Is This £1 Thrift Shop Painting By 20th Century Italian Master? | Fake Or Fortune | Perspective
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 апр 2023
- The team try to prove a painting bought for £1 in a junk shop is the work of Giorgio de Chirico. The painting is a still life depicting fruit in a windblown landscape and belongs to Bob Kay who bought it from a bric-a-brac shop in the nineties. However, scepticism arises from many art experts due to thee sheer volume of fakes in circulation.
Subscribe and click the bell icon to get more arts content every week:
/ perspectivearts
Perspective is RUclips's home for the arts. Come here to get your fill of great music, theatre, art and much, much more!
📺 It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service and get 50% off using the code 'PERSPECTIVE' bit.ly/3zj7Soo
Any queries, please contact us at:
perspective@littledotstudios.com
#Painting #Art #History
I DO think there is a problem with these committees who have the final word on authenticity of a given artist’s work. They don’t do the chemical and scientific research that you do, but use their “feelings” to decide.
This painting in particular has so many markers giving it time and place, that they disregard because of the “placement” of the fruits, when we all know there has never been an artist who didn’t have an off day, or who didn’t attempt something different from their usual works.
I think there is much power in the hands of these committees, who are unwilling to admit to an earlier mistake unless forced to by an ironclad provenance. It is a dreadful shame.🖤🇨🇦
Agreed...
Unless you slip them a few bucks.
@@nelsonx5326 well said .... i think that is a big part of their 'appraisal' system .... ching ching!
You won't sell the picture without that. These people got insanely lucky. I'm not even to the big reveal yet.
I have what I believe to be a Hopper. Everybody is with me until 'the signature' that I'll never be able to cough up. Besides,
I was turned off by her ennui to the matter. I thought even that if there was an unfound Hopper, she didn't want to know of it.
Feelings??? They are experts on the subjects, wtf??!
The number one thing I've learned from this series is this: the "experts" _never_ change their minds. If they didn't have an opinion, the painting and evidence gets to stand on its own. If they have, there is no way. Ego seems to be more important than authenticity, or not.
The so called experts in art are the biggest frauds of any kind that there have ever been! Protecting their behinds, that's all.
So true, couldn't agree with you more.
And how gracious is the owner - I doubt I would have been so.
Exactly
@@justinwhite6787 Indeed. What a lovely man. Although, he could afford to be--he's in the "world", so to speak. I feel more sorry for the bloke whose Churchill authenticity stood to save a farm and dozens of jobs, and despite overwhelming evidence, the expert that had previously "had doubts" said "nope". He lost his farm, and then the painting was later absolutely proven to be one of Churchill's--too late! Seriously, that expert was so far up his own arse I doubt he even cared peoples' livelihoods were riding on him being honest.
Fiona (who I have decided I adore in a completely non creepy platonic way) alluded to this inability in this very episode, but she was a lot more polite about it than I am.
It's a De Chirico, you know it is. Especially when you connected the letters and friendship to Vera Morris and he was sending her paintings. You all do such great work.
@@Montecitodesign Yes, a good trail to follow for sure!
I agree, the facts just add up to authentic!
@@louisegogel7973 Actually, I am on the fence as to authenticity. Reading the letters from Vera could reveal information about this particular painting. It’s too bad they did not include this research. I suspect it might be extremely awkward to get past the men who preside over De C. legacy. Unless there is a foundation website that includes the digital images of this (relatively small) collection of paintings and correspondence etc., access to Vera’s letters may be off limits. This is unfortunate for another reason: without scans of the holdings, there is the risk of losing everything in an accidental fire…the one that “won’t happen to us”.
@@Montecitodesign An excellent idea to follow through on. I definitely think this painting has merit and may well be the work of Giorgio de Chirico. Many foundations will not take the trouble to seek further information, they see merely with their eyes and once their minds are made up, refuse to change their perspective. Let us hope that further research as you suggest, will be followed through. I really enjoyed this particular program and thank you for your comment.
