The recent revelation that some 100 artworks long believed to be Andy Warhol originals are probably fakes has raised a slew of questions in the art world, notably about the work of experts, but inquiries into the affair have so far met a wall of silence.
The key person in the tale - who reportedly ordered the fakes to be made in 1990, three years after Warhol's death - died in 2006. He was Pontus Hulten, an internationally renowned art expert and the former head of the Pompidou Centre's modern art museum in Paris and Stockholm's modern art museum Moderna Museet.
Neither the Andy Warhol Foundation, nor the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board would comment. Two auction houses also declined.
The works in question are Brillo Boxes, pieces inspired by the real cardboard packaging of Brillo soap pads from the US. They sell for up to US$100,000.
Swedish daily Expressen broke the story in mid-2007 after months of research.
Moderna Museet then confirmed in November that more than 100 copies were made in 1990, and said it planned to withdraw its six Brillo Boxes that were part of that batch.
The copies were reportedly made for an exhibition in Saint Petersburg.
People questioned were cautious not to smear Hulten's stellar reputation, but the revelation casts serious doubts over his actions.
How could he have sold Brillo Boxes which he claimed were originals from 1968 while others say they were made after Warhol's death? Why did he say they were made in Sweden and displayed as part of a 1968 Warhol exhibition at Moderna Museet, when several sources insist that is untrue? In 1994, Hulten sold 40 Brillo Boxes to an art collector in Antwerpen, Belgium, Ronny van de Velde.
In a certificate of sale, he wrote: "These Brillo Boxes were produced in Stockholm in 1968, according to Andy Warhol's instructions. These Brillo Boxes were included in the exhibition Andy Warhol at the Moderna Museet, Stockholm, February to March 1968."
"I can't confirm that. He remembers incorrectly," said Olle Granath, the permanent secretary of the Swedish royal academy of fine arts and Hulten's assistant during the 1968 exhibition.
"Pontus had grown very old" by then, he suggested.
Expressen journalist Mikael Oelander added: "There's not one document proving that the 100 Brillo Boxes were made for the exhibition" in Stockholm in 1968.
It is, however, certain that when Hulten had the boxes made in 1990, it was not his intention to dupe the world. It was a widely known fact that they were being made to be part of an exhibition.
"It is clear that they were not made to pretend to be originals, but were made as part of the scenography for an exhibition," Granath said.
Another Expressen journalist, Christian Holmen, said "it was no secret" when they were made.
So why did Hulten say they were from 1968? "I wish Pontus Hulten was still alive so he could provide us with an explanation," said the current curator of Moderna Museet, Lars Nittve.
The affair also casts a shadow over the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board, which, according to Expressen, issued authenticity certificates for many of the copies.
According to Granath, many of Warhol's authentic works were in fact not made by the artist himself.
"I'm glad I'm not a member of a committee that authenticates Andy Warhol's works. It was always someone else who made his artworks," he said.
The Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board did not respond requests for an interview.
"The board is looking into this issue," the board's lawyer, Ronald Spencer, said, "and I expect them to write to existing owners shortly." In April, a Brillo Box was sold at Christie's auction house for US$131,000.
The text describing the artwork in the catalogue said the piece was made in 1968 and that its previous owner was Pontus Hulten.
Was it a copy made in 1990? The auction house had no comment, and its spokesman Matthew Paton stressed that Christie's sells only pieces authenticated by the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board.
Sotheby's auction house also declined to comment.
"Despite the statute of limitations, both auction houses are concerned by claims, they're concerned for their reputation," said American lawyer Peter Stern, who specializes in art cases and serves as chairman of the board for the Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts organization.
The recent revelation was very serious, Stern said, especially for the board.
However, he noted that the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board did not risk legal proceedings if it was found to have authenticated fakes, as it was protected by special legal clauses.
As for the consequences for Warhol's reputation, Stern said there was little risk there either.
"The interest in his artwork is so substantial. It just means that buyers have to be more careful. I really don't think it will have an impact on Warhol's reputation or on the Warhol market," Stern added.
That US assistance was a model for Taiwan’s spectacular development success was early recognized by policymakers and analysts. In a report to the US Congress for the fiscal year 1962, former President John F. Kennedy noted Taiwan’s “rapid economic growth,” was “producing a substantial net gain in living.” Kennedy had a stake in Taiwan’s achievements and the US’ official development assistance (ODA) in general: In September 1961, his entreaty to make the 1960s a “decade of development,” and an accompanying proposal for dedicated legislation to this end, had been formalized by congressional passage of the Foreign Assistance Act. Two
Despite the intense sunshine, we were hardly breaking a sweat as we cruised along the flat, dedicated bike lane, well protected from the heat by a canopy of trees. The electric assist on the bikes likely made a difference, too. Far removed from the bustle and noise of the Taichung traffic, we admired the serene rural scenery, making our way over rivers, alongside rice paddies and through pear orchards. Our route for the day covered two bike paths that connect in Fengyuan District (豐原) and are best done together. The Hou-Feng Bike Path (后豐鐵馬道) runs southward from Houli District (后里) while the
President William Lai’s (賴清德) March 13 national security speech marked a turning point. He signaled that the government was finally getting serious about a whole-of-society approach to defending the nation. The presidential office summarized his speech succinctly: “President Lai introduced 17 major strategies to respond to five major national security and united front threats Taiwan now faces: China’s threat to national sovereignty, its threats from infiltration and espionage activities targeting Taiwan’s military, its threats aimed at obscuring the national identity of the people of Taiwan, its threats from united front infiltration into Taiwanese society through cross-strait exchanges, and its threats from
March 31 to April 6 On May 13, 1950, National Taiwan University Hospital otolaryngologist Su You-peng (蘇友鵬) was summoned to the director’s office. He thought someone had complained about him practicing the violin at night, but when he entered the room, he knew something was terribly wrong. He saw several burly men who appeared to be government secret agents, and three other resident doctors: internist Hsu Chiang (許強), dermatologist Hu Pao-chen (胡寶珍) and ophthalmologist Hu Hsin-lin (胡鑫麟). They were handcuffed, herded onto two jeeps and taken to the Secrecy Bureau (保密局) for questioning. Su was still in his doctor’s robes at
RSS