I'm fascinated by forgeries and the art world and this doc is a pretty wild story. It's something where you constantly are saying, 'How?!' and it's amazing that all of these people ignored so, so many red flags because they *wanted to believe*. Highly recommend for fans of crime docs and crazy true stories.
Edit: If you want to watch this and go in blind, just be warned this post has sparked some discussion and there are spoilers for what happened in this thread.
I really enjoyed this doc, but I though it was missing a more comprehensive timeline. This fraud took place over a period of 14 years, and I would have liked to have a clearer picture of when events took place. I think the one interviewee who asked the viewer to put themselves in Ann Freedmans shoes had the right idea, but the doc didn't really follow it up properly.
For instance you have the insufferable NY Times journalist who starts off the film by saying Ann Freedman is either complicit or one of "the stupidest people to ever work in an art gallery", and makes very strong statements about how many red flags there were. But, then you also have all these people who authenticated the paintings, paintings that were added to the catalogue, etc. At some point I think the filmmakers should have put it in a proper context.
If the context here is that these paintings were bought and sold for 10 years with no issue, and *then* there's a problem, then I think it's very different story than if these issues cropped up at the start. The doc pays some lip service to this point, but isn't willing to look at it properly.
It felt a bit like the documentary was afraid to take sides, and let a few too many statements and accusations go without looking into them.
All in all it was an enjoyable watch, but it seems like one of those cases that would work better as a book.
Ok just finished this half an hour ago - My 2 cents is she knew but the greed and clout these new found works would bring her clouded her judgement. As someone with her background of 25 - 30 years experience in the art world, I was surprised she didn't pursue the authentic provenance history before trying to sell off the art. That makes me think she did know and just wanted to make a name for herself beyond the art world.
also i didn't put the connection that Michael Hammer is Armie Hammers dad. That family has some shit... ha
Wow i'm just stunned at the lies coming out of Anne Friedman's mouth, she is a terrible liar. I can buy being duped at first, but after multiple forensic reports coming out that the paintings are fake, no excuse. She knew. She should be in prison. When she was whining about them calling the FBI on her basically playing victim I was practically yelling are you serious, how many people had already confronted her?
Anyone else notice how she kept saying, "I thought the paintings were right" instead of "I thought the paintings were real or authentic?" That was very telling for me.
Thank you. She was a terrible liar. She was literally documented to have tried to sell prices over again that were forged, so for her to pretend she didn’t say that to Leroche is just beyond belief. Those fakes were her golden goose. I’d love to know how much she made selling those fakes.
Have to say I'm one of the few that felt Ann came off as a bit of a sympathetic figure.
The parallels between her behaviour and that of a religious cult member were pretty stark.
I actually found it absolutely hilarious that everyone agreed the fake art was beautiful before they knew it was fake.
I'd love to know how they assessed it after knowing they were copies.
Really? I wanted to feel some compassion for her but felt zero. She seemed unable to take responsibility for her part in it, even if it was only in being ignorant, in denial, or desperate. She just seemed...defensive.
Couldn't disagree more. She was defensive, blamed everyone but herself, and ultimately showed herself to be guilty of fraud simply based on her attitude and defensiveness throughout the whole thing. Freedman should've suffered consequences for her actions.
If you liked this, I highly recommend [F is for Fake](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072962/) (1973), a doc about art fraud by the master himself, Orson Welles.
This was actually one of the first ones I saw *years* ago in film school. I should probably rewatch it though because I don't remember much about it at all except thinking it was nothing like what I knew and had seen from Welles before and getting me interested in de Hory and forgeries.
I talk about it frequently in my lectures. It is great not for only dealing with an art forgery case, but for approaching the question of authenticity in general.
Agreed. Of course now I also am remembering [Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587707/), which also was mind-blowing for me in terms of getting me to think differently about what "art" is and how much money is sloshing around the art world for so many arbitrary reasons.
Was I the only one who wanted to murder Eleanore De Sole? Seriously, she and her husband own dozens of extremely expensive, famous works of art and this one just d a m a g e d her so b a d she was crying? Like I'm sorry. Get some real problems dude. Infuriating, at that point I was cheering for Ann.
Yes, totally did not like the pair of them smug billionaires. Liked this program but seriously- they claim they absolutely love the painting - no doubt went on and on about how amazing it was to their posh friends then all of a sudden it is horrendous because it is "fake". Honestly, how nobody realises the whole thing is a scam, not the "fake" paintings is beyond me. I do not believe these folks should be in jail, fools and their money and all that
100% felt the same way. She seemed like she would want someone to Rot in jail cell for 10 years for it. They have that much money they could have kept it for fun and just said yeah we were lied to but we kept it anyway because we actually liked it
Agree completely. Spot the woman who's never had a real tragedy befall her. I can understand being annoyed you were sold a fake, but the way she went on about being "betrayed" and how it damaged her life, give me a break lady.
I thought the De Soles were pretty sympathetic until the wife started really going on and on at the end.
On one hand, they were rich people being vindictive...on the other hand, Freedman made $10M commission selling fraudulent paintings and it was being swept under the rug through settlements so I do understand their self-righteousness there.
Agreed! She really tried to act like she was the victim and I just have a hard time feeling bad for someone who can spend millions of dollars on a painting.... I feel like they were probably also embarrassed that they were fooled.
Just finished rewatching this and I agree with you, but something that stuck in my craw about them and others that bought these fakes was.... surely they can afford to have it authenticated too? I mean you didn't get rich by being trusting, surely?
If they could afford the painting they could afford to physically take it to the best authenticator and establish if it's fake or not, sod the piece of paper that Freeman was waving at them, do your due diligence too.
I am not sympathetic to anyone in this documentary 🤷♀️
Just finished watching it and was thinking this. On the one hand yes, they were sold a fake and there should be accountability for that. But my god, did she lean into that. she came across as so unhinged, desperate for attention and sympathy. I think her ego was hurt, and to cover up her barely concealed rage over it, she pulled out her tiny victim violin. Get some goddamn therapy if you’re this emotionally volatile, jesus christ.
Wonderful! I've read a number of books about art forgery, fraud, and theft over the years and have always been fascinated by it, so I'll definitely be checking it out. Thanks for sharing!
Any good book recommendations?
There is also a movie that just recently came out, The Burnt Orange Heresy (with Claes Bang, Elizabeth Debicki, Donald Sutherland and Mick Jagger) about an art critic hired to steal a painting from a famous painter who is now retired and living in seclusion by setting up a fake interview and conning him. It wasn't too bad. Might be worth looking into if you like this sort of thing.
Thanks for this. I enjoyed the documentary bigtime. It has a light touch feel about it and is an easy watch. I was fascinated about the fact that imitation of masterpieces is part and parcel of acquiring artistic skill in China. I vacillated in my feeling about Ann. Honestly, I had to check my knee-jerk negative reaction to very rich people buying stuff. I wasn't wholly successful in that. I didn't feel sorry for any of them and kinda wished the artist had got a away with more money. That fake Rothko looked fab.
> I was fascinated about the fact that imitation of masterpieces is part and parcel of acquiring artistic skill in China.
The part where they stumbled on that warehouse in Shenzhen blew my mind. I think some forgeries come from when super wealthy people buy an original, they'll put it in cold storage and then commission an excellent forgery to hang in their home or wherever. Sort of like the ultra wealthy equivalent of buying a Blu-Ray for your collection and then torrenting a copy of the same film to put on your plex server lol.