@@LorettaKayfeld Yes, let the letters be looked through thoroughly, and scanned digital copies made available to the world for safekeeping. Let the truth be revealed if it is at all possible through the trail of paint analysis, letters, and any other method available.
After all the evidence presented the experts do not seem like experts at all and possibly didn’t change their mind because they didn’t want to overturn the original assessment. They didn’t want to look like fools.
The Gainsborough episode really destroyed my respect for Philip Mould. I feel like he was unwilling to allow it to be the correct painting because he was more worried about his dealer reputation and possibly a lawsuit. He basically “borrowed” the provenance from the real painting to support his own sale… this shows how fallible these dealers are and how dishonest some dealers really are.
To me, the evidence didn’t seem all that compelling-all it did, which is not to minimize it, was to _not rule out_ the painting as a de Chirico. I can see it either way: the style of those three trees in the middle background of the painting in question (which no one comments on) looks very similar to those in the confirmed de Cherico 51:03 so if it’s not de Chirico, someone seems to be closely _emulating_ de Chirico’s style; on the other hand, the quality of the fruit, say, the grapes is different. I was _hoping_ the painting would be a de Chirico but I’m a bit on the fence as to whether it actually _is._
@@jeff__w Fair does . Yet , it only failed the first time because one of the group ' complained ' about the walnut . The show proved that part wrong :-)
@@jeff__w My favourite part of the painting is the tendrils on the muscat grapes. I'm not sure they look like de Chirico, too voluptuous. I like the painting, whereas I'm not usually keen on his stuff (was not surprised to how he treated Vera badly). So complicated. However the recipe stuff IS rather compelling to me as that's very unusual. On the other hand, maybe other artists were doing that too.
@@Songbirdstress “However the recipe stuff IS rather compelling to me as that's very unusual.”
I dunno-that in particular struck me as the kind of odd logic the show uses to concoct its story. Philippa Abrahams happens to use oil and honey in one recipe that works in her experimentation. Meanwhile, the chemical analysis shows there _is_ oil and honey (!) in Bob Kay’s painting. Hmm, what’s missing? Well, any connection to de Chirico-which seems like an important gap. We don’t know if _de Chirico_ used anything like that formulation. (And, even if he did, it wouldn’t be dispositive as to _this_ painting, just one more bit of evidence in its favor.) It’s an example of the many rabbit holes the show has the viewer go down in its “analysis.” (There’s even a reference to “the de Chirico recipe in Bob’s painting,” which kind of assumes what they’re trying to prove.)
I like the show-it’s pretty engrossing-but I have to admit that one of the things I find fascinating about it is the hand-waving that goes on as it weaves its tale of “investigation.” (I sat there thinking “Well, if Ms Abrahams comes up with the _exact recipe_ for the painting in question, that will tell us precisely nothing about its authenticity as a de Chirico. Let’s see how that works.” Answer: it doesn’t.)
So four of them strangely changed their minds, first thinking it was right, now wrong. Makes you wonder about these decisions.
Yes, truly there is that point! And the one dissenter bowled over the others for some reason?
They’re not the same experts, most likely. The first rejection, based on one expert with the doubts about the blasted walnut, happened in 1997. This appears to be 20 years later. Considering these committees are mostly old men, I’d bet you half the 1997 committee is now dead or senile. These are new experts giving their opinion this time around.
I love that artists like Ernst and De Chirico copied themselves and each other to trigger and confuse the egos of pompous and self-important collectors and experts. 😄💗
I love this program, I am always learning so much.
De Chirico also declared a lot of his original works fake because he just hated the owner lmao
The rise of surrealists after the terror of world war and the authoritarianism that caused it was specifically political in nature. It led to anarchism as a foundation in all artforms (visual art, theater, film, music, dance, poetry, etc) that challenged all rules and sparked original forms of expression. Art is fundamentally political because it's also psychological, so many artists after WWII (as they did after WWI) threw out all rule books and created their own individual structures. One way to do this was to 'fake' themselves. Whole dissertations can be written on the many reasons for faking your own artwork.
