Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
HENK TROMP
Millions of people admire his work, but are those masterpieces all genuine?
To this day, the international art world struggles to separate the real Van
Goghs from the fake ones. The key question in this book is what may
happen to art experts when they publicly voice their opinions on a particular
Van Gogh (or not).
The story starts with art expert J.B. de la Faille who discovered to his own
bewilderment that he had included dozens of fake Van Goghs in his 1928
catalogue raisonn. He wanted to set the record straight, but met with
REAL
marking the beginning of a fierce clash of interests that had seized the art
world for many decades of the twentieth century. In his fascinating account
of the struggle for the genuine Vincent van Gogh, Tromp shows the less
attractive side of the art world. His reconstruction of many such confronta-
tions yields a host of intriguing and sometimes bewildering insights into the
fates of art experts when they bring unwelcome news.
VAN
process by which opinions are formed. Time after time, Tromp discovers
that key agents allow their judgment to be guided by their own financial in-
terest. In day-to-day practice, the ethics of this behavior is not questioned
either in the courts, the art trade or the art-historical literature.
Gary Schwartz
www.aup.nl
Amsterdam University Press
9 789089 641762
GOGH
Amsterdam University Press
The English translation has been subsidized by the Netherlands Organization for Scientic
Research
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of
this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise)
without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book.
Every effort had been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations repro-
duced in this book. Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised
to contact the Publisher.
Dramatis personae 9
Introduction 13
Acknowledgments 301
Notes 305
Archives 329
Illustrations 331
Bibliography 333
Index of names 345
Leading roles
J. B. de la Faille (1884-1959): Lawyer, critic, journalist, art dealer, curator,
and auctioneer. Francophile, campaigned against German expansionism
during the First World War in the Netherlands. Compiler of the catalogue
raisonn of Vincent van Gogh (first edition, 1928; second edition, painting
catalogue, 1939; posthumous edition, 1970).
H.P. Bremmer (1871-1956): Critic, painter, art educator, patron, dealer, cu-
rator, art collector, and advisor to Mr. and Mrs. Krller. Great admirer of
Vincent van Gogh. Gave courses in practical aesthetics. Acquired a fol-
lowing among the wealthy middle class. The art pope of the Netherlands
until the mid-twentieth century. Awarded an honorary doctorate by the
University of Groningen in 1951.
V.W. van Gogh (1890-1978): Civil engineer, nephew and heir of Vincent
van Gogh. Known in the art world as the Engineer. Owner of the largest
number of Van Goghs in the world, which he gave on loan to the Stedelijk
Museum in Amsterdam in 1930. Chairman of the Vincent van Gogh Foun-
dation. Co-founder of the Expertise Institute in 1952. Awarded an honorary
doctorate by the University of Amsterdam in 1954. Entered into an agree-
ment with the Dutch state in 1962 for the establishment and construction
of the Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh.
Supporting roles
C. Veth (1880-1962): Journalist, critic, writer whose works included De
advocaat in de karikatuur.
dramatis personae
H.L.C. Jaff (1915-1984): Art historian, curator, and deputy director of the
Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam. Writer on aspects of Van Goghs life and
work. Wrote his doctoral dissertation in 1956 on De Stijl. Became professor
of modern art at the University of Amsterdam in 1962.
Paul Gachet (1873-1962): Son of doctor and art collector Paul Ferdinand
Gachet (1828-1909), from whom he inherited works by Vincent van Gogh.
Donated a large portion of them to the French state between 1949 and 1954.
supporting roles
Plus:
politicians, government ocials, public sector employees, journalists, detec-
tives, public prosecutors, judges, lawyers, artists, cartoonists, critics, forgers,
and many others.
dramatis personae
That evening she related the incident to her husband. She thought the forg-
ery should be exposed, but he strongly disagreed: Dont do it. Youll just
provoke the art dealers and cause distress to the buyer, who thinks hes got a
proper, genuine Van Gogh. If he thinks its beautiful, hes happy, and youll
only spoil his happiness. If he bought it because he thinks its genuine,
then hell be punished by a higher form of justice. Just leave it alone.1 She
took his advice and kept quiet. Druet managed to sell the painting shortly
thereafter to the Berlin banker and art collector Paul von Mendelssohn-
introduction
introducton
Background
Art experts make it their business to acquire, increase, and maintain their
authority. They use their knowledge as specialists in an attempt to gain in-
tellectual ascendancy over a public of colleagues and laymen. The develop-
ment of the profession of art expert has never been the subject of systematic
study, however. Art sociologists have skirted the issue for the most part,
as we see in Sociology of the Arts by Victoria D. Alexander.4 Although she
made the division of labor in the art world an important theme (as How-
ard S. Becker did before her in Art Worlds), art experts are conspicuously
absent from sociological discussions of the world of art.5 The historian Jo-
seph Alsop, however, in his The Rare Art Traditions, demonstrates that they
are among the most important actors involved in shaping the modern art
world because their job is to provide works of art with their true history.6
He contends that the specific character of the art world lies in the practice
of collecting art as it began in Italy during the Renaissance. From that mo-
ment on, collectors began accumulating objects that have a special beauty
and a specific history but are not meant for practical use. In this way, col-
lectors created an art market. Dealers appeared who specialized in buying
and selling art objects, and art collectors began competing with each other
for unique items to add to their collections. Collectors have specific prefer-
ences, and this stimulated the supply in certain segments of the art market.
Dealers began to specialize. Competition and business went hand-in-hand
with assessment and reassessment. Art critics got involved, resulting in the
establishment of standards of taste.
As tastes change, diversification arises in the art business and among col-
lectors. Competition leads to higher prices and ultimately to super prices
for works of art. As Alsop shows, fake works of art are bound to be put
into circulation as a result. Art experts play a key role here, since they
provide the true history of art objects. This highly simplified summary of
Alsops historical analysis is consistent with notions and theories on the
division of labor and specialization from the social sciences. In Painting,
introduction
background
introduction
background
introduction
Reactions
In De onwelkome boodschap, we identified the possible reactions to unwel-
come tidings, based on the cases presented, as follows: 1) acceptance, 2)
rejection, 3) hushing up, 4) challenging the tidings by rhetorical means,
and 5) (attempts at) silencing the bearer. 11 If the findings of a researcher
are accepted (Point 1), that would be the end of the matter, at least as far as
this book is concerned. His findings might also be rejected (Point 2), with-
out any negative consequences for the researcher. Such rejection may take
the form of a published text presented according to the rules of empirical
argumentation, but it may also come in the form of an insinuation, ridi-
culing or that other universal weapon, the ad hominem argument. Another
possibility is hushing up (Point 3), that is, pretending that the unwelcome
tidings were never announced. In this instance, the recipient may keep
the results to himself if they are not to his advantage. He may impose a
kind of gag order on the researcher, or he may ignore any negative results
and explicitly praise those research results that support his own interests.
Challenging the tidings by rhetorical means (Point 4) refers to purple prose
and bombastic and disingenuous linguistic usage meant to prove oneself
reactions
Methodology
The research questions are rooted in twentieth-century Western art. Art
historian Erwin Panofsky is once said to have commented that sociologists,
who are mainly interested in theorizing, and historians, who just want to
report events, made him think of two neighbors fighting over the same plot
of land who never get anywhere because one has the gun and the other has
the bullets. It has been my intention, as an anthropologist, to put an end to
this standoff by wielding the one weapon that is perfectly suited to the art
historian: archival research. To answer the questions I pose in this book, I
have also carried out extensive and repeated discussions with persons from
the art world, far more than is customary among art historians. And in
describing and interpreting the events covered here I have been guided by
the prevailing theoretical principles of the social sciences. In this way I have
attempted to make a contribution to the broadening of social research with
introduction
methodology
introduction
Vincent van Gogh died on 29 July 1890, leaving behind an oeuvre of un-
charted proportions. His brother Theo may have been aware of its size, since
the two men had been so close and Theo had supported Vincent in a number
of ways. But within just a few months Theo followed Vincent to the grave,
and he took his knowledge of Vincents work with him. A few decades later,
Jacob Baart de la Faille assumed the task of documenting the work of Vin-
cent van Gogh in text and picture. In 1928 he published his Van Gogh cata-
logue raisonn comprising 1,716 works, but it quickly became apparent that
some of the paintings in his magnum opus were not from Vincents hand. De
la Faille was shocked, and he made up his mind to correct his mistakes. In
late 1928 he rejected a few dozen paintings as fake Van Goghs, but in 1932 he
changed his mind and readmitted some of them as genuine, only to condemn
them again as fakes about 20 years later. Genuine, fake, genuine, fake: was
this an indication of instability, haste, excessive carelessness, or even more
painful (if that is possible) of an inated ego and sheer incompetence, as a
few contemporaries believed? Was this swing of the pendulum a sign of ex-
cessive skepticism, perhaps, or of what is called scope creep in managerial
circles? Was it an expression of lively scholarly inquiry, or were there other,
quite dierent factors at work? The search for an answer to these questions
reveals a fascinating history that centers on De la Failles eort to purify Vin-
cents work and to preserve his own integrity as a Van Gogh expert.
De la Faille
Jacob Baart de la Faille (1884-1959) did not seem predestined to leave his
mark on the work of Vincent van Gogh. He studied law in Utrecht and
led an active student life: he was a board member of the student associa-
de la faille
During the Great War, De la Faille devoted himself to things that did not
benefit him financially and that involved taking risks as well.7 But he was
also proud to mention the many decorations he received for his endeavors:
the French Cross of the Legion of Honor, the Czech Cross of the Order of
the White Lion, the Belgian Cross of the Order of Leopold II, the Serbian
Commanders Cross of the Order of Saint Sava, etc. During the twenties, he
was a prominent figure at various festivities: the Relief of Leiden, tributes to
artists, and celebrations honoring the Dutch royal family. He was cultural
ambassador for the French principality of Orange, for the Kingdom of Yu-
goslavia, and for Czechoslovakia, and he liked making it known that he was
rubbing shoulders with the highly placed. De la Faille was clearly someone
who enjoyed the limelight: he was no stranger to vanity. Yet this attitude
was quite in keeping with the aggressive nationalism, hero worship, and the
almost inviolable sense of social position that permeated Dutch society at
Certicates of authenticity
The end of the Great War brought economic recovery to the Netherlands,
but it was short-lived. The political and economic climate in Germany was
even more volatile and precarious, if such a thing was possible. With the
certificates of authenticity
certificates of authenticity
conflict of interest
Vincents fame
Van Goghs work made an overpowering impression on De la Faille right
from the beginning. He wrote about it for the first time in 1913: [The
paintings], in all their brutality and ferocity, bear witness to a talent so full-
bloodedly anarchistic yet so great and so destructive of everything hum-
drum and traditional.22 In 1917 he decided to put together a catalogue
raisonn.23 As auctioneer at Muller & Co. from 1916 to 1923, he was fre-
quently involved in the sale of Van Goghs. The collection of the German
playwright Carl Sternheim, including ten Van Goghs, came under the ham-
mer in 1919.24 In 1920 the Rotterdam businessman Krller bought 20 paint-
ings by Vincent from the Enthoven collection at Muller. Research on the
catalogue reinforced De la Failles contact with Johanna van Gogh-Bonger
(1862-1925), widow of Vincents brother Theo (1857-1891), and with her
son, Vincent Willem van Gogh (1890-1978), who would be known in the
art world as the Engineer to distinguish him from his famous uncle and
namesake, an epithet that will be used throughout this book. He inherited
more than 250 paintings and over 500 drawings from Vincent van Gogh.25
He and his mother also owned a wealth of letters and other documents.
After the death of Vincent van Gogh, Johanna van Gogh-Bonger devoted
vincents fame
. De la Faille saw himself as a specialist in Vincent van Goghs French period. This
photograph, taken in around , shows him in the park of the hospital Saint-Paul-
de-Mausole in Saint-Rmy-de-Provence, where Vincent van Gogh lived between May
and May .
