This didn't hurt the painting, it hurt the Wildenstein. Their judgement cannot be trusted. All of the major auction houses should think twice about allowing Wildenstein to be the final arbiter.
They behaved shamefully. They didn't even offer any substantial objection to all of the indisputable evidence that the team presented. Absolutely disgraceful. And infuriating. And not the first time, I'd add. Not the first time.
The whole high-end art world as a whole is the problem. As Feona said that they were informed just publicizing their show on this artwork could damage the Artwork. If that's not art politic's BS !
This isn't the first time that the Wildenstein has shot down a painting on this show. In either the very first or second episode, they shot a painting down, regardless of the scientific evidence, because the head of the institute's father had just by looking at it decades ago, decided that it wasn't the real thing. The son makes the whole institute look like idiots. And this episode above shows their opinion means more than reality and science. This whole institute needs to be discredited as their catalogs are based on shoddy information and they need to be shunned by the entire art world.😑
@@amp279 They've gone 11 seasons in this show. Not since that first season episodeI described above, or this one, have they ever gone back to Wildenstein for catalog attribution. And they hold like 3 other major artist's catalogs. You would think that with that major scandal in New York's Knoedler gallery, that they would finally say all major artists from the eighties on down must have science for attribution versus the eyeball test. But the expense of scientific analysis still gives prestige versus science as the threshold. It makes the whole art-world today a travesty. That is, if we want to know that what we're looking at is the real thing. Thank god that the beauty of what we see is my lens. Not Widenstein types of idiots.
entirely agree! And this episode even makes clear that the current committee at the Wildenstein are doing this more for spite! It's not that the evidence is lacking but that they feel it appropriate to air dirty laundry in public, so to speak. Not "expert" at all, just petty and vindictive. They make themselves look small and silly.
I forget the specifics, but I remember in the previous episode, Wildenstein rejected the authenticity despite ample evidence. The Wildenstein clan are art terrorists, holding auction houses in their grasp.
In July 2011, Guy Wildenstein was charged by the French authorities with concealing art that had been reported as missing or stolen. The police seized 30 artworks from the vault of the Wildenstein Institute, at least 20 of which, including sculptures by the Italian artist Rembrandt Bugatti, two sketches by Edgar Degas and a pastel by Eugène Delacroix, were claimed to have been originally part of the collection of Joseph Reinach. Daniel Wildenstein had acted as executor of the estate of Reinach's daughter in 1972 and had been charged with responsibility for distributing the collection, which was held at the Wildenstein Institute, among the heirs.[6] Wildenstein was heard by a magistrate in October 2016 and denied all charges.[7] At trial in 2017, Wildenstein was cleared of hiding paintings, the trial judge said that there was a “clear attempt” by Wildenstein and others to hide assets but it was impossible to return a guilty verdict due to shortcomings in the investigation.[8] The prosecutors successfully appealed to the Cour de Cassation, and the case will be rejudged.
That kind of case could only come to light from the employees…usually these whistleblowers know the truth because the rich braaag about things…they laugh at the rest of the world because they know they can get away with just about everything!
Excellent share. This is amazing yet not surprising, the entire subject reeks of a Narcissistic nature and your share further reveals this. "Money" and "Ego" and "Connections" (I'd just bet the Rothschilds are involved in saving his arse') Yep.
Wildenstein should be put out of business for this type of power play. Not to mention the damage caused to people who did all the steps required for full attribution, only to be held out of pure contempt and ruthless power. Perhaps a class action lawsuit can be brought to pay for all the damages they have caused the art world and the people who had to put their trust in their narcissistic hands. Shame on you Wildenstein.
It almost sounds like a third House of Art needs to be out there, for a 'best 2 out of 3' option. This is the 2nd true-seemng genuine painting that the Wildenstein has turned down in the shows I've seen, despite overwhelming evidence. If they want perfect documentation, they need to relocate themselves to a perfect world. It was a painful decision for everyone.
The Wildenstein Institute has done this before despite a mountain of evidence concerning the authenticity of a painting. Why they are considered to be the final arbiter for major auction houses is beyond me. They appear to be snobbish incompetents.
20+ years ago I sent Christie's London auction house a beautiful winter oil painting by Vlaminck which was purchased at Charles Findley Gallery in Paris and it had the old Wildenstein label on the back. Christie's told us that we had to send them a check for $1750 and the Wildenstein sons would "reauthenticate the Vlaminck painting". The Wildensteins kept the money and removed their father's original label from the back of the painting's original stretcher and sent Christie's a short note that they weren't sure of the authenticity with no reason(s) explaining what it was they were not sure about. The result was that these criminal Wildenstein idiots destroyed our $ 100,000-plus painting which their dead father authenticated for a respected French art gallery.
?Question? So sorry, but why did you not include *notarized* photos of the painting, including the backing, with identifiable notables highlighted, and with people holding it, showing it in identifiable locations and with a FULL description of the item and its state of condition BEFORE sending it over to them?
All the Wildenstein Institute has done by not accepting this as a genuine Renoir is undermine their own credibility as art connoisseurs. Their reasons are not proof - not even close. It is however proof of their arrogance and pettiness.
When Human Ego Minds, aka Lower Mind, block what would be the desired, 8e: the greater abundance of happiness, Wellbeing, financial growth, etc. Ego is an expensive, addiction, fear based ideologies,cause of losses. Very much "the Bully Syndrome" aka "Narcissist Personality Disorder" A dear friend once expressed it so accurate: "They keep tripping over the Dollars trying to catch the Dimes." That is a most difficult reality to have to observe. Even more disturbing when they do it because of money. The Art World is a stage for observing, every aspect of the "Human Ego Mind" ... Beth Bartlett Sociologist/Behavioralist and Historian Tennessee, USA.
You’ve hit the nail squarely on the head. Even though they have seen the scientific evidence and the historical records, Wildenstein just can’t bring themselves to say the other art experts in Paris were right and they are wrong. I am sorry, but that is a weakness.
