Made You Look: A True Story About Fake Art (2020)

Curious minds want to know... documentary movie collection.

Moderator: Maskath3

Watch Docus Amazon   Docus Merchandise

Documentary movie collection.
Post Reply

Made You Look: A True Story About Fake Art (2020)

Post by bunniefuu »

- No one
- wants to be fooled.

People are fooled by art

much more than we know.

- The Director at the
- Metropolitan Museum

was once asked,

"How many fakes do you think

could possibly be on the walls?"

- To which he responded,
- "I have no idea."

It's embarrassing.

Worse than that,

- I think, is that they
- don't want to own up

to admitting

that they were fooled.

- I think it's, you know,
- very easy to see

how I was

so caught up

in the excitement over the art.

They say they are sure

- she was a part of the
- criminal enterprise.

They say they're positive.

Either she was complicit in it,

- or she was one of
- the stupidest people

- to have ever worked
- at an art gallery.

- I did not
- knowingly sell fakes.

- I was convinced that
- they were right.

And real, and believable.

I was convinced.

- It was
- very abrupt at first.

- I mean, it started with the
- news of Knoedler closing.

- And that was shocking
- because Knoedler was

- very old-guard institution
- in the art world.

- And nobody really knew the
- details of that until...

- you know, news started leaking
- out about this forgery scandal.

$80 million dollar scandal

- that has the art world
- up in arms tonight,

- and collectors checking their
- most prized possessions.

- This is probably
- the largest art fraud

that has ever been discovered

- in the history of,
- of the United States.

- In this case,
- the accused forger created

- lookalikes of some of America's
- most prominent artists.

- A con that
- went on for, you know,

nearly 20 years.

- This was someone
- who had the gall to say,

Jackson Pollock, Motherwell,

- let's take some of the biggest
- names of 20th Century art.

- You've got collectors
- who bought something

- that is worth millions and
- millions of dollars...

I have the opportunity

to buy a Rothko?

- ...and in fact,
- it's worth zero.

- People thought
- they were sublime masterworks.

- Before they knew
- they were fakes,

- people thought these
- are great works of art

- and they put them up
- in fancy museums.

- And one of the
- most important galleries

- this country's ever seen
- was at the center of it.

The Knoedler Gallery was

New York's most venerable,

- in part because of
- its sheer longevity.

- They had
- survived the Civil w*r,

- two World Wars,
- the entire 20th Century.

- They started
- as an Old Master dealer,

and they sold to people like

J.P. Morgan, Henry Clay Frick.

- They sold to the MET.
- They sold to the Louvre.

- In the early
- part of the 1970s,

- Armand Hammer, one of
- the great industrialists

- and philanthropists of the
- American 20th Century,

- acquired an interest
- in the Knoedler Gallery.

His grandson, Michael Hammer,

- acquired an ownership
- interest around 2001.

- Michael Hammer
- essentially assumed

- control of the gallery and
- put Ann Freedman in charge.

- I was
- at Knoedler for...

- it was just a touch
- shy of 32 years.

- Ann Freedman had
- a reputation for being someone

who could really sell art,

- who had a good relationship
- with collectors.

- It was the
- roof that was over me.

I worked for Knoedler.

- Knoedler was it.
- It was the institution.

- And it was
- a gallery that kept up

with the times and trends.

- Ironically, the only era
- that they kinda missed

- was Abstract Expressionism
- in the early '50s,

- which would turn out of
- course to be the era

that they were brought down by.

- At the center of
- this scam, authorities say,

is this New York woman.

Glafira Rosales.

A self-described art dealer.

- I mean, Glafira
- Rosales comes into Knoedler

off the street with, you know,

- supposed masterpieces
- in the trunk of her car.

- Like yeah,
- you have a huge, you know,

- multi-million dollar trove of,
- of previously unknown paintings.

You know?

- And all of them
- from this same,

mysterious, Glafira Rosales.

It was a perfect storm,

and it was highly unusual for

this amount of forged works

- to be going through Knoedler
- and fooling so many people.

It was...

my recollection, 1995,

Jimmy Andrade,

he was kind of your guy Friday.

- You know, he just did a
- lot of things that came up.

Trusted. Terribly trusted.

- He told me
- that he had a friend,

- a very special friend, who
- wanted to show me a Rothko.

- One day,
- Glafira Rosales came in.

- I don't think I knew
- her name at that point,

- but it didn't matter,
- I'd never heard of her.

She was polite.

Well-dressed.

Very soft spoken.

- There was no
- reason to trust Glafira Rosales.

Nobody knew who this person was.

- She didn't
- have a great pedigree.

- She was just some lady
- from Long Island

who came to the gallery one day.

- Rosales was the perfect part
- for this.

- Said the right
- amount of information,

not too much, not too little.

- Just enough to
- make Ann interested,

- and to keep the
- relationship going.

- She had the Rothko work
- on paper,

wrapped in some...

between cardboards, I think.

- And I asked her,
- you know, could we unwrap it?

- Jimmy unwrapped it.
- Nothing unusual there.

- And I thought it was
- absolutely beautiful.

Absolutely beautiful.

- If one can fall in love
- with something material,

I do fall in love with art.

- I know it's not
- human so, you know,

- there's a, there's a limit,
- but I got genuinely excited

about these works of art.

Signature on the back.

Dated. It looked very good.

- Oh, I, it would be normal for
- me, and it was that way then,

to ask some questions,

- "Can you tell me anything
- about where it comes from,

- and the owner?"
- And she made it very clear

that she had a confidentiality,

- the owner's name was
- not to be revealed.

Little by little, other details

came out of a sort of backstory.

- "Mr. X," so went
- the first story,

- it got modified later,
- but...

- story one centered
- on this "Mr. X."

Very well-to-do family.

They came over from Europe.

- They went to Mexico, not
- unusual after the w*r time.

- He and his
- wife had come to New York.

- They had bought
- paintings through

a guy named Alfonso Ossorio.

- Alfonso Ossorio
- lived in Long Island.

- He was... maybe a patron, if
- you will, of Jackson Pollock.

He supposedly connected

- the anonymous collector
- and the artists.

- They acquired
- a number of works,

- this isn't the only one,
- there are others.

- The Mexican guy,
- even though he doesn't like

- abstract art, takes all these
- paintings back to Mexico.

- How does he do this,
- on a wagon train?

- I mean, takes all these
- paintings back to Mexico

- and puts them, hermetically
- sealed, in the basement.

- He had given
- those works to his son,

"Mr. X Junior."

- And his son
- now wants to sell them

- at cheap prices because the
- son doesn't care about money.

- As if rich people
- don't care about money?

- My experience is that rich
- people care about money

even more than poor people.

It's one of these stories

- where a couple
- of details are true,

- or tantalizingly plausible,
- I should say,

- and someone who is gullible
- just then ate the whole thing.

- Isn't that always the case
- with a con,

- that, you know, there is just
- enough to be believable in it?

- I thought,
- my God, this is a discovery.

- Start the bidding
- at $33, 34, 35 million dollars.

$36 million dollars the bid.

36, to Stefan?

36.

48, with Charlie now at 48?

- Ab-Ex art,
- in about the year 2000,

1998, went nuts.

At $57 million dollars?

And Elizabeth will now bid 57.

58.

- What was
- a decent market became

- a ridiculous hot market,
- and so things were selling

- for ten times whatever they
- had been sold for before.

- The Abstract
- Expressionists were really

- the first group
- of American artists

- who developed an
- international reputation.

- The group included Jackson
- Pollock, Mark Rothko,

- Barnett Newman, Lee Krasner,
- Robert Motherwell

- and Willem de Kooning,
- of course.

They didn't really ever expect

- to find an audience,
- find collectors.

At $65 million dollars then?

Thank you!

Because of the prices right now

- of a lot of the Abstract
- Expressionist painters,

it's more tempting perhaps

to forge their works.

- I knew
- from the story

- that the paintings
- were purchased

- late '50s, early '60s,
- for very little money,

and it was believable.