Catalogue raisonn
In early December 1927, De la Failles publisher distributed the two vol-
umes of the Vincent van Gogh catalogue raisonn containing entries for
862 paintings that De la Faille confidently attributed to the master. This
was followed in July 1928 by two more volumes containing 724 drawings,
119 watercolors, nine lithographs, one gouache, and one etching. He had
invested about 5,000 guilders in the catalogues production. The volumi-
nous work was published in French the language of the cultural elite
with a dedication that expressed an ardent union of national pride and
high culture: To my beloved France, the precious land of my forefathers,
which fostered the awakening of Van Goghs genius.29 It was groundbreak-
ing work, not only because it was the first Van Gogh catalogue raisonn but
also because it was the first such catalogue to treat a modern master. No
equivalent catalogues yet existed for moderns such as Czanne (1839-1906),
Gauguin (1848-1903), or Manet (1832-1883).
catalogue raisonn
Bremmer
In 1928, at age 57, Petrus Bremmer (1871-1956) could look back on a suc-
cessful career in the art world. He had done quite well for himself, catering
to the demand for art among the upper middle class of the late nineteenth
century. Growing prosperity, the desire to travel, and a passion for accu-
mulating things turned many people into potential collectors of modern
art. Yet as Bremmers biographer Hildelies Balk writes, many of them felt
insecure about their taste in contemporary art, which seemed to reject the
prevailing artistic criteria based on naturalistic rendering.34 What is modern
art anyway? How can one tell the difference between a real work of art and
the product of an uninspired hack? Bremmer, who had first aspired to a ca-
reer as an artist, took a tip from his brother-in-law, the cultural anthropolo-
gist Dr. S.R. Steinmetz (1862-1940), and began giving courses in practical
bremmer
bremmer
bremmer
Friends of Vincent
In March 1928 De la Faille formed the organization Friends of Vincent van
Gogh and His Time, the purpose of which was to acquire works by Vincent
van Gogh and related artists for the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam.43
He invited Krller-Mller and Bremmer to become members, but both of
them turned him down. Bremmer thought there was more than enough
of Vincents works in the Netherlands and that it was better to support
living Dutch artists.44 Krller-Mller wrote that with her 97 paintings, 38
drawings, and eight watercolors by Van Gogh, the Netherlands already had
plenty of the artists work in its care.45 These words contain a hint of the
rivalry that existed between Bremmer and Krller-Mller on the one hand
and De la Faille and the Van Gogh family on the other.
friends of vincent
Supplment
De la Faille was determined to keep the matter under wraps. He decided to
follow the unwritten law of the art trade: when a work of art is being sold
whose spuriousness is incontestable, seller and buyer will observe all neces-
. Certicate of authenticity by
De la Faille on the back of a
photograph of Self-Portrait at the
Easel:
supplment
supplment
true colors
. The Nationalgalerie in
Berlin, opened in . For
the conservative elite, the
motto Der Deutschen Kunst
meant that modern French
art, which they insisted also
included Van Gogh, need not
be shown. The year refers
to the German victory over
France.
true colors
Meier-Graefe
In October 1927, when De la Failles exhibition of Van Gogh drawings
from the gallery of Otto Wacker held its opening, Meier-Graefe com-
mented with a sigh, Every week Berlin is one art dealer richer. 7 It all
had to do with the astounding economic growth that had taken place in
Germany over the preceding years: the Golden Twenties. Unemployment
had practically disappeared, industry had been modernized, the business
community was in full swing, and wages had skyrocketed. All this could
be felt in the art world. Art lovers had money in abundance and there was
a demand for works by modern masters. Wacker was one of the many to
profit from this turbulent artistic and economic climate. Over the previ-
ous two years he had had no trouble putting drawings and paintings by
Vincent van Gogh on the market, and with the profits he had been able
meier-graefe
true colors
Resistance
How did Otto Wacker take the criticism of his merchandise in 1928? He
seemed to make light of the incident of the four fake Van Goghs at the
Cassirer gallery in January 1928. He did not dispute the judgment of De la
Faille, Ring, and Feilchenfeldt, and he gave the paintings back. In the first
half of that year he was still able to sell his Van Goghs for high prices to
dealers and collectors in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States,
but that summer, cracks began to appear on the surface of his operation.
De la Faille informed art dealers of his revised judgment, and most of them
took back the canvases from the duped collectors, offered them to Wacker,
and demanded a refund.
When the art world learned of De la Failles plan to dismiss all the Wack-
er Van Goghs as fakes in a Supplment to be published at the end of 1928,
resistance
Teacher
On 30 November 1928, Otto Wacker, accompanied by his brother Leon-
hard, paid a hasty visit to Bremmer in The Hague, bringing three paintings
with him. It was not Ottos first meeting with Bremmer. Seven months
earlier, Bremmer had provided Self-Portrait at the Easel (F 523) with a cer-
tificate of authenticity after De la Faille had informed art dealer Joseph
Stransky of his decision to revoke his judgment of the canvas, and before
Stransky had sold it (with Bremmers certificate) in May 1928. Wacker knew
the way Bremmer worked: the unquestioning emotion he displayed when
he beheld a work of art and his disparaging attitude towards academic art
study. Otto Wacker would not have to expect any troublesome questions
from him about the provenance of the Van Goghs. Moreover, he was con-
vinced that Bremmer wielded enormous authority among Dutch dealers
and collectors. Wacker presented himself as a passionate dealer, but unin-
true colors
Alibi
Bremmers protective hand could not shield Wacker from the formidable
blow to his reputation brought on by the newspaper reports of De la Failles
Supplment. Everything Wacker said and did was held up to the light. Po-
alibi
true colors
Ludwig Justi
In 1928, Ludwig Justi, who had a doctorate in art history, was unquestion-
ably the most influential museum director in Germany. In 1909 he succeed-
ed Hugo von Tschudi as the director of the Knigliche Nationalgalerie, the
museum that was renamed the Staatliche Nationalgalerie a few months after
the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1918. Justi was not only one of the
most important figures in the German art world but also one of the most
controversial. He believed that a museums task was to preserve the old and
recognize the new. It should exhibit and collect the art that has withstood
the selection process of the ages, but it should do the same for contempo-
rary art. He also felt that it was the museums job to familiarize the greater
public with this art by means of lectures, tours, and publications. Justis
ideas were by no means commonplace in the 1910s and 20s, and they made
him many enemies in conservative circles. While these enemies agreed with
Justi that the museum should show German art, they despised his prefer-
ludwig justi
true colors
ludwig justi
Invitation
In 1928 an agreement was reached between Justi and Mrs. Krller-Mller:
her Van Gogh collection would be shown in the former Kronprinzenpalais,
which Justi had put to use in 1921 as an annex of the Nationalgalerie. Now
that Justi was no longer serving a Kaiser who insisted on seeing the nation
glorified in academic, romantic paintings but was working under a minis-
ter who granted him more freedom, he could implement his museological
ideas. What he had in mind was to reserve the entire palace for contempo-
rary art. It was a revolutionary plan. Until then, modern art had been some-
true colors
. The Kronprinzenpalais in Berlin. Here the Van Goghs from the collection of
Helene Krller-Mller were shown in early . The Berlin police would not allow
her forged Van Gogh Seascape (F ) to be shown in the museum proper, but she
managed to have this restriction reversed.
ludwig justi
Crass forgeries
By 3 January 1929, Justi had eight Wacker Van Goghs hanging in the Kron-
prinzenpalais, but not among the Van Goghs of Helene Krller-Mller,
as he had hoped. The police had prohibited him from hanging the con-
troversial paintings in the museum proper because they were to be used
as evidence if Otto Wacker were ever taken to court on charges of fraud.
Displaying them could stir up public sentiment, thereby undermining the
impartiality of the legal proceedings. So Justi hung them in his study, where
a select number of persons could see them on request. He also hung the
Wacker Van Gogh Seascape (F 418) there, which Krller-Mller had sent to
Berlin over a week after the exhibition had opened. He confided his doubts
true colors
crass forgeries
true colors
Intervention
When Helene Krller-Mller attended the exhibition at the end of Janu-
ary 1929 and discovered that her new acquisition Seascape was missing, she
was very put out. She demanded that it be placed in the museum proper.
Bremmer, too, spoke with Justi about it. He threatened to send the entire
Krller-Mller collection back to The Hague if the painting were not hung
in the exhibition with all the other Van Goghs. Justi gave in and hung it
among Vincents other works from the Arles period.33
In February the police placed six more paintings in the care of the Na-
tionalgalerie. They allowed a few to be returned to their German owners,
but kept other canvases from being sent back, such as a group of three from
the Matthiesen gallery: Self-Portrait (F 385), Cypresses (F 614), and Basket
with Rolls (henceforth Rolls, F 387).34 All this to the distress of the art dealer,
who had found in Krller-Mller a potential buyer for Self-Portrait and Cy-
presses.35 Bremmer would have told her that these two were genuine. Rolls,
on the other hand, was a fake in his estimation.36 The seizure of these can-
vases is the price Matthiesen had to pay for pressing charges against Wacker
on behalf of the Society of Art and Antique Dealers.37 For the courts, the
paintings would serve as evidence in a case against Wacker and therefore
had to remain available. Did the judicial authorities then raise their eye-
brows when they learned that the art dealer Matthiesen of all people the
claimant wanted the paintings back? Did they suspect that he might still
be able to dispose of a few questionable canvases? Were they at all aware that
intervention
true colors
Memory loss
On 26 January 1929, Otto and Leonhard Wacker arrived at Bremmers home
in The Hague. They had brought with them a few paintings from the gal-
lery on the Viktoriastrae, including Haystacks (F 625bis), which now be-
longed to Bremmer. In doing so, the Wacker brothers had in fact withdrawn
evidence from the attachment order imposed by the judicial authorities. In
December, Bremmer himself had attempted to bring Wacker paintings to
the Netherlands, but the police had managed to foil his efforts.41 After this
successful transport, it was up to Bremmer to decide whether to have his
property examined or not, and if so by whom.
Otto Wacker had promised his Berlin friends that after his return he
would lay his cards on the table with regard to the Russian collector. They
expected him back on 4 February, but they waited in vain. Wacker had
had an accident; that morning he had been found unconscious at the bot-
tom of a flight of stairs in Hotel Rijnland (owned by Bremmers sister) in
Leiden. He was rushed to the Sint-Elisabeth Hospital. When he regained
consciousness, he said he had felt ill that morning and had fallen down the
stairs. According to the attending physician his illness had been the result of
a heart attack; according to Wacker it had been an attempt to poison him.
Who was behind it the Russian nobleman, jealous art dealers he did
not know. The doctor maintained that Wacker had had a heart attack, but
Wacker in turn pointed an accusatory finger at the doctor, claiming that he
was part of a conspiracy to take his life.
Some sixty years later, Nicole Roepers looked up the official report of the
incident filed with the Leiden municipal police in 1929. According to this
report, an examination of Wackers blood and excrement revealed no traces
of toxic materials.42 Nevertheless, the case of the forged Van Goghs had
now acquired all the trappings of a detective novel: fake paintings, lots of
true colors
Daubignys Garden
By the time the exhibition of the Krller-Mller Van Gogh collection at
the Kronprinzenpalais reached its end on 28 February, there had been more
than 23,000 visitors, a large number for those days.46 All told, sixteen Wack-
er Van Goghs had hung in the museum and the publicity about the forged
paintings had contributed to the events great success. The exhibition was
highly praised. Even Justis most formidable critic, Karl Scheffler, was im-
pressed, but he couldnt resist writing that after viewing the Van Goghs he
immediately made his way to the rooms where the real masters were: Ma-
net, Renoir, and Czanne.47
Ludwig Justi must have seen the success of the exhibition in the Kro-
nprinzenpalais as a confirmation of the course the Nationalgalerie was tak-
ing. The museum was supposed to demonstrate the continuity of German
art since the nineteenth century. Starting with the Romantic school, a line
ran through Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Fauvism, and Expression-
ism in which the German spirit was unmistakably present. But the museum
was unable to show any paintings by one key figure in that development:
Vincent van Gogh. So after the exhibition closed, Justi got in touch with
various art dealers in order to purchase some Van Goghs for the Nation-
algalerie. There were Van Goghs on the market, but he was not interested
in acquiring just a few random paintings. There had to be a masterpiece
daubignys garden
true colors
daubignys garden
true colors
imitations
true colors
hushing up
paint
Chester Dale
In many ways, Chester Dale (1883-1962) lived the American dream. From
a modest background, he quickly worked his way up from messenger boy
to banker, becoming one of the countrys wealthiest men by the eve of
the First World War. He had been a professional boxer, played golf, was
an esteemed member of New Yorks high society, and had joined the New
York Stock Exchange a testimony to his wealth and influence at the age
of only thirty-five. His marriage to artist-critic Maud Murray (1875-1953),
who had experienced the Paris art world at first hand and was determined
to make it better known in the United States, stimulated his interest in
art collecting.11 She chose the works, he negotiated the price. Here, too,
Chester Dale was immensely successful; although the stock market crash
of October 1929 led to the loss of a large part of his fortune, by the end
of the 1950s his collection of modern art comprised more than 250 paint-
ings and sculptures and was worth more than twenty-two million dollars. 12
This sum is even more impressive when we learn that he had actually spent
only two million. The collection also contained many works from other
periods, including masterpieces by Tintoretto, El Greco, Rubens, and Da-
vid, among others.
hushing up
Chester Dale was one of those American entrepreneurs for whom art was
also an investment. In this regard he went somewhat further than his co-
collectors, who tended to keep fairly aloof from the business side of things.
