10 Masterpieces Whose Authenticity Has Been Disputed - Listverse

3/8/2017 10 Masterpieces Whose Authenticity Has Been Disputed - Listverse
How many Warhols have been proclaimed masterpieces in a

publication? look at all look at all the honored works of arts and
estemed creators honored in this collection of only 10, including
PREVIOUS NEXT
as Frankenstein, To Kill a Mockingbird, and our own, “The Bruno
B. article. included in the . steemed worth art our esteemed
colleagues in, the collage, such as
THE ARTS
10 Masterpieces Whose Authenticity Has

Been Disputed
ED BARRERAS FEBRUARY 1, 2016
The history of art is littered with fakes, forgeries, frauds, and hoaxes. Usually, these counterfeits
are relatively easy to spot. But sometimes even experts disagree on who really created a
particular work. And what are the criteria for “authenticity” in the first place? That question itself
has frequently been a matter of controversy, leaving us to ponder the authenticity of numerous
paintings, sculptures, and famous books.
Frankenstein; Or, The Modern Prometheus

10 Mary Shelley
http://listverse.com/2016/02/01/10-masterpieces-whose-authenticity-has-been-disputed/ 1/15
Photo via Wikimedia
Nearly two centuries after its publication, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern
Prometheus continues to fascinate readers. Not only has the novel become a landmark of both
the sci-fi and Gothic horror genres, it also established its author as one of the few outstanding
female novelists prior to the 20th century.
But what if Mary Shelley wasn’t the true author of Frankenstein? As incredible as it might sound,
that’s the claim advanced by author John Lauritsen in his book The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein.
Lauritsen argues that the famous novel was actually penned by none other than Mary Shelley’s
husband, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley.
Lauritsen’s case is superficially compelling, despite his flawed credibility. (He has no training as a
literary historian and denies a causal link between HIV and AIDS.) He argues that Shelley, a
teenager with little education, could not have mustered the literary sophistication and lyrical
brilliance on display in Frankenstein. Lauritsen also says the novel is pervaded with themes of
male homoeroticism, a subject supposedly more in keeping with Percy Shelley’s psychology than
his wife’s.
According to Lauritsen, the truth of Frankenstein‘s authorship has been suppressed by feminists
in the academic establishment. Some will no doubt detect misogyny in Lauritsen’s charge.
However, the debate took an interesting twist thanks to feminist author Germaine Greer. In her
review of The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein, Greer argues that Shelley really was the author of
Frankenstein. But Greer insists this is nothing to brag about. After all, in her estimation,
Frankenstein is badly written.
The Bust Of Nefertiti

