Book By Its Cover

9.3.09
Barbara Levine with Stephen Jaycox

This book has caused some debate in the art world. Apparently Carlos and Leticia Noyola, art dealers in Mexico purchased a whole archive collection of never before seen Frida Kahlo personal pieces including a suitcase, two wooden chests, a metal trunk, a wooden box. These were filled with letters, a diary, recipes and notes and sketches among small strange keepsakes. So the art dealers teamed up with curator Barbara Levine to share the new discovered collection in this thick beautiful book. And the book is amazing. It’s huge gorgeous photography of all the artifacts laid out. English translations are provided when necessary. The letters are heart-wrenching and desperate sounding, to Diego explaining her anger or lust for him. Some diary writings talk about her sexual encounters with a woman, Doroti. I mean, it’s all so so fascinating. And I was never a huge Frida fan- until now. Such personal objects have so much history and I love that her story is told through them alone.

So when researching more info about the book I was sorely disappointed to find an article in the Guardian about how there’s some skepticism over whether the collection is authentic. From another article in The Art Newspaper (from August 20th) who interviewed a Latin American art dealer Mary-Anne Martin:
“In my view the publishers have been the victims of a gigantic hoax,” says New York-based Latin American art dealer Mary-Anne Martin, who has bought and sold numerous works by Kahlo (1907-54). “The perpetrators have constructed all these letters, poems, drawings and recipes, using Frida’s biography and her published letters as a roadmap. The drawings are badly done, the writing infantile, the content crude; the anatomy drawings look like something from a butcher shop instruction book. The paintings are ‘pastiches’, composites based on published works. The provenance provided is unverifiable and meaningless. There’s nothing I would like more than to discover a group of unknown works by Frida Kahlo, but there is no way on earth that any of these works could pass muster at Sotheby’s, Christie’s, or my gallery. I am astounded it has gone as far as it has.”

I couldn’t find any more recent articles with an update about this. I really want to believe that all of these items are real. But I do think it’s rather odd to have found a collection like this and not have some sort of huge museum exhibition of the pieces. A book seems like the second step after a show. In the book there is an interview with the Noyola’s who claimed to have brought some of the pieces to Diego Rivera’s grandmother and the Fridos (students who studied with Frida and Diego) who ultimately gave them a certificate of authenticity. Also they claimed they got a chemical analysis of one of the oil paintings.

If anyone has any updates about this developing case, I would love to here more. You can get a copy of the book right here

UPDATE: I received a email from Kevin Lippert of Princeton Architectural Press, the publisher. I wanted to share some of his thoughts:
“Like you, we were extremely excited when Barbara Levine called us last year with news of this discovery, and while it’s possible that she, and then we, were duped, we did have the results of the analyses by the chemist and graphologist, both of whom declared the materials genuine, which seemed at the time enough to proceed with the project (the detailed process of authentication being more of a problem for the Noyolas than us), so I have to say I’m taken aback by the hailstorm surrounding the book, and find the whole issue of forgeries and authentication eye-opening, both in general and in this specific instance. For example, not a single person who has denounced this collection as fake (and there is a “denouncement” press release put out by a group of gallery owners, scholars, and others whose interest in the matter is clearly in conflict) has actually seen the materials in question, these are opinions based purely on hearsay and subjective impressions, not on any firsthand analysis of the actual pieces. Not being an art historian, I thought authentication is a more scientific process, probably involving analyses of paper, paint, gesso, fabrics, and so on. Instead, I’m told, it’s more a process of intuition and “gut reaction” which seems akin to having your physician diagnose you from an old photograph. Yesterday I learned that a 2008 exhibition of Kahlo’s work at the at the Gehrke Remund Art Museum in Baden-Baden, Germany was made up of “exact replicas” of Kahlo’s paintings, and not the real things, “painted exclusively for the Kunstmuseum Gehrke-Remund by master artists,” according to the museum. “They are painted in the original size, with the original materials (oil on canvas, oil on wood/metal or glass), and in exactly the same style as Frida Kahlo painted them.” And each carries, of course, the important © notice of the Banco de México Diego Rivera & Frida Kahlo Museums Trust. Which I find completely crazy, but an art historian (and museum director) friend tells me this morning that the practice of using “replicas” is common! I never heard this before, and now wonder how many masterpieces I’ve admired in museums are actually paint-by-number-esque copies.”


