Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/aug/24/artist-peter-doig-landscape-painting-lawsuit
16 comments
What's interesting here is how the art isn't valued on its own artistic merits, but by its authorship. The artist's ability to control the value of a work by testimony is weird, but only because the underlying work's value is weird.
Many collectibles are like that.
Eg : Jimmy Hendrix's first guitar as a child would auction for quite a lot of money. But the same model and condition guitar instead owned by some random guy in Omaha would be worthless.
Eg : Jimmy Hendrix's first guitar as a child would auction for quite a lot of money. But the same model and condition guitar instead owned by some random guy in Omaha would be worthless.
I feel like this analogy isn't quite right.
I would compare the guitar to a paintbrush. Both are tools which, in the right hands, can make beautiful things. So the value comes from the pairing of the tool to the wielder, and I would expect an artist's paintbrush to be valuable when tied to a specific artist just like Hendrix's guitar, and both mostly worthless otherwise.
But the art itself should have value mostly independently, and I think the analogue to that would be the music. If someone else produced exactly the same music as Hendrix, I think it should be almost as valuable.
I would compare the guitar to a paintbrush. Both are tools which, in the right hands, can make beautiful things. So the value comes from the pairing of the tool to the wielder, and I would expect an artist's paintbrush to be valuable when tied to a specific artist just like Hendrix's guitar, and both mostly worthless otherwise.
But the art itself should have value mostly independently, and I think the analogue to that would be the music. If someone else produced exactly the same music as Hendrix, I think it should be almost as valuable.
Would you pay the same amount to see a famous band play a concert vs a very good cover band?
If the concert was purely music and the very good cover band played the music just as well, then sure.
Concerts are about more than just the music though. They are often about the stage presence, visual affects, and the nostalgia, in addition to the music.
That being said, if this cover band had just as good a show as the original band, and somehow the same amount of nostalgia (i.e. they've been covering the original band's songs since the start and have always been just as good in concert), then again I would say yes. I don't think that's likely though.
I mean, if you boil down what you are paying for to its essence, and provide an alternative with exactly the same quality in that essence, then you should be willing to pay the same. It's almost by-definition.
Concerts are about more than just the music though. They are often about the stage presence, visual affects, and the nostalgia, in addition to the music.
That being said, if this cover band had just as good a show as the original band, and somehow the same amount of nostalgia (i.e. they've been covering the original band's songs since the start and have always been just as good in concert), then again I would say yes. I don't think that's likely though.
I mean, if you boil down what you are paying for to its essence, and provide an alternative with exactly the same quality in that essence, then you should be willing to pay the same. It's almost by-definition.
It's kind of McLuhanesque. The artist is on display, not the art.
It's been that way for a long time, though authorship and merits were (and arguably still are) very intermingled. It started with the simple fact that really good artists were those that made really good art, and once somebody had a reputation it would be both to the artist's benefit and the collector's to have that front and center: for the artist, as advertisement to attract buyers, and for the collector to brag about.
I think the things that are very different now (i.e. since about the 80's) are:
1. Much, much more money is involved.
2. In many cases there is a huge gap between what insiders would consider the "underlying work's value" and what average people would find inspiring.
3. Media, obviously, and the Internet.
(And of course even insiders can differ on #2: there are plenty of cases where the market says Yes but the academics say No. The market works hard to "correct" this in its favor.)
Here's a great article on a great artist whose name recognition was a big part of his career in the 1500's, for instance:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/mystery-of-hieron...
I think the things that are very different now (i.e. since about the 80's) are:
1. Much, much more money is involved.
2. In many cases there is a huge gap between what insiders would consider the "underlying work's value" and what average people would find inspiring.
3. Media, obviously, and the Internet.
(And of course even insiders can differ on #2: there are plenty of cases where the market says Yes but the academics say No. The market works hard to "correct" this in its favor.)
Here's a great article on a great artist whose name recognition was a big part of his career in the 1500's, for instance:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/mystery-of-hieron...
Welcome to art! The only difference between Fountain and the, ah, similar works on display in the art museum men’s room is an official nod by DuChamp.