The artists were starving.

- They weren't just wanting to
- sell, they were really needy.

- Pollock had to, you know,
- exchange his paintings

- with the local grocery
- store or the liquor store.

- So the idea that at that point
- in time, someone could acquire

- the works very cheaply is
- nothing of a surprise.

- And don't forget,
- when this unidentified

- "Mr. X" was supposed
- to have been buying these,

these works were not expensive.

- They were five, ten,
- ten thousand dollars.

- These paintings
- have never been exhibited,

they have no known provenance,

they have no real paperwork.

- Provenance is
- the key to it here.

You know, you need to know

where that painting came from.

Provenance.

Well, the simple definition

- of provenance is the
- history of ownership.

- It is, ideally, where
- you can trace the work

from the current owner

- all the way back to
- the artist's studio.

- At the very
- least, there needed to be

some paperwork showing

- when this work had been created,
- and who it had gone to.

- The sister might
- have some of the paperwork,

- but it's probably
- been destroyed.

- I mean, she was
- prepared with a story.

There's no question.

It's completely opaque.

- And they should never have
- accepted this as provenance.

- I mean, you would've thought
- that at least

- one of those pictures might have
- appeared as a background sh*t,

- showing one of the
- artists in his studio.

- Often you can find
- some records

- of a work's existence,
- but it's never perfect.

And records can be fabricated.

- You had great
- collectors from Walter Chrysler,

- to Roy Neuberger, to Joe
- Hirshhorn, they all did that.

They went into artists' studios,

- and they bought
- cheaper by the dozen,

and they paid in cash.

It was credible to me.

I believed what I was told.

- There was mystery, but there's
- often mystery in provenance.

- But I hoped to solve that
- mystery as time went on.

- None of the works
- Rosales brought to the gallery

- were in the catalogue
- raisonnés of the artists.

- Catalogue raisonné is a
- comprehensive catalogue

- of the authentic works
- by a particular artist.

Everyone accepts the fact

- that there might be
- some legitimate works

- that didn't make it into
- the catalogue raisonné,

- they weren't known to
- the authors at the time,

- but nonetheless,
- it is sort of a bible.

What do you do?

- You go to the people who created
- the catalogue raisonnés,

- and you ask them,
- will you look at this,

and give me your opinion?

- I first saw this
- painting, if memory serves...

- And it
- happened that the expert,

- David Anfam, was in
- town from London,

and I showed it to him.

- He had an immediate take,
- which I knew he would have,

which is, it's beautiful.

It's a Rothko.

- He had the expert
- eye for Rothko.

- He was noted as
- a Rothko scholar.

- Noted as an Abstract
- Expressionist scholar.

- Hired by the National Gallery
- and the Rothko family

to do the catalogue raisonné,

the bible, of Rothkos.

- Oh, it meant a great deal
- and it was right.

- A master con
- artist gives you what you want.

- Good con artists
- are very good psychologists.

- They're someone who
- understand human need,

who understand human desire.

- Who understand how
- belief and how hope work.

- Rosales was
- on the scene to demonstrate

- she was someone
- who could be trusted.

- Someone who had a role
- in this art world.

- She went to
- auctions, to openings,

and she bought art from me.

- To come to openings, you're
- coming to a public gathering,

so you're not hiding.

- It was
- a fascinating game

of cat and mouse, because

- with each additional painting
- that Glafira brought in,

- Ann would try to
- get information about

"Mr. X" from her,

- and Glafira would say,
- "Well, I'll tell you this,

- he's very happy with
- how you're doing."

Don't forget this was only

- one or two fakes sold
- by Knoedler a year.

- People look back at the total
- number and say, oh my goodness!

- They weren't brought up to
- Knoedler in a wheelbarrow.

- It was kind of a trickle
- over time,

- so, slow and steady
- was the plan here.

- You know,
- Glafira is a small,

pretty quiet person.

- She doesn't fit the profile
- of what you might think

- would be a international
- art criminal.

- But we know that her boyfriend
- has an art background.

- Just so I
- have it, so I know,

If you could tell me your name.

- My name is José Carlos
- Bergañtinos Díaz.

Who is Bergañtinos?

Who is Glafira Rosales?

- These people have a gallery,
- supposedly, in New York City.

- They supposedly have
- a gallery in Sands Point.

- They've been accused
- of trafficking

forgeries in Spain.

- Bergañtinos was accused
- in a lawsuit in 2006

- of having forged
- various documents.

- There are
- red flags surrounding him.

- There's indications that
- if there's a scheme here,

- and there clearly is,
- that he is in on it.

- Ann Freedman
- ran the gallery.

Did you ever meet her?

I never met her, never.

- I didn't know the assistant
- either, I didn't know anyone.

Whether it was Bergañtinos

- or whether it was Glafira,
- they did their research.

- When you pick someone like Ann,
- you're picking someone

- at a very vulnerable
- moment in their career

- when they need
- something like this.

- And that's
- one of the things that

- someone like Glafira
- and Bergañtinos

are banking on.

- A con artist
- isn't a good speaker.

A con artist is a good listener.

- And Glafira did that
- so incredibly well.

The works came in,

- and the first thing Ann did
- was bring them to experts.

That's what dealers do.

- Whether there's provenance,
- or no provenance.

- The National
- Gallery of Art

- was publishing a
- catalogue raisonné

of Mark Rothko works on paper.

- They wrote to Ann
- about two of the Rothkos

- and said, "We've
- evaluated the works.

- We intend to include these
- works in the catalogue."

- She went to the
- leading conservator,

- the conservator for
- the Mark Rothko estate,

- and she got condition
- reports back

- that made positive comments
- about the works, like,

- this is a classic example
- of Rothko's style.

- This is someone who conserved
- hundreds and hundreds

- of paintings, and saw
- nothing out of line

- when she looked at
- the physical construction

of these paintings.

Next came a Pollock,

- and eventually seven
- Richard Diebenkorns.

- It was
- like discovering raw land

to develop it.

- I did hire, after all,
- an expert, E.A. Carmean,

- to be in charge of
- the research for this.

I trusted his eye completely.

- He absolutely felt
- they were right,

and put it in writing.

- They wanted
- so badly to believe

that these things were real,

- because it was better for
- everybody if they were real.

- Here, we have this
- great discovery,

- this trove of previously
- unknown paintings

- by some of the most celebrated
- artists of the 20th Century.

- And I think that if you really
- wanted something to be true,

- you would do your best to
- ignore any kind of red flags.

- But you know, there
- were a lot of them.

- The experts that
- she went to approved these works

in some form or another.

- And when she had the
- experts around her

affirming what she believed,

she dove right in, head first.

- Art, it's a
- kind of high-end commodity

that has a very small audience.

It's exclusivity. I mean,

- we're talking about the
- world's greatest artists.

- They don't have a
- whole lot of works.

- And we're also talking about
- people with a lot of money,

- so they might want to collect
- something that's ultra-rare,

- that no one else,
- literally, can have.

- And when you have those
- combinations of those facts

- together and someone comes
- up with a new discovery,

it's really enticing.

- The De Soles
- are very smart people.

- Domenico is a graduate
- of Harvard Law School.

He's a very sophisticated man.

- And they have an
- impressive collection of art.

- We visited an
- old friend and he said to me,

- the next time
- you go to New York,

- you really must see this
- very close friend of mine,

- she's probably the best in the
- United States. Ann Freedman.

I didn't know who she was.

- I didn't know anything
- about Knoedler at the time.

- We talked about a Scully
- that we really liked.

Why don't we call Ann Freedman

- to see if they had
- the Scully available.

- I didn't have one
- at that point in time,

but I wanted to meet them.

- It was
- a very nice location.

You went up the stairs.

- There was an office
- where we were seated.

- Couple of works of art on
- easels that were covered.

- And they said,
- "What's that over there

with the white cover on it?"

- And I said, "Well
- actually, it's a Rothko."

"Oh, we love Rothko!

Let's have a look."

