One would be tempted to deny that Cézanne could have painted so insignificant a work if it were not for the formal testimony of Dr Gachet's son and if other still-lifes, executed in Auvers-sur-Oise, did not fail from similar faults.
from:
http://www.kreegermuseum.com/content/cezanne.htm In CÈzanne’s work, however, one finds neither cylinders, cones, nor parallel and perpendicular lines, the line never having existed for CÈzanne except as a meeting place for two planes of different color. One might thus be permitted to see in this theory an attempt to express his consciousness of structure beneath the colored surface presented by nature. It was this awareness of form that detached CÈzanne from his Impressionist friends. But nowhere in his canvas did CÈzanne pursue this abstract concept at the expense of his direct sensations. He always found his forms in nature and never in geometry.
from:
http://www.serve.com/Lucius/Intro.index.html
John Rewald quoting Mark Twain: "in writing, it is usually stronger and more dramatic to have a man speak for himself than to have someone else relate a thing about him."
from:
http://www.museum-security.org/van-gogh-fakes.htm more heated discussions and differences of opinion, more experts attacking other experts over the authenticity of Van Gogh's works than that of any other artist of the period.
Flowblue2's possible explanation as to why Rewald's letter for fractured grammar, punctuation, and misspelling:
Some of these highly educated people do not command the best use of the English language. They write very similar to how they speak. Sometimes very broken.
Sure doesn't sound "broken" to me! However the writing in that letter (presented on the OAS site).......... sure leaves a lot to be desired!
ubb and a tish of clarity
[ edited by rosiebud on Sep 23, 2000 06:49 PM ]
posted on September 23, 2000 06:36:12 PM new
Jeez, rosiebud, you're fast!
Okay, here's my paltry contribution:
Found a letter from Rewald to the New York Times but their online archives don't go back that far, so I've got to do a manual search next week (this is when I wish I were in Boston!)If anybody's got access, it's "Should Museum Sell Its Paintings," letter to the editor, 20 October 1972.
Also found an article by him in Art In America - Should Hoving be De-accessioned?" January-February, 1973, pp. 25-30.
His style has been described as "urbane," "magisterial" - well, here's what Jason Kaufmann, a respected art critic himself with some 1,000 articles to his credit, has to say about Rewald's book on Cezanne:
And since Rewald edited a number of books as well as wrote innumerable biographies, I think we can rest assured he didn't have a ghost writer, although he did have an assistant for some 16 years, whom I think I've tracked down along with his publishers and the administrators of his estate...
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 23, 2000 06:39 PM ]
posted on September 23, 2000 06:40:46 PM new
Wow, PYTH00N:
Just took a look at what you were referring to, and I can't believe I missed it!(www.oldandsold.com/vangogh/faclnew.shtml)
Notice the difference in color and clarity between the SIGNATURE and TYPED NAME of Haskins (fuzzy and greyish)(which also features a crease mark, like it had been folded and placed in an envelope), with the MUCH DARKER print of the TEXT of the "letter" (black and very clear)(which also has NO OTHER CREASE MARKS!!)
Why doesn't the color of the PRINTED NAME match the color of the TEXT OF THE LETTER? They should've been TYPED AT THE SAME TIME, using the SAME PRINTER. The color and clarity should be IDENTICAL.
Further, if this were a standard piece of 8 1/2 x 11 paper, there would be TWO crease marks (standard folding into an envelope).
The Dorn/Feilchenfeldt team are now questioning the authenticity of at least twenty-one pictures in the latest Hulsker catalogue. Their method involves two main lines of inquiry.First of all, provenance. Most of the reasonably convincing Van Gogh fakes did not appear until the early years of the twentieth century. It is therefore important to track back ownership, and to be cautious about works without a secure provenance going back to the 1890s.Second, materials, technique and style are ultimately more important in reaching a judgement on authenticity. This requires the traditional skill of connoisseurship, as well as the use of modern scientific methods, such as x-radiography and infra-red reflectography.
