FAKE OR FORTUNE S011E04 ARSHILE GORKY
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 10. 2023
- Fiona Bruce and Philip Mould investigate a murky canvas that could be by Arshile Gorky, a pioneer of abstract expressionism. Works by this Armenian-American artist fetch millions at auction, but there is one major hurdle in the way of owner Liza Dunluce realising its fortune - the canvas is covered in white paint.
Please keep Fake or Fortune rolling! It's so difficult to find intelligent and stimulating programmes, and this has now become one of my favourites. 🤩
@garyallen8824ah yes, the annoying ‘vocal fry’ that is hard to listen to, plus is potentially damaging their vocal chords. I’ve had it happen to me as a result of a bad cold and had a singing teacher give me advice to clear it.
@garyallen8824 That is a good idea. I don’t know if they can hear it to know it needs fixing.
I agree. It is so hard to dig up some good videos on art subject. 🌞
❤ I love Fake or Fortune also! It’s addictive. I think Fiona and Phillip are the best hosts.
Sorry more hospital based dramas are required. You can never have too many.
Throughout this series, one thing IMO is immediately apparent - the legitimacy of these so-called art committees -- It is they that should stand the test of Fake or Fortune
They are all in it together the committees, the museums, the auction houses, the insurance companies. Ive read that up to 25% of art in museums are fakes especially in the modern art. Its the “experts” saying it not an original based on 100% subjective criteria ignoring data and science backing the premises that its real. Just think of the embarrassment on top of the insurance $$$ cost
I totally concur.
Yes, just think Wildenstein Institute that fled France, going to America, to quite possibly avoid inheritance taxes and also may have ruled on the authenticity of some works for personal gain. There are articles on the web about some of the Wildensteins who appear to have hidden a vast fortune around the world going back generations. The Gorky Foundation may or may not be as self serving or apparently corrupt as the Wildensteins might be, but certainly seems to suffer from the same hubris.
Of course, these self appointed catalog raisonne holders and protectors are aided and abetted too often by the huge art auction firms who make huge $ because of these shenanigans. All of these self interested entities are in it for only two reason: money and power. And, as we all know, money and power corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
@garyallen8824 Why did put catalogues raisonnes in quotes? Are you implying that those of the Wildenstein Institute are not valid? CRs are only compendiums of known works and are not meant to be exhaustive, and certainly can't be used to exclude potential candidates.
But I'm curious as to how you think artworks should be judged for legitimacy if not by a committee of experts or family dedicated to that. There has to be some authority to make judgements so that buyers can have some assurance that what they are purchasing is real. I think it is much better to reject indeterminate works than to allow in counterfeits, although I agree that some take that too far.
@garyallen8824 If I were an artist concerned about my legacy, I wouldn't care much if some works went unrecognized; they'd most likely be minor works. I would hate it, though, if work by others was attributed to me. I'm not sure that being overly selective in attribution is a bad thing.
There’s an important precedent described in Smithsonian Magazine, October 28, 2021 in which Gorky’s daughter Maro Spender discovered a corner of Gorky’s “The Limit” (1947) peeling off to reveal a long-lost early 1940’s oil painting Untitled (Virginia Summer) beneath. Despite the fact that Gorky himself had covered it up, in this case the overlying work was removed and the underlying painting accepted into the Gorky canon. Sound familiar?
That’s crucial knowledge
It sounds like the family is a bit two-faced about rediscovering a previous work beneath a current layer. Perhaps because in this case they don't stand to make a profit from the change? The granddaughter's snooty attitude, even though she's not an expert in painting or art forensics and has no evidence to back her assertions, reinforces that thought.
Another point not investigated is the composition of the white paint used on the other paintings that have large areas of white. The original x-ray showed several layers of white, but all were artist's paint except the final top layer. How does that compare with the other works?
That was exactly my thought...surprised they didn't do it but I guess inconceivable that anyone other then Gorky would have painted the white...would be nice to know the chemistry tho.@@whatgoesaroundcomesaround920
Their argument was he made no attempt to destroy the canvas painting(compared to him having done so with other works), as far as covering up goes he used glue around the edges and tape, not glued onto the actual canvas face so it does imply he cared to some degree not to destroy the painting it went over. The art world is full of double standards and I feel bad for her knowing it's legit but unlikely to get recognition.
If the painting under the white has not been scraped down it is an intact work and should be accepted. Even if the white painting was another work you're just exchanging one work for another.
