FAKE NEWS Original + Kopie + Fälschung + … SPRENGEL MUSEUM HANNOVER Collection presentation Room E3 in the extension building 20.02.–14.10.2018 external link to the radio station FAKE NEWS – Introduction FAKE NEWS – these are reports about forgeries, ambiguities, attributions and de-attributions, copies, and other forms of production of artworks that are originals of a different kind. Every collection contains such cases, and they are usually hidden away in storage. In the pursuit of greater transparency regarding what happens behind the scenes in a museum, questionable works from the Sprengel Museum Hannover collection are presented here for the first time. We are showing examples of artworks that have entered the museum through various channels in a kind of interim assessment, in order to stimulate further questions and research. In addition to the network of experts from science, art, restoration, and the art market that emerges in these histories of works, the artistic perspective in this cabinet brings the connections to light. Dirk Dietrich Hennig's projects, including that of the Schwitters forger C.G. Jung, are also featured. Rudolf, focus attention on the curatorial and artistic strategy that presents the topic of forgery in a humorous yet serious manner, beyond the realm of criminal history and spectacularized forger figures. The subtitle, Original + Forgery + Copy + …, alludes to the title of Sigmar Polke's legendary 1973 exhibition, Original + Forgery, at the Westfälischer Kunstverein, in which the German Pop artist juxtaposed paintings with his own forgeries, or rather, commentary-like images. The strategy of forging one's own work runs through art history, from copies of old masters to artists known for discrediting and redating their works, to famous forgers like Elmyr de Hory, immortalized by Orson Welles in his film F for Fake, to invented artistic personas and pseudonyms, to the current attributions and disattributions of recognized works by scholars. The cases in question in the Sprengel Museum Hannover's collection remain controversial; in some cases, technical analyses may provide clarity, while in others, stylistic questions will continue to be debated. Until then, we remain committed to initiating further dialogue and exploring the (added) value of forgery. - Carina Plath, from: Information brochure / FAKE NEWS / Original + Copy + Forgery + … / Sprengel Museum Hannover / 2019 FAKE NEWS / Original + Kopie + Fälschung + … / Sprengel Museum Hanover / Collection presentation, Room E3 in the extension building © Photo: Seth Widman, 2019 An original by Oskar Kokoschka or a forgery made during his lifetime? View of the Jungfrau from Mürren, circa 1912. Immediately after the acquisition of the landscape painting attributed to Oskar Kokoschka for the Municipal Gallery in 1949, efforts were made to clarify its provenance. The pastel, along with a larger collection of modern art, had been acquired by the Berlin real estate agent and lawyer Conrad Doebbeke, under the direction of Ferdinand Stuttmann, then head of the State Gallery, using funds from the City of Hanover. Dated 1908, it was listed in the State Museum's inventory from 1950 onwards as "View of the Jungfrau." Due to art historical research, both the title and the dating changed in subsequent years. In the correspondence currently being conducted with Kokoschka, both he and Grete Ring, formerly employed at the Paul Cassirer Gallery, categorically denied authorship of the work, arguing that the artist had neither used the technique employed nor signed in this manner. This argument was contradicted by historical sources. Doebbeke himself stated that he had acquired Kokoschka's "Virgin in Switzerland," along with a prominent painting by Edvard Munch (also part of the city's acquisition), from the lawyer Alfred Esche in Leipzig during the Second World War. The pastel is also documented in historical publications such as the first catalogue raisonné published by Paul Westheim in 1918, as well as the catalogue for the 1922 exhibition "Modern Art from Private Collections" at the Leipzig Art Association. Its director at the time, Werner Teupser, confirmed that he had seen the works in question in the lawyer's Leipzig apartment in the mid-1920s. The Cassirer Gallery claimed the image rights. Although initial research had shed light on the origin and previous changes of ownership of the artwork in the circle of the hosiery manufacturer Herbert Eugen Esche from Chemnitz, a complete picture of its creation and whereabouts could not yet be established in those years. During the years of the so-called "Iron Curtain," the contacts that had been made were broken off again. Forgery (?) Oskar Kokoschka / Pöchlarn 