Your research results convince me it's a real De Chirico. I think the committee just didn't want to admit they'd been wrong before. Hang onto your picture, Bob. Hopefully, in the future, you'll get a confirmation that it's a genuine work.
But there was no evidence to connect that painting to di Chirico. There was evidence that he had a friend in England, but nothing connect that painting to that friend either.
It looked like a piece of junk to me compared to the genuine De Chirico paintings shown,.
Fantastic journey. Thankyou for sharing
The discovery of oil and honey, both scientifically found present in the painting, is actually a confirmatory test. Honey is rarely used in paint, and oil in a tempera is also a surprise. The combination of both these paint ingredients should have convinced the authorities that the painting is a genuine Giorgio de Chirico. Yet, they adamantly stick to their original theory of the walnut being present in the foreground. Admitting to a possible mistake is the criterion seen here.
@@rohiten1 LOL, those are ancient recipes for paint, long before Chirico was born. Honey has also been used in painting since ancient times. Also, forgers knew those techniques, it's how they forge paintings. There is a reason the art world is dependent on experts. They keep the forgeries cut down.
Loved Bob’s line: “how vast is a pomegranate?” 😆
Belinda Blinked knows! 😅
How on earth could that committee possibly deny the scientific results that were overwhelmingly in favour of the painting being an original work !
These art authentication committees/foundations are ridiculous. The way they make their decisions so randomly.
You do realize you don’t get to hear everything they say?
Better have less authentifications than too many. Leonardo's Salvator Mundi comes to mind.
@@catofthecastle1681 Thank goodness for small blessings
@@bodeaalex1142 That was painted in Norfolk, 1878
@@bodeaalex1142 The mundi painting is ugly, no matter who painted it. There’s no vibrancy.
A captivating episode.! For me.. there are always more questions about these "committees" authenticating the works.. than the works themselves.
My thought on some of these art house experts is that there is more value in declining art work that is not in the current catalog of an artist's work. It's the classic scarcity creates more value for existing acknowledged works.
Exactly. And it's funny when you think about how many of these same committees have been fooled by forgers for the exact opposite reason-- for *wanting* to believe something was real when it had far less convincing evidence behind it. In some ways I've been more fascinated by forgers than the people they're trying to fake, entirely for how willing the "experts" were to believe that there was some undiscovered/rediscovered masterpiece.
Bingo.
That's it exactly! You put your thumb right on it!
@@cattymajiv Thanks for your comment! Yes, it certainly makes sense.
@@texasred2702 Thanks for your comment!
This really highlights the arbitrary value assigned to works of art
signature or not it belongs in a junk shop, it's a hobbyist mediocrity.
@@sheldondrake8935 Most art is that way. It's all become so over-inflated, because of egos. A thing is worth whatever amount you can get for it, even if it's junk. Which is exactly why Banksy and others have spoofed it so well! The banana duct taped to the gallery wall spoke volumes about the whole art world!
I remember so clearly a huge scandal, in about 1978 or so, when the Canadian National Gallery spent several millions of $ on a painting. It was very big, between 6 and 9 feet tall, and 3 or 4 ft wide. I'd say 6' X 9'. It was 2 solid colors. Definitely red on the left side, and black, white, or yellow on the other, with the divide between them running straight up and down vertically. I think red and yellow.
I don't know what ever happened to it, but I was SO OUTRAGED! I know nothing about art. You don't need to, to know that anyone could do that in a day. I don't give a care what excuses the gallery used. It was the MOST outrageous waste of taxpayer money that had ever been seen here!
Art is a great scam, if you know people who can give you a lift up early in your career, preferably before leaving school after your bachelors degree. And that's all you need. No graduate degree required. If you're good at bluffing, art is the career for you.