9
Photo Credit: George M. Groutas
“Suddenly we had in our hands the most alive Egyptian artwork. You cannot describe it with
words. You must see it.” So wrote the archaeologist Ludwig Borchardt in his diary shortly after his
team unearthed the famous bust of Nefertiti.
Borchardt was right. The bust—said to depict the wife of Akhenaten, Egypt’s Sun King—is indeed
a revelation. With its strikingly vivid colors and anatomical fidelity, the work manages to convey
an aura of majesty that contrasts with its sheer delicacy. It’s almost unbelievable that such an
exquisite masterpiece could have survived through the centuries.
Of course, if we listen to Swiss art historian Henri Stierlin, it is unbelievable.
According to Stierlin, the bust’s false reputation began with a duped aristocratic. Sometime in
1912, the story goes, Borchardt commissioned an artist to create a decorative piece on which to
display an ancient necklace. Wanting to experiment with ancient materials, Borchardt ordered the
bust to be painted with pigments from his archaeological archives. (Hence the reason why it has
been able to pass forensic tests.)
However, when the bust was seen by the the Prussian prince, Johann Georg, he mistook it for a
real artifact. Prince Georg was reportedly so enamored with the work that Borchardt lacked the
nerve to tell him the truth. It wasn’t long before the deception took on a life of its own, and today,
the world reveres the bust of Nefertiti as a 3,000-year-old treasure . . . when really it’s a 100-
year-old fake. (The bust currently resides in the Berlin Museum).
Stierlin’s account remains a minority position. Still, doubters are unlikely to be quieted any time
soon. As Stefan Simon, a scientist who specializes in authenticating ancient works, has admitted,
“You can prove a fake, but you can’t prove originals.”
Flowers
8 Paolo Porpora
12-Year-Old Trips, Punches Hole in Painting Worth $1.5 Million
If you ever drop by Taipei, Taiwan, you might spot a painting entitled Flowers, a still life touted as
the work of the 17th-century painter Paolo Porpora. However, an Italian auction house confirmed
that the same painting had been listed in their catalog, and that it’s actually the work of a lesser
artist named Mario Nuzzi.
Now, fakes and misattributions aren’t all that rare in the art world. But what makes the case of
the (possibly) misidentified Porpora noteworthy is the manner in which the alleged mistake was
discovered. In August 2015, surveillance cameras captured a 12-year-old boy punching a hole
through the painting after seemingly losing his footing.
The video went viral, prompting the aforementioned Italian auction house to reach out to the
media, letting the world know of the error. And what an error it was. The painting the boy had
damaged was reported to be a masterpiece worth $1.5 million, yet the Nuzzi work was valued at
considerably less—roughly around $30,000.
The organizers of the Taipei exhibition continue to insist that their Flowers is indeed an authentic
Porpora, though they’ve yet to provide any proof. But the story gets even more bizarre.
Apparently, museum oversight in Taiwan is quite lax, and it may be that the entire Taipei
exhibition is itself a sort of counterfeit operation. For one thing, the exhibition is not actually
associated with a museum. Instead, it exists in a rented-out venue. It also doesn’t provide the
climate controls—or the security—needed to preserve the priceless works that are supposedly
inside.
Should you be in Taipei and want to visit, the exhibition is called “The Face of Leonardo, Images of
a Genius.” But be warned that the self-portrait of Leonardo on display is also of dubious
authenticity.
La Bella Principessa
7 Leonardo Da Vinci
Photo via Wikimedia
The portrait known as La Bella Principessa (The Beautiful Princess) was sold at auction in 1998.
While it was originally thought to be a 19th-century German work, some suspected it was much
older. Many also thought its exquisite rendering must surely be the work of an extraordinarily
gifted artist. The owner agreed to have it analyzed, and when the verdict was returned, the art
world was absolutely astonished.
La Bella Principessa was by none other than Leonardo Da Vinci.

In order to confirm the work as a Leonardo, a team of experts, headed by Oxford Renaissance
scholar Martin Kemp, subjected the portrait to a painstaking battery of tests. Every little detail
was rigorously analyzed. The team even paid attention to the direction of the brushstrokes. Just
one right-handed stroke was enough to cast doubt on Leonardo’s authorship, as the Renaissance
painter was left-handed. But after Kemp finished his analysis, an impressive list of authorities
accepted his attribution.
However, a choir of incorrigible skeptics remains. Not only do some say the work lacks the spirit of
the great master, they also point to several suspicious details. For example, the drawing is
rendered on vellum, a material Leonardo was unknown to use. Also, in November 2015, convicted
art forger Shaun Greenhalgh claimed the piece as his own handiwork, saying he modeled the work
after a girl who worked at a supermarket he once frequented.
The painting’s current owner, Peter Silverman, balks at Greenhalgh’s claim. Silverman has
challenged Greenhalgh to reproduce La Bella Principessa in front of a committee of experts, with a
prize of £10,000 (about $15,000) if he succeeds. And if he fails, Silverman says, “He goes back to
jail where he belongs.”
Ariel And Other Poems

