Annual information on works of art - how reliable are they really?
Works of art are often provided with annual information that should give us an insight into their time of creation. But how reliable are these numbers really?
The question of the accuracy of annual information on works of art raises interesting questions and challenges us to take a closer look.
With this oil painting by Orazio Genttileschi, provenance is seamlessly clarified:
- In 1621 by Giovanni Antonio Sauli, Genoa, commissioned
- By parentage and inheritance in the Thomas P. Grange family, London, until 1975
- In 1977 sold to Richard L. Feigen
- Sold by him on October 2, 1998 to a family foundation
- Sold at Sotheby's, New York, January 28, 2016, Lot 41
But it is not always so clear and clear ...
The truth behind the numbers on works of art
The question of annual information on works of art often makes a highlight of the honesty and integrity of artists.
While many works are provided with precise dating, some of them reveal a terrifying tendency towards fake. It is understandable that artists would like to locate their works in time. An exact annual specification can help the viewer to better understand the context of the artwork and to classify it in a historical framework.
Unfortunately, there are also black sheep among the artists who take advantage of this possibility and deliberately specify false years. This “dizziness” can have various reasons. Some artists may want to make their work appear artificially ancient or gave it a greater historical meaning than is actually present.
Others could try to increase the value of their work by fake dating or to present themselves as particularly talented. This phenomenon of manipulated annual information has an impact on trust between artists and viewers, but also on the market for works of art in general.
Collectors and art dealers have to be extremely careful and consult an expert council to ensure that they do not acquire falsified or overvalued works.
Various measures were taken to counteract this problem : Art historians and restorers use their knowledge to check the authenticity of works of art. They not only analyze the style and technology of the work, but also historical documents and materials to determine possible discrepancies.
In addition, there are now also modern technological methods such as carbon dating or infrared analyzes that can be used to determine the age of a work of art more precisely. These advanced procedures help to uncover counterfeits and enable more reliable dating.
Despite these efforts, there is still room for uncertainties . Some fake years are made so skillfully that even experts cannot see through them immediately. It is therefore necessary to continuously research and further develop the analysis methods as well as a committed cooperation between artists, art historians and collectors.
To what extent can we trust the information and what factors influence your reliability? "
A precise dating can bring about challenges - sometimes there is no significant information or the work is difficult to determine by aging and restorations. The fact that some artists consciously cancel or omit monograms or signatures also makes it even more difficult.
experts and experts play an important role in determining annual information on works of art . You not only analyze the picture itself, but also the historical context and compare it with other works by the artist.
The importance of the annual information on works of art
The signature is not the only evidence of the authorship of an artistic work. The dating also plays an important role, both for art trade and for art history.
In the art trade, the confirmation of the year or the determination of the period of origin helps to determine the commercial value of a work of art. The dating is important for art history discuss historical importance The temporal classification also enables the creation of a chronology as part of a Catalogue Raisonné that offers an overview of the entire work of an artist.
It is important to note that false or uncertain annual information can have significant effects on the value of a work of art. Collectors and investors often rely on such information to make buying decisions.
Uncertainties in the annual information can also influence exhibitions and museums because they make the correct classification of the works difficult. The truth behind the numbers on works of art is therefore a fascinating puzzle that asks us to take a closer look and critically question the importance of year.
The signature and the date that artists recorded on their works can lead to correct or wrong conclusions. The date is often used manipulatively by deliberately specifying a false year. This leads to confusion and misinterpretations among art historians, dealers and collectors.
The challenges in determining the annual statements
The determination of annual information on works of art harbors numerous challenges and can sometimes be a complex undertaking. It is not always easy to determine the exact year of the development of a painting or a sculpture, especially if there no clear signature or monogram .
The signatures of the artists are often illegible or have been damaged over time by aging processes. In other cases, false signatures may have been intended to artificially increase the value of a work.
