Sunflowers of Vincent van Gogh ?

Sold by Christie's in 1987 for £22 million to a Japanese buyer. Van Gogh had a great liking for Japanese woodcuts by Hiroshige

The Sunday Times revealed last month that there is growing conviction in the art world that the painting is a copy of a similar painting by an embittered French art teacher. The Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, which first loftily dismissed the charges as unworthy of comment, announced that it is now taking the allegations so seriously that only a panel of independent experts can rule on them. If it finds the work is a fake, up to 45 other paintings attributed to the artist since his death in 1890 will come under scrutiny.

The "Sunflowers" became the world's most expensive painting when it was sold at Christie's 10 years ago for 24.75 million pounds to the Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Company of Japan.

London's National Gallery has been invited to join the commission, due to start work early next year, because it owns the unchallenged original study of sunflowers painted from life in August 1888, of which the Yasuda Sunflowers is supposed to be a copy made by Van Gogh in January 1889. Geraldine Norman, an art expert who studied the background of the sunflower series, believes the Yasuda work was faked by Claude Emile Schuffenecker, a turn of the century painter and friend of Van Gogh and Paul Gauguin, for whose house the original Sunflowers was intended.

The Van Gogh Museum has appointed two senior officials to lead the investigation: Sjraar van Heugten, curator of paintings and drawings, and Louis van Tilborgh, an archivist. (Excerpts from an article in The London Times, by John Harlow, November 23, 1997)

My opinion:- I see no reason whatsoever for Gauguin to copy Van Gogh, why? he had a very different stance on what to paint and how to paint it. The two of them argued so much about painting Vincent cut off part of his ear. Van Gogh had never sold a painting so there was no money to be gained. Why would Gauguin bother to paint such an accurate copy when the spirit of the painting would be suffice, as in my copie of Vincent.   

Vincent Van Gogh's painting of sunflowers sold by Christie's in March 1987 for a record price of US $ 39,921 millions to Japanese insurance magnate Yasuo Goto might simply be a fake, following claims made by two researchers in July 1997. 

The sale of this now challenged work in London caused sensation on the art market ten years ago but in 1993 Antonio de Robertis, an Italian researcher, claimed that it was a copy produced by the French painter Emil Schuffenecker, a master of the Pont Aven School who had been a close friend of Van Gogh. However, nobody wanted to believe de Robertis who was then considered as a little known researcher with no capacity to cope with top experts. But he still had solid arguments to develop. Meanwhile, several dozens of Van Gogh's works have been classified as fakes or copies by de Robertis and other researchers and his claims have now been strongly supported, notably by Benoit Landais, a French writer who sifted through the artist's letters to trace back all listed works. 

The painting of sunflowers sold in London on March 30th 1987 is a weak copy of the work now exhibited by the National Gallery there, according to Benoit Landais who has pinpointed at least 12 flagrant mistakes in Mr Goto's acquisition. In his letters sent to his brother Théo, Van Gogh only referred to two sunflowers paintings, with 14 flowers each, produced in 1888. He first painted a canvas with 12 flowers and then another one with 14 and duplicated both. Therefore, there are only two 
«14 sunflowers » paintings mentioned in his letters, one now in London and the second in Amsterdam. There is thus no proof of a third canvas. The one sold in London belonged to Schuffenecker and his brother Amédée who have been strongly suspected of having produced copies of Van Gogh's works. But when put on sale by Christie's the catalogue mentioned that it originated from the artist's family. Now, if the painting comes to be formally considered as a fake, Mr Goto could sue Christie's for having carried out a fraudulent sale. This would result in a long judicial battle with enormous financial consequences for the auction house if it were to lose the case. One year after the 1987 sale, some researchers challenged the provenance mentioned in the Christie's catalogue and supported the Schuffenecker version and also tentatively thought of the possibility of a gift from Johanna Van Gogh to the Pont Aven artist. However, the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam did not come up with any document sustaining such provenance. It is still possible that Schuffenecker was in possession of a painting of sunflowers by Van Gogh but it might well be a version of the 12 sunflowers instead of the 14. 
The Van Gogh Museum would be in a difficult position to act as an arbitrator in the case since Mr Goto, so much pleased with his acquisition, offered the institution some US $ 20 millions to help build a new extension to its existing building. So far the Museum has stressed that the painting sold to Mr Goto was genuine but it might well find itself in a fragile position, firstly following the pending dispute over some 100 dubious Van Gogh works and secondly , the magnate's gift might be considered as a bribe by its detractors. For a long time, the Museum was regarded as the sole authority regarding Van Gogh's paintings but with the catalogue raisonné and Mr Goto's piece being challenged it now faces the dire prospect of having to share its prerogatives with those nasty researchers or at least other specialists. Now, Mr de Robertis and Mr Landais must prove on their side that they have enough knowledge of Van Gogh's works to stake their claims because it would be rather childish to believe that the artist's letters to his brother Theo constitute the only element enabling to determine whether a painting is genuine or not. It would be utterly ridiculous to claim that Van Gogh listed all his paintings in the letters sent to his brother. In addition, he travelled a lot, firstly in Belgium, then in England (his London period is not so much documented), in Paris, in Brittany and in Arles and its region. 
As a result, it was probable that he forgot to inform his brother about what he did once in a while. Most of his works were recovered by his family after his death but there were many others which had been lost or given away and it is again hard to imagine that Van Gogh referred in these letters to everything, studies, drawings and paintings, he was producing. Only a close scientific examination of Mr Goto's painting will help give a definite answer regarding the authenticity of this work because it now cannot be sold back as a result of the suspicion surrounding it. All the more, there are some collectors who have found in the past 20 years several so-called lost works by Van Gogh in flea markets, fairs and other places in France, Britain and Belgium. Most of the time, the Amsterdam museum rejected these as fakes without giving any real close attention to them. Then, it may well be that there are some genuine pieces among those pieces rejected abruptly by the museum. This at least tends to prove that the Van Gogh controversies are surely going to poison the art market for quite a time.

