posted on September 18, 2000 07:54:34 AM new
Hello to all. I see this thread continues to go on, and on ----What If? a person comes forth, meets with the owner in LA, has an expert look at the painting, and all its document, is satisfied with the experts findings, and opinion of the painting, and buys the painting. Will the sleuths here post apologies to this owner? Do the sleuths involved here think, feel, they know more about art than a person that authenticates art? I noticed Mr. Haskins has been quoted in the AW article,stating he after working with the painting truly believes"Yellow Roses is a Van Gogh." Could It possible that the sleuths in this thread, due to surfing the Internet have educated themselves to the degree that their opinions should carry more weight than Mr. Haskins? Something is not right here?
I asked this once before, what happens if your wrong, and the painting sells as a work of Van Gogh? Do you apologize for your barbs and insults to all involved or due you just slink off to another thread to spread your know it all expertise on another subject? Many of you appear to believe your opinions are superior, the last word, so to speak. In my own experience in life, I have found persons with this trait as a rule have low self esteem. They are constantly trying to say, hey look at me I AM SO SMART!!!! Stop patting your selves on the back, your hand may become attached. Wouldn't that look funny? Lets let the experts determine the authenticity of the Yellow Roses. LAgoldie
I really have to learn to make those smiley faces, one would look so good next to my username. Wouldn't it? Maybe one of the art experts out there could instruct me?
[ edited by lagoldie on Sep 18, 2000 07:58 AM ]
posted on September 18, 2000 08:24:34 AM newlagoldie, inconvenient facts are like sharp arrows, they only hurt when sat upon in an attempt to cover them up.
In this thread I have seen some fairly decent research done on the provenance of this painting. I have seen a lot of questions posed that went unanswered. I have seen numerous facts presented that have nothing to do with the subjective art of painting appraisal (that only an "expert" dare perform) but instead deal with the purported history of ownership and the misrepresentation of the aegis of the analysis presented as proof of the origin of the work. I have also seen a number of people attack the researchers and generally act like a cat scratching on a tile floor in a vain attempt to cover up their mess.
When a person lacks answers, or knows that the answers are unsatisfactory, that is when they stoop to attacking other persons or questioning their motives. When intelligent people see this happen in a discussion they will usually assume that the attackers either have something to hide or that they are lying.
You have done much via your posts to this thread to make most onlookers view your support of the provenance with more than a grain of salt.
posted on September 18, 2000 09:11:49 AM new
As I was logging on I was thinking "I bet the long-silent Lagoldie has something to say at this point"- and lo and behold, she appears! I must be "physic".
Lagoldie, why should anybody apologize for asking questions about the "facts" presented by the owner and his various alter-egos - I mean supporters? You can tell me - and believe with all your heart - that bird you just bought is a rare web-footed tailless peacock, but if it looks, walks, and quacks like a Pekin duck, no reputable duck breeder has come forward to state otherwise, and the only documentation the seller's come up with is a statement that "Yes, this indeed a live bird," it's still a duck no matter how much you paid for it. Wishing doesn't make it so. You didn't buy a peacock; all you got for your money was the bird.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 18, 2000 09:13 AM ]
posted on September 18, 2000 12:08:33 PM new
Too tall, too cool, and way too good-looking. I was thinking more in terms of Judy Davis or Kathy Bates (depends on whether I'd prefer to be characterized as overwrought or overweight)
For tightwad, how about Mark McKinney (of "The Kids in the Hall" comedy troupe) doing his "headcrusher" character?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 18, 2000 12:09 PM ]
posted on September 18, 2000 01:04:02 PM new
lagoldie -
Frankly, I doubt anyone would be willing to bid because the owner is not handling this like someone sho really wants to sell a painting. He is expecting someone to fork over what amounts to a $2,000,000 (plus buyer's premium) ENTRANCE FEE for the privilege of looking at the painting in the flesh. He also expects them to pay for the trip to CA to examine the painting and documentation or pay for an expert to do the same, after which the money could be difficult to recover.
The so-called "provenance" and so-called "proof" keeps changing so danged fast it makes my head spin.
Let's take the receipt for the canvas, supposedly given by the LACMA ... the painting is 20x14 inches in the OAS listing, and looks like it in the picture. HOWEVER, in the reciept, it is 20x24 (a much squarer painting). Is this receipt for the same canvas? Or is this a reciept that has been cobbled together in PhotoShop?
