Trust and the Art Market.

The aim of this paper is to explore series of issues about trust, knowledge, confidence and commercial practice in the art market.

There are, of course, many sorts of art market, as well as different sorts of trust, which vary both historically and in terms of artistic medium. The forms of cooperation between a mendicant order and a 14th century artist like Pietro Cavallini who decorated the Franciscan churches of Rome and worked under a contract are different from the relations between a eighteenth?century portraitist like Pompeo Batoni or Joshua Reynolds and their subjects, which in turn differs from the relations between Julian Schnabel or Anselm Kiefer, their agents, and such clients as Charles Saatchi. It is not just that the result of the relationship ? the sort of art ? is different but that the nature of the engagement also differs. Imagine a modern collector ordering a picture with certain amount of certain colours; of a fixed size; to sit in a fixed place; and of subject matter determined by the commissioner.

Yet, for all these particularities, it is of course possible to come up with some general working definition of what constitutes trust. The definition I follow is that of Diego Gambetta in his essay on trust in the book of that name: "when we say we trust someone or that someone is trustworthy, we implicitly mean that the probability that he will perform an action that is beneficial or at least not detrimental to us is high enough for us to consider engaging in some form of cooperation with him. Correspondingly when we say that someone is untrustworthy, we imply that that probability is low enough for us to refrain from doing so."
This is a useful working definition although it has the weakness of many rational actor models which treat subjects as individuals with free choice. It does not allow that circumstances force us all the time to cooperate with people we don't trust, or whom we only trust partially.
In that sense there is a continuum of trust.

Trust is, of course, especially important in circumstances of uncertainty and ignorance about the behaviour of others. And, as we shall see, the art market was fraught with uncertainty, not only about the behaviour of others, their trustworthiness, but also about the trustworthiness of the art works themselves. How could art works be trusted? This leads me to my next point: the value of trust entails the possibility of betrayal. The person or picture we trust or want to trust may well prove to be untrustworthy. It is every bit as important to be trusted as it is necessary to trust: a good reputation is one's best asset. This was as true of a picture as of a dealer, an artist or a connoisseur. Trust is connected but not reducible to interest: as Gambetta puts it: "the importance of interest is twofold: it can be seen to govern action independently of a given level of trust, but it can also act on trust itself by making behaviour more predictable".

While it is never very difficult to find evidence of untrustworthy behaviour, it is virtually impossible to prove its positive mirror image. (This is one feature in common between works of art and their authenticity and cases of trustworthiness: in both cases it is much easier to spot a fake, than to secure proof positive). Neither trust nor attribution lend themselves readily to legal authentication, they depend on lack of contrary evidence. Finally, in think about trust I think it very important to bear in mind Al Hirshmann's point: "trust is not a resource that is depleted through use; on the contrary, the more there is the more there is likely to be". Trust thrives through its repetition.

My concern in discussing trust will not be with contemporary art, or with living artists but with the market for what have been considered great works of historic art from classical antiquity to the early twentieth century. I want to focus primarily on paintings ? only one form of art, though certainly since the nineteenth century regarded as the most important ? and on one particular historical period, the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, one of the great boom periods of the art market in old masters.

In fact I want to focus on one story, that of a protracted and sensational legal case of the 1920s which concerned a painting supposedly by Leonardo da Vinci, La Belle Ferroniere. There were two versions of La Belle Ferroniere, one in the Louvre, the other of which was purchased by a Mrs. Hahn, a French woman married to an American. She tried to sell the picture in 1920, and agreed a sale at the price of $50,000 to the Kansas City art museum. But the most important dealer in the world at that time, Joseph Duveen declared, despite the fact that he had never seen the picture, that it was a copy. As a result the deal fell through. She sued Duveen in 1921. At the instigation of Duveen, the two pictures were brought together in Paris in 1923, and a panel of experts including Bernard Berenson, the most famous connoisseur of the age, Roger Fry, Sir Charles Holmes, director of the London National Gallery, were interrogated by American lawyers. All agreed that the Louvre picture was an original; Hahn's a copy. The case caused a press sensation and at least one friend of Duveen believed he was manipulating the case to obtain maximum publicity.

Though the interrogation in Paris was less aggressive than in the later New York trial ? when the experts were absent ? it included some singular revelations. Berenson was asked if one version of the picture was on wood or canvas. He did not know. It was also revealed that Berenson was in the pay of Duveen, which he had been since 1907. Berenson admitted under examination that he had no technical or scientific knowledge with which to secure attribution which he described as a matter of a sixth sense ? not measurable ? a sort of magic, mystical form of detection, a hunch or inference not subject to scientific verification. It also emerged that Berenson had conflicting views about the Louvre picture, which in 1907 he has stated was not genuine.
In 1929 the case came to trial in New York. During the proceedings it was revealed that the experts who had given evidence in Paris had previously provided certificates of attribution for Duveen for money. The New York press treated much of the proceedings as absurd. Expert testimony was attacked and partially discredited. There was a hung jury with a majority against Duveen, who settled out of court for $60,000.

