FAKE OR FORTUNE 9X03: EDWARD LANDSEER
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Fiona Bruce and Philip Mould investigate a painting that could be the work of the celebrated artist Sir Edwin Landseer. If it is, they will have rediscovered a much-loved Victorian masterpiece that was thought to have been destroyed by a catastrophic flood almost a century ago.
The painting depicts the terrible aftermath of battle, with fallen soldiers and horses evoking the horror of war. The scene, known as Time of War, was first painted in 1846 by Landseer, the artist who created one of the most iconic images of 19th-century British art, The Monarch of the Glen, and whose lion sculptures still sit proudly in Trafalgar Square today. Landseer was an infant prodigy who became a favourite of Queen Victoria, and he painted the royal family and their beloved pets throughout his life.
The painting is owned by Kathy and Barry Romeril, who bought it in 1987, when they were still married. Now divorced, the painting has stayed with Kathy at her home in Ascot, while Barry now lives in Florida. The couple first spotted the picture in a sale at Ascot racecourse and had no idea of any connection to Landseer. Kathy explains to Fiona and Philip that she has a love of horses and was moved to tears by the grey horse staring out at her in such a desperate state. She decided there and then that the painting was coming home with her, and she bid £720 to secure it. But if the painting is proven to be a lost national treasure by Landseer, it could be worth as much as £80,000.
The original Time of War hung at the Tate gallery in London and was there in 1928 when the city suffered one of the worst disasters in its history. On the night of 7 January, the Thames burst its banks at Lambeth and crashed through the walls of the Embankment, flooding the houses that lined the river at that time. Fourteen people died, and thousands were left homeless. Water also surged into the lower galleries of the Tate, damaging hundreds of works from the national collection. By all accounts Time of War was destroyed - but was that really the case? Could Kathy and Barry’s picture be the lost Landseer?
Fiona follows the clues through the archives to establish exactly what happened to Landseer’s original painting. It’s a trail with plenty of unexpected twists and turns, including the revelation that other pictures thought to have been destroyed that night most definitely were not. One very notable example is now on display at the National Gallery. Philip, meanwhile, scours the picture itself for evidence that this is the hand of Landseer. As he casts his expert eye over the large canvas, he can see that the painting has unquestionably been damaged in the past. Could it be evidence of the Tate flooding? The investigation gathers pace, and the evidence is presented, but will it be enough to prove that Kathy and Barry’s picture is a long-lost national treasure?
That odd border was THE smoking gun. It was an exact match to the original and I suspect Philip's hunch about the damage working against the painting was correct and the "expert" is wrong. Too many paintings are allowed to be authenticated or ruined on the opinion of one person. The West from a previous episode is an example of this.
I agree. The "notch" was the smoking gun. So obviously the original.
@Bjy001 I'd be interested to know what the photography expert that pointed out that irregularity along the canvas edge made of the "verdict". To me too, that odd detail from the old photo directly matching up with the picture in question was indisputable proof.
pause the video at about 58mins in, spend a few minutes looking at the photo vs painting. They are quite different.
I was left wondering if the expert had made the right call on this one - we must assume they know things that we don’t - the kink in the frame or canvas appeared to be some kind of smoking gun which appeared to have little or no sway on the outcome whatsoever - it was totally unexplained.
Thanks for these uploads - obviously I’m not the only one who’s been hooked on the show from day one.
Might be because the Tate didn't want to get into a legal battle over ownership.
I think this one I am ambient about the result I was not convinced it was a fake or real. That it was quality does not mean someone who was able to see it in person, before the flood did not do study of it in great detail and could have done a copy of extreme quality . The main reason it likely was not determined real in my mind was that there was to many unanswered questions. since it was supposed to be destroyed the burden of proof was to have a history of it not being destroyed or so identical to evidence of the known work that no doubt remained and I felt doubt. I do think it easily could have been the original but also feel it was not clear enough to say for sure that it was.
I can't get over the kink 🤯
I drew the same conclusions too. That kink spoke so loudly that this was the missing piece. I too am convinced the expert was mistaken.
Totally agree with you. “ The Kink” was totally ignored in the final analysis - hard to fathom that something revealed in the original photograph was also copied by the supposed forger?
It makes sense that the expert would not risk his neck to recognize the painting and in the process acknowledge how The Tate made some huge mistakes.
@Beaudile its a snobbery thing
Prof Aviva Burnstock is always a pleasure to listen to.
