FAKE OR FORTUNE SE5EO3 AGUSTE RODIN
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2018
- An enchanting sketch of a dancer believed to have been drawn by Auguste Rodin is at the centre of an investigation that draws the team into a recent forgery scandal that has rocked the French art establishment.
Alice Thoday, a Lincolnshire resident with Belgian roots, inherited the rare watercolour from her mother and has always believed it to be part of a series of works Rodin drew of a Cambodian dance troupe which visited France in 1906. It could be worth over £100,000 if genuine - but the trouble is, Rodin is one of the world's most faked artists.
The quest to prove it is the genuine article takes the team to Paris and the Musee Rodin, where they search for stylistic similarities in genuine works. The provenance trail leads to Mexico City in the 1940s, where Alice's mother was given the painting by a businessman called Jimmy Heineman. Who was he and how did he get his hands on a rare Rodin sketch?
The deeper the team digs, the more worrying the evidence is about the extent to which Rodin's work has been faked by notorious forgers such as Ernst Durig, a Swiss-born sculptor who claimed to be Rodin's last pupil.
The team turns to scientific analysis and a handwriting expert in a bid to get to the truth. Will the world's foremost expert believe the picture is a missing sketch by Rodin himself, or a very clever fake? - Krátké a kreslené filmy
I think this lady is missing the real treasure she has, and that is the art of her mother. Her linocuts are special. Her mother had real artistic talent.
I wonder when those Cambodian dancers were in Europe how many other artists came to draw them, and whether there were students or other artists who drew alongside Rodin. I did not feel that this looked at all like the other examples of Durig’s work, which was not done from life. This drawing looks as if the hand that made it was in the presence of the dancer and was observing her in person. I agree that this is probably not a Rodin, but I think it is an obsession now in our contemporary world to see the art world as all about masters and fakers, but really in any artistic milieu there are other satellite artists, often working in the manner of and developing their own styles. One of the avenues not explored was whether Rodin did indeed have artist student followers and how likely tit was that they might have been present at these sessions. There is also the possibility that this was not meant to be a copy but instead was done by a real artist and someone later saw a resemblance and added Rodin name. A little more fantastical maybe is that this far better drawing insomdway was Durigs inspiration to make his forgeries. Some things get lost in the sands of time and we cannot connect them. I am very surprised that there was not a way of comparing papers to see if indeed there were samples that matched this. Another avenue also not explored was a pigment analysis to see whether or not Rodin used pigments that matched, maybe spectrography might have revealed a little more. I am with Bendor on this, regardless of the expert, this is done by a very skilled artist, it has a distinct life of its own. That is something forgers are only very rarely able to reproduce. So I really do think this piece should not be relegated to being a forgery, but rather being by an unknown artist, working in the manner of Rodin.
Personally, I thought that Alice Thoday's watercolor was more beautiful than any of the others that were shown. Her dancer had a singular beauty that surpassed all the others.
Agreed indead!
Yes! I thought the same.
Agree. The Durig's were clumsy. Also, asking the opinion of a person that has a reputation built upon finding fake Rodins has a predictable result.
The expert did have access to Durig's and it is disappointing that she didn't say, "Durig got better over time" or something and show one which might explain her thoughts because Durig's fakes looked miles apart in talent and MOMA not allowing the comparison to the Durig really is more than disappointing.
This picture looks nothing like the other forgeries!
Its much more alive, well composed and dynamic.
The arms are totally different. The hands are not so bend up.
It breathes dynamic , lightness and inner strenght.
Keep it until there is better technology for verification.
Well this pic can still be fake, but style-wise it is so different from the 2 forgeries shown that it looks like something from a different and a much more skillful forger rather than Durig.
@@AsianDramaniac In 1971 a Stanford PhD student named Varnedoe wrote a dissertation on the forgeries of Rodin. He concluded that there were in fact 3 forgers: Durig, and two others he referred to as "Hand A" and "Hand B." Both worked in France. Durig's life was pretty wild.
@@AsianDramaniac it does not have to be a fake to not be a Rodin. It could be the work of a bona fide artist also drawing the same subject. The signature could easily be a fake added much later.
I love watching the series I am trying to catch up with the rest of the episodes Great work.
It's a beautiful drawing, elegant, and with a lovely air about it. The signature did not look authentic. But, there is real art is in the drawing.
