|
|
PICABIA
COMMITTEE
IN RESPONSE TO MR. TARICA
And
to whom it may concern
INTRODUCTION
For
several weeks, M. Tarica, a collector and art dealer based in Geneva and
Paris, has been circulating a typed account of about thirty pages intended
to undermine the reputation of the members of the Picabia Committee. It
is the last episode to date of a controversy concerning a series of collages
owned by Mr. Tarica. He is trying to convince the Committee to attribute
these works to the artist Francis Picabia. The Picabia Committee, after
having considered the arguments M. Tarica has presented at length, let
him know that to the best of its present knowledge the series of collages
in question certainly could not be included in the catalogue raisonné
of the artist, currently in preparation.
The
Picabia Committee was created in 1990 at the initiative of Olga Picabia,
the artist’s widow, as an « association loi 1901 »
(a non-profit organisation), and began to function the following year.
Its purpose, as defined in its statutes, is to collect archives, documents,
and all other information concerning the work of Francis Picabia in order
to produce a catalogue raisonné of his work. Its present members
include:
Laure Montet (granddaughter of the artist),
Pierre and Beverley Calté (art dealers),
Maria-Lluisa Borràs (former professor at the
University of Barcelona),
William A. Camfield (Emeritus Professor at Rice University,
Houston),
Virginia Camfield,
Arnauld Pierre (Maître de conférences
at the University of Paris-Sorbonne).
The art historians on the Committee are all authors of books and articles
which have advanced our knowledge by documenting and commenting on every
aspect of Picabia’s work. Each has been called upon to serve as
authors, expert advisors or organizers of exhibitions by numerous and
often prestigious institutions that recognize the quality of the work
they have accomplished over the years.
The
Picabia Committee employs methods of historical research, based in part
on knowledge of the works themselves, for which a considerable amount
of factual information has been collected from direct observation for
decades. It is also based on the sources which document these works (the
library and archives of the artist, photographic records from the artist’s
studio, catalogues of old exhibitions, press clippings etc…), and,
when necessary, on scientific analysis of the materials used in the
artwork.
The Committee’s objective is to reconstruct as precisely as possible
the pedigree of the works and their often chaotic and eventful history.
The decision to include or to exclude a work in the catalogue raisonné
depends on all of these factors. The task of the Picabia Committee is
enormous and difficult, and the possibility of inadvertant error cannot
be excluded. For this reason the Committee has always been open to suggestions,
comments, and new information which may advance its work.
Disagreements
and controversies concerning attribution are frequent in our discipline
and sometimes result in conflicting positions. The members of the Picabia
Committee believe that all viewpoints are legitimate as long as they are
expressed openly, and not in the way Mr. Tarica distributed his «
text ». In fact, the Committee would not have had direct knowledge
of that text if one of of the recipients of this pamphlet had not suggested
to its author that he would be at fault by not sending it to those personally
(and grossly) targeted. His method of circulating accusations in the form
of rumor eliminates any possibility for opposing views. For this reason
the Picabia Committee presents below its response to Mr. Tarica, following
step by step the development of his « demonstration ».
First,
the Committee requests that M. Tarica guarantee the same distribution
for our response as for his own account -- and with the same rapidity
and efficiency. Second, the Committee suggests that these two documents
be submitted to a professional magazine, which may or may not choose to
publish them (this would necessarily imply the exclusion of all abuses,
malevolent insinuations, and defamatory accusations from which Mr. Tarica’s
writings are unfortunately not exempt). All this, in order that everyone
may have access to all the documents constituting what Mr. Tarica calls
« The Picabia Affair, » and not only those that serve one
personal interpretation.
I.
SO-CALLED FAKES DECLARED AUTHENTIC
When
Mr. Tarica speaks about « obviously fake works» (p. 3), he
is expressing only his personal impressions, well-founded or not. It is
precisely this sort of subjective judgment that the members of the Picabia
Committee cannot allow themselves. All their work consists in supporting
each judgment on the basis of a rigorous method, in addition to the convictions
that every connoisseur is capable of developping as a result of repeated
contacts with the work of an artist. This process should exclude recourse
to expressions as vague as « It has come to my notice that…
» (p.7), and « There were several other points which made
me think that… » (p.17), which adorn Mr. Tarica’s text.
We shall come across many others.
a)
The case of Paysage (1909, Mr. Calté’s collection)
Mr.
Tarica’s first attack is concentrated on a colored crayon drawing
entitled Paysage which he declares «obviously » fake, without
any evidence to justify his thesis except the use of this adverb. The
arguments of the Committee may be accepted for what they are worth but
at least they are based on facts :
- The provenance: Contrary to what Mr. Tarica suggests, this work was
not discovered by its present owner, Mr. Calté, but by Mr. Charles
Bailly, an art dealer, who purchased it along with a series of similar
works from a private owner who acquired them from his family. Mr. Bailly
was willing to write a statement, saying : « Accompanied by the
owner of these works, Monsieur Gilles Marcque-Coache, I went to see Mrs.