Understand the significance of this incident we need to look at the different protagonists and the values involved here.

All of the main actors of the modern art market present here:
the private, wealthy collector (usually American)
the art dealer and middleman
the art expert
the public museum

features of the incident and the period as a whole.

1. Between the late nineteenth century and the Wall Street crash of 1929? Boom period for old master art market. Indeed the boom in Italian renaissance art was one of the few markets to remain buoyant after the 1929 crash.

J. Pierpont Morgan, Isabella Stewart Gardener, Andrew Mellon, Peggy Guggenheim, Henry clay Frick, Henry Huntington
all eventually have public institutions, spending huge amounts of money on what, after all, was supposed to be a finite number of art works.
Bull markets, opportunities for huge profit through price inflation.
Some of these considered to be people of taste ? Morgan had a reputation as a connoisseur, but most both too ignorant and too busy to find and discriminate about what they wanted. E.g. Mrs collis Huntington, collector of velasquez, almost totally blind.
Important that the growth of this market was in the first instance a growth in furnishing rather than art. Building of mansions, fittings and then pictures.

2. Dealer like Duveen a special kind of dealer. Dealer impresario. One who works with and coordinates other dealers and vendors to provide a full service to the American rich. The pattern in art dealing in c19 Paris and London, one of increased dealer specialization. Modern and contemporary art; antiques; oriental materials etc. For old master pictures Agnews in London; Wilderstein in Paris.
Duveens (of Dutch origin) a furniture firm; early connection with America
Jo Duveen a flamboyant showman; salesman not an expert whose flamboyance not expertise is the key to his success. A man who makes deals. A man who was trusted to deliver the goods.
Made not only a fortune but became a peer on the proceeds.

2. What are collectors looking for?
What was valuable?
Buying a total package not just pictures:
models: renaissance merchant princes (Venice); English gentlemen (Georgian); late seventeenth and eighteenth?century France (Paris) part of that package ? palace and pictures.

The value of a work of art derived from its expression of the genius of its creator

what the purchaser wanted was a work that bore the mark, the hand of an artist who, in the academic and critical writing on art since the lives of vagary, was agreed to be a great artist.

What was wanted was an original, the first, true and pure. A unique expression of individual genius.

It followed that the principle concern of the purchaser was with attribution, with the authentication of the connection between the artist and the work.

What this produced was a taxonomy designed to treat all art within this framework. It presupposed an original whose opposite was the copy (acknowledged) or the forgery or fake (concealed).
It generated a perpetual atmosphere of suspicion and distrust around the issue of attribution, one sustained, as we shall see, by the extreme instability of the whole business of attribution. The fake and the copy were just as necessary to this world as `the original'; they were always tacitly present, but they had a particular place in the art world: in the hands of the greedy and unscrupulous dealer. (As we shall see the faker and the copyist are not subject to the same criticism and opprobrium as the dealer).
And it configured the history of art around a number of individual masters ? so that the language of description was school of, studio of, pupil of, follower of x, according not to historic practices but to approximations in style.

Such concerns called forth two figures who were by no means novel to the late c19 and early c20 but who achieved great prominence ? namely the technical expert and the forger, two figures with more than a passing affinity

the expert.
Connoisseurship
identity through the object itself in its relation to other objects: bizarre result that you can produce an artist through no record except the objects ? the master of x, Berenson invents amico di sandro but then disaggregates him in the 1932 edition of his work.
From winklemann to morelli to Berenson
based on large archive of viewing
then by early c20 on photographs

bb to Henry Duveen in 1912: "if I stop my researches I will lose my eye. If I stop my writing I shall lose my reputation and authority. Whispers already are getting harsher and louder that for money I am sacrificing my gifts and my higher calling...Not that I object to making money but I want to make it with scrupulous honesty and absolutely aboveboard. It would be fatal to cheapen me to the rank of a disguised salesman...You live for business. It is your whole life and a splendid life I respect and approve and at times envy but this is to me a nuisance, a necessary evil. I practice it only as a means to an end. The end is not to enlarge my business and to pile up money but to enlarge my mind and to pile up understanding"

this year when bb signed contract with Duveens: in which he was described as Bernhard Berenson, citizen of Boston, Massachusetts, residing at I tatti, settignano, Florence, connoisseur of works of art, and hereafter called the expert.
Contract a secret bb given code name Doris.
States: this agreement is based on the very considerable value attaching to the opinion and belief of the expert concerning the authenticity, history or criticism of Italian pictures and other works of art.