1886-1980 Montreux / View of the Jungfrau from Mürren, 1912 / Mixed media on canvas / Sprengel Museum Hannover Only recent research, spurred in part by the fall of the Berlin Wall, has been able to complete our knowledge of the former collector. Through monogrammed cutlery pieces offered at auction in 2002, crafted by the artist Henry van de Velde, who was also the architect of the villa built for Herbert Esche in Chemnitz in 1902, the original context of the creation and dissolution of his modern art collection, as well as his connection to his forgotten brother in Leipzig, could be reconstructed. Alfred Esche perished in the air raids on Leipzig in February 1945. The provenance of the 1906 Munch painting "Village Street in Elgersburg," also now in the collection of the Sprengel Museum Hannover, which Herbert Esche had given his brother as a Christmas present, played a revealing role in the search for clues. While a sale of the artworks under duress from the Nazi regime can be ruled out, the question of the artistic authorship of the pastel remains unresolved. If it was indeed a forgery, it must have been created during Kokoschka's lifetime before 1918, without being examined by his contemporaries. Although included in the 1995 catalogue raisonné of paintings (Wingler/Erling, no. 86), the pastel's inclusion in the revised, online catalogue raisonné of paintings published by the Oskar Kokoschka Foundation in 2017 was rejected for stylistic reasons. Oskar Kokoschka / Pöchlarn 1886–1980 Montreux / Delphi, 1956 / Oil on canvas / Sprengel Museum Hannover, on loan from the Lower Saxony State Museum Hannover © Photo: Seth Widman, 2019 Annette Baumann, from: Information brochure / FAKE NEWS / Original + Copy + Forgery + … / Sprengel Museum Hannover / 2019 A forgery during Alberto Giacometti's lifetime The photographic record of the figurine (undated, circa 1960–61), which entered the Sprengel Collection as a sculpture by Alberto Giacometti in 1966, contains copies of the collector's correspondence with the artist's widow, Annette Giacometti. As early as 1971, she raised doubts about the sculpture's authenticity, which she believed had been sent from Giacometti's lover, Caroline, to Germany via the dealer Pludwinski-Dorian in Rome. The correspondence ends in 1972 with a request to send the sculpture to Paris for comparison; the collector was unwilling to take the risk of sending the statue to Paris. The case remained unresolved for a long time, partly due to the uncertain situation of the Fondation Annette et Alberto Giacometti after Annette's death in 1993. This situation only stabilized in 2003, and in 2004 a committee was appointed to be responsible for authenticating the works. The provenance of the casting, attributed to Daniel Pludwinski-Dorian, should have been cause for alarm: he was a Polish-Italian dealer who, through his active trade in forgeries, including works by Miró and Dalí, made headlines as "il pennello imbrogiglione" (roughly: the great swindler's brush). Indeed, Giacometti sculptures had been stolen from the studio of his assistants at the time—the journey from Stampa in the Engadine to Italy was not far—and then molded and recast in Italy. The casting number of the figurine in Hanover, designated as No. 5 of 6 copies, is unknown to the Fondation. Furthermore, the thicker and less pointed material of the bronze sculpture suggests that it was made from a mold. Through contact with members of the committee last year, it was possible to identify the forgery as a surmoulage, that is, a cast made from a mold of the original. Giacometti sculptures had indeed been stolen from the studio of his assistants at the time—the journey from Stampa in the Engadine to Italy was not far—and then molded and recast. Carina Plath, from: Information brochure / FAKE NEWS / Original + Copy + Forgery + … / Sprengel Museum Hannover / 2019 Forgery / Alberto Giacometti / Borgonovo 1901-1966 Chur / Figurine, 1960/61 / Surmoulage not recognized as a work by Giacometti / Bronze / Sprengel Museum Hannover, © Photo: Seth Widman, 2019 A portrait of a woman from the circle of Amedeo Modigliani The woman's head, dated 1917?, was already considered a work of questionable authenticity when it was transferred from the Landesgalerie to the Sprengel Museum Hannover's collection in 1979 and has been in storage ever since. There is no documentation whatsoever regarding the reasons for this removal from the collection or the provenance of the painting, which was part of a group of works acquired in 1949 from the city of Hannover by the then-director, Ferdinand Stuttmann, through the real estate agent and lawyer Conrad Doebbeke (see the text on Oskar Kokoschka). Modigliani, infamously considered one of the