A Rebuttal to the Dali Detectives:

"Authenticating the Signature of the Artist by his Work"

Background

In a recent qualification to his process of authentication, it was stated by Mr. B, the self-proclaimed "Dali Detective" or "Dali Artpro" that his process of authenticating artist signatures involves first authenticating the whole work and from that point authenticating the signature (Ewell, 2010). In point, he seems to be stating that if the work is authentic it follows that the signature is authentic. It is unclear as to how the process works. Suffice to say this qualification falls short of history, theory, logic, practice, rules of evidence, and scholarship regarding the ascertainment of authentic artist signatures.

History

The history of art is such that until the 1850s applying one's signature to a work was the exception rather than the norm. Artists as artisans considered what they did for a patron as a job and hence no need to sign off on the work they performed. After the 1850s the purchasing of art and perhaps the influence of forgery laws resulted in signature application becoming the norm as patrons wanted proof that their art was from the hand of the master (Briefel, 2006). Thus from the 19th century on, signature application became a requirement in ascertaining a work's authenticity. Today many entities provide signature exemplars to be used as the artist's signature for authentication. If there is a signature problem such as a poor match or no match, the work moves on into other categories such as "attributed to." Some works with impeccable provenance and significant matches in style, content, subject matter, technology, and scientific analysis do not necessarily fall into the "attributed to" category but may be identified as genuine works from the artist's hand. In almost no cases does signature alone determine authorship, nor would the fact that a work is judged as authentic imply that the signature is authentic. Signature authentication is carried out by a separate examination of style, exemplars, history, tone, structure and scientific analysis of the medium of the signature (Chicago Appraisers, 2010).

Theory

Authentication of fine art signatures involves many processes involving scientific analysis, provenance research, and connoisseurship. One provenance process looks at the signature of the artist and matches it with an exemplar or accepted signature. Like a fingerprint matching process the authenticator takes the signature found on a work and matches it with an accepted exemplar or sample of the artist's signature. Similar to a forensic examiner taking the latent fingerprint found at a crime scene and matching it with the print of the alleged perpetrator, the match indicates that the prints are from the same person. Under no circumstances would forensic examination argue that since there is a match in hair color, height, weight, it follows that there must be a match in fingerprints. In point, the standard theory behind establishing an identity via a match in signatures is that signature A is the accepted signature and since B signature is the same in style, structure, and so on both signatures are from the same person (Chicago Appraisers, 2010) This does not rule out a forgery but assumes that, lacking any other evidence supporting a forgery, the match is genuine. Under no circumstances do current theoretical approaches condone signature authentication via authentication of the painting inferring that the signature is genuine.

Non-sequiturs and Logical Fallacies

Non-sequiturs are literary devices which have no basis or premises Wiki (2010). They appear out of the blue as a surprise with the intention of making the observer laugh. Thomas Hoving would probably jump off his chair in laughter and utter, "What?!" to the claim that one may authenticate a signature by authenticating a work. Comedic relief aside, such statements as scholarly claims amount to logical fallacies. As a logical fallacy moving from the whole to a part with the claim that since the whole is authentic all the parts are authentic one is committing the fallacy of division. Just because the machine is heavy it does not follow that the parts of the machine are heavy. Either way Mr. B's intention to justify his thesis leaves us in stitches or runs afoul of the laws of logic.

Proper Investigating Processes

In any investigation process the truth arises as the result of logic and a sound empirical data. In a criminal investigation, conclusions are based on proper research and data such as forensic facts. Ballistics found the bullet to match the gun used in the crime, and the fingerprints on the gun match the fingerprints of the perpetrator. The investigator observes, plans, controls, leads and documents the investigation process much like a researcher testing a hypothesis. The process has steps, is logical and is grounded on solid facts. The goal here is to trace the process leading to the conclusion of results so that others may verify or deny the process (Vecchi, 2010).The current approach offers no trail or process to verify the conclusion submitted. Much like a magician pulling a rabbit from a hat, the "Dali Detective" has revealed the perpetrator not with an evidence trail but with a sleight of hand. In this case the audience recognizes that there is no magic here but a mere hoax.

Daubert and Federal Rules of Evidence

Various rulings from the Daubert decision in the 1990s require that any expert providing testimony in a federal court be screened by the Judge in a given case. Experts do not carry around an expert badge or a designation but must be examined by the judge hearing the particular case to ensure that the expert is qualified to provide testimony. Note here that it is not clear to what extent expert testimony provided prior to Daubert may be used to establish expertness after Daubert. The various rules post Daubert make it clear that expertness is satisfied given that the individual being examined has experience, education, follows a scholarly path, accepted theories, and known practices. Failure to provide such factors will result in being rejected as an expert. The proposal provided by the "Dali Detective" is not an accepted practice, nor is it based on accepted theories. One could easily predict that if offered as a scholarly attempt to ground testimony, the judge would deny the so-called expert the right to testify. More than likely he would chastise the expert for bringing magical tricks into the courtroom (Daab, 2009).