- These two
- works of art were unveiled,

and one appeared to be a Rothko,

- and one appeared
- to be a Jackson Pollock.

- We were like, wow,
- look at those.

Well, it takes your breath away.

- Which, you know,
- is not something

- that comes to you
- every single day.

- Of course,
- we inquired about them.

- They were
- hoodwinked in a sense,

- but they were all
- sophisticated people.

- Sophisticated in business,
- sophisticated in their,

- in their professional
- lives, and yet

they all succumbed

to the charm of this art.

- I think the mindset
- that led De Soles

to sort of be in love with this,

what he believed to be a Rothko,

- is a frequent mindset
- of the collector

who has bought a forgery.

- Falling in love really
- describes this process

- of ignoring and forgiving
- flaws as somebody

- who is smitten with
- their new love

is going to ignore their flaws.

This is something that's

an ego boost for you.

This is something where,

- when you have people
- come to your house,

you want them to see it.

- Well, if suddenly
- the exact kind of Rothko

- that you want
- comes on the market,

- are you gonna ask
- too many questions,

or are you gonna buy it?

I just want to make clear,

- I don't have a trained eye.
- I'm not an expert.

- The paintings did look
- very good, and in fact,

- the person that we
- used as our advisor,

he's very sophisticated,

- he thought the paint
- looked very, very good.

- The price of eight
- million dollars

- sounds like a lot,
- but that said,

that's kind of low for a Rothko.

Good Rothkos of the period,

- actually go for
- much more than that.

- They didn't
- seem to have many questions.

- They were just totally
- enthralled with the painting.

Domenico was insistent,

- besides an invoice
- with the price,

- he wanted a warranty
- of authenticity,

- and Freedman supplied
- a multi-page document

listing every "expert"

- who had seen the painting,
- authenticated the painting.

- I was listed as an expert
- on De Sole's painting,

- which is how I,
- it's one of the reasons

I got sucked into this.

I am not an expert on Rothko.

- I have no memory of
- having seen that painting.

- De Sole knew
- that there was no provenance.

- De Sole knew that it was an
- unidentified owner, seller.

In fact, they all knew that.

- The De Sole
- piece went to the Beyeler,

so it was unbelievably exhibited

in a context of what was called,

- "The Rothko Rooms."
- I love to talk about it.

- Ernst Beyeler
- was one of the most important

- art dealers who devoted
- an entire exhibition

to the works of Mark Rothko.

- The De Sole Rothko
- was on its own wall.

So you walked into the Beyeler,

and there it was.

Ernst Beyeler was alive then,

he didn't question it,

you know, he accepted it.

- That's all more reason
- for us to think

we really had this jewel.

- You should be
- asking yourself,

why am I getting this?

- Why have I gotten
- such a good deal?

- What many
- of the experts did agree on

- at the outset was that
- it was highly unlikely,

- if not impossible, that one
- person would be able to master

the styles of so many artists.

It was extraordinary,

- and it was entirely
- unexpected by anyone

who reviewed those works.

- Time now for our
- favorite person of the day,

- when we pick one person who
- grabbed our attention,

and not for the right reasons.

- Today, it is
- a 75-year-old artist

- who went from
- selling his paintings

- for a couple
- hundred dollars,

- to selling them
- for millions.

- What we know
- about Pei-Shen is that

- when he lived in China, he was
- an accomplished painter.

- And then he came to the States,
- and he couldn't make it

- in the art world in the
- way he did in China.

He was really, really frustrated

- because they come here with
- big name created in China.

- Here, nobody knows...
- "Who are you?"

- So he was trained
- at the Art Student League.

- The Art Student League
- is a school in Manhattan

- where greats like
- Alexander Calder, and Pollock

- received some
- of their training.

The fellow was, quite clearly,

A, a genius,

- B, had studied
- these techniques of

- seven, eight different
- Ab-Ex painters.

- And he'd studied
- them really hard.

- The Chinese
- have had a tradition

for a thousand years or more of

correctly copying,

being dead accurate copying,

- being the greatest
- tribute you could pay

- to a previous artist, and to
- be a test of your own skill.

- And this
- goes back centuries,

millennia really.

Originality was not a virtue.

Nothing from your heart.

- It's only copy
- others' technique.

- They not only copy art,
- they copy iPhone,

they copy so many high tech.

- You have to wonder
- if you're, if you're

- that Chinese artist,
- turning out these pieces

- that almost no one
- could tell apart

from true masterpieces.

- He's good.
- He has some talent.

- But not really like Picasso,
- Matisse kind of talent.

- His Mark Rothko is
- a very bad copy.

Brilliant.

Brilliant fakes.

- Glafira and
- Bergañtinos, they interviewed,

- or you know, looked for a
- bunch of people to do this,

and settled on Pei-Shen

- because he was
- the best they found,

- and he was able to
- do multiple artists.

- When Pei-Shen
- created the paintings

- they're fresh,
- they're new, I mean,

they're brand-new, they're not

- from the '50s and '60s,
- as they should be.

- So Pei-Shen makes the painting,
- and then it goes to Bergañtinos,

- and he does things
- to the painting

to make it look credibly old.

The surface might have cracking.

There's gonna be dust.

- The frame has to be
- the right age.

- Even the canvas has
- to be the right age.

- So, Bergañtinos would get
- some materials, raw supplies,

- an old canvas, the
- right kind of frame.

So, they worked hand in glove.

- They needed Pei-Shen's artistry,
- but then Bergañtinos had to put

- the finishing touches on
- it to give it the appearance

of age and credibility.

- If you look
- at my bank account,

you'll see there was no income.

I'm still a poor artist.

- You think I could be
- involved with this?

- He was paid very
- little at the beginning.

As time went on, he was at the

67th Street Armory Art Fair,

and saw one of his works in

the Knoedler Gallery booth.

- That's the point where he went
- back to Rosales and said,

"I need to be paid more money."

- Carlos, how did
- you meet Pei-Shen Qian?

So, I bought art from him and

when he was on the

street painting things,

sometimes I needed money,

- and I bought them and I
- sold, like everyone else.

- And Rosales was the
- one, I'm sure, with some help

- from the boyfriend, creating the
- story surrounding the works.

It was really well ex*cuted.

- You also have to
- remember that Glafira Rosales

- had tried to sell those
- paintings herself.

- Even if she had access to the
- collectors or galleries

that Ann Freedman sold to,

they would have laughed at her.

- We all see
- something into context.

- You go to the Museum of Modern
- Art, you go to the MET,

and you see a painting up there,

- even an expert is
- not going to think,

- "Well there's something not
- right with that painting."

- You rely on the museum and the
- whole, kind of, infrastructure

- that would have
- vetted that painting.

- I mean, Knoedler had such
- a prominent reputation,

- and I think people
- just never suspected.

- Increasingly,
- more and more people

liked the work.

When I say, liked it, wanted it.

- In front of it you
- could see eyes light up.

- There was depth to the
- desire for these paintings.

Anyone who works in

- what we call the
- secondary art market

- where you're buying up
- a work from one party

- and reselling it to
- another, those deals,

- if you make a hundred percent
- markup, is generally normal.

- But those profit margins
- were more like anywhere

from 200, to like, 800 percent.

- That happens about
- once every ten years.

- And any secondary market
- dealer would know that

- if they're repeatedly getting
- profit margins of that scale,

- there's some cause
- for concern here.

- I wasn't alone in
- believing in these works of art.

- It wasn't Ann Freedman
- against the world.

Everyone was willing.

The art world was willing.

They weren't hidden.

They weren't downplayed.

- They were totally exposed
- around the world,

and published.

She wanted, so wanted,

these works of art to be real

- because if they were,
- she would be a leading figure

in the world of art dealers.

She would be atop them all.

- And she let that lead
- her over the cliff.

- Jack Levy
- went to the gallery,

- and was interested in
- buying a Jackson Pollock.

- What he said was,
- "I'll buy this work.

But I want you to subject it

to an evaluation by IFAR."

