
Peter Doig sued for disavowing 40-year-old painting - dctoedt
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/arts/design/peter-doig-painting-lawsuit.html
======
sparky_z
If Fletcher had better evidence, this would be a fascinating court case. But
as it stands, the fact that they've located the family of the real Peter Doige
(talk about burying the lede) makes it laughably open and shut.

>Mr. Doig and his lawyers say they have identified the real artist, a man
named Peter Edward Doige. He died in 2012, but his sister said he had attended
Lakehead University, served time in Thunder Bay and painted.

>“I believe that Mr. Fletcher is mistaken and that he actually met my brother,
Peter, who I believe did this painting,” the sister, Marilyn Doige Bovard,
said in a court declaration. She said the work’s desert scene appeared to show
the area in Arizona where her mother moved after a divorce and where her
brother spent some time. She recognized, she said, the saguaro cactus in the
painting.

>The prison’s former art teacher recognized a photograph of Ms. Bovard’s
brother as a man who had been in his class and said he had watched him paint
the painting, according to the teacher’s affidavit."

~~~
megablast
Sure, but that does not explain the remarkable similarities between the 2
artists work.

~~~
huuu
Can you point out some similarities?

I'm looking at the paintings of Peter Doig but I have a hard time finding
something that looks like the painting of Peter Edward Doige. The strokes,
technique, use of color. They are all different.

~~~
elcapitan
I have two books about Peter Doig and liked his pictures for quite some time,
and I was also stunned seeing the picture in question attributed to him.

Are there any other pictures of that other artist? Maybe I'm missing
something. The closest resemblance seems to be the name.

~~~
dagw
Well this picture is proposed be from when he was a teenager, before he ever
went to art school and long before he became a professional artist. It's not
unreasonable to assume that his art style and technique can have changed
significantly since then.

~~~
elcapitan
Ok, I see. That makes the attribution totally bogus of course, because it
could be attributable to just anyone then. Like taking the paintings of a 5
year old and saying it's a very early Renoir or something.

------
charlangas
Weird coincidence. Just today I was reading about South Korean artist Lee Ufan
who in another very rare case concerning authentication of his work decided
that 13 paintings in an investigation are indeed his—even after a forger was
arrested and confessed to having painted them himself.
[https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-a-forger-
confe...](https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-a-forger-confessed-to-
faking-millions-in-lee-ufan-works-now-the-artist-says-they-re-real)

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
That's hilarious.

I suppose the next step is for an artist to "authenticate" works s/he couldn't
possibly have created and which aren't even in question.

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
I take it you're not up on the 1917 news, about that Duchamp character who
bought a hardware store urinal, laid it horizontal and exhibited it as
'Fountain'?

The more I look at it, the more I find the whole modern art ecosystem similar
to bitcoin: abstrusely useless work arbitrarily attributed value by consensus,
used for portable and state-independent storage of money.

~~~
simonh
> ...abstrusely useless work arbitrarily attributed value by consensus

I can't recommend 'Modern Art' highly enough. It's a card game by Reiner
Knizia in which the players bid up the value of art works by various fictional
artists. It's a classic and a firm family favourite of ours.

------
frank_jaeger
Was anyone else floored by this? Even in the extremely unlikely scenario of
Doig actually painting a piece he would disavow, how is the greater good
served by going forward with the case? The can of worms the precedent would
set are shocking. I would have a genuinely hard time proving my whereabouts 4
years ago, let alone 4 decades. This just seems like such an unreasonable
expectation.

~~~
cpncrunch
>how is the greater good served by going forward with the case?

Because the person who bought the painting is losing millions of dollars.

I'm surprised this has gone to court. Surely there must be easier ways of
resolving the identity of the artist who painted this.

~~~
an_ko
The person who bought the painting is not losing millions of dollars, only
failing to gain them.

Unless of course the original price they paid for the painting was millions of
dollars. I doubt that, given they bought it off of a 17-year-old fresh out of
prison.