Another obstacle to dating works of art are missing historical records . Especially with older works from past centuries, it can be difficult to find precise information about the artist's creative period. This is particularly unfortunate, since precise dating for the art historical classification and evaluation of a work is of great importance.
Technical aspects also play a role in determining annual information on works of art. Sometimes scientific studies such as radio bells dating can help to determine the age of certain materials in the factory. However, these techniques also have their limits and cannot provide exact results.
There have already been cases of controversy about certain annual information on known works of art. Such incidents throw a light on the importance of experts and experts who play a decisive role in determining the annual statements.
The role of provenance research and its limits
What is Provenance research and how does it work?
Provenance research is an essential branch of art history that deals with the research and reconstruction of the history of origin of works of art and cultural assets.
Through a detailed examination of documents, archives, collections and other sources, provenance research tries to collect information about the origin of an object. The main goal of this research direction is to trace the history of a work of art or cultural heritage to its original owner.
Various aspects play a role here such as the date of origin of the work, its former owners and possible changes in its property rights over time.
Provenance stories can be extremely complex and often lead us on an exciting journey through the centuries. They open insights into past epochs and enable us to better understand historical relationships.
Another important aspect of provenance research lies in its importance for restitution issues . Cultural treasures were often expropriated or illegally sold during colonialism or during political conflicts. The identification of such illegal transactions plays a crucial role in return demands to lawful owners or their heirs.
The work of provenance researchers is not only academically significant, but also ethically and politically relevant. Through their efforts, stolen or illegally acquired works of art can be identified and, if necessary, restituted in order to create historical justice.
Provenance research has become increasingly important in recent years, since awareness of the history of cultural assets and the need to return to lawful owners has become increasingly in focus. Museums , collections and auction houses have started to work with provenance researchers to work together in order to ensure transparent documentation of origin of their stocks.
Limits and uncertainties
In an essay by Ronald D. Spencer and Gary D. Sesser on Artnet, the two art historians examined the inadequacies and restrictions on provenance research in the art trade (see Volume 4, Issue No. 1 of Spencer's Art Law Journal ) and pulled the following FAZIT:
Provenance: Important, yes, but often incomplete and often enough, wrong "
They argue that it is often unclear whether the existing standards in the art world with regard to the inclusion of provenance are followed regularly or for practical reasons. Although it is theoretically a “title chain” that should include every owner of the work since its creation, the provenance is generally regarded as an exclusive list of interesting facts about the background of the work.
These include well -known earlier owners (at least those who are ready to reveal their identity) and the exhibition of the works in renowned locations.
Exemplary cases of false/incomplete provenance information
The two essay authors mention a case in which an art dealer was confronted with the claim that the provenance of a painting specified would have been incomplete, since not all owners who went back to the artist were included.
According to the angry buyer, this omission was essential, since the provenance comprised a gallery that was involved in a much -noticed counterfeiting scandal, and it would have been difficult to resell the painting at a reasonable price, without a demonstrable provenance that goes back to the artist.
When the buyer in the United States tried to revoke the sale based on this "incomplete" origin, he claimed that the origin was a guarantee of a guarantee in accordance with the uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"), since it was part of the "basis of the business" .
According to UCC § 2-313 (1) (a), "every factual claim or promise of the seller to the buyer who refers to the goods and becomes part of the business, an express guarantee that ..." The goods must comply with the commitment or promise. "
So the buyer was lucky and was able to undo his purchase based on it. On the part of the victim seller, a disclaimer in the contract would have been helpful.
Anyway, this shows what problems can arise with (inaccurate or false) information about the manufacturing date, origin and provenance.
New York Times also reported a famous case in 2019, when the origin of the renowned auction house Sotheby’s was contested at auction in heirs for lost art during the Nazi era.
In 2019, Sotheby's sold a work by the master painter Giovanni Battista Tiepolo , which was left in Austria in 1938 when a Jewish gallery owner fled the Nazis. Therefore, it was only mentioned in the auction catalog that the work came from a "important private collection" and once had the Wolfgang Böhler gallery in Bensheim.