Then it's a perverse market where people have ceased to sell objects, and are now just trading financial instruments. I support the right of the author to disclaim the authorship of any work at any time, despite any evidence to the contrary. He should be able to choose whether he wants his name used as a vehicle in a financial transaction. Not whether it will be, because if some insurance company or law firm wants to back it as a work by him, it's entirely up to them. He should not be forced to endorse that transaction, and if their valuation relies on that enforcement, their valuation should be dependent on his consent.
The opposite has always been true. I can endorse that painting as an original pessimizer, without caveat. That doesn't imply that I own the image in terms of copyright, any more than R.Mutt endorsing a urinal as his own work, or Jeff Koons claiming various arrangements of vacuum cleaners as his own work gives them any power over any patents covering the design of the object.
The opposite has always been true. I can endorse that painting as an original pessimizer, without caveat. That doesn't imply that I own the image in terms of copyright, any more than R.Mutt endorsing a urinal as his own work, or Jeff Koons claiming various arrangements of vacuum cleaners as his own work gives them any power over any patents covering the design of the object.
Not forcing the author to endorse is fine, but in this case - assuming he did paint it - he actually lied. I have sympathy for the particular role that is authorship of art, but if it was something else like a car or a house, and the previous seller publicly and falsely claimed there was something wrong with it, losing you a sale, is that not an harm? If the author sells his works in the open market, why should he then have privileges above other sellers?
Do you think that there should be a blanket prohibition against causing harm to other people by making false statements, even if the person making the false statement doesn't gain anything by doing that?
This would be a stronger prohibition against libel than (IIUC) is present in US. I also don't see how it could interact with investigative reporting -- a reporter often cannot prove his statements without breaking the confidentiality of his sources.
This would be a stronger prohibition against libel than (IIUC) is present in US. I also don't see how it could interact with investigative reporting -- a reporter often cannot prove his statements without breaking the confidentiality of his sources.
IANAL, but I don't think defamation law requires the person to gain anything. And in fact, there is a tort of trade libel/commercial disparagement, which is specifically about harm that comes from making knowingly false claims about products or services.
An artist should be free to affirm or deny authorship of an art object whether he actually created it or not. The buyers assume substantial risk when buying unauthenticated artworks.
And just when will court punish people wrongly suing artists that denies you make money with counterfeits ? Even worse is the greediness of these art dealers that just want to make money whatever the cost to artists. Art market is sick.
The third to last paragraph
> The artist’s lawyers said they identified the real Pete Doige, whose records matched Fletcher’s description. Doige died in 2012, but his sister, Marilyn Doige Bovard, testified at the trial that the work was created by her late brother.
Suggests that there was reason for the corrections officer to believe he had a genuine painting, and not a counterfeit. However as this made it to court it may be that the plaintiffs were in a little too deep.
> The artist’s lawyers said they identified the real Pete Doige, whose records matched Fletcher’s description. Doige died in 2012, but his sister, Marilyn Doige Bovard, testified at the trial that the work was created by her late brother.
Suggests that there was reason for the corrections officer to believe he had a genuine painting, and not a counterfeit. However as this made it to court it may be that the plaintiffs were in a little too deep.
Note spellings: Peter Doig vs Pete Doige.
Yep. Took me a while to find a copy of the signature [0]. I would happily follow the argument that the e character is embellishment from the end of the g. However all doubt is removed when presented with Doige's signature [1]. For comparison I also looked up Doig's signature [2], of course this could never be evidence that his signature at 16 wasn't the one presented.
[0] http://i.cbc.ca/1.3675486.1468348236!/cpImage/httpImage/imag...
[1] http://liverampup.com/uploads/images/362E348700000578-0-imag...
[2] https://www.wengcontemporary.com/cdn/uploads/default_site/ar...
[0] http://i.cbc.ca/1.3675486.1468348236!/cpImage/httpImage/imag...
[1] http://liverampup.com/uploads/images/362E348700000578-0-imag...
[2] https://www.wengcontemporary.com/cdn/uploads/default_site/ar...
Yeah it sounded like the plaintiffs had a decent reason to believe it was his painting at first.
