A series of recent lawsuits could change the way UK museums acquire works for their collections

The issue of fakes and forgeries is as outdated because the artwork market itself. With potential pitfalls at each flip, museums must hold alert to the dangers when buying new works for his or her collections.

From Caravaggio to Albrecht Dürer to modern artists like Peter Doig, the artwork world is suffering from misattribution claims of 1 type or one other. Many collectors, sellers, gallerist and museum administrators have been duped by the lure of an illustrious attribution which in the end proves too good to be true.

For museums considering what to accumulate for his or her collections, understanding the regulation round this situation is vital. A lot will be gleaned from the (uncommon) authorized circumstances on this space, the place judges have grappled with difficult questions of authenticity. The proof in these circumstances usually falls into three classes: artwork historic materials, provenance documentation and technical or scientific information.

Most authenticity circumstances cope with effective artwork, the place “connoisseurship” has been extremely persuasive. In a 2002 Excessive Courtroom case relating to a pretend Anthony Van Dyck portray offered to a Texan collector known as Richard Drake, the decide spoke of an skilled’s potential to recognise an artist’s “handwriting”, which carried important weight within the decision-making.

For antiquities, the main focus will be completely different and different components carry larger weight, most notably the archaeological document and historic or spiritual background of the article in query.

Provenance, look and situation are clearly essential in any due diligence train. For any museum worker concerned in buying a piece, it is important to request the provenance paperwork usually offered, if not supplied up voluntarily, to scrutinise them and to corroborate them wherever attainable. If uncommon options of look or situation increase purple flags, these ought to be investigated. The stainless situation—and the mere survival—of sure objects ought to increase alarm bells. That is particularly the case in a selected market which is extensively understood to be flooded with fakes like, for instance, markets for collectors who search sure varieties of particular antiquities. Examples like this spotlight how essential it’s for museums to know market points.

Sellers’ conduct below scrutiny

Regardless of the rarity of courtroom judgments on this space, in late 2022 two English Excessive Courtroom choices on authenticity have been handed down throughout the area of some days. Qatar Funding & Initiatives Growth Holding Co v Eskenazi Ltd associated to the acquisition of objects described (usually) as antiquities from across the first to seventh centuries from the Gandharan and Bactrian areas in present-day Pakistan and Afghanistan, whereas Feilding v Dickinson Ltd concerned the sale of a Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin portray, Le Bénédicité.

Each circumstances centered on the requirements anticipated of sellers with knowledgeable standing and a protracted historical past of transacting in artwork. The courts scrutinised the extent of knowledge shared with purchasers and the necessity for skilled recommendation. Within the latter case, the seller met the required requirements, however, within the former, the seller’s conduct was discovered wanting. Each verdicts present steering for museums considering tips on how to purchase an antiquity or work of effective artwork.

The important thing points in Qatar Funding Co v Eskenazi centred round lack of provenance and inadequate investigation into the context of the contested objects. In Feilding v Dickinson, the query was concerning the attribution to Chardin, and the precise nature of an autograph work versus one that would not be totally attributed to the artist. The portray was described within the catalogue raisonné as a copie retouchée—a phrase for which the courtroom conceded there was “no consensus as to the which means or significance” (however indicated that this might imply a duplicate which Chardin had allowed to be made and had then “touched up” himself). This slightly nebulous description, coupled with the identified creative practices of the time, resulted in lots of uncertainties mendacity on the coronary heart of the case.

The exact wording of an attribution and any associated scholarly commentary require the fullest consideration by a museum’s acquisitions staff. A short survey of public sale home phrases and circumstances will reveal a plethora of attribution descriptions from a single named artist, to phrases similar to “circle of” or “method of” with accompanying definitions. A lot hangs on these descriptions, together with the scope of any authenticity assure. Understanding precisely what they signify and the way far they prolong, particularly for institutional patrons, is essential.

The important thing takeaway is that there isn’t a substitute for systematic, assiduous and painstaking analysis when considering acquisitions. It pays to learn the small print and problem opaque assurances or evasive responses. Reliance on paperwork taken at face worth, on assumed experience and on uncorroborated provenance is a dangerous enterprise. For public establishments, these obligations are extra pertinent, given the exacting moral requirements to which they’re held. The teachings from these latest circumstances are a reminder that vigilance is vital.

• The Institute of Artwork & Regulation, in partnership with Stephenson Harwood LLP, can be internet hosting a seminar, Authenticity, Attribution and the Regulation, in London on 28 March.