This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/24/us/the-artist-peter-doig-wins-case-involving-a-paintings-attribution.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Artist Peter Doig Wins a Case Involving a Painting’s Attribution The Artist Peter Doig Wins a Case Involving a Painting’s Attribution
(35 minutes later)
The celebrated artist Peter Doig did not create a 40-year-old landscape painting, despite the claims of the former corrections officer who owns it, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday. As a result, he was not responsible for destroying the plaintiffs’ plan to sell the work for millions of dollars.The celebrated artist Peter Doig did not create a 40-year-old landscape painting, despite the claims of the former corrections officer who owns it, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday. As a result, he was not responsible for destroying the plaintiffs’ plan to sell the work for millions of dollars.
The ruling, after seven days of heated and sometimes bizarre testimony in federal court this month in Chicago, would appear to end one of the stranger art authentication cases in recent history. It had pitted Mr. Doig, a well-known artist whose works routinely sell for $10 million, against the owner of the painting and that man’s art dealer. They had accused Mr. Doig of falsely denying that he had created the work as a young man in Canada, thus scuttling their efforts to sell it and reap millions of dollars in profits. The ruling, after seven days of heated and sometimes bizarre testimony in federal court this month in Chicago, would appear to end one of the stranger art authentication cases in recent history. It had pitted Mr. Doig, a well-known artist whose works routinely sell for $10 million, against the owner of the painting and that man’s art dealer. They had accused Mr. Doig of falsely denying that he had created the work as a young man in Canada, thus scuttling their efforts to sell it.
“An artist has the strong right to deny a work he didn’t do,” Judge Gary Feinerman said, as he explained the reasoning behind his ruling.
Mr. Doig, who was not in court but called in to hear the ruling, said in a statement: “Thankfully, justice prevailed, but it was way too long in coming. That a living artist has to defend the authorship of his own work should never have come to pass.”
Mr. Doig, 57, who was born in Britain and grew up in Canada and Trinidad, has created haunted, magical landscapes that have made him one of the world’s most popular contemporary artists.Mr. Doig, 57, who was born in Britain and grew up in Canada and Trinidad, has created haunted, magical landscapes that have made him one of the world’s most popular contemporary artists.
During the trial, the former corrections officer, Robert Fletcher, sought to prove that the painting, an untitled acrylic on canvas, showing a rocky desert scene and signed “Pete Doige 76,” was in fact an early work by Mr. Doig.During the trial, the former corrections officer, Robert Fletcher, sought to prove that the painting, an untitled acrylic on canvas, showing a rocky desert scene and signed “Pete Doige 76,” was in fact an early work by Mr. Doig.
Mr. Fletcher said he met Mr. Doig in the 1970s, when, he said, the artist was attending Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario, about 900 miles northwest of Toronto. According to Mr. Fletcher, they met again when Mr. Doig was serving a brief sentence for LSD possession at a nearby correctional center, where Mr. Fletcher saw him create the painting. Later, serving as Mr. Doig’s parole officer, Mr. Fletcher said that he had helped the artist land a job through the Seafarers International Union and bought the painting for $100.Mr. Fletcher said he met Mr. Doig in the 1970s, when, he said, the artist was attending Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario, about 900 miles northwest of Toronto. According to Mr. Fletcher, they met again when Mr. Doig was serving a brief sentence for LSD possession at a nearby correctional center, where Mr. Fletcher saw him create the painting. Later, serving as Mr. Doig’s parole officer, Mr. Fletcher said that he had helped the artist land a job through the Seafarers International Union and bought the painting for $100.
Five years ago, a friend noticed the painting hanging on Mr. Fletcher’s wall and told him that the work was by a famous artist.Five years ago, a friend noticed the painting hanging on Mr. Fletcher’s wall and told him that the work was by a famous artist.
In 2013, Mr. Fletcher and Peter Bartlow, the Chicago art dealer who agreed to help him sell the painting, filed suit in United States District Court for Northern Illinois, arguing that Mr. Doig was denying authorship because of a vendetta against Mr. Fletcher. Seeking nearly $8 million in damages and a court declaration that the work was authentic, Mr. Fletcher testified during the trial that he felt disrespected by Mr. Doig because the artist did not show any gratitude to Mr. Fletcher for setting him on a path toward fame and riches.In 2013, Mr. Fletcher and Peter Bartlow, the Chicago art dealer who agreed to help him sell the painting, filed suit in United States District Court for Northern Illinois, arguing that Mr. Doig was denying authorship because of a vendetta against Mr. Fletcher. Seeking nearly $8 million in damages and a court declaration that the work was authentic, Mr. Fletcher testified during the trial that he felt disrespected by Mr. Doig because the artist did not show any gratitude to Mr. Fletcher for setting him on a path toward fame and riches.