@@cattymajiv The art "world" is not a hive mind. Individual collectors are driven by many variables, often in juxtaposition to each other. Generalizing is a mistake, it lacks important nuance.
@@sheldondrake8935 This painting is a master piece of epic proportions. He gave it this glossy look of jelly like fruits which is what he was always experimenting with. It's a real de Chirico! And it's Gorgeous. I'm certain that it's one of the presents from him to the Muse Vera. It even has this sexual arousal energy in it.
I have to disagree, it highlights the opposite. It highlights that a painting needs providence to be of value and the actual aesthetics are irrelevant. Nothing arbitrary about it.
I think the Italians just didn't want to admit to a mistake and just doubled down on their refusal.
Only God knows.
Toria has it right on. However there was an awful lot of scientific evidence that wasn't persued this time. Maybe if they had been more thorough?
Amanda Knox.. and the whole entire saga the Italians carried on with in the grave exaggeration and lies was so extraordinary out of this world you almost had to stop and think are the Italians as a race, mentally imbalanced.
DNA swabs needed!
I'm curious to know if it was a unanimous decision amongst the Italian committee. Were all of them in agreement?
As soon as I saw the painting I thought of Chirico. The 'experts' say it is 'in no way' by him.
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
👍🏼🦆👍🏼🦆
I am a painter, DeChirico is one of my favorites, and i have been to the museo, twice, also the caffe greco. His still lifes are amazing, the way he paints grapes they seem more real and alive than the ones being painted. Yes we are looking at the painting on a youtube video but for me it seems to have that quality. Its either legit or the person who painted it had his own gift and a very large gift it was.
They call this a follower of the artist.
The clouds in the sky are very diferente also. Very basic
This programme always is amazing, but the piece of data on the year when the picture was probably made was truly beyond fantasy. Thanks!
It is entirely possible that the "experts" were wrong. The art business is a very dangerous place.
Huge money laundering.
While I can't afford a masterpiece I do appreciate the prints of my favorite paintings. Thank you for the enlightenment on the stories behind the painting. When I travel I always visit Oxfam, British Heart Society, Goodwill and flea markets along with antique stores. I only buy what I love or think my family will like. Sometimes I have a painting that isn't claimed by one of my children and then I am secretly pleased "It's mine!".
I love this show. Don't always agree with the different committee decisions, but still love the show!
Look for the most random box of paintings in a corner. And then look at the back of the paintings. I used to live in Oxford and in 4 months I bought 40 paintings from Oxfam and the other charity shops - some are worth £10k +. A rich area where old people live is ideal !
I think you mix up 'big name artist' with masterpiece. Quality oil paintings rarely sell for more than 500 euro/pound. People should be less obsessed by big names like Van Gogh, and this program is not helping.
The committee is wrong.
How dare they rule in favor of their pride, rather than authenticity.
It is reassuring to know this show is for real, even if the piece is not authenticated, for whatever mundane reason, they take their time, and modern resources to do their forensic analysis, perhaps in the future, a new set of eyes, and more science can prove its artist.
Absolutely brilliant episode - what fascinating lives you all lead - please bring us more!
I was thinking the same
I must say that yr program's are better than a good murder mystery. I even find myself holding my breath for the reveal. And learning about art & the art world is a plus! Great program, 😊 thanks
If we eliminate de Chirico, then we have a painter who knew his style, who was painting in the late forties, and had sufficient familiarity with his paint recipes as to be able to duplicate one of them. This would indicate a person who had a fairly close acquaintance with de Chirico. Given this information, it should not be too difficult to determine the identity of the actual painter. I believe that the owners , given their fondness for the painting, would appreciate knowing this, even if it does not raise the market value of the painting. In any event, it would be a good basis for another very interesting episode in your series.
I agree. I believe it is an Ernst.
And this person sent the painting to England? So doubtful. The committee is just covering their butts.
