Flipping over the glittering side of the art-as-asset syndrome is the underside of a grey market. Fakes exist, not just in the dark gullies of the fly-by-night dealer, but often they surface at auctions, in prestigious galleries and in the living rooms of the crème puff set.
The recent skirmish over the authenticity of 12 Jamini Roys at a renowned Breach Candy gallery shows the ‘burgeoning’ art market is poorly equipped to tackle fakes. There are no systems in place to verify or authenticate what may or may not be a fake. In the end, it boils down to a last-word match between critics and collectors who are not necessarily equipped to ‘prove’ that a work is fake or not.
“The larger problem is that there are no public or private archives to speak of, nor are there any records with the artist’s surviving family that can serve as a means of authenticating the works,” says collector and budding gallery owner Abhay Maskara, a concerned party in the matter of fakes.
Nanak Ganguli, who is often looked upon as a source to verify Bengal art works, points out: “Trusting a trained eye is one way of looking. But the best way to prove a work’s authenticity is to carbon date the colours and see if they belong to that era or not. These days fakers are wise and work on paper from old stock,” he points out.
The malaise of dubious works can plague anyone, even if they are a reputed name in the business.
Chew on this data, collected from auction catalogues of 2006. Osian’s withdrew a Raja Ravi Varma in their Mumbai auction last September; the work was estimated at Rs 14 lakh - Rs 75 lakh. Bonhams withdrew two F N Souza works from their London auction, in May and April, because the provenance was suspect. In March, Christie’s withdrew three Souzas, one Ganesh Pyne, two Husains and a Jamini Roy from their auction in New York. Not to be left out, Sotheby’s withdrew three Souzas and one Shyamal Dutta Ray from their auction lots last March.
However, if paintings are withdrawn from an auction it does not necessarily mean they are fake. “It could be a technical glitch or a creditability issue,” says Dadiba Pundole, of the reputed Pundole gallery and Sotheby’s Indian representative. He explains the Souzas were withdrawn because “Souza’s daughter, Shelly, objected to the provenance of the work. The Ray was withdrawn because the wrong work was printed in the catalogue”.
Perhaps the most colourful incident was when in Osian’s March auction, painter Sanjay Bhattacharjee stood up and called the Bikash Bhattacharya up for auction a fake in the middle of the bids. He was promptly escorted out by the management and the work was hastily withdrawn.
The method employed by Bhattacharjee was sensationalist. And Tuli points out that there could have been a more appropriate way of approaching the matter.
Ashish Anand, an expert in Bengal art, says when the provenance is difficult to trace and if the artist is dead, one’s personal expertise matters. “Persons who are not experienced in a particular genre should not get into collecting it,” he opines.
Sometimes, family members of artists cash in on the artist’s fame by letting out fakes in the market. “Jamini Roy’s son was allegedly involved in such nefarious activities,” says Maskara.