Art and Forgery: Why People Get Involved
CREA232: Art History from the 15th Century

Artists and art dealers have been forging works of art since the time of Rome. The reasons for the choice to forge works of art and the provenance of works of art can vary, but ultimately they lead back to one of two reasons: financial gain and/or to trick the art world. Crimes of forgery affect the entire art market. The entire art trade with the exception of the buyer all earns money when they handle a piece that is not what it is claimed to be. Often times the only person that loses out is the buyer when a piece is discovered to be forged.
There are three distinct types of people that contribute to forgery in the art world. The forgers themselves, the art dealers who know that a piece is fake and yet still authorize it as original and someone who finds a piece and passes it off as something else to increase its value. The most common types of forgery and deception are wholesale forgery, alteration forgery, provenance forgery and willful misattribution.
Wholesale forgery is when a piece is passed off as something that is either older than it actually is or by someone more valuable than the artist who created it. Alteration forgery is an actual work that has been altered in some way to increase its value. An example of this type of forgery is to add a signature when it was originally not there. Provenance forgery is when the paperwork that accompanies a piece of art is forged or altered. This type of forgery is much easier to do in comparison with forging a piece of work. Willful misattribution is mainly committed by art dealers and appraisers. These people that are looked at to provide guidance to those in the art market to place a value on a particular work. The expert knowingly places a mis-estimation of a value on a piece of work in order to personally make higher revenue.
Henricus Antonius ‘Han’ van Meegeren was a Dutch painter born in 1889. He is a prime example of a wholesale forger, who is perhaps most famous for his Vermeer paintings (Figures 1 & 2). Van Meegeren was ostracized by his peers because portraitures made up a significant amount of his work and the works were seen as no expression of genius. While his technical work was admirable, his own work had a lurid, morbid quality and at times was almost pornographic. Critics did not like him as a man and it was thought that he cheapened himself by doing commercial work. Van Meegeren was seen as unstable, depressive and depraved with a very high self-appreciation but with feeble talent. Fuelled by his anger and resentment he set out to prove to that the art world was ignorant.
He studied the techniques necessary for forging Old Masters from dealer-restorer Theo van Wijngaarden. Van Meegeren made progress as a forger by using a medium made from phenol formaldehyde resin dissolved in benzene or turpentine. He then baked the medium to portray the characteristics of 17th century works. Christ in Emmaus was Van Meegeren’s attempt at a painting in the style of Vermeer. He released this work through carefully constructed channels and lies to prevent questions being raised about a Vermeer piece just being discovered. This work was accepted by a respectable authority on 17th century Dutch painting and was called Vermeer’s most important masterpiece. Van Meegeren went on to create many works in the style of Vermeer and also other 17th century Dutch painters.
The down fall of Van Meegeren was the sale of one of his faked Vermeer’s Christ and the Adultress in 1942 to Reischsmarshall Hermann Goering. After the end of the German Occupation of the Netherlands in 1945, Van Meegeren was arrested and charged with collaborating with the enemy because of this sale. In order to escape this charge he had to confess that he actually painted Christ and the Adultress along with the other Vermeer paintings. He made fools of everyone in the art market with this confession. He was finally able to lay claim that he was a great painter. He could take credit for all those Vermeer painting’s that had fooled everyone for so long and claim the dues that were owed to him. With this confession the charges of collaboration were then changed to Fraud.
Van Meegeren while a technically good painter he was ostracized for his dull, lifeless and old fashioned works of art. This led him down a slippery slope controlled by his ego into the world of art forgery. His need to prove to the art world that he was as great an artist that he thought he was led him to seek revenge against his peers and critics. In reality Van Meegeren was a fake, just like his Vermeers. John Myatt was also an artist who was responsible for many wholesale forgeries. It is estimated that he created over 200 forgeries in different artists styles. Myatt was a single father struggling as an artist and studio musician in the late 1980s. During this time he often did not have enough money to heat his home and was worried about his children being taken away from him. It was during this time that his