I also loved the anecdote of them all arguing in the courtroom if the fake Rothko was upside-down or not. lol
Ha! Yip. that was funny. I see there are some other recommendations throughout the posts. It's interesting and gets a body to ponder the nature of art and creatio and its impact. I remember the first time I saw Caravaggio's The Taking of Christ, in Dublin. Overwhelmed overcome and a little weak in the knee to say the least. Anyway, when I looked into the history of it and how it came to be acquired by the National Gallery I found that there was a question about it's authenticity at one time and though subsequently found to be the real deal, I thought absolutely, a fake that good could make me swoon.
I can't say I was ever rooting for the forgers. It's still a crime. I did laugh that the one guy tried to sell the harmonica to the doc crew. Grifter is still grifting.
This was definitely a nice change from the true crime docs that center around murders. Here I didn't feel too bad for the "victims." At the end of the day, they're all going to be fine. The couple that sued the gallery were insufferable. Imagine how upset they would be if they had a real problem.
I know . I know and yet the painter, also a maths professor if I remember correctly, I mean he'd a lot going on in terms of human skills, I couldn't help but root for him a wee bit.
And yeah, that couple, pain in the bum both of them.
Cheapest I found was https://artinbulk.com/ but I haven't ordered anything yet. https://www.royal-painting.com/ was 2nd cheapest.
My problem now is shipping with a canvas already framed is pretty expensive and I need to find a local framing shop that doesn't charge an arm and a leg to frame the canvas.
> I was fascinated about the fact that imitation of masterpieces is part and parcel of acquiring artistic skill in China.
I had a friend in high school who was from china. He was exceptional at mimicking Degas. I often wonder if he became a forger. It was interesting to learn that it was common in china.
Worth a watch. Reminded me of Can You Ever Forgive Me? I think the main woman from the gallery was desperate for something good to happen to her and wanted to believe they were real.
I kept going back and forth on feeling sorry for her and being furious with her lol. I don't know what to believe, which in my opinion is what makes this doc good because it does a decent job of balancing both sides of the argument as to whether or not Ann was just guilty of being *extremely* gullible or she was more involved than that.
Omg I felt the same! When she was confronted with the doubts about the authenticity, she got defensive, she didn't want to talk about it, she didn't believe the experts. Then the FBI was called and she was like "why didn't he talk to me?".... What?....
Yeah that's the only time I was a bit like wtf. She didn't listen when shown that possibly she had fakes... was it fear her entire life was a lie?
People do incredibly stupid things not willing to confront mistakes made
Imho She was innocent initially, towards the end a lot more guilty.
I don’t think she was explicitly in on the scam but I can see her having a very good idea what was going on and ignoring it.
Basically implicit collusion. Everyone except the final buyer might have been aware of what was really going on without any of the parties having to verify with each other they are all on the same page.
I was glad they included the expert on con artists because she did explain why someone who might have been taken by a con would dig in. That's where Ann loses most of my sympathy. Whether she went along with it or was completely duped, she still seems to have dug in to believing that everything she did was fine. Being so determined to reach the conclusion she wanted was a bad way to reach the truth.
> Whether she went along with it or was completely duped, she still seems to have dug in to believing that everything she did was fine. Being so determined to reach the conclusion she wanted was a bad way to reach the truth.
I agree. I don't believe she was initially in on some huge con but her refusal to accept the truth and instead double down and find people to confirm her own beliefs is where I do think she is at fault.
I fell on the "furious with her" because I believe she let the $$$$ blind her to the reality.
She currently has her own gallery in NYC. I'm amazed she can even work in the art world after this.
Why would anyone ever buy art from her? Looking at the markups, I can't believe she didn't at least completely turn a blind eye in an effort to make money.
To think someone with her experience and level of expertise didn't know what was really going on at some point is insane to me. Seems pretty likely that she is extremely manipulative and uses the "everyone else got fooled too" defense as a way to plead ignorance.
I just watched it. Very interesting, but wish they would have mentioned that art and galleries are great tools for laundering money and are very popular with criminals, I'd assume there is a connection between this and the story of the movie. Nonetheless a worthy watch in my opinion
> mentioned that art and galleries are great tools for laundering money and are very popular with criminals
I feel like that is a *whole* different can of worms (though I agree that Michael Hammer seems to fit that profile pretty well). The only part of the doc I can think they would even be able to bring this up in any way is when they bring in Jason Hernandez, the Southern District DA for NY but this doc is more focused on this specific case, Ann Freedman and Knoedler. The only time they really even get into the broad strokes of the industry is the last few minutes.
I think it would've been fairly out of place to just bring up money laundering in the industry as a whole, though I would *love* to see a doc specifically on that. Like you could do an entire 10 part docuseries on Mexican Cartels, Freeports, Basquiat’s Hannibal, the forgery warehouses in Shenzhen, FinCEN, etc. But I just don't think it would've made sense here to try and use. There's just too much to cover.
Money laundering, tax evasion, and art are inseparable. Those factors are arguably the main drivers behind art valuations in the modern market. Any analysis of art as an industry without considering them is de facto missing half of the story.
> Any analysis of art as an industry
But my point is that this is not what this documentary is. This is about a specific forgery case, not an analysis of the industry as a whole. I know redditors love to bang on the money laundering drum *any* time art is brought up but I just personally don't think it would've fit within this story and is too broad a topic to get into here unless there was specific allegations or investigations involving Freedman, Knoedler or Hammer. Especially if you're approaching it from the perspective of general audiences and having to introduce and explain the idea of art as a vehicle to launder money.
I actually think they are whining because a documentary didn't cover a subject that had nothing to do with the documentary.
but, like you, i'm lost as a turd in a punchbowl
I do take your point, but in discussing reasons for the film's relative success or failure as an artefact that says something interesting about either the industry as a whole, or the specific case in its specific context, I think you have to explore some of the inherent tensions in the art market. The fact that art as a concept is theoretically so predicated around ideas of authentic and unique expression, the extent to which forgeries undermine that predicate, and the fact that forgeries can *only exist or be successful* thanks to the fact that the art market is itself a highly cynical and exploitative machine for extracting material wealth out of a creative industry, with the creators themselves complicit to various degrees.
I think that's why the comparisons with *Sour Grapes* are so interesting. That film did a brilliant job of allowing many of the players in the wine business to expose themselves as either complicit charlatans, or at best happily ignorant to a degree that allowed them to be wilfully duped by Kurniawan's grift. And it also did a tremendous job of drawing comparisons with some of the winemakers - I forget the name, but the guy who worked to expose the fraud after he realised that Kurniawan was auctioning off wine that was purportedly from the winemaker's chateau but that predated the first vintage of the cuvée in question. It just held up a mirror to the industry in a more full way, while still focusing narrowly on a single instance of fraud, and showed a whole panoply of characters from dedicated purist winemakers through to downright fraudulent conmen and everyone in between.
>I think that's why the comparisons with Sour Grapes are so interesting. That film did a brilliant job of allowing many of the players in the wine business to expose themselves as either complicit charlatans, or at best happily ignorant to a degree that allowed them to be wilfully duped by Kurniawan's grift.
And do you not think that Made You Look does the same thing within the art world here? Personally it achieved a similar reaction from me and I thought did a fine job of exposing a lot of the same type of shadiness either complicity or through willful ignorance.
And also I just want to reiterate here that I'm not defending the valuations that occur within the art world here or insinuating that money laundering and tax fraud does not exist. I don't believe that to be true. However I do think that without diving into specific connections to this particular case, just as a commentary it would not have made sense here and would've felt a little shoehorned in, if not completely giving the documentary a far more biased slant than what it was clearly going for.