I`m surprised they didn`t compare the white paint on this canvas to the white paint on the other accepted Gorky paintings to see if he also used house paint on them to cover them up. If it`s the same, then this painting was his intention, to be covered in white, if not, then he was just covering this up to start over.
Yes that would've gone a long way. I'm struggling to believe his wife was that out of touch with his intentions anyhow, surely she was aware of his other white centric work and would've known this was not the case here. Either way forging on seems better than a partially restored mashup.
I think there are self styled “experts” who would never admit they were mistaken, for fear they would show up their limited “expertise”.
I had the same thought
@@dafydd359 My first thought was that his wife likely knew the artwork before he "decommissioned" it with house paint, and possibly she even witnessed the unusual circumstances that would result in such a (drastic?) step. Perhaps his crippling depression erupted in moment of frustration and destruction, or possibly he was out of his regular paint, or maybe he just didn't care about the longevity of the piece as he was just working out an idea. Otherwise, if he was beginning a new work, why house paint? This show raised a lot of questions for me.
But if he just covered it up to start over, then it was because he didn't feel satisfied with it and didn't intend to present it as a work of his art. It was literally less valuable to him than the price of a blank canvas.
I cannot imagine that a painting which simultaneously contains an important piece from both the very beginning and the very ending of the artist's body of work, would not be found valuable by somebody out there, regardless of what the Gorky Foundation says about it. I love that she tore up their letter and decided to move forward with the restoration work as started. Good for her.
Now the work has lost "the benefit of the doubt" unfortunately, if she is not allowed to say it is a Gorky in a catalogue, forget to sell it more than 1.000 dollars for an anonymous abstract re-touched on all the surface. She will probaby spend more money in the restauration that the value of this re-make will never have, because such an extensive restauration is a complete re-make made by the restaurer, not a genuine work anymore because the restaurer has smloten the colors with solvants on all the surface. The Gorky foundation would deal to buy it to avoid someone would be temptated to sell a fake, and destroy it.
Liza’s response was utterly disrespectful of the Gorky Foundations power of authority and decision…similar to publicly having a spazz at a judge because she didn’t get what she wanted.
To go on and further ‘deface’ the piece (as she has done) could eventually prove financially disastrous if she has not legally authenticated it’s ownership.
There is nothing to stop the legitimate owner of the work from producing a limited edition x-ray (style) series of the underlying work (which has been substantiated) and turning it into a business venture of value.
Sometimes we need to think wisely.
Thanks for sharing the findings. Now I can watch something else 🤨
I saw absolute resemblances….and what do I know!
Blast! You need to post a spoiler alert!
As an art historian from Armenia, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all of the art experts, historians, and staff who have contributed to this exceptional art series. Your tireless efforts and expertise are profoundly impacting the art world. Your dedication to the preservation, study, and promotion of art is an inspiration to us all. Thank you for your hard work and for sharing your knowledge and passion with the world.
Thank you so much for sharing! This is my all-time favorite show, and here in the U.S. we cannot get it
Yes you are missing many fantastic programmes in these long lasting series, blocked from your sight by some obnoxious rules. The programmes themselves are an art form and as such should be free for ALL to view.
We here in the same way suffer the same censorship of American video artistry so t goes both ways.
Nobody is harmed or commercial interests damages by us seeing each others art.
I applaud those that help us to do that. It is a service to freedom.
I refuse to believe Gorky's widow "made a mistake" wanting the white paint removed. After so many years of be surrounding by his art? Bullshit. No way that was the finished product. More than likely he was going to reuse the canvas again.
Good thought. Bad language.
Indeed. The word is bullshite....😅
I would value the words of the artist's widow who assisted in his entire career much more than a grandchild who, while she may be a great artist, never met her grandfather and, let's face it, otherwise would probably never be featured on this show. She'd never met Fiona before and says it's not her call to authenticate it or not, so leave it at that.
I agree. How can people who never met the man contradict the person that knew him best, his spouse?
@@classicalaid1 Ah, one of those people who wouldn't say "shit" if their mouth was full of it. A good term for that is "anal-retentive".
In the beginning they analyzed the top white layer and said it was a type of typical household paint with typical artist used paints underneath it. Am I the only one thinking that Gorky would NOT have used typical household paint IF HE MEANT for it to be part of the composition????
