitrary and avaricious individuals. The whole point of granting autonomy to those institutions is that they are so significant that they need to work independent of narrow interests. If we choose thieves as chowkidars, who are we to blame? 

The case in point is the unending saga of Lalit Kala Akademi. I attempted to update myself on what was happening there and I yet again stumbled on the proverbial can of worms. I am not surprised that the Ministry of Culture had to sit up and take notice but hopefully the wrongs will soon be righted. I am pained about how choosing a wrong person can set an institution back so badly. Let me start at the beginning.

The problems started when they chose a tainted and relatively junior bureaucrat (he retired as joint secretary) like Ashok Vajpayee as chairman of LKA. Except his association with S.H. Raza and writing a few desultory catalogue notes I wonder what the locus was for him being appointed to the august body. During his five-year tenure he allegedly played his predictable favourites to dole out whatever benefits could accrue from the LKA, including giving the galleries gratis to commercial galleries during the Commonwealth Games despite noting on the files to the contrary. This resulted in huge loss to the public exchequer, which by the way is yet to be recovered. 

In the last month of his tenure, he even threw out the secretary of the LKA ostensibly for “not holding the triennial” among a few unproven allegations but the actual agenda was that Vajpayee was interested in another term as chairman. The then ministry mandarins scrapped the orders and the Secretary, Dr Sudhakar Sharma was back in harness. In the intermittent period until the appointment of the new chairman, the vice chairman K.R. Subbanna took over and peace reigned. But it was not to be.

It is rumoured that Ashok Vajpayee lobbied and got K.K. Chakravarty the hot seat to put a veil on his own wrongdoings further his “half-finished” work. While Chakravarty managed to wangle prestigious postings at Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal, National Museum, Indira Gandhi Center for Arts and Delhi Institute of Heritage Research and Management in Delhi, unfortunately there are many CVC or CBI investigations on him, including financial mismanagement. Incidentally salary paid to him was in violation of the provisions of the constitution of the DIHRM, registered under the Societies Registration Act – as it was an honorary post.

At LKA he carved a room within a room to carry on the work of DIHRM. Reliable sources in the LKA allege that he took away a truck load of files when the government took over. In the absence of secretary, vice chairman, general council and executive board, he not only conducted all the executive functions of the Akademi but was also involved in its day-to-day functioning, which is not the role defined for the LKA chairman.

Even before he joined the LKA, Chakravarty again threw out the secretary. This is really suspicious for I have been following Dr Sharma’s career almost for the last three decades in institutions like National Museum, National Gallery of Modern Art and of course the Lalit Kala Akademi and I am happy to report that his track record is actually unblemished, a fact borne out in subsequent enquiries by his detractors, so much so that they were left with little option but to drop the charges on him in court. 

The focus on development of LKA’s infrastructure in Delhi including creating a new wing comprising of a large gallery space, an auditorium, and the administrative wing during Dr Sharma’s tenure was carried out with space carved for storage and putting the library in order. 

He went about creating a new wing at the Lucknow regional centre and put in place LKA’s new branch in the historical landmark Gaiety Theatre of Shimla and publication outlets at Kochi and Srimanta Sankaradeva Kalakshetra in Guwahati with almost missionary zeal!

His efforts paid off literally and metaphorically as revenue earnings shot up from the initial Rs 10 lakh to Rs 1 crore per annum.

But this poor officer was forced to take legal recourse and even after abatement of the charge sheet and winning the case in court is still in the process of getting reinstated and join office, for even despite ministerial orders Chakravarty went ahead and ridiculed the quasi-judicial order by stalling its implementation and also made a mockery of the Central Administrative Tribunal and law of the land for this is contempt of court. Hopefully inquires will be initiated against Vajpayee and Chakravarty under government rule and Dr Sharma’s harassment at the hands of the former chairmen will come to an end and justice will not be delayed – remember the old adage?

Recently I happened to re-read the wonderful lines by Winston Churchill when asked to cut arts funding in favour of the war effort, he simply replied: “Then what are we fighting for?” My point exactly.

