8 THE ART NEWSPAPER Number 284, November 2016
News International
Old Masters sold
by Giuliano Rufini
face testing times
Leading museums embroiled in saga of paintings
attributed to Cranach, Hals and Parmigianino
SAINT JEROME: SOTHEBY’S. VENUS: © LIECHTENSTEIN, THE PRINCELY COLLECTIONS, VADUZ–VIENNALEGAL
Paris. A study of an Old Master attrib-
uted to Lucas Cranach in the Liechten-
stein Collection, which was commis-
sioned by a French judge after the paint-
ing was seized in March, has concluded
that the Venus could not have come
from the artist’s workshop. “The most
probable hypothesis is that the work
was deliberately executed in the manner
of Lucas Cranach the Elder” before being
“artificially aged”, it says. The report is
still provisional, as the French authori-
ties expect a rebuttal from the Prince of
Liechtenstein or other parties named in
the case, which is ongoing.
Most of the report is based on the
examination by the Laboratoire de
Recherche des Musées de France at the
Louvre of the painting Venus with a Veil.
The laboratory’s study is inconclusive,
however. It states cautiously that all the
materials are old, but it lists a series of
discrepancies with the chemical compo-
nents used by the painter. The goddess’s
loose hair and eyelashes are described
as “clumsily executed”, in comparison
with two works by Cranach in the Lou-
vre’s collection.
Even more troublingly, the network
of cracks is said to appear “incoherent”
and “inconsistent with normal ageing”.
Dark bubbles and folds, as well as an
“abnormal bend” of the panel, could
indicate that it has been warmed. The
“hesitant” signature and date are consid-
ered not to be by Cranach.The most damning evidence comes
from the oak panel, a wood that is
uncommon in Cranach’s work. The
Parisian Laboratory of Molecular and
Structural Archaeology concludes that
it was made from a French tree cut at
the end of the 18th century or even
later. But another, similar examination,
carried out by Peter Klein in Hamburg
in 2014, stated that it was German oak
dating from the painter’s period.
Even before these results were
known, two scholars had declared the
painting to be a fake. Dieter Koepplin,
who authenticated the work as a Cranach
in 2013, states that he is now “absolutely
certain that it is a forgery”. He tells The
Art Newspaper: “I was convinced by mac-
rophotographs I was not able to see at the
time,” referring to extreme close-ups of
the work. And Gunnar Heydenreich, the
leading specialist on the painter, gave
the same opinion when summonsed by
French police in July.GROWING SCANDALStill, Johann Kraeftner, the director of
the Prince’s collection, says he has “no
reason to doubt the work’s authenticity”
and will refute “any divergent opinions”.
The painting is one of several once
owned by the Italian-based French
collector Giuliano Ruffini, who is at
the centre of a growing scandal over
alleged forgeries. The National Gallery
in London, New York’s Metropolitan
Museum of Art, the National Museum in
Parma and Vienna’s Kunsthistorisches
Museum have become embroiled in the
saga, having between them borrowed
paintings that were sold by Ruini and
later attributed to Orazio Gentileschi,
Parmigianino and Frans Hals.
The portrait of a man signed “F.H.”
was considered a “true masterpiece” of
Hals’s late period by the Louvre’s curator
of Dutch painting, Blaise Ducos, in 2008.
The Louvre did not raise the €5m asking
price, however. The French museum
now says that it consulted Dutchcurators from the Haarlem Museum
and the Mauritshuis, as well as US spe-
cialists. However, at the time, Christie’s,
which had presented the painting to
the curator, withdrew from the sale,
expressing doubts about its authenticity.
“Is the art market in such a state of
panic that it is ready to dismiss so many
Old Master paintings as fakes, without
further scrutiny?” asks Ruini’s French
attorney, Philippe Scarzella. He was
responding to the news that Sotheby’shad rescinded the sale of this portrait.
A week after our French sister paper, Le
Journal des Arts, broke the news in late
September, Sotheby’s confirmed that “an
in-depth technical analysis established
that the painting was undoubtedly a
forgery”. Traces of modern materials in
the ground layers were detected in a
sample. Although the firm sold the work
on behalf of the UK dealer Mark Weiss, it
decided to pay back “in full” the buyer,
Richard Hedreen from Seattle, whobought it for $10m in 2011. He lent it to a
show at the Seattle Art Museum in 2013.SOLD IN GOOD FAITHSotheby’s also confirmed that a similar
technical examination is now under
way of a Saint Jerome, which it sold for
$800,000 in good faith as being by an
artist in “the circle of Parmigianino”. In
2014, the work was shown at the Met,
with an attribution to Parmigianino.A spokeswoman for the museum says
that the attribution was discussed by its
curators with specialists and “the case
for it being by Parmigianino” was made
by Mary Vaccaro in her monograph pub-
lished in 2002 and the catalogue of the
Parmigianino exhibition in Parma and
the Kunsthistoriches Museum in Vienna
in 2003. However, the leading specialist
David Ekserdjian says that he “never
believed it could be a work by Parmi-
gianino for the simple reason that it is
a copy of a composition by Correggio” in
Madrid’s San Fernando Royal Academy of
Fine Arts Museum.
Meanwhile, in London, Weiss casts
doubt on the examinations commis-
sioned by Sotheby’s of the portrait, which
he has always considered to be one of
Hals’s masterpieces. “I still have to be
convinced,” he says, adding that “all the
scientific community agrees that further
examination should be undertaken”.
“As far as we know, nothing proves
that these paintings are forgeries,” says
Scarzella, implying that they could be
works by pupils or imitators. Stressing
that he has not been charged, Ruffini
tells us that he sold dozens of paintings
in previous decades but never claimed
that they were by Old Masters. “If they
were later attributed to great artists, the
experts, the dealers and the curators are
responsible,” he says.
Vincent NoceTHE “HALS” THE “CRANACH”
THE “PARMIGIANINO”
An Unknown Man bears the initials “F.H.”The goddess’s loose
hair is described as
“clumsily executed”
Sotheby’s is undertaking a technical examination of Saint Jerome A report on Venus (1531) has found that cracks are “incoherent” and “inconsistent with normal ageing”