The authenticity of hundreds of prints by the early twentieth-century photographer Lewis Hine is being challenged in what appears to be one of the most widespread incidents of forgery ever to befall the photographic community. The suspect works, mainly enlargements but smaller contact prints as well, derive from negatives produced throughout the artist's prolific career. The recent discovery that many of these supposedly vintage works, nearly all sharing the same provenance, were executed on papers manufactured in the decades after Mr Hine's death in 1940, has sent dealers, collectors, and museums alike running for cover.
The disputed photographs date from various phases of Hine's career, from his work for the National Child Labour Committee beginning in 1905, to his acrobatic views of the Empire State Building under construction from 1930-31. The Empire State photographs are believed to have been particularly hard hit, as is the celebrated photograph “Steamfitter” of 1920.
A posse of six New York galleries is attempting to trace the origin of the bogus prints, and is believed to be seeking compensation from their putative source. The protagonists include three of the City's most prominent photography dealers—Howard Greenberg, Edwynn Houk, and Robert Mann—and another three galleries which have so far managed to remain anonymous. 'We are in serious negotiations”, says lawyer Peter R. Stern, of Berger, Stern, and Webb, the firm retained by the group. “This is a very delicate time.”
Although the source of the photographs has not been definitively established, attention has focused on Hine’s friend and scholar Walter Rosenblum, who administered the Hine estate for the Photo League of New York. The bulk of the Photo League collection, including correspondence, negatives, and many indisputably early prints, was eventually donated to the International Museum of Photography at George Eastman House.
Speaking through his lawyer, Mark Sugarman, Mr Rosenblum maintains that he was unaware of problems with photographs which passed through his hands, and that any Hine works he sold were acquired in good faith either from the artist or from his son, Corydon.
The dealers have nevertheless centred their investigations on Mr Rosenblum, who has been identified as the source of most if not all of the suspect prints, and is himself a well-known photographer. Mr Rosenblum is married to noted author and photo-historian Naomi Rosenblum.
The disputed works are unlikely to be confused with authorised prints made over the years since the artist's death. Nearly all of the would-be Hines sport a facsimile of the original “Lewis W. Hine, Interpretive Photography” studio stamp on the back, together with the one word signature, “Hine”. According to Stephen Perloff, editor of the Photograph Collector who has uncovered many of the early details of the case, the effect is convincing. “It's a very good signature,” says Mr Perloff, “but it's easy to forge.” Many of the works seem to have been artificially distressed. The backs are soiled and abraded, while the emulsions remain tellingly pristine.
Privately, aficionados have long harboured suspicions about certain Hine photographs, but it was not until collector Michael Mattis decided to have some of his prints tested by a Boston conservator last year that the nature of the problem was revealed. Some of the papers used were found to date from the mid-50s to early 70s, when the prints are now presumed to have been made. Curiously, even authentic Hines could be had for relatively modest prices during this time, so profit alone may not have motivated their production.
If the prints were sold to cash in on the blossoming market for Hine's work in the 80s and 90s, then they may have been printed earlier and secreted away for future sale. Otherwise, if they were made during these later boom years, then the forger must have had access to old papers kept in cold storage. In that case, even photographs made with papers dating from Hine's lifetime would not be beyond suspicion, as there is no obvious limit to the age of the stocks he may have had access to.
While Mr Stern stresses that the quality of most Hines on the market and in public and private collections is unimpeachable, including the “vast majority” of works handled by the dealers he represents, he admits that his clients have so far been able to trace more than 250 dubious photographs sold over the last fifteen years.
Attempts are being made to contact those believed to have bought forgeries. However, as the works were dispersed through various outlets and are now widely distributed, it will be some time before the full extent of the problem is known. As Hine photographs routinely sell for thousands of dollars, the damage may ultimately be measured in millions.
Criminal investigations have not been initiated, but may soon follow. As the values of hundreds of transactions unravel, including many with tax implications, the interest of regulatory authorities is sure to be piqued. There is currently no indication that any civil settlement will include a formal admission of guilt. For the time being, the dealers pressing their claims are likely to be content with cash.
Originally appeared in The Art Newspaper as 'Not as old as they used to be'