(Source: The Asian Age, 21 May 2015)

At Lalit Kala Akademi, paintings lose out to the art of the possible

When a painting by the internationally renowned Ram Kumar went missing from the Lalit Kala Akademi and was replaced with a fake in 2003, the art fraternity was shocked. As more paintings have gone missing down the years since, successive governments seem to have been least bothered. 

With the Modi government taking over the affairs of the akademi, the case of the missing paintings appears all but forgotten. A Comptroller and Auditor-General report of 2011-2013 said 14 works of art were missing from the Akademi. “Out of this, nine art works had been missing since 1984, but the Akademi did not take any initiative to trace out the same or fix responsibility,” the report said. 

The Akademi had not maintained any record of movement of the permanent collection prior to August 2013, it said. In 2010-11, when the Akademi transferred some 400 art works to a regional centre, 17 were damaged because they were not handled by a professional agency. The report said the missing paintings were not written off the record even if they were untraceable. No FIR appears to have been lodged or any enquiry committee formed.

Panel’s findings

Nearly 10 years ago, a four-member expert committee was formed to review and authenticate the art works. The committee reported missing Landscape by Ram Kumar, Tandava by J. Swaminathan, Peace by K.K. Hebbar, Monkey God by M.F. Husain, Indian Traditional Girl by I. Jayachandran and two paintings by Somnath Hore. 

The committee authenticated 2,000 works, but seriously questioned the authenticity of 12. The panel could not verify if these were genuine. The work stopped suddenly and resumed in 2007. The paintings continue to be listed as missing. 

The case of the missing paintings forms the essence of a letter written by Ramakrishna Vedala, secretary in charge of the Akademi, in 2013 to the Central Bureau of Investigation. But nothing much happened after that. 

Artists question wisdom of removing Akademi chairperson 

Even as the Lalit Kala Akademi finds itself in the news for reasons other than art, there is a fear that priceless paintings missing from it might have found their way into private galleries. 

What is now grabbing headlines is the government’s sudden takeover of the autonomous Akademi and a group of artists contesting the move in the Delhi High Court. The court had issued notice to the Union government asking why the takeover should not be quashed and a CBI inquiry initiated into the affairs of the Akademi. It is hoped that the court will look into the case of the missing paintings that find a mention in the papers submitted for its scrutiny. 

The artists have questioned the government’s wisdom of removing Kalyan Kumar Chakravarty as Akademi Chairperson. Sources say he has taken several steps to clean up the Akademi and rid it of politics. “He was actually in the process of setting the place in order and his removal comes as a shock,” an Akademi member said. Mr. Chakravarty’s tenure should have lasted till 2017. 

Sources blame a former secretary for mismanagement of the Akademi’s affairs, a charge he denies. While the government has cited financial and administrative irregularities as reasons for the takeover, no one, it appears, has paid any attention to the paintings that have gone missing for long.

(Source: The Hindu, 2 May 2015)

The 5 biggest unresolved Indian art scams of the decade

Image Courtesy: Economic Times Newspaper

2006: Christies & their partner Vadehra Art Gallery offer fake works at auction

On 30th March 2006, Christies, in consultation with its Indian partner Vadehra Art Gallery of Delhi, withdrew as many as six lots from its SALE 1762 of Modern & Contemporary Indian Art in New York. No explanation whatsoever is available in the public domain explaining why those lots had been published in the catalogue in the first place, thus establishing that an auction house just by virtue of being one of the oldest or largest ones is not necessarily the most reliable ones when it comes to distinguishing between counterfeits and original works. 

As per a report in the Hindustan Times the works, that included two watercolours by MF Husain, three works by FN Souza and a tempera by Ganesh Pyne, also had dubious provenance.

