web analytics

Exploring Women’s Unsung Contributions to Art

In honor of International Women’s Day and Women’s History Month, our firm is reposting one of our favorite blog posts. This post originally ran on our firm’s blog in 2021.

It is a bitter truth that women, who are so often depicted, admired and romanticized through art, have had to overcome herculean obstacles to participate in its creation. In honor of Women’s History Month, this entry in our Provenance Series examines the work of the Old Masters’ female counterparts – the Old Mistresses – and their contemporary successors.

Rediscovery of Female Artists

Renaissance and Baroque works by women have deservedly entered the public consciousness in recent years. In 2019, a depiction of the Last Supper by nun Plautilla Nelli was installed in the Santa Maria Novella Museum in Florence, after a painstaking 4-year restoration by the Advancing Women Artists Foundation (AWA). The project was made possible through the AWA’s “adopt an apostle” crowdsourcing program: private financiers were allowed to “adopt” one of the life-sized disciples at $10,000 each (ever-unpopular Judas was instead funded by 10 backers at only $1,000 each). The oil painting, measuring 21 feet across, is one of the largest Renaissance works by a female artist still in existence. It is also the only work created by a woman during the Renaissance depicting the Last Supper.

 

Last Supper by Plautilla Nelli (prior to restoration). Image via My Modern Met.

 

The Provenance and Restoration of Plautilla Nelli’s The Last Supper 

The Last Supper was likely created for the benefit of Plautilla’s own convent, the convent of Santa Caterina di Cafaggio in Florence, where it hung in the refectory (dining hall) until the Napoleonic suppression in the 19th century, when the convent was dissolved. It was thereafter acquired by the Florentine Monastery of Santa Maria Novella in 1817. Again, it was housed in the refectory until being moved to a new location in 1865. Scholar Giovanna Pierattini reports it was moved to storage in 1911, where it remained until 1939. It then underwent significant restoration, and returned to the refectory. It would remain on display there for almost forty years, surviving the historic flood of the Arno in 1966 with little damage. The work was next taken down in 1982, when the refectory was reclassified as the Santa Maria Novella Museum, and transferred to the friars’ private rooms. This is how the monumental work, which remained out of the public eye for centuries, is now visible to the public for the first time in 450 years.

Rossella Lari, the restoration’s head conservator remarks, “We restored the canvas and, while doing so, rediscovered Nelli’s story and her personality. She had powerful brushstrokes and loaded her brushes with paint.” The painting features emotionally charged expressions, emphatic body language, and exquisite details, such as the inclusion of customary Tuscan cuisine (roasted lamb and fava beans).

 

Santa Maria Novella in Florence, Italy. Image courtesy of CAHKT/iStock.com.

 

 

Plautilla’s use of color and composition is even more impressive when one considers that women were barred from attending art schools and studying the male nude; instead, they were forced to rely on printed manuals and the works of other artists. Plautilla was not only a self-taught artist, but she also ran an all-woman workshop in her convent and received the ultimate praise for an Italian Renaissance painter: inclusion in Giorgio Vasari’s seminal book Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects. Notably, in Plautilla’s time the convent was managed by Dominican friars previously under the leadership of fire-and-brimstone preacher Girolamo Savonarola. The nuns were encouraged to paint devotional pictures in order to ward off sloth.

Undeterred, “Plautilla knew what she wanted and had control enough of her craft to achieve it,” says Lari. The Last Supper is signed “Sister Plautilla – Orate pro pictora” (“pray for the paintress”). Plautilla thus confirmed her role as an artist while acknowledging her gender, understanding that the two were not mutually exclusive. Although only a handful of the works survive today, Plautilla and her disciples created dozens of large-scale paintings, wood lunettes, book illustrations, and drawings with great focus, determination, and discipline. She is considered the first true woman artist in Florence and in her heyday, “There were so many of her paintings in the houses of gentlemen in Florence, it would be tedious to mention them all.” Since AWA’s conservation work was initiated, the number of works attributed to Plautilla has risen from three to twenty, meaning that other undiscovered masterpieces could be lying in wait.

Female-Led Museum Exhibitions   

The Prado Museum in Madrid has hosted an exhibition featuring two overlooked Baroque painters, Sofonisba Anguissola and Lavinia Fontana, in an exhibition entitled “A Tale of Two Women Painters.” Meanwhile, the National Gallery in London hosted a show dedicated to Artemisia Gentileschi. Notably, Sofonisba, Lavinia and Artemisia all achieved fame and renown during their lifetimes, including royal commissions, only to be eclipsed for centuries after their deaths. Sofonisba was particularly sought after for her ability to capture the expressiveness of children and adolescents in intimate portraits, while Lavinia’s commissions displayed a more formal Mannerist style. Artemisia, the subject of the National Gallery’s first major solo show dedicated to the artist, is recognized as much for the strength of her figures in chiaroscuro as for her life story involving sexual assault and trial by torture. Despite considerable difficulties, Artemisia was able to succeed in a male-dominated field and created over 60 works, most of which feature women in positions of power. Artemisia is now hailed as one of the most important painters of her generation and an established Old Mistress in her own right.