Olga Picabia at the end of 1984 (that is to say, well before the existence
of the Picabia Committee) to show her several colored crayon drawings
from 1909, and drawings from the « Cormon period » mounted
on a board. Mrs. Picabia called the owner’s mother, Madame Adèle
Coache, who confirmed having had these works in the family for about forty
years. »
- The context of their first appearance: The drawings incriminated by
Mr. Tarica were accompanied by drawings from the Cormon period (Picabia’s
art student years), assembled in a montage similar to another montage
of drawings of the same period owned by Olga Picabia.
- Stylistic analysis: The drawings in colored crayon perfectly resemble
other works of this kind already known and previously exhibited. The comparison
of signatures corroborates the results of stylistic observation.
- Scientific analysis : In 1997, Mr. Calté’s drawing, particularly
attacked by Mr. Tarica, was analysed by Madame Sylvaine Brans, a restorer
appointed by the Louvre and the National Museums, and an expert at the
Appeals Court of Paris. She demonstrated the absence of all modern material
in the colors and the paper of the work and established an age for the
work compatible with the date inscribed on it.
It is a fact that in 1985, at a Picabia exhibition in Madrid where several
fake Transparences were shown (see below item d), Mrs. Borràs officially
rejected this series of drawings which were exhibited there for the first
time. The Picabia Committee is not monolithic. It is made up of
individuals,
each endowed with his/her own capacity for judgment that they must
preserve.
It is salutory that debate exists and has always existed among its
members. However, in view of the evidence cited above, the Picabia
Committee, after
having recently re-examined the drawing, unanimously concluded in favor
of its authenticity. Consequently, it will be included in the catalogue
raisonné of the artist.
b)
The case of Composition, 1913.
«
The Picabia Committee has never made a protest of any sort about the presence
of this picture on the art market », says an offended Mr. Tarica
(p.5).
As
Mr. Tarica reminds us, this work appeared on the market in 1970. At that
time, the Picabia Committee did not exist and the youngest of its members
was only three years old. The work reappeared at the Enghein auction house
in 1989. The Committee still had not been created.
Since
the existence of the Committee, its members have not had an occasion to
see this work. However, it was known by Mrs. Borràs who refused
to include it in her book, then in preparation (published in 1985). Mr.
Camfield also examined the work in the late sixties and early seventies
and again in 1989, shortly before the sale in Enghein. On that occasion,
he told the representatives of the auction house that for the time being
he had neither accepted nor rejected the work, considering he did not
have enough conclusive evidence. The location of this work is not presently
known. It must be reexamined and reevaluated based on updated knowledge.
In
any case, we will not be as quick to judge as Mr. Tarica who seems unaware
of the conscientiousness which accompanies historical research, where
doubt is a part of ethics.
c)
Other « obviously » fake works
Mr.
Tarica points out in the Picabia retrospective at the Belèm Cultural
Center, in Portugal, the presence of three works « which are, in (his)
view, fakes ». Once again, this is a subjective point of view
which he never takes the trouble to support.
It
so happens that two of the works denounced by Mr. Tarica are examples
of the simplest possible authentification, because they come directly
from Picabia’s atelier which they had never left before this exhibition
:
-
Colombe
(circa 1924-25, colored pencil and gouache on paper). This work is
certainly not the most representative of Picabia’s artwork from
the mid-twenties. It could have been excluded from a retrospective considering
its minor importance, but this does mean it is a « fake ».
-
Composition
abstraite (circa 1938,gouache on paper). Mr. Tarica’s short-sightedness
in this case is less understandable because, unlike the previous work
which is a unicum and difficult to relate to the known production of the
artist, this one belongs to a series of abstract works associated with
the movement of Dimensionism. There are several known examples including
one, very similar, owned by Olga Picabia, consisting of interlacings which
define color fields. They were most likely made at the request of Picabia’s
art dealer for an exhibition that never took place, as confirmed in recent
research by Christian Derouet (In: Francis Picabia, Lettres à Léonce
Rosenberg 1929-1940. N° Hors-série/ Archives des Cahiers du
Musée National d’Art Moderne, avril 2000, p. 10).
Concerning
the third work, Masque
en transparence (1925-1928, gouache and diluted oil paint on paper),
it was known to Mr. Camfield well before it reappeared on the market via
the Waddington Gallery in London and the Drouot-Montaigne auction house,
Paris (1994). Mr. Camfield examined the work in the 1970s at the home
of Mr. Robert Valette. Mr. Valette had acquired it from Angèle
Lévesque, the wife of Jacques-Henri Lévesque, one of Picabia’s
closest friends since the late twenties, and an editor for Orbes, a review
wholly supportive of Picabia, with several texts by and about the artist.
There is an inscription on the back of the drawing, most likely in Picabia’s
handwriting : « Francis Picabia 1925, » and, in another hand,
the name « A. Lévesque ». There is no cause to doubt
the authenticity of this work, in its provenance, in the context of its
first known appearance, nor its style, typical of the first Transparences
which include elements of Catalonian romanesque painting.