I am admitteldy an amateur when it comes to art, but a professional when it comes to reading English for facts. And the facts in the lab reports do not support the conclusion that it is a Van Gogh ... merely that it is an old painting.
Let's take the OAS article quoting Haskins:
"Mr. Haskins reports, due to his extensive evaluation of the painting's pigment analysis, that "The palette of the Yellow Roses painting matches Van Gogh's exactly. This is Van Gogh's known palette from his Arles period."
There was considerable doubt cast on that, by HCQ, who compared the pigments identified in the lab with the pigments known to have been requested by van Gogh at the time this painting was supposedly done. There was little overlap between the two groups of pigments.
"He goes on to state that "My position is to give an unbiased presentation of the facts. The painting itself - the materials and background and labels - indicate that it’s from the period it should be."
NO ONE has ever contested that it is a picture from the 1870-1910+ period, nor have we argued that the frame did not belong to Chain's store at one time or another." BUT that does not make it a van Gogh ... it just makes it an old painting. I have a painting by my great-uncle Dave that would fit that description: from the late 1880s with an 1880s frame. And I still have seen nothing to make me believe it was the property of Molly Brown ... like a picture of it "in situ" in her house.
"According to Mr. Haskins, Rewald confirmed the painting Yellow Roses to be an authentic Van Gogh." And where is the WRITTEN opinion of this conveniently dead person? I'd like to see a LIVE expert weigh in.
fountainhouse - Nah, I just let them tie themselves up in their own words ... a variation of give 'em enough rope, you know. I have always had a difficult time with the Van Gogh Earlock because I can never remember which side the ear is on.
CoolTom - I'll insist
on Whoopi Goldberg playing my role
posted on September 18, 2000 01:41:31 PM new
I believe we lowly peons owe an apology to tightwad et.al. His veracity in these matters d'arte are of course vouchsafed by the no doubt soon to appear multi-million dollar bids from likes of the Lord Teong Teck Leng and the Asian "Trillionaire" Hasanal Bokias.
How are we to quibble with such financial magnates? Rumor has it efforts to retain the painting in the Western art world are being spearheaded by a syndicate led by the reclusive megamillionaires J. Beresford Tipton and Thurston P. Howell III.
Sadly, due to recent business reversals, the transportation tycoon Ralph Kramden and oilman Jed Clampett were forced to disaquire their shares in the venture.
posted on September 18, 2000 01:49:48 PM new
I can't posssibly read all this thread but the picture does look a lot like one my (now)teenage son painted 10 or twelve years ago. Can't find it here anywhere.......
posted on September 18, 2000 06:22:19 PM new
KBProdia -
So ... you apparently believe that we will believe that the busy agent for a busy actress takes the time to open an account on here JUST to turn down a role?
If you believe that, I believe I know where you can get a dubious Van Gogh for only $2,000,000 plus a small buyer's premium.
PS - You must be REALLY desperate if the only thing you can think of to drag out to discredit HCQ is her relationship with another person.
posted on September 19, 2000 04:19:19 AM new
KBProdia said that the various sockpuppets of the seller and friends had run out of logical, chemical, and artistic arguments. So they tried to discredit you based on your personal life.
and I think I'll ask to have Anne Hech play my part
[ edited by abacaxi on Sep 19, 2000 10:36 PM ]
posted on September 19, 2000 05:41:37 AM new
Well, my "outhouse" and and choice of pets has already been reported, so I guess the rest was inevitable (sighing in shame). Pardon me while I fall on my ceremonial dagger.
Funny, I was thinking Heche for you too which just "adds to the body of evidence" that great minds think alike
Is your keyboard stuck on "grin" or are you just reallyreallyREALLY happy?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 19, 2000 05:43 AM ]
posted on September 19, 2000 06:09:55 AM new
Hmm....the more I ruminate on it, the better Bates sounds. She's played a disabled old maid (Swept from the Sea); Molly Brown (Titanic) - who would know Molly Brown's story better than Ms. Brown herself?, a detective(Diabolique); and a "gay lesbian woman" (Primary Colors) who says she is "stronger than dirt"
posted on September 19, 2000 06:16:40 AM new
Errrrr.... Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't Kathy Bates in "Fried Green Tomatoes"? It wasn't specifically stated in the movie, I grant, but in the original novel it was quite clear that the two female protaganists were lesbian lovers.
