Shishkin-Kukkuk fake

May 26, 2004 at the May "Russian auction" Sotheby's in London ^[2] was put on the painting "Landscape with a stream" with the signature of Shishkin, dated 1863. At the auction, she was attributed as an early work of the artist during his European internship with the masters of the Dusseldorf School of Landscape Painting . Her estimate was £ 550-700 thousand ($ 1-1.28 million), and the picture became one of the two top lots of the auction. According to rumors, the canvas "married" to Boris Berezovsky ^[3] .

The painting was published in the catalog and presented at the pre-auction exhibition. During the bidding process, without explanation, it was announced: "Lot 47 withdrawn." As Kommersant wrote: “Naturally, this caused a fuss in the audience: after all, it’s yet another contender in the list of Russian artists who are“ millionaires ”. According to the version that was distributed in the hall, “Landscape with a stream” was removed because no one wanted to bargain for it ” ^[1] .

July 10 of the same year, The Guardian explained the reasons for what happened ^[4] . Shortly before the start of trading, it turned out that the signature was a fake. The painting was recognized as previously presented at the auction of the Swedish auction house Bukowskis. The year before, in May 2003, it was sold in Stockholm as a work of the Dutch painter Marinus Adrian Kukkuk the Elder ^[5] . Then, as the representative of Bukowskis, Anna-Karin Pusik, said, Swedish auctioneers were amazed that the starting price of a picture of a little-known artist was six times exceeded: $ 65 thousand instead of $ 9 thousand. ^[1] This means that the picture was then fought at the Swedish auction. more than one potential buyer who saw its criminal potential ^[6] .

According to Kommersant, in Sotheby`s, although they had some suspicions about the authenticity of the work, they decided to remove the picture from the auction only when “they were called by a person who saw with his own eyes a year ago how the canvas went to Bukowskis, and he did this is exactly half an hour before the start of trading ” ^[1] . The name of the caller remains unknown ^[7] .

The fake was returned to the person who put the picture up for auction ^[4] , its further fate remains unclear.

Picture

It is assumed that the year that passed between the Swedish and London auctions, the picture was spent in Russia, where cosmetic procedures were performed on it ^[7] (the so-called “ overlay ” ^[8] ).

When comparing reproductions from the Swedish auction and the London top lot, the following discrepancies were revealed: images of a lamb and people uncharacteristic for Shishkin were removed (3 on the forest path and 1 at the bridge ^[9] : a girl in a red dress and two men, one leaning on a stick ^[10] ), and the signature “ Schischkin 1863 ” was added - instead of “ MA Koekkoek ” ^[5] . The date, relating to the early period of Shishkin’s work, justified such atypical features for the Russian artist as “non-Shishkin fragmentation, excessive theatricality, the presence of uncharacteristic figures of man and cows in the background” ^[1] .

An article by Tatyana Markina, published in Kommersant after the lot was withdrawn from the auction, but even before it was exposed, described Shishkin’s artistic qualities as follows: “... both top lots turned out to be not“ rotten ”, but“ with a smell ”. (...) “Landscape with a stream” was withdrawn from bidding without explanation — the auction house has the right to do so, for example, if the owner changes his mind or the “unclean” origin of the painting becomes clear. In the case of Shishkin, the reason is rumored to be different: after all possible buyers looked at the picture “alive”, no one expressed a desire to buy it at the stated price. Exactly the same landscape can be bought at the auction of European painting of the XIX century in the section "Düsseldorf School", and five times cheaper. In 1862, when the painting was painted, the future “chronicler of the Russian forest” Shishkin had not yet learned how to mix the theatricality of the composition with the finer details in the right doses. Taken in the correct proportions, they will then give breadth, elation and epic, for which many Russians will love the artist, starting with Pavel Tretyakov ” ^[11] .

The same Markina in another article (also written before being exposed) describes the picture she saw at the pre-auction exhibition: “The picture contains all the“ signature ”tricks of Ivan Shishkin, which will later make him famous, powerful trees, meticulously prescribed flowers and stones at their roots, theatrically scattered spots of light and shadow. And with the epic and scenic even some sort of bust happened: the composition was too theatrically built. The path on the left and the creek on the right carry the eye deeper into the canvas, and because of this, a hefty elm that is in the middle almost falls out of the picture, trying to hit the viewer on the forehead. The cows in the distance were written with a deep sense of disgust - at that time Shishkin was just taking tedious lessons in drawing animals from the Swiss painter Rudolf Koller (by the way, Shishkin never learned to portray animals) ” ^[12] .

Expertise

The owner of the painting, which put it up for auction, remained unnamed: the auction house announced only that it was a London collector and a “well-known person”. The Guardian reports that the examination of the painting was organized by the owner of a small Moscow gallery, Borislav Shervinsky, who also refused to name the owner, but said that he was a bona fide buyer and has been living in London for 25 years ^[4] .

The work was provided with the expertise of the Tretyakov Gallery, about which the owner presented the relevant certificate to the auction. Gallery expert Galina Churak, who gave this expert opinion, insisted that the picture was changed ^[7] . She told Kommersant: “We studied this canvas together with Lidia Gladkova. A genuine Shishkin was brought to Moscow. What we saw gives us reason to say so. At what stage doubts arose and what picture was brought to London, I do not know. Although the picture presented in the catalog is similar to the one that we evaluated. In fact, such cases are not uncommon. Often after restoration of the canvas before its sale, such suspicions arise. However, Shishkin’s painting was in good condition ” ^[1] .

As the director of the Russian section of Sotheby`s Joanna Vickery later said, a repeated examination - a study of the artist's signature in ultraviolet rays, conducted by Sotheby`s, confirmed the authenticity of the work.

However, doubts did arise at Sotheby's: in Moscow, Vickery showed a reproduction in her catalog to specialists from the Grabar Scientific Restoration Center, and they expressed their negative opinion. Director of the Grabar Center Alexey Vladimirov commented to Kommersant: “We expressed our opinion to Sotheby`s representatives. We were firmly convinced that this was Western European painting, most likely German, which is more reminiscent of Shishkin’s teachers than of himself ” ^[1] .

Consequences

This story affected for the worse the reputation of the expertise from the Tretyakov Gallery. “Two papers began to be received on the paintings: from the State Tretyakov Gallery and the All-Russian Art Scientific and Restoration Center named after I. E. Grabar (VHNRTS). It turned out that this also does not save ” ^[7] .

Rossiyskaya Gazeta included this scandal in the list of 5 most famous fakes on the Russian art market of recent times ^[13] .