Female Artists at Auction 

Despite their long slumber in the annals of history, these artists are not only receiving attention in museums, but in auctions as well. In 2019, a painting by Artemisia depicting Roman noblewoman Lucretia shattered records when it sold for more than six times its estimated price at Artcurial in Paris. While estimates originally placed the work at $770,000 to $1 million, the painting was ultimately acquired by a private collector for $6.1 million. Lucretia was discovered in a private art collection in Lyon after remaining unrecognized for 40 years. It was in an “exceptional” state of conservation according to Eric Turquin, an art expert specializing in Old Master paintings previously at Sotheby’s.

 

Artemisia Gentileschi’s Lucretia (ca. 1630-1640). Image via Getty Museum.

 

 

The earlier record for one of Artemisia’s works had been set in 2017, when a painting depicting Saint Catherine sold for $3.6 million. That painting, a self-portrait of the artist, was then acquired by the National Gallery in London for $4.7 million in 2018. This was the first painting by a female artist acquired by the National Gallery since 1991, and the 21st such item in its entire collection, which encompasses thousands of objects. Saint Catherine had been owned by a French family for decades, but its authorship was obscured prior to its rediscovery and sale by auctioneer Christophe Joron-Derem. The painting was acquired by the Boudeville family in the 1930s, but the exact circumstances of this acquisition and the painting’s prior whereabouts were unclear. At the time of the National Gallery’s purchase, museum trustees raised concerns that the work might have been looted during World War II, although there is no firm evidence to support this suspicion. Despite the gaps in the works’ provenance, it was ultimately determined that the painting had been with the family for several generations and Saint Catherine was welcomed to her new home in London.

Recent Attributions 

More recently, a painting of David and Goliath was attributed to Artemisia after a conservation studio in London removed layers of dirt, varnish and overpainting to reveal her signature on David’s sword. While the work’s attribution occurred too late for inclusion in the National Gallery exhibition, the owner is apparently delighted to discover the work’s true author and is keen to loan it to an art institution so the public can enjoy the work. This painting was originally acquired at auction for $113,000 and may have been owned by King Charles I – quite an esteemed pedigree and sure to raise its value by a considerable amount.

 

Artemisia Gentileschi, David and Goliath. Image courtesy of Simon Gillespie Studio.

 

In contrast to Artemisia’s ascendance, a painting once attributed to her father Orazio Gentileschi is now embroiled in controversy. That painting, which also depicts David and Goliath and described as “stunning” by the Artemisia show curator, has links to notorious French dealer Giuliano Ruffini. Ruffini is the subject of an arrest warrant due to his connection with a high-profile Old Master forgery ring operating in Europe. It is believed that the forgery ring, uncovered in 2016, garnered $255 million in sales, including works represented as being by Lucas Cranach the Elder and Parmigianino.

Although these paintings were widely accepted as genuine masterpieces and fooled leading specialists, they did not have verifiable provenances. The paintings were said to belong to private collector André Borie, although that was not the case and Sotheby’s was forced to refund money to buyers once the fraud came to light. The Gentileschi in question had been “discovered” in 2012 and sold to a private collector, who loaned it to the National Gallery in London. At that time, the painting was praised for its “remarkable” lapis lazuli background, but the museum did not conduct a technical analysis before displaying the piece. Despite several warning signs – the painting’s recent entrance into the art market, its unusual material, its similarity to another Gentileschi painting held in Berlin, and the lack of published provenance – the museum stated that there were “no obvious reasons to doubt” the painting’s attribution.

The forgotten nature of some female artists demonstrates that their talents are not rare, but rather that they lack the opportunities and publicity that male artists often take for granted. Once their talent is amplified, female artists are capable of great things. This pattern continues today.

The Modern Struggles of Female Artists

As famous female artists lost to history capture the public eye, they are joined by female contemporaries who share a similar struggle against underrepresentation. Women’s contribution to modern and contemporary art is often exemplifiedby those with ties to established male artists: Mary Cassatt (who achieved recognition as an Impressionist in Paris through her relationship with Edgar Degas); Georgia O’Keeffe (who entered the public eye via her relationship to Alfred Stieglitz); and Frida Kahlo (introduced to the art world by her husband, Diego Rivera). This truncated view ignores the vast amount of creative output generated by women, and reinforces the notion that recognition must be made through a male lens, a view prevalent during Artemisia’s time. It is worth noting that Artemisia’s father Orazio Gentileschi was her teacher and facilitator in the Baroque art market. In fact, this attitude  has denied countless female artists of their deserving places in the canon of art history. It has even enabled surreptitious artists to take credit for works by others.

 

Yayoi Kusama.
Image courtesy of Kirsty Wigglesworth.

 

Today, Yayoi Kusama is a household name. The world’s top-selling female artist, she is renowned for her peculiar polka-dotted paintings and sculptures, which command long lines at preeminent art institutions across the globe. Like many famous contemporary artists from the last century, she is strongly associated with a unique personal style, and recognized by her bright-red wig. Despite her phenomenal success, her position in the pantheon of notable contemporary artists was anything but assured. Born in the rural town of Matsumoto, Japan in 1929, Kusama was discouraged from pursuing a career; rather, she was encouraged to marry  and start a family. Frustrated by the constant efforts to suppress her artistic aspirations, she wrote to the already famous Frida Kahlo for advice. Kahlo warned that she would not find an easy career in the US, but nevertheless urged Kusama to make the trip and present her work to as many interested parties as possible.