Just thought I'd mention that in passing. Carry on....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 19, 2000 06:26:53 AM new
Yeah, but she played a housewife married to a jerk. Although I've BTDT re the "jerk" part, I don't think her role is otherwise pertinent.
posted on September 19, 2000 10:07:39 AM new
Major Motion Picture, no doubt. But only AFTER it's an Oprah Book Club pick.
I was up to 2:15 a.m. last night reading this utterly abosorbing thread from start to finish. Wow.
Now, before I say another word (lest I get myself into trouble and lead anyone astray, intentionally or not), let me hasten to declare that I am an expert in absolutely NOTHING and have the credentials to prove it.
It really was an fascinating read. There's got to be an interesting difference between having participated (or lurked) on this thread off and on as the days wore on versus absorbing it all in one fell swoop, as I did. It WAS almost as if I was reading some international artworld thriller, esp. once we got to those unpronounceable names from exotic places and unfathomable billions. (I was SO amused at the name dropping, and even more amused that everyone else was every bit as underwhelmed as I. LOL)
I have a couple of observations and some speculation I wanted to share.
First, it would be interesting (tho not essential) to know how many human beings (as opposed to *identities*) we're dealing with among the several Supporters. I think three, but I may be mistaken. (I have to confess I didn't read through all that with the thought I'd be posting ANYthing to this thread.) A detail I noted: aside from any other syntactical considerations, two different identities repeatedly used the homonym *manor* for *manner.* As homonym mistakes go, I think this one is rarer than most and to ME indicates a near certainty that these two *identities* are one person. I feel certain there are other tips that would reveal themselves in a careful side-by-side study of the various indentities' posts.
The single most startling --and revealing -- post to me was the one by the woman who had the fake beach built in her back yard. I would encourage any of you with sufficient interest to go back and look at it again. Actually, I am fairly certain there was an earlier post (by her?) hinting at the same argument: that it's not really all that important / doesn't matter if the painting and details of the provenance are authentic or not, and she ended with the rather plaintive (I thought) charge (perhaps paraphrased here):, "You've ruined a good story." Hmmm, are they selling an authentic Van Gogh PAINTING, or some painting that mostly comes with a good story?
I'm wondering if such a sentiment is somehow culturally based -- the romance of a thing is more important than the reality. I dunno. Cultural differences aren't my forte (LOL -- as I noted, not much is). But it's clear to all of us, I think, that English is not the native language for most if not all of these various persona. I think speculating about cultural differences which may go along with language differences isn't at all out of line here. I do know that other cultures view some details of commerce far differently than we do.
For example, a number of years ago when I was self-employed as a graphic designer, I was contacted by someone originally from the Middle East somewhere. He wanted me to design labels for all the food products he would be producing and exporting back to the Middle East, but I had to find a calligrapher to do the script in his native dialiect FIRST. I told him I'd be happy to do all that legwork for $X/hour, but the deal for him was that DOING that legwork (for free) is what would get me the contract, and nothing else. I told him no thanks -- LOL and didn't even have anyone I disliked enough to refer him to.
The other thing that keeps gnawing at me -- and of course you've all noticed this as well -- is how personally attacked they have all felt at the questions and conflicting historical facts and details about the PROVENANCE. It seems to me that if these people were *merely* principles/representatives of the auction site that they'd be a little less hysterical about valid questions re the provenance. I don't recall seeing any responses to some of the remarks made about whether or not OAS should have taken -- or keep -- this on, or its handling of the auction, but rather about the painting itself, and its history/authenticity.
Why is this, I wonder?
I think if I were connected with an auction site that found itself in this type of situation I would be much more concerned about the reputation of the auction site than the painting in a discussion of this type here on AW (or anywhere), ESPECIALLY if my auction site was indeed *just a venue.* I'd CERTAINLY do what I could to distance myself from the painting and its promoters, if not close the auction. But what are these OAS representatives and friends doing? Just the opposite -- defending the painting at the expense of the auction site's reputation.
Curious, isn't it?
It makes me wonder if there isn't some ownership interest involved.
