Earlier this week a brief report from Stockholm’s The Local closed the long-running debate over some Warhol Brillo boxes that found their way into prominent collections as well as the Moderna Museet:
In a final report from the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board in the USA it has been concluded that the works were mass produced in Skåne in southern Sweden in 1990 at the request of the museum’s former head Pontus Hultén. [...] The Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board, as well as two auction houses and the Andy Warhol Foundation, declined to comment on the case but have now confirmed once and for all that the Brillo boxes were indeed not the work of the famed pop-artist, who died in 1987.
The Guardian ran a very long re-cap of the Brillo boxes in August with this combative statement from the Authentication Board:
But the gist is this: there will be no settlements with anyone. And what he wants Joe Simon especially to know is that he is coming after him. He will never back down. And, should they lose, he will force them to pay every cent of the foundation’s legal bills. Given that Wachs has hired David Boies, one the most expensive trial lawyers in the world, the bill, for pre-trial hearings alone, is estimated to run into more than £2.6m of Warhol’s money.
The trial, which is expected to start this winter, will not be restricted to the Red Series. It will also scrutinise the Brillo affair and many more of the board’s decisions – including the recent authentication of thousands of works that it appears were never seen or approved by Warhol. One of them is an unsigned, un-numbered Marilyn print, put up for sale by Sotheby’s in 2008. Slated for sale at between $30,000 and $50,000, this work has on its reverse three separate markings made by the foundation and the board.
Warhol’s Box of Tricks (Guardian)
Brillo Boxes Confirmed as Fakes (The Local)
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Art Market Monitor, CrystalDock. CrystalDock said: RT @artmarket: New blog post: Warhol Authentication Board Gets Tough http://tinyurl.com/2ujc3vd [...]
Odd, as according to their own report, the authentication board ignored the actual evidence and the testimony of those who actually worked with warhol at the time and relied on the dealer for the works. Perhaps the board should consider the testimony of those closest to warhol instead of dealers they work with, then hundreds of people would not be in this position. Same with the red self portrait series. What was Warhol doing when he signed, dedicated and dated one of the works for his biggest european dealer, Bruno Bishofberger? what do dealers do? sell work. are they accusing warhol of fraud? That he didnt recognise his own work when he chose it for the cover of his 1970 raisonne and its revised edition in 1972? the sworn testimony of those who were actually there? Are Paul Morrissey, Dr. Rainer Crone and others simply committing fraud and perjury? for what reason if they dont own any warhols?
i believe in an open and transparent process, not this secret business behind closes doors which effects so many people. its not responsible scholarship, its something altogether different.
Hear, hear,