Issues Raised by the Warhol Authentication Lawsuit

Exhibit C: The Reverse of the Disputed Warhol
I’m in no position to judge the merits of the case filed against the Andy Warhol Foundation, Estate and Authentication Board over the board’s rejection of the authenticity of a painting bearing the image of a famous Warhol self-portrait (the one used on a U.S. postage stamp). All I know is what I’ve read in the “Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand,” 07-cv-6423, filed on Friday in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, by the owner of the disputed work, film writer and producer Joe Simon-Whelan.
The other side has yet to file its response to Simon-Whelan’s elaborate conspiracy theory about market manipulation, which also alleges that the authentication board possessed insufficient expertise to make reliable determinations. Its members included two respected artworld heavyweights, the late Robert Rosenblum and the late David Whitney.
What I CAN say is that the case raises important questions about the conflicts of interest inherent in the not uncommon situation of an artist’s estate that is, on the one hand, active in marketing its own holdings of the deceased artist’s works and, on the other hand, engaged in the market-influencing role of deciding which works held by other owners can or cannot be deemed authentic.
The situation in this case is even more problematic, due to the Warhol board’s defacement of the rejected work with two stamps (above) that bled to the front of the painting. According to the board’s own letter of agreement that is signed by owners seeking its opinion:
Information may be received which causes the Authentication Board to doubt or to change the opinion, if any, expressed by it.
Indeed, it is not uncommon for expert opinion to change over the years. While the board’s letter explaining its rejection gives many convincing reasons for its determination, the arguments presented by Simon-Whelan in his complaint at least raise the possibility that reasonable experts might disagree. Even if the prevailing opinion eventually changes, the work and its market value may be indelibly compromised by “Denied.” Simon-Whelan alleges that representatives of the estate had themselves twice previously deemed the painting to be authentic.
Would-be legal eagles can now find the entire complaint and exhibits online, using the U.S. Court’s PACER system, with which you must first register.