@@JohnP538 No it's not, seriously. Mistakes can happen and will happen, only when you revisit stuff, re-test stuff and verify your results will you be able to make a better judgement and find out whether something is real or a fake. Same goes for introducing new testing methods and technologies which may reveal new insights and may contradict the stuff you previously assumed. If an "expert" were to dismiss all evidence and refuse to properly examine something just because he might have to change his mind - how much credibility would he have? Stubbornness is not a sign of expertise, it's just a sign of a huge ego.
The facts played no part in the original omission or the second one either. It was a simply exercise of power over logic. It was a "because I said so" type of exercise by the Wilderstein. The should be taken out of the decision by major auction houses. Their word is no longer any good.
Clearly, the criteria for catalog entry differs between Wildenstein & Company, and Bernheim-Jeune. Given the documentary, and the amazing provenance discovery, this painting is an unsigned sketch, by the hand of Renoir, without doubt! Thank you Picton Castle for sharing your story, and your painting. The sketch conveys an imitate perspective, it captures a candid development, and the creative trajectory of the artist---for us with an authentic passion for fine art to savor!
I haven’t seen that painting in person but I believe you and I believe the family. I believe there is a saying, “pride cometh before the fall” (or similar) and I think that art institution doesn’t want to back down and it’s a shame for everyone.
I think it is time for the authentication of paintings to be done differently. One person should never be the sole decision maker on a painting, and there should always be a group of people in collaboration deciding, based on all the different facts needed, experts, scientists, etc. With no room for ego or old feuds between people and institutions. As an artist myself, i find the whole process so weird anyway. And it is not about the art or the artist, it's just about the money. Sadly money takes away and distracts from the art in the end.
MAN that was brutal learned a lot about the twin sketches and unfortunately, about the rivalry I mean the canvas was from the DECADE it was supposed to have come from and there is a Monet COMPANION painting, great video of course!
I think they are scared because if they are wrong they can be sued but on this case they said no to stir up the French no regards for painting or painter 🇦🇺
My little heart was pounding, stopping, thrilled, terrified, disgusted at this ego trip some members of the great art institutes are on...every emotion went through me. Nicky, my gosh, you're one brave soul to see this through!
What I've learned from this show is that a lot of these so-called experts are just people with strong opinions. These institutes like Wildenstein. It's seems they don't care about provenance or evidence.
What I found most interesting is that fact that the later experts failed to comment on the confirmation of the paints used by Renoir and the canvass and offered no reason why this was discounted. This was just ignored in my opinion which was just criminal. I do know one thing, if you get two experts in a room you will always get a debate on which is black and which is white. :)
It probably is a Renoir. No signature though. Maybe not finished, but would Renoir give an unfinished painting to Monet? Sure, if Monet said, 'Hey, I like that'. But we don't really know. Slipping someone an envelope could be the difference between thumbs up or down. But the big guns selling paintings for $100 million, Sotheby's, Christie's, Bankman Freid's, they have to maintain a reputation. Who is going to buy art for millions from a place that sells fakes? That even screwed up once?
If, for some bizarre reason, you want your love of art destroyed, your happy illusions torn to shreds, then go to work at an art museum or a gallery \ auction house. Curators with their petty ego based feuds;, manipulative and duplicitous art dealers - it is enough to make one ill.
The art game is brutal! Imagine how a little bit of doubt about authenticity of these paintings and the fact becoming public could affect the value of billions of Pounds worth of art.
That little bit of doubt is not relevant for the art history. If it was just about researching the work of the artist, they could change their minds according to the evidence available. But the high money value exists because a work of art by a renowned master is a unique type of investment that is supposed to keep its value. If there is an off chance that it may lose all its value in the future, it s no longer a reasonable investment.
We tried to watch the series because we love the art and science, but the outcomes were so tragic we went for something less heart wrenching. We may revisit them at some time.
the artist creates a painting and this is where the art stops; after that it becomes a commodity for everyone else who assigns an arbitrary value to it.
A fascinating story! The painting doesn’t look in Renoir typical and best style…but…many artists evolved in their choice of their preferred style, especially when they were young. The friendship with Monet and duet of pantings showed an learning exchange of style. A shame this “sketch” was not signed…so its only a “maybe” I suppose 🤔 but great evidence was brought here to make it “very probably” 😉
@Redcoat's Return - It was a dueling, fast plein aire sketch, not a completely finished picture. Artists make fast sketches all the time. Hey --- artists out there --- you best remember to SIGN any sketch, doodle, or tracing you make in order to satisfy the Wildenstein Institute and not cause headaches for any future owners of your creation!
The evidence should discredit the Wildenstein that says its not, if its simply over a feud. The auction house should rethink their relationship with the Wildenstein institute if their egos are determining the authenticity of the work sold.
Wildensteins are clearly not qualified to evaluate art. They have been wrapped up in so many controversies and found to be incorrect on so many paintings. It's truly personal for them. The art world just needs to eschew them from even being a source of truth.
@@sailingsvzara Why do you say that? They are the top authenticators in the world for a very good reason. They get it right and if they do make a mistake, they will correct it. There was nothing to connect that painting to Renoir. There has to be evidence or it's not authenticated. It's just the way it works.
why wouldn't the Bernheim buy it outright from Nicky, if they are so convinced as to its "authenticity"? its not in the millions, certainly they would want to keep it in their personal collection? no?
What is sad is knowing there are art pieces out there that are from renowned artists that were never signed for whatever reason. Assuming that every piece was signed is ignorant within itself. When all other evidence and science lead to the development of a piece of artwork done by the artist, it is still a piece of art done by the artist. It sounds to me that Widenstein is more concerned about the monetary value and not the legacy of an artist.
I love her attitude in the face of disappointment. I believe it is a Renoir. Maybe in years to come when different people make the decisions of authenticity, there will be a positive outcome.
What would be really cool, is that some collectors step toward, say art houses be damned, and offer Nicki a reasonable offer for the painting. This would help fund what that istoric house needs. They proved their case. Period.