In 1925 he became a stockholder in the gallery Georges Petit in Paris, and
soon had spies in both the French capital and in New York who helped him
acquire works by living artists such as Modigliani, Picasso, and Matisse at a
favorable price. The Dales were extraordinarily open about their purchases,
issuing press releases with details about the artists, works, and values. This
produced the desired effect, with the press devoting column after column
to their collection. Such behavior is part and parcel of the game Americas
wealthy like to play with one another: demonstrative spending on art was
and still is an indication of social success. On 31 March 1930, for example,
The New York Times reported that in 1929, collectors in the United States
had spent 250,000,000 dollars on art. The oil-baron John D. Rockefeller
had paid 375,000 for Piero della Francescas Crucifixion, while the cigarette
manufacturer Schinasi had spent 250,000 on a Madonna and Child by Fra
Filippo Lippi. As for Chester Dale, he had made some significant acquisi-
chester dale
Scherjon
The uproar over Wackers Van Goghs in the Netherlands and Germany was
not lost on the Dales. The American and English press paid little attention
to the affair, but it was enough to set their alarm bells ringing.21 Maud Dale
hired a clipping agency and translators to help her keep abreast of develop-
ments. The couple was convinced that their work was not only genuine, but
also one of the artists best. They found support among critics, collectors,
hushing up
. In December the art dealer Willem Scherjon bought the painting Two Poplars
(F ), x cm., now at the Ohara Museum of Art, Karushiki, Japan. It proved
unmarketable because De la Faille called it a fake Van Gogh.
scherjon
hushing up
Voor de Kunst
In early February 1929 Ludwig Justi went to the press with the informa-
tion that the Wacker Van Goghs in his museum were forgeries. This gave
De la Failles allies new ammunition for their contention that all the works
originating with Wackers mysterious Russian collector were fake. His op-
ponents, however, following Bremmers line, continued to maintain that
at least some of the works from the controversial collection were in fact
authentic.
Scherjon sought to confirm Bremmers standpoint, coming up with a
move to counter the research undertaken at the Nationalgalerie. A Van
Gogh exhibition in Utrecht was to undermine Justis position and convince
the world that a number of the paintings sold by Wacker were in fact genu-
ine. In 1928 he obtained permission from Vincent Willem van Gogh to put
fifty-two paintings and six drawings on display at the gallery of Voor de
Kunst in Nobelstraat in Utrecht; the show was to run from mid-April for
a duration of six weeks. De la Faille was informed and warned the Engi-
neer that Scherjon would undoubtedly use the exhibition to proclaim the
authenticity of his own Two Poplars. We do not know whether Vincent Wil-
lem was influenced by De la Failles admonitions, nor whether Scherjon had
actually planned to put his own Wacker Van Gogh on view. He certainly
had something like it in mind, if not with his own work than with Chester
Dales Self-Portrait at the Easel, which was to be exhibited in Paris in 1929.
The Dales agreed to have their work shown in Utrecht and shipped it to
France at the end of April.27
On Saturday, 25 May, as the Van Gogh exhibition at Voor de Kunst
was about to enter its last week, Scherjon added two pictures to the display:
Dales Self-Portrait at the Easel and another, undisputed self-portrait (F 626)
from the collection of Tutein Nolthenius, a work from Van Goghs period
voor de kunst
hushing up
samples
hushing up
Who Knew?
Back to 1929. Did De Wild deliver his unwelcome message directly to Dale,
or did he also confide in Scherjon? The available evidence proves nothing
either way. There is no correspondence with De Wild among Dales papers
in Washington, only with Scherjon. And the surviving letters make no men-
tion of the outcome. It seems highly unlikely, however, that Scherjon who
had mediated between Dale and De Wild could have been ignorant of the
research results.
In fact, there are a number of clues that indicate quite the opposite. One
month after handing over the painting to De Wild, Scherjon attacked De la
Faille in the Utrechts Provinciaals en Stedelijk Dagblad for his stance on Self-
Portrait at the Easel. He reiterated De Gruyters aesthetic arguments, once
again made an appeal to Vincents letters, and advanced the positive re-
sults of De Wilds analysis of his own painting, Two Poplars. This exchange
would have been the perfect opportunity to make the scientific evidence in
favor of the self-portrait known to the wider world. But Scherjon failed to
make use of it, and this gives reason for pause.39
Moreover, in early 1929 Scherjon had formulated the ambitious plan to
write a book on the works of Van Goghs last years in France, in which
letters, documents, and scientific arguments would serve to support his
contentions regarding authenticity. The book was finally published in 1932,
but without any mention at all of the technical research recently conducted
into Van Goghs paintings. Elsewhere that same year, Scherjon did men-
tion some of the results of these examinations in this case x-radiographs
of three versions of The Sower40 but only in order to discredit forensic
analysis as such.41 Scherjon had turned science in nothing more than the
handmaiden of the art trade.
who knew?
hushing up
anonymous
hushing up
the analyses carried out at the Nationalgalerie in Berlin, which had revealed
the addition of hardeners to the paintings in question. My contention is
that in the course of 1929-30, De Wild focused his attention on precisely
this issue, even discovering resin in the remaining five Wacker pictures.
Taking samples from nineteen works belonging to Vincent Willem Van
Gogh all of them in April and May 1929 during the exhibition at Voor
de Kunst provided him with a clear basis for comparison. Resin, added
to make paintings dry faster, is present in large quantities in the Wacker
Van Goghs. Van Gogh, on the other hand, as mentioned above, never added
anything to the paint to help it dry.
Did Bremmer, with his disdain for scientific analysis in matters of art,
pay any serious attention to De Wilds conclusions regarding his Haystacks?
It seems unlikely that they made much of an impression on him. At the
beginning of the public scandal surrounding the Wacker paintings he as-
cribed only a modest, subordinate role to chemical analysis. Empathy with
hushing up
hushing up
Reception
The reactions to Les faux Van Gogh run from the loftiest praise to the deep-
est contempt. De la Faille received compliments from Schmidt Degener,
director of the Rijksmuseum, who wrote to him, It is so easy to remain
silent under such circumstances. If you had not taken action, this falsifi-
cation would have gone on endlessly, and what the following generations
would have thought about Van Gogh is a mystery to me.7 Numerous crit-
ics reacted similarly. Art critic Jo Zwartendijk reminded the readers of the
NRC that De la Faille had openly admitted his mistakes in 1928, a gesture
for which he was reviled in every possible way. The fact is that we do not
live in a world that shows much respect for people with courage, people
who acknowledge their faults.8 The Burlington Magazine called it a remark-
able book, the Sunday Times said it was of inestimable value, the Illustrated
London News praised De la Faille for his courage in stirring up such a
hornets nest, and upon his skill in waging war with such deadly effect
and the Haarlem art dealer J.H. de Bois called it a chronique scandaleuse
of a misguided Van Gogh cult but also noted that without all the fuss sur-
reception
The Krllers
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Anton G. Krller was one of the
most successful businessmen in the Netherlands. As director of the firm
of Wm. H. Mller & Co., he had managed to extend the commercial ac-
tivities of his German father-in-law to Africa and South America. The firm
had interests in transport to England (the Batavia Line) and in the mining
the krllers
. One of the display rooms at Wm. H. Mller & Zn. on the Lange Voorhout in the
Hague.
the krllers
the krllers
Accommodation
In January 1930, the Friends of Vincent van Gogh and His Time submitted
to the city of Amsterdam a plan by De la Faille to organize an exhibition in
the Stedelijk Museum on the 40th anniversary of Vincent van Goghs death.
De la Failles proposal was to show 125 works by modern French painters,
grouped around 75 works by Van Gogh, mainly from his French period.28
The first list of paintings by Van Gogh that De la Faille wanted to request
for the exhibition is quite interesting: a total of 75 works, 22 of which had
Dutch owners. Not a single painting on his list was from the Krllers col-
lection. The Van Goghs owned by her advisor Bremmer more than 70
works were absent as well. De la Faille told alderman Eduard Polak of Art
Affairs he thought it was unlikely that all the paintings on the list would
be obtained. In that case, a secondary selection might be made from the
Krller-Mller collection.
In February 1930 the city of Amsterdam and the Ministry of Education,
Arts, and Sciences made funding available for the organization, transport,
and insurance of the exhibition. The commissioning authorities wanted a
large, representative exhibition that was worthy of this great Dutchman.
But Polak insisted on equal representation for both Van Gogh and his con-
temporaries, not the preponderance of contemporaries that De la Faille had
proposed. The alderman wanted at least a hundred works by Van Gogh to
be shown.29
In the months that followed, De la Faille visited countless collectors, art
dealers, and museums in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Germany,
asking for paintings to be placed on loan. He had little luck. Not all the
works he wanted to exhibit were made available to him. Then the alderman
accommodation
accommodation
Power
The gallery Huinck & Scherjon had much less power over the exhibition or-
ganizers than Krller-Mller, as is clear from the disagreement that emerged
regarding the gallerys Two Poplars. In early June, the gallery issued a press
release containing a few laudatory remarks from the newspapers about Two
Poplars as well as the results of research carried out by J.C.M. Garnier of
the Utrecht police departments dactyloscopic services, which was said to
confirm the works authenticity. Garnier had discovered that fingerprints
found on the canvas were the same as those allegedly found on uncontested
Van Goghs from the Krller-Mller collection.33 An anonymous writer in
the NRC challenged the validity of the proof: no registered fingerprints of
Van Gogh exist, and the prints could just as easily have come from someone
else. But the NRC editorial staff supported Scherjons reasoning that the
fingerprints were proof of legitimacy.34
For Scherjon, the fingerprints and the NRCs acceptance were new
weapons in the struggle, which was taken up by others in order to prove
De la Failles error. In my estimation, wrote De Gruyter, it would be
difficult to find evidence more concrete than an authentic-looking thumb-
print. 35 By contrast, a critic from De Haagsche Post was unimpressed by
the fingerprint investigation, although he did find De Wilds research on
the 40-year age of the paint compelling. That proved beyond a shadow
of a doubt that the canvas must be Vincent van Goghs: Anyone who
has studied Van Gogh in depth will find peculiarities in Two Poplars that
no one but Van Gogh could have set down with such passion. There ex-
ists another sense, moreover a nameless one of which the expert avails
himself, and though it may not be scientific it is still of value. 36 A few
weeks later Bremmer wrote an article in his magazine Beeldende Kunst
praising the painting: The way the trees are rendered in that quavering
gyration of lines almost suggests something orchestral. And despite all this
wildness and turbulence there is still a subdued quality; after all, it was
Polemics
On 6 September 1930, the Stedelijk Museum opened its doors for the ex-
hibition Vincent van Gogh en zijn tijdgenoten (Vincent van Gogh and His
Contemporaries). It was a major event. The newspapers reported the pres-
ence of authorities of every stripe: members of the upper and lower houses
of parliament, representatives of the Amsterdam city council, officers of the
army and navy, the French ambassador, artists, and prominent persons from
the business community and the cultural world. Alderman Polak, Minister
polemics
retaliation
passions
retaliation
Hypocrite
The critic De Gruyter defended Bremmer and Scherjons position on the
Wacker Van Goghs in the newspapers, and made their viewpoints his own,
until 1933. After that year, an estrangement can be detected between him
and Bremmer, who was almost 30 years his senior. In a letter to the painter
Aart van Dobbenburgh, written in 1935, De Gruyter ventilated his feelings
about Bremmer and all his quibbling and called him a narrow-minded
hypocrite.24 De Gruyters exasperation with Bremmer came to light in
April 1937 and became the driving force behind an out-and-out controversy
in Het Vaderland that dragged on for weeks. De Gruyter had become one
of that newspapers permanent staff members. The dispute began rather in-
nocently. In a review of an exhibition at the Nieuwenhuizen Segaar Gallery
in The Hague, De Gruyter had some critical things to say about the work
of Charley Toorop, a protge of Bremmer, but De Gruyter did not expect
Bremmers followers to have any difficulties with her work because it was
an artistic product recognized by Mr. Bremmer.25 The remark did not go
hypocrite
retaliation
hypocrite
retaliation
Fadeout
Mrs. Krller-Mller died in December 1939. She was succeeded as director
of the Rijksmuseum Krller-Mller by her secretary and confidant, Salo-
mon van Deventer. He gave a few paintings from his collection out on loan
and had a catalogue compiled of the Van Gogh collection, in which both
Seascape (F 418), then part of the state collection, and his own Self-Portrait
(F 418) occupied a prominent place. The Van Goghs were not organized
according to F numbers. In 1939 Van Deventer not only had the critics
exultant reviews of his Wacker Van Gogh to rely on, but he was also able to
draw support for the works authenticity from the Scherjon-De Gruyter and
De la Faille catalogues.
