posted on June 2, 2001 09:20:18 AM new
Yes, but 'from the studio of' is a common weasel-word among art fraudsters. Museums and reputable auction houses require provenance even in studio-produced pictures. If a drawing came from the estate of a man whose grandfather could have been proven to be a student or assistant to Degas (for instance with contracts, correspondence or receipts) that's one thing. If the item was just picked up in some French flea market and looks like a Degas, that's something totally different.
Degas was famous for his command of 'line' and for that reason he is a common subject for past and present art students to copy or attempt to copy. These exercises are 99% of the time never meant to be deceptive but I have seen cases before where the students' work was purchased and passed off as genuine (either on purpose or innocently).
posted on June 2, 2001 05:28:51 PM new
reamond, of course they use it---it's a legitimate art historical term. However, it is not used in a museum without a provenance of some sort--i.e. a footnote documenting what source the information came from, and preferably research into the legitimacy of that source. It is always preferable to know 'who did it' in art history....one would only say 'from the studio of' when one is unable to say, for instance, "Pierre Savant, a minor artist who apprenticed with Degas briefly in the 1880s." In many cases of older artworks, such an exact identification is not possible, and so 'from the studio of' is used when a definite link is known but further identification is not available.
I called it a 'weasel word' because outside art historical circles it's often used by hucksters to create a link to a spurious work of art, without coming right out and saying it's by the original artist. Often forgers or feel that they will be less easily 'found out' this way.
From the sparse information given in the article, I'm inclined to think this is more likely one of the latter kinds of situations than the former. We may find out later that this item has an impeccable provenance to the 'studio of' Degas, but I'm skeptical until I hear more evidence.
posted on June 2, 2001 06:04:47 PM new
Allegations of fraud aside for a moment.
Why would anyone buy something like a fine piece of art, a large diamond, or anything reprented as having great value in a way such as this? Very risky business.
That is not to say that there aren't great and trustworth sellers of high dollar art and jewelry (and the like) on ebay. I'm sure there probably are.
I remember a lady poster here at AW a long time ago that said she got burned on a large diamond bought on ebay. It was quite a mess between seller and buyer, and unfolded here. Buyer said the diamond was chipped, seller said it was not chipped when sent, refund refused, fraud was alleged, and on and on. I think this transaction was somewhere in the $3500 range but I can't remember the exact figure.