The story shows the hypocritical art world. Just because a company claims to be the only Keepers of the Grail doesn't mean they are. Self-absorbed, vain, snobbish. They also only cook with water. They just don't show it anyone, which creates a secret and a self-proclaimed myth. The loser is the artwork and the artist, who at the time certainly didn't want some self proclaimed experts to demote his artwork or not. Expertise or not, it doesn't make the picture any less beautiful. The value of view stays the same. The buyer who only goes by monetary value and expertise hasn't understood art anyway. It's not about money, even if it helps the owner in this case. If you are really interested, you can also believe the scientific study... and enjoy the Renoir. If I would have the money, and would look for an original Renoir, I would more believe in the modern science as to a company who loves it to play with the Power they think they have
Sorry for being crude, but this is the french version of a pissing contest!! Wildenstein cannot accept that they maybe have made an error in the past. Wrongful pride...but, as the art world is little about the beauty of the works themselves anymore and more about money, it doesn't surprise me at all. Shame for the owners. But it's still a beautiful painting, and as an avid Monet-lover, I would be very proud to own it, even if it had only been carried past his house!
At 20 minutes I'm guessing it is real. They haven't showed a good close up of it but I like the provenance. I don't think I could tell a real Renoir from a master fake by examining it, but I would see things that a novice wouldn't. I looked super close at a Renoir at the Met in NYC. A painting of a girl playing the piano if I remember right, and the girl's blonde hair had a rainbow of colors in it but read as blonde. I was amazed. It was like a magic trick with paint. A rapidly executed painting by Renoir done on location might not contain any magic tricks, but there should be something special about it that sets it apart from other artists. Jumping ahead to see if I win. EDIT: Kill me. Experts can tell by the brush strokes if it's real. Not Renoir's style. Could be many factors in determining style.
Sounds like Wildenstein & Co. is run by a bunch of petty children. Maybe they were hoping for a little something to grease the wheels for an authentication? With their current record with the law seems like the art world and auction houses should be avoiding any dealings with Wildenstein at this point.
Shame on the politics between art houses when all the scientific evidence proves the Obvious! If they truly cared more about art and the withholding of this masterpiece from the public, now that would be an institution I could support!
It is interesting how in the art world the actual quality of a work is determined by everything except the work itself. A work you love is suddenly worthless when you find it's a "forgery." It's magical history is more important than what you saw. "Real art" is established by experts only, certainly not the viewers.
Here is we’re Wildenstein can be taken down. Someone should just ignore their judgement and go with the very well established existing provenance. If a few buyers start doing so, then they are fully discredited as experts.
I think everyone watching this knows the truth. All the Wildenstein did was damage their reputation. For me, their opinions count for squat. If they can do this with a genuine, they could also say a fake is real.
There is such rigorous testings & examinations how could one ever believe that what they have is a genuine painting? It is scary to me, one who goes to thrift stores. 😊
@Patrick Pierce - Except that the Picton Trust could have really used the money of the sale of a designation Renoir. Perhaps a private sale could be arranged with all the evidence presented here?
The Quantum Ego Minds of insecure Social Climbers. This painting is a Renoir, period. (Even I can feel Renoir an ocean away.) It is Authentic. Ethics matter Discernment not Judgemental, I dont personally know the people, "but I know Behaviors". Beth Bartlett Sociologist/Behavioralist and Historian
The Wildenstein Institute committee members have proven themselves ignorant of the facts in the past as well as with this case. Sad that others in the art world give them such credence.
It wasn't as close as the other sets though and the painting was not up to R's standard. The painting also looked rather skinned IF it is a Renoir. Where would the skinning have come from? During the relining? Do they even know who did the relining? There was just not much of a paper trail for the painting.
Wow …I went the rabbit hole and read on wildenstein. It’s fucked up they sound like a criminal organization. The fact that the still are in the game is crazy
Someone is going to get W&Co to back down and include it. A mistake is going to be found, the finder of that mistake will force them to review their questionable decision in this and other paintings. The art world is going to shake.
The provenance, the stamp on the canvas and the chemical analysis seem objectively conclusive. This subjective decision wreaks of a petty rivalry. Shameful!
So called art experts are behind the times. They are stuck with determining the authenticity of an art work based on progeny, signature, and, most important, technique. Their judgments on which work is authentic and not were made decades ago, largely based on catalogs, which they presume to be complete, which isn't the case always. Technology has revolutionized the way the authenticity of an art work is determined, but the art institutes would not have a word of it. Expert opinion yielding to scientific facts would bring the institutes down, and this is what the Wildenstein & Company would like to avoid. If only art works could speak, the earth would split open and swallow these institutes that are unjust to the artists and the purchasers of their works who helped these artists survive.
Just how would a computer know the difference between a fake of the right period and an authentic painting? There was no scientific facts brought out in this case.
The Wildensteins absolutely love…that they have the power to say what Is…and what’s Not !! I believe it’s a Renoir…The Owner Should Believe It Is!… and not think twice about what The Wildenstinkies say ! The Art World Needs A Completely New Set of Rules !!!
Some facts about the "Wildenstein Institute." "In 2011, a police raid discovered and seized 30 paintings valued at tens of millions of pounds from the Institute's Paris headquarters" "the Paris-based Wildenstein Institute-helmed by dealer Guy Wildenstein, who has previously faced charges for tax fraud and money laundering"
...on the basis of this programme itself, I would present the painting to the international market and let them make the decision ...if you need to sell it that is ...I've never seen more disgusting or high-handed behaviour in the art market ...I am disgusted
Who can be trusted anymore? I know nothing about most of this stuff, but if I ever came across something of value, I would not send diddly-squat without irrefutable identification. After watching this series, I would include *notarized* photos of the item, including the backing of a painting, with identifiable notable items highlighted, and with people holding it, showing it in identifiable locations accompanied with a FULL description of the item and its state of condition BEFORE sending it over to them! And, of course, I would ave multiple copies, at least one of them an original notarized, of said documentation kept in something like a bank safe deposit box.
Some of the early Impressionist paintings did look much like that, but if Renoir painted it, it must have been an extremely early work at the beginning of the movement, he found the subject matter boring, or he was just having a really bad day. I don't like the painting, obviously, but certainly don't the expertise needed to nail the producing artist.
