07/18/2007
Warhol Estate Sued Over "Stranglehold" on the Art Market
Joe Simon-Whelan, an American filmmaker based in London, is leading a class-action suit against the Andy Warhol Estate, foundation, and authentication board, claiming they have conspired to hold the art world hostage in order to manipulate profits on their own collection.
Simon-Whelan claims that the authentication board refuses to legitimize Warhols owned by private collectors in order to inflate the value of its own assets.
Reports the Guardian: "So powerful is the art world's reliance on the authentication board's opinion that, in today's art market, no one can sell a Warhol that does not have the board's opinion of authenticity. As such, it indisputably dominates and controls the Warhol market."
Simon-Whelan says he attempted to have a Warhol he owns authenticated, but was denied twice, even though it bears a note by the late executor of the estate Fred Hughes, which reads "I certify that this is an original painting by Andy Warhol completed by him in 1964." Simon-Whelan also has a letter from Warhol factory photographer Billy Name, verifying the work's authenticity.
Simon-Whelan bought the work in 1989 for $195,000 and had hoped to sell it for $2 million, but wasn't able to without the authentication board's endorsement: "The legal action estimates the foundation has sold more than $150m of Warhol's work at inflated prices, and calls for $20m in compensation on behalf of Simon-Whelan and other unnamed alleged victims."
Vincent Fremont, head of sales at the Warhol estate, has dismissed Simon-Whelan's claims as "shocking nonsense".
Is this a genuine Warhol? Film-maker sues artist's estate for 'price fixing' [the guardian]
Warhol Foundation Accused of Dominating the Market [nyt]
Posted 3:30 PM EST by Andy in Andy Roddick, Art & Design, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
As a personal owner of several Warhol's, I can agree. I have tried three times to have my collection authenticated-to no avail. What is the most striking is that one of my paintings is of my Mother-given to her by Andy himself.
Posted by: otto | Jul 18, 2007 3:40:59 PM
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO IS THE PRIMARY BENEFICIARY OF THE WARHOL ESTATE? Is it another example of the trustees of an estate binging on the property of the estate (which appears to be the rule more than the exception)?
Posted by: tony the tiger | Jul 18, 2007 3:49:17 PM
I have several paintings in my personal collection that were painted by Warhol at my request. They are stored at my country homes in Connecticut and the Hamptons. I have never asked for them to be authenticated because I would never part with them and I plan to live forever and ever.
Posted by: tony the tiger | Jul 18, 2007 3:52:02 PM
His brother was the beneficiary. As well as the museum.
Posted by: otto | Jul 18, 2007 4:00:13 PM
Otto,
We should both contribute our paintings to a new Warhol museum in NYC to compete with the Warhol museum in Pittsburgh. Noone wants to go to Pittsburgh. Just post your personal information on this blog and I'll have my staff arrange a meeting.
TONY THE TIGER
Posted by: Tony the Tiger | Jul 18, 2007 4:17:02 PM
Yeah, girl... me too. I have several Warhol paintings too. I keep them in the art gallery in my lavish castle, beside all the Rembrandts, Faberge eggs, and the Hope diamond.
Kidding aside, would the owner of the piece in question be able to sell it now for more than the $195000 he paid for it in 1989? Maybe not 2 million, but for a reasonable appreciation? If the thing wasn't authenticated in 1989 by the group that the art world considers the final authority on the subject, then why does he feel slighted? It was unauthenticated when he bought it, and it's unauthenticated now.
Posted by: Brian | Jul 18, 2007 4:18:23 PM
Well, considering that Warhol, as an artist, was a total fraud and sham, why is the certification's boards actions any surprise?
Posted by: Henry Holland | Jul 18, 2007 10:21:40 PM
why in your decision was he a fraud? Maybe lacking talent-but why a sham?
Posted by: otto | Jul 19, 2007 12:19:34 AM
There was a whole BBC documentary on this controversy: you can watch it on YouTube in parts. Something like "Warhol: Rejected".
In any case it became clear that the Warhol he has was a quick run-up for a corporate party, NOT made by Warhol. Norelco had lent Warhol some early videotape technology, and these paintings were just to decorate the party. Warhol never saw them beforehand nor were they his idea.
What confuses the issue: after he DID see them, he requested the screens used to make them; and he DID use those screens to make different versions. Andy was famously cheap!
The biggest strike against this guy, watching the docu: He has the most pretentious, affected British accent ever, even though he's American, nattering on his "mobile". You're embarrassed for him, fake plummy accent...ugh!
Posted by: Deschanel | Jul 19, 2007 2:22:23 PM
OTTO AND TONY THE TIGER YOU ARE SO GODDAMM LUCKY TO OWN A WARHOL,I DO NOT THINK HE IS AS APPRECIATED OVER HERE IN ENGLAND,BUT I LOVE HIS WORK AND WOULD LOVE TO HANG ONE ON MY WALL.
Posted by: RICHARD | Jul 19, 2007 9:38:15 PM