I'm only a hobby artist, but I would never use household paint on a canvas - it is nowhere near as stable, archival, or flexible as a ground needs to be. Basically, anything painted over it would start to crack and potentially chip off after a few years. I'm disappointed that they didn't verify what kind of white paint was on the paintings the granddaughter was saying were examples of the same technique. If it was house paint on those her argument might hold water.
Depending on the artist you nay very well be wrong. Jackson Polluck, for example, often used cheap house paint. Even mayonaisse or cardboard occasionally! And none of those are long-lasting either, not every artist knows (or cares) about that.
@@ThePocketFox The white paint on this picture looks quite stable for household paint, that has been painted on in the 40s. It wouldn't be the same kind of paint which ist mostly used today, especially not for painting walls.
The conservators said very early in the film that they had determined to use a water based solution to remove the white paint so it must not have been an oil-based house paint.
as a life long painter myself I believe he would have used whatever paint he liked the look of best.... any kind at all! I think they made too many mistakes with this painting so - no choice but to continue with the loss of his late work in the white
Given Gorky's mental state dealing with his wife's affair, his terminal cancer diagnosis, his broken neck and the studio fire, it is conceivable that the white paint represents deliberate sabotage to deprive his wife of a valuable asset prior to his suicide. The episode should have looked at the stormy marriage for possible insight into Gorky's actions.
Artists reuse canvases all the time. No need to make up specific motivations.
It occurred to me as well. A depressed person on verge of suicide. I'm torn though. Personally I've "primed" over my work that didn't suit me to reuse canvas & try again. Not certain how legit it is when restorers tamper with
Perhaps he wanted to show his work as ephemeral as he experienced his life to be. It may have been intended expression.
In my opinion, knowing depression and the hurdles of life, pain, and change, this painting before the white being removed could have been one of the last he ever touched. It could have been his intention to cover up previous phases of his work/life and in the end white it out completely. Sadly, possibly mirrored by him ending his life. Whether intentional or not it’s extremely symbolic of the artist who painted it.
I appreciate your thoughtful insight. Sometimes destruction feels like control.
@rosiecharley9220 I'm thinking the painting should have been left as it was. To me, it's an artifact showing the evolution of the artist from the beginning to end of his career...and beyond.
So the fact is that what was done can not be undone. The white layer had already been partially removed which IF the painting covered in white was an intentional artist expression makes THAT damaged but the work underneath COULD be salvaged. Wouldn’t it be better to have a previous Gorky conserved rather than none at all???
EXACTLY ! ! !
@chefpetrie, Not only that, but the guy put the white house paint on it close to the time of his death by suicide. It was known he was severely depressed. I would not say that it was his 'wish' that the painting be hidden by house paint. People have done lots of things they regret when emotionally distressed. So glad that the owner ripped up the letter and is going ahead with restoring it to one of Gorky's final works. There are people out there who will see the show and know the circumstances and be more than happy to buy the painting for a tidy sum.
exactly what I think
I'm struggling to figure out why sketches and studies are deemed to be valid, valuable, and collectible, and this canvas would not. Surely, if the removal of the white paint reveals a study of the Betrothal works by Gorky, it would be collectable as a study. I wish the episode had explicitly discussed the difference between confirming this canvas as a "valid work" supported by an artist's foundation, and the value and collectibility of incomplete works and studies known to be by that same artist.
Anyone who actually paints knows reusing canvases is commonplace. And it’s not hard to see that he was in the process of covering up a previous work to start something new… however… he didn’t end up starting anything new, so if it comes down to a partially covered work and the actual work, then restore the work underneath. The family is pissed they don’t have the painting and are being petulant about it.
Thank you once again for bringing this wonderful show to us.😊
THANK YOU !! I love this show.
This is such a great program. With all the drivel out there is such a breath of fresh air to watch this content. I do hope you’ll keep us posted as developments press forward on this work. Thanks!💕🇨🇦👍🏼👏🏼
Best part was when the lady tore up the letter from the 'committee', and I use the word loosely. Ugh. What the family members said didn't even make sense! Sour grapes in my opinion. I hope there will be photos of this work uncovered online at some point. Good for Eliza!
This is the hardest one yet. How sad and weeks that they did this to her. Good for her ripping the paper up. I hope she keeps going and we get and update.
this is so good - the whole story. Gorky artist was doing some great inward thinking when he covered that work I imagine slowly and thoughtfully until the whole of the canvas was white. Done. He didn't throw it away. So then come along everyone else. The painting died when the original 'conservator' butchered the thing and then didn t even finish the job. I would have it for the metaphor in a heartbeat. The story that the artist made something so sublime that no one understood but- for all the different reasons- couldn t leave it alone. The grand daughter / was right on.