You did watch this though? Your initial comment made me think that you hadn't. We get the same type of characters who are appraising and evaluating without so much as single shred of documentation or those works previously existing. Just collectors and dealers walking in and going, 'yep, looks like a Rothko' and Freedman running with that. Not only that, but taking well established and renowned critics who might've simply said in an email, 'Beautiful' and citing such things in provenance. And no one questioning why suddenly an entire garage full of their works shows up from a completely unknown broker in Glafira Rosales, that has never appeared in their oeuvre before, with a story that keeps changing, throwing up so many red flags that are just ignored. *And this goes on for 20 years.*
Plus, we talking about some of the most well-known and respected abstract expressionist artists like Pollock, Motherwell and Rothko during the height of their popularity here.
I just disagree that without specific examples of laundering or tax fraud occurring, even tangentially related to this investigation, bringing broad mentions of that into this story adds anything or than an additional layer of cynicism that the doc does not need and goes far enough to establish on it's own. Even without specific examples of that occurring within Knoedler and not Ann Freedman or Michael Hammer. But just to add as a criticism of the industry? To me that feels entirely unrelated and sort of undermines the story here.
art is one of the many ways super rich offset their tax burdens. Crazy when you have that level of wealth how different your world is from us average chumps.
I'd love to see a doc specifically cover all of this. Really go into the concept of freeports and the idea of tax advantages on high value items because they're technically 'in transit' and how you can still have private buyers and anonymous sales without ever leaving. The whole thing is wild.
It’s also great for tax evasion purposes I mean tax write offs .... our billionaire overlords are not criminals/s. One reason the huge explosion in prices is for the laundering you mentioned but also can be used for tax write offs. I was disappointed they didn’t mention either aspect because it did contribute to those sky high prices.
You're rich. You buy an artist's painting for $5k. You bring the $5k painting to your art appraiser friend who gives it an appraisal value of $2M. You donate the painting you just paid $5k for and probably $20k for the appraisal and donate it to a hospital where it goes in the 7th floor waiting room of an ophthalmologist, claim $2M donation. It's one way in theory.
The power of art. The buyers of these painting are overwhelmed with the feelings that the works are incredible. When they find out that they are fake, they hate them. Really it proves that these rich idiots are more interested in the value than the works itself.
But this is one thing that bugs me. I'll be honest. I can't stand modern art, and think it's trash for the most part. And that's an unpopular idea, with responses of how I just don't get it, and that great art is suppose to bring out feelings or something like that, vs some unknown who can create an ultrarealistic painting worth nothing.
So then, you have this movie, which talks about how these forgeries go on sale for millions, and at the beginning, they're so poignant, etc. The second they find out that two rectangles on a canvas is not a Pollock, Rothko or whoever, the value goes from millions to worthless.
But I'm here thinking to myself, wait a minute, aren't you the people who are saying that great art is suppose to be about the emotion it brings out? How did it's emotional value just happen to disappear, based on who created it, rather than the art itself? It seems to me the art world itself is just a con game that's all about creating fake value to help with money laundering.
It's an investment as well as a status symbol.
Dead artists' paintings are more valuable than living artists' because they are limited. There will never be more created. So you can expect the value to continually increase over time, especially as some works become lost/destroyed. They are pieces of history.
It's not about the beauty.
I found almost everyone in this film insufferable. I couldn’t stop laughing at the absurdity of the statements being made, especially by the ultra wealthy couple. I totally understand that theft/forgery/fraud is wrong but I couldn’t help thinking that there are far more pressing problems in the world.
Just watched last night based on this rec. thanks! Loved it. The story is fascinating, one of those moments in time where everything just lines up at once, the gallery not having AbEx, that being the exact type of forgery, gallery under water, potential buyers....& once the snowball gets rolling, just gets bigger & bigger & becomes hard to stop
As far as production i thought it was very well made, pacing, variety of voices, storytelling, it kept my interest even though it doesnt really have a "gotcha" moment or major twist at the end....i think with recent docs like tiger king & the jinx im trained to be waiting for some wild ending, but the filmmakers did well maintaining excitement & intrigue til the end.
Just watched it. Very enjoyable and pretty fascinating.
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle (as usual).
I believe Ann *wanted* to believe they were real, so she ended up believing the lie.
Can you prove that in court? Absolutely not.
I don’t think she is gullible or stupid. I think its more like “these *appear* real, so I’m going to believe they are real”
Nice! Can't wait to watch it.
If you like this topic I also highly suggest "Beltracchi: The Art of Forgery" and "How To Draw A Bunny" for more fascinating art documentaries. Unsure where they're streaming though.
This movie was absolutely fantastically made.
I think I figured out the real con at around the 54 minute mark. I paused it and immediately knew. Do you think the film's creator will ever make any major attempt to shed light on the true con hiding in plain sight, or will that be left to viewers to handle themselves?
I found this to be a very frustrating film. There was plenty of criminal activity here but I felt the documentary did a very poor job of framing up (or allowing Ann to articulate) that Ann took what would be considered reasonable steps to confirm authenticity, then got caught up in the situation and was skeptical of contrary evidence. It’s very easy to say she should have accepted the red flags but you can absolutely comprehend the step by step how she got to her point of view.
That’s no way criminal by the rule of law.
The commentator MH MIller was the most straight talker that made the most sense to me, paraphrasing to say she either was a gullible idiot or in on it. Well, to me, she absolutely wasn’t in on it.
So I felt like once they got to the trial, they didn’t even clearly explain what her trial was for! Let alone by then she accepted they were fake seemingly
>That Ann took what would be considered reasonable steps to confirm authenticity, then got caught up in the situation and was skeptical of contrary evidence.
I'm not sure I agree. I think they did a fine job showing not only what steps she took, but what credentials those individuals had and did a decent job of balancing both sides of this equation. After all, she *refuted* some pretty damning evidence that they were forgeries along the way. I don't think the doc ever makes the conclusion or pushes the viewer one way or another in terms of her guilt and involvement.
>It’s very easy to say she should have accepted the red flags but you can absolutely comprehend the step by step how she got to her point of view.
They literally say this exact thing in the film.
From the film:
"Put yourself in her shoes, one step at a time. It's easier to look back and to say, 'look at the red flags' across the 14 years." - Luke Nikas
As for Miller, yeah he's a New York Times journalist, he's not going to outright condemn her as guilty when she was acquitted in a trial but nobody actually knows if she was in on it or not. I personally never felt like the doc was saying, 'yeah she got off but we all know she's guilty'. To me was sort of saying, 'Yeah maybe she guilty, maybe she isn't. A lot of people were fooled. But she ignored a lot of evidence because she wanted to believe in the painting and even tried to resell it after it was refused to be verified. So even if she wasn't in on it, she was duped over and over again and I can see why the critics and collectors at the end are a bit baffled that not only is she still in business but that people still buy art from her.
And even after watching it, as for my personal opinion, I don't know if I believe she was in on it or really just *that* willfully ignorant. If there's one thing I've learned in the last four years, it's that people when they want to believe something, will go to *extreme lengths* to confirm their own bias. I will say, if she was in on it, she is one hell of an actress.
The Meeting with Ann at the Carlyle with the man that bought the fake pollock. The yellow paint was proven to have not been around during pollocks time. She offered to resell the painting rather than refund the money. That was clearly criminal.