Scholar Chicanery

Pulling a rabbit out of a hat to ground a decision or deliver a conclusion represents an unseemly attempt at scholarship. What it amounts to is working off scholarly designations such as graduate work and degrees to produce a valid argument without going through the process of analysis. The world of scholarship demands that scholars perform research, analyze the data in the research and arrive at logical conclusions based on the analysis. Arriving at conclusions without following this approach constitutes, quite simply, a failure in scholarship bordering on chicanery.

The Internal Revenue Art Advisory Panel

Any work of art valued above $20,000 used as a donation to a qualified charity in the United States must be accompanied by a qualified appraisal provided by a qualified appraiser. The Panel has a history over the last few years of reducing donation values by as much as 50-70 percent if flaws are present in the appraisal. One flaw has to do with poor authentication of a given work. The practice of non-sequitur or illogical practices, poor scholarship, and an absence of proper investigation would represent a serious issue for the Panel. The consequences for the taxpayer would be significant in that penalties and interest costs would accrue based on the reduction of the donation affecting the income to be taxed. Questionable appraisals lead to decreased donation amounts and increased income to be taxed. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that individuals sending in questionable appraisals would be subject to a larger tax bill due to the fact that the appraisal value based on a questionable authentication process would be reduced (IRS, 2010).

Conclusions

Based on the above analysis the following conclusions are drawn regarding the thesis of signature authentication being determined solely by the authentication of the signed work:

1. Historically, authenticating artist signatures takes place by comparing an exemplar to one under question. The authentication process described by the "Dali Detective" not only fails to follow the historic practice, but fails to identify how the present practice takes place.
2. Forensic theory grounds the historic process; the approach in question provides no theory.
3. Mr. B's thesis represents either a non-sequitur or logically fallacious attempt to draw a conclusion. Both are unreasonable.
4. No scholarly or proper investigatory method was provided to enable others to verify the thesis.
5. The "Dali detective's" thesis would normally not be accepted as an expert practice.
6. The thesis resembles more of a magical attempt to develop a new practice.
7. Since signature authentication is an issue, there is a strong possibility that the current attempt would be rejected by the IRS Fine Art Panel resulting in serious costs for any taxpayer making a donation of a work of art whose authenticity is based on the thesis propounded by the "Dali Detective."

Commentary

It is obvious that the Dali Detective's thesis contains many problems. The most important problem seems to be either a total lack of investigation supporting the thesis or an investigation so poorly carried out that one may argue that even a newly minted investigator would carry out a better investigation. Given that such is the case one may suggest that the status of past authentications following from the Dali Detective's surreal approach are open to question. Further, the question arises as to how the Dali Detective actually came to the conclusion that sans signature authentication a work is genuine and not attributed. Normally authentication arises from science, provenance, and connoisseurship and one of the main ingredients in the mix is the authentication of the signature. If the signature is in question or absent one would not, in most cases label the work as authentic or from the hand of the artist, but attributed to the artist. This is not to say that the work is not authentic but that there are some issues present and it is not clear that the work is from the hand of the artist. It seems that the Dali Detective wants us to accept that the signature evidence is in question but the work is authentic, and since it is authentic the signature is authentic. Any investigator would recognize this approach as a blatant contradiction. The signature evidence is either false or true but not both. The Dali Detective must have forgotten to wear his beanie with the propeller on or maybe the propeller was broken in this case.

References

• A. Briefel, (2006). The Deceivers. New York:Cornell University Press
• B. Ewell, (2010). Just Relax. Retrieved on April 30, 2010 from http://bernardewellartpro.blogspot.com/
• Chicago Appraiser (2010). Authenticating Signatures. Retrieved on April 30, 2010, from http://www.chicagoappraisers.com/authenticating-signatures.html
• Daab (2009). Forensic Science and Provenance. Retrieved on April 10, 2010 from www.fineartregistry.com
• IRS (2010). The IRS Art Advisory Panel. Retrieved on April 30, 2010,from http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96804,00.html
• R. Vecchi (2010). Registered Investigator. Retrieved on April 30, 2010 from http://www.acfei.com/forensic_certifications/ri/risite/index.html
• Wiki (2010). Non-Sequitur. Retireved on April 30, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

— by John Daab Ph.D.  |  May 3, 2010

Print   |  

back to top