@Picksalot - The video spoke to the signatures on Rodin's works on paper when the woman said that if a drawing was unsigned and the receiver wanted it done, he would often tell them that they could write in his signature themselves.
Ken Endwards Pottery was made in Mexico now in Guatemala. Kens art teacher at Kansas State U. is believed to have been a student of A. Rodin.
My wife and I just watched this. It was interesting to me how much our reactions matched many of the comments below. In our view the drawing was better than any of the Rodin's or Durig's we were shown. It seems to be something genuinely original and fluid when compared to the Durig's and it was more precise than Rodin's work. But with what we were shown it could have been by Rodin, Durig or somebody else. Provenance and technical results would have been essential to any clear cut determination of authenticity. As it was the fake signature, the stylistic concerns of the expert and the complete lack of any plausible provenance suggest strongly that it was a fake. It might not have even been an intentional fake by the artist. Somebody else could have added the signature without the artist's knowledge.
Keep it lovingly. 100 years from now, some other expert could very well conclude it to be genuine.
Do keep it lovingly. But the signature part is actually more essential than it may see to a casual viewer.
Thanks for posting these videos. I found this show on Netflix but there’s only four episodes of one season, which i binge watched in two days, so finding more on CZcams was great! Of course they dramatize much of the show, but it’s still a good watch.
I watched on Netflix too!!! Wish all episodes were on there!!! I hate watching these on my phone.. and Netflix has so much garbage on their site !!! Why not this educational, interesting , cogent program!!! Someone snatch this series up and continue. !!!!!!
@@finasullivan2311 BBC has a tight lock on their content making much of it unavailable outside of the UK.
i agree with you. And I certainly have learned a lot about how to forge paintings, a skill I am not good enough at to fool anyone.
The figure has something like a griddle made of wire wrapping about the midriff of the dancer (black crayon). This is even more prominent than the water color wash. 40 mins into the show, I have to admit that there is an 'S' curve motif to the drawing under study that comes across as masterful. So, 'where do you start to separate what's fake from what is not'? Easy... q-u-a-l-i-t-y. Like we see in the rendering of the hips and waist. Of course, we must interject, that while there is 'science' to pigment and paper, what makes 'expression' unique is that there is no science to it. Or at least, no more science than there is to a fingerprint. Although in the artistic product this 'fingerprint' is always on the change, never looking the same as it morphs into the next stage of the artist's development. Always transforming itself into the 'new'. It is a confident drawing. But it would be fitting to see a comparison with Duric drawings, showing the similarity among them and the 'fakes'. Once a work is deemed to be a fake, we should be shown comparative proof that it is so.
Nothing like the sample of drawings by the known forger we were shown. I would like to have seen more of the authenticated cambodian dancers.
Just superb! As a French collector, owning since 30 years one fake/genuine Rodin drawing I highly apreciated the story, including your own in-house appraisal which I like many fully share. I am still surprised that the paper and pencil do not meet the micro material examinations offered to paintings to confort or deceit the hoped attributions. Sincerely
The paper would have been later on the fake, than the original, the same water colour would have been reused on other drawings. If one of a number of fakes, would the fake signature match the other fake ones.
@@stephenarbon2227 Shout out to the algorithm, bringing this four year old programme to our attention
Thanks for uploading!!
There is a very nice collection of Rodin sketches at Mary hill museum in Washington state. Lovely fluid works.
Fabulous study. Well done to all involved and thank you.
Thank you for your channel
I think what is so wonderful....is how much the Cambodian dancers intrigued and excited Rodin! They captured his thoughts and desire to get the motion on paper. Fascination for him zat a later stage of his life!
If you analyzed my signatures over the past 20 years you'd find that I'm about 600 different people.
Me too!
It looked good to me. The foreshortening of the dancers right arm was pretty good and different from the known forgeries.
I'm an artist who studied figure drawing for years, I've done over 10,000 drawings I am sure. It is not easy to copy that style, it takes years to get that fluidity with confidence in the lines.
The fakes were pretty good, especially the one at 40:07. Look at the head at 40:07. That is very good drawing. The nose has two defining lines, a thin, concave line to the left that would define the head as more profile and possibly looking away, then just to the right a thicker line that would define the head as turning towards the viewer. It describes motion but also might describe exaggerated stereoscopic vision. I believe that drawing to have been done with a live model. Would a forger hire a live model dressed in Cambodian dancer garb?
Agreed...the dancer was so much more solid and confident than the forged sketch of the nude.