Polly Frontbum
Seems highly likely to be the genuine piece. How could the expert ignore the forensic match in idiosyncrasies of the actual painting? To make a judgment on how flat the painting looked, on an unclean , retouched, and water damaged piece seems beyond absurd and even smacks of cronyism given that ridiculous Tate gallery comment that they believed the painting undoubtedly destroyed, based upon scribbled notes that were proved to be unreliable.
Also it is hilarious, to think of the pomposity of this gallery today , in protecting its incompetence from 1934 . Talk about protecting your asses.
Well, it surely is the genuine piece. I'm havinge the same troubles with an painting. These "experts" are afraid to make wrong decisions, an they value their taste or connoisseurship way to high. A painting by XY has to look like this or that (how i, the expert think it has to look like), if not it cant be the artist. Other scientific proof is of no value whatsoever. Thats quite sad, and in my opinion tells a lot about such experts who behave like 18th century absolute monarchs in the artworld ;)
I'm sure it's to not open up a huge can of worms. Something tells me perhaps a lot of works that were "destroyed" by the flood were perhaps in fact straight up taken.
So often the experts are just nursing huge egos...
Politics always intervenes on anything seemingly factual.
This was wonderful, regardless of the outcome. Very coincidentally for me, I fell in love with and bought an engraving of the companion painting “Time of Peace” many years ago and had it framed. It’s followed me from house to house and still brings me joy every time I look at it. Though it was sad to hear of the original’s fate in the flood, through this video I’ve learned about “Time of War.” I’ve also just found an engraving by the same artist who did “Peace” (L. stocks) and it will become a pair in spirit.
Thank you!
Thank you so very much for uploading this episode 🌷
What a treat for the culturally starved outside of Great Britain ; )
Not much can compare to your cultural programs.
RIGHT ON!
Ditto from Southern Africa!
I have 2 theories. Some higher up at the Tate declared it destroyed and finished. As we could see from the "Execution" painting, the finished/destroyed declaration does not mean it is truly "finished/destroyed" Perhaps, as mentioned, Landseer was no longer considered important in 1928. So it was delclared a loss by the higher up. But someone, lower in the ranks at the Tate, loved the painting and rescued it, not caring that it was damaged. Remember the relining was done in a method known in the 1920s. So they relined it and repaired the damage as best as they could. But since what was done was not exactly legal, no paper trail.
The more cyncial theory and just as possible, the painting was declared destroyed and the reccomendation was that it, along with other damaged paintings, be destroyed. But again, we can see from the "Execution of Lady Jane Grey" that they weren't all destroyed as they were told to do. So, assuming insurance existed on the paintings at the Tate, insurance paid out for the damaged/destroyed paintings but someone within the Tate did not destroy the damaged paintings. Instead they secreted them and slowly over time, did some repairs and sold them....off the books. Because as they said, the Delaroche was no longer thought significant. Remember, in 1928, the art movements were trending mor towards Social Realism (Think "American Gothic") and what we would generally over all call modern art...Surrealism, abstracts etc. Landseer may have been considered far too old fashioned and not worth it.
All that being said, I believe the painting to be the original "Time of War". Far too many things add up to make it so.
Love your theories and I totally agree - this IS the War of time especially after the mention of the lower part of the picture matching with the foto - No one copying a painting would do that -NO ONE!😉
@@millawitt1882 I completely agree.
That sounds like a very logical explanation. Someone, as you say, "rescued" it, kept it for several years, maybe passed it onto a friend or family; they would most probably have been a Tate worker, who maybe found it in the "destroy" pile, who knows? But I think its the real one, the work is by a master painter. I've always liked The Arab Tent by Landseer; his horse paintings are just wonderful.
Yes. They did not touch on the ownership issue. If it had been determined to be original, would ownership have been "the nation" or the insurance company. At least this way the couple can keep it.
WOW perfect! Kimberly
Another fantastic inquiry, that painting is stunning. 👍🇨🇦
thanks so much for uploading a new episode of this quality program. Highly appreciated
I am convinced it is the real painting. However, if that would have been the outcome i think the Tate would have claimed ownership and these people would have probably lost that legal battle.. So maybe it's for the best that it wasn't the official outcome. All i can say to the owners is: Congratulations on your Landseer! Hope you get it restored! Maybe contact Baumgartner Fine Art Restoration and make a follow-up on this lol 😂
When they showed so many of the damaged paintings I was thinking send it to Baumgartner lol.
