American Board of Information Security and Computer Forensics

nvestigating Fake Art Via Forensic Science

As the result of a spate of art fakes circulating throughout auction houses in London in the 1990s, Dick Ellis of Scotland Yard was called upon to begin tracking John Drewe based on some evidence provided by Drewe’s ex-wife to another detective named Higgs. During this time, Myatt and Drewe’s bogus works began landing in the hands of experienced art restorers and forensic examiners. (Note here that the processes presented constitute a composite of the many works and their provenance, not just one work). In the case of a 1938 fake Nicholson watercolor work sold to Rene Gimpel, the restorer Zagel began to examine the work forensically.

She noted that the rusty tacks securing the work in a frame were probably dipped in saltwater to make them appear old. The antique paper backing of the watercolor was a forger trick implying that the work was aged, the glue cementing the back and front of the piece was made after World War II, and microscopic analysis revealed that the paint was not even dry. The labels affixed to the work naming the galleries that possessed the work were shiny and new. Zagel touched the print on the labels, which should be tattered, and the print came off. This painting was not made in 1938. Scientific knowledge and analysis concluded that the materials of the work could not have produced the work since the materials were created after the date of the work’s creation. Zagel was convinced the work was bogus, but the puzzle was that the documentation supporting authenticity was incontrovertible. Please note that Zagel did not have to go any further since the material testing demonstrated that the work was not authentic.

About the same time, in another part of London, Mary Lisa Palmer, the head of the Giacometti foundation, was examining a photo of a Giacometti piece titled Standing Nude. Palmer noted that the piece was not typical in that Giacometti’s works were always upright with the feet together. This piece drooped and had one foot in front of the other. Further, the signature did not match Giacometti’s signature. What was really bothering Palmer was that Giacometti was not diligent in his documentation. This piece had impeccable provenance: A catalogue raisonne of the work was provided, exhibitions, stamps, and various documents supporting the work as genuine. Palmer was also receiving phone calls from Jenn Booth, a Tate museum archivist who had some questions about other Giacometti works cropping up in various galleries. Booth noted that she was receiving numerous documents attesting to the authenticity of the gallerist Giacometti pieces. Palmer, Booth, and detective Searle’s information came together providing enough evidence to begin a major investigation. The investigation focused not only on art fakes but tampering with England’s historical archives.

The first to be arrested was Myatt, who implicated and corroborated Drewe as the individual who forged documents supporting Myatt’s fakes. Meetings with Palmer, Booth, and Drewe’s wife, in addition to organizations allegedly providing documentation, produced a faked provenance bonanza. Searle was able to locate the phony stamps affixed to documents, ripped-out pages of the archives supplanted by the fakes, and notes from auction houses, gallery owners, and catalog writers that the catalogs were not from their hand, nor were the works ever sold or exhibited as noted in the questioned documents. Searle felt he was getting closer but still did not have the smoking gun connection needed to prosecute Drewe. He turned to his forensic investigation team leader Adam Craske.

Craske began analyzing labels affixed to provenance photos of the fakes found in Drewe’s house. Craske noted that the label’s age did not match the age of the photo. Labels that are 30-40 years old should be coming apart; these were not. When Craske touched the print on the labels, it came off. Luminosity tests revealed that seven of the labels were bright, while the others were dull. The bright ones corresponded to recent vintage and were found on the forgeries. Craske was also able to determine microscopically what archive pages were ripped out and what ones were fakes. The most important piece of evidence was that one of Drewe’s typewriters’ lettering clearly matched the typescript on the labels. For Searle, this was the fait accompli, allowing Searle to place Drewe under arrest. Drewe was eventually prosecuted and sent to jail along with Myatt.

A Summary of Forensic Art Authentication Processes

Normally, art authentication begins with scientific testing of the materials of the medium to determine if the materials corroborate the age of the work. In the Nicholson, Zagel was able to ascertain that the tacks were superficially aged, the glue attaching front and back of the work was recent, and the paint was not even dry. Zagel also noted that the labels affixed to the work were of recent manufacture. The paint should have been hardened through time but was still soft. (It should be noted here that scientific testing and analysis must be carried out so as not to destroy a work under analysis. The examiner is not permitted to cut a piece out of the work since so doing would compromise the value and authenticity.) If any piece of the medium examination fails to corroborate the work’s age, the work fails the authenticity test. Note here that the framing is not usually part of the medium unless the medium and the frame are one and the same. In Italo-Byzantine 13th century art, one finds examples of both being the same (Scallen, 2008).