One final point. I have been simply awed by the brilliance and clarity of the thinking and logic, as well as by the incredible research skills displayed here (HCQ esp). I've also been very impressed by the clear-headed, objective and polite handling of the facts, and the questions and observations which have arisen out of them -- all in STARK contrast to the way the painting's defenders have comported themselves. I mean, night and day difference.
This isn't news, of course, but what I wanted to point out is that this kind of response is sometimes considered or referred to as perpetrator behavior (strong word, I know), and is also characteristic of narcissists and (at the far end of that particular continuum) sociopaths. Please note: I am NOT making a charge that any posters here are sociopaths. And as for as narcissism, well, we all have a touch of it, just some more than others.
For serious narcissists, however, nothing is EVER their fault or doing. All criticism is unjust, unfair and unfounded, fueled by dark ulterior motives on the part of their critics or questioners. All criticism and questions are interpreted -- and handled -- as PERSONAL attacks, and the critics regarded as personal enemies. They also get a little annoyed with people who don't buy into their manipulative ways and arguments, and their own attacks (which they perceive as COUNTER-attacks) only escalate as a result. And so on. We've all known people like this -- LOL, and met too many of them on-line, eh?
Okay, that's all I can contribute to this thread (if indeed what I've said is any contribution at all). My hats off to you brilliant people. I'm just dazzled, and have been so amused, entertained and enlightened by this thread. Whodathunkit?
I've also thoroughly enjoyed the humor. YOU guys are brilliant too.
posted on September 19, 2000 12:41:44 PM new
Well said, CleverGirl, although the grammatical and spelling mistakes seemed to me to stem from a less than stellar education, not from a non-native tongue.
Tightwad said: "I have never claimed to have a Phd, but I do!"
I don't know which discipline TW had his "Phd" in, but I have systematically ruled out English, all Life Sciences, and physics. Art History would also be a stretch.
Darn, no one bothered to ask, and now he is suspended. Will we ever know?
posted on September 19, 2000 04:14:47 PM new
"You've ruined a good story." Hmmm, are they selling an authentic Van Gogh PAINTING, or some painting that mostly comes with a good story?
I'm wondering if such a sentiment is somehow culturally based -- the romance of a thing is more important than the reality."
CleverGirl-I really was trying to simply say people "collect" or "invest" for different reasons. If money was not a limiting factor with me, I would have filled my home with all kinds of interesting "stories". That is OF more importance to me than the value of the item. Am I the only person on planet earth who feels this way, I think not. I recall reading on one of the sites furnished during this thread, that the reason the GERMANS LOVED VAN GOHG'S WORK SO MUCH IS THEY APPRECIATED THE LIFE OF THE ARTIST AS WELL AS THE ART!!!! I, also, gathered from that same article, if the Germans had NOT purchased his art, in all probability, he would have remained "unsaleable" far longer than he did.
Would anyone bid on this painting just for the story, probably NOT, but who can say for sure? WHO CAN SAY FOR SURE has also been a point I have tried to make throughout this thread.
I do not see how viewing a small picture on a computer screen and quoting various articles by various people can PROVE this painting is indeed a FAKE or indeed authentic, for that matter. JUST HOW DOES ONE AUTHENTICATE A PAINTING? Apparantly even the so-called experts have trouble in that area.
There is a big difference between DECLARING a picture a FAKE and wholeheartedly BELIEVING it is a fake.
IS IT a FAKE???I personally do not know. EVEN after all the arguments presented here!
Could it be a FAKE???? Sure, afterall, there are now several museums that aren't sure their authentic VG's are indeed authentic! That's another thing I learned from following all those posted links. I am being serious here. I do not want to take anything away from those who actually persued this as actively/efficiently as they have. I just have a problem with the claims and declaration that it IS INDEED A FAKE.
I am NOT an art expert or educated in the arts or culturally sophisticated. In fact, one could call me culturally "challenged" and be 100% accurate. MB and I would probably have gotten along marvelously-though MY beach story IS true. I only gage something's value based on MY particular likes and dislikes AND whether I find it interesting or not. I have NEVER allowed ANYONE to tell me what I should or shouldn't like. You want a good laugh? Personally, I find this YR painting more asthetically pleasing than any of VG's sunflowers. I don't care how many "art experts" tell me how great the sunflowers are, I just plain DON'T like them.
