[Commons-Law] Van Meegeren's Fake Vermeer's

[Jeebesh Bagchi]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
just to archive the story of this incredile incident in the history of 
fake and it's trail.
best, jeebesh

http://essentialvermeer.20m.com/misc/van_meegeren.htm

Van Meegeren's Fake Vermeer's

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery

Probably the most dramatic art scam of the 20th c. was the Han van 
Meegeren case. In 1937, Abraham Bredius 
<http://www.museumbredius.nl/bredius_info.htm> (one of the most 
authoritative art historians who had dedicated a great part of his life 
to the study of Vermeer) was approached by a lawyer who claimed to be 
the trustee of a Dutch family estate in order to have him look at a 
rather large painting of a Christ with his Disciples. Shortly after 
having viewed the painting, the 83 year old art historian wrote the 
Burlington Magazine, the "art bible" of the times: "It is a wonderful 
moment in the life of a lover of art when he finds himself suddenly 
confronted with a hitherto unknown painting by a great master, 
untouched, on the original canvas, and without any restoration, just as 
it left the painter's studio! And what a picture! Neither the beautiful 
signature "I. V. M. in monogram) nor the pointillé on the bread of the 
Christ is blessing, is necessary to that we have a - I am inclined to 
say the masterpiece of Johannes Vermeer of Delft...." No doubts were 
advanced since Bredius' opinion was taken as gospel in the art world so 
much that he had been nick-named "the Pope"

This work (right) that today seems so heavy handed and awkward was in 
reality a fake by Hans van Meegeren, a mediocre Dutch artist who had 
lived and worked in almost complete obscurity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trial

In May 1945 Van Meegeren was arrested, charged with collaborating with 
the enemy and imprisoned. His name had been traced to the sale made 
during the second world war of what was then believed to be an authentic 
Vermeer to Nazi Field-Marshal Hermann Goering. Shortly after, to general 
disbelief, Van Meegeren came up with a very original defense against the 
accusation of collaboration, then punishable by death. He claimed that 
the painting, The Woman Taken in Adultery, was not a Vermeer but rather 
a forgery by his own hand. Moreover, since he had traded the false 
Vermeer for 200 original Dutch paintings seized by Goering in the 
beginning of he war, Van Meegeren believed that he was in fact a 
national hero rather than a Nazi collaborator. He also claimed to have 
painted five other "Vermeer's," as well as two "Pieter de Hoogh's" all 
of which had surfaced on the art market since 1937.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In 1947 the trial <http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/han/trial.html> 
took place and in order to demonstrate his case it was arranged that, 
before the court under police guard, he would paint another "Vermeer", 
Jesus Among the Doctors, using the materials and techniques he had used 
for the other forgeries. During the incredible two year trial Van 
Meegeren had confessed that "spurred by the disappointment of receiving 
no acknowledgements from artists and critics....I determined to prove my 
worth as a painter by making a perfect 17th century canvas." "
------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the investigation, Van Meegeren revealed that having once fooled 
the art world with Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus, probably his best 
forgery, he was encouraged to try new forgeries. He painted a head of 
Christ, sold it through an intermediary and then "found" the Last Supper 
for which it was a supposed study. The buyer of the Christ painting was 
only too eager to snap-up the full scale painting." 1

"Perhaps the greatest problem that faced Van Meegeren then was the 
secrecy in which he had to work. He could hire no models, since they 
might talk. For the painting below he was forced to rely mainly on his 
imagination and it is a wonder that he dared such a accomplished 
composition, involving 13 figures in a variety of poses. At one point he 
stole directly from Vermeer, using the head of the Girl with a Pearl 
Earring for his head of St. John, as the paired photo at the right 
shows. " 2

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Van Meegeren spent four years working out techniques 
<http://www.tnunn.ndo.co.uk/techniqu.htm> for making a new painting look 
old. The biggest problem was getting his oil paint to harden thoroughly 
- process that normally takes 50 years. He solved it by mixing his 
pigments with a synthetic resin instead of oil, and baking the canvas. 
Now he was ready to begin. He took an actual 17th c. painting and 
removed most of the picture with pumice and water, being most careful 
not to obliterate the network of cracks, which had an important role to 
play." 3

After having tried his hand at a few of the more typical Vermeer's, Van 
Meegeren had what might be called his own stroke of genius. Instead of 
forging the more typical interiors which could be compared to works 
hanging in museums, Van Meegeren chose to forge an early Vermeer of a 
religious theme based on a composition of Caravaggio. Scholars had long 
suspected that Vermeer had been to Italy and Van Meegeren's lost 
painting confirmed that. The subject and early technique of the painting 
also helped to mask his own technical and expressive inadequacies.