Certainly,
Mr. Tarica is not expected to be in possession of all of this information,
which is the result of a long, assiduous study of Picabia’s œuvre
and a systematic search for new data. The Picabia Committee would gladly
have shared this information if it could have prevented him from making
such quick and hazardous judgments.
d)
The case of Josias
The
Picabia Committee does not object to Mr. Tarica’s point of view
in regard to this so-called Transparence of 1929-1930, for it was after
having consulted the Committee that Sotheby’s removed the painting
from the sale, not on the advice of Mr. Tarica. Usually Sotheby’s
and Christie’s systematically consult the Picabia Committee when
works of this artist come into their sales. Time constraints in the organization
of auctions and the existence of certificates issued before the creation
of the Committee have sometimes produced cases like Josias. Such instances
have led the Committee to notify the auction houses concerned that it
does not systematically recognize certificates of authenticity issued
by the wives of the artist. We would like to take this opportunity to
thank Picabia’s wives for the precious aid all three have contributed
to our research, but we understand that the criteria of historical research
was often – and quite naturally – foreign to their judgments.
The
following statement (p.7) is simply false and slanderous: « It has
come to my notice that it (Josias)
was part of a series of four works, all fakes, but nevertheless certified
authentic by the widow * » (*in the french version only). The works
in question are fake Transparences three of which (Jezebel, Sukkot, and
Golaad) appeared in the Picabia retrospective in Madrid in 1985 (prior
to the existence of the Picabia Committee). Afterwards, Olga Picabia had
them seized and destroyed with Police intervention, at her own expense.
Regarding
this subject, we note that for reasons essentially of cost, the Picabia
Committee does not foresee police action of this kind, as is practiced
by some title holders of the « droit moral » for other
artists.
e)
The case of Femme aux oiseaux
The
members of the Picabia Committee do not need Mr. Tarica’s revelations
to recognize that the drawing Femme aux oiseaux is an obvious fake. Once
again, it is not Mr. Tarica’s opinion but that of the Committee
that Christie’s took into account when they removed the work from
their sale. The Committee regrets that the work found its way to the market
again but it does not always have the means by which to exercise constant
vigilance. This is precisely the case of Femme aux oiseaux which reappeared
in an auction of Maître Cornette de Saint-Cyr without notice to
the Committee. In any case, the Committee’s opinions are of an advisory
nature, and a negative statement does not force the seller to cancel the
sale. But of course the statement « this work will appear in the
Catalogue Raisonné of the artist » cannot be mentioned in
the sale catalogue.
Finally,
as opposed to Mr. Tarica’s slanderous insinuation in the last paragraph
of this section (top of p.8), Femme aux oiseaux is not and was never owned
by any member of the Picabia Committee.
II.
THE SO -CALLED « REMAKES » OF PICABIA
All
of the previous slenderous accusations and ill-founded or gratuituous
statements in Mr. Tarica’s « demonstration » have no
other purpose than to discredit the members of the Picabia Committee,
and allow Mr. Tarica to arrive well-armed on the most sensitive terrain
-- the series of collages he owns. These collages have been the object
of an unrelenting controversy with the Picabia Committee. The objective
of Mr. Tarica’s preliminary statements has been to condition the
reader to believe in the newest theory of all Picabia studies in the last
fifty years: according to his theory, Picabia fabricated so-called «
remakes » in the style of his earlier works (precisely two decades
before).
a)
The case of Voiles (Sails) (1911)
His
« demonstration » needed one more proof of the incompetence
of the Picabia Committee on questions of dating works. Therefore Mr. Tarica
brings up the case of Voiles (Sails), a superb painting from the transitional
period which preceded Picabia’s evolution towards abstraction, and
which was erroneously dated from the late 1930s by Olga Picabia. As stated
above, the Picabia Committee has already taken a position regarding certain
personal judgements made by the wives or people close to the artist when
they are not based on an historical approach. The art historians among
the members of the Committee never had a problem with the authenticity
of this painting, close in subject and treatment to a work like Les Régates,
also from 1911. Voiles is indeed a very beautiful work whose owner must
be proud and happy. Without question, it will figure in the catalogue
raisonné of the artist. There is no reason whatsoever to engage
in polemics over this work.
b)
The case of Centimètres (The tape measures) (circa 1924-1925)
Once
again, Mr. Tarica’s comment about this collage from the mid-twenties
starts with an error, intentional or not : the well-known Milanese gallery
owner, Mr. Arturo Schwartz, did not buy this work from Olga Picabia, but
from the artist Enrico Baj. Olga Picabia had sold it several years
before.
Mr.
Tarica continues with an imprecise statement quite similar to those we
have denounced before : « More than ten years ago, I had the occasion
the see it (Centimètres),
and I realized that the painted surface had been executed with brush strokes
that correspond with Picabia’s manner of painting in the years1940-1950
» (p.10). (N.B. : Francis Picabia, who died in 1953, stopped painting
in 1951. In the early forties, he painted figurative works, essentially
female nudes, and, after the war, paintings where abstract and primitive
motifs coexist.) We therefore find ourselves, according to Mr. Tarica,
before an example of a « remake » made by Picabia towards
the end of his life.