In March 1940 the museum scheduled a lecture by Maurits van Dantzig,
an Amsterdam painter and restorer. Van Dantzig availed himself of the op-
portunity to voice his doubts about the authenticity of a few of the paint-
ings. He summarized the most typical characteristics of the paintings by
Van Gogh and argued that they were not present in Seascape. Mrs. Krller-
Mller would have turned over in her grave. Bremmer did not take the
fadeout
retaliation
fadeout
Far away in America, Chester Dale kept abreast of what the German and
Dutch press were writing about the Wacker trial. The outcome must have
put his mind at ease. He may have recognized his own Self-Portrait at the
Easel in the verdict of the Berlin judges, who spoke of the high quality
Wacker Van Goghs outside Germany. He hung the picture in the dining
room of his New York apartment. It was no longer controversial, and illus-
trations in French and English publications saw to it that the message that
it was indeed a genuine Van Gogh reached the broader public. To give just
one example: the publisher of Thomas Cravens Modern Art advertised the
book in the New York Times with a reproduction of the work and a quote
from Craven: His face was a thing to turn ones soul. I doubt if nature in
her most audacious moods had ever before planted so unselfish a spirit and
so many heroic impulses in such a repugnant carcass.1 Self-Portrait at the
Easel is also one of only two Van Goghs illustrated in the book.
From 1942 the picture was on display for all to admire in the National
Gallery of Art in Washington, and was invariably listed in the museums
catalogues as a work of the artist. Since 1984 it has been inventoried as an
Imitator of Van Gogh, and has disappeared from the galleries.
An intriguing question: is it really possible that for forty years the mu-
seum remained ignorant of the truth about the canvas? Was Chester Dale
ever questioned about the pictures doubtful provenance and if so, how did
he and the museum react? These rather obvious questions could not be
answered through the sources available in the Netherlands, but research
at the Archives of American Art at the Smithsonian Institution and at the
National Gallery of Art provided a fascinating insight into the attitude of
a collector seeking to protect his property, and the dilemmas facing the
museum once it became aware that the work was a forgery. The records
show that both Dale and the museum knew about the doubts surrounding
Self-Portrait at the Easel they were informed not once but several times by
a number of prominent figures in the art world. Until Dales death in 1962,
and for many years thereafter, this was done mostly behind closed doors.
The ins and outs of the story are the subject of what follows.
an uneasy legacy
a directors dilemma
an uneasy legacy
a directors dilemma
an uneasy legacy
At the opening of the National Gallery in 1942, Chester Dale was given
three galleries for the permanent display of his collection. He gave seventy-
one paintings on long-term loan, among them three Van Goghs: La Mousm
(F 431), Olive Orchard (F 656), and Self-Portrait at the Easel (F 523). The
works were much praised in the press: The self-portrait in it is one of
the best of the series that Van Gogh did of himself; some say that it is the
best. (...) It is a burning, thrilling thing and, as in all Van Gogh, it is a
perfect treatise in color.6 Dale provided the museum with information on
all his pictures, but failed to mention the controversy surrounding the self-
portrait: there is no mention of De la Failles Les faux Van Gogh, nothing on
De Wilds negative findings on the make-up of the paint, and not a word
on the devastating report by the anonymous Paris restorer. Moreover, Dale
altered the provenance. In previously published catalogues of his collection,
an uneasy legacy
an uneasy legacy
Role-playing
In his memoirs, Walker describes himself in relation to his collectors as
alternately an art expert, diplomat, friend, and spouse. Elegant, but some-
what deceptive descriptions, for they suggest a certain equality. We can un-
doubtedly also recognize in him the courtier, a man who sought to achieve
his goals through dissemblance and flattery. There is also no denying that
there was always an element of subordination in the relationship, and so
yet another role comes to mind: that of the servant. In his autobiography
of 1974, Walker never says anything directly, but in 1990, many years after
his retirement, he discussed his relationship with Chester Dale in less cir-
cuitous terms. Walker describes him as a difficult and extremely egotisti-
cal man, who demanded constant attention and who with his wrangling
made life extremely difficult for the director and his colleagues, even to the
point of becoming an obstacle to winning other interesting collectors for
the museum. There was a constant fear that he would eventually choose
to house his collection somewhere else, and this was one of the reasons for
making him chairman of the Board of Trustees in 1955. This failed to bring
the hoped-for relief to the museum management, however, as more than
before they were forced to endure both his capricious behavior and hour-
long conversations on the telephone or at his home in order to appease him.
(We) would go up practically with bended knees and eight martinis and beg
him, Walker said in 1990, but once peace had been made there was plenty
of drink, merriment, and food.16 John Walkers childhood friend, First Lady
Jacqueline Kennedy, did not fail to notice the eects, and wrote him a con-
soling letter in 1961 that contains the following telling passage: You sound
tired + wise + girding for the struggle just the way you must sound when
they say: Chester Dale is on the phone (burn this letter!).17
role-playing
an uneasy legacy
The Vincent van Gogh global authentication monopoly was in the hands of
four Dutchmen, wrote the editors of Connaissance des Arts in 1952: J. Baart de
la Faille, A.M. Hammacher, Engineer V.W. van Gogh, and W. Sandberg,
since without the signature of any one of them, no certificate of authentic-
ity is of value.1 It was a bare bones list, to be sure. Bremmers certificates
were also a surefire way of putting drawings by Van Gogh into the hands
of buyers, and so were those signed by the Flemish Van Gogh expert Marc
Edot Tralbaut. The list contained a mistake as well. In 1952, Willem Sand-
berg, director of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, was not issuing cer-
tificates of authenticity not any longer, that is. But Connaissance des Arts
was not far from the truth. The art market recognized the Van Gogh seal of
approval on only a few certificates of authenticity. If the dealers, collectors,
and museums had always been in agreement, they would have had no cause
for alarm. But unanimity on questions of authenticity could not be taken
for granted in the art world, let alone the Van Gogh world. As we saw in the
struggle over the Van Goghs of Otto Wacker, fierce clashes among experts
were not unusual. Bremmer managed to preserve his authority on questions
of authenticity, although he was not able to keep his old and new enemies
from rendering his Wacker Van Gogh Haystacks (F625bis) unmarketable.
The absence of Bremmer in the list of Connaissance des Arts was no over-
sight, by the way. Power relationships in the Van Gogh world had changed.
By 1952 Bremmer had slipped a bit into the background as an expert and
De la Faille was in the spotlight once again. But they both had to share
their authority on questions of authenticity with Hammacher, director of
the Rijksmuseum Krller-Mller from 1947 to 1963, and with Engineer Van
Gogh. After the war, all four passed judgment on works of art brought to
them by owners eager for a Van Gogh attribution. The subsequent disagree-
Silence
The affair made a deep impression and exposed an aspect of attribution
that filled the judicial authorities with concern. If Dutch experts could so
easily be led down the garden path to accept fake works of art as genuine,
they constituted a considerable threat to the Dutch art trade and to Dutch
culture that had international ramifications. How could this be prevented?
After Van Meegeren was convicted on 12 November 1947, a few individuals
claimed that they had not let themselves be deceived and had been quite
aware that Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus was a forgery. Harry van Wi-
jnen, who studied the reception of Emmaus between 1937 and 1945, is not
so sure. Few people committed their doubts to paper before 1945, so those
who later insisted they had known all along did not have much to stand on.
There did appear to be a couple of exceptions, however. One of them was
the Duveen firm of international art dealers. Two Duveen employees had
had the opportunity to see the canvas in a vault in Paris on 4 October 1937,
silence
Confrontation
William Goetz, the spanking new owner of Study by Candlelight, was just
as unpleasantly surprised by Sandbergs move and reacted in an appropriate
fashion. He asked the mayor of Amsterdam, A.J. dAilly, whether Sandberg
had made his statements in his capacity as museum director. He also sent the
Dutch consul in New York a letter of protest. Goetzs lawyer approached the
Amsterdam public prosecutor to protest the wilful, vicious, uncalled for,
and slanderous statements made by Sandberg. Goetzs offer to the prosecu-
tor is interesting. Recognized and impartial art experts of your choice will
be given every opportunity to study this painting in New York or California
in order to corroborate the opinions of first-rate experts who have already
acknowledged it as an important work.27 It was to be an independent in-
vestigation, but aimed at acknowledging the works authenticity. He then
sent his lawyer to Amsterdam to recoup his losses. The lawyer proposed to
Sandberg that experts be asked to make a statement. If Sandberg refused,
confrontation
National interest
For quite some time, Europe had been living with an iron curtain, to
cite Winston Churchills famous words of March 1946, which divided the
communist dictatorships from the Western European democracies. The
Dutch image of communists as courageous resistance fighters struggling
against the German oppressors was replaced by a picture of communists as
active supporters of the Soviet dictatorship. The common belief was that
the communists aim was to disrupt free society, since they kept calling for
strikes despite the fact that Western Europe was suffering from a short-
age of able-bodied workers to repair the immense damage inflicted by the
war. Moreover, they approved of the establishment of dictatorial regimes
in Eastern Europe, which had only just wrested itself from the horrors of
Adolf Hitlers dictatorship. In February 1948, the Dutch Communist Party
(CPN) celebrated the communist takeover of Czechoslovakia as a splendid
victory. The vast majority of Dutch people saw communists as subvert-
ers of freedom. Speaking of this period many years later, Sandberg said,
I remember being called day and night, often for months at a time. We
heard the word murderers and we were treated to every possible type of
verbal abuse. Our phone lines were cut. All kinds of things were done to
you that were completely illegal, simply because you were reputed to be
a communist.31 The Algemeen Dagblad illustrated an article on the Van
Gogh question with a cartoon that connected the hardening of political
relations between East and West with art forgeries. The cartoonist replaced
the face of Leonardo da Vincis Mona Lisa with that of Joseph Stalin and
asks, What are you hiding behind that mysterious smile, O lovely one?
The uproar over aesthetics and authenticity was seen as the machinations
of communist agitators. Elseviers Weekblad also discerned political agitation
in Sandbergs statements on Study by Candlelight: Recently we pointed
out that Mr. Sandberg who admits to being a confirmed communist is
not the appointed director of Amsterdams Stedelijk Museum. In an excess
of progressive zeal, this director has a penchant for inviting the most ex-
treme and left-wing groups into his building. Recently at such a gathering a
scuffle broke out. This same Mr. Sandberg has disgraced the entire country
with his impetuous declaration that a Van Gogh owned by an American is
national interest
Commission
To break the impasse, the director of the Metropolitan Museum offered
to appoint a commission of experts to come to a unanimous judgment: if
the painting was a Van Gogh, it would be included in the exhibition.37 The
Engineer agreed, and in late September a ship from the Holland-America
Line set sail for the United States carrying 142 works by Vincent van Gogh
under the care of the Engineer and Hammacher. The Americans estimated
the value of the contribution at more than three million dollars. In New
York, the paintings and drawings were welcomed with great festivities. The
route from the harbor to the Metropolitan Museum was cordoned off by
soldiers and traffic was halted.
But for the Engineer and Hammacher, there was unpleasant news in store.
The directors of the Metropolitan had failed to keep their promise to have
the commissions report on Study by Candlelight ready for their arrival. The
trustees of the Metropolitan, wealthy businessmen who ran the museum
and kept it going by means of donations, had a completely dierent take
on how to settle the controversy and wanted to discuss it with the Engineer
and Hammacher. As Hammacher later recalled in 2001: The trustees had
commission
brought their lawyers along. They wanted to meet with the Engineer and
me to discuss the question of the fake painting, a painting we had not yet
seen. They thought it was a question of some significance and conveyed to
us a message from the lawyer of the owner, William Goetz: the painting
would be included in the exhibition. Mr. Van Gogh exploded with rage.