At the end of the trial collaboration charges were changed to forgery 
and Van Meegeren was condemned to one year in confinement.

Click here <http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/han/forgeries.html> to view 
a number of Van Meegeren's forgeries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Van Meegeren spent four years working out techniques 
<http://www.tnunn.ndo.co.uk/techniqu.htm> for making a new painting look 
old. The biggest problem was getting his oil paint to harden thoroughly 
- process that normally takes 50 years. He solved it by mixing his 
pigments with a synthetic resin instead of oil, and baking the canvas. 
Now he was ready to begin. He took an actual 17th c. painting and 
removed most of the picture with pumice and water, being most careful 
not to obliterate the network of cracks, which had an important role to 
play." 3

After having tried his hand at a few of the more typical Vermeer's, Van 
Meegeren had what might be called his own stroke of genius. Instead of 
forging the more typical interiors which could be compared to works 
hanging in museums, Van Meegeren chose to forge an early Vermeer of a 
religious theme based on a composition of Caravaggio. Scholars had long 
suspected that Vermeer had been to Italy and Van Meegeren's lost 
painting confirmed that. The subject and early technique of the painting 
also helped to mask his own technical and expressive inadequacies.

At the end of the trial collaboration charges were changed to forgery 
and Van Meegeren was condemned to one year in confinement.

Click here <http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/han/forgeries.html> to view 
a number of Van Meegeren's forgeries.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epilog

The deep doubts regarding international art establishment spurred by the 
Van Meegeren case resulted in years of a much needed self-examination. 
Art historians, connoisseurs, museum directors and unscrupulous dealers 
had all been involved. Above all, contemporary methods of evaluating the 
work master painters required a profound reconsideration. "The 
dénouement of the Van Meegeren affair brought about a kind of a 
catharsis. The clearest example of this is found in Arie Bob de Vreis' 
Vermeer monograph. The first edition in 1939 sketched a picture of the 
artist that had been shaped by Hannema's exhibition. 4 The second 
edition was published in 1948. Not only was the text completely revised, 
but the catalogue of the works had been reduced from forty-three to the 
now familiar thirty-five. De Vries explained: 'It was only after the war 
that this bewildering forgery business had come to light. It opened my 
eyes completely. I now feel that I have to remove every doubtful work 
from the artist's oeuvre. ' " 5 "The post-Van Meegeren period saw the 
publications of monographs by Pieter T. A. Swillens, Sir Lawrence 
Gowing, Vitale Block, and Ludwig Goldscheider, but it was above all 
Albert Blankert's sober study of 1975 that acted as a kind of medicinal 
purge. In an addition to the critical catalogue, the book contained an 
important chapter on 'Vermeer and his public.' For the first time it 
drew attention to a group of collectors and connoisseurs of the late 
seventeenth, eighteenth, and early nineteenth centuries who had view 
Vermeer not as a "sphinx" but a first-class painter." 6

In the later half of the 20th c. Vermeer's painting has been reexamined 
in a more objective light. As as result, the personal intuition of a few 
trusted "experts" is no longer considered a reliable basis for 
evaluating the work of such a complex painter as Vermeer. His entire 
oeuvre is now studied in strict relation to his contemporary social and 
artistic milieu and through the understanding of the contemporary 
iconography which is generally believed to have played a fundamental 
role in Dutch painting. Laboratory analysis has also become an integral 
part of understanding Vermeer's and Dutch 17th c. painting as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was Hans Van Meegeren?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henricus Anthonius van Meegeren was born in Deventer in1899 as the third 
child of Roman Catholic parents. His father sent him to the Delft 
Institute of Technology in order to be trained as an architect. However, 
Van Meegeren soon discovered a love for art and made such significant 
progress that he quickly became the teaching assistant in the 
departments of Drawing and History of Art. He won a gold medal for a 
drawing of a church interior done in the seventeenth-century style 
already demonstrating his talent for imitation. After having married 
Anna de Voogt (who later bore him two children - Jacques and Pauline) he 
began to show his first paintings with some success in an exhibition in 
Kunstzaal Pictura, Den Haag.

Then his problems began, Van Meegeren began drinking. In 1921 he spent 
three months traveling in Italy presumable to study the Italian masters 
and in 1922 he held an exhibition of paintings, which were all sold, of 
Biblical themes in Kunstzaal Biesing, The Hague. In 1923 he officially 
divorced from Anna van Voogt.

1927 Van Meegeren's The Deer 
<http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/han/exhibit1.html> was the most valued 
painting at a lottery of the Haagsche Kunstkring. Shortly after he 
married the actress Jo Oerlemans, who was formerly married to the art 
critic C.H. de Boer .

