The painting’s unclear attribution
In 2014, the owners of a painting in the UK consigned it for sale to a dealer. The painting, entitled Le Bénédicte, had been in the owner’s family since 1751 and was known informally to be by the French painter Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin. The painting was published in both Chardin catalogues raisonnés by the art historian Pierre Rosenberg, an acknowledged expert on the artist. In both catalogues, Rosenberg wrote that that the work was “by the hand of Chardin,” but added that it was a “copie retouchée,” placing this phrase in quotation marks as a quote from a historic source, but not defining or explaining its meaning himself. This term is unclear as there is no definition of it in art history.
The dealer then sold the painting on behalf of the owners—to another dealer—but he changed Rosenberg’s wording to a work by “Chardin and studio,” for the price of 1.15 million pounds. He did not tell the original owners that he had changed the wording on the attribution and had not consulted Rosenberg or another Chardin scholar about the work. In fact, Rosenberg had never attributed works to “Chardin and studio” in his catalogue, nor did he define “copie retouchée” as “Chardin and studio.”
Sold twice
Six months later, the second dealer who had bought the work upgraded the work to “by Chardin.” With this full attribution to the artist, the second dealer sold the work for a much higher price: $10.5 million US dollars ($7.5 million in cash and a second painting valued at $3 million). The original owners were surprised that the first dealer had sold the painting for millions less than what it had been sold for only a few months later. They then sued the first dealer for not fully researching the attribution and for not informing them of his downgrade. The judge in the case concluded that the first dealer had not breached his duty in his approach to researching, appraising, and selling the painting, nor did he have a duty to inform the owners about his downgraded attribution of the work. The legal outcome of the case suggests that the burden of due diligence lies with the owner.
Seller beware: independent due diligence?
From an art historian’s viewpoint, several important takeaways from this case can be gleaned. Most important, in an unregulated market with no legal standards of requirements for due diligence, sellers need to educate themselves and not be afraid to ask detailed questions before they agree to consign works for sale. A simple check of Rosenberg’s Catalogue raisonné could have alerted them to the unusual wording, and a quick Google search could have raised concerns about whether this was a clear attribution or not. They could have contacted Rosenberg their own and asked for clarification. In this case, the owners knew Rosenberg, as he had allegedly visited them and seen the painting in preparation of his catalogue.
Questions to ask
More generally, collectors should always feel free, as is the case in medicine and other fields, to ask for a second and even third opinion from other scholars. They should also feel free to engage an independent third-party expert to help them unravel any questions or doubts that arise about an attribution. Not all attributions can be made definitively, but the steps in the process by which an attribution has or has not been made should be spelled out in detail in a manner that even a non-art historian should be able to follow. Owners of artworks should not be afraid to say to a specialist: “please walk me through how this attribution has been made, on the basis of what information, which kinds of examinations, and on which specialist’s expertise.” Owners can also include in their consignment contracts specific requirements that attributions be detailed and be confirmed by specialized scholars. In my opinion, a third-party expertise can help avoid conflicts of interest when a work is attributed and appraised by the same person who is selling it. This would provide collectors with an added layer of security and transparency.
A more transparent ecosystem
Consider an example from another field: real estate. A seller hires an agent to sell their property. Once there is an initial interest in the sale, a series of independent third-party specialists are engaged to conduct inspections. These inspectors serve to raise any red flags, assessing whether the property has been safely constructed, is infested with termites or mold, has water seeps, foundation cracks, bad plumbing, a crumbling roof, or a faulty electrical system. The same process of independent verification can be conducted by a potential buyer. The goal of these inspections is to ensure the safety and quality of a property officially and independently before a sale, following codified Standards of Practice. Were the art world to require similar forms of third-party verifications, both sellers and buyers would likely feel safer, and a more transparent, trustworthy art ecosystem would be created for all.