Unsurprisingly, Kahlo’s advice was accurate. After traveling to New York, Kusama’s early work received praise from notable artists Donald Judd and Frank Stella, but it failed to achieve commercial success. Her work also attracted the attention of other renowned artists, who were able to channel ‘inspiration’ from Kusama’s work right back into the male-dominated New York art market. Sculptor Claes Oldenburg followed a fabric phallic couch created by Kusama with his own soft sculpture, receiving world acclaim. Andy Warhol repurposed her idea of repetitious use of the same image in a single exhibit for his Cow Wallpaper. Most blatantly, after exhibiting the world’s first mirrored room at the Castellane Gallery, Lucas Samaras exhibited his own mirrored exhibition at the Pace Gallery only months later. Needless to say, these artists did not credit Kusama for her work and originality. This ultimately caused a despondent Kusama to abandon New York and return to Japan.

Kusama spent the next several decades largely in obscurity. The frustrations in her career resulted in multiple suicide attempts and long-term hospitalizations. However, Kusama always found a way to channel this energy back into her art, and she continued to create art in various formats as a way to heal. It was not until a 1989 retrospective of her work in New York and an exhibition at the 1993 Venice Biennale that the world truly tok notice of her work. This global reintroduction was enough to galvanize interest in her artistic creation, leading to the success she enjoys today. While it may  seem just that such a talented artist would eventually receive recognition for her work, this is not always a given and Kusama’s near erasure from the art world should not be discounted.

The Gendered Art Market Divide

In today’s art market, artists, collectors, dealers, and museums are making a concerted effort to fight this type of erasure. Kusama stands as a beacon to others, demonstrating that female artists can reach the pinnacle of their profession. However, it remains an arduous career path for many. Statistical analysis confirms that female artists are underpaid and underrepresented in both the primary and secondary art markets. For example, compare the highest price paid for a work by a living artist by gender: Jeff Koons’ Rabbit sold for $91.1 million in 2019; while Jenny Saville’s Propped sold for $12.5 million that same year, a mere 14% of the Koons’ price. Some of this disparity can be explained by the difference between men and women’s treatment in the workplace generally, but the art world is also subject to a number of particularities. Attributed to a host of causes, perhaps none is more prominent than women’s almost total exclusion from studio art until the 1870s. The art world has existed in this environment for so long that its institutions and relationships now mechanically reinforce the disparity between genders: women are less likely to receive recognition and training, and buyers are less interested in art created by females. The interest in female-made art is also disproportionality concentrated on its biggest names; the top five best-selling women in art held 40% of the market for works by women auctioned between 2008 and 2019. It has become a self-sustaining cycle that can only be broken through deliberate and effective action.

Initiatives Supporting Female Artists

Artists and galleries have been working to shine a light on the current landscape of inequality in the market. Groups like the Guerilla Girls have used their cultural status and notoriety to vocalize issues regarding sexism, racism, and other types of discrimination still rampant today. This type of radical-meets-reformer message resonates with a newer generation that is more vocal about addressing discrimination, and frustrated by the seemingly lackluster efforts to minimize their impact on society. In honor of Women’s History Month, several galleries have announced shows dedicated to addressing some of these issues. The Equity Gallery is presenting “FemiNest,” a collection of works by female artists centered around the literal and metaphorical ideas conjured by the idea of a “nest.” The show explores in sculpture, textiles, painting and other media the new spaces that have opened for women in recent decades and their practical and spiritual impact for women. The Brooklyn Museum has announced a retrospective of Marilyn Minter’s work titled “Pretty/Dirty” aimed at challenging traditional notions of feminine beauty. Featuring more than three decades of work, the show will track Minter’s progress throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. The show is also part of a larger series of ten exhibitions by the Brooklyn Museum dedicated to the subject: “A Year of Yes: Reimagining Feminism at the Brooklyn Museum.”  Lastly, the Zimmerli Art Museum will feature an exhibition of works by the Guerilla Girls and other female artists who have worked to depict women’s unequal treatment in the art world, “Guerrilla (And Other) Girls: Art/Activism/Attitude.” (For more information about these shows and others addressing similar issues, see here.)

 

Do Women Have To Be Naked To Get Into the Met. Museum? (1989), Guerrilla Girls. Image via the Met.

 

Although artists and art institutions have just begun the work of winding back centuries of discrimination, there is evidence that their work is already affecting the market. The percentage of female-generated artwork in the secondary market is increasing from year to year; from 2008 to 2018, the market more than doubled from $230 million to $595 million. Similarly, representation of women at major art shows is steadily, if inconsistently, increasing as well. This subtle shift in the market has been attributed at least in part to a new class of art purchaser: independently wealthy women, whose capital is self-made rather than inherited or shared via marriage. This novel source of demand is less sensitive to the traditional pressures of the market and is helping to fuel demand for works by female artists. Women’s History Month is an opportunity to reflect on the tremendous progress made by remarkable individuals in the art world, and to also contemplate the ripe opportunities that still lie ahead.

