Okay, prove you DIDN'T create this painting.
July 10, 2016 8:17 PM Subscribe
Peter Doig Says He Didn’t Paint This. Now He Has to Prove It. Scottish artist Peter Doig is renowned for his somewhat surreal, eerie, haunting landscapes and scenes of ordinary life. His paintings have sold for millions of dollars -- his White Canoe fetched a record-setting $26 million at auction in 2015.
Now, Doig is tasked with proving he did not create a particular work, in a case that has stunned art-law experts.
(Previously.
) I've got you. Of course, you were the original creator of this parenthesis.
posted by Mimir at 8:28 PM on July 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by Mimir at 8:28 PM on July 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
I have recently come into possession of a previously unknown Jackson Pollock. Unfortunately Mr. Pollock himself has been dead for 60 years, so its authenticity is obviously unquestionable. Art dealers, my contact info is in my profile.
posted by Mrs. Davros at 8:32 PM on July 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Mrs. Davros at 8:32 PM on July 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Mr. Bartlow said ... Mr. Doig disowned the painting because he was embarrassed by that period in his life... he thinks the artist refuses to acknowledge the painting because it shows he has been using similar formulaic compositions for four decades.
Mr. Bartlow might be full of shit, but he's pretty happy basking in all the free publicity and pulling in any money he possibly can from Fletcher's demented insistence that his daub must be worth millions.
posted by BlueHorse at 8:41 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Mr. Bartlow might be full of shit, but he's pretty happy basking in all the free publicity and pulling in any money he possibly can from Fletcher's demented insistence that his daub must be worth millions.
posted by BlueHorse at 8:41 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
How is a Canadian suing a Scot in an American court? No, nevermind, this whole thing is absurd.
posted by rodlymight at 8:42 PM on July 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by rodlymight at 8:42 PM on July 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
No, nevermind, this whole thing is absurd.
Surreal, surely.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:53 PM on July 10, 2016 [25 favorites]
Surreal, surely.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:53 PM on July 10, 2016 [25 favorites]
I have an original Picasa. Surely the name can't be a coincidence. Who and where do I sue?
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:54 PM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:54 PM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm no lawyer - no, wait, I am - but it looks to me like an actual Peter Doige making paintings AND being in jail at the same time is pretty good evidence to me.
posted by yhbc at 8:57 PM on July 10, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by yhbc at 8:57 PM on July 10, 2016 [17 favorites]
Really puts the su in surreal.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:01 PM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:01 PM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Unbelievable.
Reminds me of David Geffen suing Neil Young for not sounding enough like Neil Young.
Don't pigeon-hole us Canadians, yo.
posted by chococat at 9:11 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Reminds me of David Geffen suing Neil Young for not sounding enough like Neil Young.
Don't pigeon-hole us Canadians, yo.
posted by chococat at 9:11 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Huh. This painting doesn't even look particularly similar to Doig's style, to me. Sure they're both "surreal" in some sense, but if that's all you need why not just say it's a Dali? He's dead and can't argue the point.
it looks to me like an actual Peter Doige making paintings AND being in jail at the same time is pretty good evidence to me.
Yup. Seems like this prison guard doesn't have anything to go on other than (1) a similar (BUT DIFFERENT) name, and (2) the fact that the guy painted, allegedly (to some people, I suppose) in the same style. Different names, different birthdays, and the famous painter has as good of an alibi as you could expect after ~40 years. I'm amazed this is going to trial.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 9:13 PM on July 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
it looks to me like an actual Peter Doige making paintings AND being in jail at the same time is pretty good evidence to me.
Yup. Seems like this prison guard doesn't have anything to go on other than (1) a similar (BUT DIFFERENT) name, and (2) the fact that the guy painted, allegedly (to some people, I suppose) in the same style. Different names, different birthdays, and the famous painter has as good of an alibi as you could expect after ~40 years. I'm amazed this is going to trial.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 9:13 PM on July 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also, having made the drive myself, the NYT piece is underestimating the driving time to Thunder Bay from Toronto. Unless you're doing it with amphetamines and adult diapers.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:27 PM on July 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:27 PM on July 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
That ID card in the NYT piece, although very handsome, doesn't even look like Peter Doig. I don't see the resemblance.
posted by polymodus at 9:49 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by polymodus at 9:49 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe it's my criminal mind, but I sense a brilliant scam at work here.
1. Realize that you have a painting by one P. Doige, who is not famous, but whose name is similar to the famous artist P. Doig. Realize your painting is worth nothing.
2. Bring it to the attention of Peter Doig, who will of course say he didn't paint it.
3. Take a frivolous lawsuit to court against Doig, asking him to prove he didn't paint it. Get the painting mentioned and pictured in news outlets everywhere.
