Breaking van Gogh

by James Grundvig

  Blockchain technology, which will let an artist or a writer register a digital “work,” assigns the number of editions for a particular piece and then allows for the electronic transfer and tracking of editions, which future buyers can then authenticate.

  Naturally, blockchain or other digital authentication systems could not have prevented masked gunmen from robbing the Emil G. Bührle Foundation’s museum in 2009, escaping with $163 million worth of Emil Bührle’s handpicked art. The four stolen paintings were by Degas, Monet, Cézanne, and of course Vincent van Gogh.313

  The Washington Post article that covered the brazen, daylight theft said, “Daniel Heller, author of Between Company, Politics and Survival: Emil G. Buehrle and the Machine Tool Factory Oerlikon, Buehrle & Co. 19241945, said Buehrle repurchased seventy-seven paintings after the war from a Jewish dealer, after the Swiss high court ruled the works had been stolen.”314

  Who says karma doesn’t have a sense of humor? Looting the looter has a certain ring to it, a certain panache.

  In 2012, European authorities recovered the last of the stolen art from the Swiss heist with the Cézanne painting, recovered in Belgrade, Serbia. Bührle’s pride and joy, van Gogh’s Blooming Chestnut Branches, was “discovered undamaged in a car outside a psychiatric hospital in Zurich soon after the robbery.”315

  In 2015, the Emil G. Bührle Foundation closed its museum doors and will move into a new museum in downtown Zurich, where Oerlikon-Bührle AG held its offices and tool works from the 1930s through the 1950s. The building is currently undergoing renovation with plans to be open to the public in 2020. But the Bührle history is more complicated than one can see, so who knows how karma will treat the renovation and grand opening of the new exhibit? When it does finally open, the paintings should be enjoyed. There are no fakes left.

  In 2015, Lucia Foulkes, at Boston College Law School, wrote a twenty-five-page brief titled The Art of Atonement: How Mandated Transparency Can Help Return Masterpieces Lost During World War II. She made a convincing argument, from a legal standpoint, that “the United States government should act unilaterally to transform the moral responsibility of government bodies and museum officials into an enforceable legal duty.”316

  What would the battery of lawyers who represent MoMA and the Guggenheim think about dropping their staunch defense of artwork sold under duress? And what about the Metropolitan Museum of Art? Would the arrogant, stonewalling institution play ball?

  Not of their own accord, they wouldn’t. They have proved that time and again. How would the Met feel about a unilateral decision to restitute all Nazi-confiscated art? How would the Met’s board of directors feel if the federal government stepped in and forced the museum to open its doors of secrecy and share its condition reports—on genuine and fake paintings—with journalists and art experts alike?

  Since that is unlikely to happen, investigative journalists need to probe other suspect artworks at the Met and elsewhere themselves, especially those created by the masters. Wheat Field with Cypresses isn’t the first van Gogh to be examined as a forgery, and it won’t be the last.

  One recommendation this author can make to the Van Gogh Museum is for it to take up the blockchain system on a trial basis, use it for a couple of its van Gogh paintings with clear provenance, and go back in time and register those artworks as if the past owners were alive today. Such a mockup might demonstrate to the directors and experts of that museum the benefit of using the online distributed ledger technology. It could then be used for loans of artwork to other museums, tracking the paintings’ movements around the world until they return home.

  If the Van Gogh Museum likes the technology, then perhaps it can reach out to other museums around the world and begin a trend, digitally putting their artwork online in a series of past-dated transactions, while using the blockchain method to record the details of their art’s travels on future tours and exhibitions, each step of the way.

  Now that would be a brighter, more transparent future. Something I believe the brothers van Gogh would approve of, were they alive today in the twenty-first century.

  I have spent three years of solid research on this one painting, Wheat Field with Cypresses, a process that was similar to dropping a rock in a pond and watching the ripples race out from the center. There were many paths to examine along the way.

  What should the Met do with its van Nogh painting, Wheat Field with Cypresses, that hangs today in the Annenberg Gallery? It will never leave the museum again, but not because of some old, stale agreement with Walter H. Annenberg that the Met promised to honor. No, it can’t leave now because this book has clearly outed it as a work of art created by another hand.