Sotheby’s Found NOT GUILTY by Jury in New York

 

Nu Couché au coussin Bleu by Modigliani. Image via Artsy.

For years, the art world watched the dispute between Russian oligarch Dimitry Rybolovlev and Swiss shipper-turned-dealer Yves Bouvier. While their relationship’s start seemed fruitful and equally beneficial as it led to Rybolovlev’s acquisition of some of the most highly sought-after art treasures, the tide turned when the Russian billionaire discovered that Bouvier had been dishonest about information related to arts sales. Rybolovlev began a legal battle, engaging in scorched earth tactics to pursue claims against Bouvier in jurisdictions around the world. With allegations by a billionaire collector against one of the art world’s best known freeport owners and lavish dealers, many players in the art world were swept up in the fight. 

 

At the heart of the dispute is whether Bouvier committed fraud and breached a fiduciary duty to Rybolovlev. The Russian collector alleges Bouvier flipped high-end artworks that he significantly marked up, although Bouvier represented to Rybolovlev that he was only making a 2% commission on the sales. In some instances, Bouvier concealed the fact that he or one of his shell companies had purchased the artwork shortly before selling it to Rybolovlev. The Russian billionaire alleges this was fraudulent. In addition, the collector argues that Bouvier breached his fiduciary duty because he was the seller, despite Rybolovlev’s belief that Bouvier was serving as his agent and advisor, not as a party with an ownership interest. Bouvier argues he was not Rybolovlev’s agent or advisor. The bounds of the relationship are not clear. 

 

A scorned Rybolovlev filed charges about Bouvier in numerous countries. Eventually, Bouvier was arrested on criminal charges in Monaco in 2015 but was released. Equally salacious were Rybolovlev’s attempts to have authorities prosecute Bouvier, leading to claims that the Russian collector bribed law enforcement to pursue the case against Bouvier. It became known as “Monaco-gate.”

 

Eventually, Rybolovlev’s legal claims against Bouvier were either dismissed or settled, with the last one settled in December 2023 over claims filed in the United States. However, Rybolovlev felt wronged and thought others were complicit in supporting Bouvier’s fraud, and thus outstanding legal issues remained concerning other parties that were allegedly part of a fraud orchestrated by Bouvier. As Sotheby’s worked with Bouvier to conduct private sales to the collector, Rybolovlev sued one of the world’s leading auction houses in the Southern District of N.Y. (Accent Delight Int’l v. Sotheby’s, 18-CV-9011 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2023). The highly anticipated trial began during the second week of 2024. Closing arguments took place on Monday with the jury deciding the verdict in under 6 hours on Tuesday, January 30. 

 

One of the works Rybololev purchased. Tête by Modigliani. Image via Sotheby’s.com.

WHAT WERE THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SOTHEBY’S? 

Rybolovlev sought $377 million in damages from Sotheby’s, alleging that the famed auction house was complicit in Bouvier’s scheme. He argued that he relied on documents from Sotheby’s when making lavish purchases of blue-chip artworks. Rybolovlev alleged that Sotheby’s and Sotheby’s, Inc. (together, “Sotheby’s”) aided and abetted Bouvier in committing fraud. The complaint reads: 

 

“Sotheby’s gave Bouvier written materials designed to induce Plaintiffs to pay inflated, fraudulent prices. After transactions, Sotheby’s lent a veneer of legitimacy and expertise to those fraudulent prices by providing Bouvier with inflated appraisals on demand. Sotheby’s intentionally omitted the sales to Bouvier from the transaction histories listed in these appraisals. In short, Sotheby’s assisted Bouvier in acquiring artworks at prices the sellers were willing to accept while helping him charge Plaintiffs fraudulently inflated prices (and concealing the actual acquisition prices from Plaintiffs).”

 

To successfully prove that Sotheby’s aided and abetted in the commission of fraud, Rybolovlev would have had to prove: “(1) the existence of an underlying fraud; (2) knowledge of the fraud on the part of the aider and abettor [in this case, Sotheby’s]; and (3) substantial assistance by the aider and abettor in achievement of the fraud. Many federal New York courts additionally consider whether the alleged “assistance” constitutes the proximate cause of the damage. “But-for” cause may be insufficient. See, Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 446 F. Supp. 2d 163, 201-02 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“aider and abettor liability requires the injury to be a direct or reasonably foreseeable result of the conduct.”).

 

While Sotheby’s filings did not deny that Bouvier committed fraud, the auction house addressed allegations against it. As in any legal matter involving claims of fraud, it is a hurdle proving that someone had actual knowledge about a fraud. (This is what Ann Friedman argued in the Knoedler Gallery scandal—she claimed that she did not know that the forgeries sold through the gallery were not authentic.) As predicted, Sotheby’s denied knowledge of, and participation in, any scheme by Bouvier. As I told many reporters during the trial, I expected that Sotheby’s would not be found guilty for this reason– proving knowledge is a challenge. 

