Hi there, everyone. It’s Jennifer, ArtCurious host, back at you this week with our new short-form Friday roundup of my favorite art history updates and interesting news tidbits. This is ArtCurious News this Week, and this, as a gentle reminder, is in addition to the ArtCurious episodes you know and love and gets you up to date on the latest goings-on in the realm of art history. Let’s get to it.
This week’s stories:
ArtNews: Maurizio Cattelan Faces Plagiarism Lawsuit Over Banana Duct-Taped To Wall
ArtNews: Art History Professor Denies That She Authenticated Disputed Basquiats Seized By FBI
ArtNews: Modigliani Sketches Discovered Beneath Painting of Nude Woman
Please SUBSCRIBE and REVIEW our show on Apple Podcasts and FOLLOW on Spotify
SPONSOR:
BiOptimizers Magnesium Breakthrough: save up to 42 percent by using my promo code “art10.”
Episode Transcript
Hi there, everyone. It’s Jennifer, ArtCurious host, back at you this week with our new short-form Friday roundup of my favorite art history updates and interesting news tidbits. This is ArtCurious News this Week, and this, as a gentle reminder, is in addition to the ArtCurious episodes you know and love and gets you up to date on the latest goings-on in the realm of art history. Let’s get to it.
Today is Friday, July 15, 2022. And some of the stories I found most interesting this week are the following. It was a week of surprises, to be sure. First up, we all know that the art world can be bananas, but it reached new heights in 2019 when artist Maurizio Cattelan showcased his sculpture, titled Comedian, at Art Basel Miami Beach. Famously, the sculpture—and we can use that term as loosely as we want—featured a banana duct-taped to the gallery wall. The update this week is that Cattelan is now being taken to court for plagiarism.
As reported by ArtNews, artist Joe Morford alleges that Cattelan stole the idea—wittingly or unwittingly from him, particularly his work, Banana and Orange, from 2000, which showcases the titular fruit also duct-taped to a wall. Morford has noted that his work was available to the public via YouTube videos and Facebook posts, but no one has yet been able to prove whether or not Cattelan or his representatives had ever viewed this piece. Although Cattelan’s legal team worked furiously to have the lawsuit thrown out of court, a judge in the Southern District of Florida ruled this week that there is sufficient reason to move forward with the case. In his ruling, Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., wrote, quote, “Morford must plausibly allege that Cattelan had access to Banana and Orange, and that—after dissecting Banana and Orange and stripping (or filtering) away the non-protected elements of it—there is a substantial similarity between the two works.” Unquote. We’ll have to wait to see what happens next and whether or not Cattelan will be ruled a plagiarist, but one thing is certain: the Art Basel banana, as many of us lovingly call it, is the art world joke that keeps on giving. It made a huge splash in Miami in 2019, inspiring laughter, admiration, imitators, and a very hungry performance artist who ate the quote-unquote “edition” showcased by Cattelan’s gallery, Perrotin. But not to worry, because Cattalan didn’t go home crying—three “editions” were eventually sold off to discerning collectors.
Next up, an art history professor is fighting for her reputation after being accused of incorrectly verifying the legitimacy of 27 paintings purportedly by the 1980s art icon Jean-Michel Basquiat. Jordana Moore Saggese, from the University of Maryland, has been in the center of a media firestorm ever since a raid on the Orlando Museum of Art late last month, when the F.B.I’s Art Crime Team seized paintings from the exhibition, “Heroes & Monsters: Jean-Michel Basquiat” after receiving, quote, “false information relating to the alleged prior ownership of the paintings,” unquote, which led to questions about their authenticity. In 2017, Professor Saggese was contacted by the owners of these works of art, asking for her professional opinion as to their status as “real” paintings by Basquiat. In her statement, she notes that the whole process was shady, to say the least: the owner of the purported Basquiats presented himself as a lawyer representing the owners, and not one of the owners themselves. He did not provide Saggese with an opportunity to view the works of art in person, and solely provided photographs for her perusal. While this isn’t entirely uncommon, it’s still not a best practice. So Saggese worked with what she was given and wrote a very tentative report. As she stated, quote, “I provided two confidential and tentative reports for the collectors, which were expressly not to be used or relied upon by third parties (including for authentication purposes) and could not be disseminated without my prior written consent. In these reports, I rejected 9 works outright. I concluded that 11 works “could be” Basquiat’s based solely on a review of photographs while reserving the right to amend my opinion upon an in-person inspection, which was never provided. Finally, I determined that possibly 7 works “may be” his, with the caveat, that I was relying on evidence from other experts in handwriting and materials/condition and a “provenance insert” provided by Mr. O’Donnell. Both reports also clearly stated that they “are in no way intended to substitute for a certification of authenticity by the Estate of Jean-Michel Basquiat.” Unquote.