most forged artists of all time, was himself a forger in the 1950s–1970s by the notorious forger Elmyr de Hory, immortalized in Orson Welles' film F for Fake. (Meanwhile, de Hory's forgeries, which already fetch high prices, are being forged themselves.) Legendary were the three fake stone heads that students in Livorno threw into the river in 1984, a week after a search had been launched for sculptures by Modigliani, which, according to legend, he had sunk out of frustration. Another fake Modigliani surfaced in France in the early 2000s; a criminal gang offered it as an original. The police tracked them down when a rival gang tried to pay with counterfeit banknotes. The situation is further complicated by three parallel catalogues raisonnés, including one by Christian Parisot, who himself has stood trial for authenticating forgeries. Modigliani's works command top prices; for example, in 2015, a Chinese collector paid $170.4 million at Christie's in New York for the Nu Couché (Reclining Nude). The rapid increase began in 2010 when a Modigliani sculpture, estimated at $5–7 million, sold for $52 million at Christie’s in Paris. Last summer, a Modigliani exhibition in Genoa was shut down three days before its scheduled closing, after being seen by more than 100,000 visitors, because experts pointed out that 21 of the 30 works on display were forgeries. A new committee of experts has just begun re-evaluating Modigliani’s works in French museum collections. Forgery? / Circle of Amedeo Modigliano / Livorno 1884-1920 Paris / Woman's Head, 1917? / Oil on canvas / Sprengel Museum Hannover Carina Plath, from: Information brochure / FAKE NEWS / Original + Copy + Forgery + … / Sprengel Museum Hannover / 2019 The crime novel about Giorgio de Chirico The Spanish painter Giorgio de Chirico (1888–1978) is among the most frequently forged artists of the 20th century. His paintings from the Metaphysical period, with which he significantly influenced the development of Surrealism, were particularly popular. The painting *Interiore metafisico con la Piazza d’Italia*, dated 1917, has since been exposed as a forgery. Art historian Dr. Wieland Schmied, who himself exhibited the painting in the Herrenhausen Orangery in 1970, admitted in a 1989 publication that he had unknowingly and unintentionally presented a forgery as a genuine de Chirico. Research and expert opinions confirmed that it must be a forgery – it is attributed to the Surrealist painter Óscar Domínguez (1906–1958). A total of 32 forged de Chirico paintings by Domínguez are documented today; three of them are in German museum collections; all three were distributed in the mid-1950s through the Cologne gallery owner Dr. Werner Rusche (d. 1978), who in turn listed a woman named Simone Bréton-Corbellini as the provenance. However, this person did not exist; it is likely Simone Bréton-Collinet, the first wife of the Surrealist André Breton. The degree of complicity of those involved in the sale of the forgeries can only be speculated upon – the fact that it was even possible to circulate so many forged works by the important artist de Chirico is due, among other things, to the master's own peculiarities: with his departure from Metaphysical Painting and all avant- garde art from around 1930 onward, he had alienated the young generation of Surrealists, to which Bréton and Domínguez belonged. Furthermore, de Chirico himself copied his metaphysical subjects and sometimes backdated them by decades, as they sold better than his later, naturalistic works. There are also known instances in which the eccentric painter declared his own paintings to be forgeries, while conversely failing to recognize forgeries. This behavior created uncertainty and difficulties in identifying his originals and played into the hands of the forgers. In any case, all 20 paintings exhibited in 1946 at the Galerie Allard in Paris, including the painting in the Sprengel Museum Hannover, were exposed as fake de Chiricos, and it is alleged that Oscar Domínguez produced these forgeries with the complicity of Paul Éluard and André Breton. A published photograph from 1940 of Éluard's apartment on the Rue de la Chapelle shows a painting by Domínguez "in the style of de Chirico" on the wall. Since Eluard himself owned more than 30 genuine de Chirico paintings, he was at least aware of this deception, if not actively promoting it out of gleeful revenge against the renegade Surrealist. Whether this maneuver was also intended to deliberately deceive German collectors, and whether the paintings ended up in German museum collections precisely for this reason, remains unclear. Forgery / Óskar Domínguez / San Cristóbal de La Laguna 1906–1958 Paris / Giorgio de Chirico / Volos 1888–1978 