 

On Jan. 30th, 2024, the New York jury cleared Sotheby’s of the allegations. The jury deliberated for six hours before releasing their verdict, and found in favor of Sotheby’s on four claims. This has the potential to put an end to the decade-long battle that stems from activity between Rybolovlev and Bouvier. 

 

WHY WAS THIS CASE SO IMPORTANT? 

 

The allegations in this case were not that particularly shocking because accusations of fraud are common, especially because fraud often occurs in the market. The art market is full of forgeries, price-escalation schemes, unnamed middlemen, collectors who do not conduct due diligence, and parties that do not disclose their interests in artworks for sale. But what is special about this case is that the public gets a glimpse into the rarefied world of art collectors and the uber-wealthy. 

 

Christ as Salvator Mundi by Leonardo DaVinci. Image via Financial Times.

WHAT WAS NOT SURPRISING? 

 

It was surprising that Bouvier thought Rybolovlev would not learn about the major markups. Rybolovlev first began to suspect he was being swindled in 2014 – a good twelve years after he and Bouvier began their dealer-purchaser relationship. It is astonishing that Bouvier kept his activity secret for as long as he did, because, in those dozen years, Rybolovlev was mixing with major players in the art world and art media at large – in both formal and informal settings. 

 

In 2014, Rybolovlev read a N.Y. Times article that reported the price of Christ as Salvator Mundi (from the 2013 Sotheby’s private sale) to have been between $75-80 million. Enraged, Rybolovlev contacted Bouvier, who dismissed the Times’ reporting as a mistake. He stated that the media’s price was faulty, and that it did not include fees and commission.  Rybolovlev was not convinced. Bouvier – panicked – reached out to Sotheby’s to get an appraisal. The ensuing appraisal (made in January 2015) marks the work’s value at $100 million. However, the named price seems to have been prompted by an email from Bouvier, which requests this $100 million evaluation. It further omitted the 2013 sale of the work to Bouvier (which Sotheby’s brokered). 

 

Even so, from Rybolovlev’s perspective, this appraisal from such a storied and knowledgeable institution could have seemed legit. Bouvier’s subterfuge may have continued to work for another twelve years. However, Rybolovlev was too well connected in the art world for this to continue. While Bouvier scrambled to have the Salvator Mundi appraised, Rybolovlev got his next clue over a casual lunch with a friend in St. Barts in late 2014. Because of Rybolovlev’s connections, it came as no surprise that his lunch partner was an experienced art advisor. The N.Y. Times reports that Rybolovlev was enjoying a casual lunch with his art advisor friend at the Eden Rock hotel on St. Barts when he learned the true price of a Modigliani painting (likely Nu Couche au Coussin Bleu). 

 

With the art world being so small, it is not surprising that Bouvier’s scheme was uncovered. It was only a matter of time before the constant chatter in the art world eventually led to the dissolution of their relationship and to a bitter feud involving hundreds of millions of dollars and featuring the bluest of the blue-chip artists in the high-stakes art world. There are few collectors with the funds to acquire works at such astronomical prices, and even though parties often remain anonymous, it was inevitable that word would get back to Rybolovlev that he was suckered out of hundreds of millions of dollars. 

 

WHAT WAS SHOCKING?

 

The mere fact that the billionaire sued Bouvier in several jurisdictions around the world, and then pursued Sotheby’s, is actually the most shocking part of this ordeal. Rarely are private and uber-wealthy collectors willing to disclose so much about their personal dealings and friendships. When parties engage in litigation, information is disclosed, and the public is eager to learn more about the dealings of both Rybolovlev and Sotheby’s.  

 

WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT THE MARKET FOR ART AND ANTIQUITIES?

 

The art and antiquities market is notorious for being opaque. Anonymity is protected for many reasons, many of which are legitimate. The NY Times traces the secrecy in the market to 15 and 16h century Europe “when the Guilds of St. Luke, professional trade organizations, began to regulate the production and sale of art in Europe. Until then, art was not so much sold as commissioned by aristocratic or clerical patrons. But as a merchant class expanded, so did an art market, operating from workshops and public stalls in cities like Antwerp. To thwart competitors, it made sense to conceal the identity of one’s clients so they could not be stolen, or to keep secret what they charged one customer so they could charge another client a different price, incentives to guard information that persist today.”

 

However, the lack of information causes major problems because market participants cannot make rational decisions about purchases. The lack of information also leads to challenges completing due diligence, confirming title, navigating the authentication process, preventing money-laundering, and even understanding where artworks go after disputes are resolved (like divorces or business dissolutions). And as we’ve seen in the most recent litigation, it’s not possible to follow the money and determine who is profiting from transactions. Here, Rybolovlev did not know that Bouvier was an interested party with an ownership interest—that lack of knowledge led the collector to trust Bouvier. Rybolovlev did not know that Bouvier was acting against his interests and not on his behalf. While Rybolovlev thought Bouvier was his agent, he was actually the party on the other side of the negotiations. 