The provenance has been blown out of the water.. all that's left is the "materials" "technique" and "style". Technique and Style are also blown out of the water because it is not like any other Van Gogh in existance. All that leaves is materials (paint, brushes, canvas,etc) which can only mean that someone from that period painted a picture.
posted on September 23, 2000 06:47:26 PM new
HQC, what about this.. not sure if it counts but it sure is a layperson's opinion of the writing style:
... I think you will enjoy his style of writing. He writes with the descriptive flair of a novelist and he does not use art-world graduate school style jargon...
posted on September 23, 2000 06:55:34 PM new
TO MODERATOR:
Your site on this matter has become slanderous and filed with libel.
HartCottageQuilt has commited forgery of a
document, that can be contrued as a possible letter from the writer.
We will be taking legal action this week
to rectify the matter. Since you have allowed this matter to progress to this
point, we find that your ActionWatch site
has aided and abetted this libel.
posted on September 23, 2000 07:01:27 PM new
Boy, we are getting desperate now, aren't we? How sad.
Edited to add: And so instead of sending an official paper letter, lawyers post notes threatening legal action on message boards? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 23, 2000 07:03 PM ]
posted on September 23, 2000 09:05:45 PM new
leglegle: Here is the 's' for the s.
Gosh, at prevailing attorney rates that "s" probably cost them $400.
So, file away. HCQ's forged letter (which happens to be exempt under the protection of the rules regarding parody) will be Exhibit A. We will eagerly await your submission to the court of Rewald's letter as Exhibit B.
posted on September 23, 2000 09:35:15 PM new
This just gets funnier & funnier !
Help starvin' and leglegle out here, Barry, before they worry themselves to death. Doesn't forgery require fraudulent intent, that is, attempting to pass off an imitation as genuine? While that might fit one item I can think of being discussed in this thread, I hardly think it applies to HCQ's "letter".
Also, can any of you help me out memorywise...wasn't there a "leglegle" ID or some permutation thereof a while back that made similar unconvincing threats during another hotly debated subject ?
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.
[ edited by cathammer on Sep 23, 2000 09:54 PM ]
[ edited by cathammer on Sep 23, 2000 10:04 PM ]
posted on September 23, 2000 09:58:52 PM new
leglegle:
At the trial perhaps you can also entertain us by your attempt to explain to the judge how a posting can be "slanderous and filed (sic) with libel" at the same time. If you don't understand the difference perhaps a more proper screen name would be "legldodo."
posted on September 24, 2000 12:39:10 AM new
Hey Joice Moderator, are you laughing as hard as I am??????????????????? (Get out the Depends, please....it's PMP time again!!!!!!!!)
leglegle, that's spelled L-E-G-A-L, not LEGLE. Or were you trying for EAGLE (as in legal-eagle)??? You and your "friends" really do need to learn how to use the "spellcheck" function on your computer. Sad to say, it won't help your grammar, but anything is an improvement at this point.
I find it interesting that you believe we would be incapable of acting as open-minded, impartial, intelligent, responsible jurors. Quite the contrary, this thread has renewed my faith in man to sort through propaganda and discern the facts. If you're looking for another Simpson jury, you won't find it here.
Let's cut to the chase.
Lagoldie claims this painting was exibited at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam in March of 1990. Right? It would then be a very simple matter for the painting's owner to contact them again, refresh their memories as to which painting this is that they exhibited (you could just direct them to OldAndSold's home page), and ask them to provide their FREE authentication as a Van Gogh painting....or an acknowledgement that they even EXHIBITED this painting as a Van Gogh.
Then a .gif or .tif of their authentication (or acknowledgement of exhibit) would be nice (rather than all these butchered cut-and-paste "scans" being posted), but a phone call from them to HartCottageQuilts would suffice. (Think you're up to faking a Dutch accent?)
After all, we're just helping you "prove" your painting's a real, honest-to-goodness Van Gogh, so all those buyers you have waiting in the wings won't bail out this time like they did in 1987.
posted on September 24, 2000 05:02:16 AM newHartCottageQuilt has commited forgery of a document, that can be contrued as a possible letter from the writer.
Uh-huh. Scares me big, particularly coming on the heels of my noting that I've tracked down Rewalds' representatives.