That begs the question, if we know the same person is determining what is and isn't a forgery on subjective expertise, because they believe the artist only drew in certain ways, then how can we be sure that another expert later will make same call? I think the lesson to take away from these programs is never to rely 100% on expert's evaluation unless there is some scientific data to back it up. At some point the decision may be reversed.
So buy art because you like it, fake or not. The only reason you may want to know authenticity is either for sale or insurance value. When a fake is so good that it even is difficult for professionals to know what they're dealing with, it is still a piece that is amazing to look at and took skill to produce.
@NELSON X - If a forger could make money by doing so, of course they would hire a dancer to use as a model.
regardless, real or not, its beautiful
The Musee D'Orsay is such a wonderful museum. I was able to visit but unfortunately only for a limited time because of the hour of closing and the bicycle race. Such a wonderful collection! There are also gypsies that try to rip tourists off. One of them tried to convince me to take a ring that was spotted in front of the museum. I told her that since we both saw the ring that she should keep it! She wasn't happy. lol I am sorry for the owner of the drawing. I think it is quite beautiful and that the restaurant owner truly believed he was giving her mother something of great value.
@
Jessica Martinez - I find it hurtful that "Gypsies", a slur, are always so maligned. How do you know that this was a Romani person and not a non-Romani scammer? And why don't you call these people by their real name of Romani? Please be more careful in how you choose to belittle a people in the future. Thank you.
..................
I was once offered an item for sale in Mexico. The man in the booth began haggling and gave me a final price that he said was less than the price he had paid for it. I told him then, no, I could never take advantage of him in that way. He was fuming as I walked away.
Heineman, who gave it to the owner’s mother, is now known to have possessed fakes. Dürig, the guy who Heineman got it from was a forger. There is no chance that this drawing is real especially after the handwriting expert gave it the coup de grace.
That's so sweet, the Dancers were his Joy at such a Late Hour of his Life! :)
So educative and interesting.
Don't look this lovely drawing as a fake Rodin, but as a real Durig.
It is a lovely painting
Cathie - your comment is excellent and worth thinking about - "forgery"" or not, there's a family story there that is worth something surely. As you say, isn't her mother's art just as important. I haven't seen the result of the French opinion, while I write this. I thought it looked rather better than some of the other "fakes"
There’s an obvious third option as to why he gave her mother a Rodin…two bohemians; a handsome, married cafe owner and beautiful, married artist? I don’t think you have to be an Old Master to connect those dots.
the connection to Kerouc seals that
That's exactly what I thought!
I don't know about the verdict on that one - I'm sure the expert they brought in is extremely knowledgeable, but Bendor seemed kind of ticked off and like he thought something was off with that one - at any rate, thanks for posting! My mom got me going on these on Netflix and I'm really enjoying them :)
I agree with most of the comments. The signature is the only thing that may have tipped it out of favor. I don't have the same signature all the time.
This one wasn't even remotely similar
@@giuseppenero110 - And also consider that Rodin frequently told recipients just to add a signature for him.
If I owned a piece of art over which there was some question as to whether it was an important work, I would want to know the truth. However, I think that I would be unhappy if a work that I loved was genuinely valuable. I would know that I could not keep it in the conditions that such a piece demanded. The sale money would, of course, be a lovely bonus, but I would lose something that I loved.
Many years ago my uncle and I each bought paintings by an artist who lived next-door to my cousin. He went on to be a popular painter, and his work became rather valuable. I have inherited my uncle's painting, and together they are worth a considerable sum, but I ignore that, and fairly successfully manage to forget it most of the time. To me the pictures themselves, and the family connections are far more important. I like seeing them on my walls, and I also get pleasure from knowing that my heir will benefit from their value.
With no provenance, a dodgy signature and a man who supposedly gave it to a painter in exchange for some work in his cafe, I suspect the Rodin expert was always going to err on the side of caution.
Modern art can be exciting, brilliant. Thank goodness those have to copy art to make money don’t have enough creativity to give birth to something new. I love fake or fortune. I have learned a huge amount of art history, became familiar with artist I didn’t know, and the science involved if necessary to distinguish true or faux art. I wish there ware DVD’s to buy.
Fakers make new versions of paintings all the time. They will, of course, study the artist for inspiration but the idea is to create something new that is just familiar enough people think it could be an undiscovered work. It's actually a pretty tricky process looking like the artist but not exactly like something they've already done.