I believe the Renoir expert -- it is a Renoir, but an early plein air study, and not a very good sketch (boat and man on boat out of proportion). Probably Renoir himself would rather not have this "practice" piece represent his talent.
Perhaps someone can help me understand relining. I had a painting restored on which the paint was falling in chips off the canvas. They told me they had relined it. I thought they told me they put wax right on the front paint, then peeled off the old canvas; then they glued the paint to a new canvas, and melted the wax to free the paint. So there is only one layer of canvas. Does this sound right? I'd love to know. It saved the painting.
@@richiejohnson l've done a fair share of research for people via google, and came to realise one can do it all by one's self. It's not hard, and l wasn't snarking. However, in keeping with your hostility, stay ignorant then.
@@Bearwithme560 OK Let me take you seriously for the moment. The usual definition of relining is the addition of a canvas on the back to reinforce old canvas. In this case, the paint itself was removed from the old canvas, and glued in toto to a new canvas. Would you care to justify your coment, or apologize? How fucking petty can you get? 🤩
They only make around 3 episodes per series, & for the first year of covid they didn't make any. It looks like perspective is licensing the back catalog, I hope so, there are many episodes up on youtube but not all of them from the last 11 years
The art market is like the stock market, given to temperament and emotion, rather than evidence and scholarship, it seems. Short of Renoir’s ghost popping up and saying, “I did it”, it seems that one group of “experts” won’t budge. To back down and admit they were wrong, is unthinkable. Loss of face! Horrors.
Have to wonder at the ego of an organisation that ignores the apparent legacy of the dealership of an artist since before they were *it*.... the visual arts are a vipers nest of misplaced greed whenever anything remotely associated with a "famous" artist (all forms visual arts) involved. If it isn't the buyers/sellers its the tax office... difficult to say what, if any, eventual profit the family would have seen even if it had been 'authenticated'. loving this series and the absurd lengths one has to go to prove ownership because of complete lack of 'trust, honesty and loyalty' from all sides involved.
When both monet and renoir paintings put together side by side. It felt like it's the other way around her painting is monet and it's the other painting that is renior. Could it be both masters swapped the paintings as gifts? They used to do that.
If you look at the prior scenes, they were obviously done at the same time in the same place. The two with the dubious painting didn't look like the same scene at the same time.
It seems to me they ignored all scientific evidence and provenance and simply didn’t want a less than perfect example of Renoir’s work to be attributed to him. Nothing was “real” until he became a master. Imagine if they were presented with the very first drawing DaVinci ever did, with undeniable proof that he drew it…and said it was not good enough to be included with his later works….so it wasn’t “real”…that’s what’s happening here I think.
What a bunch of BS reasons for Wildenstein & Co for not authenticating a well documented painting.. Not all paintings by artists (even masters) are gonna be pristine and coherent from one to the next, there are MANY variants for which a painting may be suspect: trying new colors, the urgency of painting outdoors, etc.. it was clearly a sketch and MANY artist don't sign sketches. Their decision was made PURELY out of pride just to stick it to the Bernheim-Jeune poeple.. petty bastards
This didn't hurt the painting, it hurt the Wildenstein. Their judgement cannot be trusted. All of the major auction houses should think twice about allowing Wildenstein to be the final arbiter.
Well said.
They behaved shamefully. They didn't even offer any substantial objection to all of the indisputable evidence that the team presented. Absolutely disgraceful. And infuriating. And not the first time, I'd add. Not the first time.
They have done this before their creditability is dashed major auction houses ought to disregard their opinions
Well stated. Their ego before proper educated evidence judgement. It’s terrible how they behave even with proper documentations.
The whole high-end art world as a whole is the problem. As Feona said that they were informed just publicizing their show on this artwork could damage the Artwork. If that's not art politic's BS !
This isn't the first time that the Wildenstein has shot down a painting on this show. In either the very first or second episode, they shot a painting down, regardless of the scientific evidence, because the head of the institute's father had just by looking at it decades ago, decided that it wasn't the real thing. The son makes the whole institute look like idiots. And this episode above shows their opinion means more than reality and science. This whole institute needs to be discredited as their catalogs are based on shoddy information and they need to be shunned by the entire art world.😑
I was incensed by that episode as well, particularly after all the evidence they chose to ignore, the Wildensteins need their status revoked.
@@amp279 They've gone 11 seasons in this show. Not since that first season episodeI described above, or this one, have they ever gone back to Wildenstein for catalog attribution. And they hold like 3 other major artist's catalogs. You would think that with that major scandal in New York's Knoedler gallery, that they would finally say all major artists from the eighties on down must have science for attribution versus the eyeball test. But the expense of scientific analysis still gives prestige versus science as the threshold. It makes the whole art-world today a travesty. That is, if we want to know that what we're looking at is the real thing. Thank god that the beauty of what we see is my lens. Not Widenstein types of idiots.
entirely agree! And this episode even makes clear that the current committee at the Wildenstein are doing this more for spite! It's not that the evidence is lacking but that they feel it appropriate to air dirty laundry in public, so to speak. Not "expert" at all, just petty and vindictive. They make themselves look small and silly.
Agree
I forget the specifics, but I remember in the previous episode, Wildenstein rejected the authenticity despite ample evidence. The Wildenstein clan are art terrorists, holding auction houses in their grasp.
In July 2011, Guy Wildenstein was charged by the French authorities with concealing art that had been reported as missing or stolen. The police seized 30 artworks from the vault of the Wildenstein Institute, at least 20 of which, including sculptures by the Italian artist Rembrandt Bugatti, two sketches by Edgar Degas and a pastel by Eugène Delacroix, were claimed to have been originally part of the collection of Joseph Reinach. Daniel Wildenstein had acted as executor of the estate of Reinach's daughter in 1972 and had been charged with responsibility for distributing the collection, which was held at the Wildenstein Institute, among the heirs.[6] Wildenstein was heard by a magistrate in October 2016 and denied all charges.[7] At trial in 2017, Wildenstein was cleared of hiding paintings, the trial judge said that there was a “clear attempt” by Wildenstein and others to hide assets but it was impossible to return a guilty verdict due to shortcomings in the investigation.[8] The prosecutors successfully appealed to the Cour de Cassation, and the case will be rejudged.