The International Foundation

- of Art Research
- was founded to deal

with the complicated issues

of attribution and authenticity.

We're one of the only places

that even does such a thing.

Mr. Levy negotiated that if we

didn't accept it as a Pollock,

he could get his money back.

The whole issue of authenticity

- is very, very troubled
- now in the art world.

One thing that really works

for the forgers' favor is that

if you have a negative opinion,

- if you're not sure,
- you tend to keep it to yourself.

- There have been experts that
- have been critical of paintings,

and they got sued.

Authentication research

is usually three-pronged.

- It's scholarly research,
- which includes provenance,

- and then it's also bringing
- specialists together

to look at the work.

- Specialists who are really
- knowledgeable about the artist,

- to see whether it's consistent
- with the artist's style.

- And then it's also what we
- call the material properties.

- Despite some positive
- comments about the work

that looked superficially good,

- we had too many
- negative comments.

- Materially, one of
- the things we noticed,

- there was new paint
- on old canvas.

- We compared it physically
- to an actual Pollock painting

- of the same year,
- and the masonite

had aged completely differently.

This was very suspicious to us.

- Stylistically,
- there were many concerns

- about the way
- the paint was applied,

about that greenish-brown wash.

- No one had ever seen, even
- the people who liked the work

questioned that.

- And then the provenance, we
- attached 16 pages of documents

- showing why that provenance
- was inconceivable.

- Pollock is a very
- well-documented artist.

- He was famous in his
- lifetime, for heaven's sakes!

- The lack of documentation
- for a painting

- at the height of
- Pollock's career,

- this was when Life Magazine
- was asking whether

- he was the most famous
- artist in America,

- that was particularly
- astonishing.

That combination of information

made us write in the report

- that we could not
- accept the work

as a work by Jackson Pollock.

It was inconclusive.

Which, in the art community,

- is generally understood
- as it is a fake,

- but we just stepped
- short of saying that,

and we said it multiple times.

- The fact is they hid the report,
- they never mentioned the report,

- and bad-mouthed
- us over the years.

The gallery later tried to say

- that we didn't come
- up with an opinion.

- I certainly felt
- that she was not wanting

- to listen to everything
- I wanted to tell her.

It was an opinion to say,

- "We cannot accept it
- as a work by Pollock."

At that point, Jack Levy

- went back to Ann Freedman
- and Knoedler and said,

"I want my money back.

That was our deal.

- You owe me, you know,
- two million dollars."

I recall saying to him,

"Jack, if there's a problem,

we'll undo it."

- And I would've said
- that to anybody.

- And Knoedler
- refunded one hundred percent

of his purchase price.

- You would think
- that Ann Freedman and Knoedler

would go ahead and make sure

- to do serious investigation
- at that point.

- And in fact,
- that work went back on sale

at the Knoedler Gallery.

- The price went from
- two million dollars

to I think, 11 million.

- I certainly
- felt as time went on,

and it's a fact,

Pollock's market went up,

- so one could ask
- more for it, sure.

Did it ever sell?

No.

- I went right to Glafira
- to let her know

- that there was a suspicion
- about the works,

- and I got a little
- more information.

- I found out
- that within three weeks,

- miraculously, the work
- had a new provenance.

Story number two changed.

Now "Mr. X" was gay,

and he had come to New York,

- and begun buying
- works through a guy

- named David Herbert,
- who was gay.

- David Herbert
- was a real art dealer.

Worked in the 1950s.

- He was employed at
- the Sidney Janis Gallery,

- who represented a lot of the
- Abstract Expressionist artists,

by the Betty Parsons Gallery,

also represented a number of

Abstract Expressionist artists.

- So, he was a real
- dealer with positions

at prominent galleries.

"Mr. X" had been drawn

- into this whole demi-monde
- of gay art lovers,

and dealers, and collectors.

- However,
- he had a wife and children

back in Switzerland,

- so he couldn't take
- these works back with him.

- It would've been opening up
- his gay life to his family.

- Which
- was just as concocted,

- and just as refutable
- with research.

- I mean,
- the story kept morphing.

- Alfonso Ossorio is involved.
- Then he's not involved.

- They pivoted
- to you know, conveniently,

to David Herbert,

- who also, conveniently,
- was dead.

And as pieces fell out,

- or there are
- holes in the stories,

- suddenly they were plugged by
- some other information.

- But you can see
- how a somewhat gullible

- and ambitious dealer
- like Ann Freedman

might take a morsel like that.

- You know, David Herbert did
- exist, there he was,

- and swallow all that Glafira
- was telling her along with it.

- Well,
- she came out with more.

- It wasn't... she didn't
- change her story,

- it wasn't something
- that she retracted.

Her story was evolving.

I don't recall any time in which

- I thought she was not
- telling me the truth.

And it would've alarmed me

- if she had said
- one thing one day,

and then changed it another day.

That did not happen.

- The Dedalus
- Foundation was founded

by Robert Motherwell in 1981.

- Motherwell
- was one of the leading

Abstract Expressionist artists

- and in many ways the
- spokesman for the movement.

- In early 2007,
- Julian Weissman,

- a private dealer
- whom I knew,

told us he had

a Motherwell painting

- that had been
- recently discovered.

- In my gut it looked
- kind of weird.

It was warped.

- There was too much
- oil in the paint,

or too many drip marks,

- but it looked just like the
- stuff that was in the database.

- So, we figured okay,
- well, it's a discovery,

we're discovering new things,

- and it turns out
- that Motherwell

- made more paintings
- in 1953 than we thought.

- He asked us for a letter
- of authentication,

- and he used the letter
- to sell the painting.

- It's my fault. It was a mistake.
- Live and learn.

- Later that year,
- Ann Freedman told us

that she had yet another Elegy,

and it really looked wrong.

- I had affirmation
- on the Motherwell

that I personally owned.

- Helen Frankenthaler,
- Motherwell's wife for 13 years,

- she looked at that "Elegy"
- and she pointed her finger,

yup, that's Bob.

- I could not have asked
- for more affirmation.

- The signature looked
- kind of okay if you saw it once

- because everybody's
- signature varies a little bit,

- but this signature looked
- like it came from a template.

- Something was
- off with these paintings.

- They went back to Knoedler and
- Freedman, confronting them.

- We thought we were
- doing her an enormous favor.

- We thought she was
- gonna say, oh my God,

- thank goodness you've
- told me about this,

- because I've been dealing
- with these people

- thinking these
- paintings were real.

- And she had told us that there
- were not only Motherwells

- in this collection, but there
- were Rothkos and Pollocks,

and de Koonings.

- The level
- of resistance that,

- that Knoedler was
- pushing back on

didn't make any sense.

- Her reaction,
- started arguing with us.

- She brings up the
- David Herbert story,

- and how David Herbert
- was close to Motherwell.

- We, by the way, did some
- research right after

she said that, and we found that

- he didn't exist on
- Motherwell's radar,

- except perhaps as some
- shadowy figure somewhere.

- And Ann was making it seem
- as if they were close,

these paintings were real,

and she said to us,

- experts on the other
- artists have said

these paintings are real.

So, I was stunned.

- He forgot to
- mention that he initially

thought the works were right.

- Also,
- I should say that in 2006,

- I'd actually seen one
- of these "Elegies."

- It was on the floor
- in her office.

I think he made it up

that he quickly looked at this,

- quote, unquote
- "Motherwell on the floor."

- It looked kind of like, I mean,
- it looked like an Elegy.

- I didn't show
- paintings on the floor,

I put them on an easel.

That was my way.

So it looked enough like a...

- a Motherwell that you
- see on the floor casually.

- You're not asked
- to give an opinion.

I've never known Jack

to look at something quickly.

- He feels that his opinion
- and his judgment matters,

- and he would look
- at a work in a way

of considering how good it is.

- I didn't even say,
- "Sure, it looked fine."

- I just... didn't say,
- "Wow, that looks like a fake."

All I asked,

- please let me prove
- these work right.

- I believe them.
- I believe E.A. Carmean,

- who knew Motherwell
- better than Jack Flam.

