Fake or Fortune sparks controversy
- William Nicholson Trust
- Sep 2, 2018
- 1 min read
Updated: May 13, 2019
On 12 August, BBC1 broadcast the first programme in Series 7 of Fake or Fortune, focusing their attentions on William Nicholson, describing him as one of the leading artists of his generation. The team examined a painting called Glass Jug with Pears that had been purchased as a William Nicholson from Browse & Darby, a London gallery with close historical connections to William Nicholson. They presented their evidence to Patricia Reed, the author of the definitive work on Nicholson, William Nicholson : Catalogue Raisonné of the Oil Paintings and she wrote to Fake or Fortune with her conclusions. Fiona Bruce read from Patricia Reed's letter, 'I regret to inform you that I do not find there is sufficient evidence to attribute this work to William Nicholson. Although there are a number of aspects to the painting that link the physical board and paint with William Nicholson and his studio, there is nothing that gives any direct evidence that he actually executed the work himself'.
The National Gallery of Canada's discussion may be read here
The mysteries surrounding the painting remain unresolved.
I found the discussion about the disputed painting on Fake or Fortune really intriguing It was fascinating to read about how the expert panel debated the brushwork and provenance and how something as subtle as a tiny signature could spark so much controversy I also found it interesting that the article touched on how even specialists can disagree and that art authentication is not always clear cut It made me think about how much research and verification goes into these claims and how perspectives can differ depending on the viewer I was reading this while catching up on some work from a New Assignment Help Company dedicated to providing premium tailored academic support for university students across all major Australian…
Who said that Patricia Reed was an expert, and on what evidence? So, she has written a book. If someone else writes a scholarly book about Sir William Nicholson and includes the painting in question, does the world's view change?
If i were the Director of the National Gallery of Canada I would be sorely tempted to raise £165,000 and offer it to Lyn on the understanding that after her death the painting would go into their collection as authentic, alongside the companion work. Who would challenge their view?
Platform raja botak memungkinkan pengguna untuk berpartisipasi dalam aktivitas perjudian seperti mesin slot, poker, taruhan olahraga (sportsbook), hingga permainan kasino langsung (live casino) secara virtual.
I believe the outcome was due to ego alone. Patricia Reed didn’t wanted to be proved wrong. She has now just shown us behind the mask
Watching the show, it is difficult not to want to see the work acknowledged as genuine. Patricia Reed has not helped us sympathise with her case by making her only involvement a letter which is never read in full.
Her disappointing decision seems to hang on the evidence the investigation established not being inconsistent with the possibility that this was the work of one of Nicholson’s students working along side him at the time of the Ottawa painting. While this possibility has not been ruled out, the conservative opinion is that this leaves sufficient doubt as to be unable to include the work in the official catalogue.
So the show did a good job of excluding the possibility that this…