@@mbery628 ernst? Would be worth even more, no?
i don't think it was said anywhere that it was painted in 1940s but the tree the wood comes from was cut before 1950s. very big difference.
also use of materials may not be unique to one artist, because there are not that many different materials to choose from.
The carbon dating was enough to convince me. The rest of the evidence made it seem to be plausible that it was by de Chirico. 🖌🎨
But the carbon dating only proves it was painted on genuinely old wood.
Fake or Fortune always does such a thorough job of investigating, but this episode really takes the cake for comprehensiveness! I was amazed to learn about the tempura paint technique, and the way it was tested by both artists and scientists provided very convincing evidence. I also really enjoyed the care taken to examine the age and the exposed edge of the wooden panel - what attention to detail!
I think the De Chirico people in Italy got caught with their pants down and are bluffing their way out to save face. Egos vaster than pomegranates 😂😂😂😅
The way you thoroughly traverse every possible hurdle is just fascinating. I’m so happy to have found your show! Many thanks for the wonderful entertainment and knowledge, from Pittsburgh.
Why didn’t you test the actual paint recipe via spectroscopic analysis and see how close the spectra from the painting was?
I was curious about that too
The complete lack of any provenance was going to be a major problem.
Another excellent episode nonetheless!
It's has not bee proved that the painting is NOT by De Chirico. It is simply that it is not proved that it IS by De Chirico.
Funny how De Chirico renounced his early style and then returned to it because that seems to be the work that people appreciate and so was worth more money. It is probably the only period of his art which is considered truly significant.
Such a fascinating journey! I think the painting is real, the more I looked at it, the more it felt authentic. Those guys at the de Chirico Institute were a bunch of fuddy-duddy spoilsports, who would never admit they were wrong. the honey and the oil - who uses that?? It was a no-brainer!
This program is just fascinating EVERY TIME I watch it - all that history that surrounds just ONE little painting and all of these BRILLIANT people who are so good at their handcraft and their love for The Arts is just so awesome LOVE IT👍❤️
couldn't agree more!
@@geoffbenge8867 same
I am really impressed about how much they were able to learn with so little initially to go on. Having an engineering background, the technical analysis seems convincing to me and is more compelling that deciding based on subjective stylistic elements. The only thing more I think that could have done is taken a paint sample from the board edge and done a different chemical analysis to perhaps identify the other ingredients of the recipe. The more unique the recipe the less likely someone else did the painting. A question I would ask the committee is, who else in that time period was painting in tempera with oil and honey.
This is why one should only buy art from living artists. You know what you are getting and the dead ones don't need the money.
Awesome story and video!!!!!!! Thank you! With you as in my work I take a scientific approach and I agree that all you found say the painting is real to this artist! And I encounter the same issues in fighting the establishment that will never allow new ideas or being wrong and thus never take the risk to agree!
You are so right! I even found that incredibly chauvinistic attitude in my work, at the maintenance department of the School Board, in our fairly big city. It is mind bogglingly bad there! So bad that I got run off, specifically because I knew more than they did. I came from another very large organization with decades of experience, but I came from outside, so I hadn't learned the proper hierarchy of ass-kissing. It wrecked my career and my life.
@@cattymajiv Fully this is how it is everywhere today! EVERYWHERE today!
After some point time, when the artist has achieved a stable price, there must be a very strong evidence to certify a new work. Each new painting devaluates a little the existing ones, and no one wants to loose money.
Thank you so much for this posting! I've found every episode of every series of this show on RUclips except this one. Until now. Now my viewing of the entire show is complete. Hoping for new episodes later this year.
The suspens beaver the reading of the letter, was almost unbearable and never would I have guessed the negative answer. A Shock! Something else, the letters to 'his Muse' suggested that De Chirico adapted the size of his paintings to the envelope he sent them in. So, the 'Cut-off Apples' might have been de Chirico's doing. What a great story this was. I am totally fascinated by your episodes!
Why a professional artist today wouldn't at least sign the painting, and place a fingerprint or three along with their handwritten signature with the date and title on the back is beyond me.
