Almost a week after a Dutch newspaper asked whether TEFAF’s famous vetting process was capable of catching any fake, the New York Times decides to re-write the story. But this time, the newspaper turns the question around. Instead of asking whether any of the disputed works were ever sold at TEFAF (they weren’t) or whether the same process of peer review that validated the now-disputed works is used to vet dealers’ booths (it is), the NY Times wonders whether the dealers whose works have been implicated in the recent concerns about the collection of Giuliano Ruffini should have been banned from the fair until the various disputes are resolved.
But that kind of public shaming ignores the fact that not one of the four galleries mentioned by the NY Times has avoided the repercussions of the controversy. Indeed, for everyone involved in the disputes, it is better that galleries be present and expected to stand behind their sales, past and future.
Here, at least, the Times gives TEFAF a little credit:Continue Reading