The Art of the Con: The Most Notorious Fakes, Frauds, and Forgeries in the Art World (5 page)

Knoedler was left red-faced after this mishap, and one might suspect that this would have led the gallery to end its relationship with Rosales and the paintings she was offering. IFAR’s reputation was well established over decades of outstanding work in the field of art authentication and assisting the art community and law enforcement in fighting art crime, and its results are accepted as the gold standard for provenance work. At the very least, one might expect that Knoedler would subject any future offerings from Rosales to intensive provenance research, including scientific analysis. But rather
than distance itself from Rosales, Knoedler continued to buy and sell works from the contrived collection, including additional Pollocks she had produced.

For her part, Freedman has stated that in considering any artwork for sale, it had been her consistent practice throughout her four decades of experience to enlist “scholars to research the provenance of a work that has been brought to my attention.” She said, “I have consulted preeminent experts to view the work and express their opinions about it, both orally and in writing. I make every reasonable effort to learn as much as possible about a work of art that is being offered for sale, and I then disclose to prospective purchasers the facts that I have learned—and the facts that I have not been able to learn—about the work.”
16

Not so, says Domenico De Sole. The chairman of luxury retailer Tom Ford International and former president and CEO of the Gucci Group, De Sole is a man with an undeniable eye for style and a keen business sense. In 2004, the Rome native De Sole and his wife, Eleanore, contacted Freedman about purchasing an abstract work by Irish artist Sean Scully. They figured they would spend in the neighborhood of $1 million. When they met in person to discuss such an acquisition, Freedman used her legendary sales skills to convince the De Soles to purchase a much more expensive Abstract Expressionist painting: a work by the famous artist Mark Rothko. It took less than a month for Freedman to close the deal, selling
Untitled, 1956,
to the couple for $8.3 million.

It is the contention of the De Soles that Freedman went beyond innocently selling a forged work to them. Instead, they claim, the Knoedler president, in meetings with them and their consultant and agent Jim Kelly, “affirmatively and knowingly made an array of material false representations to induce the De Soles to purchase the [Rothko].”
17
In addition to consistently representing that the Rothko
was authentic, the De Soles say that Freedman told them the painting had been authenticated by Christopher Rothko (the artist’s son), Dr. David Anfam, who was the creator of Rothko’s catalogue raisonné—the scholarly compilation of the artist’s complete body of work—and other experts. They also claim that Freedman told them that Mr. X and Mr. X Jr. “were personally known to Knoedler” and that Mr. X Jr. wanted the painting to be sold to a collector as opposed to someone who planned to merely resell it.

When purchasing the painting, the De Soles remained somewhat concerned about the authenticity of the painting. Whether this was because of nagging doubts or simply because they were understandably cautious given the massive price tag is not clear. In any event, the couple requested a written assurance from Knoedler as to the authenticity of the work. In a letter addressed to the De Soles’ daughter, Laura, Freedman attested to the legitimacy of the Rothko, stating that “the painting has been viewed by a number of eminent scholars on Rothko as well as specialists on the Abstract Expressionist movement.” She added that Knoedler anticipated that Oliver Wick, who had previously curated a Rothko exhibition, would be requesting that the piece be loaned to him for an exhibition at the Fondation Beyeler, a famed repository of Rothko’s works. She wrote, “Mr. Wick considers the Rothko painting,
Untitled, 1956,
to be of superior museum quality.” She also included a bio of David Herbert.
18
The letter sealed the deal. The De Soles were now the owners of a multimillion dollar painting attributed to Rothko that had actually been painted in Queens by a Chinese immigrant.

Like a number of history’s most famous artists, Robert Motherwell had to first meet his father’s demands before embarking on his career as a professional painter and collagist. Though the well-educated Motherwell studied literature, psychology, and philosophy
at Stanford and did postgraduate work at Harvard, he decided to become an artist after visiting Paris and viewing the work of French Modernists. First, though, his father demanded that he complete his studies in art history at Columbia University in 1941 in order to ensure a “secure career.”
19
Neither the artist nor his father could ever have dreamed that more than 60 years later (but just 3.5 miles away), forgeries carrying Motherwell’s name would be sold from the Knoedler Gallery for millions of dollars.