That kind of case could only come to light from the employees…usually these whistleblowers know the truth because the rich braaag about things…they laugh at the rest of the world because they know they can get away with just about everything!
@@beastshawnee - You don't know that and you may be putting somebody at jeopardy with your speculations.
Well obviously these guy's are above reproach. JFC!
Shows who they really are. Why are they still considered an authority?
Excellent share.
This is amazing yet not surprising, the entire subject reeks of a Narcissistic nature and your share further reveals this.
"Money" and "Ego" and "Connections" (I'd just bet the Rothschilds are involved in saving his arse') Yep.
Wildenstein should be put out of business for this type of power play. Not to mention the damage caused to people who did all the steps required for full attribution, only to be held out of pure contempt and ruthless power. Perhaps a class action lawsuit can be brought to pay for all the damages they have caused the art world and the people who had to put their trust in their narcissistic hands. Shame on you Wildenstein.
It almost sounds like a third House of Art needs to be out there, for a 'best 2 out of 3' option. This is the 2nd true-seemng genuine painting that the Wildenstein has turned down in the shows I've seen, despite overwhelming evidence. If they want perfect documentation, they need to relocate themselves to a perfect world. It was a painful decision for everyone.
The Wildenstein Institute has done this before despite a mountain of evidence concerning the authenticity of a painting. Why they are considered to be the final arbiter for major auction houses is beyond me. They appear to be snobbish incompetents.
Welcome to "fine art." When you help people of means launder enough money you'd stay in business as well.
you know why
Exactly. Why, do they determine the fate of art; greed and control over power .... abusing dead artist; how dirty.
20+ years ago I sent Christie's London auction house a beautiful winter oil painting by Vlaminck which was purchased at Charles Findley Gallery in Paris and it had the old Wildenstein label on the back. Christie's told us that we had to send them a check for $1750 and the Wildenstein sons would "reauthenticate the Vlaminck painting". The Wildensteins kept the money and removed their father's original label from the back of the painting's original stretcher and sent Christie's a short note that they weren't sure of the authenticity with no reason(s) explaining what it was they were not sure about. The result was that these criminal Wildenstein idiots destroyed our $ 100,000-plus painting which their dead father authenticated for a respected French art gallery.
Wow! Thank you for sharing.
You should have sued them. I think they are disgraced and defunct now so resubmit it to someone else, please!
Sounds like you got took by the Charles Findley Gallery in Paris. You can rest assured that the gallery no longer exists.
Wow. Sorry to hear this.
?Question? So sorry, but why did you not include *notarized* photos of the painting, including the backing, with identifiable notables highlighted, and with people holding it, showing it in identifiable locations and with a FULL description of the item and its state of condition BEFORE sending it over to them?
All the Wildenstein Institute has done by not accepting this as a genuine Renoir is undermine their own credibility as art connoisseurs. Their reasons are not proof - not even close. It is however proof of their arrogance and pettiness.
When Human Ego Minds, aka Lower Mind, block what would be the desired, 8e: the greater abundance of happiness, Wellbeing, financial growth, etc.
Ego is an expensive, addiction, fear based ideologies,cause of losses.
Very much "the Bully Syndrome" aka "Narcissist Personality Disorder"
A dear friend once expressed it so accurate: "They keep tripping over the Dollars trying to catch the Dimes."
That is a most difficult reality to have to observe. Even more disturbing when they do it because of money.
The Art World is a stage for observing, every aspect of the "Human Ego Mind" ...
Beth Bartlett
Sociologist/Behavioralist
and Historian
Tennessee, USA.
Yes, it undermines their credibility., and that should be publicised.
atrocious and appalling
Wildenstein was never going to admit that they made a mistake, it would damage their reputation.
A reputation for being idiots!!
You’ve hit the nail squarely on the head. Even though they have seen the scientific evidence and the historical records, Wildenstein just can’t bring themselves to say the other art experts in Paris were right and they are wrong. I am sorry, but that is a weakness.
Admitting a mistake never damages a reputation. However, NOT admitting a mistake ruins a reputation.
@@Crispy_Bee In photography , yes . But in the world of art experts admitting a mistake is professional suicide.
@@JohnP538 No it's not, seriously. Mistakes can happen and will happen, only when you revisit stuff, re-test stuff and verify your results will you be able to make a better judgement and find out whether something is real or a fake. Same goes for introducing new testing methods and technologies which may reveal new insights and may contradict the stuff you previously assumed. If an "expert" were to dismiss all evidence and refuse to properly examine something just because he might have to change his mind - how much credibility would he have? Stubbornness is not a sign of expertise, it's just a sign of a huge ego.
That rejection is absolutely obscene. A gross rejection of the facts.
The facts played no part in the original omission or the second one either. It was a simply exercise of power over logic. It was a "because I said so" type of exercise by the Wilderstein. The should be taken out of the decision by major auction houses. Their word is no longer any good.
Clearly, the criteria for catalog entry differs between Wildenstein & Company, and Bernheim-Jeune. Given the documentary, and the amazing provenance discovery, this painting is an unsigned sketch, by the hand of Renoir, without doubt! Thank you Picton Castle for sharing your story, and your painting. The sketch conveys an imitate perspective, it captures a candid development, and the creative trajectory of the artist---for us with an authentic passion for fine art to savor!
Yeah one of them accepts evidence and the other are incompetent
Probably the ownership, you know
I think the painting will get its day.
I haven’t seen that painting in person but I believe you and I believe the family. I believe there is a saying, “pride cometh before the fall” (or similar) and I think that art institution doesn’t want to back down and it’s a shame for everyone.
I think it is time for the authentication of paintings to be done differently. One person should never be the sole decision maker on a painting, and there should always be a group of people in collaboration deciding, based on all the different facts needed, experts, scientists, etc. With no room for ego or old feuds between people and institutions. As an artist myself, i find the whole process so weird anyway. And it is not about the art or the artist, it's just about the money. Sadly money takes away and distracts from the art in the end.