Yet it is a Gorky.....underneath the layers is a lost Gorky and above that is yet another so "intention" remains at play and how the market may or may not treat it once it is cleaned. The market loves controversy just look at the "shredded Banksy"
It’s an appalling result by the Gorky Foundation to not accept the painting.. as is.! Clearly it’s his work. Clearly it’s from his studio. Whether the white paint over the top was intended by him as a continued work in progress.. or he had planned to cover over it.. it’s still a work by Gorky.!
Rather than the foundation take it upon themselves to preserve this historical painting.. show interest and give her some advice or assist her.. they have no shame to not care what happens to it.. thrusting the responsibility back onto the owner. I’m glad she tore up their verdict.
a follow-up is needed. great episode.
Thank you so much. At least your upload doesn't have a big red band at the bottom of the screen, obscuring half of it. Don't think he would have used household paint for a legitimate painting. It's Lizas painting and she should decide anyway.
Thanks for finally choosing the channel with HD uploads
@@mightwenotbehappy Not finally, I have seen a few of your uploads, just tried a bigger screen before this one.
This is such an exciting case! Since only thanks to this very program the foundation had to confirm the existence of two very valuable artworks on this canvas and thanks to Liza's bravery at least the only one that is still possible to retrieve will be uncovered, I believe it will generate huge interest in the art market anyway and make Liza millions (fingers crossed), regardless of foundation's decision to authenticate it or not, so it could really become an exciting precedent in reducing that self-inflated, often ridiculous and damaging authority of these foundations and committees that we have observed so many times on this program. Well done! And well done, girls, with the beautiful vyshyvankas and support to Ukraine!
i am surprised that they did not talk about Gorky during the period of 27, 28, 29. He was living in NYC and teaching at the Grand Central School of Art. What was his work like during that period? I have a catalog from the school in 1926-27, and i believe it contains the first reproduction of a work by him. It's a painting he did of a Rodin sculpture.
Since the Gorky Institute found that "the current work in its current condition has been posthumously damaged to the extent that it cannot be considered the work of Arshile Gorky" sounds to me like a release and she may as well continue to remove the white overlayer. What is revealed will then have to stand by itself. That may be enough to change the opinion.
The issue is the cost of removing the paint. A Previous Episode showed work that took 5 months to completely Remove an unwanted layer. It cost something like $25,000 to remove the layer. I doubt the present owner has that kind of money to spend on this.
@@lahuber2 Get a supply of the gel from the conservators, have them show her how to do it and let her go do it herself. Or she can hire someone herself. The main cost was the original testing to find a (safe) solution and the hours of labor to apply it. One has been done already, the labor can be done by others.
Philip’s diplomatic comment “it could also be part of a man’s body” had me laughing for the rest of the episode whenever the painting was shown. Can not unsee what could be a knob! 😂😂
And these days the knob coud be part of a "woman"s" body.
It's kind of absurd that the foundation would consider it "not by Gorky" simply because it's been damaged. I mean, there are plenty of famous damaged paintings that are still considered by the artist. Francis Bacon, for example, intentionally destroyed many of his paintings with the explicit intention that it not be a part of his oeuvre. Yet, people were able to recover them from the Chelsea dump and go on to sell them as legitimate Bacons. I can absolutely see why an artwork posthumously damaged would be significantly lowered in value due to the damage, but to consider it "not a work by the artist" is simply moronic. It absolutely IS by the artist, it's just that it's been damaged afterward...
It seems that Gorki Foundation in infested with a bunch of egotists.
Many thanks for making this great show available!
I have to say that the abstract style just goes thunk in my head. Realism is my jam. Renoir, Fontaine Latour, Manet, those three make this girl's blood sizzle.
However, I hang on every second of this show. I learn so much, its brain food!
Renoir and Manet? Realism?
Renoir and Manet are considered to be impressionists, not realists! Their work was considered to be "abstract and different" for their time.
I'm imagining a wealthy Gorky collector would pay handsomely for a painting, knowing that it was by him, even if it is contentious.
merci j'adore cette émission
Seems to me, the foundation’s logic is faulty. If Picasso threw a painting in the bin because he didn’t want it seen, and someone retrieved and kept it, would it not still be a painting by Picasso?