“It would be nice if someone would say thank you for helping,” Mr. Fletcher said in court. Mr. Doig told the court that he had never attended Lakehead nor been incarcerated. Instead, he and his lawyers said the work in question was painted by another man, Peter Edward Doige, who died in 2012. One of Mr. Doige’s sisters produced evidence at trial that her brother was at Lakehead University, and testified that he was an inmate at the correctional center, that he liked to paint and that the signature on the work was his. And a former art teacher at the corrections center recalled watching it being painted by Mr. Doige over at least five weeks between 1976 and 1977.
Mr. Doig told the court that he had never attended Lakehead nor been incarcerated. Instead, he and his lawyers said the work in question was painted by another man, Peter Edward Doige, who died in 2012. One of Mr. Doige’s sisters produced evidence at trial that her brother was at Lakehead University, and testified that he was an inmate at the correctional center, that he liked to paint and that the signature on the painting was his. And a former art teacher at the corrections center recalled watching it being painted by Mr. Doige over at least five weeks between 1976 and 1977.
That the case ever went to trial surprised many in the art world. Art authentication disputes tend to center on the works of dead artists. In this case, a very alive Mr. Doig found himself forced to prove that he did not create something.That the case ever went to trial surprised many in the art world. Art authentication disputes tend to center on the works of dead artists. In this case, a very alive Mr. Doig found himself forced to prove that he did not create something.
To show that he wasn’t in prison during his teenage years in the 1970s, Mr. Doig dredged up an old school yearbook; letters from his mother about his appearing in “Romeo and Juliet” in his Toronto high school and working on oil rigs in western Canada; and written testimony from friends that he was skiing in Utah.To show that he wasn’t in prison during his teenage years in the 1970s, Mr. Doig dredged up an old school yearbook; letters from his mother about his appearing in “Romeo and Juliet” in his Toronto high school and working on oil rigs in western Canada; and written testimony from friends that he was skiing in Utah.
The plaintiffs’ response was to take up many hours of the trial with unorthodox efforts to demonstrate similarities between the painting and Mr. Doig’s works and also what they said were uncanny personal similarities between Mr. Doig and Mr. Doige. The plaintiffs’ response was to take up many hours of the trial with unorthodox efforts to demonstrate similarities between the painting and Mr. Doig’s works.
They argued that rather than hiding youthful drug use — which Mr. Doig has admitted — or a prison past, the artist was embarrassed by the painting because he had used it as the basis for many other works. The plaintiffs had also argued that rather than hiding youthful drug use — which Mr. Doig has admitted — or a prison past, the artist was embarrassed by the painting because he had used it as the basis for many other works.
The plaintiffs’ case was weakened, art market experts said, because they could produce only one expert witness to authenticate the painting as a Doig. And that witness, the art dealer Mr. Bartlow, proved problematic: He was one of the plaintiffs, and — as revealed during the trial — was going to share 25 percent of any proceeds. The plaintiffs’ case was weakened, art market experts said, because they could produce only one expert witness to authenticate the painting as a Doig. And that witness, the art dealer Mr. Bartlow, proved problematic: He was one of the plaintiffs, and — as revealed during the trial — was going to share 25 percent of any proceeds from its sale.
Had the ruling gone against Mr. Doig, it would have been costly for him, since he would have been liable for damages. The judge’s ruling said any similarities between the works were purely coincidental.
But it would also have sent broader shock waves throughout the art world, experts said. A decision against Mr. Doig could have set an uncomfortable precedent, potentially emboldening other people to litigate that the seemingly familiar painting hanging on a living room wall was also in fact by a big-name artist. Had the decision gone against Mr. Doig, its effects would have reverberated throughout the art world, experts said. Such a decision could have set an uncomfortable precedent, potentially emboldening others to claim that a seemingly familiar painting on a living room wall was in fact by a big-name artist.
“Other artists will be breathing a big sigh of relief,” said Nicholas M. O’Donnell, a Boston art lawyer.“Other artists will be breathing a big sigh of relief,” said Nicholas M. O’Donnell, a Boston art lawyer.