He refused to allow a forged work to be exhibited. He was told that he, the
Engineer, had never actually seen the work and that they had the right to
challenge him on this point. According to Hammacher:
[the Engineer said,] If that is the case, then stop unpacking immediately. There
will be no exhibition. He turned to me and asked, What are you going to do? I
told the trustees, I cant take you on single-handedly. Youve got lawyers. Ive got
to get in touch with The Hague immediately. The Dutch government is going to
have to get me the support of an extremely good lawyer without delay. The case
was at a standstill, hanging between favourable and unfavorable. I didnt want to
go to battle on my own. I proposed that the painting not be shown in the galleries
but in the entrance to the galleries, with information about it that was as objec-
tive as possible. This was rejected. The trustees said, It is to be shown among the
other works or not at all.38
Fallibility
On 25 November 1949, the commission pronounced its judgment, with
full recognition of its own fallibility. It had compared the painting with
the works at the exhibition and found it strident in color, weak in draw-
ing, and uncertain in the modeling of the head. In construction, the paint-
ing shows several deviations from Van Goghs customary procedure. The
commission did not want to accept it as an original work of Van Gogh but
also admitted that its authenticity would probably never be definitely es-
tablished. It concluded:
When the body of work by an artist once has been established, it is assumed that
before a hitherto unknown work purporting to have been made by that artist
can be accepted as genuine, the claim of authenticity must rest upon adequate
and convincing grounds. The assumption is not that the work is authentic until
fallibility
This conclusion is striking in two respects. The first is the phrase that au-
thenticity is to be held in doubt as long as the opposite has not been proven.
Probably the legal approach to questions of authenticity in the United States
played a role here. De Gruyter commented on this in 1950: It is not pos-
sible to declare a work of art false in the positive sense in America because
the law can regard such a declaration as an attack on private property.43
The second is the remark that Van Goghs entire oeuvre is known. All the
experts had to go on were two publications: the authoritative catalogues
raisonns of 1928 and 1939. In 1949 the only oeuvre catalogues were those of
De la Faille.44 But the same De la Faille had confirmed the authenticity of
Study by Candlelight and announced that it would be included in the third
edition, yet to be published, under number F 476a.
Customs
Most American and Dutch newspapers reported that the commission had
declared the work a fake.45 Goetz did not want the Metropolitan to show
Study by Candlelight with a notice beside it explaining that it was not a
Van Gogh: This picture has been subjected to enough indignities.46 De
la Faille was furious. He told the press that the experts from the Metro-
politan Museum were utterly devoid of expertise.47 Speaking in a private
setting he referred to them as big blockheads.48 He stuck by his opinion
that Study by Candlelight was an authentic self-portrait and wanted to ask
recognized European experts for their judgment.49 Goetz formally com-
missioned De la Faille to have the self-portrait examined in Europe.
In the Netherlands De la Faille complained that his choice was limited.
He insisted that museum directors should not issue written certificates of
authenticity, while other experts did not want to become involved in the
case because of the Van Meegeren affair. Finally, in the spring of 1950, he
succeeded in putting together a five-member commission that would pass
a judgment. Of these five, only C.W. Huinck, director of the Huinck &
customs
bickering
Lost works
With the post-war controversies over questions of authenticity the Old
Masters of Han van Meegeren and the aair of Self-Portrait with Straw Hat
and Study by Candlelight the Engineer and Sandberg became more and
more convinced that the assessment of works attributed to Dutch artists
should no longer remain in the hands of independent persons. The Engineer
probably recalled the behavior of a few experts involved in the case of the
Otto Wacker Van Goghs. Speaking on this subject in 1930, he said, Despite
the irrefutable evidence that I had in my own hands, I came up against an
impenetrable wall built by wealthy and powerful individuals who realized it
was in their best interest not to tell all the secrets.3 He must have realized
that the art experts back then had not been motivated solely by a quest for
truth. A national institute, however, would better guarantee the experts in-
dependence. No doubt the Engineers views were supported by the sta of
the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, where his Van Goghs were on loan.
The rst experience of Stedelijk teamwork was in the autumn of 1947.
Sandberg was approached by Adrianus Marijnissen, a tax ocial from Breda.
Marijnissen owned almost 250 paintings and drawings that were purported
to have been made by Vincent van Gogh during his Dutch period. Could
these be the works that Van Gogh had left with his mother before leaving
the Netherlands in 1885? It was known that Bremmer had arranged for the
sale of some of the works in 1903 at the Oldenzeel gallery in Rotterdam.4
What about the rest? Did it all just disappear? Was it destroyed, or was some
of it saved? And if it was saved, had it become the property of Marijnissen?5
Johanna van Gogh-Bonger had already tried to track down these lost works
during the 1910s and to gain possession of them, but without success.
lost works
the owner of a painting that has not yet appeared in the ocial catalogues and
handbooks works his way down the list of known experts until one of them is
willing to acknowledge his picture as an original painting by a well-known art-
ist. This recognition suddenly increases the value of the work enormously, often a
hundredfold, so the owner can easily aord such an assessment. A piece has to be
glaringly fake not to be given an experts signature. This situation has caused the
prestige of certicates of authenticity to drop enormously in recent years. At the
moment there are several canvases on the world market that have been attributed
to Vincent van Gogh by experts but are unmarketable, according to their owners,
unless they bear a certicate signed by yours truly.
Sandberg was not willing to conduct assessments on his own, however, be-
cause it is almost impossible to be one hundred percent certain about the
authenticity of a work by a deceased master, while proving that a work is
false is possible in very few cases. He called for teamwork, since a paint-
ing can only be judged with a likelihood bordering on certainty when it is
examined in terms of chemistry, X-rays, graphology, stylistic analysis, and
provenance. That requires the collaboration of five specialists. [...] Each of
them issues a separate report of the research carried out in his area; if the
specialists agree, the case is simple. If they do not agree, they have to sit
down and try to reach a consensus.7 What Sandberg did not deal with was
the problem of what to do if the experts continued to disagree.
There was no response from his superiors. Undaunted, Sandberg wrote
to the mayor and aldermen a few weeks later, describing a recent experi-
Expertise Institute
The Engineer, however, was indefatigable. Since the city of Amsterdam
and the Dutch government were not willing to make the assessment of art
a government responsibility, he began work on establishing a foundation
that would carry out assessments. Sandberg attempted to enlist persons
from the museum world to sit on the foundations board of directors. One
unnamed museum director politely declined and told the future secretary,
the publicist Margrit de Sablonire (pseudonym for M.A. Bicker Caarten-
Stigter, 1905-1979), that he had talked about the institute on Museum Day
and said he detected a certain hesitancy as well as the feeling that adding
expertise institute
expertise institute
Van Dantzig
Maurits van Dantzig (1903-1960), scion of a Jewish banking family, had
been studying for a short time at the Rotterdam Commercial College when
he developed a passion for art. He enrolled at the art academy in The
Hague, then attended the Kunstgewerbeschule Charlottenburg in Berlin,
and trained as a restorer at the Kaiser Friedrich Museum. The subjective
opinions of art experts at the Wacker trial in 1932 astonished him, and he re-
sponded by developing an objective method for determining the authentic-
ity of paintings. After the publication of his book, Schilderkunst, maakwerk,
vervalsching [Painting, hackwork, forgery], he applied his method to the 116
paintings by Frans Hals that were being exhibited in 1937 to celebrate the
75th anniversary of the Gemeentelijk Museum in Haarlem. He was thun-
van dantzig
lAlle de choux
In March 1956, the Parish art dealer Clment Altarriba went to Holland to
find an expert to examine a painting that had been attributed to Van Gogh,
lAlle de choux (73 x 61 cm). The dealer, who wanted to sell the canvas in
collaboration with the art dealer Fabiani, contacted Van Dantzig and told
him in a letter that the painting was from the collection of his father-in-law,
mile Bernard. This painter was a friend of Vincents and was regarded as
an unimpeachable source. Van Dantzig looked at the painting in Paris but
drew no conclusions and asked Altarriba to have it sent to Amsterdam so he
could conduct a more extensive stylistic analysis. This increased the costs
for the owner: after one month, transport, security deposit, customs, insur-
van dantzig
van dantzig
Watercolors
In March 1957, the owner of two watercolors asked the Expertise Institute for
a judgment on their authenticity. The works has been in the family for quite
a long time, and tradition had it that they were Van Goghs. The Institute
asked Victorine Bakker-Hefting, former director of the Gemeentemuseum
in The Hague, to do the research. After a few weeks she came forward with
a fully documented answer: as far as she could tell the watercolors were by
Vincent van Gogh. The board raised objections to her conclusion, however,
thereby violating its own rule never to pass any judgments of its own. It did
not send the report to the owner but decided to ask another expert to make
an assessment of the watercolors, in this case the art historian Professor J.G.
van Gelder of the University of Utrecht. His conclusion: This is not Van
Goghs work. The Expertise Institute kept the Bakker-Hefting report under
wraps and sent only the Van Gelder report to the owner. Many months later,
in March 1958, De Sablonire reminded the Engineer of the boards interven-
tion, but he responded with, That matter with the watercolors was ridicu-
lous to begin with you can hardly call that intervention by the board!35
This reaction provides us with an unexpected peek behind the scenes of
the Institute. Officially, the board did not pass judgment on the authentic-
watercolors
watercolors
Crisis
In February 1958, four months after the publication of the assessments on
lAlle de choux in Connaissance des Arts, and with contradictory assessments
on Les environs de Paris, secretary De Sablonire wrote to the board of the
Expertise Institute, telling them that these problems exposed the short-
comings of the Institute. The goal of establishing a national institute, the
Central Expertise Bureau, had not been achieved. Recognition had failed
to materialize. She recalled the clash with Van Dantzig. Granted, he had
crisis
crisis
The prices of paintings and drawings by Vincent van Gogh increased steadi-
ly over the twentieth century, so owners, dealers, and auction houses could
expect to earn a great deal of money by selling them. This price rise explains
why conflicts over authenticity could become so heated. The buyer would
convert money into an object under the assumption that in due course it
would bring in even more money. It was an investment. If he should find
himself in financial straits, the work of art could be offered as security. He
could use it as a tax write-off by donating it to a museum. While all this is
true, seeing art purchases in purely financial terms is not enough to explain
the experiences of art experts who became involved in such conflicts. What
could happen to them is not the same as what happens to the bank em-
ployee who discovers counterfeit notes. Disputes over genuine and fake Van
Goghs had far-reaching ramifications that were not limited to the financial
arena but were played out in political, social, psychological, aesthetic, legal,
and moral realms as well. The consequences for the art expert were just as
widespread. He might find himself in a situation in which his income, his
job, and his reputation were threatened. The same was true if a Van Gogh
changed hands not by being sold but by being donated.
In The Gift of 1924, the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss argues that
giving plays a key role in societies regarded as primitive (the Kwakiutl
Indians of the Pacific Northwest in North America, the Melanesians of the
Trobriand Islands, and others) and archaic (Germanic tribes, the Romans,
and Hindus). Giving connects both people and groups, he says, and reflects
vastly diverse aspects of human society: it is a total social phenomenon.1
Although Mauss pays little attention to modern industrial societies, his
ideas shed an interesting light on relations in the art world, where exchange
relationships also play a prominent role. Anyone with a large, beautiful col-
the gift
Gachets father did not think it necessary to have his children learn a trade or
profession. [...] The father taught Paul Gachet etching and how to pull prints.
With regard to the etching depicting Dr. Gachet, De la Faille once published an
article on why it could not have been an etching by Vincent. Paul Gachet made
many prints from that plate and sold them. He spent his whole life living o
his father, and for him the only artists that mattered were those his father had
known. He held onto the apartment in which his father had had his practice for
a very long time. It was in Paris, not very far from Gare du Nord. Until his death
he walked around in the winter coat that his father had worn in the war of 1870.3
The description of the Gachets contained in these sentences is the very op-
posite of the Engineers life and attitudes. Gachet Senior neglected what Jo-
hanna van Gogh-Bonger strove to achieve: making sure your child learned
a profession.4 Gachet Junior did something that the Engineer actively op-
posed: he lived off another mans glory. Gachet Junior never stopped wear-
Trust
When did the Engineer become convinced that Gachets Van Gogh collec-
tion consisted mostly of fakes, and how did he reach that conclusion? All
the facts suggest that a sudden reversal occurred in the days after 12 June
1954 that is, after the arrival of The Garden of the Asylum in Saint-Rmy (F
659) in the Stedelijk Museum. There is no letter or other document from
before that date indicating that the Engineer had doubted the authentic-
ity of one or more paintings from the Gachet collection, although he vis-
ited Gachet Senior the year of his death and afterwards met with his son
and daughter a few times in Auvers-sur-Oise. Undoubtedly he would have
looked at the paintings of his famous uncle.
the gift
The donation was preceded six years earlier by a proposal from the En-
gineer. In May 1948 he asked Gachet if he would like to place his Van
Gogh paintings in the care of the Vincent van Gogh Foundation, which the
Engineer said had been founded to avoid tax difficulties and inheritance
problems. In 1948, he was 58 years old and Gachet 75. The reference to the
inheritance tax clearly shows that the Engineer expected his collection to be
divided among his wife and children, and that pieces would have to be sold
to pay that tax. That would have meant the end of the collection. Paul and
Marguerite Gachet were childless, but their collection would also probably
be divided up after their death.