From Kirkus Reviews
Juicy tales of intrigue and bravado from a ``fakebuster'' extroadinaire. Hoving, the notorious former director of New York City's Metropolitan Museum of Art and author of Making the Mummies Dance (1993), etc., has found his calling in exposing art forgeries. As a roving fakebuster (the term is the author's) Hoving draws on his connoisseurship and position as an art world insider to investigate and pursue his hunches about inauthentic works of art. He provides us first with a history of the... 

  Hoving strikes again!, March 26, 2001
Reviewer: Stefani Koorey  from Orlando, Florida United States
Hoving, former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC, knows of which he speaks. He takes you on a fascinating journey as he relates his experiences with fakes and frauds in the art world---not just paintings, but great Medieval reliquaries, ancient Greek kouros statuary, Roman antiquities, and pre-Columbian art. He leaves nothing back in his narrative-----which is really refreshing. He details "standard" museum practices of smuggling objects and even names names! And if he doesn't like someone, he doesn't hold that back either.

I found the book informative, lively, and mostly fascinating. I wanted more pictures (there are only a few and none are in color)!! It was a farily easy read too---I read it in a day.

If you enjoy art, art history, or even detective stories, you will enjoy this one!

Stefani Koorey, Ph.D. professor of humanites, theatre, and film

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

  EGO GETS IN THE WAY, July 28, 2000
Reviewer: really-siobhan  from Winchester, MA United States
Thomas Hoving is an intelligent man who had a fascinating career. The problem is that the person most fascinated by Hoving is Hoving. Once you get by his monumental ego, there is much here to warn not only the collector but the museum goer, the student of history and the lover of art. Just how much is real? It is frightening to think that what we revere may not be what we think it is. Oh, well, you can always close your book, turn on the television and watch, "Antiques Roadshow."1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

  Good stories about fakes and analysis of how and why, October 24, 1999
Reviewer: Robert Harris  from Southern California
While Hoving's tone becomes a bit irritatingly self aggrandizing at times, the book as a whole is an enjoyable excursion into the world of art fakes and into the psychology of both fakers and victims. Many times over, we learn that when a commodity is in high demand and scarce supply, the fakers are only too happy to improve the supply. Perhaps one of the most stunning stories is told almost offhandedly near the end, about Brigido Lara, a man who faked virtually an entire civilization by creating more than 3500 works. Recommended as a good way to put the art world into perspective.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

  Will you ever believe anything is real again?, October 12, 1998
Reviewer: MICHAELSGRAVER@WORLDNET.ATT.NET  from New York
This book is thoroughly entertaining, and makes the reader completely suspicious as to if anything they have ever seen in a museum is actually authentic. Thomas Hoving draws on his countless hours of investigation to illuminate the reader as to the frequency of fakes. Although he has occasion to assume the reader knows more about art & history than can be normally expected, he does make you want to read more on the subject. My next purchase will be " Fake?". A good read that lacks enough illustrations as to the subjects being discussd, it is equally valuable for its bibliography and end notes if nothing else.

Sunflowers by Douglas Carpenter, oil on canvas, 16 x 20