Forget the Tate. I wouldn’t have sold it to them even if they topped the highest bidder by $1M.
Hear, hear!! Congratulations to the owners on their powerful Landseer (that they now get to keep). Well said, milo!
I superimposed the images of the painting & the photograph, & the outlines don’t line up, specifically the outer corner of the rug is very different and the man on the right side is positioned at a lower angle relative to the horses head in the photograph. Those are significant composition differences that damage or age can’t explain. Of course I wish someone with better tools than me tries to superimpose the images to see if theirs also doesn’t match up. I really thought they would, but now I believe the expert made the right call.
@@Laura-qn2nf Old camera lenses can cause mysterious distortions. And printing can cause unusual warpage. Then there's the retouching process. I think the photography expert would not have said the photo was of the painting if there were even slight reasons to doubt it. Too many things lined up succesfully.
Yes or No, I still enjoy viewing the process of investigation & discovery. Thank you again for sharing this series. 😍
I just discovered this series and I could not be more pleased! I love every bit of these programs. Thank you for sharing this on TH-cam!
This show does a medal wining service to the art world ,this was very close,experts they can not have doubts , not enough flood damage it may not have touched water ,.very good work by the team
Saying a picture is not damaged enough seems like a weird reason to say it is not genuine!
@@gkess7106 also when experts get it wrong just because of a very rich provenance that alone some times sways their decision making,as there is so much money on the table
@@gkess7106 The real painting was sitting in flood waters for days. Only the highly valued paintings were rescued DURING the flooding, the rest were there until they got around to fishing them out of the basement.
Outrageous. What forger, what copyist could be shown, or is known, to have the skill to duplicate this powerful piece. Future sleuthing along with this documentary evidence will prove this is a genuine Landseer. I hope....
Philip - ''Hello Aviva!''. Aviva - ''Oh, hello Philip!'' sounding surprised even though the camera crew were already there :)
They are probably getting it on.
This is not a fake! It is impossible to replate such details and symmetric. Just time the picture will be recognized as Edwin LANDSEER works
Cuckoo
Edwin not Edward
You do know that on the TH-cam update the comments flash up wether you like it or not, so thanks a lot for spoilers.
Thank you so very much!
This is my favorite show. So exciting to see some new episodes, since I live outside the UK and can’t watch it when it actually airs. I love that the entire “drama” of the show is simply whether the work is real - if this was a US show, they’d create some other angle, focus much more on the owner, make it a sob story somehow. I appreciate British TV so much by comparison. Also I love Fiona Bruce and I covet that fuzzy blue jacket she’s been wearing in these. Oh and where’s Bendor? I miss him!
You must watch ‘Britain’s lost masterpieces’. Bendor and a lady (whose name I forget) host it. It is just as good as this and actually very similar. They go to art galleries or stately homes and find paintings that they believe are incorrectly attributed. They go though similar processes to find out.
I too miss Bendor!! There's a great big gaping hole where once he was to be found! (although I love all the experts who weigh in ... minus the ones we never see!)
@@andreaandrea6716 he deserves his own show or make him a trio to this team
@@kyleanuar9090 Nina, above, says he HAS his own show! : 'Britain's Lost Masterpieces' I found one and watched it. It was good! But I like the chemistry when they're all together.
I find your US comment a highly speculative and prejudice thing to say. There have been plenty of high-drama sob stories on this UK show. Human beings are emotional creatures regardless of continent, so it stands to reason. And we art nuts are some of the most emotional. Take a look at the drama, egos, and politics among the art "experts" and the museum administrators...please.
(SPOILER ALERT)
Fiona and Philip and their team are the very best art detectives on the planet. And these shows are wonderful to watch. Every program is a gem. There is nothing else like this show.
There are so many issues in this episode´s story. And I get the feeling that some details, are not completely presented here. Maybe it will be continued some day. Fingers crossed.
The kink itself is confusing. Yes it was certainly present in that photography, predating the flood, when the painting was sitting on the original stretching frame. And it was the stretching frame that had an imperfection that caused the kink.
But the painting canvas in the program was cut along the edges with knives or razor blades, to remove it from it’s original stretching frame (and was then glued on to a new canvas). By doing so, they would have had to cut the kink also (only a craftsman with incredible attention to detail would do that). The kink should have been examined down to the millimeter and compared with the kink in that photograph, in the program.