boss at the music studio admired a Raoul Duffy piece that Myatt owned. His boss stated that if he had enough money he would like to own a piece like that one. Myatt said he could paint one for him if he wanted. The painting fooled both the boss and several of boss’s friends. One acquaintance stated that they could detect “Matisse’s influence” in the painting. This was the starting point for the forgeries that Myatt would eventually create. John Myatt first met professor, physicist and art lover John Drewe in 1986. Myatt placed an ad offering “genuine fakes” in the newspaper at an attempt to make money to support his family. He received several commissions and through this ad is how he met John Drewe. John Drewe became his best client and forged the path for them both to be part of the greatest art fraud of the 20th century. Myatt stopped copying certain pieces and rather created works in the style of certain artists. It was much more interesting for him to test his skill than just knocking out copies. Myatt struggled with his thoughts as Drewe commissioned more and more works. He also took notice of several of his works that had disappeared from Drewe’s home. Because Myatt painted with regular house paint he was concerned about what Drewe was doing with his work because after a while the paint would start to flake off his creations. When Myatt accepted payment from Drewe for a sale of piece in the style of Gleizes, he could no longer deny what he now knew for certain. Drewe was selling his pieces as authentic. Myatt became paranoid about people finding out he painted so he often painted at night without even his own children knowing in fear that they would say something to someone. Drewe was a cunning man who used his numerous contacts to be able to infiltrate his way into the ICA archives and also those at the Tate Museum. With the documents that Drewe was able to obtain from the archives it made Myatt’s painting even more valuable. With the correct forged provenance Drewe was able to authenticate the works more definitely. Myatt was also able to provide sketches and drawing to accompany some of the letters to raise the value even more. Myatt was becoming weary of the risky chances that Drewe was taking with the forged works. A turning point was when Drewe and Myatt were at the Tate Museum and in walked two curators with Bissiere panels that Myatt had painted. Myatt was very concerned because there was no way that they would pass acceptance at such a renowned museum for they were painted with house paint. Myatt argued with Drewe and got him to remove the pieces from the Tate. Myatt took them home and burned them. Myatt finally produced what he considered a “10” Giacometti. It is this piece that would eventually lead to his and Drewe’s demise. When the painting appeared in the Sotheby’s auction catalog it captured the interest of Mary Lisa Palmer, the assistant to the widow of Giacometti and she immediately knew it was a fraud. It was around this same time that Myatt was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the way Drewe was conducting business and finally said he would not contribute anymore. In September of 1995 detectives showed up at Myatt’s home and he was not surprised, he had been waiting for them. He verified Drewe as the person who forged documents and provenance supporting Myatt's fakes. Both Drewe and Myatt were brought to trial in 1998 and were sentenced to prison for their individual roles in the art and provenance forgeries. Myatt was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud and sentenced to 1 year while Drewe was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud, forgery, theft and using a false instrument with intent. He was sentenced to 6 years. After release Myatt reapplied for his old teaching position but felt lost without the painting. One of the investigators in his case told him that he had a god given talent and he could still make a living at it. It was never about the amount of money and excess that Myatt earned while working with Drewe but rather that his children be provided for. He ended up setting up his own business, Genuine Fakes. John Drewe took advantage of the money scrapped John Myatt. Drewe was a manipulator and perpetual liar. They were both driven by the need for financial gain. Myatt was driven by his need to support his children and their wellbeing. Drewe was driven by the greed of financial gain to improve his standing among those in the art field. He was a mover and shaker and cared about what other thought of him. The motivations behind forgery are as varied as the types of forgeries, but the most common fuel has been greed. The greed for financial gain and the greed of fooling the art world are the two principal reasons artists make forgeries and art dealers peddle them. Both Artists and Art Dealers can fall into the trap of art forgery as seen in the case of John Myatt and John Drewe. Han van Meegeren was an artist who fell into the other area of reason: they want to fool the art world.