- Nobody knew Motherwell
- like E.A. Carmean.

- That doesn't mean
- that I couldn't accept

I might be wrong,

but how do you go about

figuring that out?

- I then said,
- "Okay,

- I'd like you to have
- those two paintings

- in your control
- forensically tested."

- The best person for that
- period in the United States,

- probably in the world, is Jamie
- Martin at Orion Analytical.

- I didn't
- trust his methods.

It was a huge question for me

- that Jamie Martin
- was one of one.

- He had no associates, no
- assistants, no lab technicians,

nothing, just him.

- Knoedler and
- Ann Freedman sat on that report.

- Didn't turn it over to
- us until January of 2009,

and when she turned it over,

- they omitted the
- last four pages,

- which were the most
- important pages.

They eliminated a lot of

- so-called confidential
- information.

- It was full
- of questions and errors,

and it was difficult to believe

that they were fair-minded.

- It was clear
- from the report

that the paintings were fakes.

- There were all
- sorts of anomalies.

- The ground was an acrylic-
- polymer emulsion ground.

- Motherwell did not start using
- acrylic-polymer emulsion paints

until 1961 or 62.

- There had been a painting
- under the paintings

- that had been sanded down
- with an electric sander,

which is absolutely contrary

to Motherwell's practice.

- Ann argued E.A. Carmean
- said a couple of things

- that I thought were
- rather fatuous.

- For example, there were pigments
- on the Motherwell paintings

- that had not been invented
- until much later.

- Carmean said, "Well maybe they
- were brushed against them

in the collector's home."

The collector wasn't a painter.

- So at that point, I thought
- about what our options were,

- and I realized there
- was a massive fraud

being carried on,

and I decided to go to the FBI.

It was

so w*r-like,

behind my back,

to take me to the FBI.

- It seemed to me
- so clear that she knew,

- or should've known that
- these paintings were fakes,

- that by my saying
- I'm gonna go to the FBI,

what good was it gonna do?

- Jack could have had
- a sit-down with me

- to talk about his
- concerns about the art.

Did he not?

Not really.

- He confronted me
- in front of others.

- That's not sitting down and
- talking about his concern.

And concern for me.

Ann, this is trouble.

- I don't want to
- see you in trouble.

- My God, I thought these
- were right, initially.

I think I was wrong.

I think you're wrong.

- And you mean well, I know that,
- because I know you.

- Because I've known
- you for years.

- I mean, there is a way
- this could have been

humanly discussed.

But that didn't happen.

This was an att*ck.

They did

get to the correct...

excuse me... answer.

But how they did it,

and how they tried to destroy

my reputation,

that's another matter.

- I knew this
- was gonna be big because

- either the paintings are all
- real, or they're all fake,

- so we're either
- talking here about

- $80.7 million dollars
- worth of fake paintings,

- which is gonna be one of
- the largest art frauds

- in U.S. history,
- if not the biggest,

- or we're dealing with
- an amazing collection

that the world should see,

and they should be displayed.

- Once I figured out conclusively
- that the paintings were fake,

- I knew that we were sitting
- on an enormous case.

- She said
- they've made a mistake.

- They... they're mistaken,
- that it's not right.

So, I pushed to let her know

- that we needed to do
- everything possible

to prove that they were right.

If you are the victim of a con

that you've truly believed in,

- as evidence comes
- in against you,

- you are much more
- likely to double-down.

This is actually the moment

- where instead of
- doubting and saying,

wow, I was wrong,

you say, no, I'm so right.

It's a psychological process

- that's born out of
- cognitive dissonance,

- which means that your
- perception of the world

- and the evidence are
- no longer matching.

My feeling was

to not do any more business,

because of the accusation,

- but it didn't mean
- that I thought

that the accusation was correct.

- She was confident
- in the art

- until she couldn't
- be any longer.

- I mean, she held out
- as long as she could.

- The target
- is gonna be Glafira Rosales.

- And you're always
- trying to find out

- who else is criminally
- responsible,

but she's the person bringing

the paintings into the gallery.

- Now, you don't know whether
- she herself has been duped,

but until you can clear her,

- she's gonna be
- your first suspect.

- When Ann
- Freedman gave me the name

of Glafira Rosales,

- one of the first things
- we did was we hired

a private investigating firm

to investigate her,

and within a week or two,

they found that she lived with

José Carlos Bergañtinos Díaz.

And he had been accused of

trafficking in stolen paintings

in 1999.

- You would think
- that if a not-for-profit

- could retain a
- private investigator

- and find this out, that
- Ann Freedman and Knoedler,

- they would've done
- something similar.

- Well, the
- gallery's important because,

- you know, they help
- facilitate the transaction.

- The part that I'm not sure about
- is, well, are they in on this,

or were they duped themselves?

Was Glafira lying to them?

- Or, you know, is it
- somewhere in between?

- There was nothing
- on the public radar

about the Knoedler Gallery case,

- about any disputes
- regarding authenticity

of works Knoedler had sold.

- The sole story that you could
- look up and read about,

and that I did see,

- was that Knoedler Gallery
- and Ann Freedman

had parted ways.

- Obviously, there had been
- questions about these paintings.

- At that point there had
- been a grand jury subpoena,

- so it was clear
- from the beginning

- that the FBI, the U.S.
- Attorney, was investigating.

- It was clear that they wanted
- to know what Ann had, had done.

I was asked to leave.

I didn't want to leave.

- And I begged to stay even
- if they took away my title

- as Director,
- my title as President,

- even if they took
- away my salary.

- I was, by surprise,
- called up to a meeting,

- and I was told I was
- going to be given,

immediately, a leave of absence.

Not being fired,

- 'cause there would've
- been consequences there,

a leave of absence.

Did he give you a reason?

Things were difficult.

Thought it would be best.

- And I'll never
- forget Michael saying,

"And maybe you'll come back,

- and that'll be fine,
- and maybe you won't."

- I responded,
- "Michael,

- how is this going
- to be explained?

- What... what
- should I say?"

- And he said,
- "Well,

- just say you've had a
- recurrence of lung cancer."

I said, excuse me?

- Yeah, you know, that...
- that's come back,

and you need time off.

I just, I mean, I didn't cry,

- I didn't lose my
- temper or anything,

I just said, "Okay."

I was walked down the stairs,

- and they said you can
- take your pocketbook,

- and I think it's
- going to rain,

so you can take this umbrella.

I said goodbye.

- And I found myself
- saying... thank you.

- I was just like,
- the manners kicked in.

That was the day.

- A couple of other
- things happened that day

that were unusual but, um...

and it didn't rain.

- After Ann Freedman
- made a decision

to leave the gallery,

obviously it created a void

- because Ann had been
- extraordinarily successful in...

- in what she had done,
- and was quite a known

- and respected figure
- in the art world,

- certainly in the
- community of collectors.

- Didn't know
- what exactly had happened

- to make Michael Hammer
- go against me,

- but it was clear that
- that was happening.

- He was fed from the
- powers of Hammer Gallery,

- that maybe Ann was going to
- have some problems with this.

- And so, steer away, and
- let her take the fall.

Pierre Lagrange.

"The Silver Pollock."

That was the first lawsuit.

- Pierre Lagrange was
- getting a divorce,

and a very, very dramatic one.

- Couples who are getting
- divorced, they seem to be able

- to split up the homes and
- the kids, and the yachts.

Not the art.

- Lagrange had tried to
- sell the painting at auction.

- Sotheby's would
- not resell those paintings,

- because questions had come
- up about the provenance.

- And so,
- Pierre Lagrange had gotten a

- distinguished art expert
- to analyze the pigment

of his painting,

- and he found that a
- yellow paint hadn't been

- available commercially
- until 1970.

- Well, the people in
- the art world know

- Jackson Pollock d*ed
- in a car crash in 1956.

That was it. Game over.

- What happened
- was, Pierre Lagrange

- marches into Knoedler,
- and they put up a wall.

We don't have to talk to you.