6 Sylvia Plath
Photo via Wikimedia
In 1963, Sylvia Plath was a 31-year-old poet of modest reputation. Recently estranged from her
husband, the poet Ted Hughes, Plath was spending the winter in London, looking after the
couple’s two young children. Sadly, on the morning of February 11, Plath gassed herself to death
in her townhouse oven.
Upon her death, Plath left behind a completed volume of poetry that, owing both to her
sensational biography and to the sheer brilliance of her craft, would soon be hailed as a literary
masterpiece. This book was titled Ariel and Other Poems. Published in 1965, it remains one of the
20th century’s most celebrated books of poetry.
However, many Plath admirers have insisted that the Ariel we know is not the original work.
While Plath and Hughes were separated at the time of her death, Hughes remained her literary
executor, able to wield complete editorial control over her posthumous works. Hughes admitted
to rearranging Plath’s chosen order for the Ariel poems. He also omitted works he deemed too
“personally aggressive,” by which he meant angry poems that were addressed at him.
Hughes died in 1998, and in 2004, the couple’s daughter collaborated in the release Plath’s original
manuscript, now titled Ariel: The Restored Edition. Reviewers noted that while the Hughes-edited
work had emphasized Plath’s characteristic themes of despair, Plath’s own volume presented an
attitude of hope. For example, Hughes chose to have his version end with “Edge,” a gorgeous yet
bleak poem. However, the restored work ends with the meditative “Wintering,” which concludes
with these optimistic lines:
What will they taste of, the Christmas roses?

The bees are flying. They taste the spring.
Teri Horton’s Jackson Pollock

5
Who The #%$! Is Jackson Pollock?
Teri Horton was a 73-year-old former truck driver who purchased a painting for five dollars from a
local thrift shop. The piece was intended as a gift for a friend. However, when it proved too large
for the friend’s trailer, Horton decided to sell it at a yard sale. That’s when a local art teacher
noticed the painting bore a remarkable similarity to the work of Jackson Pollock. But could it be an
actual Pollock?
Many seem to think so. Forensic analysis on the painting yielded a fingerprint consistent with
those found on Pollock’s authenticated works. Additionally, no less an authority than Nicolas
Carone, a friend of Pollock and a famous painter in his own right, has testified to the painting’s
veracity. Nevertheless, skeptics remain. Doubt has been cast on the fingerprint analysis. And
some believe the work is too inferior to be attributed to Pollock, an artist who developed
techniques that are difficult, if not impossible, to reproduce.
But whether the work is real or not, we shouldn’t despair for Horton. She was offered $9 million
for the painting by a Saudi buyer. She refused the offer, however, saying she won’t accept
anything less than $55 million. And if you’re interested in learning more about the disputed
Pollock, the story is recounted in the film Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?
To Kill A Mockingbird
4 Harper Lee
y
Photo credits: 1, 2
Literary legends Truman Capote and Harper Lee grew up as childhood friends in Monroeville,
Alabama. Perhaps it was inevitable that they would drift apart in later life, given their radical
divergence in temperament. Capote was a flamboyant man-about-town and self-destructive
party animal, while Lee was a shy homebody who became famous for her reclusive nature.
Prior to their estrangement, however, the two were close confidantes and avid readers of each
others’ work. But some have claimed their collaborations went beyond mere criticism and
encouragement, and that Capote actually wrote much, if not all, of a Lee’s landmark novel, To Kill a
Mockingbird.
The rumor was apparently started by Pearle Belle, an editor from Cambridge, Massachusetts, who
allegedly claimed that Capote confided his secret to her. Capote’s father, Archulus Persons, also
said that Lee merely provided the outline for the novel, and that “it was his genius son that made
the novel sing.”
The rumor seemed to have been put to rest when a letter from Capote to Lee emerged in 2013. In
the note, Capote congratulates Lee on the novel but gives no indication of a prior collaboration.
Yet perhaps such written proof was unnecessary. The historian Wayne Flynt once summed up
what may be the strongest case against Capote’s authorship. Flynt points out that Capote was
well-known for his “enormous ego” and habitual “self-promotion.” Or in other words, “To assume,
as jealous as [Capote] was of Harper Lee’s success, that he would not have claimed credit for
[Mockingbird] if in fact he had done it, is simply too much . . . to believe.”
The Madonna Of The Pinks