Read More: http://www.hindustantimes.com/nm8/christie-s-drops-fake-indian-art/article1-81785.aspx

In the past also Christies have been caught in similar controversies –

1998 - two of Ajoy Ghose's award winning Chaitanya paintings were listed in Christies catalogue as Nandalal Bose's. Ghose's signature had been replaced with a scrawl that read Nando. Their sale, at Rs 3.64 lakh each, was revoked later.
Source: Hall of fakes – India Today, 21 Feb 2000 

2001 - a Manjit Bawa was withdrawn from the Christies auction after the artist informed the auction house that he had nothing to do with the painting and that his signature appearing at the right-hand bottom corner was forged.
Source:
1. Mystery of the fake Bawa – Tribune, 14 Jan 2001 
2. Two Coats of Paint: Welcome to the dark world of art fakes – Indian Express, 6 July 2014 

2009: Saffronart and Osians under Income Tax Dept scanner

Rigging Auctions?

An investigation into the business practices of Osians and Saffronart had revealed several irregularities in their account books, including a possible attempt to rig the price of artworks and dupe investors, according to an income-tax (I-T) department official involved in the probe.
Saffronart was also charged for carrying out numerous cash transactions.
While Neville Tuli and the already beleaguered auction house Osians have been declared defaulters as recently as 11th March 2015 by IDBI bank, it would be in the interest of the art collectors if Saffronart can throw light on what was the final outcome of these investigations.

Inspite these investigations Saffronart continues to offer works at such low prices as evident from its upcoming auction of Modern & Contemporary Art on 12-13 May 2015  wherein a work by S H Raza (lot 21, titled ATMARAS) estimated at Rs 80 Lakhs - Rs 1 crore is available for an unseemly low starting bid of Rs 1,550 – Are there actually such gullible sellers who would be willing to even consider giving away such works at such prices or is it not a a way of misleading prospective bidders? Therefore, it is not a surprise that the IT department accused Saffronart of rigging the price of artworks during its raid in 2009.

Read more: http://www.livemint.com/Home-Page/sz8y3xIQRg5D4VMmLPAl6H/Premier-art-houses-under-IT-scanner.html

Related Links:

TheWorst Kept Secret: Open Magazine, 5 Dec 2009 

NevilleTuli, Osian's Connoisseurs declared as defaulters by IDBI Bank: 11 March 2015 

2009: Fake Raza's at Dhoomimal Art Gallery

The discovery of Raza fakes in January 2009 at Dhoomimal Art Gallery in Delhi, at a show the artist himself visited, sent the art fraternity in a shock as the event was hosted by his nephew and at a gallery with whom he has had a relationship for several years.

The following quote from Dr. Alka Raghuvanshi in an article in The Asian Age on 9th April 2015 sums up the fact that this controversy has still not died down "A case in point being S.H. Raza’s show at Dhoomimal’s where he had declared that each one of those works hanging there were fake. Why would an old gallery with a reputation to protect hold a show of fakes and invite the artist himself to inaugurate the show is an unresolved point. Incidentally his market crashed soon after when galleries were approached to buy back stuff painted by him".

An important point to reiterate here is that family members cannot and should not be thought of as qualified authenticators of their kin's art. The more worrying aspect is that the gallery owners authenticated the work solely basis the provenance and not on the merits of the work when many experts claimed that the works were not even well rendered fakes. However, it would be even more disturbing if the following information published in the Economic Times on 30 Nov 2014 is to be believed “Art industry insiders suggest that Raza, who will turn 93 in February, is in indifferent health and a lot of assistants who are artists are working in his studio to produce paintings that should not be signed by Raza as his own”.

Related Links:

Painter finds fakes at art show 

Artworld rocked by fake Raza show in Delhi gallery 

2011: Tagore - Fake or Not?

An entire exhibition of Tagore paintings by the Government College of Art was alleged to be fake. The principal of the college Dipali Bhattacharya was suspended a month before her retirement in the wake of the controversy and the matter landed up with the State Crime Investigation Department and the courts. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was asked to comment on the authenticity of the paintings and they filed a report stating that these were not original Tagores.  (Source: 30 Nov 2014, Economic Times)

However, the Government Art College, stood its ground. In a statement, Dipali Bhattacharya wrote: “On behalf of the organising committee of the Tagore Show, I can only express my shock, disappointment and disgust at such an irresponsible statement made by someone [referring to Pranabranjan Roy] who has neither cared to personally inspect the exhibits nor cared to put them through any established method to verify their authenticity. The Government College of Art and Craft is proud to host the Tagore Show and dismisses such comments with the contempt that they deserve.” (Source: The Telegraph, 2 March 2011)

As per an article published in Economic Times on 30 Nov 2014, the matter is still in the courts. It remains to be seen whether R. Siva Kumar and Susobhan Adhikary, teachers at Kala Bhavan Viswa-Bharati University and also the whistleblowers of this matter, are found guilty of conspiracy or is it Dipali Bhattacharya who is to be held accountable.