Statute of limitations.

Nothing to do with it. Go away.

- If ever you want to get
- sued, that's what you do.

You tell people, go away.

- He insisted on meeting
- with Ann at the Carlyle.

Oh, my goodness.

I was there early, of course.

It was 5:00... 5:30.

- Then I knew what Pierre looked
- like from photographs, I guess.

- So I stood up and I went over
- to shake his hand, and I said,

- "Pierre Lagrange,
- I'm Ann Freedman,

and I am happy to meet you."

- And with his accent,
- "Don't be so sure!"

He was really fired up.

- Ann,
- tried to sort of

keep everything nice and bright.

- And then
- he started screaming

- at the top of his lungs,
- "I am going to set you on fire!

Do you understand that?

- I'm going to set you on fire,
- and you will have no life.

It will be over.

And it will hit the press.

And you will be done."

And Ann Freedman's reaction,

- according to Lagrange,
- was to say, well,

- listen don't, don't
- get upset Pierre,

- let's see if I can find
- another buyer for that painting.

- Is it myth
- or true that you said,

"I'll find another buyer?"

- I don't think
- I said that sentence.

- To which Lagrange said,
- "Wait a minute,

- so I get off the hook,
- and get the money back

- in order for some other
- collector to be duped?"

I very well could've said,

I believe in the painting,

- and I know you
- want me to sell it,

and let me see what I can do.

- It's important
- to remember that Ann Freedman

- was still saying that the
- paintings were real.

- My opinion is that she
- knew that they were fakes,

or surely should've known,

and this, among other things,

- would've been a strategy
- to cover that up.

- She believed
- that we needed our own expert

- to do an assessment
- of the pigments.

- And she certainly wasn't
- gonna draw the conclusion

- that Lagrange had
- correctly identified this

- as a forgery based on
- a single scientific analysis.

- In response to Lagrange
- threatening Knoedler Gallery

- with a lawsuit, Knoedler
- Gallery closes its doors.

So, it obviously looked like,

lawsuit, close the gallery.

- Michael
- Hammer, we can believe,

- had a lot of money, and so
- it's reasonable to believe

that he knew he carried a lot of

the legal and financial peril,

- and began to move assets,
- and protect assets.

- And he understood what
- potentially lay here.

- It was not a
- decision that was made at all

- in reaction to the
- Glafira Rosales scheme.

- It was a business
- decision based on

- how the revenues of the
- gallery had been going,

- and it had been under
- consideration for over a year.

- December 1st,
- 2:11,

I remember the day exactly,

I opened the New York Times.

- That morning
- I went to exercise,

and I go into our bedroom,

and I saw Eleanore,

I think you were crying

- -and really shaken...
- -I was shaking.

We pretty quickly understood

- that this was really,
- really bad news.

I had gotten a tip

that there was an investigation,

an FBI investigation going on.

Well, that's a shock.

I was shocked by it.

I was not shocked.

Oh my God, how many years

was this going on for?

I think people couldn't

look away from it.

- I... you know, it was a
- real kind of horror show.

- At that moment,
- I knew we had a fake.

There was no question about it.

- I didn't go
- under the covers, so to speak.

- It was sort of a blur
- of just speaking to people

who had questions.

I answered as best I could.

I didn't know it was coming.

She continues to lie.

- And she said that absolutely the
- painting was the right painting.

- Give me a few days, and
- I will disclose the name

of the Swiss... seller.

- And I say, okay, just... you
- better call me right away.

And she never called me back.

- I wanted to do
- everything I could,

no stone unturned,

- to have the paintings
- investigated the right way.

- And so, I told my lawyers
- that I wanted to pursue that.

- The only
- person who was reliably

- in the U.S.
- was Glafira Rosales.

We made the arrest.

- She was arrested in
- her home in Long Island,

- and we said she
- was a flight risk,

- and the judge agreed,
- and denied her bail.

In conducting the investigation,

- I was pursuing this as
- a head-on art fraud case.

- And really, I'm coming
- up with some decent evidence,

- but not the kind of evidence
- that I would need to convict

- if this was put
- in front of a jury.

- So, I looked at it in a
- slightly different way.

- The money goes from the
- galleries in New York

to bank accounts in Spain.

- It should then go
- 90% to the family

- that she says owns
- the paintings,

- and she should be keeping
- 10% as the broker.

- Very quickly, I was
- able to figure out

- that she's keeping
- all of the money.

That tells me two things.

Number one, there is no family.

- And secondly, that's
- also income to her.

- Millions and millions of dollars
- of income, so we investigated

- whether she reported her
- foreign bank account,

- we investigated whether
- she reported it as income,

and she didn't.

- So we were able to
- file federal tax charges,

- and those tax charges
- gave us great leverage,

- 'cause not only did
- she commit a tax crime,

- the fact that she's
- keeping all of the money,

that's evidence that she knows

- there's something wrong
- with the paintings.

- She's been in
- custody for months.

- She's facing potentially years
- in prison on tax charges.

- I think she just reached
- her breaking point.

- She knew that she wasn't going
- to hold the bag for everybody,

- and that she could be very
- helpful to our investigation by,

- you know, among
- other things, telling us

who created the paintings.

And that's what she did.

His name is Pei-Shen Qian.

- He disappeared from his home in
- Queens, New York,

when news reports first surfaced

- about the massive
- forgery scheme.

- It surprised me
- that the paintings

- were being made in Queens
- by a math professor.

- We were able to find lots
- and lots of evidence.

- I mean, we found an envelope
- marked, "Mark Rothko nails."

- We found books on all
- the different subjects.

- We found paints, and
- all the different things

that matched exactly the fakes

- that he was producing
- for Glafira.

- If you didn't know any better,
- you'd just say, wow,

- this is someone who's really
- passionate about painting.

- And he was very
- passionate about painting.

- Qian has admitted
- he forged the signatures

- of the painters he
- copied, yet he insisted

- he was stunned that so many
- people in the art world

- would be fooled by his fake
- Rothkos and Pollocks.

- Qian was indicted a few months
- after this interview

- for forging the signatures
- of the artists he copied,

and lying to federal agents.

- Whether he got word
- that we were coming,

- or not, 'cause remember
- he, he would've known

- that Glafira was arrested.
- That was very public.

- So my guess is that he probably
- didn't stick around too long,

- and once he's in China, there's
- really nothing we can do,

- 'cause China's
- not gonna extradite

a Chinese national to the U.S.

- I got a phone call...
- it was lunch time,

to say Glafira just confessed

to the fact

- that the paintings
- were... are all fake.

- She'd devoted
- almost 20 years of her career

researching, thinking about,

exhibiting, selling these works,

and in a moment, in an instant,

- the rug came out
- from underneath her.

- Imagine devoting that
- much of your career,

- that much of your
- time to something

- that turned out
- to be a massive fraud.

Awful.

- All those years of
- build-up, of believing.

- To me, that
- would be kind of the moment

- where my life up to
- this point crumbles.

- Everything that
- I've been saying,

- and my entire world is
- just being shattered.

- I think she had
- a lot of days,

- but that could've
- been one of the worst.

But I had to catch my breath.

And, what to do legally.

I'm 75 years old,

- I'd dealt with a lot of
- people all over the world

- in a very tough
- business situation.

- These are the worst people I
- ever dealt with in my life.

- The De Soles
- wanted their money back.

- They did not
- get an offer

- of their money back
- before the trial.

- What they were offering
- was absurd,

simply absurd.

- I said, fine,
- we'll fight it out.

- Domenico De
- Sole sued the gallery,

defunct as it was now,

- and Michael Hammer,
- who owned the gallery still,

and Ann Freedman herself.

The De Soles,

- more than just getting
- their money back,

- really wanted the story out
- there because they were pissed,

and they believed that

- Ann Freedman was
- not an innocent victim,

- that she was actively
- defrauding them.

- Of course
- it had a lot to do with

- Mr. De Soles' role
- with Sotheby's and like,

- who are you to be
- messing with me?