I may not be an art expert, BUT I do have an opinion. So in closing, I will leave you with my unsolicited opinion on EVERYTHING:
"I believe ALL people have the right to determine for themselves whether they should or should NOT accept ANY statements and/or claims made by any/or all persons about any/and all things!" - sulyn1950 You can quote me on that!
Again, thanks for the observations AND the education. I know I have made light of what was obviously quite a serious thing to many of you and I apologize if I have offended you sense of sensibility. Sulyn
posted on September 19, 2000 07:38:37 PM newsulyn1950: Two comments on what you said....
First, while it is of course true that the story behind a collectible object such as a painting can often be as important as the object itself [if not more], that's only if the story is actually true and the object is what it is represented as being. IF this were a genuine Van Gogh, and IF it were once owned by Molly Brown, and IF it had been in the owner's family for many generations, and IF all the other things listed in the so-called "provenance" were true... then yes, this would be a valuable object with a fine and interesting story to go along with it. But if the painting is a fake [or at least was painted by a contemporary of Mr. Van Gogh and not by Van Gogh himself], and the "provenance" surrounding it is false, then neither the painting nor the "story" are worth much of anything at all -- certainly not $2 million. Even Steven King would have trouble selling a work of fiction for $2 million I would imagine.
Second, you talk as though it is perfectly all right to assume from the start that this painting is genuine and that all that matters is that nobody can prove it to be fake. Well, I'm sorry, but when we're talking about a $2 million painting you have things backwards. With something like this any collector would assume from the beginning that the painting is fake unless it can be proven authentic, at least to his or her satisfaction. Can anything be "proven" genuine? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean you should just accept a claim at face value without at least TRYING to have it verified. And that's all that people here are doing. The seller of this painting has made all sorts of claims regarding its authenticity and provenance, but is unwilling [or unable] to back any of those claims up with documentation. And since the only "proof" he has as to the authenticity of the painting are some lab tests showing the pigmnets used "were available" to Van Gogh and a "provenance" which has already been shot full of holes, the fact that the painting itself looks NOTHING like any other painting Van Gogh is known to have done makes it even MORE suspicious. I mean, if this even REMOTELY looked like a Van Gogh maybe everyone would be willing to be a bit more charitable....
As long as the owner was content to keep this painting in the family and hang it on the wall of his house, itdoesn't matter WHAT he thought it was or the story that went along with it. But the moment he put it up for sale [for $2 million no less] he took on an OBLIGATION to verify that it was what he claimed it was. He can't simply sit back and tell people to go ahead and bid and then it will be up to the buyer to find out if it is authentic or not.
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Sep 19, 2000 07:48 PM ]
posted on September 19, 2000 07:47:14 PM newsulyn, you just don't get it.
Virtually every claim the seller has made about this painting, both in the auction listing (in its numerous incarnations) and here, have been demonstrated to be extremely questionable even when viewed with the rosiest glasses availble, and when examined in the cold light of day, positively lunging past the bounds of credulity, not to mention ethics.
The seller AND the site are marketing this painting with two statements: (a) The painting was owned by Molly Brown and (b) The painting was done by Van Gogh. You repeatedly question what difference it makes if it "turns out" neither is true. If it doesn't "make any difference" to the saleability of the painting, then why make the claims at all?
Right. Because these statements are intended to arouse bidder interest in this painting that would not exist otherwise.
A few hypotheticals. If the claims made in an auction listing affect the item's desirability (and therefore value):
Is it acceptable for a seller to make claims he KNOWS to be false?
How about claims he knows MAY be false?
Or claims for which he can provide no documentary evidence, but which are e.g. family tradition and hearsay?
When notified that those claims cannot be true, should seller delete those claims from his auction, or let them stand?
When an auction site learns through the seller himself that such claims are not true, and it has published those claims not only in the individual auction but on its home page, what action should the site take?
I realize the practical impossibility of expecting a site which adds half a million listings each day to examine every auction to ascertain whether the seller is being truthful. I'm not even asking OAS - which describes itself as "specializing in quality antiques" - to take a look at its 800 current listings.