 

As Rybolovlev stated during trial, “It’s important for the art market to be more transparent . . . clients don’t stand a chance.” Sotheby’s countered by putting the onus on buyers to do their own homework. The auction house reminded the jury that Rybolovlev is a successful businessman who has conducted major business deals and who should be familiar with due diligence.  Sotheby’s stated, “Throughout Mr. Rybolovlev’s testimony, it was patently clear that, as a self-made billionaire with a diverse and expansive network of interests, none of the care and attention to detail he attended to his businesses were given to his art transactions.” Unfortunately, this is common for art collectors—many do not complete sufficient due diligence. 

 

WHAT COULD RYBOLOVLEV HAVE DONE TO PROTECT HIMSELF? 

 

The art market is unusual in that some people pay vast amounts of money on acquisitions without doing much due diligence. This may be because people feel comfortable when operating in such a rarefied world. Some collectors get swept up in the glamor of the art world and act irrationally, forgetting that art world scams occur.

While the art market is not quite ready for full transparency, there are steps collectors can take to protect themselves against predatory practices or fraud. Collectors should have written agreements specifying what a broker/advisor will make on a deal, as well as language that prohibits that advisor/dealer from holding an ownership interest in a work (such as buying it beforehand to flip it, or purchase the work for a company in which he or she has an ownership interest). There are contractual tools used to reduce the risk of deceptive and misleading business practices. An agreement may require parties to disclose information about whether an advisor has an ownership interest in a work. It could also set forth clear information about kick-backs and payments being made to an advisor so that the advisor does not double-dip or play multiple roles in a transaction. To the best of our knowledge, Rybolovlev did not have any of these legal tools in place. If he had them, it would have been easier to sue Bouvier for breach of contract – something easier to prove than fraud.

In addition, collectors should ask for more information and require certain disclosures about parties’ interests. If Rybolovlev had an attorney for the transactions with Bouvier, the attorneys should have required Bouvier to disclose his relationship with sellers and other potential  middlemen. If Bouvier lied in these documents, then fraud claims would have been easier to prove. 

 

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE?  

The case against Sotheby’s was interesting for a number of reasons. First, it reveals a great deal about the art and antiquities market. There are many buyers engaging in transactions with little to no due diligence, whether their acquisitions are relatively inexpensive or in the tens of millions of dollars. Second, because of the lack of due diligence and transparency, some parties misrepresent or decline to provide material information about transactions, including the identities of parties, the actual sale prices, as well as commissions and kick-backs. Without this information, it is easy for parties to engage in fraud, including financial schemes, forgery conspiracies, and the sale of stolen art and looted antiquities. Finally, the case has provided the public with insights about the high-end art and antiquities market, including a glimpse into the business practices and private relationships of high-end dealers, auction houses, and collectors.    

The amount of attention given to this dispute will hopefully encourage art market participants to evaluate their business practices. Although Sotheby’s was not found guilty, the auction house dealt with negative publicity, faced questions about their internal policies, and paid a hefty bill for its legal defense. It would be interesting to learn whether the trial led to Sotheby’s amending any of its internal policies and business practices. 

Today, the art and antiquities market is largely unregulated, particularly because major deals are conducted behind closed doors with little oversight. This litigation is a great opportunity for the court to provide guidance to protect parties to these sales and clarify what information a dealer/advisor must provide to his or her clients.  

Although Rybolovlev was not successful in this legal action, his lawyer stated that one of his client’s aims was met because the case shined “a light on the lack of transparency that plagues the art market.” He also stated, “That secrecy made it difficult to prove a complex aiding and abetting fraud case. This verdict only highlights the need for reforms, which must be made outside the courtroom.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leila A. Amineddoleh Quoted in NY Times about High-Profile Art Litigation

Sotheby’s has had a rocky start to 2024 . The New York Times reports that the auction house is preparing to defend itself in trial next week, in the most high-profile lawsuit the art world has seen since in over a decade.

One of the works Rybololev purchased. Tête by Modigliani. Image via Sotheby’s.com.

 

Facts of the Case

A Russian oligarch, Dmitry Ryboloblev, is accusing Sotheby’s of aiding in fraud. The trial is based on transactions Sotheby’s oversaw between Rybolobev and a dealer/advisor named Yves Bouvier. Bouvier has been accused of secretly acting as both an art dealer and owner of works he sold to Rybolobev, while Bouvier also represented himself as an art advisor. According to Ryboloblev, playing multiple roles enabled Bouvier to dramatically inflate the estimated value of any art sold, and pocket the difference.

Sotheby’s has been accused of helping Bouvier in his deception. The auction house has been accused of knowing that Bouvier lied to Rybolobev about the price of the artwork that Bouvier paid for it, and then helping Bouvier to adjust the work’s valuation accordingly. It will be difficult to prove that Sotheby’s knew that Bouvier was lying to his client, Rybolovlev. However, the evidence presented at trial could convince a jury that Sotheby’s representatives knew Bouvier was inflating the estimated value of the artwork being sold.

The most damning evidence is (as it always is) found in the digital breadcrumbs: certain emails admitted into evidence indicate that Sotheby’s representatives might have altered their valuations based on Bouvier’s instructions –allowing them to both profit from the difference.