The reputation, the trustworthiness of the expert crucial to his status.
As a scholar, the expert has to appear to be above money. On the other hand his expertise had to be bought so that he gave his expertise to you.
The expert, of course, has tremendous financial power, a power that others in the market resent
see René gimpel:quote
but also reassures Mrs. Frick that "berenson and Friedlander wouldn't compromise their reputation to please Joe [Duveen]
trustworthiness accumulates when repeated attributions accepted, but also threatened by error
in 1913 bb incorrectly and on the basis of a photo attributed a modern copy was a Bellini original
bb to Duveen: all of us (experts), we are half a dozen at the utmost know well enough how likely such things are to happen. The vulgar, however, expect us experts to be infallible, and if this mistake of mine got abroad it might be damaging to you". Duveen promises "I shall entirely erase it from my mind".
Bb persistently afraid that some error would undermine his credibility and therefore his livelihood. Understandable in that he was not an academic or a museum director, nor originally independently wealthy

the discourse of attribution did not preclude ideas about the beauty of a picture ? about aesthetics as well as attribution ? but in the discourse about paintings for sale beauty or the qualities of the picture were more often treated as means rather than ends.

The experts examining la belle ferroniere commented on its aesthetic strengths or failings but only in order to argue about whether or not it was an original Leonardo. The issues of originality and attribution bounded the discourse.

But important to emphasize that there was always in tandem another discourse about the transcendent quality of art, that what it expressed was a value that was humanly universal, that was eternal, unbounded and beyond the quotidian, value whose commercial worth was determined by the fact that it wasn't commercial but an expression of the human spirit, about human feeling.. You cared about attribution because you wanted to be sure you were buying a Leonardo. But you bought a Leonardo because it was agreed to be one of the highest forms of human expression.
You were buying something mysterious, wonderful and intangible. One required response before great art was wonder, a sense of humility in the face of indefinable power.

It was therefore important that the expert not only appear to be technically competent, but that he was able to express and represent a set of values about the greatness of art, about civilization.
Bb genius not only that he could talk this way, but that he lived this way: that he presented himself to the world as an aesthete.
As part of this his persistent complaints to rich friends about the terrible burden of attribution and the vulgar nature of the trade ? pigs
bb concern about reputation, but question one of reputation with whom? Not with academics, nor yet with a general public, but with the rich world of collectors

life of the expert embodied the contradictions: art as commodity ? a unique good ? and art as embodying transcendent value.

?????????????????????????????????????????????

Now these views about works of art ? that their value derived from their signification of individual artistic genius ? was an historically specific view not a set of universal truths. It derived its force from eighteenth and early c19 aesthetics. Members of a fourteenth?century mendicant order looked at a work of art like those produced by pietr0 cavallini not in order to see the hand of the master but to see the works of god. Many seventeenth?century collectors were more interested in the subject matter and age of pictures than their painters. And only in the mid?eighteenth?century in European auction catalogues was there much concern over the name of the artist as opposed to the subject matter and national manner of the painting. Nor do I know of any catalogues raisonees before the early c19.

I'm not, of course, denying that the superior merits of certain artists were not recognized, nor that collectors did not pursue their works.
And the cult of originality and the development of an heroic view of the history of art built around artists is certainly as old as Leonardo and Vasari, though it did not become a predominant view before the late c18 or later.
It is certainly true that from the renaissance onwards there was a growing concern to identify the creators of particular works, though not one that was pursued systematically.
But all this, it is important to emphasize, is not the same as seeing the value of a work as a sign of individual genius.
I want to stress this point not only to historicize the concept but because the weakness of such an idea earlier had a profound effect on the objects that found their way to the art market later.

If we see the value of a work of art as a construction which sets up one of several possible criteria of worth, its also important to appreciate that it is one that faces a number of intractable difficulties, or that needs to deal with a number of resistances to this view.

1. The first obvious difficulty has to do with the historical organization of artists work practices, namely in workshops and studios. It was common, and especially common among successful painters ? the obvious examples include Rembrandt, Rubens, van dyck ? for parts of paintings to be worked on by assistants, or for artists to sign works that were largely the work of assistants. Many portraitists employed drapery painters; landscape painters used other artists to portray figures or staffage. Many works were clearly not the products of individual genius but of collaborative labor.

2. Methods of artistic instruction have until very recently always laid emphasis on the importance of copying. teachers alter and rework work, especially drawings.
Ability to produce a perfect or even better simulacrum a sign of artistic prowess ? stories of Michelangelo and Benvenuto Cellini.

