 |
Warhol printer Jean-Paul Russell's answer to this is that Warhol always farmed out his work for other people to do because that was part of his quasi communist philosophy of how art
ought to be produced. "I had never seen Andy Warhol even once come down to the studio to watch the work being printed," said Jean Paul Russell. "Sometimes he would ring up to give his instructions over the telephone. Warhol gave direction but always left an opening for input from others.” Gerard Malanga, Warhol's chief assistant in the 60s recalls the first time when Warhol's work was made out of the studio and out of the artist’s hands. Art dealer’s Leo Castelli and Ivan Karp went ahead and did a print-run of the Liz Taylor portrait without Andy's permission, using ‘Total Color’ as the commercial printer. Malanga was not in the least worried since these posters are not true silkscreens but Offset Color Lithos. “These were made from a 4 x 5 color transparency and not from the original acetates” Total Color never spoke with Warhol or Malanga directly; only to dealer Leo Castelli. Warhol was shown the work after it was completed.
This does not take away from Warhol's art but it certainly goes against the policy of the Authentication Board.
Leading the campaign against the Authentication Board are two men who own almost identical Warhol pictures - which would have been worth millions had the Board not deemed them to be fakes. Richard Ekstract, the publisher of the upmarket monthly magazine, Homes and Cottages and Joe Simon, producer of the Oscar nominated Richard III, both own red self-portrait screenprints of Warhol made in 1965. Ekstract's version was a direct gift from the artist. Warhol and Ekstract collaborated on making some video art in the early 1960's, and Warhol provided him with an acetate, a type of photo negative used in screenprinting, as a thank you for lending him $15,000 worth of video equipment. Warhol told Ekstract that he could have it made up as a series of prints - so long as he didn't have to pay for it and was shown the results. Unorthodox as this deal sounds there are a number of people who can remember Warhol striking it including his manager at the time, Paul Morrissey and the curator of his first Retrospective in 1965 Sam Green.
"Andy was just so lazy about his art," said Morrissey, "But as Warhol's manager I spoke with Ekstract on many occasions and I was the one who negotiated the arrangement with Ekstract."." Sam Green, curator of the Warhol Retrospective in 1965 and long considered a leading authority of the artists work, was shown one of the portraits by Warhol; “Andy was pushing for it because he said that it exemplified his new technique for having works produced without his personal touch, he wanted to get away from that. At the time he was ambivalent about his personal authorship. In any case, the painting is familiar to and known by me.” Many at the Tate Gallery in London believe the pictures to be genuine. It used a Warhol made from the Warhol/ Ekstract acetates/photo-negatives to publicise its mammoth retrospective exhibition of Warhol's work two years ago - plastering it on to the top of buses and onto tee shirts and mugs. IN 2002 the US Government even deemed it sufficiently iconic to print it onto the 37 cent postage stamp.
Yet even these prestigious endorsements have failed to convince the Board. "I feel very angry," said Ekstract last week. "The collaboration I had with Andy Warhol was undeniable. There are even photos to prove it apart from the testimonies of those who worked with him for decades." Ekstract has employed one of New York's sharpest litigators, Steve Pesner to begin proceedings against the Board. It is a brave move - few have dared take on the Goliath of the art world and their phalanx of Pretorian legal guards. Whatever the outcome of the trial it will have far reaching ramifications; artists since the Renaissance have got other people to execute their ideas, too, and the court case could usher in the possibility that their work will have to be reassessed. The Rodin Museum in Philadelphia is filled with works which were made using the great artist’s casts after his death and authenticated by his estate, now works such as these may now be re-evaluated.
"I think opening up this Pandora's box can only be a good thing," says Ekstract. "These people have too much power for too long and its house-cleaning time. These abuses grow as they get more power. I feel certain a positive thing will come out of all this. I feel very optimistic. I think we'll prevail." Others are less certain. The Warhol Foundation is used to paying lawyers millions out of their charitable funds to fend off their critics and it remains to be seen if Ekstract's pockets are sufficiently deep to match this brinkmanship. He may also find it hard to get witnesses. The sense of terror the Warhol Foundation inspires is palpable. People will not speak openly about what they think of it for fear of retribution but mutter darkly about tapped telephones and threatening calls. Simon was just 17 when he first met Warhol and bought his first picture from him - a print of Mick Jagger - but it was not until he was 25 that he bought his first serious painting. It never crossed Simon's mind that the painting, which he had bought for $195,000 from one of New York's most established and respected art dealers, was anything but a genuine Warhol. The painting had been stamp signed at Warhol's studio and the year before it had been authenticated by the chairman of the Warhol Foundation, executor of the Warhol estate and Warhol's manager for more than 20 years, Fred Hughes. Hughes had even owned a similar image himself. However, when Simon presented it to the board two years ago, with a view to selling it for $2 million, he was told it was "not by Andy Warhol."