4. Case gets thrown out of court. Worst case scenario, Doig successfully countersues you for $10,000 for bringing a nuisance suit.
5. Sell the painting, which was formerly worth nothing, for $500,000 due to its history of controversy. Complain to the media that "Peter Doige cost me millions" on the way to the bank.
At least if this was an episode of "White Collar" and I was writing it this is how it would turn out.
posted by mmoncur at 9:56 PM on July 10, 2016 [26 favorites]
1. Realize that you have a painting by one P. Doige, who is not famous, but whose name is similar to the famous artist P. Doig. Realize your painting is worth nothing.
2. Bring it to the attention of Peter Doig, who will of course say he didn't paint it.
3. Take a frivolous lawsuit to court against Doig, asking him to prove he didn't paint it. Get the painting mentioned and pictured in news outlets everywhere.
4. Case gets thrown out of court. Worst case scenario, Doig successfully countersues you for $10,000 for bringing a nuisance suit.
5. Sell the painting, which was formerly worth nothing, for $500,000 due to its history of controversy. Complain to the media that "Peter Doige cost me millions" on the way to the bank.
At least if this was an episode of "White Collar" and I was writing it this is how it would turn out.
posted by mmoncur at 9:56 PM on July 10, 2016 [26 favorites]
This'll be managed with machine learning, i.e. looking at paint strokes from 100 pieces and seeing if they match his style.
posted by effugas at 10:02 PM on July 10, 2016
posted by effugas at 10:02 PM on July 10, 2016
How is a Canadian suing a Scot in an American court? No, nevermind, this whole thing is absurd.
Obvious that this only works because he's not a true Scot
posted by thelonius at 10:09 PM on July 10, 2016 [22 favorites]
Obvious that this only works because he's not a true Scot
posted by thelonius at 10:09 PM on July 10, 2016 [22 favorites]
Mr. Fletcher would be better off investing in Doigecoin, methinks
posted by Standard Orange at 10:41 PM on July 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Standard Orange at 10:41 PM on July 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
This'll be managed with machine learning, i.e. looking at paint strokes from 100 pieces and seeing if they match his style.
Problem is, if you get your hands on the judging algorithm, you can keep churning out fakes until one fools the algorithm. You could even automate it with another algorithm, and the art world becomes robots all the way down.
posted by BungaDunga at 11:30 PM on July 10, 2016
Problem is, if you get your hands on the judging algorithm, you can keep churning out fakes until one fools the algorithm. You could even automate it with another algorithm, and the art world becomes robots all the way down.
posted by BungaDunga at 11:30 PM on July 10, 2016
The real crazy will begin when Doige turns up in court to accuse his evil twin.
posted by fullerine at 11:52 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by fullerine at 11:52 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
In a statement, [Doig's dealer] went further: “In our case, the artist and dealer have the resources to carry on this fight, but I wonder about all the artists who might not. Do they simply acquiesce and let inauthentic works into the market if they are the product of a similar attempt at bullying and rampant greed?”Uh huh. It's not like there are literally centuries of connoisseurial discourse in both art theory and literary editing devoted to just this issue. Hell, Jonathan Richardson and Alexander Pope were writing about the corrupting effect of the marketplace on artistic and authorial canons (Richardson in the context of painting; Pope in poetry) in the 1710s and 1720s
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:25 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The manner of painting and the subject matter of the Doige painting is so radically different, it's really weird the judge can even listen to Fletcher and Bartlow's rubbish. Is he blind?
Obviously - people who become artists experiment with style and technique when they are young, but everyone seams to a some characteristic manner that comes through regardless of what they are doing (the Met Picasso (NSFW) mentioned in the article is a good example). Even if it was a painting by Doig, which it very obviously isn't, it would still be worthless - a mere curiosity of no artistic importance, from before he even went to art school.
Great post, though
posted by mumimor at 3:04 AM on July 11, 2016
Obviously - people who become artists experiment with style and technique when they are young, but everyone seams to a some characteristic manner that comes through regardless of what they are doing (the Met Picasso (NSFW) mentioned in the article is a good example). Even if it was a painting by Doig, which it very obviously isn't, it would still be worthless - a mere curiosity of no artistic importance, from before he even went to art school.
Great post, though
posted by mumimor at 3:04 AM on July 11, 2016
Halloween Jack: "I have an original Picasa. Surely the name can't be a coincidence. Who and where do I sue?"