And yet Saggese’s tentative and confidential report was shared—not only as part of the exhibition catalogue of the works at the Orlando Museum of Art, but also in the New York Times, claiming her as an export who participated in the museum show—a show which, by its very existence, puts forward the assumption that the works being shown therein were official Jean-Michel Basquiat paintings. But when Saggese contacted the museum’s director, Aaron De Groft, to disassociate herself with the show and the claims of authenticity it garnered he dismissed her. Even worse, Saggese asserts, he attempted to blackmail her, emailing her to say, quote, “Do your academic thing and stay in your limited lane.” Unquote. With her statement, Saggese is asserting that she was wrongly claimed as a knowing participant in the scheme to falsely authenticate these works, a process that has caused her, quote, “substantial reputational damage and emotional distress.” She continued, writing, quote, “Nowhere in the reports did I provide the positive or definitive attribution to Basquiat of any of the OMA works as has been falsely stated. Any further publication suggesting that I attributed the OMA works to Basquiat is likewise defamatory and I require that such publications immediately cease.” Unquote.
Aaron De Groft of the Orlando Museum of Art was fired from his position as director of the museum after the F.B.I. raid last month.
Whew, everyone, that was some serious art world tea that we just spilled there, so now’s a good time to take a little breather. Come right back to hear our last story for ArtCurious News this Week, right after this quick break.
Welcome back to ArtCurious, and our News this Week. For our last story today, it’s not as attention-grabbing as the Basquiat debacle, but it’s always a nice opportunity when we get to see a previously unknown work of art of a long-gone artist. Representatives from the Hecht Museum at the University of Haifa in Israel reported this week that they uncovered three never-before-seen sketches under the surface of a 1908 painting by Italian modernist Amadeo Modigliani, titled Nude with a Hat. The work of art, which has been part of the University museum’s collection since 1983, was recently undergoing examination in advance of its loan to an upcoming Modigliani show at the Barnes Collection in Philadelphia, which will open later this fall. The exhibition provided the perfect opportunity to seize upon the Hecht’s curator’s suspicions, having identified a pair of eyes incongruously peeking out behind folds of clothing painted on the back of Nude with a Hat—yes, the painting is actually dual-sided. Using x-ray technology, a sketch was indeed confirmed underneath the surface of the painting—as were two other images, potentially painted one on top of the other. This might signify that Modigliani used this particular panel or canvas at least four separate times, working an image over and over again to reuse what might otherwise be a costly material for a struggling artist. It’s a well-known method and many artists over the centuries have done this, but it’s always an interesting insight into an artist’s method—even an artist’s biography, and, as here, further verification of the artist’s known financial struggles. And speaking of the artist’s biography, if you want to know more about Modigliani, guess what? I have one for you. That’s ArtCurious Episode 69, about his auction-records-smash, Nu Couché.
Thanks for listening to this new segment—our short-form news recaps—that will help round out our art historical knowledge here on ArtCurious. If you liked this episode, please let me know. You can hit me up on Facebook or Instagram (I’m quicker to respond on Insta, FYI) or email me at jennifer@artcuriouspodcast.com. We still have one single episode left in Season 11, so that’s coming to your podcast provider very soon. And don’t forget—we’ve expanded to YouTube with some fun content about art that you cannot get here. So check us out—and until next week, stay curious.
