Showing posts with label forgery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label forgery. Show all posts

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Political Appointee Rapes Collection at Italian Library

From The New York Times

At Root of Italy Library’s Plunder, a Tale of Entrenched Practices

By ISABETTA POVOLEDO Published: August 11, 2012

NAPLES, Italy — For months now, the alarm has been resounding throughout the insular and competitive world of antiquarian books: beware of volumes bearing the stamp of the storied Girolamini Library in Naples. They could be hot.

The library’s former director, Marino Massimo De Caro, was arrested in May, accused of systematically despoiling the library he had been charged with keeping safe, stealing books and selling them on the open market or directly to collectors. And sharp sleuthing on the part of a professor at Georgia State University in Atlanta has raised questions about Mr. De Caro and the sale of other, possibly forged, books.

The unraveling of Mr. De Caro was precipitated by a chance visit to the library in March by Tomaso Montanari, a professor of art history at the University of Naples and a regular contributor to the daily newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano. What he saw there — books piled haphazardly throughout and empty shelves, soda cans and garbage strewed about — immediately went into print, and that prompted a petition signed by hundreds of Italian intellectuals questioning Mr. De Caro’s appointment as director.

More important, Italian prosecutors took note and weeks later Mr. De Caro was in prison, accused of — but not yet formally charged with — embezzlement and conspiracy. Prosecutors say that in the 11 months during which he managed the library, Mr. De Caro stole hundreds of its volumes.

Investigators found boxes of valuable books, many with the library’s stamp, in garages and private homes in several cities as well as in auction houses abroad. Four people said to have conspired with Mr. De Caro were also jailed.

“So far, we’ve tracked down some 3,000 books,” including some blocked at auction, said Giovanni Melillo, the Naples prosecutor handling the Girolamini investigation, in an interview. He said that Mr. De Caro was the head of a criminal gang created to despoil the library, which had been off limits to the public — with few exceptions — for decades. “There was a lucidly conceived plan behind it all,” Mr. Melillo said.

Prosecutors say that Mr. De Caro has admitted to taking some books with the intent to sell them, but solely to pay for the restoration of the underfinanced library and its precious volumes. Mr. De Caro’s lawyers declined to comment while investigators were still at work.

The question of how Mr. De Caro ever became the director of such a renowned library sheds light on some of the entrenched practices that continue to bedevil the Italian economy.

In April 2011, Giancarlo Galan, then the culture minister, named Mr. De Caro as his special consultant, and he was reappointed in December by the current minister, Lorenzo Ornaghi. In June 2011, the Culture Ministry ratified his appointment to the library.

“It was like putting a fox in a chicken coop,” Mr. Melillo said dryly.

Mr. De Caro may not have had a degree in library sciences, but he had other credentials. “De Caro is the quintessential Italian fixer. In a country where the political class still controls a significant part of the national economy, he connects politics with business, and vice versa,” said Claudio Gatti, a co-author of a new book, “Il Sottobosco” (“The Underworld”).

“People like him exist all over the world, but here we have a twist,” Mr. Gatti wrote. Mr. De Caro “can count on relationships with both the right and the left.”

“Only in Italy can you have someone like him,” he concluded.

One serious problem facing investigators here is that they do not know the exact number of books that may have been stolen. Only half of the 170,000 or so books in the collection were ever cataloged, according to Mauro Giancaspro, the director of the National Library of Naples.

After Mr. De Caro took over last summer he began to move books from their shelves and between rooms, to preserve the books and rid the shelves of wood worms, he told investigators. Instead, prosecutors believe, the books were rearranged and index cards were destroyed to make it difficult to track missing volumes.

The investigation, Mr. Melillo said recently, has taken an “international bent,” and his team is following new leads.

Mr. De Caro, whose résumé boasts a colorful employment history, had at least one academic credential under his belt: he had published a two-volume study of Galileo. That is one connection to the Georgia State professor, Nick Wilding, a Galileo expert who is currently investigating the authenticity of several books by the Pisan astronomer.

One in particular, a copy of “Sidereus Nuncius,” Galileo’s novel observations of the cosmos first published in Venice in 1610 and now owned by a New York rare-book dealer, is clearly a forgery, Mr. Wilding says.