One such painting was titled
Spanish Elegy,
a 1
1
⁄
2
×
2–foot painting bought by Killala Fine Art, a respected gallery based in Dublin, Ireland, for $650,000. The painting was purported to be part of Motherwell’s monumental series
Elegies to the Spanish Republic.
This time, Rosales had sold the painting to Julian Weissman, a well-established dealer and a former associate at Knoedler & Company who operates the Weissman gallery in the Wall Street area. In 2006, Weissman contacted Marc Blondeau, who operated Killala, to let him know that he had a Motherwell for sale. Interested, Blondeau visited Weissman’s gallery to see the work and discussed provenance with the dealer. Weissman informed him that the owner of the painting he was consigning—Mr. X Jr.—did not wish to be identified but that his parents had purchased the painting directly from Motherwell. It was the classic Rosales fabrication. Though Weissman and Blondeau had done business together successfully for a decade, Blondeau knew this was shaky provenance and told Weissman that he would require certifications from both Weissman and the Dedalus Foundation.

In 1981, Motherwell established the Dedalus Foundation to foster an understanding of modern art. After his death, the foundation took control of the copyrights of Motherwell’s art and went to work establishing a catalogue raisonné of his work. Surely they held the expertise to authenticate one of Motherwell’s paintings for Weissman.
In January 2007, the Dedalus Foundation’s president, Jack Flam, and the foundation’s executive director, Morgan Spangle, visited Weissman’s gallery and visually examined the painting, but did not subject the work to scientific testing. The results were just what Weissman had hoped: the pair declared the work to be a Motherwell and issued a letter of authenticity, writing, “It is the opinion of the Foundation that the Work is the work of Robert Motherwell.” Blondeau had an additional question: Would the work be included in the foundation’s coming catalogue raisonné of Motherwell’s works? Spangle wrote a clarification to Weissman for Blondeau stating, “Here is the letter of authenticity which is issued by the Foundation. While it does not say directly that the painting,
Spanish Elegy,
1953, will be included in the catalogue raisonne which is being prepared by the Foundation, I can assure you that the painting
will be
included.”
20

While it is not uncommon for works to be discovered after the publication of a catalogue raisonné, it does serve as an essential source for researching provenance and authenticating works. The foundation itself described it as “a reliable corpus of authentic works.”
21
Based on the fact that Spangle assured Weissman that the painting would be in the catalogue raisonné of Motherwell’s works, Blondeau decided to purchase the painting from Weissman.

Despite Spangle’s enthusiastic tone, trouble loomed regarding the hasty authentication of
Spanish Elegy.
Later in 2007 and through January 2008, the Dedalus Foundation met with Ann Freedman three times to discuss the Motherwells from the David Herbert Collection. Seven purported Motherwells sold by Glafira Rosales—four to Knoedler and three to Weissman—were now thought by the foundation to be fakes because they found the explanation that the Motherwells were sold directly to Mr. X through Herbert implausible. In addition to provenance research that Flam would later describe as
“just kind of fluff,”
22
they told her that the Rosales Motherwells included stylistic anomalies. These findings were reiterated by Jack Flam in a meeting with Freedman on January 10, 2008.
23

Unaware that these revelations had just recently been brought to Knoedler by the foundation about Rosales and the Mr. X provenance, Domenico and Eleanore De Sole contacted Freedman requesting an insurance appraisal for the Rothko they had purchased with the same provenance. Knoedler quickly replied to the request, valuing
Untitled, 1956
at $9 million—an increase in value of more than a half-million dollars. Though Knoedler was now in possession of information that the authenticity of no less than eight paintings sold by Rosales from the David Herbert Collection (the Pollock bought and returned by Jack Levy and the seven Motherwells) was, to say the least, questionable, Freedman did not inform the De Soles that there might be an issue with the Rothko the gallery had sold them using the same exact backstory. The De Soles went on to spend $64,000 insuring a painting that was, essentially, worthless—a fact that should have by now at least been on the minds of the leadership at Knoedler.
24