"I was absolutely amazed," he says. "It had an impeccable provenance." "I was persuaded by Vincent Fremont to submit the picture; it turns out he stamp signed it in the first place. As he had already denied Ekstract’s his decision was clearly pre-meditated." Like Ekstract, Simon has got written affidavits testifying to its genuineness from many of those working in Warhol's studio during the 1960's but still, the board says "nein." Simon has taken time off from a highly successful film career to fight this decision and has been approached by Gosford Park director Robert Altman about making a film about his three year struggle. "The board is completely unregulated and routinely makes decisions to serve its own interests rather than historical accuracy," he says. Paul Morrisey adds: "I just want to say that the Board doesn't want to accept the reality of what was happening and how Warhol worked."
Leading the campaign against the Authentication Board are two men who own almost identical Warhol pictures - which would have been worth millions had the Board not deemed them to be fakes. Richard Ekstract, the publisher of the upmarket monthly magazine, Homes and Cottages and Joe Simon, producer of the Oscar nominated Richard III, both own red self-portrait screenprints of Warhol made in 1965. Ekstract's version was a direct gift from the artist. Warhol and Ekstract collaborated on making some video art in the early 1960's, and Warhol provided him with an acetate, a type of photo negative used in screenprinting, as a thank you for lending him $15,000 worth of video equipment. Warhol told Ekstract that he could have it made up as a series of prints - so long as he didn't have to pay for it and was shown the results. Unorthodox as this deal sounds there are a number of people who can remember Warhol striking it including his manager at the time, Paul Morrissey and the curator of his first Retrospective in 1965 Sam Green.
"Andy was just so lazy about his art," said Morrissey, "But as Warhol's manager I spoke with Ekstract on many occasions and I was the one who negotiated the arrangement with Ekstract."." Sam Green, curator of the Warhol Retrospective in 1965 and long considered a leading authority of the artists work, was shown one of the portraits by Warhol; “Andy was pushing for it because he said that it exemplified his new technique for having works produced without his personal touch, he wanted to get away from that. At the time he was ambivalent about his personal authorship. In any case, the painting is familiar to and known by me.” Many at the Tate Gallery in London believe the pictures to be genuine. It used a Warhol made from the Warhol/ Ekstract acetates/photo-negatives to publicise its mammoth retrospective exhibition of Warhol's work two years ago - plastering it on to the top of buses and onto tee shirts and mugs. IN 2002 the US Government even deemed it sufficiently iconic to print it onto the 37 cent postage stamp.
Yet even these prestigious endorsements have failed to convince the Board. "I feel very angry," said Ekstract last week. "The collaboration I had with Andy Warhol was undeniable. There are even photos to prove it apart from the testimonies of those who worked with him for decades." Ekstract has employed one of New York's sharpest litigators, Steve Pesner to begin proceedings against the Board. It is a brave move - few have dared take on the Goliath of the art world and their phalanx of Pretorian legal guards. Whatever the outcome of the trial it will have far reaching ramifications; artists since the Renaissance have got other people to execute their ideas, too, and the court case could usher in the possibility that their work will have to be reassessed. The Rodin Museum in Philadelphia is filled with works which were made using the great artist’s casts after his death and authenticated by his estate, now works such as these may now be re-evaluated.
"I think opening up this Pandora's box can only be a good thing," says Ekstract. "These people have too much power for too long and its house-cleaning time. These abuses grow as they get more power. I feel certain a positive thing will come out of all this. I feel very optimistic. I think we'll prevail." Others are less certain. The Warhol Foundation is used to paying lawyers millions out of their charitable funds to fend off their critics and it remains to be seen if Ekstract's pockets are sufficiently deep to match this brinkmanship. He may also find it hard to get witnesses. The sense of terror the Warhol Foundation inspires is palpable. People will not speak openly about what they think of it for fear of retribution but mutter darkly about tapped telephones and threatening calls. Simon was just 17 when he first met Warhol and bought his first picture from him - a print of Mick Jagger - but it was not until he was 25 that he bought his first serious painting. It never crossed Simon's mind that the painting, which he had bought for $195,000 from one of New York's most established and respected art dealers, was anything but a genuine Warhol. The painting had been stamp signed at Warhol's studio and the year before it had been authenticated by the chairman of the Warhol Foundation, executor of the Warhol estate and Warhol's manager for more than 20 years, Fred Hughes. Hughes had even owned a similar image himself. However, when Simon presented it to the board two years ago, with a view to selling it for $2 million, he was told it was "not by Andy Warhol."
"I was absolutely amazed," he says. "It had an impeccable provenance." "I was persuaded by Vincent Fremont to submit the picture; it turns out he stamp signed it in the first place. As he had already denied Ekstract’s his decision was clearly pre-meditated." Like Ekstract, Simon has got written affidavits testifying to its genuineness from many of those working in Warhol's studio during the 1960's but still, the board says "nein." Simon has taken time off from a highly successful film career to fight this decision and has been approached by Gosford Park director Robert Altman about making a film about his three year struggle. "The board is completely unregulated and routinely makes decisions to serve its own interests rather than historical accuracy," he says. Paul Morrisey adds: "I just want to say that the Board doesn't want to accept the reality of what was happening and how Warhol worked."
© My Andy Warhol 2008