Funny how, whenever the sceptics here hit a sore spot, one of the defenders (or the defender in one of his incarnations) threatens litigation - on grounds that leave the crowd hooting with derision.
posted on September 24, 2000 05:20:01 AM new
Statement from Hart Cottage Quilts:
"As to MY proving MY doubts about the "Rewald" letter - the ball's in the seller's court. HE's the one saying it - and the painting - are real. Why should I do his homework for him? HE is the one with the vested interest in this painting, not me. Based on all the mutton-as-lamb he's expected us to swallow so far, he hasn't given anybody any reason to believe him.
Prove to me that Haskins doesn't have a vested interest in the painting."
Since you are making so many claims as facts. I thought it would be helpful to get further information and clear things up.
Scott Haskins is a recognized conservator who has been in the business for over 20 years. Do you think he would risk his business and reputation on this painting if he did not have certain beliefs and facts to back them up. What would he have to gain by the sale of "Yellow Roses"?
Please step out from the behind the keyboard and make a contribution towards the facts.
Do we also have to prove that The McCrone Research Institute and John Twilley also do not have a vested interest?
Statemenet from Hart Cottage Quilts:
"As to MY proving MY doubts about the 'Rewald' letter - the ball's in the seller's court."
The seller is stating it is genuine. You are stating it is not. The seller has presented it as fact. What are you doing to disprove it?
The only possible way you can even begin to disprove the letter is by presenting another piece of personal correspondence on letter head and with his signature. Until then, the sellers letter stands as authentic.
The only evidence you have provided is couple of snippets of writing. Please provide signed letter by John Rewald for comaprison.
posted on September 24, 2000 05:26:52 AM new
Statement from Hart Cottage Quilts:
"If, fb, you're going to try to market your Asian pictures as having belonged to your friend (who, for sake of argument here, we'll say is famous), yes indeedy, it is going to be hard to prove they came from her....except that the attorney would have a copy of the estate inventory and of having shipped the items to you. He has to doument he did so. It's part of his job as the attorney who settled the estate."
I lost the name of the attorney and my memory is not so good these days. Today, I really have nothing to back up my provenance. The only provenance I have is that I inherited these prints from a friend I knew back in high school. I have no access to pictures of houses or any of those odd places you mention where information might be left. I have no idea who his relitives might be. She had a sister, but I have no idea of where she might be or if she is still alive.
posted on September 24, 2000 05:52:18 AM new
Conspiracy Theoryies Abound...
The seller has presented four individuals who have reviewed the painting.
- Scott Haskins (June 7, 1987 - May 6, 1988)
- Dr. Walter McCrone (March 23, 1990)
- John Twilley (March 25, 1988)
- John Rewald ( * Letter Dated February 12, 1990)
* Correspondence is dated February 12, but painting was reviewed in January of that year.
All recognized as experts or as very knowledgeable in their field.
I personally spoke with the conservation department at the LACMA. I spoke with John Twilley's former employer. They vouch for his reputation as being a leader in the area of the conservation sciences.
Auction Watch interviewed Scott Haskins. As stated before, he is the owner of Fine Art Conservation Labs in Santa Clara, CA. He has been in the business for twenty years.
Dr. Walter McCrone is also a well respected member in his field. His credentials were good enough to be asked to work on the Shroud of Turin.
All of the above have verified that they have worked on the painting.
Now we have the John Rewald letter. The seller did not have to fake any of the above references. The seller has always stated they have had the reference from John Rewald. It did not just appear. The seller also states further documentation is available to bidders. This is their auction, and they choose to run it as they please.
I would think presenting a fake letter from John Rewald would be very risky to the seller. If I was the seller and trying to pull a prank, I think this would be one line I would not step over.
[ edited by flowblue2 on Sep 24, 2000 06:02 AM ]
[ edited by flowblue2 on Sep 24, 2000 06:10 AM ]
[ edited by flowblue2 on Sep 24, 2000 06:12 AM ]
posted on September 24, 2000 06:00:39 AM new
"It is easy to say something is a fake; it is hard to prove it not."