But then the defendants found the "real" Pete Doige. At that point the planitiffs should have verified it and dropped the lawsuit, but for some reason they chose to keep going.
But then the defendants found the "real" Pete Doige. At that point the planitiffs should have verified it and dropped the lawsuit, but for some reason they chose to keep going.
10 million reasons according to the article.
This isn't a counterfeit. It is a case of mistaken identity and a lot of money on the line. A Pete Doig did in fact paint the picture. The problem is that Pete Doig is not Peter Doig.
Also it's Pete Doige vs Peter Doig. Last names AND first names are a letter apart, and the court documents showed the signatures of both. The fact that the suitor didn't drop when presented with the evidence and let it go to trial anyway is pretty ridiculous.
What if he really had painted it? What duty does he have to authenticate it?
Forget this case for a minute.
Imagine Alice is selling Bob a house. Carol comes along and says, "Don't buy that house. It's infested with termites." This is likely to cause Bob to reconsider his offer, and Alice will be somewhat pissed. If Carol is correct, there's nothing Alice can do, but if Carol is lying, Alice will likely sue for unlawful tortuous interference with business or somesuch, whatever the legal words are.
Now imagine that Alice is selling Bob a Monet painting. Carol says "That painting is fake." If Carol is some internet rando, probably doesn't matter. But if Carol is well known among Monet collectors, then her statement is likely to dissuade potential buyers. Alice will lose lots of money. If Carol is right, end of story, but if Carol is lying, perhaps to spite Alice, then hello lawsuit.
Now, getting closer to the case at hand, imagine Alice is selling Bob a Peter Doig painting. Carol says "That painting is a fake." Same story, if Carol is lying and that depresses the market price, Alice has a case against Carol.
In this particular case, it turns out that "Carol" is actually Peter Doig himself. But that's somewhat irrelevant to the legal framework. Actually, it just means he's considered an expert, and therefore his statements will affect the price. But being an expert doesn't make his statements true.
Of course, with evidence presented, obvious he's not lying.
Imagine Alice is selling Bob a house. Carol comes along and says, "Don't buy that house. It's infested with termites." This is likely to cause Bob to reconsider his offer, and Alice will be somewhat pissed. If Carol is correct, there's nothing Alice can do, but if Carol is lying, Alice will likely sue for unlawful tortuous interference with business or somesuch, whatever the legal words are.
Now imagine that Alice is selling Bob a Monet painting. Carol says "That painting is fake." If Carol is some internet rando, probably doesn't matter. But if Carol is well known among Monet collectors, then her statement is likely to dissuade potential buyers. Alice will lose lots of money. If Carol is right, end of story, but if Carol is lying, perhaps to spite Alice, then hello lawsuit.
Now, getting closer to the case at hand, imagine Alice is selling Bob a Peter Doig painting. Carol says "That painting is a fake." Same story, if Carol is lying and that depresses the market price, Alice has a case against Carol.
In this particular case, it turns out that "Carol" is actually Peter Doig himself. But that's somewhat irrelevant to the legal framework. Actually, it just means he's considered an expert, and therefore his statements will affect the price. But being an expert doesn't make his statements true.
Of course, with evidence presented, obvious he's not lying.
Thanks for writing this up, helped me clarify different interpretations. From my point of view, whether or not the painting is Doig's affects his brand and the value of his name, which I do think he has the right to control.
There's a number of things one can say to manage reputation. "That's a terrible work." "I disown that." "Better off burned." "Not part of my catalog." But "I didn't paint that" is a statement of fact, it had better be true. One might consider an author who writes a book that flops. They can ask the publisher to stop printing it, but they can't demand people pretend that they didn't write it. However, there is the case where a movie director demands their name be taken off a bad movie. Fuzzy.
This is complicated because the transaction occurred in Canada but the case was heard in Chicago. But the argument is the same as forgery: the court may not be able to force Doig to authenticate it, but if the officer can prove Doig sold him the painting under the pretence of being his then Doig has sold him a forgery (selling a claimed Doig which truly is not) and is liable for it. It does not matter that the name Doig did not mean anything back then, because the forgery constitutes a loss of future earnings.
Of course this is all hypothetical because Doig obviously did not paint this given what has come out in court.