It would not be a "finished" painting. If any slap of paint by the Master's hand was valuable, he could have just slapped a stroke of paint on a hundred scraps of paper and built a fortune. What is valuable is their "vision", their view of the world. So it isn't "theirs" until what they've laid on the paper reflects their vision and they pronounce it "finished" (usually by signing it). The other type of "value" is in an intermediate work that demonstrates the artists "process", which would not be finished but has a kind of educational value. That's my understanding anyway. Hope it provides food for thought.
Bravo, Liza! By George, you've got it!!
Can it help to tell the Foundation that I had a vision and Ashile Gorky appeared to me and said: remove that white paint! I didn't mean to put it there! Keep going, Liza!
I LOVE that she tore their opinion! That's what other owners, rejected by that SNOTTY, pseudo-fartsy Wildenstein Institute in Paris should've done! Damn the TORPEDOES & MAN THE RAMPARTS!!
So if it has zero value as is, then Liza has nothing to lose in removing the white paint. Then she should ask the foundation if they want her to destroy the 1940s picture to get back to the original 1920s painting in the picture. I predict the restoration of the 1940s painting would be accepted and it could bw displayed alongside the photograph & xray to explain that it's 2 original paintings on one canvas.
There is, sadly, no way to get it all the way back to the 1920’s painting because the paintings were done in a period where the paint compositions would be more or less the same, and therefore bonded to one another. It’s not like removing Victorian changes from a painting done way back in the 1600’s. The 1920’s painting is, sadly, forever lost. (Which is a shame, because I prefer it to the brown 1940’s work.) Still, if they could get it back to the 1940’s painting without the white house paint, it’d be wonderful to display it next to both the photograph of the 1920’s painting + the infrared scan of it!
It looks to me like the original 20's painting had been cropped. It's simply not all there so what would a fragment be worth?
@@lloovvaallee It can’t be cropped because why would the artist cut it up, glue it to a bigger plain canvas, and then paint over it? No, I think the reason why it’s smaller and therefore SEEMS cropped is because it was likely taken off its stretcher and the sides unfolded. It’s POSSIBLE a canvas border was put on the edges to make it slightly bigger, but only if that’s a lining on the back and not the canvas itself because there’s no visible seams.
@@SeanMcGuire92 No, look carefully at the x-ray. The composition is cropped from the image in the period photograph. The subsequent painting was smaller. A look at the side of the stretcher should confirm this.
I noticed that as well, it seemed to have been cut down somewhat.
Heck, I'd buy it in a heartbeat as is. Too many egos involved in those so-called "experts" where so many seem to be full of massive self-importance. I'm blown away that there can be so many contradictory "expert" opinions. I'll bet those egotists at the Gorki Foundation will be the first in line to purchase that painting when it is restored -- hoping they can get it cheap because they deemed it insignificant.
So, a quick question: What legal locus does the “Gorky Foundation” or anyone else for that matter (whether children or grandchildren) have over this? It is private propterty gifted to Elizabeth by Gorky’s widow, and it is therefore for Elizabeth to decide what to do with it. The matter ends there. No one’s expert opinion, much less, approval is necessary. Hypothetically, if Elizabeth wants to burn the painting, she would be well within her rights to do so, since by law, the painting belongs to her.
she can do anything she likes except for one thing--- attribute it to the person who unquestionably painted it if she tries to sell it
Why not? There is no question of who painted it. The family and the foundation cannot challenge that.@@ludovica8221
I love this show so much!!! lol!
Fantastic! ❤ Thank you for uploading!🎉
I liked the way the owner tore up the letter at the end......😅👍
From the experts, its a Gorky Jim, but not as we know it.
Thank you 😊 have a great day
So delighted to find up to date fake or fortune here. How kind! Such a treat. Thanks very very much!
Thank you so much from Australia 👍😀
Thank you for the upload.
A canvas covered in white house paint or one with the paint removed - I know which one I'd prefer. Bring on the gel.
I love watching your show. 😀👍
Kept me on the seat of my chair. A real nail-biter to the end. #FakeorFortune has always been one of my favourites. Please keep them coming!
Thank you!
Thank you for downloading!
No problem!
I'm not a visual artist, but a writer. The thought of someone digging up a story I had written over, taking off whatever I had changed or deleted, and displaying it is horrifying. If I whited out my work, it was for a reason. I trust the same was true of Gorky.
