Here’s a summary of the text with the requested annotations:
The author, Miles Mathis, critiques the British TV show Fake or Fortune for its flawed methodologies in authenticating artwork. He argues that the show relies too heavily on “top experts” who are not artists and therefore lack the “eye” to accurately assess paintings. Mathis shares his own experience of identifying a misattributed Thomas Lawrence painting online and his frustration when Sothebys took too long to respond.
The article focuses on two specific episodes: one on corot and another on Joshua Reynolds. In the corot episode, Mathis disagrees with the show’s conclusion that a painting is a forgery, citing his extensive study of corot’s style and brushwork. He emphasizes how the movement of the hand and brushstrokes are nearly impossible to perfectly replicate, noting corot’s distinctive horizontal strokes in trees and the abstract, daring style of his late period, which would be unappealing to a forger. He also points out that a forger would likely avoid corot’s less popular autumn scenes, as seen in the painting in question. Mathis suggests that Clare Dieterle, the expert in the corot episode, and Robaut may have been misled by the signature and failed to consider the provenance found by Philip Mould and Fiona Bruce, including its connection to Staats Forbes. Mathis also questions the valuation of the corot painting by Philip Mould, suggesting a potential “con” to undervalue it for the owner, Sally.
The Joshua Reynolds episode is described as a “heartbreaker” because the painting was ultimately destroyed during the identification process. Mathis criticizes the conservateurs and scholars for their actions, particularly the removal of paint layers, as Reynolds himself was known to repaint over varnish. He argues that the experts only saw the ruined painting and couldn’t judge its original state. The painting had a known history, including being in a villa in Monte Carlo and being accepted as probably genuine by previous experts like Ellis Waterhouse. Mathis disputes the significance of a 1830 date found under overpaint, suggesting it could be a date of revarnishing or retouching, not the original creation. He believes Simon Gillespie should not have proceeded with paint removal without further proof that the oldest layers weren’t by Reynolds himself.
Finally, Mathis expresses skepticism about the pristine condition of many Reynolds paintings in museums, suggesting that extensive repainting may be occurring without proper acknowledgment. He recalls a similar observation at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh in the late 1990s and connects this to his research on fakes by Raphael and Vermeer, implying that museums may engage in such practices to secure public funding and attract tourists.
Here is the list of subjects, names, references, locations, companies, etc.:
- corot
- Reynolds
- Fake or Fortune
- Miles Mathis
- Ebay
- Thomas Lawrence
- South America
- Sothebys
- bbc
- Fiona Bruce
- Philip Mould
- Charles II
- Wildenstein Institute
- Clare Dieterle
- corot
- Sally
- Staats Forbes
- Joshua Reynolds
- Monte Carlo
- Ellis Waterhouse
- Bonhams
- Simon Gillespie
- Raphael
- Vermeer
- National Museum of Scotland
- Edinburgh