Read More: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110302/jsp/calcutta/story_13655903.jsp

2014: Sex, Lies and Art Theft: How Sheetal faked a Rs 100 crore heist

This is easily as big a counterfeit controversy as others and came to light after approximately 2.5 years of botched up conspiracy theories and half-baked investigations. The works forged were by Manjit Bawa, V S Gaitonde and others and had been restored for Sheetal Mafatlal by Pundoles Art Gallery & Auction House. Like a bollywood potboiler this tale of deceit involved many bizarre twists and unbelievable turns. 

Read More: http://mumbaiwalla.com/sheetal-mafatlal-art-faking-inside-story/

Related Links:
Mafatlal firm owns 5 paintings that Sheetal replaced with fakes: 9 March 2015, Times of India

Art authentication gun to owner’s head

Last evening at an informal gathering of artists and a few rasikas the conversation veered towards art and its authentication. Figures in lakhs were bandied about which artist’s family or foundation or gallery is charging how much to authenticate works of specific artists. That it was a pittance as compared to the actual cost of the works might well be true, but what about those who were getting the paper work in order not necessarily for commercial reasons.

Whatever the notional value of a painting, if it was acquired or presented years ago when it was not the norm to get authentications in place, owners have to spend huge amounts to get the papers now. More so if they or their subsequent owners ever plan to sell them or put them up in an auction, the paperwork is deemed imperative.

I am personally aware of many instances when a senior artist’s daughter is approached for authenticating works that were painted when she was not even born! She takes the smart way out and flatly refuses to issue any certificates, citing that she is in no intellectual or artistic position to certify the works she has not seen her father paint. When this cuts no ice, his former girlfriend is approached and she reportedly charges up to Rs 5 lakh for giving out the certificates. What kind of weight such an authentication carries in the art market is anybody’s guess. To me it is not worth even the paper it is printed on.

Similar is the case with another senior and highly prolific artist whose youngest daughter, who was his sporadic companion only in the last decade of his life, insists that she is the only person who can issue authentication certificates. Not even her other siblings. That he was hardly living with his wife and children for most part of his life is a fact that is conveniently overlooked by most people.

Another gallery which used to deal in his works too has taken on the mantle of issuing authentication certificates. They hold to ransom the veracity of even those works not directly bought from their gallery. Apart from charging whopping amounts for the certification, has grown the muscle flexing that goes with art authentications that is more like an institutionalised and legitimate gun being held to the owner’s head: Authentication from me or else I will declare your work a fake.  

What does a buyer do when confronted with a situation when an artist wants to distance himself or herself from earlier works? 

A case in point being S.H. Raza’s show at Dhoomimal’s where he had declared that each one of those works hanging there were fake. Why would an old gallery with a reputation to protect hold a show of fakes and invite the artist himself to inaugurate the show is an unresolved point. Incidentally his market crashed soon after when galleries were approached to buy back stuff painted by him.

How about works of artists who have juniors working for them who do the works and the senior artist only just about signs the work? Will subsequent generations remember that there were junior ateliers who were the real painters? Or is an artist’s authenticating his junior’s work by signing on that canvas good enough? 

In the last few years, along with the exponential growth of art prices, unexpectedly has grown a market of and for fakes, and what differentiates a real from a good fake is that crucial certification of authentication. Little realising that art was bought and sold even before the authentication trend and that cannot be the way to hold the art market to ransom.