I can imagine that the people who actually run the art industry, and that is what it is, what none of that.
@@debrabarnhardt1103 I suppose it's quite a profitable side industry? This "authentication fee" racket. From their perspective, the more fakes the better
Even with the paint recipe and the pre 1950 wood…..I’m very surprised.
Did de Chirico have students or apprentices? Perhaps this is by one of them. It's a pretty picture, no matter who painted it. Because it was featured on this show, Bob would get a lot more than one quid out of it if he sold it today.
Well, for what it’s worth, I think it’s a copy, albeit a very nice one. Whoever did it,
you got a bargain and a good story.
...and realistically there are people out there who would buy it, gambling on irrefutable provenance turning up at a later date and so making it worth a LOT more!
When the walnut researcher brought up original paintings by the artist side by side comparison you could see a difference in the paintings.
She also said immediately that the overall quality was not convincing, just the walnut was worthy of a master's hand
I don’t care what the experts said. I think it’s genuine.
The facts are too in line for it not to be, yet they will never lay their reputation on the line for one small painting!
@@westpacificmarketanalytics2384
I think they put their reputations on the line by dismissing it!
@@lovingmayberry307 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
The painting looks like the fruit has been washed and ready to eat. Ditto all the De CHIRICOS look good enough and ready to eat. Bob's painting is a De CHIRICO. Delizioso!!!
The clouds, the strokes on the foreground, and the intensity of color on the painting they are checking just doesn't seem to be in the same vein of de Chirico...but that's just to my untrained eye.
Thank you for uploading I’ve been waiting for a new one to watch!
The de Chirico Foundation was unaware of several paintings that featured a walnut? That rather undermines confidence in their so-called expertise.
I certainly agree with the other comments that the refusal of the committee to authenticate it as a genuine De Chirico and more to do with false pride and arrogance then a genuine assessment of the evidence. For me the woman who immediately felt it was genuine because of the one element that negated an unanimous vote- the walnut impressed me the most. I think the owner's, Bob reaction to the bad news was magnanimous. I can't help but wonder what they said to each other off camera.
There was nothing to connect that painting to de Chirico. He was highly faked even during his own lifetime.
Great video, thank you. By the way, is the owner related to Bendor Grosvenor, the chap featured in other series? Something very similar about him!
I’m amazed he died in 1978. I got a degree in Art History the next year and always associated de Chirico with the Scuola Metafisica in the 1920’s and never thought about when he died.
Love this show and the channel!
Unpleasant conclusion, I have watched many of your episodes and this episode, for me, rises to the head of the class, in so many different areas…I am a painter and I so appreciate your phenomenal efforts in research, detective work and art education that is so informative, enlightening and entertaining…brilliant…well done ..cheers…and I’m an American😂
THANK YOU! Finally it is uploaded.
I love this series and have only been able to view this episode twice. Why?
😊 it amazes me how much I've learned just by watching the station about some of my favorite artist and heroes it's amazing what you do to prove works of forgotten art real lost or found
Under the circumstances, I would be tempted to say “Not authentic? Fine then. I’ll destroy it.” and watch how they react when I took out a lighter.
Thanks for a great show on art. Blessings from South Africa
What an interesting subject matter. Thanks for a thorough adventure full of art world "secrets" and educational eyes. USA
It's a pity they didn't explain who Vjera and Vesna are. On the Vjera's photo it says, in Croatian: evening of folk songs and chansons, accompanied by the guitar. On the top it says Dubrovnik City Orchestra
They actually did explain who both of those women were and provided a decent number of examples and a back story. If you wanted a documentary on the singer, search it yourself or read her biography but this episode was not about a singer or Dubrovnik City Orchestra.