This
hypothesis is perfectly gratuitous. It relies above all on Mr. Tarica’s
personal impressions before a painted surface which, contrary to his
premise,
has scarcely any similarity to the works of the late period where he situates
« Centimètres ». Any impartial observer can verify
this. On the contrary, all the stylistic, technical, and material characteristics
of the work place it without a doubt among the series of collages that
Picabia made in the mid-twenties – which no Picabia specialist (and
not only those on the Picabia Committee) has ever questioned. The presence
of Ripolin paint, for instance, is characteristic of the works of this
period, not only the collages but also paintings of the series of the
Amoureux and Monstres. The way the Ripolin paint has wrinkled in the lower
part is also typical of the aging process of this material in other works
of the same period.
Nevertheless,
Mr. Tarica tries to go beyond his subjective first impression by examining
more closely one of the materials used in this collage: the matches. After
having consulted a specialist of the Seita (a French tobacco company),
he asserts that this type of match was not introduced in France «
until the postwar years » (p.11) (forgetting to specify to which
war he was referring, which may in fact be of some relevance). Even if
these components dated from the second half of the 1940s, it suffices
to look at the work to notice traces of matches which came unglued from
their support. It is not impossible to imagine that Picabia, observing
the degradation of his work, replaced missing materials with new materials
he had at hand. But in any case, restoration does not mean « remake
».
Our
hypothesis is all the more credible because we know of another example
of this way of doing things, and Mr. Tarica uses the same example for
his « demonstration » - but misinterpreting it and coming
to false conclusions.
c)
The case of Portrait de Poincaré (1924 -1925),
become Le Beau charcutier (circa 1934-1935)
The
Portrait de Poincaré (1924-1925), is a collage that Picabia considerably
modified at a later date. For instance, he superimposed on the face the
contours of another face and painted hands on the bust. These elements
were added with the same technique used for the Tranparences (circa 1930).
Of the old materials glued to the surface of the original work, only traces
remain – with the exception of combs adorning the hair, still present
but replaced by a different type, as can be seen by comparing the work
in its present state (in the Tate Modern, London) with the archival photograph
showing the collage in its original state. Again in this case, one sees
that Picabia was not afraid to replace certain elements with their
equivalent.
As with the matches of Centimètres, an analysis of the haircombs
would date them later than 1924-1925, which is not sufficient to redate
the original work itself. As we saw before, restoration (or replacement)
of certain materials or, as in the present case, partial overpainting
of the original motif by other motifs does not mean « remake »
but restoration and transformation.
When
did these transformations occur? According to Mr. Tarica, in the 1940s,
for reasons that will later serve to justify his theory dating the «
remakes » of the collages at that period. This is a flagrant error
: Le Beau charcutier appears in a photograph of Picabia’s studio
taken in the summer of 1935, among characteristic works of this period
that the artist was going to send to Chicago for an exhibition that took
place the following year at the Arts Club. Therefore, the transformations
that occured with the Portrait de Poincaré/Beau charcutier cannot
be dated later than 1935. Mr. Tarica could easily have been aware of this
as the photograph in question is well-known. It has been published many
times (see for example Album Picabia, p. 85 ; Camfield, illus. n°
36 ; Borràs, reprod. N° 402).
Another
strange feature in Mr. Tarica’s « demonstration » :
In the Portrait de Poincaré (original version, 1924-1926) he indicates
himself the presence of a fragment of a flexible seamstress’ tape
measure, representing the nose in the portrait, that would come from the
same tape measure as the fragments found in Centimètres, supposedly
from the 1940s. Quite rightly, he notes that it is the piece showing the
1-to-12 cm. gradations, precisely the one piece missing fron Centimètres.
Unwittingly, Mr. Tarica provides an additional argument in favor of an
evidence never contested by any specialist : Centimètres and Portrait
de Poincaré, which share common material, are certainly two works
of the same period – that is to say the mid-twenties – and
under no circumstances from the 1940s. Thus, the remake theory falls
apart.
d) Other so-called « remakes »
Undoubtedly,
Mr. Tarica is aware of the weakness of his theory. This is why, from sliding
semantics to sliding semantics, he extends the vague notion of «
remake » to all sorts of procedures already known to be used by
Picabia, but which cannot be assimilated to what Mr. Tarica abusively
calls « remakes ».
These are the following procedures :
- Restoration or restitution of damaged works, in exceptional cases concerning
only works known in their original state by archival photographs.
- Partial renewals and alterations. This is precisely the case of Portrait
de Poicaré/Beau charcutier and several other works, like Portrait
d’un docteur (circa 1935, reworked circa 1945-1946) or several Espagnoles
from the 1920s augmented a few years later by motifs of the Transparences.
The Transparences themselves were recycled using more simple motifs when
the time had come for a more readable figuration in the middle of the
1930s. In these instances, elements from different periods are placed
side by side, and a moderately trained eye can quickly indentify them.
- Mere re-covering of the entire surface to create a new work. Picabia
could be motivated, according to the period, to repaint over existing
paintings, either because of the scarcity of room and material or by a
wish to obliterate a composition that no longer pleased him. This is the
case, for instance, with La feuille de vigne (1922) painted over Les Yeux
chauds (1920) or Vase de fleurs (1925-1926, Museum of Modern Art of Paris),
recently discovered to have been painted over a nude dated
1909 –1910, known from an archival photograph.