I don't think it was faked by the forger-er in the show. It is too life like with volume. The fakes by that guy are wimpy . I think even if it isn't a Rodin, it is still a good drawing. What is the value of art anyway? It should be owned by someone that loves it and is drawn to it. Too much of art is the Emperor's clothes. There was a previous show that had a painting inside another painting that was bought by the art dealer on this show. When they showed the full length portrait, the lady said "oh how beautiful it is" while I thought "that's a terrible painting with the shoulders and arms out of proportion" But she was willing to ooh and ahh over it because it was worth 7,000. The end result was that only the area from just below the shoulders and above the head were painted by a famous painter. (and his studio) striped of over paint, it had strength and correct proportions.
I don't think that Alice should believe the critic.
@artisaallthat - Art is so very subjective that what you dislike will surely be deeply loved by someone else. Is the painting you are referring to the one of Queen Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles I of England by van Dyck? If so, I, too, find the revealed, overpainted image to be much better quality than the cover-up and more beautiful. The superficial subject is not the only reason to love or hate a paining, but the whole image overall and the context and historic times of the image. Then there is the technique of the artist, the quality of the materials used, and condition of painting. A lot to consider.
Yet that signature...
The signature was what sealed it to me
A lot of sculptures attributed to Rodin were thought to be done by his wife, according to accounts from close family members.
Far more detailed than those we saw of the authenticated Cambodiennes.
I have no idea if the expert's judgment was right or not, But that drawing did seem a lot better than the other examples of Durig, like the goal he was aiming for but couldn't. Nor did I notice that Durig was very good at capturing the spirit of the dance the way Rodin could and that drawing did effortlessly.
I have also noticed a running theme throughout these programs that so much comes down to subjective judgment of ONE person in deciding art. While I get that art is subjective, this seems very extreme, especially as we all, experts included, KNOW how wrong on both sides (fake or genuine) they have been in the past and will be in the future. Surely it is sensible that there be not ONE subjective authority to decide these things that nobody argues with.
Hello from British Columbia Canada 🇨🇦🖐🌲🤴🐻🤠😂🐖🕶🚐🦝🌳🌲
no way that looked like the other two fakes.....I think the expert was wrong
A handwriting analysts said the signature wasn't Rodin's, the leading expert on Rodin said it wasn't Rodin's, AND the man who gave it to her mother was proven to have met and socialized with the known forger and you still think it's somehow genuine?
The two fakes were probably some of Durig's weakest work. You can't judge about his capabilities from his greatest failures - which still proved to be good enough to be genuine Rodins.
I think it’s an Elmyr. Oftentimes his fakes were better than an original.
Thanks!
Hare Krishna.
A little bit conflicted that Fiona talks about ‘HOY’, a Mexican magazine. She refers to it as a south American continent magazine…. Ehmmmm México is not in South America.
There was another magazine called hoy, a Chilean one, but they were not the same.
However, love that they mention a great Mexican artist like María Izquierdo.
Gracias por subir este contenido 🖤
A slip up, meaning Latin American, no doubt
I always consider two things when asking an expert to authenticate something that has fooled so many. The first is I recognize that an expert is a person that has spent most of their adult life studying, researching and reading about a certain subject, be it a work of art, the climate, sports, politics whatever. Then I also ask myself what is the expert getting from their decision, revealing is it something real or fake. In this woman's expert opinion she's not getting money or anything. Just what does she think is it real or not!
She said it was a fake, and yes, she is paid for authenticating artwork.
I love Rodin's style and artistic characteristics and i would be very surprised if their verdict end up by saying this is a genuine piece. I can't believe that this is from Rodin.
Since the art piece is not signed then the fake status lies on the people themselves for assuming it was from Rodin.
the difference between a genuine rodin and a copy is essentially metaphysical
@The HolographicSweater - Yes, I think so, too.
I agree with Bendor. I still like it.
Its still wonderful.
The first fakes where terrible, worse than a 1st year fashion student learning proportion with bad spide hands ..
This picture just dwarfed them with its sheer presence.
I know nothing about this artist bit i know what was the stand out in that lot by a mile .
Then they had this piece being investigated next to the known fake watercolors by the man that was known to be the fraud claiming to be his last student , this work was full of life and movement that the others just lacked compleatlly .
They where lifeless as the soul that thought they could pass this rubbish off as art.