Congratulations 🎉, that was another mammoth effort and it is so lovely to see the old stone breathe again. Cheers from Australia
I’m a bit bewildered by how they describe egg oil tempera as an unusual recipe? I’ve always learned that painters have been using oil with eggs in tempera more often than not. I’ve even seen artist mixing pigments with mayonnaise for an instant egg oil tempra mix, lol
they must make a visually interesting story to tell on TV, so they add a scene where she says lineseed oil, and he reacts surprised, even though he had seen the recipes and made her try them
I trust the scientific proof, but much of the “expert” opinion is solely based on ego and personal opinion.
Just think of the costs involved in this investigation. Wow!
It bottles to imagine!
The cluster of 'proximity provenance' the team managed to discover, especially the unique chemical analysis of the paint, convinced me! Such a distinctive signature...
Bob Kay's grace in receiving the 'verdict' was impressive, exemplary. { I'd have been sobbing on the floor, or raging, or maybe BOTH! } If only we had a TARDIS and could go back in time and ask Giorgio directly!
MEANWHILE... Am I the only one still reeling from the information about the massively increased radiation levels 'in every living thing' on the planet from the nuclear tests?! Why isn't this more widely known? Is there/ what is the correlation between this and the exponentially increased cancer rates and / or other health impacts globally?
Amazing how the media couldn't care less about the radiation levels.
Why do I suspect that ths new gen of Journalists have barely heard about it!? People seem to assume that 'all that' went away with 'The end of the Cold War' {which actually never ended and is now hotting up again...} @@davidsmith3736
How ridiculous that a decision on who painted it can make a worthless painting valuable or a valuable painting worthless.
A sad ending but... it’s the love and journey... of art xxxx
You did a through job proving this painting was by De Chirico. Year, paint ingredients,composition, walnut,and who it was sent to in England. Case closed imo.
So, an English man, an English investigation team, visits the Chirico studio in Rome to have its board members authenticate painting a second time. True intense forensics indicates it is a remarkable reminder of De Chirico styles and paint formulas. To the Godfather theme, it is rejected. CASE CLOSED.
Interesting how I also thought of that wallnut as being not something that De Chirico would paint. And yet he did.
It doesn't look like any walnut in his authentic paintings.
What a wonderful episode.
Brilliant work!!
If there's one group I simply cannot trust it is a roomful of pointy-headed self-appointed art experts.
so very interesting of a story, a mystery, a delicious curiosity....as well as human curiosity
The number one thing I've learned from this series is this: Go straight to the final 3 minutes, because if it's fake I can NOT waste 55 minutes being led along.
Does someone know or can guess why Mr. De Chirico sent, and stated he intended to send at least one other unsigned work to Vera? He said he hoped that she wouldn't be cross about it, and I'm supposing he would've given a reason. If there was an explanation given I didn't catch it. I'm just curious about what the reason might've been, since he specified it, and it wasn't simply an oversight. Thanks!
👍👌👏 Simply fantastic and truly fascinating. I really like this beautiful picture. And I like the owner even more. He is a man of not many but always significant words. What convinced me was the fact, that some of the fruits have been overpainted because the artists opinion/taste changed while painting.
Thanks a lot for making teaching explaining recording editing uploading and sharing.
Best regards luck and especially health to all involved people.
There's NO WAY that's not a De Chirico - no one else in the world paints with tempura made from honey and other kitchen ingredients. No forger would have made that. The committee must resign immediately!
I wish they had explored the idea of a student painting. Did he teach?
So , let me summarize the outcome… the picture is going through the all detailed tests in laboratories, after that experts put “glasses” on and look and look and look.. then decide if painting is or isn’t real?
The tests are already done, the labs certify the results. I know that these authenticators also do research outside what was given to them.
It's still a lovely painting. Thank you for another great episode.
Interesting, I knew an Semi amateur Art collector who was sure she had a de Chirico, (about 30 years ago) that i immediately thought was a fake. This one I feel is the real deal, and it was the walnut that struck me like a thunderbolt, as closing the deal, and it was the shading, coloring and expression of the Walnut form that screamed de Chirico at me, as well as the dreamlike contrast of huge fruit grading into an outdoor landscape.