None
of these procedures deserve the name « remake » that Mr. Tarica
attributes to them without differentiation
Moreover,
Mr. Tarica owes us precise and sound examples when he leaves us with a
statement of this type: « I might even add that other remakes produced
by Picabia have been catalogued by the Picabia Committee, reproduced in
publications, and exhibited as works executed by Picabia in periods much
earlier than their actual execution dates (i.e the 1940s) » (p.12).
Otherwise, his statement remains tainted by sheer gratuitousness and the
will to harm.
III. THE COLLAGES FROM THE JOUSSEAUME-MANOUKIAN-TARICA
SERIES (JMT)
We
are here at the heart of the matter. Mr. Tarica’s entire theory
about « remakes », as fragile as it may be, has no other objective
than to convince everyone that the series of collages he owns are actually
« remakes » produced in the 1940s, and cannot date from the
late 1920s thanks to clues he himself has revealed .
It
must be noted that the controversy over these works is not new, and was
not invented by the Picabia Committee. It started as soon as the collages
appeared on the art market before 1970 (reminder : the Picabia Committe
was created in 1990). Some collages became the object of a court case
in 1973 (won by the camp of sceptics). The controversy resurged when an
attempt was made to exhibit them in the Picabia retrospective in Düsseldorf
in 1983 (a failed attempt thanks to the intervention of Olga Picabia.
The works were removed and not reproduced in the catalogues published
by the institutions where the exhibit toured). The quarrel came up again
after the creation of the Picabia Committee when it became evident to
Mr. Tarica that his arguments, even though thoroughly explained and carefully
examined by the Committe members, were not sufficient to convince them.
a)
Provenance
« Alain Jousseaume said he had them from Mrs. Lucienne Rosenberg
and he made a statement to this effect on March 6, 1973 » (p.14).
This statement, as we have already indicated to Mr. Tarica, is untrue
and was denied by the interested party herself, while granting Jousseaume
the benefit of his good faith. However, the Picabia Committe has in its
possession the photographs of seven of the collages of the JMT series.
On the back of four of them is a handwritten statement by Lucienne Rosenberg,
dated December 15, 1971: « We never owned nor sold this so-called
« Picabia » work. ». The three others, dated November
29, 1971, express an even stronger rejection : « I never owned this
work which I consider a buffoonery unworthy of Picabia’s talent.
It never belonged to my father ». These statements are confirmed
on the back of each photograph by another daughter of Léonce Rosenberg,
Odette : « This work was never part of the Léonce Rosenberg
collection. »
This
could have been proven in another way : The Léonce Rosenberg archive
is kept in the archives of the Musée National d’Art Moderne
(Centre Pompidou) where it has been thoroughly studied by Christian
Derouet.
There is no trace of the JMT series, neither in the profuse photographic
archives of the gallery (where every work in the collection was
photographed),
nor in the remarkably well-kept record books.
The
myth of a prestigious provenance, that of Picabia’s principal art
dealer, falls apart. In fact, no trace exists of these works – not
a single old photograph, not a single mention in a catalogue or letter
– before their sudden and massive appearance, in the late 1960s
at Mr. Manoukian’s via Mr. Jousseaume.
Note
: considering the huge number of documents illustrating his essay, the
Picabia Committee is surprised that Mr. Tarica did not enclose Lucienne
and Odette Rosenberg’s denial. He knows they exist and have always
been available to him.
b)
The case of Pot Potin
Mr.
Tarica believes he can save the whole JMT series by focusing on the case
of the Pot Potin collage, the center of his attention. Oddly enough, once
again, Mr. Tarica gives us evidence that can be used against his own theory
:
- Mr. Tarica first notices the presence, in the upper right corner, of
a glued piece of paper on which figures the typographic inscription :
« l’anneau d’or des grands mystiques ». This is
the title of a book by Emile Baumann published by Bernard Grasset «
in the late 1920s » writes Mr. Tarica without any further details
– 1925 to be more precise, which is not the same as the late 1920s.
But this approximation becomes necessary in order to prove that the work
is a « remake » of the collages and therefore made later.
In an even more credible way, this argument could very well have backed
up a theory dating this work circa 1925. But this would not fit with other
evidence Mr. Tarica has uncovered :
-
The presence of wavy lines, garters and anatomical details in Pot Potin
and other collages of the JMT series links them undoubtedly to an unquestionable
work, Rocking Chair, where these motifs are already present in their so-called
original state. But Rocking Chair, which belongs to the Transparences
series dates from 1928 at the earliest.
-
The (gross) pun Pot Potin could find its explanation in an anecdote linked
to a conflict between Picabia and Mr. Félix Potin regarding the
acquisition of a boat : L’Henriquetta. These events happened in
1930, as shown by Mr. Tarica’s skillful investigations with the
administrations concerned (with negotiations over the boat).