Of course this is all hypothetical because Doig obviously did not paint this given what has come out in court.
No such duty has ever existed.
That's what bothers me about this whole thing. I don't see how you can force an artist to affirmatively authenticate a painting no matter how much money is on the line unless he's somehow contractually obligated to do so.
I don't think they were claiming he has to affirmatively authenticate it; the issue at stake is that he actively denied making it.
I wonder if the painting will actually be worth something now that it's been all over the media.
Even (in)famous forgeries aren't worth much. Art is all about who touched it.
To be safe, I think the picture should be awarded to Peter Doig. Perhaps on the grounds that the owner admits it confusable with his brand..
He should team up with the family and make a collection called "Pete come Peter" - composed of Peter's reinterpretations of original works by Pete.
So if I make art "in the style of artist <x>", then all my work belongs to that artist?
(I'm not talking about blatant copies.)
(I'm not talking about blatant copies.)
Normally no, but here the "owner" was claiming it is the artist's work, not a facsimile or reproduction. So this is an exact case of the normally theoretical ill that trademark and brand related law is supposed to protect against: something that is honestly confused with the work of a manufacturer with a substantial cost to that manufacturer.
Try doing this at the border with a "rolix" and that offended manufacturer has rights to protect their interests not a responsibility to show up to convince customs that your rolix is a real rolex from back when they had trouble spelling. So I'd say this is an example of different justice for different relative social status.
Try doing this at the border with a "rolix" and that offended manufacturer has rights to protect their interests not a responsibility to show up to convince customs that your rolix is a real rolex from back when they had trouble spelling. So I'd say this is an example of different justice for different relative social status.
I wonder what the auction price will be now that the notoriety of the trial is attached to the work.
The facts of the case (as summarized in the article) makes this seem like an obvious case of mistaken identity. Not sure what's noteworthy here.
Mostly that an artist had to pay legal fees to defend himself because he told the truth and someone didn't like it. The ridiculous litigiousness of the whole thing is disconcerting. The last name wasn't even spelled correctly, if an artist doesn't claim a painting, that should be good enough.
Nor were all of the mentioned facts in the pre-trial coverage. I don't remember the stuff about the other Doig's sister, and the prison records had not yet surfaced (the prison system had been unable to find them at the time).
> Nor were all of the mentioned facts in the pre-trial coverage.
Which actually should never have mattered, because the trial never should have happened. Doig said, no, that is not my painting. That should have been the end of it, but the other party didn't like that and tried to get the court to say otherwise because they thought they had basically won the lottery.
Which actually should never have mattered, because the trial never should have happened. Doig said, no, that is not my painting. That should have been the end of it, but the other party didn't like that and tried to get the court to say otherwise because they thought they had basically won the lottery.
One can imagine scenarios where an artist disclaims that they created something out of spite (with family or whatever) and that disclaiming greatly decreases the value of some sold item. If that painting or whatever was fairly obviously the artist's work, would you still feel the same?
This case seems odd based on the news coverage though (based on the coverage in respectable publications like The New York Times and Guardian). I would have, perhaps naively, assumed that the plaintiffs would have been expected to have at least some evidence that Doig (with a different spelling) was the artist in question before it went to trial. Which doesn't seem to have been the case.
Of course, this was a civil suit and the reality is that you can sue anyone for just about any reason. For better or worse.
This case seems odd based on the news coverage though (based on the coverage in respectable publications like The New York Times and Guardian). I would have, perhaps naively, assumed that the plaintiffs would have been expected to have at least some evidence that Doig (with a different spelling) was the artist in question before it went to trial. Which doesn't seem to have been the case.
Of course, this was a civil suit and the reality is that you can sue anyone for just about any reason. For better or worse.
> an artist disclaims that they created something ... disclaiming greatly decreases the value of some sold item
If this concerns you, you should not be as dependent on items whose value hangs so tightly on the word of a disinterested (or worse, interested) party.
If this concerns you, you should not be as dependent on items whose value hangs so tightly on the word of a disinterested (or worse, interested) party.
One of the benefits of being a living artist is the ability to disavow anything as their work.
