I’m a bit confused about how the forgeries work. So, apparently, Smith was hired by Berenson to restore or create copies of these paintings so that they could be sold to influential people like Isabella Stewart Gardner. The idea was to pass off these copies as originals because the Italian authorities wouldn’t let real Botticellis leave the country.
Mathis mentions two specific paintings: one at the Gardner Museum and another at Christie’s, which used to be in the Panciatichi Collection. He argues that the one sold through Christie’s is actually the original, while the Gardner version is a copy made by Smith. That seems contradictory because usually, copies are considered less valuable than originals.
He also talks about how these paintings were acquired. The Gardner Museum bought the Chigi Botticelli for 2.2 million today. The Panciatichi version was sold at Christie’s in 2015 for $845,000. Now, if the Panciatichi is the original, it makes sense that it’s more valuable than the copy.
Mathis believes that the Panciatichi painting is the real one because it looks older and has details consistent with Botticelli’s style, like the little flowers in the forest. The Chigi version lacks these details and has additions done by Smith that don’t match the original quality.
He also points out that the Chigi painting is smaller and less detailed than the Panciatichi one, which doesn’t make sense if Chigi was a copy because you’d expect copies to be larger to fool authorities. Instead, it seems like the Chigi was made after the original, possibly by someone else with lesser skills.
I’m not entirely sure how all this connects, but I think the main point is that Mathis is challenging the authenticity of these paintings, claiming that one is a copy and the other is real, which goes against the established narrative. He also mentions that the book he read, “Artful Partners” by Colin Simpson, seems to have a hidden agenda to whitewash Berenson and Duveen’s roles as crooks while still promoting their sales.
So, in summary, Mathis is arguing against the accepted story that both paintings are originals, instead claiming one is a copy made by Smith. He uses technical analysis of details like background elements, dimensions, and style to support his claim.
Summary: Miles Mathis challenges the conventional narrative surrounding two Botticelli paintings, asserting that one, previously thought to be authentic, is actually a copy created by Joseph Lindon (Zozo) Smith. The text examines the authenticity of these works, focusing on technical discrepancies and historical context. The key points are:
-
Paintings in Question:
- The Gardner Museum’s Chigi Botticelli: Believed to be a copy, acquired for 2.2 million today).
- The Panciatichi Collection’s version: Sold at Christie’s in 2015 for $845,000, suspected as the original.
-
Technical Analysis:
- The Panciatichi painting is judged older with details consistent with Botticelli’s style, such as distinctive flowers and background elements.
- The Chigi painting lacks these features and has additions deemed inferior by Smith’s work.
-
Historical Context:
- Berenson and Duveen, prominent dealers, facilitated the sale of these paintings to evade Italian export laws.
- Colin Simpson’s book “Artful Partners” is critiqued for its potential bias, promoting the dealers while claiming to expose them.
-
Conclusion:
- Mathis argues that the Panciatichi version is authentic, challenging the notion that both are originals. He suggests that Smith created a copy, which was sold as a later version of the original.
Final Thought: The text questions established art history narratives, emphasizing the need for meticulous analysis to discern authenticity and expose potential deceptions in the art market.