I m with you but then, why do we accept to display and value Degas drafts? Shouldnt w3 only keep the finished paintings?
It's a great question and something I hadn't really thought about until this video. Maybe visual artists have a different perspective than writers, but for me at least, I would only want the final version out there. I'm guessing different artists would be fine with it while others wouldn't. Hard to know who's who though!@@sophiesto6122
Would you really be horrified? After all, we have early drafts of stories by great writers through history that are valued for unveiling the process or displaying their growth. Jane Austen's juvenilia is fascinating not because it's as good as Pride and Prejudice but because it has its own simple charm and displays the wit that would bloom in years to come.
My first thought is that if the artist covered whatever is underneath, what gives anyone else the right to go against his artistic wishes?
It’s irrelevant whether the white paint was intended to be seen as a piece of art in itself or was just a deliberate concealment by the artist.
as soon as a person dies their wishes are in the hands of their heirs, As Magouche Gorky was the heir I'd say that she was justified in asking Mr DeLuce to remove the paint as she knew better than anyone living what was beneath and as she was the person who set up the Gorky Foundation I'd say it was their job to back her up. It wasnt made fully clear if Saskia was the granddaughter or step granddaughter of Magouche as the provenance of the "lost work" photo was made by Gorky's FIRST wife so I sense this family was pulling in different directions even during the artists lifetime
"erxpressive brush work" ! ! ! ! ! ! n a full out white...straight inner edge where the artist stopped covering it...oh my....
The hubris of 2023 *experts* deciding whether or not a painting should be seen regardless of the artist's wishes is breathtaking.
This happens all the time with writers too.
I'd rather see a pretty much finished painting without the hastily covered in white paint, to signal self doubt, erasure of work, which serves no purpose at all. Artists may have an internal truth,... but they also don't exist to the outside world without an audience.,
Thank you so much ! ✅
Thankyou! Made my day!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Note that, had Fake or Fortune and the painting's owner, just kept their mouths shut and had the restorer remove the layer of white paint, and then showed the picture to the Gorky Foundation; all the foundation's personnel would have known, is that the picture was photographed at the time of the exhibition in the 1940's, and there was a complete record of ownership afterward. And here was the painting, looking just like it did in the 1940s. The painting would likely have been certified by the foundation, and Liza could have submitted it for auction, then banked her three million, with no one being the wiser. As for Gorky's intent, you'll note that Tanguy intentionally destroyed nearly all of his early paintings. If somebody found that one of them was inadvertently put aside and wasn't destroyed, does that mean it would be worthless because Tanguy had intended to burn it or whatever he had done to the other pictures? And, anyway, was Gorky really of sound mind and behaving sensibly after he learned of his cancer diagnosis? Is somebody who's thinking of suicide, or who is affected to heroin, as Basquiat was, still the same artist he or she was at an earlier time? My view is that every picture defines its own world, and shouldn't be assessed by comparison to other things. I, incidentally, don't like Gorky's pictures and would never have hung this one on the wall.
Both Philip and Fiona have integrity as a core value…wouldn’t happen on their watch 😺
There is no photograph from the picture like it was before Gorky covered most of it with white paint. There is only a photo from the painting from the late 20th. (That painting can't be restored) You have to give the committee all information you know. So there is no way of not knowing, that it was mostly covered with white paint.
But I agree, that they shouldn't try to get an expertise with a painting which is only half cleaned, that was a mistake. The committe can only examine the painting at it was at that time: And they are ríght: If it was Gurkys intention to make a painting which is mostly covered with white paint, this piece of art is now seriously damaged. They can't say anything about the second painting, it can have to much damage to. And they would never advice to go on with the cleaning, that's a decision of the owner.
I think the cleaning of the painting would have taken much more time than expected. There was a deadline for the production of this episode of "Fake or Fortune". Let's see it like this:
A good TV series needs a good cliffhanger to keep interest for the next season. 🙂
interesting that 'art' had now reached a stage where simply by looking at it, it is apparently impossible to say whether the image is as the artist intended, or that he decided to 'whack some white house paint over it' in order to reuse the canvas(in this case for the 3rd time). Yet apparently despite this situation, such 'modern art' is still considered to be worth millions of £s. Are some people in the art world simply having a giraffe, while making their own fortunes? Just a thought
Thank you From Argentina ! :)
She is right and sound in her decision to remove the white and expose the under paying…regardless of the Gorky foundations response….the painting and it’s Provence will ultimately prevail …brilliant episode…as usual…well don…stay safe…
Given it is considered damaged, I would still remove it to see what Gorky did. Given the exposure on this show, I'm sure someone will want it. That damaged Gorky with lady underneath (Woman with Necklace Marquette) is still considered a Gorky so why not do the same as someone else did before.