 
21 Comments
09/3/09  9:55am
Lisa Congdon wrote

Wow, fascinating. Like you, I want to know more!


09/3/09  10:23am
elan wrote

It will be interesting to see how it unfolds….I can’t imagine that these things would have been drifting around for this long unknown to the artworld, as Frida and Diego were certainly national treasures of Mexico. Though stranger things have happened.


09/3/09  12:29pm
ines wrote

<3


09/3/09  3:32pm
Abi wrote

A curious mystery. I know that every few years a “lost” Jackson Pollock turns up – one recently emerged on long island, and there are now computer algorithms designed to analyze the pattern of strokes and splatters in an attempt to characterize them Pollock or non-Pollock.

I’d love to see more of this book – a quick trip to amazon through your link turned up a few drawings which don’t look like her hand which my gut says are not of her hand – and that collage above does not strike me as her style. That said, artists are enormously fluid, and this makes me want to look at examples of her sketches to see how her style emerged. What can I say Jules, you’ve gotten me hooked on sketchbooks!


09/3/09  3:56pm
Jed Paradies wrote

Having seen the Noyola Collection and the results of studies by well respected scientists and important experts on Frida I am suprised by the critics attack of the collection and the Noyola’s personally without having seen any of the work in person. This is a serious collection that deserves serious study.There is protocol to authenticate or disqualify a work of art, none of which these detractors have yet to begin.A cursory look at photo-images does not a study make.The Noyolas have been working for more than four years on the collection consulting with scientists and experts in an array of fields. The pigments of the paintings have been dated to the 1940s.(no one was forging Frida in the 40s) The signatures are integral to the paintings. The studies were done by Javier Vasquez Negrete the only scientist who sat on the Frida Kahlo panel during the 07 Frida retrospective at the Bellas Artes in Mexico. He is well known having worked for the Bellas Artes for many years. Graphological studies have been performed by Juan Abraham Dergal attesting that the hand writing is that of Frida’s. Arturo Garcia Bustos, Arturo Estrada two members of the “Fridos” (students of Frida Kahlo for more than 10 years have authenticated the work of their teacher) as well as Rina Lazo who worked with Diego Rivera on his murals and signed two of his murals with him. These are famous artists in their own right as their magnificent murals in the Anthropology Museum in Mexico attests.Who better than her own students to recognize their teacher? They were very close to Frida, involved in her art and life, painting side by side with her.There are no others (except the Fridos) living or dead who can make such a claim. There are 1200 works in the collection they all deserve a proper unbiased vetting. Thank you.


09/3/09  4:01pm
julia wrote

Thanks Jed! I appreciate you sharing this information.


09/3/09  8:10pm
Abi wrote

There’s an article detailing the controversy at The Art Newspaper. It goes into a bit of detail on the arguments in supporting and questioning to the authenticity of the items. Apparently one of Rivera’s granddaughters said that the items are authentic, while one of his grandsons has signed a letter declaring them fakes. A good controversy indeed!

I find this all fascinating, and I am grateful for Kevin Lippert’s insight into the situation. Lippert makes a great point that none of the critics calling the archive a forgery have seen it in person (!!), but according to a NYTimesarticle, the Noyolas are happy to share photocopies of the Kahlo archive, but will not let scholar handle the actual items (!?). Indeed, this really is like diagnosing from an old photo. Like art historians, physicians call upon their visual senses look for patterns and solicit detailed patient histories looking for clues that will lead to a diagnosis. In some cases, an old photo of a patient could be a more valuable tool for diagnosing, say rickets than modern data like pulse oxygen level.

I am so excited that your blog is bringing art and medicine together – it’s like a visual arts House MD but without all the romance sub-plots mucking up a good mystery.


09/4/09  3:23am
Vera wrote

Wow… so awesome. Go team internet!


