February 16th, 2006

I’ve missed posting so many articles about this, I’m just going to link to them, now:

Museum’s insurer declares stolen Pollock to be a fake

Brian J. Murray, owner of the company that insures the Everhart Museum’s collection, declared the stolen painting to be a fake. “What we first thought was a loss turned out to be nothing at all,” Murray said.

Insurer: Pollock a fake; owner insists it’s real

How would they do that?” he said. “They don’t have the painting, do they? Is Brian Murray holding the painting? Is he the one who took the painting?”

When what you see isn’t what you get

Art, it is said, is in the eye of the beholder. But the museum has not met its obligation to at least ensure the authenticity of what is being beheld. The museum’s silence relative to details of a specific criminal investigation, regarding the theft or the authenticity of the painting, or both, is one thing. But its continued silence about its verification of works it displays as being authentic, and whether it has established adequate security, are matters of legitimate public concern. The museum should be held accountable.

Painting owner says he couldn’t fake a Pollock; Phillips a renowned artist in his own right

“How do you fake a Jackson Pollock? His gesture is very, very distinctive. I can paint anything else,” said Mr. Phillips, an artist whose work has been displayed in museums including the Everhart.

Art heist probe may take twist Cops take notice of claim that painting may be fake

“If the painting is a fake,” Capt. Leoncini said, “there are a number of things we may have to look at, including whether (Mr. Phillips) knew it was a fake and passed it off as an original and made a claim on it, or whether he signed any legal documents suggesting that it was authentic.”

no comments yet.

comments RSS trackBack identifier URI

leave a comment

  • syndicate

    • Add to MyMSN
    • Add to MyYahoo
    • Add to Google Reader
    • Add to Bloglines
    • Add to Newsgator
    • Add to NewsIsFree