Illustrations:

Figure #1. The Supper at Emmaus. Han van Meegeren in the style of Vermeer.

Figure #2. Christ and the Adultress. Han van Meegeren in the style of Vermeer.

Bibliography
Chappell, Duncan, and Saskia Hufnagel. Contemporary Perspectives on the Detection, Investigation and Prosecution of Art Crime Australasian, European and North American Perspectives. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2014.
Charney, Noah. Art and Crime: Exploring the Dark Side of the Art World. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger/ABC-CLIO, 2009.
Daab, John. “Fine Art Authentication: Where are the Forensic Examiners?” The Forensic Examiner 19, no.1 (2010): 40-48. Academic OneFile, EBCOhost.
Fakes and Forgeries: [catalogue of an Exhibition] the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, July 11- September. Minneapolis: Minneapolis Institute of Arts, 1973.
Goldman, David. "A Stroke of Genius: Art Forger Elmyr de Hory." Biography 5, no. 12 (2001): 24. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost.
Hoving, Thomas. False Impressions: The Hunt for Big-time Art Fakes. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.
Jones, Mark. Fake? The Art of Deception. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.
Kilbracken, John Raymond Godley. Van Meegeren, Master Forger. New York: Scribner, 1968.
Lenain, Thierry. Art Forgery: The History of a Modern Obsession. London: Reaktion Books, 2011.
Salisbury, Laney and Aly Sujo. Provenance How a Con Man and a Forger Rewrote the History of Modern Art. New York: Penguin Group, 2010.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Thomas Hoving. False Impressions: The Hunt for Big-time Art Fakes (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 212.
[ 2 ]. Noah Charney. Art and Crime: Exploring the Dark Side of the Art World (Santa Barbara: Praeger/ABC-CLIO, 2009), 108.
[ 3 ]. Ibid.
[ 4 ]. Thierry Lenain. Art Forgery: The History of a Modern Obsession (London: Reakton, 2011), 282.
[ 5 ]. John Raymond Godley Kilbracken. Van Meegeren, Master Forger (New York: Scribner, 1968), 95.
[ 6 ]. Ibid.,103-104.
[ 7 ]. Ibid.
[ 8 ]. Lenain, Art Forgery: The History of a Modern Obsession, 283.
[ 9 ]. Killbracken, Van Meegeren, Master Forger, 105.
[ 10 ]. Mark Jones. Fake? The Art of Deception (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 237.
[ 11 ]. Ibid.
[ 12 ]. Lenain, Art Forgery: The History of a Modern Obsession, 284.
[ 13 ]. Ibid., 285.
[ 14 ]. Ibid.
[ 15 ]. Jones, Fake? The Art of Deception, 238.
[ 16 ]. Ibid., 240.
[ 17 ]. Kilbracken, Van Meegeren, Master Forger, 156.
[ 18 ]. Laney Salisbury and Aly Sujo, Provenance How a Con Man and a Forger Rewrote the History of Modern Art, 169.
[ 19 ]. Ibid., 9.
[ 20 ]. Ibid., 7.
[ 21 ]. Ibid., 9.
[ 22 ]. Ibid., 7.
[ 23 ]. Ibid., 11.
[ 24 ]. Ibid., 18.
[ 25 ]. Ibid., 36.
[ 26 ]. Ibid., 70.
[ 27 ]. Ibid., 64.
[ 28 ]. Ibid.
[ 29 ]. Ibid., 62.
[ 30 ]. Ibid., 75.
[ 31 ]. Ibid., 79-80.
[ 32 ]. Ibid., 115.
[ 33 ]. Ibid., 168.
[ 34 ]. Ibid., 226.
[ 35 ]. John Daab, Fine art authentication: where are the forensic examiners?, 43.
[ 36 ]. Salisbury and Sujo, Provenance How a Con Man and a Forger Rewrote the History of Modern Art, 289.
[ 37 ]. Ibis., 303.