Rome / Metaphysical Interior with Piazza d'Italia, 1917? / Oil on canvas / Sprengel Museum Hannover, on loan from the Lower Saxony State Museum Hannover, © Photo: Seth Widman, 2019 Patricia Hartmann / Carina Plath, from: Information brochure / FAKE NEWS / Original + Copy + Forgery + … / Sprengel Museum Hannover / 2019 A fake still life by Max Beckmann Max Beckmann possesses a distinctive artistic style – characterized by strong colors, bold black outlines, and the unique composition of his pictorial spaces. For forgers, this appears to be a simple formula for imitating the works of the famous Expressionist. The still life "Blue Tulips in Vase, Bottle, and Glass," shown here and dated 1935, was sent for expert evaluation in 2005 to a "Symposium on the Problem of Forgeries and Copies of Watercolors by Max Beckmann," held at the Max Beckmann Archive in Munich. Various experts on Beckmann's work, art historians, and conservators were present, including Beckmann's granddaughter, Mayen Beckmann. They all concluded that this watercolor is a forgery. Among the features decisive for this assessment were... The absence of a typical Beckmann underdrawing in pencil and charcoal, the "hesitant" handling of the black outlines, the lack of spatial depth, and the "dirty" coloring were cited as indicators. Furthermore, the style of the signature was characterized as atypical for Beckmann. A chemical analysis, it was determined, would be unhelpful, as commercially available watercolor paints hardly changed between the 1930s and 1960s. Another indication of forgery is the lack of provenance before the 1960s – the work did not appear in any exhibition before this time, nor was it offered by Beckmann's art dealers Günter Franke, Karl Buchholz, Curt Valentin, or Catherine Viviano. A comparison with an original Beckmann painting, Still Life with a Leaning Schnapps Bottle and Buddha from 1939, which is not much later than the forgery, reveals how closely the unknown forger came to the artist's original. Forgery / Max Beckmann / Leipzig 1884-1950 New York / Blue Tulips in Vase, Bottle and Glass, 1935 / Watercolor and Gouache on Watercolor Paper / Sprengel Museum Hannover Max Beckmann / Leipzig 1884–1950 New York / Still Life with Leaning Liquor Bottle and Buddha, 1939 / Oil on canvas / Sprengel Museum Hannover / © Photo: Seth Widman, 2019 Patricia Hartmann, from: Information Brochure / FAKE NEWS / Original + Copy + Forgery + … / Sprengel Museum Hannover / 2019 Two sheets of paper by Wols: Poor quality or forgery? Two expert opinions exist for the two watercolors, Branches and Souvenir Confus, which do not agree. One states that they are "undoubtedly" forgeries and belong to a whole group of forgeries that first appeared in 1959 at a Brussels gallery with which Wols' widow, Gréty, had a contractual relationship. The expert cites the linework as an indicator: since Wols always worked with his hand supported, forgeries can be identified by their vibrating lines, which are falsely rendered freehand. The second expert opinion considers it quite possible that the works were forged, but does not want to commit to this conclusion due to a lack of conclusive evidence. Gréty Wols is said to have explained that her late husband created the works in the spring of 1951, when he was very weak due to his poor health (he died a few months later). This could be one reason for the "poor quality" that is also said to be evident in many authenticated original prints by Wols from that year – making it all the more difficult to distinguish between original and forgery. Differences in line work can be discerned in the two "genuine" watercolors by Wols, which are dated to the exact same years as the questionable works. Wols / Berlin 1913-1951 Paris / Ville fantôme, 1951 / Watercolor and gouache on handmade paper / Sprengel Museum Hannover, Loan from the Lower Saxony State Museum Hannover Top right: Wols / Berlin 1913-1951 Paris / La ville endormie, c. 1945/46 / Pen and ink, watercolor, gouache, and graphite on handmade paper / Sprengel Museum Hannover Bottom left: Forgery(?) Wols(?) / Berlin 1913-1951 Paris / Branches, 1946/47 / Pen and ink on handmade paper / Sprengel Museum Hannover Bottom right: Forgery(?) Wols(?) / Berlin 1913-1951 Paris / Souvenir confus, 1951 / Watercolor, pen and ink on handmade paper / Sprengel Museum Hannover © Photo: Seth Widman 2019 Patricia Hartmann, from: Information brochure / FAKE NEWS / Original + Copy + Forgery + … / Sprengel Museum Hannover / 2019 Dirk Dietrich Hennig Project: C.G.Rudolf (1922–2012) Works: Kurt Schwitters, various The current project by artist Dirk Dietrich Hennig explores the life of Carl Gerhardt Rudolf. Rudolf, who lived from 1922 to 2012, was likely a historian