 

Founder Sought as Expert Voice

The lawsuit may expose some of the secrecy behind the world’s most expensive art dealings, primarily because it involves a jury trial. The entire art world is abuzz with intrigue about the trial, and our founder, Leila, was sought out as an expert voice on this incredibly hot topic.

Leila was quoted in The New York Times, stating “There is so much secrecy in the art world that buyers sometimes don’t know the amount of money being made by others in transactions. . . this case will help to clarify the responsibilities and fiduciary duties owed to clients by dealers and auction houses.”

 

Anonymity in the Art Market

Our firm previously wrote about the issues stemming from anonymity in the art market here. This new case is expected to further increase transparency around those issues in the art market. It asks difficult questions about where loyalties lie when expectations become blurred and prices shoot sky-high. Another outcome for this trial could be fewer money-laundering schemes hidden in art transactions, because more transparency would give bad actors fewer places to hide.

No matter how this case ends, this trial will be one to watch: it has the potential to initiate a complete overhaul of centuries-old industry practices for art buyers, sellers, auction houses, and dealers around the world.

Season’s Greetings from Amineddoleh & Associates

In our annual holiday newsletter, Amineddoleh & Associates is pleased to share some of the major developments that took place at our firm and in the art market during 2023. We had a banner year, as we were grateful to work with many returning clients, as well as new ones, including museums, collectors, galleries, artists, and entrepreneurs. We are pleased to share some holiday JOY from us to you.

Grand Central Station. Image courtesy of NannFilms, used with permission.

CLIENTS AND REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS

Hiroshi Sugimoto’s Point of Infinity

Our firm proudly announced the public art unveiling of our esteemed client Hiroshi Sugimoto’s Point of Infinity. The gravity-defying sculpture maintains an optical illusion that the two points of the work will (eventually, even if only in the viewer’s minds’ eye) meet. It is a testament to the genius of Sugimoto as an artistic force. Read more here.

Client Acquires Master Drawings in New York

We proudly represented our client Christopher Bishop and his eponymous Christopher Bishop Fine Art in the acquisition of the art fair Master Drawings in New York. The fair, held annually in January in New York City, focuses on works on paper and features several important galleries, as well as programs with leading institutions. Interested in attending the 2024 event? Mark your calendars for opening day on January 27th. Read more here.

Client Opens New Gallery Space 

Our firm was pleased to work with Atamian-Hovsepian Curatorial Practice as it transitioned from freelance curating to unveiling its own inaugural gallery and exhibition space in New York City, focusing on underrepresented artists.

Antiquities Restitutions 

Amineddoleh & Associates was involved in a number of cultural heritage restitutions this year, including the return of a valuable marble statue to its country of origin and the return of a collection of historic artifacts to their home overseas.

Snow-covered cabin. Artwork courtesy of Justin Leitner, used with permission.

ART & IP NEWS

One thing we love about the art market is that there is always something unexpected and exciting happening in the art world. Read on for a glimpse at some of our most popular blog posts this past year.

Commercialism v. Transformativeness

In this blog post, our firm examined shifts in copyright law following the decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, et al.  This highly-anticipated Supreme Court decision involved application of the fair use test (a test used to determine whether the use of a copyrighted work may be used without permission) to a case with peculiar facts:  a photographer (Goldsmith) provided a limited license through Vanity Fair that allowed another artist (Warhol) to use her photograph to create a silkscreen work. Warhol violated the terms of the license, and trouble ensued. Legal scholars hoped that the decision would provide clarification on the test. Unfortunately, the high court’s opinion did not provide much guidance. Curious as to why? Read more here.

Wise Women in Art & Entrepreneurship

Ever wonder where all the great women artists were in your art history lectures? At Amineddoleh & Assoc., we did, too. In honor of International Women’s Day, our firm took a closer look at some of the most talented and undercelebrated women artists in history. We also highlighted our friends at Building 180 – a standout, full-service global art production and consulting agency filling the gap between artists and businesses to create public and private art installations. Read more on our website.

Armenian Cultural Heritage at Risk

Our firm took an exclusive look at the Armenian cultural heritage at risk due to aggression from the Azerbaijani regime. The exodus of Armenians and Azerbaijan’s occupation of Artsakh left Armenian art and architecture unprotected. Artsakh is known as the “Crown Jewel” of Armenian cultural heritage, as it contains some of the most exemplary representations of medieval Armenian architecture, as well as important sites such as the first school to teach the Armenian alphabet in the early fifth century. Also in this post, our firm highlighted the new legal pathway the Republic of Armenia paved when seeking assistance from international courts to help protect their treasures. Read more here.

Christmas ornaments on 6th Ave. Image courtesy of NannFilms, used with permission.

LAW FIRM UPDATES AND EVENTS 

Firm Founder Listed Again by Chambers

For the second consecutive year, firm founder Leila A. Amineddoleh was recognized by Chambers and Partners High Net Worth Guide for her work in Art and Cultural Property Law. The publication named Leila as an attorney who has “a lot of expertise in the cultural property space,” with “a great courtroom manner.” The publication also remarked on her active presence in the art law space and her work in the litigation area. Read more here. Leila was also named one of the “Top 10 Most Influential Art and Cultural Property Law Lawyers in 2023” by Business Today. For that award, Leila was selected for her “unique touch of fervor to her work, combined with a comprehensive understanding of art law.” Read more about that award here.