I am also missing a detailed overlay comparison between the photo and the painting. The outlines of pretty much everything in the painting, should match the photo.
Using all the x-ray methods and other technology they always have in FOF, all the numerous touch-ups that have had to happen to the painting (should it be the flood damaged painting) would have been visible and presented in the program. And many of the touch ups would have been done with paint available in the 1930-ies (I doubt that a restorer back then thought ”let’s make sure to only use pigments that were present in 1850, so that they can run this painting through a Star Trek-like pigment scanner in the future, and find nothing strange with the painting (while simultaneously asking himself ”W-H-A-T is Star Trekkkk?!!”)” . Touch ups and alterations would actually add credibility to the painting in this case.
So either the conclusion is that someone refrained from the legal issues that would be raised, were it to be the real painting, and just wrote it off as a copy. Or some art student painted a copy of the real painting, while it was hanging in the museum, before the flood. And did such a good copy, that people living in the 2020-ies can’t say for sure, if it’s a copy or the original.
I was also wondering why they never brought up details about restoration paints. But, Fiona was talking about "overpainting" being removed. Was that from the restoration of flood damage?
Another wonderful episode. I took note that no one addressed what seemed to me an important ethical question, if this was indeed the Landseer of the flood, was this painting sold 'on the sly" or simply taken home, by someone at the Tate after it had been deemed damaged beyond repair. I believe the question of how this painting left the gallery and who owned it until it was sold at the auction to Kathy was deliberatly overlooked because of the security and the moral questions this would bring up, casting doubt on the integrity of a Tate employee and perhaps fate of many other 'stored away' paintings?
Absolutely. Hence why it's more likely that the original canvas was destroyed and the picture we're seeing is a very good, and very old, copy.
At the opening, the auctioneer woman in the purple dress, "At $42 Million....": I'm afraid she might try to bite my neck!~ lol
Another *Amazing* episode; especially from the perspective of a professional restorer.
Whenever a new episode air's, I will watch it 2,3 times and then give a summation.
Again, *Thank You, mightwenotbehappy!!!*
I think it is the genuine piece. And reasons given as to why its not by the artist could very easily be explained by water damage from the flood. I just dont think they want to put their name to authentication because there are still unanswered questions. Even 'experts' get things wrong and I honestly think in this case the expert is wrong.
Thanks!!
they have not had much luck in last couple seasons. The landseer had water damage and still rejected bit odd
Love listening to Mould talk about the painterly qualities of paintings he investigates for this series. He and the editors make sure the aesthetic value comes up BEFORE we have any evidence that it's by a famous artist. For that reason alone, I find myself pulling for Mould's assessment every time. His connoisseurship is freely offered and convincing, which is more than you can say for the official arbiters who are usually are stingy with their critiques..
It's so amazing how people in western kept record of almost everything that one day Will be so important.
I LOVE Landseer's paintings :) Kim
I feel like they should have, for at least one test, simply overlayed the photo and the picture. If the entire canvas is a precise match it makes it really hard to see how it could have been faked.
Right! I thought the same.
I agree. They could have tried to superimpose a negative of the photograph on the canvas of the painting ( this could also be done on a computer screen). If all the details match exactly then it is extremely unlikely to be a fake. The devil is in the detail!
@@angusstewart3183 Great idea. I wonder if you put a negative over the top, with 50% transparency or something would it go all white (or all black?) if it was a match?
I paused the video while both images were side by side. Then did the cross eyed trick where you can superimpose the images. The 2 images were exactly the same scale all the way across the painting. It was much more accurate than you would expect. I am surprised that the camera used in the 1800s and the camera that took the image when the series was filmed had the exact same lenses distortions. I think the painting is the one that is in the photo. This painting has been stated as 'not one of Landseer best' as indicated by Frederic Stevens. (See the Wikipedia of Edwin Landseer ref section and link to google books) Maybe Richard Ormond would not have said it was ever a Landseer. Maybe it was a fake when the photo was taken in the 1800s. Its so much fun tiring to guess if it real with so little information, .. and so little knowledge in my case.
@Beaudile thnx for that- it's unclear- it looks like they might have done, but they did not treat it as an important point- it happens almost as a color shift. tbh if that is what that is then it is inconclusive, it looks very close everywhere but it is not a crisp precise match.
PS This is so thee "War", by Landseer!!!