Doige's sister was mentioned in the New York Time's article from July, so that part isn't new.
He wasn't in prison, the names are different, and he's adamantly denying creating it in the first place. That he got dragged into court and had to pay to prove he didn't create something is absurd.
This could happen to anyone who creates things.
This could happen to anyone who creates things.
The prison part seems like it would be particularly easy to verify, even if there was a man there who had a very similar name.
It was easily verified but the prosecution insisted he may have changed his name or the prison recorded it wrong for reasons that were never quite explained.
Their arguments were so detached from reality they may as well have been trying to prove that Elvis made the painting.
Their arguments were so detached from reality they may as well have been trying to prove that Elvis made the painting.
> if an artist doesn't claim a painting, that should be good enough.
Disagree. While the linked case is indeed ridiculous, I can imagine a scenario where an artist might deny creating a work to harm the work's owner. That's something that clearly falls under tort law and a simple denial shouldn't provide immunity.
If you're mean, there are many ways to make individuals miserable through fringe use of the civil courts. All of it perfectly legal.
Disagree. While the linked case is indeed ridiculous, I can imagine a scenario where an artist might deny creating a work to harm the work's owner. That's something that clearly falls under tort law and a simple denial shouldn't provide immunity.
If you're mean, there are many ways to make individuals miserable through fringe use of the civil courts. All of it perfectly legal.
What about creating art requires you to publicly claim authorship, though? I agree that artists could refuse to acknowledge creating a work to attempt to somehow screw over its owner, but I don't see what about that is illegal; refusing to affirm something isn't lying or fraud.
> What about creating art requires you to publicly claim authorship, though?
In this case, I think the alleged reason he was required to do so was because he had previously denied authorship, and that doing so was a false statement that harmed the owner of the painting which the acknowledgement of authorship was necessary to undue the harm.
In this case, I think the alleged reason he was required to do so was because he had previously denied authorship, and that doing so was a false statement that harmed the owner of the painting which the acknowledgement of authorship was necessary to undue the harm.
It raises interesting questions. I'm not a lawyer, so I know nothing about whether you could get force someone to affirm a work. Seems weird, but I'd be willing to bet it's happened.
My instinct is that a lie doesn't need to be told to create harm in a case like this where significant value depends on whether an important person created the work. Might search for some legal blogs to see if this has been analyzed further.
My instinct is that a lie doesn't need to be told to create harm in a case like this where significant value depends on whether an important person created the work. Might search for some legal blogs to see if this has been analyzed further.
The idea that this had to be argued in a court of law is absolutely ridiculous.
That Doig had to prove a negative is really awful too. It's hard to prove a negative in a court of law, and usually judges stop that crap very early in a case. Amazed it took this long.
> That Doig had to prove a negative is really awful too. It's hard to prove a negative in a court of law
Not really. All that it means to "prove a negative" in this kind of a case (a civil case where the standard is "preponderance of the evidence") is that you have to bring sufficient evidence that the trier of fact (jury or judge, as the case may be) finds that the claims that the other party is making are less likely true than the alternative claims that you are making. It isn't "proof" to a high degree of certainty.
Not really. All that it means to "prove a negative" in this kind of a case (a civil case where the standard is "preponderance of the evidence") is that you have to bring sufficient evidence that the trier of fact (jury or judge, as the case may be) finds that the claims that the other party is making are less likely true than the alternative claims that you are making. It isn't "proof" to a high degree of certainty.
True, but usually the onus is on plaintiff to demonstrate the affirmative. The prison guard's story was very weak in demonstrating that "famous artist" Peter Doig was the same as "unknown prison artist" Pete Doige, especially given that Peter Doig had no incentive for disavowing a work he had already sold. "Embarrassment" caused by imprisonment or drug use are hardly motivators for artists. Some use those kinds of things as career enhancers.
> True, but usually the onus is on plaintiff to demonstrate the affirmative.
As it was here. The thing is any evidence (however weak) that a claim is true, if uncountered, can suffice for proof by a preponderance of the evidence for the claim. So, it doesn't take strong evidence to create some burden for the defense to disprove the plaintiffs claim, but the degree of proof necessary is set by the strength of the plaintiff's evidence, since the standard is preponderance of the evidence.