MAN that was brutal
learned a lot about the twin sketches and unfortunately, about the rivalry
I mean the canvas was from the DECADE it was supposed to have come from
and there is a Monet COMPANION painting, great video of course!
Wildenstein often comes out looking like jerks in these cases. They don't want to authenticate anything.
Wildenstein doesn't deserve to be an art institution if they are willing to let petty personal politics cloud objective analysis. Shameful.
@Aqua Fyre , thanks for this comment. This needs to be out there for all to see.
Clearly, Wildenstein takes great, personal offense at the premise behind the Fake or Fortune show.
I think they are scared because if they are wrong they can be sued but on this case they said no to stir up the French no regards for painting or painter 🇦🇺
My little heart was pounding, stopping, thrilled, terrified, disgusted at this ego trip some members of the great art institutes are on...every emotion went through me. Nicky, my gosh, you're one brave soul to see this through!
What I've learned from this show is that a lot of these so-called experts are just people with strong opinions. These institutes like Wildenstein. It's seems they don't care about provenance or evidence.
What I found most interesting is that fact that the later experts failed to comment on the confirmation of the paints used by Renoir and the canvass and offered no reason why this was discounted. This was just ignored in my opinion which was just criminal. I do know one thing, if you get two experts in a room you will always get a debate on which is black and which is white. :)
A shame that a great painting has been judged as if not by Renoir;politics and snobbery at work here ,methinks.
It probably is a Renoir. No signature though. Maybe not finished, but would Renoir give an unfinished painting to Monet? Sure, if Monet said, 'Hey, I like that'.
But we don't really know. Slipping someone an envelope could be the difference between thumbs up or down. But the big guns selling paintings for $100 million, Sotheby's, Christie's, Bankman Freid's, they have to maintain a reputation. Who is going to buy art for millions from a place that sells fakes? That even screwed up once?
snobs?...hahahaha....LOL....(now, that would that be wild, if proven)
I saw the comment before watching the episode
I felt sick when the verdict was read. My heart goes out to Ms. Phillipps. What a devastating conclusion.
If, for some bizarre reason, you want your love of art destroyed, your happy illusions torn to shreds, then go to work at an art museum or a gallery \ auction house. Curators with their petty ego based feuds;, manipulative and duplicitous art dealers - it is enough to make one ill.
The art game is brutal! Imagine how a little bit of doubt about authenticity of these paintings and the fact becoming public could affect the value of billions of Pounds worth of art.
Lets just make all real.Whats the deal
That little bit of doubt is not relevant for the art history. If it was just about researching the work of the artist, they could change their minds according to the evidence available. But the high money value exists because a work of art by a renowned master is a unique type of investment that is supposed to keep its value. If there is an off chance that it may lose all its value in the future, it s no longer a reasonable investment.
One of the best dramatic tragedy productions I’ve ever watched!
I feel filthy for feeling optimistic watching this program...that is, when the verdict is unfavorable.
We tried to watch the series because we love the art and science, but the outcomes were so tragic we went for something less heart wrenching. We may revisit them at some time.
Undoubtedly, a real Renoir!
trying t prove its authenticity through this program makes the painting so much more valuable. What a story behind this painting.
"Rivalry? In the art world??" 😂❤
the artist creates a painting and this is where the art stops; after that it becomes a commodity for everyone else who assigns an arbitrary value to it.
As an archeologist, I fund it enormously frustrating to see art historical research being ignored by somebody with a 'feeling'. Sue them :)
I can’t believe that auction house turned this print away . Art market should revisit this piece . Science proved its case . Shame on them . ❤
One cites facts, one cites personal opinions. That's insane.
You got that right !
I don't believe in Wildenstien...
A fascinating story! The painting doesn’t look in Renoir typical and best style…but…many artists evolved in their choice of their preferred style, especially when they were young. The friendship with Monet and duet of pantings showed an learning exchange of style. A shame this “sketch” was not signed…so its only a “maybe” I suppose 🤔 but great evidence was brought here to make it “very probably” 😉
@Redcoat's Return - It was a dueling, fast plein aire sketch, not a completely finished picture. Artists make fast sketches all the time. Hey --- artists out there --- you best remember to SIGN any sketch, doodle, or tracing you make in order to satisfy the Wildenstein Institute and not cause headaches for any future owners of your creation!
I would happily pay 300.000 for that painting if I had 300.000 laying around. Screw Wildenstein.
The evidence should discredit the Wildenstein that says its not, if its simply over a feud. The auction house should rethink their relationship with the Wildenstein institute if their egos are determining the authenticity of the work sold.
Wildensteins are clearly not qualified to evaluate art. They have been wrapped up in so many controversies and found to be incorrect on so many paintings. It's truly personal for them. The art world just needs to eschew them from even being a source of truth.
They are the number one authenticator. LOL, it was not a R. It was a fake.
@@annabellelee4535 And they still got it wrong. There is clearly more going on here. Wildensteins aren't being honest. It's personal for them.
@@sailingsvzara Why do you say that? They are the top authenticators in the world for a very good reason. They get it right and if they do make a mistake, they will correct it. There was nothing to connect that painting to Renoir. There has to be evidence or it's not authenticated. It's just the way it works.
why wouldn't the Bernheim buy it outright from Nicky, if they are so convinced as to its "authenticity"? its not in the millions, certainly they would want to keep it in their personal collection? no?
Oh I love this series! Keep making shows like these!
ANother breath-taking episode ! --- Amazing detective works !
What is sad is knowing there are art pieces out there that are from renowned artists that were never signed for whatever reason. Assuming that every piece was signed is ignorant within itself. When all other evidence and science lead to the development of a piece of artwork done by the artist, it is still a piece of art done by the artist. It sounds to me that Widenstein is more concerned about the monetary value and not the legacy of an artist.
I love her attitude in the face of disappointment. I believe it is a Renoir. Maybe in years to come when different people make the decisions of authenticity, there will be a positive outcome.
Probably not since Renoir is highly faked and that is a substandard Renoir.
Rivalry, a superiority complex and competition are what led them not to authenticate the painting.
