A growing number of works by Alexej von Jawlensky are being branded as fakes, even though they are included in the new catalogue raisonné compiled by the artist’s descendants. Two major exhibitions this year are said by critics to have included fakes and Christie’s has admitted that a painting which it sold for a record price four years ago is not authentic. All the questioned pictures are catalogued as dating from the 1910s, after the Russian-born artist had become one of the leading Expressionists in Germany.
“Spanish woman with red scarf” was sold at Christie’s on 13 October 1994 for £540,000. Sometime afterwards the anonymous buyer established that the oil painting was not authentic, and two years ago this was accepted by the auction house. “The matter has been resolved with the buyer,” a Christie’s spokesman explained last month, and it is believed that the picture was returned for a refund. Insurers for Christie’s are now suing Toronto-based collector Charles Tabachnick, who originally consigned the painting. A writ has been issued claiming £340,000, representing the amount not covered by Christie’s own insurance. The case is likely to be heard in the High Court in London in the next few months.
Although rejected by Christie’s, “Spanish woman with a red scarf” is still accepted by the Jawlensky family. It is recorded in their catalogue raisonné as a work of 1912 (no. 486) and its earliest provenance is given as a Hauswedell & Nolte auction in Hamburg in 1980. Last month Angelica Jawlensky Bianconi, granddaughter of the artist and co-author of the catalogue, told The Art Newspaper that “we have no evidence at all of the non-authenticity of this painting.”
Two oil paintings currently on display in the Jawlensky exhibition at Dortmund’s Ostwall Museum (until 15 November) are being questioned by specialists, including Bernd Fäthkem, curator of a show on the artist in 1983. “Saviour’s face: The sacred hour”, exhibited as a work of 1919, is doubted partly on the grounds that it is unusually similar to another authentic work. The questioned picture is included in the catalogue raisonné (no. 1071), and Ms Bianconi says that exhibition labels on the reverse prove that it was exhibited in 1923 in Chemnitz and Stuttgart. She also stresses that her grandfather “did copy his own work.” The earliest recorded provenance for the painting is a private Wiesbaden collection and it is now in the Frank Brabant collection in Wiesbaden.
“Lolita”, exhibited in Dortmund as a work of 1912, is being questioned partly on the grounds that the signature is not right for the period. The painting is also included in the catalogue raisonné (no. 514) and Ms Bianconi believes it was among a group of earlier pictures which the artist signed in 1920. “Lolita” is recorded as at the Galerie Aenne Abels in Cologne in 1980 and is now owned by an anonymous private collector
Earlier this year works displayed at a Jawlensky exhibition at Essen’s Folkwang Museum were questioned. At the centre of the dispute was a group of watercolours from a sketchbook supposed to have been sent by the artist to his brother Dimitry in Russia. Ms Bianconi has promised that the Locarno-based Jawlensky Archiv, responsible for the catalogue raisonné, will examine these watercolours (listed in the catalogue as sketchbook three), “but this takes a lot of time.”
Over the past ten years the Jawlensky Archiv has recorded more than 200 fakes. “I do not hesitate to declare the fakes I discover, but I am not aware of faked Jawlenskys now being offered on the market,” Ms Bianconi explained.
Originally appeared in The Art Newspaper as: “My grandfather copied his own works”