"Destroyed beyond repair", =the Board at the TATE, at that time, needed funds after the flood. They probably sold-off a bunch of Masterpieces that suffered -some- damage in the flood of 1928.
One *big* question, is "why" did they not take the photograph of war and superimpose it over the painting? That would have been a dead cert.
Maybe it would have shown to much differences between the painting of this episode and the photograph of the original painting which is probably destroyed in the flood...
They used retouching in early photographs to show more details, but they wouldn't change a complete painting if it's mostly for documentation. The differences between the photograph and the later retouchings should match.
But I really wonder why they don't talk more about the x-rays of the painting: It's a very complicate composition. But they don't talk about underdrawings. There is not one mention of a change in the composition or of pedimenti, something you will normally find if it's an original and not a copy. They only talk about the strong use of lead white around the head of the horse...
I think this picture is really a copy. A good one, but still a copy. But it's a more interesting ending for the public to leave the case unsolved.... And there is still a chance, that the original painting has really survived the flood. :-)
They didn't discus the removal of wax residue that would most likely have penetrated the paint and ground layers during the lining process. They also did not discuss the removal of the grime layer below the varnish that was not fully removed during a previous cleaning. You can see it in the light areas of paint in the detailed images. The residual grime layer would have been locked in by the wax and the varnish. It didn't appear in the cleaning that the residual grime layer was removed and the surface would be dull and the colors unsaturated if there was still a wax residue on the surface. I think there still is hope. I enjoy these programs but sometimes I think the condition isint discussed in enough detail, there are many things that happen to paintings that change their appearance, unfortunately not all curators and art historians have enough experience looking at paintings in this way.
Clearly we are dealing with insurance fraud here.
How so if I may ask?
Needs a conservator to
apply washicozo to the front and remove the lining and see if there anything hidden on the back blocked out by the lead paint.
I love this show.❤
Love this show and I used to indirectly work for Barry Romeril! Small world.
What about that kink on the lower left hand side of the painting? How did the authentication committee overlook that detail? It's such an odd defect, and I find it highly unlikely that both paintings would have this flaw in the canvas just by chance,...I'm not convinced that it's not the original in a very restored state.
All you can hope is the next expert believes differently, which could happen if this painting is continually place before the public in a gallery. We really need a wing for unauthenticated and mysterious works that are proven real by aid of scientific analysis. Otherwise we are cropping history and losing valuable insights of the past.
Edit: I wonder if AI programs might one day be used instead of a human expert in the effort of removing ego from the decision.
Was nice getting such a good look at the Monarch of the Glen! ❤
Many thank yous for continuing to post episodes of this show, especially for those of us outside of Great Britain who have no other means of seeing them. In the U.S., shows typically film 6-10 episodes per season (series). Going back I've noticed for Fake or Fortune there have only been 4, maybe 5. Does that mean there will only be one more new episode in this #9 series?
1 episode left of series 9
@@mightwenotbehappy ☹ awww, dang.
@@mightwenotbehappy Is season 8 available anywhere?
@@lanelakey3581 I have season 8 ep 4 on my dailymotion account certain most of season 8 used copyright music so wasn't able to upload them
@@lanelakey3581 www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g083q s8 ep 1 Thomas Gainsborough
a wild ride.... - thanks for doing all that work :)
The kink in the frame seems like pretty strong proof. The "expert" seems to have got this wrong.
I’m not buying it. The kink is too real. It’s too good a copy
The kink!!!! A photo of the real work has it, and there is no chance that a forgery would also have it. Thanks for posting and thanks for UK citizens for funding BBC :P
They ignored the kink in the edge which is a huge point of authenticity!!
The only bad part of this show is how they never fully explain the reasoning of the experts whenever a painting is not accepted.
Somtimes they do , if it is included on the rejection letter.
I don’t agree. It’s a masterpiece. If Ormand found it…he would feel differently.
Flooding of Thames a time of kayos. The painting could easily have been set off to the side..away. It’s the EXACT same Dimensions. Weak reasons for discounting painting. This was a terrible conclusion.
Chaos
One thing that was NOT done, is to take a blown up photo (a photo that was taken of the original painting) the size of THIS painting, and superimpose it directly over the top of the painting. THIS would provide another layer of evidence.
If it is a copy, that is one damn good job.