What would be really cool, is that some collectors step toward, say art houses be damned, and offer Nicki a reasonable offer for the painting. This would help fund what that istoric house needs. They proved their case. Period.
Well Duh! They had enough evidence! Shame on Wildenstein!
What an interesting episode! I like this programme so much.
Fascinating show.
The story shows the hypocritical art world. Just because a company claims to be the only Keepers of the Grail doesn't mean they are. Self-absorbed, vain, snobbish. They also only cook with water. They just don't show it anyone, which creates a secret and a self-proclaimed myth. The loser is the artwork and the artist, who at the time certainly didn't want some self proclaimed experts to demote his artwork or not. Expertise or not, it doesn't make the picture any less beautiful. The value of view stays the same. The buyer who only goes by monetary value and expertise hasn't understood art anyway. It's not about money, even if it helps the owner in this case. If you are really interested, you can also believe the scientific study... and enjoy the Renoir. If I would have the money, and would look for an original Renoir, I would more believe in the modern science as to a company who loves it to play with the Power they think they have
Sorry for being crude, but this is the french version of a pissing contest!! Wildenstein cannot accept that they maybe have made an error in the past. Wrongful pride...but, as the art world is little about the beauty of the works themselves anymore and more about money, it doesn't surprise me at all. Shame for the owners. But it's still a beautiful painting, and as an avid Monet-lover, I would be very proud to own it, even if it had only been carried past his house!
Most excellent.
At 20 minutes I'm guessing it is real. They haven't showed a good close up of it but I like the provenance. I don't think I could tell a real Renoir from a master fake by examining it, but I would see things that a novice wouldn't. I looked super close at a Renoir at the Met in NYC. A painting of a girl playing the piano if I remember right, and the girl's blonde hair had a rainbow of colors in it but read as blonde. I was amazed. It was like a magic trick with paint. A rapidly executed painting by Renoir done on location might not contain any magic tricks, but there should be something special about it that sets it apart from other artists.
Jumping ahead to see if I win.
EDIT: Kill me. Experts can tell by the brush strokes if it's real. Not Renoir's style. Could be many factors in determining style.
the art “experts” are self aggrandizing pissspots quite often.
Nice use of the Daft Punk Tron soundtrack @51:12
Sounds like Wildenstein & Co. is run by a bunch of petty children. Maybe they were hoping for a little something to grease the wheels for an authentication? With their current record with the law seems like the art world and auction houses should be avoiding any dealings with Wildenstein at this point.
and so goes the art world
Spoilers in the comments. Don’t read if you want to relish the suspense.
Shame on the politics between art houses when all the scientific evidence proves the Obvious! If they truly cared more about art and the withholding of this masterpiece from the public, now that would be an institution I could support!
It is interesting how in the art world the actual quality of a work is determined by everything except the work itself. A work you love is suddenly worthless when you find it's a "forgery." It's magical history is more important than what you saw. "Real art" is established by experts only, certainly not the viewers.
Here is we’re Wildenstein can be taken down. Someone should just ignore their judgement and go with the very well established existing provenance. If a few buyers start doing so, then they are fully discredited as experts.
I think everyone watching this knows the truth. All the Wildenstein did was damage their reputation. For me, their opinions count for squat. If they can do this with a genuine, they could also say a fake is real.
There is such rigorous testings & examinations how could one ever believe that what they have is a genuine painting? It is scary to me, one who goes to thrift stores. 😊
Who cares what it is, as long as you love it and it brings beauty into your life.
@Patrick Pierce - Except that the Picton Trust could have really used the money of the sale of a designation Renoir. Perhaps a private sale could be arranged with all the evidence presented here?
The Quantum Ego Minds of insecure Social Climbers. This painting is a Renoir, period. (Even I can feel Renoir an ocean away.) It is Authentic.
Ethics matter
Discernment not Judgemental, I dont personally know the people, "but I know Behaviors".
Beth Bartlett
Sociologist/Behavioralist
and Historian
Wow. Unbelievable. I dont see how this one place can be the only exceptable authority. They way off.
The Wildenstein Institute committee members have proven themselves ignorant of the facts in the past as well as with this case. Sad that others in the art world give them such credence.
I don't agree with the out come but a very interesting and informative program.
To me the biggest visual evidence (the provenance is impeccable) is the twin with the Monet.
It wasn't as close as the other sets though and the painting was not up to R's standard. The painting also looked rather skinned IF it is a Renoir. Where would the skinning have come from? During the relining? Do they even know who did the relining? There was just not much of a paper trail for the painting.
Wow …I went the rabbit hole and read on wildenstein. It’s fucked up they sound like a criminal organization. The fact that the still are in the game is crazy
Someone is going to get W&Co to back down and include it. A mistake is going to be found, the finder of that mistake will force them to review their questionable decision in this and other paintings. The art world is going to shake.
What did the:
Montagues & Capulets
Wildenstein & Berheim-Jeune
Hatfields & McCoys
Have in common?
Money 💰, Religion, and Hatred
"From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean."
The provenance, the stamp on the canvas and the chemical analysis seem objectively conclusive. This subjective decision wreaks of a petty rivalry.
Shameful!
MADAME NICKY PHILIPS, HOW SAD, THAT A STUNNING, BEAUTIFUL LADY IS FORCED TO LIVE OUT HER DAYS UNDER A LEAKING ROOF.
So called art experts are behind the times. They are stuck with determining the authenticity of an art work based on progeny, signature, and, most important, technique. Their judgments on which work is authentic and not were made decades ago, largely based on catalogs, which they presume to be complete, which isn't the case always. Technology has revolutionized the way the authenticity of an art work is determined, but the art institutes would not have a word of it. Expert opinion yielding to scientific facts would bring the institutes down, and this is what the Wildenstein & Company would like to avoid. If only art works could speak, the earth would split open and swallow these institutes that are unjust to the artists and the purchasers of their works who helped these artists survive.
Just how would a computer know the difference between a fake of the right period and an authentic painting? There was no scientific facts brought out in this case.