The book in question — supposedly containing an inscription by Galileo, along with five of his watercolors — was presented with much fanfare (and some doubts about its authenticity) in Padua five years ago. A two-volume study published last year concluded that it was Galileo’s autographed proof copy.

“It all seemed very convincing,” Mr. Wilding said. “The paper appeared genuine, the binding seemed convincing.” But there were “minor details that made me question the entire account,” he said in a phone interview. He decided to look more carefully at the book.

The breakthrough came when he discovered photographs of a copy of “Sidereus Nuncius” published in a 2005 catalog from Sotheby’s. Looking at the photograph of the title page, he noticed that what should have been random ink blots were identical to deeply impressed marks in the New York “Sidereus Nuncius.”

In addition, one letter in both copies had the same blotch on its foot. This blotch was not in any genuine copy, but was to be found in a facsimile edition published in 1964. The facsimile used a copy that had a brown mark on the paper next to the letter. The black-and-white photograph transformed it into a printed blotch, proving to Mr. Wilding that the New York and Sotheby’s copies were both forgeries based on the 1964 facsimile.

“If they hadn’t been greedy enough to make two copies, I wouldn’t have been able to prove the forgery,” he said.

The quality of the books, in any case, has amazed the experts.

“We’ve seen missing pages replaced in facsimile, but no one dreamed that an entire book could be forged, something that is now more easily possible because of modern technology,” said Owen Gingerich, professor emeritus of astronomy and the history of science at Harvard and a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.

Mr. De Caro, Mr. Gingerich said, brought the “Sidereus Nuncius” with the forged watercolors to his office in 2005, when he was trying to sell the book. “I told him that the watercolors could not have been made by Galileo because of an astronomical blunder in one of the drawings,” he said.

Mr. Gingerich and Frank Mowery, of the Folger Library, have detected what Mr. Gingerich said were other forged titles, including three copies of another Galileo book, “Le Operazioni del Compasso Geometrico e Militare,” from 1606. At least one of these passed through Mr. De Caro’s hands, Mr. Gingerich said.

“I don’t know if he commissioned them, or manufactured them, bought them repeatedly or was just unlucky,” Mr. Wilding said of Mr. De Caro. “I am worried that these are not the only ones in circulation.”

Arnoud Gerits, president of the International League of Antiquarian Booksellers, recently issued a statement warning members about the theft of books from the Girolamini Library, along with Mr. Wilding’s findings of what he has called forged Galileo materials that “appear to trace back” to Mr. De Caro. “It seems clear that this is a major case of both theft and forgeries of important material,” the statement read.

“Dealers don’t want to blow the whistle,” said Mr. Wilding, who nonetheless welcomed the association’s alerts. “But one dealer also quipped that any rare book that’s worth selling has been stolen at least once in its life, hopefully not recently.”

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Forgery exhibit opens in London's National Gallery

Article.
By ANDREW KHOURI, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jun 29, 1:57 pm ET
LONDON – An exhibit that combines X-rays, microscopy, and Botticelli opens this week at The National Gallery, detailing how scientists and others have unraveled some of the art world's mysteries.

The exhibit, "Close Examination — Fakes, Mistakes & Discoveries," shows how techniques such as infrared imaging, X-rays and mass spectrometry were used to properly attribute works of art and sniff out forgeries. Art historians and conservators have also contributed to the effort.

Among the more than 40 paintings on show is "The Virgin and Child with an Angel," which was acquired by The National Gallery in 1924 and attributed to Italian painter Francesco Raibolini, known as Francia.

But a 2009 investigation unmasked the painting a fake, finding that the underdrawing was done in graphite pencil — an instrument not available to the Renaissance painter.

The exhibit also explores how paintings evolved over time. "Woman at a Window," a 16th century work by an unknown Italian artist, was altered to reflect the prudishness of the Victorian era [image, right, before restoration in 1978]. The woman, originally a blond with a seductive gaze and a revealing bodice, was transformed into a brunette with more modest dress and a reserved expression. [See A Blonde's Dark Secret.]

When the gallery discovered the change during cleaning in the late 1970s, it removed the new layers of paint and the woman's racy look was restored.

While the experts' work through the years has shown that once-prized paintings were fakes, it's also made previously obscure work more prominent.