A friend of mine Carla Grace who paints the most beautiful realistic animals I have ever seen. Look her up ! ❤️
All the reasons to be believe that this is indeed a Landseer are given by many people who commented below. I won't repeat these, but simply add my vote to the idea that the expert got it wrong, and that this is a genuine original. As an aside, I teach art history.
The differences between the heads of the soldiers between the early photograph and the painting are very different. Detail. Mouth open vs closed. Ear shape. Ribbon detail. Head shape. There are stark differences.
No. That would have been noticed immediately.
Also, looking at the painting and the photo side by side, the upper left corner's smoke was in totally different patterns.
This is quite a challenge. As we have seen in other episodes, an “official” denial of authenticity can, in time, be corrected. The biggest problem with this painting is that there were so many documented details of the original that could have allowed excellent copies to be made. That said a water-damaged original COULD have been spirited away by an individual who was supposed to destroy it and could not bear to do so because of the emotional nature of the painting. The original had been ordered to be destroyed in a time when so much art was lost due to the flood. The tragic story in the image itself could have inspired someone to rescue it not for reselling, but just as an act of needing to attempt to save it. The same emotion that prompted the present owner to buy it at auction. The differences in the painting and the photograph could be attributed to changes done by a restorer with less skill than the ones who worked on the Lady Jane Grey restoration. The edge of the frame seems most difficult to replicate in a copy. If it were mine I would wait and have another test done using the photograph as source and looking to see how it compares to this painting when superimposed, keeping in mind that some changes could be present thru an attempted restoration. this warrants more analysis and waiting for that “authority” to be replaced by the next generation who does not have a reputation to protect.
The kink in the canvas should've been enough to authenticate it. I almost wonder if there's some 94-year-old conspiracy going on. Did they claim it lost for insurance purposes in 1928?
Love your program! The experts statement had little to do with the painting itself but serves apparently a different interest. The result of this is a significantly contribution to the lack of the credibility of this expert. The two arguments for this are first the comparison between the photo and painting of the left edge, there are no differences. Second argument is an economic one, the £ 720,- is an amound that would not be proportional for a painter to the number of his invested hours of labor. Walter Goddijn, the Netherlands.
Seems a win for the couple. They get to keep a picture they love, whereas if declared genuine, ownership may have been claimed by the Tate Gallery or an insurance company. As a Yank, hearing Philip say he was going to take a "torch" to the picture caused me a moment.
yeah, the way the lady teared up recounting when she saw the painting at auction, I'm almost glad she doesn't have to be stressed about owning a masterpiece and can just enjoy the first piece of art that deeply touched her.
At least she can keep her beloved painting .
❤️🐎🐎🐎❤️
I'll bet that he paid for it though.
I was gutted this wasn’t the real painting!! ( so sad that it got destroyed in the Thames flood!!)
awwwww bloody spoilers!
"damaged beyond repair" better go to my house then, can't throw it in the fire. So valuable, Perfect opportunity to swindle yourself a budget masterpiece is during a disaster. Who were these men carrying them out? Lol it ended up at a worker's house and fixed up then hidden or forgot about. It's totally the one ! That kink on the edge!! C'mon!!!!
If this painting was the property of the museum when rhought lost in the flood, would it still not belong to them if this is the original?
What a shame. I think that painting has enough evidence to tilt it as genuine. It should be accepted and go back on display for the world to enjoy. That aside, I also find history of that “The Execution of Lady Jane Grey” painting quite fascinating.
Disturbing...no one would go to such an extent as to recreate the edge of the canvas, as shown in an Actual Photograph of the Work. ...So Sad...someone doesn't want it to be True, but it is!
I absolutely love the painting of Landseer with the two dogs peering over his shoulders! I wonder if there are prints for sale. 🤔
I hate silly """experts""" old and pompous who judge a work with their ego and less with an open mind. THIS is the genuine work of Lanseer! This "expert" will die wrong.
The Tate just didn’t want to admit it was wrong
Exactly. We have seen previous episodes where museums and experts don't want to admit they messed up.
I think in years to come, the 'expert' will be proved wrong.
I agree with the decision. The quality is good but it lacks the touch of the master. Admittedly, the kink in the canvas is hard to explain.
Had it been verified as genuine, I wonder what the legal position would have been. The painting originally belonged to the nation, and it's disappearance from The Tate would be possibly considered an illegal act. The lack of provenance means there is no evidence of the legality of its removal, and does, in fact, support the idea that it was an illegal act.
The photograph of the destroyed painting from The Tate was truly heartbreaking.