Ann Distel - Chief Curator - Musee d'Orsay
Hart Cottage Quilts:
What will you be doing to help contribute to the factual evidence behind this painting? Minor web searches do not count. When will you clear up your questions with Scott Haskins, John Twilley, Dr. Walter McCrone? You have presented many conspiracy theories. I would like to see how you can prove them. Your web research is good, but you need to step out from behind the computer and provide opinions which are not sided. Reporting is based on taking into consideration both sides of the story. Your view is slanted. Please help in providing us with further research from the references that have been provided above.
Otherwise, the story will only be a tiny piece of what you have created in your mind as the truth.
posted on September 24, 2000 06:02:13 AM newflowblue2: Personally, I'm still waiting for you to explain what made you decide to come to AuctionWatch in the first place and post a message in an eBay forum about a painting on a competing auction site. Were you, perhaps, acting on behalf of the seller or the OAS site?
Oh -- and let me quote from your original post here:
"I saw that they have a premiere auction of a painting reportedly by Vincent Van Gogh? [emphasis added]"
I'm just trying to figure out when, exactly, you decided to check your healthy skepticism at the door and become such a die-hard supporter of this painting?
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 24, 2000 06:06:48 AM newHCQ - WOW! Rewald certainly does massacre the language. I notice that he started a sentence with "But", and my English teacher always marked my papers down for that.
leglegle -
Date Joined: September 23, 2000 06:25:09 PM
Ho hum ... another sock puppet appears on the stage.
"We will be taking legal action this week to rectify the matter".
Dead persons CANNOT be libeled And as for the "forgery" ... go ahead and file charges. For it to go anywhere, you have to prove intent to profit from it. As an example of how easy it is to make an image of a document say whatever you want it to say, it is not a prosecutable offense.
flowblue2 -
"Not a single person has provided another piece of correspondence from John Rewald for comparison ..."
Anyone with a scanner can concoct anything they want to ... and considering the seller's track record for veracity, I would only believe any document they come up with if it came with a full lab analysis from a document validation expert.
Unlikely scenario for your court case ... questions of authenticity of documents made by deceased persons are directed to document experts, not anyone else, and the questions go more like this. But much more boringly so, in excruciating detail.
Prosecutor: "On what basis do you say this letter (is/is not) written and signed by the deceased?"
Witness: "The letterhead paper the letter is on (does/does not) match the letterhead known to have been used by ____ for letters to his publisher and other correspondents at that time. The paper used for this lettter is (insert brand here), which was in production between (insert dates here). As the letter was supposedly written on ____, the date of manufacture (does/does not) support that supposition.
In addition, the typewriter/printer known to have been used by the deceased was a _______, and this letter was written on a ________. The (key slugs/printer toner) is that of a __________, which (does/does not) match the
(same routine for the signature ... pen, pressure changes, type of ink, when it was available, etc.)
Then, if the physical object holds up under scrutiny, they get into the wording, spelling quirks, sentence structure, etc. of the words on the paper.
It's nice having friends who are crime lab technicians.
********
Edited to add:
"Technical methods of examination are welcome when their role . . . is confined to that of an auxiliary science. Precedence must always be given to intuitive, subjective human perception, aided and checked as it fortunately can be by technological means. The final and most certain hallmark of a forgery is that, once unmasked, it is immediately reduced to nothingness."
Grete Ring
Kunst und Künstler 31 (1932)
posted on September 24, 2000 06:09:52 AM new
"The seller has presented four individuals who have reviewed the painting."
Actually, that's only three, but who's counting...
"The seller has always stated they have had the reference from John Rewald"
Hmmmmm.... I must have missed that. Would you be so kind as to refresh my memory as to when and where, exactly, the seller has "always" stated that he had a reference from John Rewald? I saw his comments that he would provide "further documentation" to the winning bidder, and I saw Mr. Haskin's RECENT comment that Mr. Rewald had told him that the painting was genuine, but I can't find any indication that the seller has "always stated they have had the reference from John Rewald".
Unless, of course, you represent the seller and/or the OAS site and are privy to some special knowledge unavailable to the rest of us?
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 24, 2000 06:28:30 AM new
Original John Rewald topic came up in a post from Hart Cottage Quilts:
"John Rewald confirmed the painting Yellow Roses to be an authentic Van Gogh.