  The Met is under no obligation to be transparent. But that, I suspect, will change. The Met does not have to share the painting’s true history, or embarrass the Annenberg Foundation by announcing that Walter bought a fake van Gogh in 1993 for $57 million. The IRS, however, might be interested in looking into that massive tax write-off, and whichever insurance company is insuring that painting might have a different opinion than that of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

  What should the Met do with Wheat Field with Cypresses?

  In my opinion, they should leave the fake where it is, trapped in its gallery, hanging on the wall, and honor Walter Annenberg’s wishes. He did, after all, donate $1 billion worth of genuine art to the Met. Let the fake van Gogh be a learning tool and experience for visitors, whether art students, art rookies, art experts, tourists, art professors, or art enthusiasts like me.

  Let people compare the real van Gogh brushstrokes found in the same gallery at the same museum, in Vincent’s First Steps and Cypresses. Let them compare, whether by going online or by visiting the National Gallery in London in person and comparing its great example of A Wheatfield, with Cypresses against the Met’s van Nogh.

  When that happens, perhaps the Met will throw up its hands and become a little more transparent. Then the staid, crusty old museums of the twentieth century can embrace the future of art meeting technology in this century, and Vincent van Gogh will look down on us and smile one more time with the sun emblazoned in his favorite color—chrome yellow.

  ENDNOTES

  1. Western European Report, Switzerland. Foreign Broadcast Information Service, April 10, 1987: 53–59.

  2. Ibid.

  3. Ibid.

  4. Ibid.

  5. Ibid.

  6. Ibid.

  7. John F. Burns, “Scandal Imperils Mulroney’s Hold,” Special to the New York Times, January 25, 1987.

  8. Hanspeter Born and Benoit Landais, Schuffenecker’s Sunflowers and Other Van Gogh Forgeries, Self-published, Switzerland, 2014.

  9. “Marietta Gets $1.7 billion Army Contract,” Associated Press, Washington, DC, December 1, 1987.

  10. René Elvin, “Collector Extraordinary: The Bührle Collection and the New Zurich Kunsthaus,” Studio Magazine, Zurich, Vol. 158: 50–4, August 1959. File Bührle, The Passionate Eye Exhibit, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.

  11. Ibid.

  12. Ibid.

  13. Hortense Anda-Bührle, Letter to Charles S. Moffett, National Gallery of Art, October 30, 1987. File Bührle, The Passionate Eye Exhibit, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.

  14. Charles Moffett, NGA Memorandum to Director J. Carter Brown, June 3, 1988. File Bührle, The Passionate Eye Exhibit, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.

  15. Ibid.

  16. Ibid.

  17. J. Carter Brown, NGA Letter to Hortense Anda-Bührle, June 7, 1988. File Bührle, The Passionate Eye Exhibit, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.

  18. Ibid.

  19. J. Carter Brown, Memorandum for the File, June 15, 1988. File Bührle, The Passionate Eye Exhibit, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.


  20. Ibid.

  21. Charles Moffett, The Passionate Eye, Vincent van Gogh 1853–1890, No. 62, Wheat Field with Cypresses, June 1889, Essay, Zurich, Artemis, 1990.

  22. Frances P. Smyth, Memorandum for the File, February 13, 1983. File Bührle, The Passionate Eye Exhibit, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.

  23. Ibid.

  24. Ibid.

  25. 1990 Annual Report, National Gallery of Art, Washington DC, 1990, 82.

  26. Frances P. Smyth, Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, “Bührle Exhibition,” February 13, 1989. File Bührle, The Passionate Eye Exhibit, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.

  27. Elizabeth A. C. Weil, Memorandum to Martin Marietta, “Notes from Our Meeting,” NGA Corporate Relations, September 11, 1989. File Bührle, The Passionate Eye Exhibit, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.

  28. “Collections,” accessed December 10, 2015, http://www.sunnylands.org/page/20/art-collection.

  29. Rita Reif, “Van Gogh’s ‘Irises’ for $53.9 Million,” New York Times, November 12, 1987.

  30. Tim Kane, “The Passionate Collectors and the Billion‐Dollar Gift (fourth in an eight-part series),” Palm Springs Life, Palm Springs, May 2011.

  31. Brochure. File Bührle, The Passionate Eye Exhibit, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.

  32. Neil Harris, Capital Culture: J. Carter Brown, the National Gallery of Art, and the … (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013) 426–27.