3 Raphael
Photo via Wikimedia
For generations, it was standard practice for art apprentices to hone their craft by imitating the
works of the masters. And in an era before mass photographic reproduction, those copies were
both highly prized and widely circulated.
So would it come as a surprise if, after centuries, one of those copies should be mistakenly
accepted as an original? Well, that was thought to be the fate of The Madonna of the Pinks, a
painting by the Renaissance master Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino, better known as Raphael.
For years, one painting in particular was reputed to be Raphael’s Madonna of the Pinks. No bigger
than a standard-sized sheet of paper, the work depicts the Madonna and Child, each holding up a
pair of carnations. (The flowers, the “pinks” of the paintings title, symbolize marital love, and thus
the Virgin Mary’s role as the Bride of Christ.) In 1860, however, Raphael scholar Johann David
Passavant denounced the work as a copy. For decades, his judgment was taken as authoritative.
It wasn’t until 1991 that a gallery curator named Nicholas Penny gave the painting another close
look. Intrigued by the smallest anomaly in the painting’s background, Penny arranged to have the
work examined using modern forensic technology.
The new techniques revealed, among other things, the painting’s underdrawing, which indeed
proved to be characteristic of Raphael. Other clues also pointed to the master’s authorship, and
the work has since been restored to its former glory. The painting is now widely accepted as the
true Raphael, and it currently resides in London’s National Gallery.
However, the acerbic critic Brian Sewell was one formidable authority who remained skeptical of
the little oil painting. Sewell dismissed the attribution based on the quality of the painting, as well
as the chronology of Raphael’s life. (The painting was said to have been an early Raphael, done in
1506–1507, which Sewell thought unlikely.)
Sewell also provided an explanation for why “rediscovered” masterpieces receive such feverish
welcome. According to the critic, “There are a lot of people who want to be fooled. There are a lot
of people who want to discover another Rembrandt drawing. If you discover a genuine
Rembrandt . . . you become associated with it. It makes you important, because it is important.”
The ‘Bruno B’ Red Self-Portrait

2 Andy Warhol
Photo Credit: The Art Assignment via YouTube
The painting known as the “Bruno B” is a portrait of Andy Warhol, produced with one of the
artist’s own silk screen plates. Warhol himself signed and dedicated the painting to his friend, the
art dealer Bruno Bischofberger (hence the “Bruno B” designation). What’s more, Warhol so
admired the piece that he personally chose it to appear on the cover of the first major monograph
of his work, published in 1970.
Despite those impressive markers of authenticity, however, “Bruno B” is not considered an

original Andy Warhol—at least not by the Andy Warhol Authentication Board, Inc., the
organization charged with authenticating works by the infamous artist.
When the painting’s current owner submitted to it the board for authentication, they returned it
stamped with the word “DENIED.” So what was the board’s reasoning? The work couldn’t qualify
as a true Warhol, since the artist himself was not actually present at its creation. As it turns out,
“Bruno B” was silk screened by an independent printing firm, which had been given permission by
Warhol to use his plates.
There’s only one problem with this rationale. Warhol rarely created his own pieces. At the height
of his career, Warhol often involved himself only with the conceptual stage of his works. The
actual execution would be left to assistants at his art studio (which, because of Warhol’s
assembly line methods, was known as “The Factory”). Oftentimes, Warhol’s only physical
interaction with one of his paintings came when he signed it.
In fact, Sam Green, curator of Warhol’s retrospective at Philadelphia’s Institute of Contemporary

