Writing in the Wall Street Journal, James Panero of The New Criterion uses two cases involving Robert Motherwell’s Dedalus Foundation to ask about the operations of authentication boards. With Richard Dorment refusing to let the Warhol Foundation’s denial of the Red Self Portrait stand, and the large sums of money hanging upon authentication, artists’ authentication boards and catalogues raisonnés being issued without discussion of the standards and methods used are increasingly coming under attack:

Artist foundations have come to serve as the art market’s rating agencies, with catalogues raisonnés providing triple-A stamps of approval. As such, these foundations regularly make determinations that can have a significant monetary impact on the value of art, as the Killala lawsuit maintains. At the same time, because these same foundations derive income from the sale of work in their possession by the same artist, there is the potential for conflict of interest, in fact or appearance, in their evaluations of works submitted for authentication. At no time did Dedalus offer any explanations, Killala claims, either of why it originally accepted the Motherwell as authentic, or what made it change its mind, or why it took two years to do so. Nor did it ever disclose how it arrived at its judgments, a claim Mr. Stern disputes in this particular case. Still, in general, this is the way many artist foundations work, a point with which Mr. Stern concurs: “As is the case with most catalogues raisonnés, the authors decline to give reasons to their decisions. It’s standard.”

Behind the Veil: Questions About Art Authentication (Wall Street Journal)

Lindsay Pollock fills in the details in the year-old pair of lawsuits between Joan Branach and Robert Motherwell’s Dedalus foundation that have been tied up in court without coming to trial since March. Branach claims she was promised lifetime employment by the artist and the foundation says she’s been selling Motherwell works that were not hers to sell:

Dedalus filed suit against Banach on 25 March in US district court, accusing her of selling “misappropriated” Motherwell works at auction and through New York gallery Knoedler and Company. The suit alleges that she “secretly” consigned 1958 Motherwell drawings to Christie’s that she had never disclosed to the board as owning, as is the foundation’s policy. The suit accuses Banach of having “misappropriated at least ten Motherwell works”, and selling $93,200 worth of work, without having reported these transactions to the board. Banach’s actions were “deceptive, self-interested and fraudulent”, according to the suit. Banach denies the allegations and says the works were gifts from the artist. The foundation claims $5m in damages, and asks Banach to return all Motherwell works and proceeds of sales, and reimburse the foundation for $324,874.57, the equivalent of two and a half years of salary and benefits.Continue Reading