The Engineer wrote that the purpose of the foundation was to put to-
gether a fine collection to the greater glory of Vincent.6 He repeated his
offer in January of the following year. Gachet welcomed the establishment
of the foundation but did not respond to the Engineers question. He had
plans of his own.
trust
the gift
trust
Labyrinth
On 16 and 17 June (that is, a week and a half after the painting arrived in
Amsterdam) the Dutch newspapers reported the donation an extraor-
dinary acquisition and published photos of the painting. De Volkskrant
wrote of a hitherto unknown painting by Van Gogh.15 That was not cor-
rect, for De la Faille had written about it in his catalogues of 1928 and 1939.
But like so many others, he had not been given permission by Gachet fils
to photograph the canvas, so it was not reproduced in his catalogues. The
newspapers bungled other facts as well. Dr. Gachets place of residence was
correctly reported as Auvers-sur-Oise, but as a physician he would have
treated Vincent after his suicide in Saint-Rmy, about 750 kilometers fur-
ther south.16 The most important point, however, is that the Engineer does
not seem to have shared his doubts about the authenticity of the painting
with any journalist.
How did the Engineer arrive at his negative assessment? He did not take
any notes in June 1954 about what he had seen. The first brief description
dates from December 1966, but it is of little help. He was familiar with
another painting (F 660) of the same name, the same composition, and the
same dimensions, however, which was painted in 1889. It had hung in his
parents home and was sold by Johanna van Gogh-Bonger to the collector
Karl Osthaus in 1912. In 1954 it was on display in the Museum Folkwang
in Essen. The Engineer would have noticed that there were differences be-
tween the two canvases, but that alone would not be saying much since
Vincents repeated renderings of the same subject were always different.
In which differences did the Engineer detect the hand of another paint-
er? What decisive factor led him to call the painting a fake? The statements
the gift
labyrinth
the gift
Dissent
Writing about a conversation with his friend and Van Gogh expert Marc
Tralbaut in 1959, the Engineer said, I asked him cautiously what his opin-
ion was of the paintings in the Jeu de Paume. He was very evasive: some of
them were weak, etc. He would have to consult his notes. When asked di-
rectly about the background of the self-portrait, he admitted that an origi-
nal background could be seen beneath the wavy lines. An investigation of
the hardening properties of the paint might reveal when the new layer had
been applied.25 It was clear: Tralbaut would rather not voice his opinion
about the authenticity of the Gachet Van Goghs. Nowhere is there any in-
dication, moreover, that Tralbaut shared the Engineers convictions on this
point. On the contrary, eight years later Tralbaut sent him a business gift:
dissent
the gift
For the Engineer to say that Hammacher was the first person in all those
years to disagree with him is astonishing. It indicates that either Ham-
macher had not given his opinion before, or had formulated it in such a way
that the Engineer heard it as an endorsement of his own. It is also surprising
in another way, because Tralbaut had criticized the Engineer on this point
in writing just a few years earlier.
As these facts suggest, the Engineer only listened to those who agreed
with him. Evidence of this trait can also be seen in his remarks on a lecture
he gave on The Garden of the Asylum in Saint-Rmy. In January 1970 he
invited the editors of the catalogue raisson to a meeting at the Stedelijk to
discuss his arguments against the paintings authenticity. There he showed
them Latours photographs. Afterwards the Engineer had the impression
that he had won the editors over to his point of view, and he wrote this
to Hammacher.30 Hammacher responded immediately. He said the editors
certainly did not endorse the claim that the painting was a forgery.31 Appar-
ently here, too, those who attended the gathering had been overly cautious
in their response to the Engineers negative opinion, or perhaps the Engi-
neer had not been open to any opinion that differed from his own.
Inappropriate
In my account of the conflict, which was related chronologically for the
most part and in which the Engineer played the central role, I did not
answer the question about the authenticity of the Van Goghs owned by Ga-
chet Junior and Senior. But authenticity is not what the story is all about.
The main issue is how the Engineer defended his negative assessment of
The Garden of the Asylum in Saint-Rmy and why he never published his
views. What makes the conflict about the painting so intriguing is that oth-
er experts namely Tralbaut and Hammacher were faced with an almost
identical dilemma, even though their attitude was necessarily formulated in
inappropriate
the gift
Exchange relationships
The Engineers decision not to publish his assessment of the Gachet Van
Goghs can best be seen as compliance with the norm for appropriate behav-
ior regarding genuine and forged art that governs exchange relationships in
the art world. In his response to Tralbaut, he defended his silence by saying
that he did not want to cause any sensation at his [Gachets] expense while
Gachet was still alive. Writing to Hammacher, he said he had not published
his assessment because he might be accused of being impartial, not an
art historian, etc., etc. The last two words are telling. I know of no other
document in which he uses them. What could they refer to?
First, they could refer to the facts mentioned at the beginning of the
chapter. In 1948 the Engineer expressed the desire to work with Gachet
in order to assemble a collection of Van Goghs for the Vincent van Gogh
Foundation. The motive was partly material: to avoid inheritance taxes and
other forms of taxation. But it was also idealistic: to preserve and increase
Vincents fame. He was not able to interest Gachet in the plan, however.
If the Engineer had openly dismissed the Gachet Van Goghs after 1954,
Gachets lack of interest could be interpreted as a form of revenge. Perhaps
exchange relationships
the gift
exchange relationships
After World War II, De la Faille learned that his catalogues of 1928 (LOEuvre
de Vincent van Gogh) and 1939 (Vincent van Gogh) were out of print. He
began work on a revised edition, and his hope of getting it on the market
looked promising. He managed to find a publisher, Librex, and in 1952
he had galley proofs printed of the two planned volumes, Paintings and
Drawings. Before going any further, the publisher wrote to the director of
the Stedelijk Museum to discuss the project. In his letter he told Sandberg
that he valued his opinion highly and was interested in his ideas on the
international distribution of the catalogue raisonn. Sandbergs reply was
prompt and icy: he had no time for a discussion, and any questions should
be submitted in writing.1 Sandbergs confrontation with De la Faille over
Study by Candlelight was still fresh in his memory. Collaborating on the
distribution of a catalogue that contained the contested work would be
far too distasteful for him. The publisher thereupon withdrew from the
project and another publisher, Martinus Nijhoff, took up the torch. In 1958
this company sent out a prospectus to booksellers announcing the publica-
tion of De la Failles complete and definitive catalogue of 1,762 works by
Vincent van Gogh. The prospectus contained a sample with a foretaste of
the contents: eight works chosen at random, with the painting Study by
Candlelight (F 476a) prominently featured.2 Did those who played a role in
the drama of William Goetz wonder about the clandestine preferences that
may have slipped into this random choice?
The revised edition of the catalogue raisonn would have enhanced De la
Failles reputation as a Van Gogh authority, but he died in 1959, leaving be-
hind an unfinished manuscript. In him, the art world lost another leading
Van Gogh expert (Bremmer had died earlier, in 1956). A well-documented
catalogue raisonn was seen as an important instrument for determining
Rivalries
De la Failles work on the catalogue raisonn influenced the Netherlands
Institute for Art History (the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documen-
tatie, or the RKD) in its post-war plans to focus attention on collecting
books, reproductions, and documents about the life and work of Vincent
Van Gogh. De la Faille himself was the unwitting instigator of this proj-
ect. During the war the RKD had bought his collection of photos of Van
Goghs works as a way of supporting him financially, although De la Faille
was able to retain the copyright. From that moment on, the photo collec-
tion was put in the care of art historian Annet Tellegen (1912).3 After the
war, however, De la Faille gained control over his pictorial material once
again. The RKD, which until the fifties was mainly known as the image
archive for older Dutch art, set up the Department of Modern Dutch and
Belgian Art in 1947, with Tellegen as director. Her aim was to organize the
department along lines that were quite different from what was custom-
ary at the RKD. This would mean forming a collection that was based not
only on pictorial material but also on contemporary sources having to do
with nineteenth- and twentieth-century artists: newspaper and magazine
reports, sales and exhibition catalogues, and personal documents. She had
taken painting lessons from the artist Kees Verweij during the war, thereby
acquiring an understanding of the craft itself.
Tellegens idea of concentrating on documentation related to Vincent van
Gogh was not initially aimed at compiling a new, comprehensive catalogue
raisonn of Van Goghs work. That was De la Failles project. His catalogue
had given him a leading place in the Van Gogh world which he still enjoyed,
and it was expected that he would publish the third edition in the foreseeable
rivalries
rivalries
Ambition
When De la Faille died in 1959, almost all his photos of Van Goghs paint-
ings and drawings were at the RKD. The copyright on the photos and text
of the catalogues had gone to the widow, but there was no sign of a completed
ambition
Editorial sta
At the start of the sixties, Abraham Hammacher was undoubtedly one of
the most important art connoisseurs in the Netherlands. Since the twenties
he had written a number of books and hundreds of articles for newspapers,
magazines, and catalogues. He was praised for his keen intellect, erudition,
and facile pen. Above all, he was known as one of the countrys experts on
the work of Vincent van Gogh, about whom he had been writing articles in
the Utrechts Dagblad, Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, and De Gids since the
editorial staff
editorial staff
scholarship
Cassandra
Tension mounted between the editorial committee and Annet Tellegen, and
by May 1964 they had lost all confidence in her. The men claimed she had
made far too little progress over the past years. Her working method was
incompatible with the promise they had made to the minister to finish
the catalogue in 1964. She, on the other hand, thought it would be pro-
fessionally irresponsible to publish the revised De la Faille with merely a
few additions. At first she found a sympathetic ear in the person of her
colleague Joop Joosten. The two of them sent a memo to their superior,
cassandra
Accommodation
Working out the hierarchy between the editorial committee and the RKD
personnel did not mean reverting to the idea of a reissue of De la Failles
legacy with a few additions. The drastic change that had taken place in
the editorial style since 1964 is most clearly demonstrated in the final re-
sult of 1970: The works of Vincent van Gogh: His paintings and drawings. In
1962 the editors were still insisting that De la Failles legacy should not be
checked or improved, while in 1970 it appeared that the exhibition history
of all the drawings and paintings had been thoroughly researched. The same
was true of the unsolved matters such as the dating of Van Goghs letters,
drawings, and paintings: the editorial committee had wanted to leave these
in abeyance, but in the end a sound investigation was conducted. The art
historian Martha Op de Coul had been appointed in 1963 to carry out this
accommodation
unloved
Fool
Les environs de Paris was not to be included in the Van Gogh catalogue: it
was a heavy blow for Alfred Loeb, and he urged Tralbaut to discuss it with
the Engineer. At least he had never said anything negative about the paint-
ing. He could be talked into rendering a favorable assessment, couldnt
he? Whether Tralbaut tried this or not is unknown, but in 1971 Bogomila
Welsh-Ovcharov showed up. She was one of Van Gelders doctoral students,
and she found the Van Gogh attribution erroneous.
Since 1969 Welsh-Ovcharov had been doing research on the two years
that Vincent van Gogh lived and worked in Paris: March 1886 to February
fool
Exhibition
In 1987 Welsh-Ovcharov put the finishing touches on a catalogue for the
exhibition Van Gogh Paris at the prestigious and newly opened Muse
dOrsay. The aim of the exhibition was to portray the group of painters
that Van Gogh had come to know in 1886-1888. On pages 182-183 she wrote
about Charles Angrand and included a reproduction of Terrains vagues. The
painting itself would not be part of the exhibition. In an accompanying
statement she mentions the publications written by Tralbaut in which he
attributes the painting to Van Gogh under the title Les environs de Paris,
and she ends with [...] the author has attributed it to Charles Angrand.68
This sounds as if Tralbaut has had second thoughts, but by the author
Welsh-Ovcharov meant herself and not Tralbaut.
The exhibition opened on 3 February 1988, and Loebs heirs were dis-
mayed at what was written about their painting in the catalogue of Van
Gogh Paris. They immediately swung into action, and through their law-
yer demanded that the museum issue an erratum saying that Tralbaut re-
garded the work as a genuine Van Gogh. The museum must insert the er-
ratum in the catalogue, they insisted, which must then be sent to everyone
who already owned a copy. In future editions Welsh-Ovcharovs mistake
would have to be rectified.
