Art Scholarship:

What it is and What it is Not

Introduction

There are three common definitions of the term scholar. One has it that a scholar holds an advanced college degree such as a Masters or Doctorate. Another states that a scholar is a student under the tutelage of a teacher. The third is that a scholar is a recognized authority in a given field by accepted experts in the field. Art scholarship like any scholarship process is built on facts or evidence, logic, appropriate word style, depth of research, an absence of bias, and a commitment to allow the facts to drive the conclusions. Recent court cases have concretized this process when it comes to art authenticity decisions. In a case involving Rio Negro, a Calder sculpture, the court made it clear to those involved in art authenticity analysis that it is no longer acceptable to wave the connoisseurial magic wand. Art authenticity analysis must consist of research based on science, provenance, far reaching scholarship, consensuality, and involve a quantity of time other than merely looking at a photograph. The court expects a thoroughness of examination. The IRS builds the same process into its appraisal rules and expands the process by focusing on the person providing the appraisal in terms of what it expects from the messenger of the appraisal. Experts will be considered as experts only to the extent that they are specifically expert in a given area. An expert in medieval architecture will not be given expert status in authenticating a work by Andy Warhol.

What Art Scholarship Is

Evidence or Facts

Evidence or facts consist of information which has been found to be true by observation or testing. We know that out of 657 alleged works by Rembrandt only about 278 were found to have actually been created by Rembrandt. Such works were examined by art historians, curators, museum directors, researchers, and scientists experienced in Rembrandt research. Such data gathering consisted of focusing on taking measurements, analyzing paint pigments, checking clothing styles against historical clothing style patterns, and of studying brushstrokes, content or subject matter, Rembrandt's personal history, canvas size, and technology of canvas manufacture.

Logic

It is expected that scholarship information is logically sound and valid. The facts and evidence must be devoid of inconsistencies, and contradictions. Conclusions must follow from the data supplied and not overreach with unwarranted points or insinuations. The logic of the 278 inauthentic Rembrandts is that a significant degree of inauthenticity permeates Rembrandt paintings. The logic does not allow any conclusion stating that the paintings produced during Rembrandt's time and attributed to the master are 50% inauthentic or even that sketches attributed to Rembrandt are 50% inauthentic. Logic only allows conclusions following from that which is present in the premises or data researched.

Appropriate Style

Appropriate writing style for scholarly articles, essays and other writings in the USA implies scholarly use of any one of three particular styles of scholarly composition. The three styles are Modern Language Association (MLA), American Psychological Association (APA), or Chicago. In this country, a scholarly article written for a peer reviewed publication is expected to follow one of the above styles in punctuation, referencing, formatting, and so on. Style requirements are many and call for careful analysis to ensure compliance. References are significant, especially electronic ones, since the goal of a reference is to allow other researchers to respond to the publication. Electronic references must cite the referenced article and its date for retrieval or access by the reader. Style requirements dictate that all written work follow acceptable unbiased approaches or language. Here the focus is to prevent the many nuances of language from influencing the reader beyond the communication of the facts. Racist, homophobic, gender, age and similar statements, in absence of any relevant need to make such statements, are considered to be biased.

Research Depth

Scholarship requires that the researcher not only delve into data or laws but know the inferences, insinuations, and background of his or her information. Mere quotes, or references provide the structure of a scholarly work but it is also necessary to understand the context of how the reference is aligned with other references and how such references have been reviewed by the scholarly community. Knowing the US Constitution is of little value without understanding how it was/is being carried out based on all the court cases elaborating and interpreting its multiple meanings.

Scholarship and the Scholar

Normally scholars are individuals holding an advanced degree, are recognized as scholars by other scholars, and publish works with a peer review of the work to be submitted. The classic scenario, and one required by Fulbright Scholars, is the PhD dissertation process. Here, a learner follows an acceptable course sequence under the mentorship of a given individual or school, proceeds after completing the courses to a dissertation, with committee and chairperson advising and directing the dissertation learner through to the completion of the work. The dissertation is reviewed by other PhDs and ultimately defended until accepted by the accredited university awarding the degree. The PhD or Doctor of Philosophy is historically defined as a "research or scholarly degree." Note that the label of "scholar" is not self-assigned: it is given by others already holding the status of scholar or researcher.

What Scholarship is Not

A Case Study

Recently an article appeared on a blogging site accusing various Fine Art Registry® columnists of failing to properly do their homework, and asserting that the disclaimers provided by FAR® contradict what FAR notes in its approach to and research and investigations of art fraud and forgery. The author of the article prefaced his statements by noting that he was an author, scholar, and artist. The writer also made it clear that his approach was based on just the facts and provided internet references of these alleged facts. Specifically, according to the blogger,

1. FAR uses fine print in its statements to its members.
2. The writers fail to read the fine print of the FAR disclaimers and therefore their writings are suspect.
3. The writers are off the mark in how they deal with authenticity issues.
4. The disclaimers contradict what FAR provides to its members and also its overall approach to art investigations.
5. The writer's conclusions emanate strictly from the references.

Art Blogs

Art Blog web sites are sites constructed by an individual/s to make a statement about an issue. Such sites are unregulated in that no academic agency or organization provides a peer review of the statements being made. Individuals making statements may say almost anything they want without having to satisfy some standard of truth or validity. This is not to say that such sites are spewing falsities or do not attempt to provide sound information. The lack of overview by a scholarly entity brings into question the soundness of analysis and conclusions in the statements presented. They are generally unacceptable as reference sources in academic or educational presentations.