Art, attests that Warhol admired “Bruno B” precisely because it “exemplified his new technique
for having works produced without his personal touch.”
All things considered, it does appear that the denial of the authenticity of “Bruno B” is an instance
of overreach by members of the artist’s foundation, none of whom, ironically, were actually
appointed by Warhol himself.
The Polish Rider

1 Rembrandt
Photo Credit: Corel Professional Photos CD-ROM
In 1639, the Dutch master Rembrandt purchased an enormous house in a fashionable district of
Amsterdam. He was, by that time, a world famous painter, yet the house proved more than he
could afford. He would go bankrupt in 1656.
In the meantime, however, Rembrandt was able to to finance his purchase by taking on a bevy of
students. The result was surely a boon for the art world in Amsterdam, though it would cause
endless headaches for later generations of scholars. As it turns out, Rembrandt’s school was so
extensive and its students so accomplished that experts often have trouble sorting out true
Rembrandts from the works of his talented disciples.
In order to remedy that situation, the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP) was launched in 1968
with the goal of authenticating every Rembrandt in existence. The result was a wild fluctuation in
fortunes. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the number of “authentic” Rembrandts plummeted
from over 700 in the 1920s to just under 300 by the 1980s.
Of course, given the stakes involved, it should come as no surprise that debates still rage on, and
the RRP itself has been known to reverse its findings. All this finally brings us to the The Polish
Rider. Now hanging in New York’s Frick Collection, The Polish Rider has long been hailed as one of
Rembrandt’s most excellent works. However, doubt was cast on its authenticity by a member of
the RRP. Other members disagreed, and the official word now is that the painting is indeed by
Rembrandt—with substantial contributions from his students.
The RRP came to an end in 2011, having fallen short of putting its stamp of approval on every true
Rembrandt. Yet it may be that the RRP’s mission was a fool’s errand all along. As the art critic
Robert Hughes writes, “If one of [Rembrandt’s students] did a painting he liked, he was quite
capable of signing it with his own name, keeping it and selling it as an autographed work by
‘Rembrandt.’ Criteria of originality and authorship were much more relaxed in the 17th century
than they are now.”
Ed Barreras bides his time in Long Beach, California.
Around The Web Sponsored by Revcontent
Biblical Weight Loss Secret Photos Of The Exact Moment Biblical Solution to Weight
That Atheists Hate (Try It) Before Tragedy Struck Loss? (Try It Tonight)
21 Celebrities Who Died And From Blonde Bombshell to 95 Historic Photos That Were
Not a Word Was Said Insane in the Membrane Withheld From The Public

10 Masterpieces Whose Authenticity Has Been Disputed - Listverse

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 Masterpieces Whose Authenticity Has Been Disputed - Listverse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/8/2017 10 Masterpieces Whose Authenticity Has Been Disputed - Listverse

How many Warhols have been proclaimed masterpieces in a

10 Masterpieces Whose Authenticity Has

Frankenstein; Or, The Modern Prometheus

The Bust Of Nefertiti

Photo Credit: George M. Groutas

Of course, if we listen to Swiss art historian Henri Stierlin, it is unbelievable.

“You can prove a fake, but you can’t prove originals.”

12-Year-Old Trips, Punches Hole in Painting Worth $1.5 Million

Photo via Wikimedia

La Bella Principessa was by none other than Leonardo Da Vinci.

Ariel And Other Poems

Photo via Wikimedia

What will they taste of, the Christmas roses?

Teri Horton’s Jackson Pollock

The Madonna Of The Pinks

The ‘Bruno B’ Red Self-Portrait

Photo Credit: The Art Assignment via YouTube

Despite those impressive markers of authenticity, however, “Bruno B” is not considered an

In fact, Sam Green, curator of Warhol’s retrospective at Philadelphia’s Institute of Contemporary

The Polish Rider

Photo Credit: Corel Professional Photos CD-ROM

Ed Barreras bides his time in Long Beach, California.

Around The Web Sponsored by Revcontent

You might also like