- You got a sense this
- was vindictive justice.

- He didn't want anything
- but to go to w*r.

- The courtroom was
- the ceremonial courtroom

- in the Southern District,
- so a very big courtroom.

It was a packed house.

- Domenico
- was viscerally angry.

- When he would sit
- with his lawyers,

- he would constantly gesture
- back to the audience like,

- you know, can you
- believe this sh*t?

- And I looked
- at Ann Freedman the whole time

with daggers in my eyes.

- Eleanore got
- very emotional on the stand,

- talking about the
- sense of betrayal

that they felt from somebody

- that they thought
- they could trust.

- She testified that
- she was angry, heartbroken, sad.

I'm a very emotional person.

- I cry in happy situations,
- and sad situations.

But this was opening the wounds,

- and hopefully the jury
- recognized that I was sincere.

I think it was an act,

but it was a good act.

- It's not like Ann Freedman
- was this close friend.

They went to Knoedler one time.

I had raw emotions,

- and I was gonna expose them
- because they were real.

- There were even
- some really funny moments,

- like the one "not Rothko" was in
- the courtroom the whole time,

- and people were debating
- whether the smaller block

should be on the bottom

- or the larger block
- should be on the bottom,

- because that's
- how Rothko did it.

- And of course, the
- absurdity of the fact

- that we all knew Rothko
- didn't do this painting,

- but we're debating whether it's
- right side up or upside down.

- It was one of those really
- funny modern art moments,

- where, is this
- painting upside down?

- Is this fake
- painting upside down?

The overwhelming fact was

that fakes were sold,

- and they were sold not by some
- little old lady on the street,

but by a sophisticated gallery.

When you start there,

you're already underwater.

- I did multiple focus groups
- to understand,

how do people think about this?

- They spent a fortune
- on their defense.

- I'm... not the first time I hear
- that they did all sorts of,

- you know, mock juries
- testing, testing, testing.

- I think they had
- somebody playing me.

We did none of that.

- The focus groups
- tell us this is a horse race.

- When we listen to one side,
- it's incredibly damaging,

we're gonna go that way.

- And they listen to
- my side, and they say,

- there's another
- side to this story.

- We thought the odds were
- significantly better.

- We knew that the facts, and
- the law, were on our side.

According to what

my lawyer said and clearly felt,

we could win this.

Reaching for straws.

- I mean, they truly did
- not have a case at all.

- And the lawyers would try
- to get Domenico on the fact

- that he was a
- lawyer at one time.

- And they'd say, well, Mr.
- De Sole, you should have known,

I mean, you're a lawyer.

- And he turns to them and he
- goes, I'm not a lawyer,

I sell handbags.

- You know,
- the experts who paraded

into the witness box

- were in a very
- embarrassing position.

- Christopher
- Rothko was asked to come up

- to Knoedler and look at a piece
- supposedly by his father.

- He spent a half hour
- looking at it, back and front,

- and then pronounced
- it beautiful.

- It's hard to imagine
- somebody thinking a

- painting is a fake, and saying
- it's beautiful at the same time.

- He knew
- Knoedler was in the business

- of selling art, so what does
- he think he was there for?

It was beautiful, right.

- That doesn't mean
- it was authentic.

- They... the paintings were good,
- they fooled a lot of people.

- And Ann Freedman knows this,
- a remark that a painting

- is beautiful is not
- an authentication.

Another expert said, "Well,

- I didn't say this
- piece was authentic,"

- but it came out in the trial
- that he'd asked for the piece

- to show it in an
- exhibition he was putting on.

- So that we'll hear in court,
- "Well, do you usually ask

- for things you think are fakes?"
- And he said, "Of course not."

They were just backtracking.

- You could practically
- hear the beep, beep, beep

of the trucks backing up.

- Some denied saying
- things that they wrote

- in emails, and when shown
- the email, would deny

- that the email said
- what the email said.

- It was very
- difficult to sit there

and listen to bold lying.

- So Ann looks
- at the stack of documents

that she relied on saying,

- I have no reason to doubt the
- authenticity of this work,

- or that work, and
- she asks herself,

where are you when I need you?

- And I am,
- I am surprised though that,

that nobody

- has acknowledged that
- they, they made an error,

aside from, from Ann.

- So obviously,
- the email was the wow moment

- when Mr. Anfam under oath
- said that

- he had never seen
- the painting.

Which was really extraordinary.

- He'd never physically
- seen the painting,

- he was sent a picture
- by Ann Freedman.

- The last
- person who had testified

was the gallery's accountant.

- She basically walked the
- court through the books.

- And of course, what those
- books revealed is that

- if it hadn't been for
- selling these, you know,

- $80 million
- worth of fake paintings,

- Knoedler would've been
- millions of dollars in debt.

- So for
- the last decades,

- their business really
- was selling fakes.

That was where a question

of criminal culpability emerged.

- Ann Freedman
- and Michael Hammer

- had personally profited
- off of the sale

of these fake paintings.

- I wasn't in
- charge of the overhead.

- I did not spend much
- time up in what,

- what we call the
- accounting floor.

- But yes, I
- thought that was very damaging.

It was clearly came out that

Hammer was using the gallery

as his own, you know, pocket.

- He was
- using a company credit card

- to take his wife
- on trips to Paris,

to purchase a $500,000 Mercedes,

- which I don't think
- many people knew that

- there was a $500,000 Mercedes
- that you could buy.

Michael was always

- very enthusiastic
- and excited about

- my discovery of,
- you know, these works.

- It would just
- be astonishing to think

- that these people at
- Knoedler were operating

without any knowledge of this.

Our view is that it was,

you know, from the top.

That is categorically false.

And to suggest otherwise

is utterly unreasonable

and untrue.

And is in fact,

- an insult
- to the legacy of the family,

- and the work that
- they have done.

- We've
- had all these witnesses

- and now it was
- both Ann Freedman,

- and Michael Hammer's
- opportunity to testify.

Ann is there as her usual self,

- dressed in gray
- with her head down.

- Michael Hammer walks
- into the courtroom,

he's got on a velvet

royal blue jacket,

tan pants,

a dark, dark tan

and flowing whitish-gold hair.

- And this is February
- in New York City.

The courtroom was packed,

you couldn't get a seat.

- We knew that
- that day, that this thing

- was coming to a head, and it
- was gonna be particularly ugly.

- I don't think that
- there was really any hope

- of Ann Freedman and
- Knoedler ever winning.

- And I think Ann Freedman did
- not want this to go to trial,

- and she certainly didn't
- want to testify because,

the trial was settled just about

an hour before Michael Hammer

was supposed to take the stand.

- The court reporter,
- or somebody comes in,

- and announces that
- the trial is over.

Period.

- Ann Freedman
- and Michael Hammer knew

- that they could make the
- situation even worse.

They could face criminal peril,

legal peril, if they testified,

- and so they decided
- to cut their losses.

I think I made my case

very loud and clear,

so I'd done my duty.

And I exposed the fraud and,

- and I think at that point it
- made sense for us to settle.

It seemed to me

- that on the day I'm
- supposed to take the stand,

that that day they settle?

- They didn't want
- the defense to go.

- I'm not even going to say they
- didn't want Ann Freedman

- to take the stand,
- but I... I think that is

what people were waiting for.

- I feel very strongly
- I would've loved to

have heard the word guilty.

I'm, I'm emotional about it.

- And you know, perhaps there
- would've been more repercussions

- for Ann Freedman and Michael
- Hammer, and the galleries,

- if a guilty verdict
- had been reached.

- They had their,
- their mind set

- on what they thought
- was a fair deal,

- and once they got what they
- thought was a fair deal,

they settled the case.

How's your client holding up?

Excuse me, please.

Rosales was the only one

who faced a criminal sentence.

- And she was ultimately
- sentenced to time served,

which was a few months.

- There were
- some people that were

- disappointed with Glafira's
- sentence,

- but you got to think about
- the context

- of what we were
- able to accomplish in the case.