According to the court files submitted on Friday, however, the painting actually came into the hands of Julius Böhler, an independent art dealer in Munich, which, according to the American authorities, was involved in art looting (keyword: predatory art ) in 1946.
Now three heirs of the Jewish gallery owner Otto Fröhlich claim in the court files that Sotheby's "misleaded" by incorrectly assigning the painting to the wrong gallery. This made the sale easier and "continued the circulation of injustice and exploitation, which began in 1938 and which should prevent international and national reimbursement laws and guidelines" .
Sotheby's then attributes the indication of origin in the 2019 catalog to “human failure” .
Dubious dating in works of famous painters
In art history, there are always cases of incorrect or dubious dating with certain artists.
Some names that are often mentioned in this context are Wassily Kandinsky , Joseph Kosuth and Francis Picabia as well as Giorgio de Chirico and the German Expressionist Ernst Ludwig Kirchner . It is known to these artists that their works have not always been given the right year.
Research has found that these false dates were either made aware or have arisen due to uncertainties regarding the time of origin (see FAZ article by Hubertus Butin: The matter with the date ).
The latter two are particularly interesting - Ernst Ludwig Kirchner and Giorgio de Chirico. They are considered to be a real masters in making false date information.
Their motivation for this can be different: Sometimes they wanted to disguise their own artistic development steps or increase interest in their works. In other cases, it may have been a playful way of self -staging.
Expressionist Ernst Ludwig Kirchner generously pre -dated numerous paintings, drawings and print graphics. An example of this is a work that was offered by Sotheby's in Cologne in September 2023. The work was created during a summer vacation in Kirchner on the island of Fehmarn and shows a tree and several shrubs in wild gestures and strongly abstract form under a purple sky.
Although the motif of Kirchner was signed at the bottom left and the year of origin “08” , a stylistic comparison suggests that it probably did not arise before 1913. This assessment is also confirmed by the Kirchner Archive in Wichtrach near Bern .
Look at this post on Instagram
Kirchner's wrong year on paper shows his exaggerated need for validity . He always tried to pretend a greater art -historical importance by claiming that he had followed an abstract style early on.
Kirchner did not want to be compared to other artists such as van Gogh , Munch or his bridge colleagues. He found the mention of other artists as a personal insult and damage to his reputation because he wanted to be perceived as unique.
Carl van Vechten (1880-1964)
Giorgio de Chirico was less interested in art -historical relevance than in the financial aspect. His most important creative phase, the Pittura Metafisica , extended from the end of 1908 to early 1919 and included almost 140 paintings. These works from this time are particularly popular in retail, collectors and museums as well as an integral part of the historiography of modernity.
The increasing demand for the paintings was no longer able to satisfy De Chirico at the beginning of the twenties. For this reason, he started producing replicas in 1924 - i.e. hand -handed copies of his own works.
The production of replicas is basically nothing unusual in the art world. It is artistically legitimate and also legally legal. De Chirico's decision to produce replicas enabled him to make his popular paintings accessible to a larger number of people and at the same time maintain his economic success.
Although some might argue that this would have affected the authenticity or originality of his works of art, it should be noted that de Chirico's reputation as an artist was hardly reduced by this practice. There are even examples of other renowned artists such as Rembrandt or Picasso who have also made their own reproductions of their works - be it for commercial reasons or simply as a means of spreading their artistic vision.
This practice has contributed to the fact that the works of these artists are known worldwide and can be seen in numerous exhibitions.
Owner and managing director of Kunstplaza. Publicist, editor and passionate blogger in the field of art, design and creativity since 2011. Successful conclusion in web design as part of a university degree (2008). Further development of creativity techniques through courses in free drawing, expression painting and theatre/acting. Profound knowledge of the art market through many years of journalistic research and numerous collaborations with actors/institutions from art and culture.