As it was here. The thing is any evidence (however weak) that a claim is true, if uncountered, can suffice for proof by a preponderance of the evidence for the claim. So, it doesn't take strong evidence to create some burden for the defense to disprove the plaintiffs claim, but the degree of proof necessary is set by the strength of the plaintiff's evidence, since the standard is preponderance of the evidence.
I don't get this either. The burden of proof should not be on Doig.
I've been thinking about this since the first article was posted a while back. Something really bothered me about this case, and I finally put my finger on it. I realize this thread may not be read since it has long fallen off the front page, but that's ok.
The problem is that plaintiff's case is logically flawed at its very core. The argument is that Doig cost him $10 million by refusing to authenticate the painting.
Why is that authentication worth anything? Because Doig is in a position to confirm that it is part of his oeuvre. And any such authentication, if provided, assumes that Doig is telling the truth.
But Doig refused to authenticate the painting. Now plaintiff says he's a liar.
So, if he's a liar, his authentication is worthless.
If he's telling the truth, the painting is not by him.
In other words, plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. There's no need to even gather further evidence. It's disturbing that it took a federal judge three years to decide this; but then again, they are political appointees, so the standard isn't really whether they are logical thinkers.
The problem is that plaintiff's case is logically flawed at its very core. The argument is that Doig cost him $10 million by refusing to authenticate the painting.
Why is that authentication worth anything? Because Doig is in a position to confirm that it is part of his oeuvre. And any such authentication, if provided, assumes that Doig is telling the truth.
But Doig refused to authenticate the painting. Now plaintiff says he's a liar.
So, if he's a liar, his authentication is worthless.
If he's telling the truth, the painting is not by him.
In other words, plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. There's no need to even gather further evidence. It's disturbing that it took a federal judge three years to decide this; but then again, they are political appointees, so the standard isn't really whether they are logical thinkers.
I can't imagine what grounds the plaintiffs would have to appeal... if he didn't start painting until after the claimed meeting, Q.E.D., suit dismissed, money grubbing plaintiffs pay the defense's costs.
(I know it doesn't work that way, Doig is out of pocket to defend himself and that's the shitty way it turns out.)
(I know it doesn't work that way, Doig is out of pocket to defend himself and that's the shitty way it turns out.)
Art's a lot like real estate: an investment with a view. Sadly, the integrity of the view cannot be tolerated to outweigh the integrity of the market.
The really strange thing to me was how little resemblance the painting bore to Doig's work. The former looks like a bad Dali.
The really strange thing to me was how little resemblance the painting bore to Doig's work. The former looks like a bad Dali.
Could such a case be made where the work is a piece of code? I'm not sure why someone would sue someone for claiming they are not the author. May be for a coder to take responsibility for bad code?
At times like this I am happy to have a rare (non-English) last name.
At times like this I am happy to have a rare (non-English) last name.
I kinda want that Pete Doige painting now...
Amazing that there is no mention of what the painting looks like compared to Doig's paintings. Surely the style would be different?
Verisart purports to prevent this with blockchain technology, somehow, take their word for it, handwave, jk
I'm not sure what they do actually.
I'm not sure what they do actually.
[deleted]
Why these things have to take 3 years is sad. Nobody should have to go through 3 years of this crap.
However, this sentiment is unrealistically simple:
"I feel a living artist should be the one who gets to say yea or nay and not be taken to task and forced to go back 40 years in time."
The way the art market works, attribution (and provenance) is a big part of valuation. If you're a famous artist and I bought one of your paintings without having you sign a bunch of paperwork -- and who does that with young artists and amateur collectors? -- then you have the power to give or withhold a lot of value.
I think the artist was in the right here. But you have to consider what his statement would mean if he had in fact painted that picture. By denying its authenticity he would be trying to destroy its value. You can choose what you acknowledge, but as an artist you don't get to choose your own history retroactively. Like anybody else you can tell your own story, but yours might not be the only version.
Of course, this is why real collectors document provenance, sometimes extensively; and why a lot of artists will by default include a "certificate of authenticity" of some kind with every sale.