Thus,
investigations conducted by Mr. Tarica himself prove that it is impossible
to date this collage in the mid-1920s. Hence, the « remake »
theory and a recurring error that we can notice on page 13 of Mr. Tarica’s
essay and also on pp. 16 and 19. This consists of saying or implying that
Mr. Camfield’s research on the Picabia collages led him to assert
that the Picabia collages (were) all dated « after1924-1925 »
(p. 19). This is untrue. Mr. Camfield was the first to establish the correct
date of this collage circa 1925 (and not later than 1925), as witnessed
in the catalogue of the retrospective he organized for the Solomon R.
Guggenheim Museum in New York (p.124 to 127). Depending on the work, the
dates usually accepted today vary between 1923 and 1926. This dating is
based, for instance, on the example of Lecture, a collage with Ripolin
paint quite representative of the series. This work is mentioned in 1926
in the catalogue of the Duchamp sale (n°72) in the list of works produced
in Cannes in 1924-25; or the example of Paille et cure-dents (circa 1924),
exhibited in May-June at the gallery of Durand-Ruel. Other collages are
documented by the correspondence of Jacques Doucet who used to own several
of them (Plumes, circa 1923-1925, mentioned in March 1926, Femme aux allumettes
II, circa 1923-1925, mentioned July 16, 1925; cf. archives of J. Doucet
at the Bibliothèque Littéraire Jacques Doucet, Paris). None
of these sources ever had any information about any of the JMT collages
series.
In
any case, all of Mr. Tarica’s comments concerning the connection
between these works and Rocking Chair, or between Pot Potin and a «
Potin case, » deserve to been taken into consideration. There are
arguments which could tell in favor of their authenticity, if we admit
they could have been produced after 1930. It is these works then that
must pass through the sieve of counter-evaluation.
c)
The connection to Rocking Chair (1928)
Mr.
Tarica uses the fact that Rocking Chair was almost invisible until recently
and «unknown in the traditional literature about Picabia »
(p.21) to explain that no forger could have produced works using some
of its motifs.
However,
Mr. Tarica indicates himself that the work appeared in an auction in Amsterdam,
in 1958, that it was exhibited in Ixelles and Charleroi in the winter
1961-1962 (at a crucial time, a few years before the JMT series made its
appearance), and that it was also reproduced as early as 1951 in the catalogue
of an exhibition at the Prinzenhof Museum in Delft. Mr. Camfield adds
another reference to this work, reproduced in 1960 in Islas (vol. III,
n°1, septembre-décembre 1960, p.202) where it illustrates an
article on Picabia by M. Altmann, a personal friend of Gabrielle Buffet
who introduced Mr. Camfield to him. (For the further development of this
report, it may be useful to notice that Rocking Chair was known in the
circle of Gabrielle Buffet’s friends). Furthermore, the Stedelijk
Museum in Amsterdam had provided Mr. Camfield a photograph of the work
as early as 1962. The work had been photographed well before this date,
since a photograph of it can be found in the Rosenberg files. It is impossible
to know for sure to what extent one or several photographs of the work
may have been circulated. In any case, none of this makes Rocking Chair
an invisible or unknown work.
Besides,
Mr. Tarica signals the reappearance of a lamp-post, already seen in Rocking
Chair, in Idées noires, one of the collages of the JMT series.
A comparative study of the two lamp-posts leads him to conclude this is
« a Morellian signature » permitting identification of Picabia’s
hand in both cases. The comparison does not reveal the conclusive resemblance
with which Mr. Tarica wishes to convince us -- and himself -- (thickness
of outlines, heavier in the original, their orientations, details on top
of the lamp-post). Second, must we remind him that the art historian Giovanni
Morelli (1816-1891), a champion of visual expertise, limited his observations
to particular motifs, difficult to execute, like earlobes, fingernails
or the shape of fingers. Morelli would never have based his judgment on
such a simple and semantically meagre motif as the lamp-post from Rocking
Chair, a mere element of the decor rapidly executed in the upper left
background.
Furthermore,
the visual source of Rocking Chair was discovered recently in an erotic
postcard from the Belle Epoque (cf. reprod. In : A. Pierre, « Picabia
contre le retour à l’ordre », Picabia. Les Nus et la
méthode, cat. Exp., Grenoble, Grenoble Museum, 1998, p. 17). There
we find the lamp-post and other elements in the backdrop used by the photographer
as well as a nude sitting in the rocking-chair. Naturally, all the elements
from Rocking Chair, scattered throughout the series of collages of the
JMT series (regardless of any coherence), have lost the link to their
source that Rocking Chair maintains with its postcard. For instance, in
the case of Portrait de femme II, which we will discuss later, the thick
outlines (in the lower part of the face, the neck and the shoulders) alternate
light and dark areas. The same detail comes from the thick lines of the
rocking chair where Picabia painted light reflections on the curved wood
in the same places as in the post-card. This coherent link is obviously
lost in the case of Portrait de femme II. The person who made these collages
seems to have used elements of Rocking Chair in total ignorance of their
origin – quite odd in the hypothesis that this man was Picabia
himself.