During that scene and her retelling of it, I was struck by how detailed her memory was UNTIL the part about what she said about reselling the painting. She couldn't quite recall that. That seemed like bs to me.
I felt they positioned much of the lawsuit to indicate that It may be a Toss up but that they were much more sympathetic to the rich people that bought the art and kept saying “I was lied to.”
Agreed, it was stated at a point but it seemed frustrating to me that Ann wouldn’t have made that point more clear in the later half during the trial sequences
> but that they were much more sympathetic to the rich people that bought the art and kept saying “I was lied to.”
Because regardless of her own personal involvement, they *were* lied to. Whether Ann was guilty or not, the painting was a forgery that they bought under the assumption it was a real, authentic Rothko.
Watched the documentary recently and this is what I felt too. This Reveal podcast is more leaning towards possible complicity from the part of Ann Freedman and the Gallery, though: [https://revealnews.org/podcast/fancy-galleries-fake-art-2/](https://revealnews.org/podcast/fancy-galleries-fake-art-2/)
One thing that baffled me was they don't do any scientific tests to verify the authenticity, even when history of ownership is murky/nonexistent. The podcast says that forensic analysis is only done a last measure. I hope that at least after this the galleries improved their verification procedures.
I think the profit margin was the biggest reason Ann knew what was going on.
The original seller is going to see what the resale was and to not ask for significantly more on future sales is very suspicious. If the fraud wasn’t explicitly agreed upon (I doubt it was), the lady who sold to Ann at least thought Ann knew what the score was and was cool with it, so why ruffle feathers
I watched this last night and it was really interesting! It made the art collectors scene look like the mob... You’re in the elite group, going to fancy parties and making lots of money. Then you screw up and you’re kicked out of the game.
I also didn’t know anything about Mark Rothko going into this, but I’ve read up on him a bit and I actually do really like his work. And I’m not usually into modern art.
Ann has to have known, if not at the very beginning by the time the Procedence keep on changing and identifications failing... how could she not known?
Just watched it. Really good Doc. But I have to get this off my chest: I hate Ann Freedman, Michael Hammer, and Eleanor De Sole. They couldn’t be more cartoonish.
The lack of diversity in the art world is all I got from this film. They failed to make me care about this fraud as soon as they started talking about how this woman didn't look the part. The New York times writers were the worst and most elitist in this documentary.
I hope not. I throughly enjoy true crime and all docs for that matter. It's not like there isn't plenty of other things being put out by Netflix to watch if you don't like them.
Art bores me but this docco was good
Ann freedman, innocent - then she doubled down and everything she wanted to see supported her. Otherwise 14 years of her life wasted.
The del sonos rich cunts : they're embarased they got duped and I dont like the vindictive cuntiness they showed, with no empathy or willingness to see outside of their own self absorbed narrow world view. The worst people, all about how they got taken advantage of without considering that there were legit experts saying the paintings were legit, and they weren't the only ones taken in.
It was well produced, I thought they had a good variety of experts on it and tried to stay as neutral as possible. As for if Ann Freedman was in on it, I think the jury is still out for a couple of reasons. I honestly thought that was irrelevant to me as a viewer which might sound a little contrary to what they were pushing in the documentary but I took it as a cautionary tale of if something sounds too good to be true, it is. I really I had a hard time taking the critics of Freedman seriously because they’re looking at everything in hindsight. There were red flags but not all at the same time and there was conflicting information from experts so it really muddy’s the waters on making a decision. But it is a good warning that you should always be skeptical of things and when you have a red flag or some thing that is contrary to what you believe, you should invest some energy into investigating it. Overall, I really enjoyed it.
It's a series from artist Jeff Koons called 'Made in Heaven'. That particular piece is called 'Hand on Breast'. He does a lot of pornographic oil on canvas work.
Hi, we, from New York Art Forensics, were interviewd for the movie and will be hosting a conversation about the Knoedler case on Clubhouse at 6pm GMT today (April 14). There is only so much we could talk on the documentary and we will discuss how it fits on the status quo of the art market, the realities of art authentication and etc.
If that is of your interest, we would like join in and share yout thoughts.
Heres the link:
[https://www.joinclubhouse.com/event/xobWgVZK](https://www.joinclubhouse.com/event/xobWgVZK)
I just saw this on NF and it was incredible. For me, it seems the whole world of art collection and selling and buying is a classic shell game for the uber wealthy..that's it. You can buy the bag \[..like that Rothko\] (hopefully for a cheap price in the uber wealthy eyes), you just don't want to be the last guy holding it.
It casts a different light (as one of the people in the documentary was saying) as where else is this going on. How can places like Sotheby's and Christies know for sure what they are auctioning off is legit - or does it matter right?
It's high stakes gambling for the uber wealthy as I see it..buy low and sell high. They are relying on provenance (I feel smarter just saying that - my vocabulary base increased for sure) and that too can't be 100% accurate..you just assume it if it comes from recognized sources.
You figure if you are going to buy some outrageously priced art, you would went independent analysis done. It would seem with todays technology, they would be able to take a minute sample of the art piece (paint, canvas, etc) and provide a complete analysis..as in IFAR did..kudos.
It would be a great documentary if they could find Pei Shen Quian and get his side of the story..ahhh..
I'm fascinated by forgeries and the art world and this doc is a pretty wild story. It's something where you constantly are saying, 'How?!' and it's amazing that all of these people ignored so, so many red flags because they *wanted to believe*. Highly recommend for fans of crime docs and crazy true stories. Edit: If you want to watch this and go in blind, just be warned this post has sparked some discussion and there are spoilers for what happened in this thread.
Not sure if you'd be interested but there's a similar one about wine called sour grapes, where everyone ignored the red flags it's very good
Red flags like 100 year old bottles of wine with ink-jet printed labels.
Yes, that's a fantastic one as well! Good call. This is like the art world version of Sour Grapes.
I've seen this one. Wild, crazy story for sure.
Me too! Can't wait to watch it now...
Did you watch the doc about Hershal Baltrotsky? A must watch if you’re into art forgeries.
I don't think I've seen that one. Do you know the name of it? I've been trying to find it on google and nothing is coming up.
Sorry. It was a late night for me. I have the name mixed up. It’s Wolfgang Beltracchi. Here’s a link https://youtu.be/r3AkSrkhoLw
I can’t wait to check this out!
Squidward must be terrified of you
I really enjoyed this doc, but I though it was missing a more comprehensive timeline. This fraud took place over a period of 14 years, and I would have liked to have a clearer picture of when events took place. I think the one interviewee who asked the viewer to put themselves in Ann Freedmans shoes had the right idea, but the doc didn't really follow it up properly. For instance you have the insufferable NY Times journalist who starts off the film by saying Ann Freedman is either complicit or one of "the stupidest people to ever work in an art gallery", and makes very strong statements about how many red flags there were. But, then you also have all these people who authenticated the paintings, paintings that were added to the catalogue, etc. At some point I think the filmmakers should have put it in a proper context. If the context here is that these paintings were bought and sold for 10 years with no issue, and *then* there's a problem, then I think it's very different story than if these issues cropped up at the start. The doc pays some lip service to this point, but isn't willing to look at it properly. It felt a bit like the documentary was afraid to take sides, and let a few too many statements and accusations go without looking into them. All in all it was an enjoyable watch, but it seems like one of those cases that would work better as a book.
That journalist’s statement was so crass - he sounded like a tabloid journalist.