Art Law Conferences 

Congratulations to our firm’s founder Leila A. Amineddoleh, who successfully chaired the 15th Annual NYCLA Art Law Institute, one of the most anticipated events of the year. Leila also moderated a fascinating panel during the event entitled “Broken Promises: Promised Gifts and Legal Enforceability.” A major theme in the panel was for lawyers to be extremely aware of the time between the time the gift was made, and the time the gift is executed (word to the wise: things can change!).

Yelena Ambartsumian gave a presentation at the conference with Claudia Quinones, one of our former associates (and current friend). The two gave thoughtful insight and wisdom on issues surrounding title and authenticity.

Santa Con NYC in Central Park. Image courtesy of Nycmstar, used with permission.

IN THE PRESS

Leila appeared in the Washington Post and in an article for ABC News this year, in addition to other notable publications. In each, she was consulted as an expert voice on a variety of art and cultural heritage law topics, including discussions on the ethical implications of resolving cultural antiquities ownership disputes.

Additionally, Leila was invited to contribute to the Third Edition of The Art Law Review. Her article, “Cultural Heritage Disputes and Restitution” examines Nazi-looted art disputes, antiquities litigations, government seizures, and ethical concerns related to the acquisition and display of Colonial-era takings. Read more here. Another of Leila’s scholarly publications, “Kings, Treasures, and Looting: The Evolution of Sovereign Immunity and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,” was published in the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. Read more here.

Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center. Image courtesy of NannFilms, used with permission.

Leila also was featured in New York Metro Super Lawyers Magazine as a leader in her field. For the article, Leila’s was highlighted as an exemplary, top-rated intellectual property, art, and cultural heritage lawyer well-known in the industry for getting the job done right. Read more here. Leila was also the feature story in Boston College Magazine’s Winter 2023 issue. The story followed Leila’s art law career along with the story of the looted marble bust that was restituted to Germany in 2022. Read more here.

Maria T. Cannon contributed several letters to the Wall Street Journal this past year on AI and the ethical implications of attorneys and artists. She was also published in the ABA’s Art & Cultural Heritage Law Newsletter, Spring 2023 Edition. You can read it here. She also presented two lectures this past year. The first was in Asheville, NC, about the challenges attorneys face when dealing with celebrity-inspired art. Read more hereThe second was at Cardinal Gibbons High School on Nazi-looted art. Finally, she completed Artificial Intelligence Governance Professional training through internationally-recognized leader in privacy, information, and cybersecurity law, IAPP.

White birch forest. Artwork courtesy of Justin Leitner, used with permission.

On behalf of Amineddoleh & Associates, we wish you a happy and healthy holiday season and a wonderful and prosperous new year. 

P.S. Click here for one last special holiday message from our firm!

 

Shocking Protest Causes Criminal Damage to Art

Monday morning did not come easily for art lovers this week. Heartbreaking news broke early Monday that the glass to the infamous Rokeby Venus by Diego Velazquez was intentionally smashed. The culprits were taking part in a climate protest organized by Just Stop Oil (“JSO”).

Our firm wrote about JSO’s past string of protests here. We also have written about the mysterious Rokeby Venus – and its purported ability to drive viewers mad – here. Check both posts out to obtain context for this recent attack.

The slashed Rokeby Venus. Image via artinsociety.com.

It is odd that the painting at the heart of this strange, unsound attack was the alluring Rokeby Venus. Perhaps the same mysterious, deluded forces that have caused past owners and viewers to lose their faculties were at play?

JSO states that this piece was specifically selected – but not for its superstitions. Instead, JSO claims an arguably logical connection for choosing this painting for destruction. As JSO explained in a public statement on Nov.6th, “Women did not get the vote by voting [reference the 1914 attack by women’s rights activist Mary Richardson], it is time for deeds not words.”

JSO continued: “It is time to Just Stop Oil. Politics is failing us. It failed women in 1914 and it is failing us now. New oil and gas will kill millions. If we love art, if we love life, if we love our families, we must Just Stop Oil.”

JSO climate protestors in an outdoor demonstration. Image via juststopoil.org

The Met Police thought otherwise. The two culprits were arrested for causing criminal damage to the work. It’s safe to say that people in the art industry feel that these climate-driven protests have gone too far. Prior to this protest, JSO’s demonstrations have been merely superficial (and carefully planned as to not cause permanent damage). However, real damage was done this time.

Smashing the glass sets a new – and dangerous – precedent for possible protests in museums worldwide. Criminal-level damage to precious, irreplaceable piece of art and cultural heritage risks destroying crucial pieces of global history.

Our firm sincerely hopes that JSO will find new mediums through which to express their message.  We encourage JSO to engage in productive conversations with politicians and global oil producers – and to leave the work of poor Mr. Velazquez (and his contemporaries) out of it.