Thank you ! 😊
tysm for uploading this
You’re welcome
Oh this is one of the best, as an artist I use fake or fortune as a guide for my own works as in protection of me the artist remaining the artist without denying me, it saddened me to see others having the right or wrong in say of what is or not, but how exciting is the mystery of art.
I love seeing her riff that piece of paper into pieces. I think she made a right decision to remove that white paint and show the real beauty of that painting.
Lovely episode. I won’t give up the results. Tatyana ❤
As always, many thanks for posting for those of us outside the country who cannot see the program in the UK. Since this is Episode 4 I guess we'll have to wait another year for more.
Series 12, has begun filming, roll on 2024
Oh. I can't wait for series 12. Thanks again for sharing this program with us in the states.
I get a kick out of Philip's remarks. He's so dry and then bam, something just pops out of his mouth and I have to stop everything and laugh myself silly. Love the chemistry between the two of them and the sense of humor. Again, great show.
Lisa has nothing to lose - she inherited a work, that itself was inherited by her late husband. Its commercial value to her is therefore irrelevant. Given that the painting is pretty much "interfered with" as it is, even doing nothing more to it at this point is inconsequential to any future "authentication" or value estimation.
So... Lisa is making a practical and largely logical decision... get the underlying image revealed, for all of us to appreciate and enjoy. Perhaps - at some point, the various "authorities" who decide on whether these works have any value (commercial or otherwise), may determine that revealing a work that is significant in the artist's portfolio, is good enough to classify it as "authentic". But if they don't - who cares? The painting was obtained for nothing, and if it is worth nothing, so what?
Pienso que la depresión del artista ganó por encima de su propio talento, y que el omen negativo continúa con la extraña decisión de la Fundación, que no supo ejercer su mandato de proteger el legado del arte. Gorky decidió destruir, haciendo invisible no una, sino dos de sus obras, y la fundación destruye la posibilidad de recuperar a lo menos una obra de arte con la tecnología actual.
That was the most spectacular ending of a Fake or Fortune ever! Wow.
All these art committees are frightened of losing control and inflated reputations!
The bird motif on Mrs Gorky’s blouse seems to be present in the painting, in that block in the middle of the x-rayed piece ..
Thank you 🙂
Cool new art lesson.
What an ethical dilemma. In a way i agree with the idea that if an artist doesn't consider something good enough to show it shouldn't be shown. So in this case he painted over it. That being said, it is also (beyond a doubt) proven that it "is" the work in the photograph which at some point he proudly exhibited, which in my mind makes it valuable in itself, no matter what it looks like. And on top of that, even if the white paint would be removed, that statement still stands, it is that early painting no matter what. There is value there for sure. Maybe not millions, but still significant and i'm sure museums would be interested in the work.
He painted over his work he was proud of earlier, so it's impossible to say if he thought that something wasn't "good enough", he maybe just needed a new canvas to try something new or he wanted to improve his work with the layer of white paint.
It is still interesting to make an exhibition about it. But for the art market it is only a curiosity which hasn't got much value. Museums will be interested, but most of them can't pay high prices and there are much more interesting works of art they would buy, if they could afford them.
Artists do not look at their works in the same way collectors look at works. Collectors don't care what the artist thought about the work.
Finally! Someone stands up to the fickle 'foundations'! Good for her!
that was heart braking.
I usually don’t side with the foundations or “experts”, but I agree with them this time. As an artist myself, there are some pieces that are forever “in process” and also images that I have covered up that I do not want seen. The white paint very much resembled his use of white in later works. Either way, it should not be removed
They need to clean the white paint off, conserve the painting, and then present it to the institute. The way they did it was not in the right order. Of course they are going to think that when the artist painted over the painting, he created a new work. Oh well, they can restore it and try again. They have the right provenance. It was straight from the widow.
I am with Eliza, if it has no value now then let's remove the white and see what's underneath..we may learn something from that!!!!
Nerve wracking!!
Thank you from Germany!
You are welcome!