I must add as a trained dancer there was only one watercolour of a woman in the real moment of the dance out of those 3 and its this one they are investigating !
Unless you are trained and dance a particular stlye, be it any stlye, its the small nuances of the placement of the hands and feet that the only expert on the postion in this pose was that fantastic professional dancer that could name the pose like it was a staple , a base move of most of her traditional dances.
If you seen a picture of a arabic woman dancing , would they do a hand movent of the thumb and forefinger together with them rest of their fingers splayed out kind of making a peacock head ?
Bet you can picture it right now off an epic old movies made for the silver screen with harems and beautiful dances doing the dance of a hundred silk vales.
Well the truth is you wont find a true belly dancer trained in any of the middle easten countries doing this hand gesture as it is a hand gesture of prostitutes to say they are for sale and no self respecting dancer would lower themselves to use it but old hollywood would lead you to belive this is how they danced in the exotic east... you get my drift .
If that highly acclaimed professional dancer says thats real dance i belive her.
But fake or not , compaired to the ones that fooled the expert's for so long , id rather have this fake ... such life in the simple lines, id hang it on my wall if they dont want it as i see this to be the most interesting watercolour or sketch they had shown in the whole episode.
Of course its a fake and the bloke who gave it away for a bit of waitress work knew it too.Who gives away a genuine Rodin?
I believe he thought it was genuine. He was already a rich man with properties and businesses in the U.S., so the monetary value didn't matter to him. I suspect he was more likely trying to ingratiate himself on a very attractive women.
It wasn’t a bit of waitress work, he commissioned a known artist to help decorate his very fashionable restaurant, even back then that kind of work was valued.
@@lindyashford7744 Sorry ,you lost me ,so it's real then ,not a fake ?
@@Dave062YT well that is not really for anyone commenting to do, we cannot authenticate it. But it could be a real artists work, well I think it is anyway, it is too good not to be, but maybe Rodin was not the artist. But it is not a fake because the artist did not intend it to be seen as a Rodin. Signature added later….
@@lindyashford7744 If I was an aspiring artist I would sign every piece myself .Wouldn't you?
I'm not going to go to a farmer to perform brain surgery and I'm not going to ask a doctor to grow the crops I need to eat. Experts are right at least 90% of the time. Unless they're getting paid to lie.
Makes me not trust the expert at all. I could see why she might not be willing to name it a Rodin without more evidence, but it was so much closer to the real Rodin images than to the Durig ones which were shown and having the "expert" say the opposite is genuinely disappointing. I didn't expect her to accept it as a Rodin, but the other expert saying, "It is a good one" and Durig's were not nearly as good as what she had. I don't respect that process.
Durig made some really high quality work too though. I think they cherry picked images to umph up the suspense.
What else can they do? Without a good enough paper provenance it's totally up to looks--and the expert is going to be very hesitant to accept any new works based on looks alone.
I don't care for their routine right before the opening of the verdict/envelope at the end, where they always try and draw the owner into a doom and gloom response if their art isn't genuine. They emphasize the negative. They do it all in the episodes
That is NOT a Dureg forgery!
I really wanted this to be genuine but the signature verification sunk it for me.
8:30 the nails??!!!
What ever happened to the study of the paper?
It’s doesn’t look the same as the works of the Durig... Hers is more fluid.. and the coloring is different.
Why they didn’t check on the quality of the paper if it’s the ones used to wrap food or something as mentioned earlier on.
I disagree with the conclusion here. The forgers work never attains the beauty of the image at hand.
Are you claiming there is no such thing as a fake? It's a forgery, and Durig's work is so good that it's tricked museums.
I disagree with Christina for these reasons the few fakes they showed were clunky and angular. They appeared forced,heavy handed, and two dimensional.Surely the professional could see that. Where the Rodin was flowing with a more graceful easy hand it was not forced. As well it had movement, volume and space. Which a true sculptor will add in his sketches. I'm totally befuddled.
The ego one has to assert definitively the authenticity of a great artists's work. Oh my.
I suspect Mr. Mould's credulity is not nearly as great as he puts on for this show. The signature does not seem to be at all similar to Rodin's, as the expert points out, and Mould would have perceived that from the start, but there was an episode to produce. What's surprising is that Durig did not write a more credible signature. Ah well, he was a busy forger.
I think Phillip knew it was a fake from the beginning.