It wasn't nearly as good after the cleaning. A talented artist did it though.
In my opinion there is a lot of ego going on with some of the so called "experts" not wanting to be proven wrong.
It is always amazing what records do still exist. The part about this show that seems so wrong is the power given to, in this case one person, to make such a major decision. Obviously art experts have made major mistakes in the past.
I also wondered why the photo was not projected over the top of the painting to see if everything is located precisely in the same location. You'd think once the uneven left edge was spotted that would have been the next move.
I’d pay her 10k right now just because of how good the painting is
I'm sure that this is the original painting. The problem is if it is the original, and I'm sure it is, it was owned by the Museum how does it end up at a auction? I think they want to cower up something, better to say it is not the original, than to open an investigation. It is my opinion.
Museums deacession art so it was possible the Tate sent it off to auction.
Ironically, I saw total proof that it were re touched in an effort to repair the damage done to it just as shown with the other ones. Where the retoucher ruined the original by changing details. Most likely this is in fact original what a loss.
The painting IS by Landseer. The "authority" was wrong.
Love these shows!! And the background music- especially the little instrumental ditty that sounds like ascending scales on a vibraphone. I don't know, but does anyone know the name of that little musical interlude or if it's part of a larger composition?
Is it this one? th-cam.com/video/VNScRm1n8js/w-d-xo.html I think they used Philip Glass quite a bit.
I clicked on your link here & then went further ooking for it by researching more of Phillip Glass' works...the music excerpt in question in this episode starts at about 7:36. I didn't come across the exact one yet but gosh! I discovered i really like Phillip Glass, just haven't really listened to his stuff. Thank you for the reference!
@@rebecca5279 You are very welcome! I see what you mean now. They use tracks from various movies in this show, that one might just be an original piece.
Was not expecting the end decision. Evidence suggests the painting is the original. Subjective decision-making.
'Experts' are the reason, that there are so many fakes displayed in museums, and real masterpieces are hanging in front rooms around the world!
Why didn't they put the picture over the photo? It's easy to see if all lines align. A copy wouldn't get all exactly in the same place.
Because that would have ended the show before the grand finale.
I can‘t help but wonder why they never asked how such a painting would have left the tate. Perhaps there was an auction of damaged works at some point?
Umm, they did. The damaged paintings were to be written off / destroyed. Obviously some were not ( lady Jane grey being one) . They do not know exactly how certain works were “ taken “ out - maybe staff that could not stand to see the works destroyed?
Inconceivable….😬
As barbie would put it...that's cray cray!!
Such great TV. It is very true that in the early twentieth century the fashionable Victorian painters fell spectacularly out of popularity due to changes in taste and the advent of Modernism. The same happened to Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema, once the celebrated painter of the 19th century - his works were so unpopular in the first half of the 20th century that in the 1940s the V&A actually disposed of the artist's own collection of drawings and photographs (fortunately it was snapped up by a University). This, of course, would never happen these days, but those wise enough to buy up Alma-Tadema's paintings in the 1960s/70s for peanuts are now sitting on multi million pound paintings. With no evidence of exactly how or when these 'damaged beyond repair' works were 'destroyed' by the Tate in 1934, how is it possible to say conclusively the Landseer was destroyed? Can you imagine if you were asked to dispose of these damaged paintings? Surely there would be the temptation to take it home and get it fixed/relined, as the gallery was disposing of it.
It had been sitting in flood waters for a few days. There wasn't anything left of it. All that are left are the copies.
I suppose the final decision was bound to be that it's fake so as not to cast doubts on how The Tate dealt with the painting after the flood .
The expert is 100% wrong on this one. The kink in the bottom left corner is essentially impossible to fake. That combined with the known alteration of the photograph and the scientific uncovering of water damage (not to mention all the other evidence) proves its authenticity beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I think this is an example of the authority overlooking the kink, relying too heavily on the altered photo, and deferring to the records stating it was destroyed rather than stake their reputation on a possible false positive.
Obviously genuine.
So, you think the photo was fake then because the two didn't match up.
I agree with some of the previous comments the evidence that is presented strongly suggests that this is the missing Landseer. What a painter and he really paints animals so well. One point I did feel the need to correct is the Uniform. If as is suggested the image is from the Battlefield at Waterloo it is not correct. None of the Household cavalry, indeed none of the British Cavalry at Waterloo wore a cuirass. They did at the time of the painting in the 1830's but not in 1815. There was no contemporary battlefield for Landseer to reference as England was at a time of peace until the Crimean War by which time they had once again dispenced with the cuirass.