Van Meegeren regularly contributed articles for De Kemphaan, a monthly 
art magazine founded in 1928 which opposed progressive art movements. He 
also designed the magazine's cover. However, the magazine was closed 
only two years later. When Van Meegeren moved to moved to Roquebrune, in 
the south of France, he was probably thoroughly convinced that there was 
no longer any possibility that his talent would ever be recognized by 
the art establishment. In order to vindicate himself on the art world, 
Van Meegeren began working in a series forgeries. As a kind of warm-up 
exercise, he first produced four unsold paintings in 17th century style 
: A Guitar Player and A Woman Reading Music in Vermeer's style, A Woman 
Drinking, in Frans Hals' style and A Portrait of Man in Ter Borch's 
style. Once Van Meegeren had gained sufficient confidence by means of 
his initial technical and stylistic experiments, he then painted Christ 
and the Disciples at Emmaus, probably the best of all his forgeries. 
Click here <http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/han/exhibit.html> to view a 
gallery Van Meegeren's own work.

In Sept. 1937, Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus was identified by 
Bredius as a masterpiece by Vermeer of Delft. It was Bredius' contention 
that Vermeer had been influenced by Italian painting and Van Meegeren's 
forgery was especially welcomed as it supported this theory; exactly 
what van Meegeren had hoped for. At first Van Meegeren wanted to reveal 
the fraud - especially because he despised in particular Bredius - but 
when he sold the fake Vermeer for the equivalent of what would now be 
several million dollars, he unsurprisingly had second thoughts. He had 
proven to his own satisfaction that the Dutch art establishment was 
ignorant, and that would have to do as long as he could make good money. 
Scarcely one year later the painting was officially delivered to Museum 
Boymans, purchased with financial donations of the Stichting Rembrandt, 
the Rotterdam ship-owner W. van der Vorm, Bredius and a few Rotterdam 
private collectors. Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus soon became the 
museum's top attraction.

In the summer of 1938 Van Meegeren, spurned by the overwhelmingly 
enthusiastic reception of his work, moved to Nice and painted The Card 
Players <http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/han/card.html> and The 
Drinking Party in the style of Pieter de Hooch. In 1939 this last 
painting is sold to D.G. van Beuninge.

Over a 17th century painting of Govert Flinck,Van Meegeren painted The 
Last Supper in the style of Vermeer but due to the threat of war he 
returned to Holland leaving the painting behind in Nice. From 1941 to 
1943, the year in which he divorced his second wife, Van Meegeren 
continued to produce a number of Vermeer forgeries. In 1943 he sold the 
Christ and the Adulteress sold to Field-Marshal Hermann Goering in 
exchange for two hundred Dutch paintings which the Nazis had plundered 
early in the war. One of Van Meegeren's forgeries was sold in 1942 for 
the 1.6 million Dutch guilders, making it one of the most expensive 
paintings ever sold.

In 1945, May Captain Harry Anderson discovered Christ and The Adulteress 
<http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/han/christ2.html> in Goering’s 
personal art collection and soon traced to painting to Van Meegeren.
Van Meegeren was arrested and charged with collaboration for having sold 
a "Vermeer" to Goering. After two weeks of imprisonment Van Meegeren on 
June 12 revealed that he could not accused as a collaborator since he 
had himself painted the painting in question. After being detained in 
prison for six week, he was placed in a house rented by the Dutch 
government, and there he began to paint, for the benefit of the court 
authorities, his last "Vermeer," Jesus amongst the Doctors.

In November of 1947 Van Meegeren was convicted to one year in prison. 
One month later, at the age of 58, he fell ill due to years of drug and 
alcohol abuse and died of a heart attack in prison. In 1950 household 
effects were auctioned in his house at 321 Keizersgracht in Amsterdam.

In all he made more that seven million guilders, about $2 million then 
and roughly about twenty times that amount today. In his last years Van 
Meegeren lived the high life and had purchased a number of houses until 
he was caught.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Hans Koongsberger and the editors of Time.-Life Books, The World of 
Vermeer: 1632-1657, New York, 1967
2. ibid.
3. ibid.
4. In 1935 Bredius' pupil Dirk Hannema curated an exhibition in 
Rotterdam in which six of the fifteen paintings attributed to Vermeer 
were not authentic.
5. Ben Broos, "Malice and Misconception," in Vermeer Studies, edited by 
Ivan Gascell and Michiel Jonker, New Haven and London, p. 27
6. Aurthur K. Wheelock Jr. (with contributions by Albert Blankert, , Ben 
Broos , and Jorgen Wadum), Johannes Vermeer, 1995
7.Hans Koongsberger and the editors of Time.-Life Books, The World of V 
ermeer: 1632-1657, New York, 1967