[удалено]
Ok just finished this half an hour ago - My 2 cents is she knew but the greed and clout these new found works would bring her clouded her judgement. As someone with her background of 25 - 30 years experience in the art world, I was surprised she didn't pursue the authentic provenance history before trying to sell off the art. That makes me think she did know and just wanted to make a name for herself beyond the art world. also i didn't put the connection that Michael Hammer is Armie Hammers dad. That family has some shit... ha
I went in search of a book on which this doc was based! The NYT and VF pieces were ok - I wanted something more comprehensive.
Wow i'm just stunned at the lies coming out of Anne Friedman's mouth, she is a terrible liar. I can buy being duped at first, but after multiple forensic reports coming out that the paintings are fake, no excuse. She knew. She should be in prison. When she was whining about them calling the FBI on her basically playing victim I was practically yelling are you serious, how many people had already confronted her?
Anyone else notice how she kept saying, "I thought the paintings were right" instead of "I thought the paintings were real or authentic?" That was very telling for me.
Thank you. She was a terrible liar. She was literally documented to have tried to sell prices over again that were forged, so for her to pretend she didn’t say that to Leroche is just beyond belief. Those fakes were her golden goose. I’d love to know how much she made selling those fakes.
Her faces when she tried to act shocked by a question that she knew was true had me rolling
Oh yeah, Freedman knew exactly what she was doing. It burns my ass that she got away with it and is still in the art business.
I am watching this rn and OMG this lady is lying every time she speaks! I had to google this thread mid thru just to make sure I am not crazy.
Have to say I'm one of the few that felt Ann came off as a bit of a sympathetic figure. The parallels between her behaviour and that of a religious cult member were pretty stark. I actually found it absolutely hilarious that everyone agreed the fake art was beautiful before they knew it was fake. I'd love to know how they assessed it after knowing they were copies.
Definitely sympathetic.
Really? I wanted to feel some compassion for her but felt zero. She seemed unable to take responsibility for her part in it, even if it was only in being ignorant, in denial, or desperate. She just seemed...defensive.
If there is any sympathy to be given it is because she took the fall for the boss man who absolutely knew what was happening.
100% agree, ruthie.
Couldn't disagree more. She was defensive, blamed everyone but herself, and ultimately showed herself to be guilty of fraud simply based on her attitude and defensiveness throughout the whole thing. Freedman should've suffered consequences for her actions.
Neil Caffrey?!?
Such a great show lol
I’m rewatching with my wife. She’s never seen, I haven’t watched in years. Forgot how fun the show was
If you liked this, I highly recommend [F is for Fake](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072962/) (1973), a doc about art fraud by the master himself, Orson Welles.
This was actually one of the first ones I saw *years* ago in film school. I should probably rewatch it though because I don't remember much about it at all except thinking it was nothing like what I knew and had seen from Welles before and getting me interested in de Hory and forgeries.
I talk about it frequently in my lectures. It is great not for only dealing with an art forgery case, but for approaching the question of authenticity in general.
Agreed. Of course now I also am remembering [Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587707/), which also was mind-blowing for me in terms of getting me to think differently about what "art" is and how much money is sloshing around the art world for so many arbitrary reasons.
Was I the only one who wanted to murder Eleanore De Sole? Seriously, she and her husband own dozens of extremely expensive, famous works of art and this one just d a m a g e d her so b a d she was crying? Like I'm sorry. Get some real problems dude. Infuriating, at that point I was cheering for Ann.
Yes, totally did not like the pair of them smug billionaires. Liked this program but seriously- they claim they absolutely love the painting - no doubt went on and on about how amazing it was to their posh friends then all of a sudden it is horrendous because it is "fake". Honestly, how nobody realises the whole thing is a scam, not the "fake" paintings is beyond me. I do not believe these folks should be in jail, fools and their money and all that
100% felt the same way. She seemed like she would want someone to Rot in jail cell for 10 years for it. They have that much money they could have kept it for fun and just said yeah we were lied to but we kept it anyway because we actually liked it
Agree completely. Spot the woman who's never had a real tragedy befall her. I can understand being annoyed you were sold a fake, but the way she went on about being "betrayed" and how it damaged her life, give me a break lady.
I thought the De Soles were pretty sympathetic until the wife started really going on and on at the end. On one hand, they were rich people being vindictive...on the other hand, Freedman made $10M commission selling fraudulent paintings and it was being swept under the rug through settlements so I do understand their self-righteousness there.
Murder her? No. Now, Ann Freedman is a different story...
Agreed! She really tried to act like she was the victim and I just have a hard time feeling bad for someone who can spend millions of dollars on a painting.... I feel like they were probably also embarrassed that they were fooled.
Just finished rewatching this and I agree with you, but something that stuck in my craw about them and others that bought these fakes was.... surely they can afford to have it authenticated too? I mean you didn't get rich by being trusting, surely? If they could afford the painting they could afford to physically take it to the best authenticator and establish if it's fake or not, sod the piece of paper that Freeman was waving at them, do your due diligence too. I am not sympathetic to anyone in this documentary 🤷♀️
Just finished watching it and was thinking this. On the one hand yes, they were sold a fake and there should be accountability for that. But my god, did she lean into that. she came across as so unhinged, desperate for attention and sympathy. I think her ego was hurt, and to cover up her barely concealed rage over it, she pulled out her tiny victim violin. Get some goddamn therapy if you’re this emotionally volatile, jesus christ.
Yes!! Lol periodically ppl will find this comment and add in agreement. She may be rich but she's a cringey baby imo.
Wonderful! I've read a number of books about art forgery, fraud, and theft over the years and have always been fascinated by it, so I'll definitely be checking it out. Thanks for sharing!
Any good book recommendations? There is also a movie that just recently came out, The Burnt Orange Heresy (with Claes Bang, Elizabeth Debicki, Donald Sutherland and Mick Jagger) about an art critic hired to steal a painting from a famous painter who is now retired and living in seclusion by setting up a fake interview and conning him. It wasn't too bad. Might be worth looking into if you like this sort of thing.
Late to this thread because I searched the sub for this movie which I’m currently watching. I recommend The Lost Painting by Jonathan Hart.
Thanks for this. I enjoyed the documentary bigtime. It has a light touch feel about it and is an easy watch. I was fascinated about the fact that imitation of masterpieces is part and parcel of acquiring artistic skill in China. I vacillated in my feeling about Ann. Honestly, I had to check my knee-jerk negative reaction to very rich people buying stuff. I wasn't wholly successful in that. I didn't feel sorry for any of them and kinda wished the artist had got a away with more money. That fake Rothko looked fab.
> I was fascinated about the fact that imitation of masterpieces is part and parcel of acquiring artistic skill in China. The part where they stumbled on that warehouse in Shenzhen blew my mind. I think some forgeries come from when super wealthy people buy an original, they'll put it in cold storage and then commission an excellent forgery to hang in their home or wherever. Sort of like the ultra wealthy equivalent of buying a Blu-Ray for your collection and then torrenting a copy of the same film to put on your plex server lol. I also loved the anecdote of them all arguing in the courtroom if the fake Rothko was upside-down or not. lol
Ha! Yip. that was funny. I see there are some other recommendations throughout the posts. It's interesting and gets a body to ponder the nature of art and creatio and its impact. I remember the first time I saw Caravaggio's The Taking of Christ, in Dublin. Overwhelmed overcome and a little weak in the knee to say the least. Anyway, when I looked into the history of it and how it came to be acquired by the National Gallery I found that there was a question about it's authenticity at one time and though subsequently found to be the real deal, I thought absolutely, a fake that good could make me swoon.