Seller's evidence: Seller's secondhand report that Haskins said Rewald said so.
Evidence refuting seller's claim: Rewald is dead and so can neither confirm nor deny that claim. No written statement from Rewald has been produced by seller.
Reasonable conclusion: Seller is relying on dead men not being able to tell tales."
And it was also listed in the interview with Scott Haskins:
"A point of interest is that Mr. Haskins has discussed the painting with other art experts, including a Mr. John Rewald, who was the author of several influential books on Impressionism. 'John Rewald was a world renowned expert who authenticated paintings.' Before his death in 1994, Rewald was recognized as the foremost authority on late 19th-century art. According to Mr. Haskins, Rewald confirmed the painting Yellow Roses to be an authentic Van Gogh."
posted on September 24, 2000 06:34:18 AM new
GodzillaTemple:
I joined AuctionWatch a couple of months ago to host pictures for my auctions. I looked at the message board but found nothing interesting to chat about. I am not the type of person who likes to chit-chat about problems with ebay and paypal. This was the most interesting topic I found. I really did not have anything to contribute to the other topics. My sales usually go pretty smoothly and I don't have much to complain about.
posted on September 24, 2000 06:35:15 AM new
Geez, how I hate to repeat myself because of people's selective reading.
flowblue2
This is a partial repost of a previous posting that you conveniently ignored, how about addressing it this time.
According to Mr. Haskins, Rewald confirmed the painting Yellow Roses to be an authentic Van Gogh.
This is hearsay and unless Mr. Haskins has a correspondence directly from the offices of John Rewald, his statement is pure hearsay. MUCHLESS, there is an opportunity to call this witnesses (Haskin's) credibility into question, as his original report (dated May 6, 1988) made absolutely no mention of the penciled in "property of Molly Brown" that was "found" or reported September 13, 2000.
This can either lead to one of two conclustions:
1) Haskin's original analysis is faulty because this was not noticed 12 years previously. This, then, calls into question the credibility of the entire report. If this is the case, why bother to "call" someone on the phone who's aready 'not' a credible witness.
or
2) Someone added that little penciled in effect at some point during the 12 years after the report was written. If that is the case, then SOMEONE is into modifying things. That would, in turn, lead us directly back to .... Hmmm, is the letter by Rewald "modified" as well?
Every answer spawns more questions.
So, flowblue2, take your choice.
Either his report is valid and Haskins is a credible witness and we're to accept his credentials, reports, etc as they were stated in 1988 and someone has altered the painting after that date.
OR
Haskins missed the inscription and anything he has to add at this point is highly suspect.
posted on September 24, 2000 06:37:11 AM new
"A point of interest is that Mr. Haskins has discussed the painting with other art experts, including a Mr. John Rewald, who was the author of several influential books on Impressionism. 'John Rewald was a world renowned expert who authenticated paintings.' Before his death in 1994, Rewald was recognized as the foremost authority on late 19th-century art. According to Mr. Haskins, Rewald confirmed the painting Yellow Roses to be an authentic Van Gogh."
Hart Cottage Quilts:
Could you please verify with Scott Haskins this statement?
posted on September 24, 2000 06:51:13 AM new
I'll play your game for a few miuntes:
rosiebud sample of John Rewalds writing:
"One would be tempted to deny that Cézanne could have painted so insignificant a work if it were not for the formal testimony of Dr Gachet's son and if other still-lifes, executed in Auvers-sur-Oise, did not fail from similar faults."
Sample from John Rewald letter provided by seller:
"The painting is very unusual in its style, however after studying the brushwork and application of the paint, one would have to deny the fact that van Gogh was the only artist in his time that painted with such impasto."
Notice similar uses of wording:
"one would have to deny the fact" (John Rewald Letter From Seller)
"One would be tempted to deny that" (John Rewald letter provided from rosiebud)
Also notice the length of the sentences. Quite long.
(Hmmm... looks quite similar to me. I guess I can make an intelligent conclusion from this.)
Also note, one is personal correspondence and one is an edited article.
How sad.