By the time the case is over, they'll probably be in the negative. Pure sunk
cost fallacy.

~~~
intopieces
>Unless of course the original price they paid for the painting was millions
of dollars.

The retired corrections officer, Robert Fletcher, 62, said he bought the
painting for $100 from a man named Pete Doige (spelled with an e), whom he met
in 1975 in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

But that's beside the point. If it's worth $Xm, it can be used as collateral
for a loan. And it's probably also insured for a certain amount.

~~~
rdtsc
It is up to the loan company then to ascertain if it is worth that much, let
them sue the artist.

> If it's worth $Xm, it can be used as collateral for a loan

It is worth only that much if it is authentic. The "if" is pretty big it
seems.

------
ndiscussion
I'm very confused.. let's say Doig did paint this, and he's denying it.. what
kind of damages does he owe?

Is he supposed to owe the difference in sale price between if he painted it,
and if he didn't?

Is he just supposed to acknowledge it publicly? If so, is that really the best
use of the courts? Force someone to admit something that, in the end, has no
bearing in the real world?

~~~
vinceguidry
I imagine the court would simply issue an injunction forbidding him from
disavowing authorship of the painting. No monetary reparations needed.

~~~
CoryG89
Can a court really forbid you from doing such a thing? What if someone wants
to create art but not be forced to put their name on it afterwards. This is
just impossible?

~~~
incompatible
I suspect that you can create art and release it anonymously, and nobody can
force you to say you painted it. That would be covered in the US under freedom
of speech, I think. On the other hand, claiming that you painted something
that you didn't, or didn't paint something that you did, may be fraudulent?

~~~
CoryG89
Right? I could see being sued for claiming you painted something that you
didn't. I think that is pretty standard faire. But the reverse? That sounds
crazy to me.

At any rate, _my_ freedom of speech definitely covers both cases.

~~~
bitJericho
IANAL. You can surely be compelled to tell the truth. I can't imagine how the
court could compel somebody to admit or deny this type of fact though. But not
speaking at all is different from lying.

If you do not follow the courts order, it could be charge of civil contempt,
which could be jail time until you promise to no longer ignore the courts
orders and/or could include fines.

------
cm2187
You know the whole painting business is a scam when the name of the person who
painted the painting matters way more than whether the painting is beautiful
or not...

First world disputes. Not enough gold and diamonds in this world for people to
spend their money on something futile. They need to create new "rare
commodities", more tulips. Little to do with art.

~~~
dredmorbius
There are entire classes of goods which serve as _assets_ or _stores of
wealth_ rather than as _goods in their own right_.

These require some (though not necessarily all) of the features of money:
utility/value, portability, indestructibility, homogeneity, divisibility,
stability, cognizability.

What fine arts offer is (relative) indestructabilty (they don't simply fall
apart hanging on a wall), they have a high _creation_ cost -- workfactor, and
particularly if of a _dead_ artist, cannot be created _again_ , though that
depends on being able to detect forgeries. Art lacks homogeneity and
divisibility, but with auctions it is relatively liquid and can be
_recognized_ ("cognizability") as a thing having value.

These aren't wealth themselves -- the value is imbued by the market. But they
are _vehicles for moving wealth_.

Say, like stock options or Bitcoin.

~~~
cm2187
But there is something intrinsic in gold. Because of its physical properties
(it doesn't oxidise, it's sort of eternal), and it is rare. A painting is more
like fiat money. The painter can pull more paintings out of his ass (and some
litterally do). And if the painter is dead, we'll find another fashionable
genius. Feels more like tulips than gold.

~~~
dwaltrip
You don't think people inherently value art & beauty? That would be the
"intrinsic" value of the painting.

Now, if we were really getting down to it, I would argue there is no
"intrinsic" value for gold (or anything else). It's only worth what value
different people may assign to it, which depends on entirely on the
historical, cultural, and technological context in which we live, and varies
greatly from person to person.

