Artist who denied authenticity of painting wins in court


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/08/24/artist-who-denied-authenticity.html


#2

And they would have gotten away for it if it hadn’t been for that meddling judge.

And the living Artist.

And the actual artist’s sister.

And the signature on the painting.


#3

All that painting needs is a kaiju on the horizon.


#4

You could say that about any landscape painting.

Oddly, I had no idea what Kaiju was as a kid, but on long drives as the sun set in Kansas, I often imaged the terror of a giant monster appearing on the horizon.


#5

such doige so money


#6

So the frivolous plaintiffs will now have to pay the legal fees of the defendant they tried to scam…no?

Bueller? Bueller?


#7

Well, the plaintiffs claim that the suit was brought in good faith, so unless the defendants can convince the judge otherwise…

The plaintiff’s lawyer says “an appeal is possible,” though, which just might push this into “bad faith” territory.


#8

IANAL, but if ample evidence was presented before it went to trial, shouldn’t they have known?


#9

I was obliquely referencing what I’m going to start calling “polloting”:

And yeah, as a kid – and sometimes even now – I imagined dinosaurs crashing through the woods into the fields behind my grandpa’s farmhouse, inspired by this Charles Knight painting I saw in an encyclopedia (which my kid brain believed to be a photograph):

http://www.charlesrknight.com/Gallery/Knight/Prehistoric/FMNH/CK9T.jpe

I wonder if that’s a common imaginative phenomenon, and if so, if there’s a name for it.


#10

I would think so, but I’m not the one they’d have to convince: the judge is.


#11

#Uhg, Canadians


#12

In Georgia, the landscape monsters are real.


#13

Don’t worry, he only had to pay the lawyer, not the court for it’s time.


#14

Clearly Doig was just embarrassed that during his youth he apparently forgot the correct spelling of his own surname,


#15

Many was also angry that the judge had let the case go to trial in the
first place…

Who’s Many?
First Base?


#16

Back in the day, my standard post-clubbing crash spot was Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, a scenic headland near the Sydney Opera House.

The view from there was the Harbour Bridge to the left, Fort Denison (a 19th century island prison) ahead and the RAN shipyards to the right.

With appropriate psychedelic residue, you’d get a reliable set of illusions.

The rising sun would catch the tips of the waves, coating the harbour in diamonds; the clouds over the ocean would transform into a just-about-to-make-landfall Hokusai Tsunami; Fort Denison would have banks of oarsmen rowing it out into the Pacific; and the big cranes at the shipyards would turn into hundred-foot-tall battling mecha.

Never did see Gojira, though.


#17

Maybe the most fucked up thing in this story is the phrase “serving a sentence for LSD possession.” How is that something they put you in prison for?


#18

And the testimony of the art teacher who literally watched the real artist paint the damn thing.
And evidence that the supposed artist was still in high school - and never lived in the area in question nor went to that adult prison as a minor.

and yet the painting’s owner’s lawyer is still talking about further legal action. I just don’t know what the fuck is wrong with these guys. The owner is delusional, but the people around him shouldn’t be feeding his obvious delusion.

The painting owner is obviously pretty delusional at this point about the issue (as is the “art expert” who testified the painting was Doig’s [not Doige’s] - and who coincidentally has a 25% stake in the painting). The owner of the painting was initially swayed by the worth of a (real) Doig painting (to the point where he was willing to ignore that the signature is wrong and convinced himself, watching video of the artist, that it was the same guy he knew 40 years ago), but then, when Doig rejected the idea the painting was his, it became personal. The guy feels like Doig became a big successful artist because of the help the guy “gave him” 40 years ago - and now the artist is screwing him over, in a very personal way, by not acknowledging either the painting or what “he did for him.” So there’s all sorts of things going on - the money, wanting to believe he helped make a famous artist (rather than help a guy who didn’t become successful and is now dead), and anger at being personally rejected by someone “he helped,” and the pressure he must be feeling from all the people who have invested in his worthless painting to bring this lawsuit forward. To the point where he’s creating crazy conspiracy theories to explain why this guy wouldn’t acknowledge one of his own paintings, something that he would have no reason to do.


#19

Ding. Ding. Ding.

This case should never have gone to trial. It was frivolous from the get go. The plaintiff lawyers should have to pay sanctions. But probably won’t because for some reason judges seem really reluctant to force lawyers to actually live up to the supposedef standards of professional ethics as we’ve seen from Prensa, Righthaven, Malibu Media, SCO and other outrageous travestiess.


#20

I can kind of understand it with this case, given the initial circumstances - the lawyer didn’t necessarily have all the evidence, the client was delusional but convincing, especially with another delusional “expert” backing him up - but given what’s been revealed, going forward is just plain nuts. It’s at this point that it’s clearly just the lawyer going for the paycheck, contrary to the interests of his client, even, if he agrees to continue working on it.