09/4/09  6:56am
maschera wrote

i think that there’s always many side stories concerning famous people. but no matter its tre or not, Kahlo is always a wonderful, mysterious and charming artist and thses pieces surely further enhanced her mysteriousness.


09/4/09  7:59am
julia wrote

Interesting new article about it from the LA Times right here.


09/8/09  11:53pm
Jed Paradies wrote

The Noyola’s have always allowed serious scholars to inspect the art in firsthand, that’s incorrect about only allowing visitors to see photocopies.


09/9/09  6:40pm
Abi wrote

Thanks for posting the link to the LA Times article. I’m now dying to see the 28,000 new documents uncovered from the Olmedo archive in 2004. I’d love to see all the stuff she hoarded. It’s incredible to think that there is not one but TWO recently discovered Kahlo archives and it would be incredible to be able to compare their contents.

Hi Jed,
I’m sorry if I mischaracterized the Noyola policy towards research on the objects. ’I got my information from the NY Times. Their June 2009 article implies that scholars may not handle the objects. If this is incorrect, it may not be too late to run a correction.

“The Noyolas display the objects “in a guarded and restrained area,” they wrote in an e-mail message. “Curators, investigators, dealers, collectors, etc.,” can make appointments to browse but must be content with handling photocopies of the papers, not fragile originals.”


09/10/09  3:21pm
Kevin Lippert wrote

Hi Julia,
Thanks for sharing my comments with your readers. I received this email today from a well-known art historian, who writes, ” I read it over the weekend and can see no earthly reason why this body of work should be forged. The pieces fit together with the exception of the lawyer who must remain anonymous. They should have made his identity known.

The work involved in forging all the ephemera is just too daunting plus the artificial aging that would be required, the distressing of materials, etc. The luggage with its labels, all the recipes(!). Who would think to do that? It’s much too improbably even given the creativity of the forger.

While the artistic work itself is not super high quality, Kahlo was not technically that evolved but the imagery makes sense. Plus the book on amputation-who would go to that trouble?”

I find the idea that this is all a fraud of Borgesian complexity almost as interesting as the idea that these are Kahlo’s most personal archives. Why go to all this effort as a forger, when presumably a big portrait would net you a lot more at auction? Of course it raises the obvious questions of who, how, and why somebody would construct such an elaborate fiction… If it is a hoax, there’s still a great story to be unraveled and told, but those who leapt so quickly to dismiss the collection now seem to be tempering their views a bit—too much at stake, I guess.
Too, I misquoted my museum director friend who said that the use of “licensed replicas” is “not uncommon,” and not “common” as I transcribed it. Sorry if I gave the impression that our art musems are filled with carefully made and sanctioned fakes.
Enjoying the dialogue here on your site, feels like what Vera calls “team internet” can do best. — Kevin


09/19/09  2:26pm
Chad Kouri wrote

Holy crap! This just put a 2 hour dent in my Saturday. I also have never been a huge fan of Kahlo but this new controversy is very interesting. Makes me think about artists in the present day working away on there stuff not realizing that such crazy situations can arise 100 years after they are created. And it’s so great that Julia has such deep roots here in the internet world to have connections to the publisher and get some inside info. Once again this blog blows my mind. Great stuff.


09/29/09  8:04pm
Book By Its Cover » Back on Monday the 5th wrote

[...] Another interesting article about the Frida Kahlo mystery can be found [...]


09/30/09  3:38pm
Uracca wrote

From the Art Newspaper article:

Carlos Phillips Olmedo, director of the Museo Frida Kahlo and a member of the executive committee of the trust that oversees the artist’s copyrights, has stated that the Diego Rivera-Frida Kahlo trust does not recognise the Noyola collection as authentic works by Kahlo. Kahlo catalogue raisonné co-author Grimberg, speaking to the press last month, stated: “I have over 40 years of looking at the works of Frida and I can say that this is grotesque and vulgar.”

James Oles, an art historian based in Mexico City who has done extensive work on Kahlo’s surviving archives, says: “It’s the formal quality of the drawing and the writing that seems to me completely wrong. The subject matter is besides the point.” He says that fake works attributed to Kahlo, Siqueiros, Tamayo, Gerszo, Merida and other Latin American artists are not uncommon. “There’s more demand than there is supply in the market for Latin American modern art—and the academic market, as well—so a lot of things get by. Something like this by Picasso would never make it.”