3. Problems of restoration, repair and improvement
problem of conservation
e.g. Correggio's Leda and the swan
painted 1530
owned by Rudolf ii of Spain, queen Christina of Sweden, then to Rome.
repeatedly restored and altered
1775, after Leda's head destroyed by Louis of Orleans, reconstructed and restored by Charles Coypel, when acquired by Frederick the great
1830 Kaiser Friedrich museum in Berlin, lead and attendant given new heads.

Problem even more acute with statuary ? before c19 considered legitimate to marry parts to keep a whole

all these are circumstances that challenge the view of the work of art as a singular creation of a unique hand
wholeness of the whole work
usually treated as a problem for the connoisseur to solve, not as grounds for reformulating how you might understand and appreciate art.

But there are also circumstances that raise acutely the question of what criteria, by what means can a work be shown to be by a particular artist.

1. The proffered signature
one obvious means through graphography, though many works not signed
but Apelles, portraitist of Alex the great supposed to have signed pictures of young artist protogenes in the 4th century BC; Corot did this frequently.

2. The artist as witness
Claude Latour 1947 convicted of mass producing Picassos and Utrillos. Utrillo not able to distinguish the genuine from the spurious

3. Provenance ? the history of the object
but the very buoyancy of the art market makes this difficult, and only very recently has work begun
suspicion of text rather than image

limitations of connoisseurship repeatedly revealed through forgery
move from Sherlock Holmes to Moriarty

late c19?early c20, like the renaissance and the c18 one of the great periods of forgery.
Forgery as old as art
but period sees spectacular examples:
1. Alceo Dossena in Rome. the stonemason, producing works to order through a dealer. in decade after ww1.
produces the Tomb of the savelli ? Mino da Fiesole ? forged receipt in payment.
attempt by dealers to deny these were fakes.
problem of their reputation. plan to say they were restored by Dossena
the vole face of the critics.
(more evidence of instability.)
reincarnation theory
dies a pauper ? unsuccessfully sued agent and dealer
MFA, metropolitan and Cleveland acquired his work unwittingly.

2. Otto Wacker in Berlin.
Van goghs and the kunstgalerie Otto Wacker; link with Dutch dr. Baart de la faille, includes 30 pictures in his catalogue raisonnee but announces them as forgeries.

sensational trial in Berlin 1932
conflicting testimony of experts, including art historians and restorers.

3. Han van meereren in Amsterdam
45 confesses forgery of 14 classical Dutch masterpieces.
did so because accused of passing on a national treasure ?a Vermeer to the enemy, namely Goering. Woman taken in adultery.
sold 9. not believed.
failed contemporary artist
posters and hack portraits.
1936 begins work on the Disciples of Emmaus.
sold it in Paris.
then Pieter de hooch ?the drinking party and the card?players.
some still continue to believe they are genuine.

these cases follow what I will call the forger narrative, one which can be found much earlier and which is exemplified in the case of c17 French painter, Pierre Mignard
c17 painter Pierre Mignard, penitent Magdalene, after Guido Reni ? deliberately encourages doubts to secure authentication by Charles le brun. then admits forgery, but buyer refuses to admit, thinks he has a better offer from another collector then reveals his signature concealed on the picture.

Not all narratives the same but share several features:

the forger is often asked, as an expert, to authenticate the work he has forged. (After all the good forger has to be an expert.)
The forgery is not discovered by experts but revealed by the forger for other reasons
the forger is not believed, especially by those who are complicit in or have accepted the forgery
he has to find some way of demonstrating the genuineness of the forgery, usually by making another forgery in the presence of expert witnesses.
The painter forger excites admiration, just as the dealer who sells the works excites hostility. Indeed the skilled forger acquires some of the charisma of the genius artist ? cf. Michelangelo.
Even after the forger has demonstrated his skills, doubts remain as to whether the forgeries are originals
though often the case that connoisseurs who have lavished praised on the putative original, shift their language and point to the obvious ways in which it does not bear the hand of the master.

To me what is interesting about the forger narrative is how it gets used to recreate the shared assumptions which lie behind the art world and the art market. It is not the act of imitation or recreation or creation in the manner of x which is the breach of trust. The great forger is the great artist, exempt like all great artists from the ordinary rules, separate from the realm of exchange. The crime is not the great fake, but the passing off of the fake as an original, something that is typically seen s what dealers do. The villain in the art world is always the trader. And what the forgery narrative does is it sets the world to rights: it incorporates the act of forgery within the prevailing assumptions about the nature and significance of art. It uses a case of distrust to reestablish trust, to reassert a shared view of the nature and meaning of art.