Once
again, the Picabia Committee is surprised not to find this source, already
known and published, in the copious annex of Mr. Tarica’s essay.
d)
The testimony of Gabrielle Buffet concerning the Potin case
It
is to Mr. Tarica’s credit that he has presented all the documents
that confirm the story about the dispute between Picabia and Mr. Potin
concerning the puchase of the boat Henriquetta in1930. According to him,
the confidential nature of the story excludes the possibility that an
eventual forger could refer to it via an inscription on the collage. On
the contrary, the documents he presents show that the dispute had a certain
notoriety. Besides, Mr. Tarica refuses to envision the hypothesis –
even though it is frequent with fakes – that someone close to the
artist could have mentioned the Potin anecdote to a potential forger.
This hypothesis should be taken into account, if only for the sake of
intellectual honesty or for the sheer pleasure of exhausting all the solutions
that may come to mind.
But
in fact, Mr. Tarica’s documents do not tell us any more than what
we already knew from the first version of the Potin episode. That version
was related in 1972 at the time of the first great controversy around
the JMT collages by Gabrielle Buffet, Picabia’s first wife (they
divorced in 1930). She explains the whole story with an abundance of
details,
providing comments which may sound liked an auto-justification: «
These allusions in the two paintings, the meaning of which was only known
to his closest entourage, confirm their authenticity: it is a procedure
we can find in many of Picabia’s works ». When Mr. Tarica
adds, towards the end of his « demonstration » (p. 24 french
version only) « Therefore the explanation given by the Picabia family
of the collage Pot Potin was verified on all grounds, » one is tempted
to ask : « Really? »
N.B.
A simple examination of the facts brings to mind that other pseudo-dadaist
works appeared en masse at the same time as the JMT series in an exhibition
consecrated solely to them (Hanover Gallery, London, 1968, accompanied
by a catalogue prefaced by Gabrielle Buffet). Like the JMT collages, they
provoked a violent controversy, and no one accepts their authenticity
today.
For
those who are interested , the Picabia Committee has in its archives a
report that Mr. Camfield recently furnished the Italian Court of Justice.
He points out technical and stylistic similarities between the two
series,
notably the presence in most of these works of collage elements cut from
the texts of publications – a technique Picabia never used.
Even
more astonishing: Mr. Tarica provides the testimony of a person who signs
as Gabrièle M. Picabia, who would be the daughter of Gabrielle
and Picabia. Neither of the two daughters of Gabrielle and Picabia were
named Gabrièle, but Laure and Cécile (dit Jeannine). The
couple also had two sons, Vicente and Gabriel, called Pancho. Whatever
the case may be, this mysterious person confirms the story of Henriquetta
and of Mr. Potin and identifies another witness to that story, Lorenzo
Everling, son of Picabia and Germaine Everling, who she pretends is her
brother.
Mr. Tarica contacted Mr. Everling to obtain the same confirmation. This,
in passing, allows us to appreciate the manner in which Mr. Tarica works:
He sends Mr. Everling a testimony, already typed and ready to be signed,
while granting the possibility « if you like » to «
change the wording for more accurate details ». (Mr. Tarica to Mr
; Everling, 28 August 1998). Evidently, Mr. Everling, notices the deception
and answers in a biting manner that he has no sister by the name of Gabrièle
or Gabrielle, and that, on the date for the requested testimony, he was
not in Cannes but between the Galapagos and Acapulco. Mr. Everling is
an officer in the Merchant Marine, and he adds, «I don’t like
all of this evidence elaborated by Gabrielle Buffet, who everyone knows,
peace be with her, was gifted with great intelligence adorned with exaggerated
scheming. » In conclusion: « In any case, as officer du mérite
maritime, I do not wish to participate in any way in the machinations
that bring to mind navigation in foggy weather. » (Mr. Everling
to Mr. Tarica, 1er September, 1998)
It
goes without saying that Mr. Tarica chose not to include this exchange
of letters in the dossier he distributed.
e) Le procès de Vérone
In
1997 the Picabia Committee denounced the presence of a collage from the
JMT series, Portrait de femme no. II, in an exhibition organized by the
Galleria d’Arte Moderna e Contemporanea in Verona, « Dadaïsme-Dadaïsmes.
De Duchamp à Warhol ». The Committee was all the more alarmed
by the publicity given the work because it was used for the catalogue
cover and the posters for the exhibition.
Mr.
Camfield received a long letter in excellent French from the Museum in
response to his request for explanatory information. Mr. Tarica deplores
that this letter remains unanswered. Aside from the fact that its aggressive
tone and its anonymity (no name on the letterhead; illegible signature)
did not derserve an answer, the letter in question shed no new light on
Portrait de femme. It consisted primarily of a long list of works demanding
a statement about their authenticity by Mr. Camfield. This list included
the colored crayon drawings, the Transparences, and the drawing Colombe,
that is to say, the works we have already discussed (pp. 2-4) because
they are the same ones that figure on Mr. Tarica’s list. The same,
minus one: Blomet (1947), a supposed fake that Mr. Tarica accused us of
having authenticated. The work disappeared from the list of « obvious
» fakes when we indicated to him that it was reproduced in the Album
Picabia (p.144). Since then Blomet is no longer on the list of «
obvious » fakes that the Committee passed off as authentic.