Muse dOrsay refused to comply with this demand and asked three Van
Gogh experts and the Rijksmuseum Van Gogh to issue a verdict on the
works authenticity. Hulsker let the museum know that he had not included
it in his The Complete Van Gogh because he had been completely convinced
by Welsh-Ovcharovs study. He wrote that neither he nor his fellow editors
of the 1970 De la Faille had been persuaded that it was a Van Gogh. John
Rewald, the expert on Impressionism and Post-Impressionism; Van Gogh
Judge
After the war was over, the government did not want to set up an Expertise
Institute. The reason is unclear. Perhaps the words from the prominent 19th
century Dutch Home Secretary Johan Rudolph Thorbecke The govern-
ment is not a judge of science and art played a role. It is also possible
that the minister was going by the advice he received from the directors
of the museums, who did not want to support such a body at that time.
They probably saw it as an infringement of their autonomy, and they did
not want to jeopardize their personal relations with art donors. Perhaps the
political persuasion of Sandberg and the Engineer, as well as the commo-
tion caused by Study by Candlelight in 1949, also played a role. These are all
speculations. We will never know the exact reasons because the documents
that might provide a conclusive answer are nowhere to be found. This is
what makes the publication of De la Failles posthumous catalogue such
an interesting story: unintentionally and unwittingly, the government was
drawn into conflicts over authenticity. The departments most highly placed
official for the arts, Dr. J. Hulsker, participated in the work of the editorial
committee as the ministers representative, and there is not a single docu-
ment to suggest that he abstained from making such judgments. On the
contrary, the 1970 catalogue listed him as an editor, and in that function
he was co-responsible for the works that De la Faille had deemed genuine
but the editors had not, and vice versa.75 The ministerial representative did
not serve as an observer but as a participant. The direct support of the
Dutch government for the reissue of a catalogue was a unique event. Never
before or since has the government ordered the compilation of a fully
documented catalogue raisonn of a Dutch master, since that is what it all
boils down to: the Dutch government acting as a judge of science and art.
Thorbecke would have turned over in his grave.
judge
Many people have discussed the subject of this book with me, either be-
cause they are directly involved in the matters dealt with here or because
they have encountered similar situations in the art world. I have also had
regular contact with persons who are not familiar with the inner workings
of the art world but who kept me on the right track by asking critical ques-
tions. A few took the trouble to read and mark up my manuscripts as well,
and have kept me from making many mistakes, both major and minor. I
mention here H. Balk, R. Bordewijk, M. ter Borg, E. Couve, H. Ebbink, P.
van der Eerden, J. Ellemers, W. Feilchenfeldt, P. Hecht, P. Hefting, B. Jans,
J. Joosten, T. Kdera, S. Koldehoff, J. Koldeweij, F. Leeman, M. te Mar-
velde, H. van Os, W. Rappard, P. de Ruiter, E. Schrage, R. Schumacher, A.
Tellegen, E. van Uitert, P. Verschoof, B. Welsh-Ovcharov, E. van de Weter-
ing, and J. van der Wolk.
Sadly, a few of the individuals whose conversations, correspondence,
and/or comments contributed substantially to my book are no longer with
us. They are J. Hulsker, expert on Van Goghs letters and artwork; A. Ham-
macher, director of the Rijksmuseum Krller-Mller and editorial chair-
man of De la Failles posthumous Van Gogh catalogue; E. Joosten, curator
of the Rijksmuseum Krller-Mller; E. De Wilde, director of the Stedelijk
Museum Amsterdam and chairman of the Expertise Institute; W. Froentjes,
director of the Forensic Laboratory of the Ministry of Justice; and M.
Broekmeyer, the driving force behind the Foundation for Science and De-
mocracy. The last-named was responsible for providing me with financial
support for visits to Washington and Berlin. The Foundation also assisted
in the publication of the Dutch version of my book.
The families of the persons who appear in this book were also very kind
in their willingness to speak with me and to entrust documents to me or
acknowledgments
acknowlegements
acknowledgments
Introduction
This account is based on G. Poulhain, Dans le maquis des faux, Comoedia, Decem-
ber , , and on J. Grard, Le crime de Julien Leclerq, manuscript, no page
numbers, undated. VGMA. Also see Van Kooten & Rijnders (eds.) , -.
See De la Faille a, ; and De la Faille , .
Compare Kbben and Tromp , .
Alexander .
Becker .
Alsop .
Kempers .
Gibson-Wood , Secrest .
Balk , De Ruiter .
Merton (originally ). For criticism of his work, see Mitroff , Ziman
, Krimsky , Kbben .
Kbben and Tromp , -.
Kbben and Tromp , .
Kbben and Tromp , -; -.
Art historical research concerning Vincent van Gogh has traditionally been dominated
by a focus on his work and person: thousands of publications have been written on
his paintings and drawings. There is no lack of serious biographies, eitherat least
fiftyin addition to the hundreds of biographical sketches included in catalogues.
Vincents medical condition has also produced enough works to fill many bookshelves.
No museum in the world has more documentation on any one artist than the Van Gogh
Museum in Amsterdam has on Vincent van Gogh. This production still continues, and
it reflects art historys hard core: research on works of art, artists, schools, and styles. In
recent decades, however, more and more research has been conducted on others in the
art world: collectors, dealers, museums, critics, the media, and the public. This exten-
sion of the research area has also enriched research on Van Gogh. The rest of this note
comprises a brief and by no means representative summary. Carol D. Zemel () has
written about the appreciation of art critics for Van Goghs work in the Netherlands,
France, Germany, and England; Walter Feilchenfeldt () on the role of the Berlin
art dealer Paul Cassirer in spreading Van Goghs fame in Germany; Hans Oversloot
() on the first Russian collectors of Van Gogh. Kdera Tsukasa (), editor of
the book The mythology of Vincent van Gogh, has brought together a number of articles
about the cultural significance of Van Gogh in the twentieth century and his influence
on belles-lettres, films, and the visual arts. Gerald Bronkhorst () has written on
the history of the Van Gogh Museum; Nathalie Heinich () on the Van Gogh cult.
Cynthia Saltzman () discusses the lives of the Dutch, Danish, German, and Japa-
nese owners of Van Goghs Portrait of Dr. Gachet to introduce the reader to years of
Chapter 1
J.B. de la Faille, Aan een kind. Vox studiosorum, May .
Letter of ATAG, dated May . De la Faille declined ATAGs offer but accepted
that of the General National Party.
Mededeling, De Telegraaf, September ; and Neutraliteit en kunsthandel, De
Telegraaf, December .
The Dutch section of the League was founded on July . Also see J.B. de la Faille,
Het zeppelinbezoek, De Telegraaf, September ; J.B. de la Faille, Open brief,
Vox studiosorum, October ; J.B. de la Faille, Het voorwoord van Prof. Mr. J.
Baron dAulnis de Bourouill bij het boek De voorgeschiedenis van den Oorlog door
W. Graadt van Roggen, Vox studiosorum, December .
J.B. de la Faille, De zeevisserij, Nieuws van de dag, August .
In the sculpture was moved to Porte Saint-Paul in Verdun.
Political repression in the Netherlands was relatively mild during those years, but not
entirely absent. The editor-in-chief of De Telegraaf ended up in jail in for publish-
ing anti-German articles, so fearful were the Dutch authorities of offending Prussian
sensibilities. Moeyes , -.
Haffner , -.
Saltzman , xxiii.
Koldehoff , and Dorn & Feilchenfeldt , .
(J.B. de la Faille), Kunsthandelaar of museumdirecteur, Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Cour-
ant, September ; October .
(J.B. de la Faille), Kunsthandelaar of museumdirecteur, NRC, September .
Museumdirecteur, geen kunsthandelaar, NRC, October .
Le monde nouveau, NRC, January and J.B. de la Faille, Les faux Rem-
brandts, Le monde nouveau, January . J.B. de la Faille, Wedergevonden of
nieuw-ontdekte Rembrandts, NRC, February .
Letter of F. Schmid Degener, January . J.B. de la Faille, Remembrances from
September to May .
J.B. de la Faille, Expertise van schilderijen en kunstvoorwerpen, De veilingbode, De-
cember . pp. -.
Among the publications that featured it were De Indische verlofganger. Officieel orgaan
van de Vereniging van Indische verlofgangers, March ; La gazette de Hollande,
March ; Prger Presse, January ; Neue Zrcher Zeitung, January ;
Haarlems Dagblad, January .
Veth , .
Ibid., .
Ibid., .
notes
notes
notes
Chapter 2
See Koldehoff a, .
Correspondence of O. Wacker with the Nationalgalerie, see ZMB, I/NG , -.
The drawing is F , Enclosed wheat field with reaper. See the provenance in De la
Faille , . Wacker would have bought it from F.M. Wibaut in Amsterdam.
See Sterns classical study of .
For the reception of Van Goghs work in Germany, see Eckhardt , Zemel ,
Bridgewater , Feilchenfeldt , Manheim , Kdera (ed.) , Heinich
, and Koldehoff .
Krockow , -.
See Paul , - and Paret a, .
J. Meier-Graefe, Die Zeichnung Van Goghs, Frankfurter Zeitung, October .
This is the most frequently mentioned figure. Other newspaper reports claimed there
were fewer (De Maasbode of April put it at eleven).
On Meier-Graefe, see Moffett , Koldehoff , and Meier-Graefe .
J. Meier-Graefe, Der Maler mit den schwachen Stunden, Berliner Tageblatt, Febru-
ary . Ring , . Also see Van Goghs vervalst? De Telegraaf, April .
Letter of J. Meier-Graefe to V.W. van Gogh, November . VGM, bV/;
letter of V.W. van Gogh to J. Meier-Graefe, December . VGM, bV/;
and letter of J. Meier-Graefe to V.W. van Gogh, December . VGM, bV/.
Meier-Graefe, Die Van Gogh Frage, Berliner Tageblatt, December .
Anonymous [=A.M. de Wild] In en om het proces Van Gogh, Het Vaderland, April
. De zaak van de valsche Van Goghs, De Maasbode, April . Also see the
manuscript of Bremmers wife: Bremmer-Beekhuis [-], . Here reference is
made to the transcription of M. Straasheijm () in the library of the Kunsthistorisch
Instituut of the University of Amsterdam.
Otto Wacker aan het woord, De Telegraaf, November .
Letter of O. Wacker to W. Scherjon, July . VGM, Archives of Kunsthandel
Huinck & Scherjon -.
Vreemde houding van dr. Wacker, Het Volk, December .
I. Goldschmidt, Der Fall Wacker, Frankfurter Zeitung, January .
Frau Krller kauft einen zweifelhaften Van Gogh, Vossische Zeitung, January .
De valsche Van Goghs, De Maasbode, January . For Russian collectors of Van
Gogh, see Oversloot .
Zimmermann , .
On Liebermann, see Meissner and Schtz . On the Berliner Secession, see
Paret b.
On the other hand, Ludwig Thormaehlen, sculptor and curator of the Nationalgalerie from
to , was a conrmed anti-Semite until his death in . See Blume , .
Scheffler .
Hentzen , .
Letter of L. Thormaehlen to O. Kramer, December . ZMB, I/NG , . In
December identical letters were written to A. Lewin, B.E. Wolff, and C. Stern-
heim. The letters were drafted on Justis orders.
Matthiesen had taken back all the Wacker paintings on consignment after the publica-
tion of De la Failles Supplment, subject to repayment of the purchase price (approxi-
notes
notes
Chapter 3
Van den Brandhof , -.
Hofstede de Groot , .
Froentjes and De Wild .
Letter from J. Walker to A.M. de Wild, March . RKD, A.M. de Wild Archive.
Letter from J.R.J. Asperen de Boer to A.M. de Wild, December . RKD, A.M.
de Wild Archive.
Invoices of D. de Wild, dated January , May , January , Febru-
ary . KMM, booking position KMS //.
Afwijkende meningen over de Van Gogh-falsificaties, De Telegraaf, December .
De valse Van Goghs. De advocaat van Otto Wacker spreekt, De Oprechte Haarlemmer
Courant, January .
J.B. de la Faille, Repliek van dr. De la Faille, De Telegraaf, December .
Koldehoff , . See also Dorn and Feilchenfeldt , .
On Maud Dale, see Garraty -, -.
Dale Arts Value over Million, New York Times, May .
For the people, Newsweek, May .
Walker , .
Letter from J. Stransky (on Wildenstein & Co, NY, letterhead) to C. Dale, May
. NGAW, RG. Donor Files - Dale, Chester, Van Gogh Material Regard-
ing Authenticity [c. -, , ].
Loan exhibition of Modern French Art from the Chester Dale Collection, for the Benefit
of the French Hospital of New York. October, . Wildenstein Galleries, Fifth
Avenue, New York.
