WARHOL FOUNDATION CITES LEGAL COSTS AS GROUNDS FOR DISSOLVING THE BOARD the andy warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts has announced that it will pull the plug on its litigation – plagued 16 – year – old Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board. The decision, which sent shock waves through the art market, followed the organizations in – depth review of its activities. “Authentication became an issue right away,” explains Joel Wachs, president of the New York – based foundation, “because we spend about $400,000 to $500,000 a year in regular expenses on it, and thats been coupled with millions and millions of dollars in legal expenses for frivolous lawsuits that have all been thrown out. The feeling is very clear that that money should be going to artists and arts organizations and not to lawyers.”
Nevertheless, the foundations withdrawal from the authentication arena does not sit well with many in the art world. “They cannot just say bye – bye,” insists Jose Mugrabi, who owns more than 800 Warhols and who, with his sons Alberto and David, is a significant market force at auctions and in private sales. “They have to keep going. Theres no logic to it, and I think its irrespon – sible on their part. There still has to be a process for approving works.”Warhol, who died at age 58 in February 1987, directed that substantially all his assets go to a new foundation dedicated to “the advancement of the visual arts.” So far the foundation established in his name has distributed $206 million in grants, and for 2012 it has budgeted more than $13 million to go to arts organizations across the country. “Were serving scholarship,” Wachs emphasizes. “Andy didnt create us to serve the market.”
Other verifying bodies could also be at risk, given the often contentious nature of the process and the expense of court challenges, like that brought by the U.K.- based filmmaker Joe Simon, whose Warhol self – portrait became infamous for having been “double – denied.” “Youll probably see more of them closing down,” predicts Wachs, himself a lawyer by training.
The authentication board will disband early next year following the final review of approximately 175 works, bringing to more than 6,000 the number it has rendered determinations on, of which approximately 20 percent have failed to earn approval. “It will be like what art is for so many artists who dont have authentication boards – people will make their judgments on any number of factors,” says Wachs, addressing the potential problems posed by the boards dissolution. “Our purpose cant be market driven.” Warhol, he notes, created more than 100,000 pictures, not including films and photographs, and a full 95 percent of them havent undergone verification.
The foundations decision does not affect the ongoing Warhol Catalogue Raisonne project begun in 1977 by the late Swiss collector and dealer Thomas Ammann. That effort will continue to be funded to the tune of “over a million dollars a year,” according to Wachs, and Warhol owners seeking the imprimatur of inclusion can submit information about their works via the foundations Web site. But publication in the catalogue can take years, and the procedure doesnt necessarily involve the immediate physical examination of works that was mandated by the authentication board.
Georg Frei, senior partner at the Zurich – based Thomas Ammann Fine Art and a co – author of the second volume of the Warhol catalogue raisonne, regards the new situation as risky. “They say the catalogue raisonne will be the model, but the model will be ready in 20 years. The fakes are going to float around,” says Frei, who points out that hundreds of Warhol paintings from the 1980s, including the sought – after “Last Suppers” and self – portraits, are years away from being considered for inclusion.
Vincent Fremont, the longtime exclusive agent for selling the foundations paintings, sculptures, and drawings, is more sanguine. “People liked the extra added assurance” of the board approval, he says, “but there are lots of Warhols sold that are not authenticated, and if works are documented in catalogues, why bother?”
Alex Rotter, contemporary – art specialist at Sothebys, agrees. “I dont see a huge impact on the market. It was really only for the doubtful pieces anyway, so Im not too concerned,” he says, adding, however, that the timely journey to market of a previously undocumented Warhol may prove problematic without the boards blessing.
Consider the converse. In November 2009, Sothebys New York put on the block a signed and inscribed Self – Portrait from 1965 that the artist had given in 1967 to a Warhol Factory employee, who kept it quietly for more than four decades. The piece wasnt included in the catalogue raisonne volume covering paintings and sculptures from 1964 to 1969, but the authentication board had inspected and stamped it A104.0610 on the reverse in time for it to be listed authoritatively as a Warhol in the sales catalogue. The painting went on to fetch $6,130,500, against an estimate of $1 million to $1.5 million, for the fortunate consignor.