You get to sue Google!
posted by chavenet at 3:40 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
You get to sue Google!
posted by chavenet at 3:40 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
What a bizarre scheme. The only way Fletcher can make anything from this is if he can also use the courts to compel a Russian oligarch to buy the painting off him.
posted by ardgedee at 3:45 AM on July 11, 2016
posted by ardgedee at 3:45 AM on July 11, 2016
I don't understand how the case is going this way. Maybe if the piece had been previously authenticated and valued, and now Doig is disputing it. But this painting was never authenticated or insured - why wouldn't the burden be on the gallery to pursue authentication?
posted by Think_Long at 6:15 AM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Think_Long at 6:15 AM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
The only way Fletcher can make anything from this is if he can also use the courts to compel a Russian oligarch to buy the painting off him.
No, that's the brilliance of the suit. Fletcher is suing Doig for damages. He is saying that this painting would have sold for $26M (see White Canoe), but you deny painting it. Now I can't sell it at all. So you, Doing, owe me the $26M I could have received.
posted by rtimmel at 6:30 AM on July 11, 2016
No, that's the brilliance of the suit. Fletcher is suing Doig for damages. He is saying that this painting would have sold for $26M (see White Canoe), but you deny painting it. Now I can't sell it at all. So you, Doing, owe me the $26M I could have received.
posted by rtimmel at 6:30 AM on July 11, 2016
This is a crazy suit. I wonder if the sister of the late, non-famous Peter Doige has any of his other paintings. Chances are, if he was proficient enough to paint and sell that landscape, he might have done a few others and given them to friends or family. If there were other paintings that were definitely done by Doige, they could be compared for similarity to the disputed one.
It's also dubious that the suit hangs on the notion that because Doig has said he's done some drugs, he might have *completely forgotten* being incarcerated for several months at age 16 in a city he'd never been to. And apparently he's also forgotten being enrolled in a college there. Would that prison farm even house 16-year-olds? Meanwhile, the non-famous Peter Doige would have been 20 around the same time, and is known to have gone to that nearby college.
And finally, of course artists can change as they mature, but that 1976 painting really looks nothing like works by Peter Doig.
posted by lisa g at 7:05 AM on July 11, 2016
It's also dubious that the suit hangs on the notion that because Doig has said he's done some drugs, he might have *completely forgotten* being incarcerated for several months at age 16 in a city he'd never been to. And apparently he's also forgotten being enrolled in a college there. Would that prison farm even house 16-year-olds? Meanwhile, the non-famous Peter Doige would have been 20 around the same time, and is known to have gone to that nearby college.
And finally, of course artists can change as they mature, but that 1976 painting really looks nothing like works by Peter Doig.
posted by lisa g at 7:05 AM on July 11, 2016
No, 'Rarnaby Budge' by Charles Dikkens. That's Dikkens with two Ks, the well-known Dutch author. And you'll be hearing from my attorney. Good day, sir!
I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!
posted by Naberius at 7:14 AM on July 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!
posted by Naberius at 7:14 AM on July 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
“[Bartlow] financed some of the costs of bringing suit by soliciting contributions from about six or seven private contacts, with whom he promised to share some of any payouts.”
Ah, the Peter Thiel model of lawsuit-as-investment. Not even remotely shady.
posted by scruss at 7:35 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ah, the Peter Thiel model of lawsuit-as-investment. Not even remotely shady.
posted by scruss at 7:35 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
New scene - George and Jerry driving along in John Voight's car. George is humming the tune to "Everybody's Talkin.'"
GEORGE: So?
JERRY: C'mon, put the top up, it's November!
GEORGE: I feel alive, Jerry.
JERRY: Let's check out the glove box. Ah. Pencil.
GEORGE: Hey...you don't think...sure, that's Jon Voight's pencil!
JERRY: With Jon Voight's teeth marks. Owner's manual...you know what? This car was owned by Jon Voight.
GEORGE: Ah! See? I told ya.
JERRY: Except Jon is spelled with an H. J-O-H-N.
GEORGE: So?
JERRY: Doesn't Jon Voight spell his name J-O-N?
GEORGE (pulls over): So, what are you saying?
JERRY: Nothing. I'm sure "Jon" probably mispelled his own name. I know sometimes I spell Jerry with a G...and an I!
GEORGE (angrily): Get out of the car!
JERRY: What?
GEORGE: That's right, you heard me. Get out! You are ruining this whole experience for me!
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 7:59 AM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
GEORGE: So?
JERRY: C'mon, put the top up, it's November!
GEORGE: I feel alive, Jerry.
JERRY: Let's check out the glove box.
GEORGE: Hey...you don't think...sure, that's Jon Voight's pencil!
JERRY: With Jon Voight's teeth marks.