  33. Ibid.

  34. “Walter Annenberg Study Archive,” accessed December 12, 2015, http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-annenberg-walter.html.

  35. J. Carter Brown, Memorandum to Ruth Kaplan, NGA External Information Officer, April 30, 1990. The Passionate Eye Exhibit Files, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.

  36. Ibid.

  37. Ibid.

  38. Ibid.

  39. Ibid.

  40. Ibid.

  41. “Times Appoints Chief Art Critic,” New York Times, January 11, 1990.

  42. Press Facts, The Passionate Eye Exhibit, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.

  43. Hortense Anda-Bührle, Press Breakfast Speech, The Passionate Eye Exhibit File, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.

  44. Richard Sanders, “Merchants of Death Conference,” Peace Magazine, Vol. 05, No. 6, November 1989: 8.

  45. Michael Kimmelman, “ART VIEW; Was This Exhibition Necessary?” New York Times, May 20, 1990.

  46. Ibid.

  47. Ibid.

  48. Ibid.

  49. Charles Moffett, Memorandum to Files, “Re: Kimmelman/ Bührle Collection.” File Bührle, The Passionate Eye Exhibit, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.

  50. Ibid.

  51. J. Carter Brown, Memorandum to the Art and Education Committee of the Trustees, “Re: Kimmelman Piece on Bührle Show.” File Bührle, The Passionate Eye Exhibit, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.

  52. Arianem Gigon, “A New Look at Bührle Art Collection’s Shadowy Past,” SwissInfo.Ch, Zurich, October 9, 2015.

  53. Piers Rodgers, “Letter to the Editor to New York Times,” Secretary Royal Academy of Arts, May 24, 1990. File Bührle, The Passionate Eye Exhibit, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Gallery Archives, accessed December 2, 2015.

  54. Neil Harris, Capital Culture: J. Carter Brown, the National Gallery of Art, and the Reinvention of the Museum Experience (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2013), 432.

  55. Ibid.

  56. Ibid, 432.

  57. John Russell, “Annenberg Picks the Met for $1 Billion Gift,” New York Times, March 12, 1991.

  58. Ibid.

  59. Walter H. Annenberg obituary, accessed December 15, 2015, http://articles.philly.com/2002–10–02/news/25353073_1_art-collector-pneumonia-museums.

  60. Michael Kimmelman, “ART VIEW; From Strength to Strength: A Collector’s Gift to the Met,” New York Times, June 2, 1991.

  61. Michael Kimmelman, “Annenberg Donates a van Gogh to the Met,” New York Times, May 25, 1993.

  62. “The Art of the Deal,” accessed December 15, 2015, http://krieger.jhu.edu/magazine/F05/pages/alumni_mazoh.htm.

  63. Michael Kimmelman, “Annenberg Donates a van Gogh to the Met,” New York Times, May 25, 1993.

  64. Ibid.

  65. Ibid.

  66. Lukas Gloor, Emil G. Bührle Foundation, email to James O. Grundvig, November 13, 2013.

  67. Letter No. 626, Vincent to Willemien van Gogh, Arles, June 20, 1888.

  68. Letter No. 736, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Arles, January 17, 1889.

  69. Letter No. 728, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Arles, January 2, 1888.

  70. Ibid.

  71. Letter No. 732, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Arles, January 7, 1889.

  72. Ibid.

  73. F. Javier González Luque and A. Luis Montejo González, “Vincent van Gogh and the Toxic Colours of Saturn: Autobiographical Narrative of a Case of Lead Poisoning,” paper, University of Salamanca, 2004.

  74. Ibid.

  75. F. Javier González Luque and A. Luis Montejo González, “Vincent van Gogh and the Toxic Colours of Saturn: Autobiographical Narrative of a Case of Lead Poisoning,” paper, University of Salamanca, 2004.

  76. Paul Wolf, Creativity and chronic disease Vincent van Gogh (18531890), University of California, San Diego, VA Medical Center, San Diego, BMJ Publishing Group, 2001.

  77. http://vangoghletters.org/vg/documentation.html#id2September1889. Accessed December 20, 2015.