While the De Soles were still under the illusion that they were in possession of a multimillion dollar painting from what they believed to be a credible source—the so-called David Herbert Collection—another wealthy collector, Pierre Lagrange, was also making a purchase from Ann Freedman at Knoedler & Company. The long-haired and wildly successful Belgian hedge fund manager had heard through dealers that Knoedler had a Jackson Pollock painting on the market. Eager to invest in a Pollock that he might later sell at a profit, Lagrange was intrigued. One of the dealers, Jamie Frankfurt, contacted Freedman on Lagrange’s behalf and expressed his interest in the Pollock. To explain the authenticity of the painting, Freedman
told Frankfurt that the painting was from the private collection of Mr. X, who had obtained it from Jackson Pollock himself, through David Herbert. No mention was made of the Pollock with the same exact provenance that was returned by Jack Levy a few years earlier because of concerns as to its authenticity after an expert review. Rather, Freedman further told Frankfurt that the painting had been viewed favorably by a number of important experts—whose names she provided—and, according to Frankfurt, went on to say that the painting would appear in a soon-to-be-released addendum to the catalogue raisonné of Jackson Pollock. Nevertheless, Lagrange, who was based in London, wanted to see the painting before buying it. Excited at the prospect of a major sale, Freedman agreed to ship the supposedly valuable painting to Lagrange in London. It was a wise decision on Freedman’s part—after seeing it, Lagrange decided to purchase the painting, called
Untitled, 1950,
for $17 million.
25

The claim about the painting being added to the Pollock catalogue raisonné is the subject of dispute between Frankfurt and Freedman. Freedman claims she merely said that she was lobbying the Pollock-Krasner Foundation for the painting’s inclusion. But in either scenario, the very idea of
Untitled, 1950
being added to a forthcoming Pollock catalogue raisonné should have raised red flags: The Pollock-Krasner Foundation disbanded its authentication board in 1995 and hadn’t any plans to authenticate additional works, a fact well known to most insiders who make their business in the world of Abstract Expressionism. Furthermore, it appears that Freedman’s list of experts who had viewed
Untitled, 1950
was just that—a list of viewers. Not a single one of them said they had come to Knoedler with the mission of inspecting the painting for the purpose of authentication.
26

In February 2009, Julian Weissman received a troubling letter from Jack Flam at the Dedalus Foundation. At issue was the Motherwell
Spanish Elegy,
about which the foundation had earlier written to Weissman stating their intent to declare the painting authentic and their decision to include it in its catalogue raisonné of Motherwell’s works. This time, Flam was the bearer of very bad news. “I am now writing to inform you that, based on new information, and per its right to withdraw the March 2, 2007 letter, the Catalogue Raisonné has determined to withdraw the letter per that right. We are at present not planning to include that painting, titled ‘Spanish Elegy,’ in the prospective Catalogue Raisonne of Paintings and Collages by Robert Motherwell.”
27

The Dedalus Foundation offered no basis for the reversal. But that drastic turnaround set into motion a series of events that would lead to the unraveling of the web of lies that were spun by Glafira Rosales to Weissman and Knoedler. Just a few months later, in the summer of 2009, Ann Freedman received an equally troubling document: a subpoena from the FBI. The bureau was now investigating the David Herbert Collection and the group behind it. By October, Freedman was no longer the president at Knoedler & Company, having allegedly been escorted out the front door of the legendary gallery after resigning.
28
She would not, however, be leaving the world of dealing fine art, and began working on plans for her own firm.

Freedman may have been committed to moving forward, but more trouble lay around the corner. In October 2010, Pierre Lagrange, who was ready to capitalize on his investment by reselling
Untitled, 1950,
approached Sotheby’s to discuss a private sale. Citing concerns about the provenance of the painting, Sotheby’s declined Lagrange’s overture. Lagrange was understandably troubled by this response and contacted Frankfurt, who, in turn, was in touch with Freedman. Steadfastly standing by the painting, she expressed her willingness to sell the Pollock for Lagrange through her own new gallery, FreedmanArt. Curiously, she also wrote of the
Pollock-Krasner Foundation’s “plans for a new revised CR [catalogue raisonné] to include the number of discovered Pollocks since the time of its now outdated black and white publication from the mid 70s.” When asked by a representative of Lagrange’s if this update was indeed in the works at the Pollock-Krasner Foundation, a representative replied “absolutely not.”
29
Exactly where Freedman was getting her information about a nonexistent Pollock catalogue raisonné is unclear. But this, of course, was the key issue in Lagrange’s efforts to deal his painting. As Christie’s wrote in a letter to Knoedler, “It is our belief, and generally agreed in our industry, that Pollock paintings not listed in the
catalogue raisonné,
are rarely accepted in the marketplace.”
30