What is especially interesting about the Drewe/Myatt case is the application of questioned document forensic practices to the provenance process. It is very seldom noted in authenticating a work of fine art because it has not been used that often as a recognized forensic examination tool or method in ascertaining authentication (Vargas, 2008). As noted, this was important in establishing the bogus documentation supplied. One may even note that in the Drewe/Myatt case questioned documentation was only minimally used. It did tie in the typewriter used, and typescript, type of paper, differences between the real and archive papers, but it did not mention the arsenal of practices available under the mantra of forensic document analysis. The signature was noted not to be the same by Palmer, but that was a subjective evaluation. The signature evaluation should have begun with an exemplar signature and then analyzed in terms of letter slant, letter use, how or where the signature was applied, whether printed or in script, and if the artist signed his or her works. In terms of the documents supplied, the investigation proceeded on the right track to determine if the documents were from the source such as museum, gallery, archive, or organization. The next step would be an examination of the ink used in the fake documents and comparing the ink to that of the organization printing the document. Document analysis could also compare usage of language and text in terms of font size, spelling, idiom used, and defaults (inserting home language into text) (Moenssens, n.d.).

Recognizing Forensic Science

as a Weapon in the Arsenal

of Art Authentication

The world of forensic examination in fine art authentication on one hand is one dominated by mass media huckstering and a gaggle of wannabes prancing about with telescopic cameras labeling themselves as art fraud detectives or forensic experts. Such individuals are known by their off-the-wall approaches and failed conclusions, or find themselves hauled before the courts for malpractice. On the other hand, we have the practitioners carrying out forensic science but under a mass of different labels and without proper training. Curators, museum directors, art assistants, and fine art appraisers authenticate via forensics but really only touch on the basics of what forensic applications have to offer maximally. The application of questioned document models hardly reaches a full court attack on questions of provenance simply because the current practitioners have not been schooled in how it takes place. The absence of the forensic examiner in the presentation of fine art authentication is ubiquitous in most recorded analyses. The amorphous structure of forensic science in fine art authentication calls forth concrete systemic and structure development along with active methodological presentations. Forensic examiners seem to be sitting in the bull pen when they should be on the mound throwing the pitches and striking out the batters.

References

Appraisers Association of America (2009). Elements of a Correctly Prepared Appraisal. New York City. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from http://www.appraisersassoc.org/personal-property-appraiser/fine-art-appraisals/find-an-appraiser/PageId/1/LId/0,1,3/Id/3/Code-of-Ethics.html

Aronson, S. M. (2006, April). The Making of a Collector. Architectural Digest. Retrieved on January 4, 2010 from http://www.architecturaldigest.com/resources/notebook/archive/artnotebook_slideshow_042006

Art Institute of Chicago (n.d.). Examination Techniques. Chicago. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from http://www.artic.edu/aic/conservation/revealingpicasso/exam_infared.html

Daab, J. (2009, February 12). Farid, Fractals and Fingerprinting. Fine Art Registry. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/daab_john/

Daab, J. (2009, July 29). Questioned Documents. Fine Art Registry. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/daab_john/.

Derbyshire, A. (1999, January). Non-Destructive Pigment Analysis Using Raman Microscopy. V&A, Retrieved January 4, 2010 from http://www.vam.ac.uk/res_cons/conservation/journal/issue30/raman30/index.html

Gash, J. (1993, January). Rembrandt or not? - Rembrandt research project attempts to authenticate certain works. Art in America. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_n1_v81/ai_13296242/.

Harvard Art Museum (2008). Provenance Research. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from http://www.artmuseums.harvard.edu/provenance/servlet/webpublisher .WebCommunication?ia=tr&ic=pt&t=xhtml&x=provBoston

Hochfield, S. (2008, June). The Blue Print. ArtNews. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from http://www.artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2504.

Hoving, T. (1997). False impressions. New York: Simon and Shuster.

Israely, J. (2009, October 15). How a ‘New’ da Vinci Was Discovered. Time. Retrieved January 2, 2010 from http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1930431,00.html

Kennedy, R. (2006, November 6). Could Be a Pollock; Must Be a Yarn. The New York Times, p. 1.

Moenssens, A. A. (n.d.). Handwriting Evidence Meets Reliability Criteria. Forensic Evidence. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/ID00004_8.html

Muller, N. (2003). Technical Note. Record of the Art Museum Princeton University 62, 46-49.

Museo d’Arte e Scienza (2009). Authentication. Milan. Retreived January 4, 2010 from http://www.museoartescienza.com/

New York University (2009). Appraisal Studies. New York. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from http://www.scps.nyu.edu/areas-of-study/arts-humanities/professional-certificates/appraisal-studies-arts.html:

Peterson B. (2002). Pennsylvania Impressionism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Philips, D. (2007, July 24). What Price Forensics? Fine Art Registry. Retrieved January 2, 2010 from http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/phillips_david/art_forensics.php

Salisbury, I. & Sujo, A. (2009). Provenance. New York: Penguin Press.

Scallen, C. (2008). Museum Masterpieces: The National Gallery, London. The Teaching Company. Virginia

Secrest, M. (2005). Duveen: A Life in Art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Taylor, R. (2002). Retrieved February 16, 2010 from http://www.uoregon.edu/~msiuo/taylor/art/scientificamerican.pdf

University of California (n.d.). Research Problems in Data Provenance. California: Author.

Vargas, R. (2008, November/December). Standards for Questioned Document Examination. ASTM Standardization News. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/ND_2008/vargas_nd08.html n