PRESSURE is mounting for an investigation to be launched into three suspect paintings which appear to have been passed off as the work of the late and celebrated Australian artist Brett Whiteley. Two were sold for millions of dollars to unwitting buyers.
Despite long-standing suspicions about their authenticity, all three paintings remain in public circulation and have not been investigated by the police. Controversial Melbourne art dealer Peter Gant, who declared himself bankrupt last year, is linked to all three paintings.
One of the suspect paintings, titled Big Blue Lavender Bay, sold to a Sydney investment banker in late 2007 for $2.5 million, has recently become the subject of legal action in the Supreme Court of NSW.
Sydney banker Andrew Pridham is the latest to have questioned the suspect Whiteleys and he is suing the Melbourne art dealer who sold him the painting, Anita Archer, until recently head auctioneer with Deutscher and Hackett.
Ms Archer denies that Big Blue Lavender Bay is a forgery and also denies she verified the provenance, or history of sale, of the painting. In a statement to the court, she denies having an advisory contract with Pridham ''or alternatively, that the terms of the advisory contract are those terms alleged by the plaintiff''.
In his statement of claim, Mr Pridham alleges that Ms Archer acquired the painting from Mr Gant, ''an art dealer whose background, reputation and associations are not such as to allow any reasonable person to rely solely on his assertions''. In response, Ms Archer again denies having the advisory contract or that the contract terms are as alleged.
The NSW court case has the potential to become as important a test case as the legal action launched by the artists Charles Blackman and Robert Dickerson, who pursued Mr Gant in the Victorian Supreme Court for selling three forged artworks - one purportedly by Dickerson, the other two by Blackman.
In a landmark ruling in 2010, the Victorian Supreme Court found Mr Gant in breach of the Fair Trading Act for selling the three drawings and ordered the fakes to be destroyed. The court made no findings as to whether Mr Gant had intentionally sold the fakes, but stated that he had failed to take adequate steps to confirm their authenticity.
The NSW court case will yet again draw attention to the practices of the art market and to the need for accountability and due diligence from art dealers. The case might also expose the chain of production involved with the three suspect Whiteley works, all of which are listed on a consignment note dated June 28, 1988, and addressed to the late Chris Quintas, who was Whiteley's studio assistant.
It is understood that two of the listed paintings - Big Blue Lavender Bay and Orange Lavender Bay - have been examined by the Melbourne art forensic expert Robyn Sloggett and found to be ''problematic''. The third, titled Lavender Bay Through the Window, was given to a Melbourne restaurateur by Mr Gant as security for money owed. When the restaurateur discovered it too could be problematic, he took out a caveat on one of Mr Gant's properties.
The painting remains with Mr Gant's lawyers and the restaurateur's debts have yet to be paid.
Robert Dickerson's stepson Stephen Nall, who has long campaigned for a tougher approach to art fraud, is furious the three suspect Whiteley paintings are still in the public domain. ''I personally think that these three pictures need to be investigated forthwith,'' Mr Nall said.
''There ought to be some government legislation that deals with these types of matter so that the public doesn't lose confidence in the art market.''
Art fraud is one of the easiest crimes to get away with. It is not a crime to sell a forged art work, nor is it a crime to copy an artist's work - unless one does it with the intention to deceive and the intention to profit from the deception. But proving intention is an onerous task under current criminal law. More likely, alleged cases of art fraud will be pursued in the civil justice system.
Yet it takes deep pockets and the risk of losing money pursuing justice, as Blackman and Dickerson found. Mr Gant was ordered to pay their legal costs, but they have yet to receive a cent from him. Mr Gant did not return the Herald's calls.
没有评论:
发表评论