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 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…
How embarrassing - to be unable to change your decision on a painting's authenticity in the face of such compelling evidence. What more evidence than the artist's handwritten naming of the painting Glass Jug. And to call yourself an expert. Ms Reed probably didn't even look at the back of the painting and is likely ashamed to admit that her only rationale was she didn't like the shape of the jug. I have noticed there is a lot of ego in the art world overshadowing the simple beauty of these masterpieces.
How much more evidence does Patricia Reed need to say that the painting in question was Nicholson's? I suspect her dismissal of the overwhelming evidence that this indeed was an original Nicholson was to protect her own reputation as a judge of art, given that it was she who had excluded it from her Nicholson catalogue.
OMG this is outrageous that this one person so called art expert Patricia Reed gets to decide that science and forensic evidence doesn't matter. That she is a better judge than Lillian who has direct knowledge of the painter's work as a friend.
I have tried to get information on this expert on William Nicholson's work but to my astonishment have found nothing. When you compare the experience an reputation of Lillian the art expert on Nicholson's works to this self asserted expert Patricia Reed who has no work history to be found under her name it's absurd that she disputing the solid evidence of science and a backing of an art expert like Lillian.
I think this Patricia Reed…