Art Scholar and Expert

Individuals claiming to be experts or scholars in the absence of any achieved status identified by an accredited agency, have a status which is subject to question. Self-proclamations of expertness or scholarly status are meaningless and without merit. Present day society expects that those attesting to their credentials warrant that these credentials have emerged from an acceptable accrediting agency. Thus the display of a particular status with no mention of the source of accreditation should be suspected along with the individual displaying the status. The days of claiming to be learned without having achieved such learning from an institution or organization attesting to that learning via an academic or professional designation such as PhD, CPA, JD, or CFE have passed. Society, the court system, and various laws and regulations in many cases forbid self-proclamation of expertness or scholarliness if such pronouncements fail to demonstrate their truth. It is against the law in some states to even utter such statements when they are known to be untrue. Uttering is crime when an individual makes false statements relating to credentials for the purpose of securing a benefit. In the health fraud case of Senquiz v. State of New Jersey, Sengquiz was charged and convicted of stating that she had a college degree when in fact she never finished the degree.

The Mirage of Scholarship

There are those who write articles prefacing them with the assertion that their works are solely driven by the facts or data, as in the case of the blog mentioned above. Such writers provide references to support their writings and make their articles appear similar to those found in various academic journals, even though they are weak in understanding, false in content, and illogical in conclusions. In the above case study, the blogger stated that FAR used fine print in its user agreement. Analysis revealed that not only was no fine print used, but the size of the print was about the same size as the print used by the individual providing the critique. The self-proclaimed scholar did not even attempt to determine the truth of what was being said by merely copying the alleged fine print from the FAR site and clicking on the font size of the print in the word processing program. In effect, since no fine print existed it was impossible read it.

Further, the references were improperly provided following any of the requirements of the APA, MLA, or Chicago electronic reference requirements. Scholarly electronic reference requirements mandate the scholars provide the article name, author, and time accessing the work. The thrust of the style by the agencies is to aid future scholars in being able to access the work easily. Referenced web sites are simply unacceptable without accompaniment of pertinent supplemental data.

Using laws and regulations as references without understanding that without an in-depth analysis of how such references have been carried out indicates a misunderstanding of scholarship. It is not enough to quote or reference, the scholar must dig deep, draw the inferences, lay out the insinuations, put into proper relief the consensus of other scholars, and note the criticisms of those against the consensus.

Lastly, the scholar must not resort to trickery or mislead the reader by providing language which says one thing but means another. Emotional words such as fine print conjure up scam, misdeeds or fraud. The entity accused of using such is being labeled, albeit not clearly, as having done something bordering on a breach of the law or common decency. The use of such expressions is a clear violation of research protocols in that in the absence of evidence supporting the expression, the expression is simply a bias of the writer.

Logic and How to Play With It

Self-proclaimed scholars and their apparent scholarly writing bend the rules of logic by deriving ill-fitting conclusions, and talking of contradictions when none are present. Again using the blog site, the self-proclaimed scholar of the site leads the reader to believe that because an entity uses a disclaimer about what it provides as a protection against litigation, the entity is engaging in a contradiction of its services. Disclaimers are part and parcel of our litigious society. Almost every commodity sold has a disclaimer attached to it. They are not contradictions but protective notes regarding the use of the product. The use of the word contradiction is a logical trick to make the reader believe that there is strong argument to be made that the entity being charged is acting against logic.

The use of logic as a driving force in drawing a conclusion can be used only so far. The conclusion, a logical development from the premises, does not reach beyond the premises. To go beyond the premises is to enter the realm of fallacy. There are between 40 and 50 logical fallacies a scholar must not become involved with. The wannabe scholar in deriving the conclusion that since FAR has allegedly been engaged in contradictory claims founded on its disclaimer policies – which it has not –- all the FAR activities are undermined including its investigations of art authenticity, fraud, and forgery. Moving from the parts of an analysis to the whole represents an engagement in the fallacy of composition. Merely because the parts of a whole have an "X" it does not follow that the whole has an "X". The statement that, since the aluminum parts of a motor are light, it follows that the motor is light is fallacious in that the motor would be heavy rather than light. Merely because the disclaimer is contradictory (even if it were), it does not follow that the investigations or any other non-disclaiming activities are contradictory.

The blogger notes in one statement that the writers for FAR should not be trusted in their analysis of issues because they do not research deep enough to challenge the fine print. The blogger proceeds next to state that some of the writers are on spot when it comes to some of the issues. The blogger wants it both ways. Either the writers get it or don't. In the absence of a middle path to avoid asserting both disjuncts as true, the blogger is asserting a contradiction and as such served up an empty proposition.

Conclusions

Based on the above analysis of the blog attacking FAR the following conclusions are found:

1. Since the author of the blog provides no evidence that his self-proclamations of being a scholar or artist, are true, such proclamations are empty and meaningless.
2. The statement that FAR uses fine print in communicating with its readers is false.
3. The failure to provide an adequate investigation of whether in fact fine print existed by simply clicking on font sizes is indicative of sloppy and unacceptable research technique.
4. The use of wording such as fine print in the absence of supported documentation falls under researcher bias which is prohibited in any scholarly tome.
5. The statement that FAR disclaimers contradict its authentication programs or philosophy is false since such disclaimers are a ubiquitous presence in almost any commodity or service provided for sale.
6. The references supporting the blogger's statements fail to follow acceptable scholarly requirements.
7. The overall logic grounding and encompassing the blogger's approach is fallacious, contradictory, and reaches beyond any data or information supplied.

Summary

Scholars and scholarship do not emanate from personal or individualistic pronouncements. They are historical developments accredited by various accepted academic and professional organizations. Readers are advised to note or to ask the following when reading articles appearing to resemble scholarly writings,

— by John Daab Ph.D.  |  February 1, 2009  |  Print Version - PDF

Print   |  

back to top