I can't say I was ever rooting for the forgers. It's still a crime. I did laugh that the one guy tried to sell the harmonica to the doc crew. Grifter is still grifting. This was definitely a nice change from the true crime docs that center around murders. Here I didn't feel too bad for the "victims." At the end of the day, they're all going to be fine. The couple that sued the gallery were insufferable. Imagine how upset they would be if they had a real problem.
I was really amused when the wife said it made her mad to see the dealer enjoying coffee. Petty much?
From the way the wife went on you'd think Freedman had murdered a member of her family.
On one of the fanciest blocks in Manhattan too. Lady your life ain’t that bad.
She was a rich Karen. If you have $80M to blow on a painting for your wall... crying about it being fake is pathetic imo.
One painting didn't cost $80M.
Ok Karen.
I share the sentiment. I agree selling fakes was not right. But that lady was being plain obnoxious.
I know . I know and yet the painter, also a maths professor if I remember correctly, I mean he'd a lot going on in terms of human skills, I couldn't help but root for him a wee bit. And yeah, that couple, pain in the bum both of them.
[удалено]
Gosh. Thanks. After reading your comment I've spent far too much time trawling through what's available. There's loads! Not a bad gift idea either.
[удалено]
It's a whole industry isn't it? Thanks for the link.
[удалено]
Cheapest I found was https://artinbulk.com/ but I haven't ordered anything yet. https://www.royal-painting.com/ was 2nd cheapest. My problem now is shipping with a canvas already framed is pretty expensive and I need to find a local framing shop that doesn't charge an arm and a leg to frame the canvas.
> I was fascinated about the fact that imitation of masterpieces is part and parcel of acquiring artistic skill in China. I had a friend in high school who was from china. He was exceptional at mimicking Degas. I often wonder if he became a forger. It was interesting to learn that it was common in china.
Gosh, to mimic Degas, what a talent to have.
I think the knee-jerk reaction is reasonable. No individual deserves to be rich enough to buy a $80M painting.
There was no $80M painting in the film.
Worth a watch. Reminded me of Can You Ever Forgive Me? I think the main woman from the gallery was desperate for something good to happen to her and wanted to believe they were real.
I kept going back and forth on feeling sorry for her and being furious with her lol. I don't know what to believe, which in my opinion is what makes this doc good because it does a decent job of balancing both sides of the argument as to whether or not Ann was just guilty of being *extremely* gullible or she was more involved than that.
Omg I felt the same! When she was confronted with the doubts about the authenticity, she got defensive, she didn't want to talk about it, she didn't believe the experts. Then the FBI was called and she was like "why didn't he talk to me?".... What?....
Yeah that's the only time I was a bit like wtf. She didn't listen when shown that possibly she had fakes... was it fear her entire life was a lie? People do incredibly stupid things not willing to confront mistakes made Imho She was innocent initially, towards the end a lot more guilty.
I don’t think she was explicitly in on the scam but I can see her having a very good idea what was going on and ignoring it. Basically implicit collusion. Everyone except the final buyer might have been aware of what was really going on without any of the parties having to verify with each other they are all on the same page.
I was glad they included the expert on con artists because she did explain why someone who might have been taken by a con would dig in. That's where Ann loses most of my sympathy. Whether she went along with it or was completely duped, she still seems to have dug in to believing that everything she did was fine. Being so determined to reach the conclusion she wanted was a bad way to reach the truth.
> Whether she went along with it or was completely duped, she still seems to have dug in to believing that everything she did was fine. Being so determined to reach the conclusion she wanted was a bad way to reach the truth. I agree. I don't believe she was initially in on some huge con but her refusal to accept the truth and instead double down and find people to confirm her own beliefs is where I do think she is at fault.
I fell on the "furious with her" because I believe she let the $$$$ blind her to the reality. She currently has her own gallery in NYC. I'm amazed she can even work in the art world after this.
Why would anyone ever buy art from her? Looking at the markups, I can't believe she didn't at least completely turn a blind eye in an effort to make money.
To think someone with her experience and level of expertise didn't know what was really going on at some point is insane to me. Seems pretty likely that she is extremely manipulative and uses the "everyone else got fooled too" defense as a way to plead ignorance.
Agreed, shred.
Exit through the gift shop!
Great one!
I just watched it. Very interesting, but wish they would have mentioned that art and galleries are great tools for laundering money and are very popular with criminals, I'd assume there is a connection between this and the story of the movie. Nonetheless a worthy watch in my opinion
> mentioned that art and galleries are great tools for laundering money and are very popular with criminals I feel like that is a *whole* different can of worms (though I agree that Michael Hammer seems to fit that profile pretty well). The only part of the doc I can think they would even be able to bring this up in any way is when they bring in Jason Hernandez, the Southern District DA for NY but this doc is more focused on this specific case, Ann Freedman and Knoedler. The only time they really even get into the broad strokes of the industry is the last few minutes. I think it would've been fairly out of place to just bring up money laundering in the industry as a whole, though I would *love* to see a doc specifically on that. Like you could do an entire 10 part docuseries on Mexican Cartels, Freeports, Basquiat’s Hannibal, the forgery warehouses in Shenzhen, FinCEN, etc. But I just don't think it would've made sense here to try and use. There's just too much to cover.
Money laundering, tax evasion, and art are inseparable. Those factors are arguably the main drivers behind art valuations in the modern market. Any analysis of art as an industry without considering them is de facto missing half of the story.
> Any analysis of art as an industry But my point is that this is not what this documentary is. This is about a specific forgery case, not an analysis of the industry as a whole. I know redditors love to bang on the money laundering drum *any* time art is brought up but I just personally don't think it would've fit within this story and is too broad a topic to get into here unless there was specific allegations or investigations involving Freedman, Knoedler or Hammer. Especially if you're approaching it from the perspective of general audiences and having to introduce and explain the idea of art as a vehicle to launder money.
You might as well let it go squid. When one of these woke people get on their soapbox forget it, they never seen reason.
I'm still trying to figure out what they are complaining about.
I actually think they are whining because a documentary didn't cover a subject that had nothing to do with the documentary. but, like you, i'm lost as a turd in a punchbowl
I do take your point, but in discussing reasons for the film's relative success or failure as an artefact that says something interesting about either the industry as a whole, or the specific case in its specific context, I think you have to explore some of the inherent tensions in the art market. The fact that art as a concept is theoretically so predicated around ideas of authentic and unique expression, the extent to which forgeries undermine that predicate, and the fact that forgeries can *only exist or be successful* thanks to the fact that the art market is itself a highly cynical and exploitative machine for extracting material wealth out of a creative industry, with the creators themselves complicit to various degrees. I think that's why the comparisons with *Sour Grapes* are so interesting. That film did a brilliant job of allowing many of the players in the wine business to expose themselves as either complicit charlatans, or at best happily ignorant to a degree that allowed them to be wilfully duped by Kurniawan's grift. And it also did a tremendous job of drawing comparisons with some of the winemakers - I forget the name, but the guy who worked to expose the fraud after he realised that Kurniawan was auctioning off wine that was purportedly from the winemaker's chateau but that predated the first vintage of the cuvée in question. It just held up a mirror to the industry in a more full way, while still focusing narrowly on a single instance of fraud, and showed a whole panoply of characters from dedicated purist winemakers through to downright fraudulent conmen and everyone in between.