However, OAS persists not only in featuring the painting, but in [i]advertising it as a Van Gogh owned by Molly Brown - not a painting "attributed to" Van Gogh which "may have been" owned by Brown. Yet the best that has been said is that the painting is of the period in which the artist lived (even Haskins will say only that it's "from the period it should be" and that the palette matches Van Gogh's) and that somebody wrote "Property of Molly Brown" in pencil on the frame.
Just as an example: OAS was aware on 9/4, from the seller's own email to OAS responding to my queries, that seller's claims regarding Brown having received the painting as a wedding gift from Chain - were patently false. Yet those claims remained in the auction listing for another week - until nearly half the auction period had elapsed.
For me, the fundamental question regarding OAS is: If it refuses to act (or drags its heels) in a high-profile auction like this, what kind of confidence can a bidder have regarding low-ticket, low-profile items, such as those you sell?
posted on September 19, 2000 07:54:27 PM new
Hey, abacaxi! You wanna edit out some of those smilies in your post above [or at least add a space here and there]? It's causing all the messages to scroll waaaaaay to the right, to the point where things are getting cut off [at least on my screen].
'Twould be much appreciated....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 19, 2000 08:56:41 PM new
Hey everybody????
I think that this painting is real, but I dont beleive that they really have the painting. This is just a publicity stunt.
And a good one at that. They know that no
one will bid on it, so they never have to produce it to anyone. And they get mucho
publicity. I found out that OAS has gone from 300 to 400 hits a day to 12,000 and up
If the painting is not a real Van Gogh, with all this publicity and maybe a movie it will be worth a commission to all of you. However does anyone have the sole rights on this matter? I have done-loaded the whole 11 pages, for a script. I promise if I get it sold you all have a part in the ptofits.
posted on September 19, 2000 09:39:47 PM new
I suspect that the increased traffic must be the owner compulsively checking for bids on the auction. 11,000+ checks a day sounds about right for that.
posted on September 19, 2000 10:23:05 PM new
Hmmm....I don't know but I'd like the part of Brighid868 to be played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, although Ricki Lake would be more appropriate.
HCQ, now I picture you just like Judy Davis (one of my favorites).
posted on September 19, 2000 11:09:50 PM new
Sulyn -
What I wonder is why OAS and it's adherents stilll cling to the fables ... when the interesting provenance has been shown to be very unlikely, and the lab reports back up only a fraction of the owner's claims, and the style is so unlike any other painting van Gogh painted in that period.
Just what does OAS hope to get out of it? Besides money, of course, can it be worth the traffic?
posted on September 20, 2000 01:55:29 AM new
I was not really interested in this topic but after it persisted for so long I figured - OK I have to look. The result is as usual I don't get it.....Sometimes I think a Mother ship is going to swoop down and get me and when I go on board they will say - OK we plugged you into human society with no memory now explain politics and profootball and art to us!!
Nobody seems to care if this has any beauty.
Everything hinges on whether one dead guy painted it who could barely give them away in a very polite society before he died. This guy had to eat all those years he was alive - how did he do that? Obviously not as an artist.
I have art on my walls that moves me and is
thoughtful and insightful in various ways. Some of it cost hundreds of dollars but nothing over a thousand.
It often strikes me how many talented people there are that just have to create all sorts of lovely things and often sell them for what must amount to the hourly equivalant of a mindless factory job. I feel bad some of them are not recognized more, but I feel good that they are willing to share their things with me at a price I can manage.
A few of Van Gogh's things I like but some of them really don't do much for me. I have
the feeling that he could have stood back and tossed some paint on canvas blindfolded and it would be marketable if his signature could be authenticated. And that is sick.
posted on September 20, 2000 04:08:11 AM new
Did anyone read the Summer 2000 issue of ARTnews? They have a very informative article on the "So-Called Van Goghs".
It was curious to find that chemical analysis is used by the Van Gogh Museum to authenticate the paintings it has in their collection. They used this technic to authenticate one they thought was a fake.
From the article - in regards to the painting "The Garden of Saint Paul's Hospital in Autumn"...
"In response to public critique, and parallel to the Gachet exhibition organized by Anne Distel and Suasn Alyson Stein, the painting was subjected to a battery of sophisticated tests. It was determined from a technical and chemical persepective The Garden of Saint Paul's Hospital in Autumn was completely consistent with other Van Gogh works."