The Wildensteins absolutely love…that they have the power to say what Is…and what’s Not !! I believe it’s a Renoir…The Owner Should Believe It Is!… and not think twice about what The Wildenstinkies say ! The Art World Needs A Completely New Set of Rules !!!
I always fear that items are the original but deemed a fake by mistake of judgement. Why destroy anything. Just record it.
Wildenstein seems too proud to admit wrong, therefore cannot be trusted.
How do you know they're wrong?
What's very clear from this episode is that the major Art auction houses are very foolish for accepting the verdict of the Wildenstein foundation.
Really a group of people can determine what is and what isn’t even though they have facts.
Some facts about the "Wildenstein Institute."
"In 2011, a police raid discovered and seized 30 paintings valued at tens of millions of pounds from the Institute's Paris headquarters"
"the Paris-based Wildenstein Institute-helmed by dealer Guy Wildenstein, who has previously faced charges for tax fraud and money laundering"
...on the basis of this programme itself, I would present the painting to the international market and let them make the decision ...if you need to sell it that is ...I've never seen more disgusting or high-handed behaviour in the art market ...I am disgusted
Do the tests again and make sure that at the last appraisal they did not screwed your painting up. Schnitzelstein are notoriously famous for that
We shouldn't feel sorry for huge inherited wealth.
Who can be trusted anymore?
I know nothing about most of this stuff, but if I ever came across something of value, I would not send diddly-squat without irrefutable identification.
After watching this series, I would include *notarized* photos of the item, including the backing of a painting, with identifiable notable items highlighted, and with people holding it, showing it in identifiable locations accompanied with a FULL description of the item and its state of condition BEFORE sending it over to them!
And, of course, I would ave multiple copies, at least one of them an original notarized, of said documentation kept in something like a bank safe deposit box.
I've been living in France for 20 years and I can attest to this kind of very French attitude.
Some of the early Impressionist paintings did look much like that, but if Renoir painted it, it must have been an extremely early work at the beginning of the movement, he found the subject matter boring, or he was just having a really bad day. I don't like the painting, obviously, but certainly don't the expertise needed to nail the producing artist.
I believe the Renoir expert -- it is a Renoir, but an early plein air study, and not a very good sketch (boat and man on boat out of proportion). Probably Renoir himself would rather not have this "practice" piece represent his talent.
Too much power, this decision sounds like it is based upon saving face. A independent house is needed.
Perhaps someone can help me understand relining.
I had a painting restored on which the paint was falling in chips off the canvas. They told me they had relined it. I thought they told me they put wax right on the front paint, then peeled off the old canvas; then they glued the paint to a new canvas, and melted the wax to free the paint. So there is only one layer of canvas.
Does this sound right? I'd love to know. It saved the painting.
Try a google search!
@@Bearwithme560 So you felt compelled to make a flip comment on a reasonable question. Well goody for you 🥳
@@richiejohnson l've done a fair share of research for people via google, and came to realise one can do it all by one's self. It's not hard, and l wasn't snarking. However, in keeping with your hostility, stay ignorant then.
@@Bearwithme560 OK Let me take you seriously for the moment. The usual definition of relining is the addition of a canvas on the back to reinforce old canvas. In this case, the paint itself was removed from the old canvas, and glued in toto to a new canvas.
Would you care to justify your coment, or apologize? How fucking petty can you get? 🤩
Usually they attached another piece of canvas to the back of the painting to stabilize it.
She says We don't care what they say, after asking them.
Why ask them.
Dr. Barndoor Growers is not afraid of Wildenstein
Leave it up to rich people to turn any rock into a most valuable thing.
A Renoir for 2 or 3 hundred pounds With respect …..that is cheap…love your work folks
The art world must decide to 'kaltstell' that stupid institute, just don't ask them anymore and go around them !
How stupid it is. People sent their collection to Wildebsteins, which decides it is a fake and won’t return it.
Paintings aside. Am I the only one with a schoolboy like crush on Aviva. She’s way older than me but she’s really enchanting
Hoping for a new one. Just a new title on an old show, again...
They only make around 3 episodes per series, & for the first year of covid they didn't make any. It looks like perspective is licensing the back catalog, I hope so, there are many episodes up on youtube but not all of them from the last 11 years
Hope that roof got fixed.
The art market is like the stock market, given to temperament and emotion, rather than evidence and scholarship, it seems. Short of Renoir’s ghost popping up and saying, “I did it”, it seems that one group of “experts” won’t budge. To back down and admit they were wrong, is unthinkable. Loss of face! Horrors.
Have to wonder at the ego of an organisation that ignores the apparent legacy of the dealership of an artist since before they were *it*.... the visual arts are a vipers nest of misplaced greed whenever anything remotely associated with a "famous" artist (all forms visual arts) involved. If it isn't the buyers/sellers its the tax office... difficult to say what, if any, eventual profit the family would have seen even if it had been 'authenticated'. loving this series and the absurd lengths one has to go to prove ownership because of complete lack of 'trust, honesty and loyalty' from all sides involved.
Could it be that the Wildenstein is trying to keep the value of the painting low so they can sneakily purchase it through a 3rd party?
When both monet and renoir paintings put together side by side. It felt like it's the other way around her painting is monet and it's the other painting that is renior. Could it be both masters swapped the paintings as gifts? They used to do that.
If you look at the prior scenes, they were obviously done at the same time in the same place. The two with the dubious painting didn't look like the same scene at the same time.
It seems to me they ignored all scientific evidence and provenance and simply didn’t want a less than perfect example of Renoir’s work to be attributed to him. Nothing was “real” until he became a master.
Imagine if they were presented with the very first drawing DaVinci ever did, with undeniable proof that he drew it…and said it was not good enough to be included with his later works….so it wasn’t “real”…that’s what’s happening here I think.
What a bunch of BS reasons for Wildenstein & Co for not authenticating a well documented painting.. Not all paintings by artists (even masters) are gonna be pristine and coherent from one to the next, there are MANY variants for which a painting may be suspect: trying new colors, the urgency of painting outdoors, etc.. it was clearly a sketch and MANY artist don't sign sketches. Their decision was made PURELY out of pride just to stick it to the Bernheim-Jeune poeple.. petty bastards