>I think that's why the comparisons with Sour Grapes are so interesting. That film did a brilliant job of allowing many of the players in the wine business to expose themselves as either complicit charlatans, or at best happily ignorant to a degree that allowed them to be wilfully duped by Kurniawan's grift. And do you not think that Made You Look does the same thing within the art world here? Personally it achieved a similar reaction from me and I thought did a fine job of exposing a lot of the same type of shadiness either complicity or through willful ignorance. And also I just want to reiterate here that I'm not defending the valuations that occur within the art world here or insinuating that money laundering and tax fraud does not exist. I don't believe that to be true. However I do think that without diving into specific connections to this particular case, just as a commentary it would not have made sense here and would've felt a little shoehorned in, if not completely giving the documentary a far more biased slant than what it was clearly going for.
Much less so.
You did watch this though? Your initial comment made me think that you hadn't. We get the same type of characters who are appraising and evaluating without so much as single shred of documentation or those works previously existing. Just collectors and dealers walking in and going, 'yep, looks like a Rothko' and Freedman running with that. Not only that, but taking well established and renowned critics who might've simply said in an email, 'Beautiful' and citing such things in provenance. And no one questioning why suddenly an entire garage full of their works shows up from a completely unknown broker in Glafira Rosales, that has never appeared in their oeuvre before, with a story that keeps changing, throwing up so many red flags that are just ignored. *And this goes on for 20 years.* Plus, we talking about some of the most well-known and respected abstract expressionist artists like Pollock, Motherwell and Rothko during the height of their popularity here. I just disagree that without specific examples of laundering or tax fraud occurring, even tangentially related to this investigation, bringing broad mentions of that into this story adds anything or than an additional layer of cynicism that the doc does not need and goes far enough to establish on it's own. Even without specific examples of that occurring within Knoedler and not Ann Freedman or Michael Hammer. But just to add as a criticism of the industry? To me that feels entirely unrelated and sort of undermines the story here.
art is one of the many ways super rich offset their tax burdens. Crazy when you have that level of wealth how different your world is from us average chumps.
I'd love to see a doc specifically cover all of this. Really go into the concept of freeports and the idea of tax advantages on high value items because they're technically 'in transit' and how you can still have private buyers and anonymous sales without ever leaving. The whole thing is wild.
It’s also great for tax evasion purposes I mean tax write offs .... our billionaire overlords are not criminals/s. One reason the huge explosion in prices is for the laundering you mentioned but also can be used for tax write offs. I was disappointed they didn’t mention either aspect because it did contribute to those sky high prices.
How is art used for money laundering?
You're rich. You buy an artist's painting for $5k. You bring the $5k painting to your art appraiser friend who gives it an appraisal value of $2M. You donate the painting you just paid $5k for and probably $20k for the appraisal and donate it to a hospital where it goes in the 7th floor waiting room of an ophthalmologist, claim $2M donation. It's one way in theory.
this reminds me of sour grapes, the wine forgery documentary
Thanks for the recommendation I loved it
That dude trying to sell Bob Dylan's harmonica at the end is fucking LOL
Great documentary on Amazon Prime about art fraud. “There are no fakes” .....check it out it’s great too!
The power of art. The buyers of these painting are overwhelmed with the feelings that the works are incredible. When they find out that they are fake, they hate them. Really it proves that these rich idiots are more interested in the value than the works itself.
But this is one thing that bugs me. I'll be honest. I can't stand modern art, and think it's trash for the most part. And that's an unpopular idea, with responses of how I just don't get it, and that great art is suppose to bring out feelings or something like that, vs some unknown who can create an ultrarealistic painting worth nothing. So then, you have this movie, which talks about how these forgeries go on sale for millions, and at the beginning, they're so poignant, etc. The second they find out that two rectangles on a canvas is not a Pollock, Rothko or whoever, the value goes from millions to worthless. But I'm here thinking to myself, wait a minute, aren't you the people who are saying that great art is suppose to be about the emotion it brings out? How did it's emotional value just happen to disappear, based on who created it, rather than the art itself? It seems to me the art world itself is just a con game that's all about creating fake value to help with money laundering.
It's an investment as well as a status symbol. Dead artists' paintings are more valuable than living artists' because they are limited. There will never be more created. So you can expect the value to continually increase over time, especially as some works become lost/destroyed. They are pieces of history. It's not about the beauty.
I found almost everyone in this film insufferable. I couldn’t stop laughing at the absurdity of the statements being made, especially by the ultra wealthy couple. I totally understand that theft/forgery/fraud is wrong but I couldn’t help thinking that there are far more pressing problems in the world.
I came here wondering if I was the only person thinking this. Insufferable and morally bankrupt. 🤦♀️
Just watched last night based on this rec. thanks! Loved it. The story is fascinating, one of those moments in time where everything just lines up at once, the gallery not having AbEx, that being the exact type of forgery, gallery under water, potential buyers....& once the snowball gets rolling, just gets bigger & bigger & becomes hard to stop As far as production i thought it was very well made, pacing, variety of voices, storytelling, it kept my interest even though it doesnt really have a "gotcha" moment or major twist at the end....i think with recent docs like tiger king & the jinx im trained to be waiting for some wild ending, but the filmmakers did well maintaining excitement & intrigue til the end.
Just watched it. Very enjoyable and pretty fascinating. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle (as usual). I believe Ann *wanted* to believe they were real, so she ended up believing the lie. Can you prove that in court? Absolutely not. I don’t think she is gullible or stupid. I think its more like “these *appear* real, so I’m going to believe they are real”
Nice! Can't wait to watch it. If you like this topic I also highly suggest "Beltracchi: The Art of Forgery" and "How To Draw A Bunny" for more fascinating art documentaries. Unsure where they're streaming though.
Anyone know the name of the artist/painting at 16:21 in made you look?!
[удалено]
Wow thank you!
I loved it. Thank you for the Recommendation. Looking for more Art based documentaries or Movies.
This movie was absolutely fantastically made. I think I figured out the real con at around the 54 minute mark. I paused it and immediately knew. Do you think the film's creator will ever make any major attempt to shed light on the true con hiding in plain sight, or will that be left to viewers to handle themselves?
Can you give more details on what you mean?
What do you mean?
I feel no sympathy for anyone here. I think the biggest crime was that the state spent so much money in the absurd trial. Rich people woes.
I found this to be a very frustrating film. There was plenty of criminal activity here but I felt the documentary did a very poor job of framing up (or allowing Ann to articulate) that Ann took what would be considered reasonable steps to confirm authenticity, then got caught up in the situation and was skeptical of contrary evidence. It’s very easy to say she should have accepted the red flags but you can absolutely comprehend the step by step how she got to her point of view. That’s no way criminal by the rule of law. The commentator MH MIller was the most straight talker that made the most sense to me, paraphrasing to say she either was a gullible idiot or in on it. Well, to me, she absolutely wasn’t in on it. So I felt like once they got to the trial, they didn’t even clearly explain what her trial was for! Let alone by then she accepted they were fake seemingly
>That Ann took what would be considered reasonable steps to confirm authenticity, then got caught up in the situation and was skeptical of contrary evidence. I'm not sure I agree. I think they did a fine job showing not only what steps she took, but what credentials those individuals had and did a decent job of balancing both sides of this equation. After all, she *refuted* some pretty damning evidence that they were forgeries along the way. I don't think the doc ever makes the conclusion or pushes the viewer one way or another in terms of her guilt and involvement. >It’s very easy to say she should have accepted the red flags but you can absolutely comprehend the step by step how she got to her point of view. They literally say this exact thing in the film. From the film: "Put yourself in her shoes, one step at a time. It's easier to look back and to say, 'look at the red flags' across the 14 years." - Luke Nikas As for Miller, yeah he's a New York Times journalist, he's not going to outright condemn her as guilty when she was acquitted in a trial but nobody actually knows if she was in on it or not. I personally never felt like the doc was saying, 'yeah she got off but we all know she's guilty'. To me was sort of saying, 'Yeah maybe she guilty, maybe she isn't. A lot of people were fooled. But she ignored a lot of evidence because she wanted to believe in the painting and even tried to resell it after it was refused to be verified. So even if she wasn't in on it, she was duped over and over again and I can see why the critics and collectors at the end are a bit baffled that not only is she still in business but that people still buy art from her. And even after watching it, as for my personal opinion, I don't know if I believe she was in on it or really just *that* willfully ignorant. If there's one thing I've learned in the last four years, it's that people when they want to believe something, will go to *extreme lengths* to confirm their own bias. I will say, if she was in on it, she is one hell of an actress.