I have been speaking to several artists, curators, critics and art management gurus about it and have put together a list of suggestions wherein the art owners, buyers and auctioneers will not be at the receiving end of a few self-styled authentication types — be it galleries, family and progeny of artists. Read about it next week.

Dr Alka Raghuvanshi is an art writer, curator and artist and can be contacted on alkaraghuvanshi @yahoo.com

(Source: The Asian Age, 9 April 2015)

"Not a single work was a fake"

Maher Dadha, CMD of Bid & Hammer, clears the air on the controversial allegations of counterfeits by business rivals that hit the firm’s last auction in Delhi (excerpt from interview to PTI):

In retrospect was it imprudent to have gone ahead with the auction of 'Significant Indian Art' in Delhi last year, despite allegations of counterfeits in the collection?

Not at all. On the contrary it showed the true mettle and credibility of our team who had the confidence to stand by their assessment of the authenticity of the artworks. Also, the participation of the known and serious art collectors at the auction reaffirmed our decision was right.

The truth was that the majority of those who claimed the art works were fake were no experts. Those who apparently had made unverified guesses at the behest of some rivals wanted to stop the auction at any cost and tarnish our goodwill. A case in point is ‘Delhi Art Gallery’ posting 'defamatory material' on its Facebook page and 'orchestrating rumours'. At our last paintings auction in Delhi, their insecurity came through by the following statement to a newspaper “Bangalore-based Bid & Hammer's attempt to grab a bite of the lucrative Delhi market has been viewed with something akin to suspicion”.

The auction was widely publicised and the catalogue was out months in advance but none of the critics had attended the preview, inspected the documents or clarified their apprehensions with Bid & Hammer’s experts thus raising questions about the legitimacy of their concerns. The fact that most of the allegations were made via the media and on the day of the auction is further evidence of propaganda. Genuine works cannot and should not be simply brandished as fakes by malafide and untenable allegations.

Many auction houses risk discovering fake works - whether it is a Bowring's, a Christies or a Sothebys, your take on this with respect to your auction?

Is there any proof that even a single work was a fake? All the works were authentic. If there had been compelling evidence we would have had no hesitation in accepting our mistake and removing them from auction instead of going in for a public undressing that too in my family's 100th year of enterprise.

What is your opinion on calls for a regulatory body to check fake art?

Very few people in the art market in India today can claim to have a spotless image or the capacity to walk the talk as authenticators. Most have an agenda to earn fame and money even if it entails manipulating the market directly or indirectly.

As such, tainted members already associated with art cartels are the ones who will most likely find their way on such regulatory bodies. Thus we are not in favour of it unless a broad consensus acceptable to each and every fraternity member is arrived at.

What are the best ways of authenticating an art work – authenticating organisations or artist foundations?

There are certain principles and basic procedures that need to be followed to determine whether a work is genuine or questionable.

In the west, authenticating organisations or regulatory bodies or artist foundations have been established and disbanded time and again as they have been found floundering and self-serving more than anything else. Even in India, the talk of regulatory bodies has never taken off because of the vested interest of the people who espouse it.

Artist foundations, run primarily by family members of late artists, are also viewed with suspicion because it is common knowledge that just by virtue of being a family member a person cannot claim art expertise.

Can you comment on the criticism of Susobhan Adhikary, museum curator of Viswa Bharati, questioning a Rabindranath Tagore's artwork at the auction last year?

No expert of standing makes an affirmative comment without inspecting a work and accompanying provenance documents, more so, when another expert of equal, if not greater repute, has vetted the work. Prof Ratan Parimoo who is an authority authenticated our work.

What are the future plans of Bid & Hammer?

We will continue to offer a wide range of rare, exquisite and quality art, antiques, jewellery and collectibles through our auctions. The auction schedule will be announced shortly.

Do you have plans to make Delhi the main base for Bid & Hammer?

We would soon have a representative office in Delhi and by the time of our next auction to be held there we will be on course to making the capital the hub of our paintings and decorative art auctions.