I wish they hadn't been so Eurocentric about this! For heaven's sake, why didn't they go to Mexico City?! I guess they didn't have the imagination to do the obvious thing. (Or maybe their budget?)
What's in Mexico City now? Everyone is dead who was involved in either the faking side or the gifting side.
Seems that Durig is not always consistently bad. You could find a bunch of really ugly artworks by, say, Beltracchi, but it doesn't prove that he is uncapable of doing amazing world class art. I do believe the fame of Durig makes most people show his worst works, not his better ones, so this is a very unfair way of judging.
The truth is that modern art has no real skill. It makes it very easy to make forgeries. It also highlights the world of art as being very shallow when it elevates unworthy artistry. It makes names of artists who in some respects didn't' deserve to be elevated in the first place. Fakery will continue until art returns to demanding art which shows a level of real skill.
To be successful with “ modern art” you need well known backers, not skill.
@@randykirkland3927 Exactly.
Are you really suggesting that Rodin had no skill and therefore could be faked easily. Artists work in many different ways during the stages of their process. There is a most definite skill to making very brief life sketches and capturing the subject well. You should not write off modern art or artists so churlishly. Have you ever seen Picasso’s notebooks for his modern masterpiece Guernica? His classical skills are in no doubt whatsoever, but he was interested in far more than that. No one expects a lightening fast sketch to be like a classical oil painting. The skill is in the artists mind and hand for both.
@@lindyashford7744 Modern masterpiece that is easily faked. That is a huge problem in the art world. Unless a piece comes with providence it's most likely a fake. I don't say all I'm just saying most. It's a scandal of massive proportions that means that paintings you see in an art museum are likely to be fakes.One example is Van Gough Sunflowers. He made several but one, in particular, has come under suspicion. It was sold to someone in Japan for millions. In New York, someone through an agent said they represented someone who had a private art collection they then start to release unknown works from several modern artists. They sold for millions and were all fake. You may love the work of Picasso and Rodin but the piece you are looking at might be a lie.
@@juliebear1505 I did not post about whether or not work has been wrongly attributed or has been faked, I posted about the OP regarding Rodin as not having any talent. Both Picasso and Rodin chose not to work only in classical formal ways, but as artists to explore all sorts of means of expression. It is easy to dismiss modern art if you do not understand it and cannot see that not all artists want to be mere copyists, but want to explore the world of ideas as well. Because they did nearly everything in our modern world was transformed, a lot of contemporary design is directly a result of the doors they opened up, sometimes in surprising ways. Frankly
I would rather view almost any of their and their fellow modern artists than yet another simpering Madonna with child painted ‘in the manner of’ one of the old masters, they are often treasured and valued without the least bit of irony, since essentially copying art is one of the oldest forms of imitation in the world. The markets are totally sewn up to the point of being outrageous. I am an artist myself and have been looking at art for many decades, as other artists do. For me has the work got merit, and is it pleasurable to the owner is more important than its provenance. Most of us have prints in our homes anyway replicas, and it is said a great deal of other things are also replicas, or fakes, so the real thing can sit in a bank vault somewhere. I do not think any of these objets were made in that spirit, and bank vaults are very joyless places.
This may be a bold statement, but this might be the most ridiculous FOF episode of all.
@45:35 ...priceless!!!!
The least convincing piece in all the FoF episodes I've watched, but I think it's still a lovely picture!
Guessing that Michelangelo is more famous than Rodin but you really need to move away from the superlatives. There are tons of great artists out there without them being the greatest, the best, the most well known.
The art world is largely a confidence game.
Can anybody help me what Provinos means? They keep mentioning it but I couldn't understand it and it isn't even showing as a meaning on the Web. Would be very kind of you if you do so. Thanks.
How it got from the artist to the current owner and it’s previous owners history and how it’s been obtained..to make sure it is genuine.
@@kaisanderson9616 ooh rite that makes total sense. Thanks alot dear.
The word they're saying is "provenance" - the place of origin or earliest known history of something.
@@harpychoir oh thank you very much.
Provenance - origin
too good to be a fake i agree
Nothing is too good to be a fake. What one man can create, another can reproduce.
Coz won't bow to evil.... . . .... ...
Well, the drawing is nice, but no cigar. Like a lot of people. I could do a version of it, that I would like better. How do we know that Rodin was always paying attention to what he was doing. Some drawings by Leonardo da Vinci, look pretty sloppy.
32:49
What a faker .... just look at his imitation of Larry !!! HA!!