  78. Letter No. 762, Theo to Vincent van Gogh, Paris, April 24, 1889.

  79. Letter No. 769, Frédéric Salles Theo to Vincent van Gogh, Arles, May 5, 1889.

  80. Letter No. 767, Theo to Vincent van Gogh, Paris, May 2, 1889.

  81. Letter No. 776, Vincent to Theo Vincent van Gogh, SaintRémy, May 23, 1889.

  82. Ibid.

  83. Ibid.

  84. Ibid.

  85. Letter No. 777 Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy, May 31, 1889.

  86. Letter No. 773, Railway Postman Joseph Roulin to Vincent van Gogh, Marseille, May 13, 1889.

  87. Letter No. 775, Railway Postman Joseph Roulin to Vincent van Gogh, Marseille, May 22, 1889.

  88. Letter No. 777, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy, May 31, 1889.

  89. “Vincent van Gogh Biography,” accessed December 22, 2015, http://www.biography.com/people/vincent-van-gogh-9515695#synopsis.

  90. K. Shabi, “Starry Night: Meaning of the Vincent Van Gogh Landscape Painting,” Legomenon, June 3, 2013, http://legomenon.com/starry-night-meaning-of-vincent-van-gogh-painting.html.

  91. Albert Boime, “Van Gogh’s Starry Night: A History of Matter and a Matter of History,” Arts Magazine, December 1984.

  92. Ingo F. Walther and Rainer Metzger, Van Gogh: The Complete Paintings (Cologne, Germany: Taschen Bibliotheca Universalis, Original Edition 1990, 2015), 511.

  93. Letter No. 783, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy, June 25, 1889.

  94. Letter No. 797, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy, August 22, 1889.

  95. Letter No. 784, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy, July 2, 1889.

  96. Letter No. 782, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy, June 18, 1889.

  97. Letter No. 784, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy, July 2, 1889.

  98. Ibid.

  99. Ibid.

  100. Ibid.

  101. Letter No. 785, Vincent to Willemien van Gogh, Saint-Rémy, July 2, 1889.

  102. Ibid.

  103. Letter No. 789, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy, July 14, 1889.

  104. Letter No. 790, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy, July 14, 1889.<
br />
  105. Letter No. 792, Theo to Vincent van Gogh, Paris, July 16, 1889.

  106. D. W. Olson, “Vincent Van Gogh and Starry Skies Over France,” Celestial Sleuth: Using Astronomy to Solve Mysteries in Art, History and Literature (New York: Springer-Praxis, 2014), 54.

  107. Ibid, 56–57.

  108. Vincent Van Gogh and Colta Feller Ives, Vincent Van Gogh: The Drawings (New York: Met Publications, 2005), 316.

  109. Ibid.

  110. Ashlee Farraina, “Self-Portraits: Vincent Van Gogh #12,” February 21, 2011, accessed December 30, 2015, http://ashleemariesinspiration.blogspot.com/2011/02/self-portraits-vincent-van-gogh.html.

  111. Letter No. 797, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy, August 22, 1889.

  112. Ibid.

  113. Ibid.

  114. Letter No. 779, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy, June 9, 1889.

  115. Eric Gelber, “Van Gogh: Drawing Media and Techniques,” Making a Mark Blog, February 22, 2007, accessed December 30, 2015, http://makingamark.blogspot.com/2007/02/van-gogh-drawing-media-and-techniques.html.

  116. John Leighton, et al., “Vincent Van Gogh’s ‘A Cornfield, with Cypresses,’” National Gallery of Art, London, Technical Bulletin Vol. 11, 1987, 52.

  117. Ibid, p. 57.

  118. H. W. Janson, The Modern World: A Basic History of Art (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1971), 308.

  119. Letter No. 805, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy, September 20, 1889.

  120. Letter No. 806, Vincent to Theo van Gogh, Saint-Rémy, September 28, 1889.

  121. Ibid.

  122. John Leighton, et al., “Vincent Van Gogh’s ‘A Cornfield, with Cypresses,’” National Gallery of Art, London, Technical Bulletin Vol. 11, 1987, 44.

  123. The Vincent van Gogh Gallery, accessed January 1, 2016, http://www.vggallery.com/.

  124. John Leighton, et al., “Vincent Van Gogh’s ‘A Cornfield, with Cypresses,’” National Gallery of Art, London, Technical Bulletin Vol. 11, 1987, 45.

  125. Ibid.

  126. Ibid.

  127. Ibid, 49.