The 15th-century painting "Saint Francis of Assisi with Angels," was thought to be painted by a pupil of the Italian master Sandro Botticelli. But, after cleaning and restoration in 2002, the gallery now attributes the painting to Botticelli himself.

Betsy Wieseman, co-curator of the exhibit, said such discoveries take time, but are rewarding.

"You know it doesn't happen in an instant. It is a much slower process, but there often does come that moment when your heart goes pitter-pat, and you suddenly think 'Oh my goodness this is not what I thought it was going to be.'"
Entry to the exhibit, which opens Wednesday, is free and runs until Sept. 12.
Date and time


30 June – 12 September 2010
Sainsbury Wing Exhibition
Admission free

Thursday, January 28, 2010

The Archaic Mark: "A Skilled Late 19th or Early 20th Century Fake"

Early copy of the Gospel of Mark is a forgery
US scholars, conservators and scientists collaborate to prove that a “14th-century manuscript” is a skilled fake
By Emily Sharpe | From issue 210, February 2010
Published online 27 Jan 10 (Conservation)

LONDON. A clever bit of detective work by US scholars and scientists has proven that one of the jewels of the University of Chicago’s manuscript collection is, in fact, a skilled late 19th- or early 20th-century forgery.

Although speculation as to the authenticity of the Archaic Mark codex has been rife for more than 60 years, prior to this definitive research many believed it was an early record (possibly as early as the 14th century) of the Gospel of Mark and the closest of any extant manuscript to the world’s oldest Greek Bible—the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus.

The earliest record of Archaic Mark dates to 1917 when it was listed among the possessions of recently deceased Athenian antiquities dealer and collector John Askitopoulos. In September of 1935, Askitopoulos’s nephew, Gregory Vlastos, contacted University of Chicago biblical scholar Edgar Goodspeed asking if the school wished to purchase the manuscript. The 44-page codex, measuring 11.5 x 8.5cm, was acquired by the university in 1937 for an undisclosed sum.

The ongoing debate as to the codex’s authenticity re-ignited in 2006 with its digitisation, giving international experts an opportunity to examine the work closely for the first time. Beginning in 2007, Margaret Mitchell, Alice Schreyer and Judith Dartt from the university collaborated with research microscopist Joseph Barabe from the Illinois-based lab McCrone Associates, and manuscript conservator Abigail Quandt from the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, to perform a cross-discipline, in-depth analysis of the codex.

Barabe conducted a material and elemental analysis on Archaic Mark which involved the use of a wide variety of techniques including x-ray diffraction, raman spectroscopy, polarised light, x-ray spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy. He was particularly interested in determining whether the codex had undergone an earlier restoration which would account for the presence of various “modern” shades of blue including synthetic ultramarine blue—a material not available until the 1820s. He found no evidence of a prior restoration and most importantly determined that the white colour used contained the pigment lithopone which was not available until 1874, thereby setting an 1874 terminus post quem date for the codex. Carbon dating was used to determine that the canvas dates from the mid 16th century.

Quandt, who has worked on other well-known forged manuscripts including the Archimedes Palimpsest and various pieces by the so-called Spanish Forger, confirmed some of Barabe’s findings during her reconstruction of the forger’s technique. She noticed several inconsistencies with authentic Byzantine manuscripts including that the forger appears to have painted the miniatures and then added the text—an unusual practice for the medieval scribes. She also noted the amateurish binding and obvious attempt to add age to the edges of the manuscript with the sloppy application of a brownish liquid to create a faux charring effect.

Mitchell, a biblical scholar, undertook the task of analysing the text and found it to include the same errors contained in an edition of the Greek New Testament published by Philipp Buttmann in 1856. This led her to conclude that the creator of the Archaic Mark used Buttmann’s text as a guide for his forgery. “I’ve been asked repeatedly if I’m disappointed that the work is a forgery. I’m not. There is no longer a question mark after the date of the manuscript and that is tremendously satisfying,” said Mitchell.

The university intends to preserve the codex and encourage its use for further research into the forger’s techniques. “Those who study forgeries may be the largest beneficiaries of our scholarship,” said Mitchell.

A detailed record of the project is slated for publication in this month’s Novum Testamentum journal.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...