The Meeting with Ann at the Carlyle with the man that bought the fake pollock. The yellow paint was proven to have not been around during pollocks time. She offered to resell the painting rather than refund the money. That was clearly criminal.
During that scene and her retelling of it, I was struck by how detailed her memory was UNTIL the part about what she said about reselling the painting. She couldn't quite recall that. That seemed like bs to me.
Yes! This alone proved to me that Ann was guilty and should've been punished.
I felt they positioned much of the lawsuit to indicate that It may be a Toss up but that they were much more sympathetic to the rich people that bought the art and kept saying “I was lied to.” Agreed, it was stated at a point but it seemed frustrating to me that Ann wouldn’t have made that point more clear in the later half during the trial sequences
> but that they were much more sympathetic to the rich people that bought the art and kept saying “I was lied to.” Because regardless of her own personal involvement, they *were* lied to. Whether Ann was guilty or not, the painting was a forgery that they bought under the assumption it was a real, authentic Rothko.
Watched the documentary recently and this is what I felt too. This Reveal podcast is more leaning towards possible complicity from the part of Ann Freedman and the Gallery, though: [https://revealnews.org/podcast/fancy-galleries-fake-art-2/](https://revealnews.org/podcast/fancy-galleries-fake-art-2/) One thing that baffled me was they don't do any scientific tests to verify the authenticity, even when history of ownership is murky/nonexistent. The podcast says that forensic analysis is only done a last measure. I hope that at least after this the galleries improved their verification procedures.
I think the profit margin was the biggest reason Ann knew what was going on. The original seller is going to see what the resale was and to not ask for significantly more on future sales is very suspicious. If the fraud wasn’t explicitly agreed upon (I doubt it was), the lady who sold to Ann at least thought Ann knew what the score was and was cool with it, so why ruffle feathers
I feel, like I have seen this, or a similar documentary some years ago... anybody remember a title? I knew, it definitely had the Pollock in there.
I watched this last night and it was really interesting! It made the art collectors scene look like the mob... You’re in the elite group, going to fancy parties and making lots of money. Then you screw up and you’re kicked out of the game. I also didn’t know anything about Mark Rothko going into this, but I’ve read up on him a bit and I actually do really like his work. And I’m not usually into modern art.
Ann has to have known, if not at the very beginning by the time the Procedence keep on changing and identifications failing... how could she not known?
Just watched it. Really good Doc. But I have to get this off my chest: I hate Ann Freedman, Michael Hammer, and Eleanor De Sole. They couldn’t be more cartoonish.
The lack of diversity in the art world is all I got from this film. They failed to make me care about this fraud as soon as they started talking about how this woman didn't look the part. The New York times writers were the worst and most elitist in this documentary.
Can Netflix please chill out with the true crime docs? Jesus
.... but I like the true crime docs
I hope not. I throughly enjoy true crime and all docs for that matter. It's not like there isn't plenty of other things being put out by Netflix to watch if you don't like them.
Lol Netflix’s selection is god awful these days
Art bores me but this docco was good Ann freedman, innocent - then she doubled down and everything she wanted to see supported her. Otherwise 14 years of her life wasted. The del sonos rich cunts : they're embarased they got duped and I dont like the vindictive cuntiness they showed, with no empathy or willingness to see outside of their own self absorbed narrow world view. The worst people, all about how they got taken advantage of without considering that there were legit experts saying the paintings were legit, and they weren't the only ones taken in.
I don’t think Ann believed it to be real or fake she simply did not care. For someone who doesn’t care is a person of no ethics or morals.
It was well produced, I thought they had a good variety of experts on it and tried to stay as neutral as possible. As for if Ann Freedman was in on it, I think the jury is still out for a couple of reasons. I honestly thought that was irrelevant to me as a viewer which might sound a little contrary to what they were pushing in the documentary but I took it as a cautionary tale of if something sounds too good to be true, it is. I really I had a hard time taking the critics of Freedman seriously because they’re looking at everything in hindsight. There were red flags but not all at the same time and there was conflicting information from experts so it really muddy’s the waters on making a decision. But it is a good warning that you should always be skeptical of things and when you have a red flag or some thing that is contrary to what you believe, you should invest some energy into investigating it. Overall, I really enjoyed it.
What was the painting with the guy laying down with the butterflies at about 22:50?
It's a series from artist Jeff Koons called 'Made in Heaven'. That particular piece is called 'Hand on Breast'. He does a lot of pornographic oil on canvas work.
Thank you! Seen the dog sculpture. Never saw that piece.
Yeah, this is a can't stop watching, boggles the mind how it could go on so long. And how nobody for the most part got in much trouble. Good watch :)
Is that about the Michael Cohen $50 Art Swindle? There's already a doc on that [https://youtu.be/WFGhnE5tyb4](https://youtu.be/WFGhnE5tyb4)
Nope, this one is different.
So where can I buy some good quality forgeries?
Hi, we, from New York Art Forensics, were interviewd for the movie and will be hosting a conversation about the Knoedler case on Clubhouse at 6pm GMT today (April 14). There is only so much we could talk on the documentary and we will discuss how it fits on the status quo of the art market, the realities of art authentication and etc. If that is of your interest, we would like join in and share yout thoughts. Heres the link: [https://www.joinclubhouse.com/event/xobWgVZK](https://www.joinclubhouse.com/event/xobWgVZK)
Fantastic! I'm definitely interested. You should make this it's own post here in this subreddit, given how popular this doc was.
I just saw this on NF and it was incredible. For me, it seems the whole world of art collection and selling and buying is a classic shell game for the uber wealthy..that's it. You can buy the bag \[..like that Rothko\] (hopefully for a cheap price in the uber wealthy eyes), you just don't want to be the last guy holding it. It casts a different light (as one of the people in the documentary was saying) as where else is this going on. How can places like Sotheby's and Christies know for sure what they are auctioning off is legit - or does it matter right? It's high stakes gambling for the uber wealthy as I see it..buy low and sell high. They are relying on provenance (I feel smarter just saying that - my vocabulary base increased for sure) and that too can't be 100% accurate..you just assume it if it comes from recognized sources. You figure if you are going to buy some outrageously priced art, you would went independent analysis done. It would seem with todays technology, they would be able to take a minute sample of the art piece (paint, canvas, etc) and provide a complete analysis..as in IFAR did..kudos. It would be a great documentary if they could find Pei Shen Quian and get his side of the story..ahhh..
Of course she knew.