GEORGE: Ah! See? I told ya.
JERRY: Except Jon is spelled with an H. J-O-H-N.
GEORGE: So?
JERRY: Doesn't Jon Voight spell his name J-O-N?
GEORGE (pulls over): So, what are you saying?
JERRY: Nothing. I'm sure "Jon" probably mispelled his own name. I know sometimes I spell Jerry with a G...and an I!
GEORGE (angrily): Get out of the car!
JERRY: What?
GEORGE: That's right, you heard me. Get out! You are ruining this whole experience for me!
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 7:59 AM on July 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also, having made the drive myself, the NYT piece is underestimating the driving time to Thunder Bay from Toronto. Unless you're doing it with amphetamines and adult diapers.
No joke. I've done this drive too, and it's like driving from New York to Chicago, only if there were no freeways past New Jersey and gas stations are so far apart you are afraid of not topping up every time you see one.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:49 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
This really sounds like the judge allowing abuse of the legal system. I assume Doig has *some* money, but when paintings resell for millions it's usually other people making the money, the initial sale by the painter is usually much less. So he isn't necessarily a millionaire himself, and defending a federal lawsuit from another country is incredibly expensive. Basically, this guy is attempting blackmail -- either validate my fantasy about this painting or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and risk a jury buying into the fantasy.
A judge simply shouldn't allow this kind of evidence-less lawsuit to proceed; the default should never be on the defendant to prove a negative in this way. You could have thousands of people pulling whatever painting they want out of their garages and suing famous artists to force them to falsely authenticate them, if they can't afford to defend themselves.
posted by tavella at 10:00 AM on July 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
A judge simply shouldn't allow this kind of evidence-less lawsuit to proceed; the default should never be on the defendant to prove a negative in this way. You could have thousands of people pulling whatever painting they want out of their garages and suing famous artists to force them to falsely authenticate them, if they can't afford to defend themselves.
posted by tavella at 10:00 AM on July 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Do I get to sue the Keno brothers if they refuse to validate my 100% authentic Georgian dresser? Do I get to sue the pawn shop for failing to recognize how valuable my early 2000's dvd collection is?
posted by Think_Long at 11:20 AM on July 11, 2016
posted by Think_Long at 11:20 AM on July 11, 2016
I am not sure any of that is relevant, tavella. The basic question, to me, is what sort of damages can possibly be assessed against someone because of their refusal to corroborate someone else's claims?
It would be one thing if Doig picked up the phone and called a reporter and said hey, that painting that XYZ gallery put up and said was mine? Not me. Okay, in that case you have an affirmative action by this person that possibly causes some damages - presumably the gallery paid for the painting (or the person donating it is yielding a tax deduction, depending on the nature of the gallery) and he's harming their ability to get people to pay an admission fee to come look at it.
What are the damages here? This person can't make a sale he thinks he should have been able to?Presumably nobody is claiming that Doig has an obligation to validate anything they ask him about, so would this case be thrown out if Doig has simply refused to answer? Would there be a claim if he's said "I don't remember painting that," rather than an outright denial?
I'd love to see the filings here. I'm kind of astonished this wouldn't be dismissed upon request for summary judgment. Maybe that's not an avenue here; I'm not a lawyer, just a law groupie. So there could be a complexity here I am not seeing. But I also wonder, is it possible Doig and his lawyers have deliberately omitted a usual step here in order to let this proceed, on the assumption that the publicity is worth the legal costs?
posted by phearlez at 1:21 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
It would be one thing if Doig picked up the phone and called a reporter and said hey, that painting that XYZ gallery put up and said was mine? Not me. Okay, in that case you have an affirmative action by this person that possibly causes some damages - presumably the gallery paid for the painting (or the person donating it is yielding a tax deduction, depending on the nature of the gallery) and he's harming their ability to get people to pay an admission fee to come look at it.
What are the damages here? This person can't make a sale he thinks he should have been able to?Presumably nobody is claiming that Doig has an obligation to validate anything they ask him about, so would this case be thrown out if Doig has simply refused to answer? Would there be a claim if he's said "I don't remember painting that," rather than an outright denial?
I'd love to see the filings here. I'm kind of astonished this wouldn't be dismissed upon request for summary judgment. Maybe that's not an avenue here; I'm not a lawyer, just a law groupie. So there could be a complexity here I am not seeing. But I also wonder, is it possible Doig and his lawyers have deliberately omitted a usual step here in order to let this proceed, on the assumption that the publicity is worth the legal costs?
posted by phearlez at 1:21 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
« Older Life-Hacks of the Poor and Aimless | Secret Friends Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by sarcasticah at 8:19 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]