Sure, there are some aspects or properties of objects for which there is
relatively high amounts of agreement about the valuation, however that doesn't
make those properties or their valuations "intrinsic". And of course, there
will never be 100% agreement about anything.

~~~
cm2187
Well, that's my point. If beauty was really the reason for it being worth
that, I could understand, but it is not, it is only about who made the
painting.

------
qq66
Wow, regardless of the facts in this case, this highlights the possibility of
a fascinating new type of "extortion" where one party can destroy an asset of
another party's by disavowing its authenticity, and may be able to extract
payment under this threat.

~~~
sverige
Or it could simply be viewed as a form of "rights management," where even
though you already paid for a work of art, now that some time has passed, you
have to pay the creator again. Oh, and for any copies of it that you make,
whether you sell them or not.

No, that's crazy. No one would ever agree to such a scheme. [/s]

~~~
schoen
Note also
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_suite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_suite)
(actually law in many places!).

~~~
sverige
Very interesting!

------
bllguo
This is insane. They can't even prove he was at or ever went to said
correctional facility! That should be enough to throw this out the window.

I hope Doig gets suitable compensation for this waste of time.

~~~
drcode
I suspect the amount of publicity that Mr. Doig is going to get from this
insane lawsuit will pay his costs a hundred times over.

------
bennofs
How can there be a punishment for not having perfect memory and remembering
everything you ever created? That does not make sense to me, you'd have to
prove that he actually knew that he created it and is intentionally lying to
warrant any compensation for lost value, which sounds hard to me.

~~~
Sanddancer
That's one of the things the court decides. The plaintiff is saying that what
Mr Doig said has caused him five million dollars in damages. One of the things
that the jurors will determine is what the actual value of those damages are.
They could decide $5 million, or they could decide $5.

------
ww520
What kind of BS case is this? Why wasn't it thrown out at the first chance by
the judge?

5 millions for damage? So if Peter Doig was forced to admit ownership, he
would have to pay 5 millions? And if he won, he would still have to pay 5
millions because his word caused the evaporation of the presumed value of the
fake?

~~~
dragonwriter
To be thrown out, the judge has to view the disputed facts in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff and find that they still wouldn't have a case.

If it takes weighing the relative evidence on both sides, no matter how big
the imbalance there is, that's what a trial is for.

------
aquadrop
What will his punishment be if the court will decide it's his painting? In
that case price of the picture will be high again and no damage was done, so
nothing to punish for :)

P.S. Funny thing, nobody actually cares about the painting itself, how
good/bad it is etc, kinda shows top-art industry state...

~~~
teh_klev
>The plaintiffs, who include the correction officer and the art dealer who
agreed to help him sell the work, are suing the painter for at least $5
million in damages and seek a court declaration that it is authentic.

------
andrewclunn
Not sure if this is exposing an absurdity in the law, or in the art trade.
Maybe both. All of this stinks of a publicity stunt to inflate the painting's
value either way.

~~~
dennisgorelik
The whole story could have been designed to inflate the value of all Peter
Doig's paintings.

From that PR perspective it might make sense to actually pay $5M in damages in
order to attract even more attention and sell the paintings on that hype.

------
wilwade
If there is a right to be forgotten, perhaps there is a right to deny
authorship as well?

~~~
dredmorbius
Repudiability is a feature of some systems, difficult with others.

PGP-signed messages, for example, are not only _authenticated_ and of _proven
integrity_ , but they are _nonrepudiable_ , at least cryptographically.

(Bad key management or other factors might affect any of these, but generally
these are characteristics of the system.)

Designing a system which _does_ allow for encryption and authentication but
_also_ provides for repudiability would be interesting.

~~~
Natanael_L
Perfect forward secrecy. Signal's 3DH key exchange does it.

The authentication output is only meaningful to the original conversation
participants, because the only discernable difference between a real and a
fake authentication even with access to all user keys and ciphertext is
_provenance_ \- you know this output originated from a direct response to your
cryptographic challenge, but nobody else can be sure you didn't just compose
it yourself.

(Only the key-holders in a conversation between the "authenticatee" and
challenger can generate _valid looking_ answers for their specific pair of
keys - either mutually between each other, or all by themselves in order to
achieve repudiation)

~~~
dredmorbius
Clarifying: 3DH only assures authentication to the original participants
_itself_.