Wish I had seen this years ago, when I had the opportunity to meet Gorky's granddaughter. She was very knowledgeable in art and a very nice person.
The Foundation is wrong...what a sad ending to the story...I want to see the original after the layer of white paint is removed...I admire her perseverance!
what irks me here is the part that has been left unsaid - WHAT do THEY want them to do with this painting, given that the top layer IS irreparably damaged from the cleaning AND with the prospect that an UNDISTURBED layer could be unveiled from underneath? Rather then just INVALIDATING what it is NOW, what should be done GOING FORWARD? Paint it over once more time with the white household paint and call it a day? OR take that layer off? At the very least give an indication of which way one should progress with this...
The presenters suggested more than once that a speculator might be willing to spend the money on removing the white layer on the chance it reveals a worthwhile piece of art. They suggested this because they know the present owner cannot afford the cost of removing the layer
This -as it is-has got greater value than money can ever buy….
Perhaps what has happened is exactly what the Artist intended….:Go and search for the Truth……..and find it….,
Art is not an “entertainer “………it is a “teacher “
A thrilling episode of the series. Fiona Bruce is extremely sensual. Her common-sense incredulity before the bluntness of the comitee is touching.
Poor man had such a tragic life. Abandoned by his father, left orphan when his mother starved to death during genocide and dumped by his unfaithful wife. Then cancer and a broken neck. If suffering gets you into Heaven, Gorky sits by the throne of God.
It appears that the Arshile Gorky Foundation is unduly exercising its power in lieu of applying reason. If this painting is really 3 paintings in 1 and the top layer is deemed damaged beyond repair, then it should logically be restored to 2 paintings in 1 and valued as such.
The art world is very fickle!
There was a time when the value of art could be seen at a glance. Frankly, what is the value of that painting? As a hidden primary work, a final piece or a white washed canvas? The value of art is now what the anointed tell you it is.
Makes me think the contemporary art world is simply a fraud. They give it value and take it away at their pleasure.
Good lord, That ship sailed with Duchamp over a century ago.
and that was literally a piss take. Find a better example to make your point.@@populuxe1
Such a fascinating conundrum, at what point does altering an original cease to make it an original ?
Of course by restricting supply the board have ensured stabilizing if not increasing the value of their Gorky's. I've always believed self interest eventually triumphs.
In a time where common sense is no longer relevant, literally "anything goes".
Restoration processes are very interesting to me.
I love Fake or Fortune! As an aside, I have painted over a few of my older paintings with a white primer layer. I used to refer to them as repurposed canvasses. Now I can describe them as "In the style of Gorky."
Joy, Joy, Joy!
Gorky's widow gave Alexander full possession of the picture when he couldn't remove the overlying white paint. He's got written documentation attesting to it. Gorky's family has no say, in my opinion, as to what happens to the picture. Please keep the videos rolling. This show is awesome.
OMG, I love Liza!!! Damn straight! She tears up the stupid piece of paper that was issued by people who SIMPLY DO NOT WANT ANYONE ELSE TO HAVE A PIECE OF THE PIE. Their 'decision' was a "Screw you." to anyone owning such an important piece. If that tableau was in his FIRST SHOW and then (painted over) was worked on in the last year of his life, it IS an important piece. Their saying that it has "no value" because it is "damaged," is utter rubbish. It's a power grab. It is very easy to see through the machinations of those wielding decisions in The Art World. We've seen this before!
The work is simply a Gorky at every level. That is in disputable! The problem as I see it is the art world has the same problem as the world of science. Its is called “scientism”. It’s when the works value is based on its producer alone and not on the product primarily. Artist become demigods and even their trash is treated as valuable, but it’s just idolatry.
Increasing value by paying mega bucks is also a means of money laundering for ‘some’ with ill gotten wealth…it also increases the likelihood that an artists work or artwork will likely increase further in value. It’s business strategy.
This is one of - if not the most fascinating episode/case that this program has looked at.
While it’s possible that there are, in fact, three works on this canvas, it seems that only can be known to be what was considered a completed piece. Unfortunately, it was the first one painted and is now irretrievably buried under multiple layers of paint.
If the white overpainting was, as the Gorky Foundation suggests, a possible work intended by Gorky… well, that work was essentially destroyed decades ago when the incomplete cleaning/conservation was begun. The only sensible way forward now is to continue removing the white paint to reveal the middle work and evaluate whether it can be considered a completed work on its own.