- And I think this is what,
- you know, the judge's logic

- ultimately was, we're not
- gonna make this one person,

who really just because of,

- the luck of the
- draw so to speak,

- is the only one who's gonna face
- justice, and the only person

- who has confessed
- and cooperated.

- It says something
- about Glafira as well

that she didn't implicate Ann.

- When you're trying
- to deflect blame,

- when you're trying to
- get an easier sentence,

- the more people you can
- bring down with you,

the better it is for you.

- The pressure
- on somebody like that

to give up others,

- and in order to give them
- up, invent or embellish,

is tremendous.

Did she get off easily?

- I don't know. She doesn't
- have any money left.

She was in prison.

- I actually was in court
- the day that she appeared

with chains on her feet.

- In a way,
- she was at the center of it,

- but she also was a sort of
- a pawn in this whole thing.

- New York art
- dealer, Glafira Rosales

- was sentenced by U.S. District
- Judge Katherine Polk Failla

- to nine months
- of home detention.

- Failla cited defense arguments
- that Rosales' behaviour stemmed

- from abuse she suffered
- from her boyfriend,

- the mastermind
- behind the scheme.

- I sometimes
- raised my hand to her.

We had arguments, but...

- I understand her
- and forgive her,

- knowing she would use that
- testimony to defend herself.

- She's now, as I
- understand it, in Long Island.

- She's had to forfeit her assets
- under a restitution order.

- And as far as I know,
- not in the art business.

- What I really
- wanted to know was,

could I prove to 12 people,

beyond a reasonable doubt,

- that the gallery,
- whoever was running it,

- whoever was selling them, knew
- that the paintings were fake.

- She did not know
- she was selling fakes.

I'm firmly convinced of that.

- I sat in an office
- with her,

- I dealt with her,
- and she lied to us.

She's the guilty party.

- Ann Freedman is not a victim.
- She's a dealer.

- Well,
- she's guilty of the standard

- biblical sins of, of
- pride and avarice, I suppose.

Either she was in on it

with Glafira Rosales,

or she was just so stupid.

- Put yourself in her shoes
- one step at a time.

- It's easier to look back
- and say, let me show you

- the red flags that popped
- up across the 14 years.

How could you have

- a fake Jackson Pollock
- hanging in your house

- with the name spelled
- wrong for ten years,

- or however long Ann Freedman
- had it hanging in her house?

- The question
- in Ann's case was,

what did she know at the time?

- All of this stuff
- that came out afterwards

has no bearing on that.

The decision was made that,

- that we couldn't prove a case
- beyond a reasonable doubt.

- They were fair, and
- they looked at the bottom line,

and they didn't indict her.

- The fact that
- they did not prosecute this

for me is really shocking.

I, I don't know. I, I...

- I'm surprised that,
- that, I'm surprised

- by the whole, the...
- I am very surprised.

It's a... it's a mystery,

and it's extremely frustrating.

José Bergañtinos Díaz

- was arrested in Spain on the
- U.S. charges, and freed

- while he awaits extradition
- to the United States.

- He has denied any wrongdoing,
- and told local reporters

he's not worried about the case.

- They, yeah,
- they're untouchable,

- because they're
- Spanish nationals,

- and we have to go through an
- extradition process in Spain,

- and Spain has decided that
- they would not be extradited,

which is disappointing.

- Carlos, your decision
- to, to go back to Spain?

Well, I always had

my home in Spain and...

my roots were always in Spain.

- Nothing to
- do with what happened?

No.

- Efforts have
- been made to have Bergañtinos

- brought back to the United
- States and stand trial.

- So far, those efforts
- have been unsuccessful.

Mr. Bergañtinos is innocent

until proven otherwise.

- He doesn't need a trial
- to prove his innocence.

- Just so I'm
- clear legally over here,

- your position is
- everything that happened

with the Knoedler Gallery,

- everything that
- happened is Glafira?

Well, let me say this...

No, no, no.

- Okay, he doesn't
- like that question, alright.

I was never very ambitious,

- Glafira was more
- ambitious than I was.

- I forgive her and she is the
- mother of my daughter

and I wish her the best.

- I know she is doing
- better than I am.

- Pay me what
- you can, it's real.

Of course!

This is off the record.

Hello, anyone home?

Hi, hello. Hello.

- Hi,
- we're sh**ting a documentary.

- Do you know an old man who
- lives here named Qian Pei-Shen?

You can go upstairs and check.

Okay.

Hello, ma'am.

- We'd like to know
- whether you know an old man

named Qian Pei-Shen?

- Qian Pei-Shen?
- I am Qian Pei-Shen.

- What?
- You are Qian Pei-Shen?

- Hello. We're sh**ting
- a documentary

about a Shanghainese artist.

May we ask you some questions?

Shanghainese artist...

- Have you contacted anyone?
- Do you have an appointment?

We'd like to talk to Mr. Qian.

Who told you about this address?

He's old now.

- He doesn't want
- to be interviewed.

He is painting for himself

and not selling

his art anymore.

- My intent
- wasn't for my fake paintings

to be sold as the real thing.

- They were just copies to be put
- up in your home if you like it.

- Pei-Shen knew
- where his paintings were going.

- First of all, he's signing them
- in the names of the artists.

In our field, that's the legal

- definition of
- intention to deceive,

- when you put a signature
- on a painting.

- I'm
- surprised that, frankly,

- that that the Chinese painter
- was able to leave the country.

- That immigration
- hadn't been alerted.

- Um, they knew who he
- was, et cetera.

Pei-Shen is probably

- never gonna come back
- to the United States.

He'd be foolish to do so.

- It's a... a real shame, because
- now Pei-Shen has the fame

- from having done this,
- but none of the consequences.

- You know,
- it's very hard to put yourself

in someone's mind.

- You know, nobody but
- Ann Freedman herself knows

- what she believed,
- or didn't believe.

- Not only was
- Ann Freedman not charged,

she's still in business.

She's still running a gallery.

I'm just thinking, really?

- You wouldn't want to take
- up a new career after this?

- I mean,
- it's remarkable to me

- that she's out there
- selling and has a gallery,

- and that people are
- actually, you know,

- still willing to,
- to deal with her.

- Would you buy
- a painting from her?

No.

- So you don't see
- yourself buying a piece of art

- from Ann Freedman
- in the near future?

No.

- The only
- time I relive the moment

- and get upset is when I
- walk down Madison Avenue

- and see Ann Freedman sitting
- at a table in a coffee shop.

On the one hand,

it's an extraordinary case,

- and you say, this is just
- so unlike anything.

- But on the other hand,
- it also makes you wonder,

well, how extraordinary is this?

- How many other
- things are out there

that we just don't know about?

- I think the Knoedler
- episode has cast a shadow.

- How long the shadow
- will last? I don't know.

- As long as
- people are selling art

for a lot of money,

- we're gonna see really
- large-scale frauds.

- As prices rise,
- and there are new artists,

- and new excitement,
- and new treasures

- that are found, there's
- gonna be new cases like it.

- I think it's
- opened up the art world

- to a new perception
- and new scrutiny

about well... how does one

- actually authenticate
- any of these artworks?

- And is the art
- world really doing

- what it should do
- to find that out?

- It's a
- story about art history.

- It's a story about how we
- should think about art.

- Ten years ago,
- that painting behind me

- would be worth
- five million dollars.

- It was coveted by some of the
- most important collectors

- in the world, and right
- now it's sitting in my office.

- I can touch it,
- it's worth nothing.

- And you think about whether
- the experience of the art,

- whether any of that changes
- based on the knowledge

it's not what it purports to be.

- I think the
- only vindication would be

- if the whole world believes
- she was completely innocent.

- And I think that's
- now her life's goal.

- I think I'll be
- judged for what I've done.

Of course I've made mistakes,

- and I'm willing to keep on
- doing what I need to do

to earn people's trust.

- Well,
- ask the people who spent

- $80.7 million
- on their paintings

- whether they think
- it's good enough.

All I know how to do is

to keep going.
Post Reply