Dynamism is fake ah
Keep trying! Never know it may turn out to be a fortune. :(
Your assuming all the works in the museums are the REAL drawings. But we already know that’s not always the case. I find you all need to remember things said throughout your episodes and take all situations into consideration. And PLEASE. Don’t send anything to France for affirmation. Good lord. Enough already
The hands are very creepy
I have watched Asian dancers and it is remarkable what they can get their fingers to do .
Why couldn't the French woman analyze the paper? She seems to give up after not finding any watermark. As if that's the only clue.
I know technology in France hasn't evolved after WW II, except for the introduction of the modern toilet in 1985, but even the French have access to forensic methods, or at the very least a microscope. All you have to do is compare the paper of a known authenticated sketch, a few known fakes and the sketch presented by Mrs Thoday.
How do you know that Rodin used only one kind of paper, especially when you know that he forgot his drawing paper when he followed the dancers and used other types of paper.
@@annabellelee4535 I didn't write that he used only one kind of paper. I suggested to compare the paper used for the sketches with the paper presented by Mrs Thoday.
@@jacquesmertens3369 Why would you damage a piece of artwork when there is nothing to be gained from it? To test paper is to destroy it.
@@annabellelee4535 A microscope doesn't damage the paper. The French are just super lazy, as usual.
@@jacquesmertens3369 They looked at the paper. There was no watermarks. What do you think they would find in MACHINE made paper?
"duerig", "heinemann" - why do we have to miss your nazi-footage this time?
czcams.com/video/YQFWdpgIcPY/video.html
this was the only episode were - comments - were turned off. what were they afraid or worried about? sure, the subject was VERY controvers. but i think the series and episodes are strong enough to be able to handle that. or were there so many negative and hateful comments, that had nothing to do with the picture as such, that the - comment- section had been turned off?
Afraid of nothing LOL there just turned off
@@mightwenotbehappy no. there is far more behind that. i will not reply. because i know youtube will turn off my post as well. Na*i, Je**sh, Opp**hei**r, K**Z and the likes, are all words that one is not to touch on youtube or in any social media. You get as reply that it is against community standards, that viewers might get upset. and your post is than either - under review - or not posted. There are, is or was, a certain media group i n Germany were -Journalists - had to sign a certain -contract-. it was on the Internet a long time ago,has been taken down, the company denies it that it ever existed. And i regret that i haven't taken a copy of that --contract.You-- were not allowed to write negative about certain countries or people. but could - smear- who was not - in the establishment -.Unfortunately youtube also has gone that way. i have nothing against censorship or - monitoring -,what a nice word, it is being so misused these days.
Perfect in a ocean of trash
its rodin
in your dreams.
An "expert" and she ISN'T using cotton gloves?.............
Oh please, everyone knew it was fake.
The one thing that every art dealer and auction house never want to hear a wealthy client say : This painting is a counterfeit, I've been taken for a fool! FAKE OR FORTUNE
Same comment in every episode? One that doesn't quite make sense.
sorry it is a RODIN
Sorry but it's a Durig.
drug's fake @39:49 is awful and not very Cambodian. I wonder. that signature looked faked. Could it have been unsigned and signed afterwards? I also wonder: he did 120+ drawings in what two days? Is it reasonable to expect all are of the clear hand of the master? Is that not too much to expect? too bad she did not judge it to be a work she could neither defend nor debunk. But she did not. She. rejected outright.
If it can't be positively identified as a Rodin, then it's rejected completely. It's just the way it works. The majority of art is fake.
AUGUSTE check your spelling!
Maybe Diego Rivera gave it to Freda Kahlo who gave it to Errol Flynn who gave it to Leon Trotsky who gave it to the man who ran the restaurant who gave it to the painter who left it to her daughter - They were all in Mexico City around the same time and it was a much smaller city and smaller artistic world back in the 1940s.
The one thing you guys never do is get a handwriting expert. Signatures are truly the tell all. Come on. Get on it. !!!!!!
They did, he said it wasn't Rodin.
An excellent Series but Fiona Bruce is so, so annoying, almost setting herself up as a know-it-all 'specialist on so many subjects !!! The series really needs someone a little more willing to listen and not so much foisting their 'faux' 'opinion/s' on the audience !!!
BUGGER OFF, i like her
@@davidroosa4561 Proof Positive of low intelligence - If someone else's opinion doesn't suit, then resort to abusive language !!!