Related Posts:

1. Not a single work was a fake: Bid & Hammer | Economic Times | 1st April 2015 
2. Not a single work was a fake: Bid & Hammer | The Echo of India | 1st April 2015

3. Due diligence for all works put on sale: Bid & Hammer | Business Standard | 22nd March 2015
4. Regulatory body to tackle fake art untenable: Bid & Hammer | Business Standard | 24th Jan 2015

Saffronart to conduct its first live auction in Bangalore

Email from Saffronart:

We are expanding base with our inaugural auction in Bangalore, one of India’s largest cosmopolitan cities. Unlike our previous auctions, The Discerning Eye: Important Furniture, Jewellery, and Works of Art one features a mix of Modern, Contemporary, folk and tribal art, vintage interiors and mid-century furniture, and jewellery inspired by Indian and international designs. 

Keep an eye out for artists such as Jangarh Singh and Baua Devi, famed for their intricate works resonating with the traditions of India's traditional arts; works by Modernists including M. F. Husain, S. H. Raza, F. N. Souza and Jogen Chowdhury; furniture inspired by 19th and 20th century designs and the clean, functional forms of post-war Europe; jewellery set with pearls, rubies, emeralds, tanzanite and diamonds, and much more.

Viewings and Live Auction:

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 

Viewing: 11:00 am till auction start

Registration: 6:30 p.m. onwards

Auction: 7:30 p.m. onwards

ABOUT SAFFRONART:

A global company with deep Indian roots, Saffronart was founded in 2000 on the strength of a private passion. Remaining committed to this passion and personal values, today Saffronart is a strong and successful international auction house that both embraces and drives change.

A platform for fine art and collectibles with over fourteen years of experience in auctions, Saffronart is committed to serving the growing community of Indian collectors, while also creating a cultural bridge to India for both the global Indian diaspora and the international community at large. Saffronart has set several global benchmarks for online auctions and is the subject of a case study at Harvard Business School.

Saffronart has held several highly successful online and live auctions, accompanied by physical catalogues and preview events in cities like Mumbai, New Delhi, New York, London, Singapore and Hong Kong. These auctions allow bidders around the world to participate simultaneously in exciting sales. In October 2008, Saffronart extended its unique online auction platform beyond fine-art to host its inaugural sale of Fine Jewels and Watches, adding a new dimension to its market presence. Since December 2011, Saffronart has offered Indian antiquities including sculptures, artefacts and miniature paintings on its auction platform, in auctions conducted by Collectibles Antiques India Private Limited. In 2012, Saffronart held its inaugural auctions of Modern & Impressionist Art, Carpets & Rugs, Folk & Tribal Art, Art Deco and the Art of Pakistan, followed by its first Travel & Leisure auction in 2013.

Criminal case against Delhi Art Gallery & others for 'fake allegations'

Dispelling the rumours that some of the works in its Significant Indian Art auction on 27th June 2014 were fakes, Bid & Hammer (B&H) has filed a suit under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with section 66a of the Information Technology Act, 2000, before Justice M C Nada Gowda, IInd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bangalore, against Ashish Anand of the Delhi Art Gallery (DAG) and others for “defaming” them by making “allegations and insinuations that are clearly and palpably false and render a highly negative image of the works brought to auction by the complainant, despite the highly credible process of authentication. These allegations not only undermine the reputation of the complainant and its directors, experts and employees but also of its consignors such as grand-daughter of the Maharaja of Burdwan, freedom fighter Radha Devi Goenka, actress Namrata Shirodkar and others”.

Buoyed by its recent landmark victory in an art authenticity case, in this suit B&H has dwelt at length about its “formidable reputation as the open market auctioneer of genuine art, artifacts and original paintings of well reputed artists”. It also speaks about the rich legacy of the 1000 year old Dadha family – promoters of the auction house who have been in business for 100 years. “The accused (DAG) have made imputations intentionally and deliberately without clarifications from the complainant to undermine and tarnish the reputation of the complainant in the society,” the defamation suit said. The other accused are Abhilasha Ojha, Kishore Singh and the Times of India newspaper group.