E.A. Jewell, Goya and Modern Art, New York Times, October, .
The Art Galleries, New Yorker, October .
H. McBride, cited in French Art of Today, Literary Digest, November .
Miljoenen vervalsingen, De Telegraaf, December . De dertig valse Van
Goghs, Algemeen Handelsblad, December .
Expert Now Holds Thirty Van Gogh Fakes, Sold in Berlin at Prices up to ,
Each, New York Times, November . N.Y. Art Gem called Fake by Authority,
New York American, December . Chester Dale Van Gogh is Attacked, Art News,
December .
Bremmers magazines Moderne Kunstwerken and Beeldende Kunst from onwards
by Willem Versluys (-) in Amsterdam. From Beeldende Kunst appeared
under the names of Bremmer and Scherjon. See Balk , .
Scherjon wrote in the NRC of January : [...] I [...] set great store by my almost
thirty-five years of friendship with Mr. Bremmer, from whom I have learned so much
and who was also the one to kindle my enormous enthusiasm for Van Gogh.
De Ruiter , -.
Minutes of the board meeting of the association Voor de kunst on October .
-. UA.
Ebbink et al. , .
notes
notes
Chapter 4
Dertig valse Van Goghs? De Telegraaf, November . The anonymous art dealer
quoted in the article is probably J. Siedenburg of the Buffa gallery.
De la Faille , .
De la Faille , .
Duret was not always so lucky. In the Bernheim-Jeune gallery issued a recall to the
owners of Durets Van Gogh, which they had published in . The reason: the Van
Gogh drawing on the cover was a fake, as were eight of the drawings and paintings pic-
tured in the book. Source: Laaire des faux Van Gogh, Aux coutes, December .
De la Faille , -.
Ibid., .
Letter of F. Schmidt Degener to J.B. de la Faille, January . BF.
J. Zwartendijk, Les faux Van Gogh, NRC, February .
C.J.H., Les faux Van Gogh: Par J.B. de la Faille, Burlington Magazine, August ,
; F. Rutter, Van Gogh and his forgers, Sunday Times, September ; Frank
Davis, A page for collectors: A modern picture scandal: the Van Gogh Fakes, Illus-
trated London News, June , ; J.H. de Bois, De valsche Van Goghs, Haar-
lems Dagblad, January ; Van Gogh-vervalsing, De Telegraaf, November
.
K. Grant Sterne, The Van Gogh Controversy, International Studio, November ,
pp. -.
P. Fierens, Les faux Van Gogh, Feuilleton du Journal des dbats, April .
notes
notes
Chapter 5
J.B. de la Faille, Vincent van Gogh en zijn tijdgenoten te Amsterdam, NRC, No-
vember , evening edition.
Wegen der geflschten Van Goghs: Anklage gegen Kunsthndler Wacker Anfang No-
vember zu erwarten, Lokalanzeiger, October .
P. Westheim, Um die Van Gogh-Flschungen: Staatsanwalt erhebt Anklage gegen
Wacker, Brsen Zeitung, August .
Veth a, .
Ibid., .
Ibid., .
Valsche Van Goghs? NRC, April .
Koomen, Schoon schip, Weekblad van Rotterdam, April . Schoon schip!
Algemeen Handelsblad, February . De zaak van de valse Van Goghs, De Maas-
bode, February . Schoon schip! De Telegraaf, March .
De zaak van de valsche Van Goghs, De Maasbode, February .
J. Zwartendijk, Cornelis Veth: Schoon schip! NRC, March .
Max Osborn, Neuer Van Gogh-Lrm, Vossische Zeitung, March .
Letter of Thomas to H. Krller-Mller, May . KMM, HA .
Echte Van Goghs bei Wacker? Eine Brochure von Cornelis Veth, Deutsche Algemeine
Zeitung, April .
J.B. de la Faille, Veths Schoon schip, NRC, April .
Max Liebermann, Justi und seine Sachverstndigen-Kommission, in: Kunst und Kn-
stler, vol. XXXI, no. III, March .
The dossiers of the lawyer, the prosecuting attorney, and the judges, the report of the
sessions, the attorneys plea, and the judgment have all been lost. A.M. de Wild wrote
a personal account of the trial in April . The most important sources for the re-
construction of the two trials are the more than articles in the Dutch and German
press. For the Wacker trial, also see: Arnau , -; Schller , -;
Jeppson , -; Hentzen , -; Feilchenfeldt ; Dorn & Feilchen-
feldt ; -, Koldehoff , - and -.
notes
notes
notes
Chapter 6
A. Plasschaert, De gehavenden van het Van Gogh-proces, De Groene Amsterdammer,
April .
Roepers , .
Koldehoff , .
KMM, Map Boekposten KMS // Managed by G.J. van de Berg.
Balk , -.
Bremmer-Beekhuis n.d., , . Annotation M. Straasheijm p. .
The restorer C.B. van Bohemen calls Bremmers appeal to feelings in the question of
authenticity misleading, but he does not deal with other aspects of his performance in
the Wacker case. C.B. van Bohemen, Het Wacker-proces in Berlijn of een harlequin-
ade op groote schaal, De Tooneelspiegel, May , -.
Vincent van Gogh. De graven te Auvers: Herinnering aan het vervalschingsproces, De
Tijd, July . Eight years after the trial, De Tijd was the first newspaper to write
that Bremmer judged nine Wacker Van Goghs as genuine, seventeen as absolute forger-
ies, and the rest as doubtful.
In een valsch paradijs van de Haagsche School, De Telegraaf, December . See
the documents on the case in the archives of the Krller-Mller Museum: HA ,
HA and HA .
Letter of A. Anthack to the Nationalgalerie, March . Justi followed the transac-
tion like a hawk. He wrote to a colleague that Matthiesen had succeeded in selling the
painting [...] an den merkwrdigen hollndischen Sachverstndigen Scherjon [...].
notes
notes
Chapter 8
LEnigme Van Gogh, Connaissance des Arts, April , p. .
For the Van Meegeren case, see: Van den Brandhof , Van Wijnen and Van
Wijnen .
See Van Wijnen , and Secrest , -.
Van Wijnen , .
Strijd tegen valse Van Goghs, Algemeen Handelsblad, May .
notes
notes
Chapter 9
See Oosterbaan Martinius , -.
Alexander , -; Savage , - and von Bode , -.
Die falschen Van Gogh-Bilder, Kunst und Knstler, March , p. . According to
the reviewer this sentence comes from Les Faux Van Gogh, but it cannot be found there.
Op de Coul .
See Wouters .
Van den Brandhof , .
Copy of letter from Sandberg to the mayor and aldermen of Amsterdam, June .
SMA, Correspondence of (no. ).
Copy of letter from Sandberg to the mayor and alderman of Amsterdam, July .
SMA, .. EI (no. ).
Copy of letter from A.J. dAilly to the Minister of Education, Arts, and Science,
August . SMA, .. EI.
Copy of letter from the Minister of Education, Arts, and Science to the mayor and
alderman of Amsterdam, September . SMA, .. EI (no. II).
Letter of M. de Sablonire to W. Sandberg, January . SMA, .. EI.
Letter of M. de Sablonire to V.W. van Gogh, April . VGM. I think it would
be unfortunate for it to fall into the hands of art historians, i.e. into the hands of one of
the museum directors, who have opposed an institute en bloc when they became afraid
notes
notes
Chapter 10
See Mauss . Also see the essays in Komter (ed.) and .
Letter of J. van Gogh-Bonger to J.B. de la Faille, August . VGM.
Letter of V.W. van Gogh to M.E. Tralbaut, September . VGM, Tralbaut cor-
respondence and Notes on Paul Gachet, February . VGM, Memoranda of Engi-
neer Van Gogh, -.
Gachet Junior attended agricultural college, but this biographical detail is not men-
tioned in any newspaper article or catalogue from the s or s.
This support was financed by the Theo van Gogh Foundation, which purchases works
by living artists and already has a number of pieces that can be found in various mu-
seums, letter of V.W. van Gogh to the mayor and alderman of Breda, September
. VGM, Correspondence of M.E. Tralbaut and V.W. van Gogh. In the annual
report of the Theo van Gogh Foundation, eleven drawings and paintings are listed in
the foundations holdings, including works by Ger Lataster, Jan Voerman, Jr., Graham
Sutherland, Paul Citroen, and Henry Moore. VGM, Memoranda of V.W. van Gogh, no
date. On the Engineer and the Museumjournaal, see Schumacher .
Letter of V.W. van Gogh to P. Gachet, May . VGM.
De la Faille says the first exhibition of The Church at Auvers (F ) was The
Hague, Otterlo. According to De Waarheid of February , the painting was first
shown at Jeu de Paume in Paris in February .
For the history of the donations, see Distel & Stein .
Van Gogh Tentoonstelling te Parijs, De Waarheid, February .
W.J. de Gruyter, Schenking Gachet aan het Louvre, Het Vaderland, February .
Vier nieuwe aanwinsten voor het Louvre, De Telegraaf, November .
See letter of V.W. van Gogh to P. Gachet, April . VGM.
Letter of P. Gachet to V.W. van Gogh, April . VGM.
notes
Chapter 11
Letter of Librex N.V. to W. Sandberg, October . Letter of Sandberg to Librex
N.V., November . SMA, Box .., Van Gogh General.
Prospectus Martinus Nijhoff . VGM.
In her name was A. Hoogendoorn. In this chapter I am using her married name.
See Roodenburg-Schadd .
Conversation with A. Tellegen, dated October .
Conversation with J.M. Joosten, dated March .
notes
notes
notes
notes
illustrations
Alexander, E.P.: Museum masters. Their museums and their influence. Nashville, Ten-
nessee, The American Association for State and Local History 1983.
Alexander, V.D.: Sociology of the arts. Exploring fine and popular forms. Oxford,
Blackwell Publishing 2003.
Alsop, J.: The rare art traditions. The history of art collecting and its linked phenom-
ena wherever these have appeared. London, Thames and Hudson Ltd 1982.
Anfray, L.: Une nigme Van Gogh. Le cuivre grav Portrait de lhomme la pipe
(F. 1661) In : Art-Documents, no. 39, Mars 1953, p. 5.
: Lnigme du cuivre grav Portrait la pipe du Dr. Gachet attribu Vin-
cent van Gogh. In: Art-Documents, no. 42, Mars 1954, pp. 1, 8-9, 11.
: La vrit torture. Vincent van Gogh Auvers-sur-Oise. In : Art-Documents,
no. 43. avril 1954, pp. 4-6.
: Le cuivre grav par Vincent van Gogh serait un Portrait dArlsienne. In :
Art-Documents, no. 45, juin 1954, pp. 8-9.
Arnau, F. : Three thousand years of deception in art and antiques. London, Jonathan
Cape 1961.
Auping, W.: Vincent van Gogh, Rijksmuseum Krller-Mller. Otterlo, Sint Hubertus
Uitgave 1948.
Balk, H.: De freule, de professor en zijn vrouw. Het publiek van H.P. Bremmer.
In: Jong Holland, kunst na 1850, nr. 2, jrg. 9, 1993. pp. 4-24.
: De volle grootheid van zijn ziel. Bremmers hartstocht voor het werk van
Vincent van Gogh. In: T. van Kooten & M. Rijnders 2003, pp. 428-435.
: De kunstpaus. H.P. Bremmer 1871-1956. Bussum, Toth 2006.
Barr et al. 1949 (Ch 8 n 42)
Becker, H. S.: Art worlds. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1982.
Begemann. N: Victorine. Amsterdam, Uitgeverij Bert Bakker 1988.
Berge, J. ten: Zelfportret. In: Van Kooten & Rijnders (red.) 2003a, pp. 397-398.
Berge, J. ten: Zeegezicht te Saintes Maries-de-la-Mer. In: Van Kooten & Ri-
jnders (red.) 2003b, pp. 225-229.
Berge, J. ten: Schilderijen van Vincent van Gogh die zich ooit in de KrOller-
Mller-collectie bevonden. In: Van Kooten & Rijnders (red.) 2003c, pp.
387-388.
bibliography
bibliography
bibliography
bibliography
bibliography
bibliography
bibliography
bibliography
bibliography
bibliography
bibliography
index of names
index of names
index of names
index of names
index of names
W Zandleven, J. 41
Zatzenstein, F. 139
Wacker, H. 83, 84 Zemel, C.M. 305, 344
Wacker, L. 57, 73, 76, 78, 83, 152, 180 Zimmermann, M.F. 344
Wacker, O. 10, 46-48, 50, 51, 54-59, 61- Zwartendijk, J. 38, 111, 112, 127, 132, 163
index of names