Noyola is not dismissing the possibility that the works are false. “We aim to present this material and the data gathered from our investigation without making any assertions,” he says. “After all, authenticity is never certain. At present, we can say that we believe this collection {{{contains authentic articles that belonged to Frida Kahlo.}}}”
*Parenthesis mine
To Jed – what is your connection to this material?
You are all over the internet defending it…..
for my part, I agree with ABI. To me, these pieces look embarassingly wrong.


10/8/09  2:18pm
pedro wrote

If somebody sends you a photograph of somebody you’ ve never met or have seen and they tell you it is your mother´s photograph, would you have to see the real photography to know it is not your mother´s image?
IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION.This fake letters and paintings have been very well reproduced in books, revues and newspapers…the esthetic values, the different types of handwriting,the texts that have nothing to do in spirit and language with authentic Frida´s letters or his diary, make it absolutely obvious that the material is a forgery.Kevin Lippert speaks of interest in conflict,all we want is that general people who are not familiar with Frida Kahlo’ s writings and paintings get to know her real paintings and writings and not all this badly faked material. Lippert is selling his book very well , a journalist defending the “collection”apparently has bought material from the Noyolas and has a house in San Miguel Allende where the Noyolas have their store after having to leave Monterrey
due tu obscure reasons,interest in conflict and conflict in interest are all over this case…..there is a lot of information about the matter in

http://www.falsosfrida.blogspot.com


10/22/09  6:30pm
Pepe Malagon wrote

Excellent book!!! a must have.


11/30/09  8:47am
Dr. Mariella Remund wrote

As we all want to get things straight, here some precise information and facts:
- the Frida Kahlo exhibition in Kunstmuseum Gehrke-Remund in Baden-Baden Germany opened in February 2009 (not 2008),
- it is a permanent exhibition, we value sustainability and not interchangeable short term exhibitions.

We kindly invite Mr. Lippert to visit our Museum and the exhibition to find out the value of our paintings.


02/3/10  1:58pm
Judy Freeman wrote

For those still interested in this issue, and is in Dallas on Saturday. A symposium is being held in conjunction with the Dallas Art Fair-”Finding Frida”. Panel includes JE Kaufman, The Art Newspaper, Carlos Noyola and Leticia Fernandez, owners of the Noyola collection, Jed Paradies, advisor to the collection, Jennifer Thompson, Editorial Director and Kevin Lippert, Publisher of Princeton Architectural Press; Mary Anne Martin , founder of Latin American Department of Sotheby’s before starting her own gallery, Dr. Salomon Grimberg, co-author of Frida Kahlo catalog raisonne, Frida Kahlo, Das Gesamtwerk, and leading expert on her work, and James Oles, art history professor at Wellesley College who has done extensive research at Casa Azul. More information on the symposium can be found at http://www.dallasartfair.com. I am fascinated by Frida, her work and her life. I can’t wait to hear the speakers.


04/30/10  3:15pm
Kunstmuseum Gehrke-Remund wrote

Let’s get some things straight:
1) the “exact replicas” is not a quote from the Kunstmuseum Gehrke-Remund webpage as we know the meaning of a pleonasm. A replica IS the exact repetition of the original, no need to add “exact” to replica.
2) the Kunstmuseum has always correctly stated that the paintings are replicas, and never presented them as the “real thing”.
3) the replicas have not been painted for the Museum by the copyright holders, who – by the way – are the Frida Kahlo & Diego Rivera Museums Trust.
3) no comment on the statement “painted by numbers”, instead we would like to invite the blog author to visit the exhibition and realize that not everything is black (#1) or white (#10).



Write a comment





Comment:

aded

aded

aded

aded

aded

aded

aded

aded

adhl

aded

aded

aded

also
adjr
All ad revenue goes directly to buying new books to feature on the blog. For rates and specifications please email me here. Thanks to all our sponsors above.

© Julia Rothman 2007