who worked as a university lecturer for the East German State Security Service (Stasi). This is suggested by the official records, which, however, are incomplete due to the destruction of many files. Various records of contact with the unofficial collaborator (IM Rembrandt) have survived, as well as artworks that Rudolf apparently produced under duress for the state to obtain foreign currency. Several sculptures and paintings, such as the three works presented here based on Kurt Schwitters, have been preserved. The self-taught artist had only limited, often single-view reproductions available as models: for example, the sculpture "Vertical, 1923/2016" shows striking deviations, recognizable when compared to the original sculpture by Kurt Schwitters in the Sprengel Museum Hannover. Rudolf's trail ends in Venice. Since he could apparently afford to live there, it's reasonable to assume that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, he was able to sell off earlier works and thus secure his livelihood. Rudolf also engaged theoretically with the question of the aura of the artwork, as described by Walter Benjamin. For him, the aura arose between the work and the viewer, in the projection of the seer and the desire for religious fulfillment in the authentic art experience. This description of Rudolf is pure invention of the artist Dirk Dietrich Hennig, who, with his alter egos and their respective detailed, contemporary histories, draws us into a maelstrom of clues, deceptions, and ingenious forgeries. This ambiguity makes clear what Hennig's work does: it points to the always ambivalent history of every artwork, to the irrational glorification of the masterpiece, to the questionable intention of its creators. Through the lens of his invented artists, he conveys as much knowledge as he obscures it. The invention of the forger renders the question of authorship meaningless and establishes a reflection on history as a critical mass. Left: Dirk Dietrich Hennig / Carl Gerhardt Rudolf / Work: Kurt Schwitters, Vertical, 1923/2016 / Wood, paint / Loan from the artist Center: Dirk Dietrich Hennig / Carl Gerhardt Rudolf / Work: Kurt Schwitters, White Relief, 1924, 1927/2016 / Montage, wood, paint / Loan from the artist Right: Dirk Dietrich Hennig / Carl Gerhardt Rudolf / Work: Kurt Schwitters, Merz 1926, Cicero 1926/2016 / Wood, paint / Loan from the artist © Photo: Seth Widman, 2019 Carina Plath, from: Information brochure / FAKE NEWS / Original + Copy + Forgery + … / Sprengel Museum Hannover / 2019 Further reading - Hubertus Butin, Art Forgery - The Deceptive Object of Desire, Suhrkamp 2020 - Guillaume Bijl. Exhibition catalog, Museum of Contemporary Art, Antwerp et al. 1996 - Karl Corino (ed.), Forged! Fraud in Politics, Literature, Science, Art and Music (1988). Reinbek: Rowohlt 1992 - Hans Delfs, Kokoschka's Self-Portraits from 1923. A Pictorial Monograph – and Detective Story. With a foreword by Klaus Gallwitz. Dresden: Sandstein 2015 - Hans and Oskar Kokoschka: Hugh Kenner, From Pope to Pop. Art in the Age of Xerox (1968). Dresden, Basel: Verlag der Kunst 1995 - Anne-Kathrin Reulecke (ed.), Forgeries. On Authorship and Proof in Science and the Arts. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 2006 - Stefan Römer, Artistic Strategies of the Fake: A Critique of Original and Forgery. Cologne: DuMont 2001 - Sabine Maria Schmidt, Modernism, Reloaded: Interviews with Artists. Dirk Dietrich Hennig: Interventions in History. Kunstforum International, Vol. 252, (2018), Theme: Modernism, Reloaded, pp. 164ff. - Hillel Schwartz, The Culture of the Copy: Striking Likenesses, Unreasonables Facsimiles. New York: Zone 1996 - Ludwig Seyfarth and Oliver Zybok (eds.), Kunstforum International, Vol. 213, (2011), Theme: Irony Sturtevant. Exhibition catalog. Württembergischer Kunstverein Stuttgart et al. Munich, Stuttgart: Oktagon 1992 Film Orson Welles, F for Fake (F wie Fälschung), 1974 – A film essay on forgeries based on the life of the famous forger Elmyr de Hory, who plays himself in the film. Museum Fälschermuseum Löwengasse 28, A-1030 WIEN faelschermuseum.com Press review: Fälschungen im Museum "Das passiert jedem mal 27.02.2018 Stefan Koldehoff im Gespräch mit Karin Fischer Deutschlandfunk PDF Gefälschte Kunstwerke: Dieses Museum zeigt gefälschte Bilder 13.04.2018 Emilie Buri SRF PDF Sprengel Museum präsentiert "FAKE NEWS" aus eigener Sammlung 22.02.2018 dpa PDF Ist das echt? Fake News im Sprengel 22.02.2018 NDR PDF Die Originalität der Fälschung 20.02.2018 Daniel Alexander Schacht HAZ PDF "Fake News" im Sprengel Museum 20.02.2018 Henning Queren NP PDF "Fake News" aus der eigenen Sammlung 23.02.2018 DEWEZET PDF Download exhibition brochure © dirkdietrichhennig.com 2025