The
resulting court case in Verona has produced actions and expertises that
fill three large cartons, available at the Picabia Committee archives.
The expertise that the Verona Court requested of Carla Rocca Pellegrini
has an important place. She reveals, on the basis of a scientific analysis
of the work, the presence of an optical brightener which dates the cardboard
ground of the collage after 1945. Contrary to what Mr. Tarica says, the
presence of this substance was examined not only with UV (ultraviolet
light) but also with a microscope, in the core of the fibers themselves.
The analysis also reveals the presence of a glue -- which appeared on
the market only after the Second World War -- to attach two elements (the
buttons of the eyes) which were glued only once and never restored (i.e.
reglued). The expert does not question the presence of objects, for the
most part, already available on the market in the 1920’s. However,
observing that they were undeniably fixed to a more recent cardboard
ground,
she concluded that the work was not authentic. Therefore it is not the
incompetence of the Picabia Committee , its « ignorance about the
scientific analysis of artworks », its « inability to correctly
interpret the results obtained » (p.27-28) that Mr.Tarica should
attack, but the expert named by the Italian Court and of Dr. Herm of the
Institut Suisse des Etudes d’Art (Zurich), whose findings were confirmed
by Doctor Antonietta Gallone of the Institut de Physique du Politechnico
in Milan.
To
all of this, Mr. Tarica can oppose only the results of his counter-expert.
He had the work re-examined by a laboratory in Grenoble that he undoubtedly
believed more reliable. In spite of all the oratorial convolutions with
which he surrounds the results of his own investigation, he cannot hide
the fact that the Grenoble laboratory came to the same conclusions as
the expert solicited by the Italian Court. But all of this is of no importance
as Mr. Tarica says, « in any event, I think that this Verona work
is a Picabia remake, as, incidentally, are most of the collages in the
Jousseaume-Manoukian series » and « because we know that in
the 1940’s Picabia produced remakes. » (p. 27). Here once
again, the necessity of the « remake » theory, based as we
have seen on so many errors and approximations.
But,
it is good to know that the theory of Mr. Tarica has changed over time.
The « remake » theory, contrary to his statement on page 10,
is not any older than the case of the Verona collage. On May 9, 1982,
in a meeting with Mr. Camfield in New York, Mr. Tarica said he was still
convinced about a 1929 date for the Manoukian collages. On July 20, 1998,
he organized a meeting at his Paris apartment which included Mr. Camfield,
Mr. Arnauld Pierre, Mrs. Carole Boulbès, Mr. Hourière (restorer
at the Musée national d’art moderne). For almost four hours,
Mr. Tarica presented his case that no one could question the fact that
the (JMT) collages date from the end of the 1920s. Several days later
he wrote Mr. Camfirld, recalling his discoveries concerning the Henriquetta
business : « Of course this contradicts what I think of as the date
of execution of the Manoukian collages -- 1927-1928 --, as « Rocking-Chair
», and he proposed the following interpretation: « Picabia
executes L’anneau d’or des grands mystiques in1927-1928 and
in 1929 adds ‘Pot-Potin’ and the matches because of the events
about the Henriquetta. » (Mr. Tarica to Mr. Camfield, July 29, 1998).
The fact of the matter is that is that for at least twenty years, as witnessed
by his abundant correspondence to Mrs. Borras and Mr. Camfield, Mr. Tarica
has defended no other thesis than that of works actually made at the end
of the 1920s – up until the analyses from Verona, available January
11, 1999, proved to him that the thesis was untenable.
Therefore
it is only recently that Mr. Tarica has totally reoriented his thesis
to concord with new findings that he could no longer ignore.
ENVOI
A la fin de l’envoi, je touche (Edmond Rostand)
The
Picabia Committee is not alone. It has existed for a relatively short
time and it is far from assembling the entire community of researchers
interested in Picabia. A complete list of all of the personalities having
taken a position – publicly or in a legal context – against
the works of the JMT series, not only includes its members, but also other
individuals such as MM. Marc Dachy, Marcel Fleiss, Robert Lebel, Jean-Jacques
Lebel, Yves Poupard-Lieussou, Michel Sanouillet, Arturo Schwarz, Patrick
Waldberg – that is to say, a great number of specialists of Dada
and of Picabia. Another generation is still in the process of formation,
and as far as is known, Mmes. Carole Boulbès and Sara Cochran,
for example, have not come out in favor of these works in spite of the
insistent pressure they, like all of us, have been subjected to by Mr.
Tarica. We would like to mention as well that no serious institution or
museum has ever taken a position in favor of these works. In particular
The Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris preferred to
count on the expertise of the Picabia Commitee, as opposed to that of
Mr. Tarica, for the Picabia retrospective it is preparing. The only recent
exception is that of a minor locality in Verona; who accepted Portrait
de femme II for a hodge-podge exhibition and without a scientific basis.
The catalogue will not count for much in the annals of research on Dadaism.
But
the resulting case will at least have the merit of forcing Mr. Tarica
to change his defense strategy for these works. He has been obliged to
reconstruct the theory of « remakes » which weakens his position
more than helping it.
|