B&H has submitted evidence to establish that in a bid to sabotage its auction and mislead the art collecting fraternity the accused (DAG) continuously posted “offensive material” on social networking sites and made other such undue attempts to tarnish its goodwill and create mistrust among prospective bidders by orchestrating a smear campaign to thwart the auction. Ashish Anand had claimed that 90% of the works were fakes and quoted “The recent development with regard to the authenticity of works by masters at a forthcoming auction has sent alarm bells ringing once again. How do we regulate this? Especially when experts have given their opinion, which is negative, in regard to a very large body of works. We hope people will support our cause and the framing of an art council will attend to all such matters with due urgency”. However, B&H pointed out that as per a news article on 27th June 2014 it was Delhi Art Gallery that had been guilty of selling a fake Rabindranath Tagore work to art collector Vatsal Poddar. Also, Ashish Anand was one of the first few to order a copy of the catalogue when it came out weeks in advance, then why did he wait till the auction day to go to the media asks Ankush Dadha, Director of B&H, as he goes on to state, “A call for a regulatory body spearheaded by a coterie of competitors just on the eve of our auction was in absolute bad taste with the only intent to directly and indirectly scuttle the success of our auction”. He further added, “in any which way such a body will not be tenable as tainted members & art cartels may sit on it to manipulate the market”.

The cause of friction stems from B&H deciding not to accept consignments from DAG after its inaugural auction in January 2008. Even at B&H’s last paintings auction in Delhi DAG and its associates continued their onslaught by making the following statement to a newspaper “Bangalore based Bid & Hammer’s attempt to grab a bite of the lucrative Delhi market has been viewed with something akin to suspicion”, thus demonstrating their insecurity at B&H’s forays in the Delhi art scene. On that occasion DAG had unscrupulously spoken on the provenance of the Ravi Varma works in B&H’s catalogue, a jibe that was silenced by B&H’s rejoinder to the newspaper and followed up by the comprehensive victory in the suit against Kiran Nadar. More recently DAG has also been trying to enter the auction space on its own which has created confusion among buyers due to the conflicts of interest such a model presents – a gallery is meant to be the primary market and an auction house the secondary market and a clear distinction between the two is in the best interest of the buyer. DAG should realize this without trying to compete in an undignified manner to polarize experts and monopolize the market.

Ashish Anand’s tactic of attacking others and claiming that they proliferate fakes is only a defense mechanism to safe-guard his unverified stock hoarding of over 30,000 works, which he has been desperately trying to offload. The numbers are too astounding and to add to the mystery is whether all the works are authentic and carry provenance documents and purchase receipts – thing’s that are easily fabricated by forgers these days. By being seen at auction rooms and picking up a work or two doesn’t imply that the rest of one’s inventory pile can be passed off as genuine. Only a thorough investigation of his transactions can throw light on this.

Nonetheless, this suit might give the much needed peek into the conspiracy theories that plague the art market and consequently coerce art dealers into becoming more transparent.

Rajani Prasanna, daughter of artist K K Hebbar who had also joined hands with Ashish Anand in this smear campaign by questioning the works by her father, very peculiarly did not check the certificate issued by her own sister Rekha Rao. The auction house plans to implead the sisters as well in the suit.

B&H’s competitive pricing has regularly created unease among the dominating local gallery owners who potentially risk losing out on clients that have paid inflated prices for works purchased through them in the past. As a result these gallery owners are ganging-up and indulging in mud slinging. In the higher interest of Indian art, with the objective of quelling such unhealthy attitudes and DAG’s persistent attempts to malign its prowess, B&H, through this suit, has sought for “appropriate action against the accused persons in accordance with law for the offences committed, by punishing them and grant such other further reliefs as are just”.

(Source: http://www.indianshowbiz.com/?p=83498) 

Related Posts:

1. Bengaluru court orders police probe into 'fake art' case | Deccan Herald | 20 March 2015

2. Ravi Varma painting not fake: K'taka HC appointed arbitrator | Defamation Suit filed against Delhi Art Gallery | The First Mail | 15 February 2015  
3. Due Diligence for all art works put on sale | Business-Standard | 22 March 2015