The Rise of Art Fraud: Exploring Recent Scandals in the Art World | MyArtBroker

There is an art market precedence for artists “monkeying around” with the dating of their work. Two examples which come to mind are Sam Francis and Mel Ramos. In 1987, a Los Angeles gallery inaugurated their new space with a show of paintings by Sam Francis. Having viewed the show myself, I can confirm that it was both attractive and well-received. However, it later came out that some of the paintings from his Blue Balls series (among others) were dated from the mid-1960s – but they had been recently executed by Francis.

The upshot of this revelation proved complicated. When one of these paintings turned up in a Sotheby’s catalog, the auction house went with the vintage dating. But as the controversy grew, the auction house began to assign a much broader range (circa 1960s-1980s). No one questioned the authenticity of the pictures and the fact that they were painted by Sam Francis. Rather, it was about financial considerations. A vintage painting by a major artist is worth far more than a recent example from the same body of work.

Just like Sam Francis, no one is questioning that Damien Hirst fabricated these three “shark sculptures.” But by backdating them he intentionally sought to boost their value. There are also concerns about what the gallery knew or whether they too had been kept in the dark. When Hirst was caught in the act, his corporate entity, Science Ltd., quickly tried to spin it. They issued a statement claiming his “Formaldehyde works are conceptual art works…” They concluded that since Hirst “conceived” the pieces during the 1990s, he had every right to date them from this period. But it was all a bunch of malarkey aimed at damage control.

At least when the Pop artist Mel Ramos released a fresh body of work, titled The Lost Paintings Of 1965, he admitted that the paintings were brand new – and were based on his sketches from 1965 (but never executed as paintings then). In this case, Mel let the buyer decide whether there was value added from the “conceptual dating” of the work – even though they were still priced as recent paintings.

What happened with Damien Hirst probably won’t affect his overall market. But it does call into question his integrity as an artist. You wonder why, given his alleged vast wealth, he felt the need to misdate these works and risk his artistic reputation. Hirst’s ploy also reflects the world we currently live in, which has become a maelstrom of lying, denial, and misinformation. Perhaps there is some truth to the saying that art reflects its times.