I really, really enjoyed this episode.
It's a beautifull, skillful painting. Very strange that they didn't go ahead and try to find out who the painter was then, if not De Chirico.
There are so many people who could have painted that painting, di Chirico was and still is highly copied and faked.
love this series !!!!!
Wow. Thank you for taking the time and trouble (using all that new technology) to add more evidence that this "supreme court of authenticity" is imperfect at best, and outright crooked at worst. Keep up the good work!
You can check this with painters, but to my experience tempera dries fast, a lot faster than oil. But he knew it as he painted with tempera before. And there is only one. So it might be an unsigned experiment.
love this show!
I really enjoyed that. And well done even though the painting isn't one we would give wall space to. Surely the judgement should be "We can't be sure." then archive the investigation and if it ever wants sold, then any buyer can decide for themselves.
Very good show. I'm a fan. Aloha from Hawaii.
Would like to see the 2 rejection letters side by side .
If I recall , the first rejection was just from one guy , based on the ' incongruous ' walnut . Hardly an unaminous decision ?
Then we see walnuts all over the place , focal points .
Who were the judges this time ?
You have a swathe of credible info , against the views of a few .
While not in the same field , I question judges in the orchid world .
One our formost orchid judges , grower and breeder told us that the new ' line bred species ' were considered 'superior ' by judges .
I put up my hand and said " I like the old ones more "
He replied " Oh Scott , you are entiltled to your opinion . These are their decisions and am sure no one else here would agree with you "
A challange is just that . I asked for a quick poll .
Ooops , he lost , nearly 90 % agreed with me . Smug whatsit that I am .
As with others , am the view that they could not change their first opinion . Damage their credibilty ?
Why was insured for so much by a large auction house ?
As the owner says , regardless , he really got his 'quids' worth :-) All that travel and coffee :-)
Must take pride of place at home .
Am no art fundi , was suprised to see the painting on what seems to be ' ply wood ' , am using some at the moment .
The tree was growing ' pre nuclear ' , ply is basically left over chips all glued together .
Could they not analyse the glue used ?
Stiil, very interesting , thanks .
Of course they could have, if they had wanted to. There are at least 3 more tests they could have done. It makes me wonder why they didn't, or if they did them, why not say so? Hmm.
I agree with the walnut, it didn't look like other walnuts painted by di Chirico.
Please bring this show back….
I Just love your show honest intriguing fascinating and so educative….
As much as a love this show, I just cannot bare to watch it any longer. I get so angry that just a few “experts” have all the power to state whether a piece is authentic.
What is the point of authentication if you have to accept all paintings as authentic? There was zero evidence connecting that painting to di Chirico.
So despite all the evidence and the majority of the original committee saying it is, they still hold onto the word of one person. Unbelievable
This "client" is the most articulate and interesting I've seen on the show.
That painting holds a very unique clue from whoever the artist was. I wish I could study the painting up close. There appears to be a 'tear' at the corner of one grape unlike any other in the composition. It resembles a weeping eye. Just my observation. In fact it looks like a set of eyes gazing from beneath the cluster. There is an intimacy in the painting. Perhaps the artist was conveying his own sorrow at not being the Master Artist? Just a thought. If you check out the self portrait of DE Curico 1948, you will find a clue in his left eye. The sky, background is fascinating. For some reason, I saw his eyes in this painting. His self portraits use tiny clues always in the left eye.
As an art dealer, I’d put my hand up to buy it!
For 50 thousand lbs or dollars?
@@annabellelee4535 You have just made me so annoyed with myself. Why didn't I have the verve(?) to think of lbs for pounds? Though I reckon you should have used $ for the dollars you wrote. Still, well done and thanks for something I'll use quite a lot.🤗
@@jackieking1522 My cat was probably blocking the number row of my keyboard. She has rather long hair. LOL, I usually use the symbols.
Good show 👍🇬🇧
i found this program wonderful.