There's only one word that springs to mind seeing that beautiful creature in Monarch of the Glen - noble.
As far as the Landseer, I think there's a possibility the art that was written off as damaged were put aside, maybe in the mess & confusion after the flood they were rolled up but not necessarily all put together, perhaps the ones that were forgotten & later found & restored were put somewhere out of sight out of mind, large older buildings like that have many poky rooms often full to the brim.
Two final considerations, in those days, rubbish was incinerated,
& poorer people used to line their walls with newspaper clippings & pictures,
I can totally see a poor person working in the bowels of the Tate being told to throw these so called beyond repair paintings into the incinerator, maybe they were left alone for a minute & decided to unroll one to have a look at what they were burning, perhaps he saw that haunting eyes of those precious horses & decided it was good enough to take home & far preferable to stare at than old newspapers.
Water rises, maybe the painting floated out the door down the Thames & was picked up by some farmer, none of us - including the red haired Tate lady will ever know,
as the saying goes, truth can often be stranger than fiction.
Remember, folks.... we in television-land are not made privy to ALL the information used to make the final decisions. In the art world, aaaannnnnyyyy doubt whatsoever is a huge issue, and needs to be addressed as priority. If it's genuine, then it is - if there's a doubt, it CANNOT be labelled genuine just for the heck of it.
It's just occurred to me that for centuries to come people will be able to tell which years TV shows like this were produced because they all engage in social distancing :)
It's like carbon dating.
What I miss is a comparison of the restored painting with the photograph. Because the issues the found in the unrestored painting seem to have been solved by the restoration. Not to mention the fact the painting and picture were a perfect match in terms of composition. And the special feature of the paintings edge should be the smoking gun.
I feel this is the correct picture and I feel the ‘expert’ has other motives to not declare it as genuine. Art experts are often wrong as we have seen with this program many times. For me the science should be preferred above a subjective opinion.
In this case, the preponderance of evidence would beg further investigation, there's much that can still be addressed, such as provenance. Stating that provenance "isn't there" doesn't mean it can't be found or doesn't exist. There's also room to further forensically investigate the type of damage that obviously happened. Not all the questions have been asked or answered.
It could be someone, a "set of eyes", is just making an arbitrary decision to write "finished" on the various paintings. Maybe there were no guiding principles for salvaging and conserving paintings at that time?
The grey horse's face, especially the eyes, say it is the original.
The smoke over it's head says it's a copy since it isn't the same as in the photo.
The one thing that every art dealer and auction house never want to hear a wealthy client say : This painting is a counterfeit, I've been taken for a fool! FAKE OR FORTUNE
What's especially ridiculous about this is that a forger is not going to flood damage a painting, and then repair it in order to then consign it to an auction house for £600. Such complete nonsense. Of course, experts can't usually accept that something like this got missed by them.
Does anyone know the artist who painted the colorful landscape on wall behind the Sotheby’s auctioneer in the first two seconds of the video? It looks like Van Gogh, but I cannot ascertain. Thanks for any help.
Possibly Klimt?
It's the garden with sunflowers by Gustav Klimt
I’m concerned that mould and Fiona (esp mould) are hampered in their reactions to the “experts” because they might need them again in the future.
I feel this is the original painting. Is it just a coincidence that this remarkably good "copy" of same age, size, and materials used has also suffered the same damage as the original? Of course the damage would distort the painter's original intention and render it a bit flat. I think the experts decision would be swayed by putting the Tate Gallery's reputation on the line, who can not accept this as the original for legal reasons, the institution would then be admitting to alleged dodgy dealings in the past and it could open up a can of worms - so better to reject this artwork as a Landseer and still maintain that the original was "destroyed" to save face.
Fiona is my favorite contralto.
Does anyone know what the music is in the background starting at 17:50mins whilst they are at Horseguard's?
Composer in the credits is William Goodchild, the music matches the cuts in the scenes. I liked the music too.
@@Dakini45 many thanks indeed, that’s perfect ☺️
Yeah, it's Funkytown by Lipps Inc.
Two dead men and this woman is about to cry for the dead horse? SMH.
Once insurance has been paid up it is a different game altogether as recipient wouldn't want to return the money if they declared this as the legitimate painting