However if a message payload itself consisted of, say, a PGP-signed message,
then _that_ could be authenticated independently (either on receipt, or
if/when the public key was disclosed).

------
serge2k
Hopefully he easily wins.

Then sues them.

> now feels let down by someone he believes he helped, and wants to be proved
> right.

Now feels upset he can't make a big payday on a painting he bought for a
hundred dollars.

------
darkstar999
The article links to Peter Bartlow's youtube channel. I checked out some of
the videos with an open mind, but he presents horrible evidence. Good luck,
you're going to need it!!

[https://www.youtube.com/user/BartlowGallery/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/BartlowGallery/videos)

------
justinlardinois
This has me wondering: could a situation ever possible happen to someone who
was born in the 90s or later? Our lives are so much more documented in modern
times that I can't imagine "a hole" in one's teenage years being possible.

~~~
Sanddancer
It would be a lot harder. This case pretty much only exists because neither
party has the documentation need to prove or disprove that Pete(r) Doig(e) was
or was not incarcerated during the timespan the painting was made. Nowadays,
asking the prison and/or asking former employers is pretty much a triviality.

------
ezequiel-garzon
Grammar question for the native speakers:

"The owner, however, disagreed and sued him, setting up one of the stranger
art authentication cases in recent history."

Why is _stranger_ used here, and not _strangest_? Would you say it the same
way?

Thanks, and sorry for the digression.

~~~
danielvf
[Edit: appears this isn't so]

There can be only one "strangest" case, while there are many "stranger" cases.
Because of this, saying "one of the strangest cases" is grammaticly
nonsensical, even though it's in common enough usage.

~~~
cperciva
"One of the strangest cases" is perfectly grammatical. There is only one
"strangest case", but the "strangest cases" can refer to any set such that
every case it contains is stranger than every case it does not contain.

------
devishard
Peter Doig is being sued, the person making the claim says that the painting
was painted by a Peter Doige. Note the "e".

~~~
dragonwriter
No, the person making the claim says that the painting was painted by Peter
Doig, who, that person claims, was known as Peter Doige at the time.

(The fact that there are records of an actual Peter Doige, who is now
deceased, who has life events that fit the narrative of the person from whom
the painting was bought, while there doesn't seem to be substantial evidence
connecting Peter Doig to those events, or to ever having used the name Peter
Doige, seems likely to a be problem for the plaintiff at trial, however.)

~~~
Chris2048
> who, that person claims, was known as Peter Doige at the time

This is the crux - is there _any_ evidence of this? Is this based purely on
the testimony of the claimant?!?

How did this get to court!

~~~
dragonwriter
> This is the crux - is there any evidence of this?

Yes, though what's reported in the article is fairly weak indirect evidence,
and there seems to be much stronger evidence on the other side.

> How did this get to court!

As soon as someone files a lawsuit, it "gets to court". The threshold for that
is extremely low. Even for going to trial, the threshold is low: essentially,
the complaint needs to state a legal claim and there needs to be some evidence
from which one might conclude that the claim is true -- evaluating the
relative credibility of that evidence against other evidence is what trials
are _for_.

~~~
Chris2048
> there needs to be some evidence from which one might conclude that the claim
> is true

What evidence is there in this case?

~~~
dragonwriter
> What evidence is there in this case?

Its recounted in the article, involving artistic analysis and other things.
Its _quite_ indirect, and seems _much_ less substantial than the apparent
evidence that it was painted by a very different person with a similar name,
but again, weighing the opposing evidence is what a trial is for.

~~~
Chris2048
That's exactly what I can't find in the article, where is mention of artistic
analysis?

Is this the opinion of the claimant?

