_________________

A conversation in emails between myself and a van Gogh Noted fake expert before he found out who I was. 

One must also wonder what a recognized MFA expert of fake van Gogh's, which I won't mention his name, meant when he told me in an email,  "There is no expert at the VvG Foundation. Just two art historians in the Museum that became without any particular knowledge on Vincent (may be they knew his family name) became the best specialists in the world from one day to the other. The other scholars and the students are not better than them."

 The same MFA had told me in another email, "A painting is not a piece produced by a genius.  Vincent was no genius, he was at work every day and had some ideas.  He succeeded.  Would another taste be on fashion today we would have another genius at  the top of the Pantheon.  But you are right and Vincent said that people were not buying paintings with artistic goals."

Bob:"Yes, here we are again with no work of his to really show for the way he was known to paint." 
MFA expert:  "I know some, that surfaced in 1938, but they were rejected."
Bob:  "And more than likely these were his true works of art if they happened to be examined scientifically, using photo enhancements for comparison of known techniques of Vincent's true works of art using five or six other ways and means that is rejected right now as art experts techniques and verifications." 
MFA expert:  "Experts are more and more using new techniques."
Bob:  "It seem to me as though their main way of making their own decisions is by this soon to be out dated way which they rely so much on."
MFA expert:  " I don't think so, because their expertise are not depending on the works but on the market organization. If the market stays what it is, the automatic "no" will remain "the" rule."

Bob:  Most auction house employees, art experts or what ever you want to call them do not impress me what-so-ever with their knowledge.   Their interest are only in a few things as far as I am concerned. (1) First of all if painting or art work is signed. (2)Who is the owner.  (3) Wanting a stack of provenance telling them all about it.  (4) How much did you pay for it.  (5)  Where did you get it.  (6) What was said about it from its Foundation of the artist and do they except it from being from that artist. (7)  What would you be willing to take for it.  (8)  If we happen to take this on our action we might have to sell it in the circle of the artist and it more than likely won't bring its reserve we put on it, so are you prepared to pay the auction charges and the buy back fees?  (8)  As you are walking out,  ........  That is a fine painting,  .........  What  would you take for it or what do you want for that work?

MFA expert:  "Indeed! You seem to be used to dealing with these people."

I believe that  DNA, scanned styles of the artist brush strokes which are their real finger prints, and even finger prints if found on the edges and the backs of art work, in the paint itself caused by paint from finger tips and palm prints while holding the art work will really make a great improvement in determining who painted what.  Artist's styles and techniques known to be his or her style in different time periods of their lives could be determined by use of scanners.   Paint and material still could be analyzed, while discounting the traces of resins which weren't supposedly around then which could seep into the paint from varnishes over the years would also be a good start. 

Bob:  A lot of things that has been said does not add up.  One of these day do you suppose there might be a computer that you could feed into it all of the massive information on this artist and be able to ask it some questions.

Right now it would probably feed back to you that everything is to confusing.  Later on it might by itself start to weed out all of the myths and come up with some answers that will make a lot of experts run and hide.

MFA expert:  "The computer is under the control of the experts".

Bob: I will never understand why the experts say Vincent van Gogh is the most easily copied of all other artists.

MFA expert: "It is stupid. He is one of the most copied artists. But it is not easy at all. Your copy of the Sunflowers is apparently the first good copy that I have ever seen.  I want to see a good enlargement for confirmation".

Bob:  Yes, I would say many exceptions to their rules.  Most everything they say does not add up.   One of these day do you suppose there might be a computer that you could feed into it all of the massive information on this artist and be able to ask it some questions.   As far as I am concerned, most evidence that you speak of was manufactured by the experts before you, and is now excepted as the gospel truths which could not be further from the truths in most cases.

MFA expert: "I'm not a believer and do not rely on previous experts. I read what they said but do not remember the gospels. Some teams are working on the subject. On Vincent they put all the forgeries and their bases and the best of this research is that they used a fake pallet to get pigments. Anyhow, the computer will hardly be able to understand more than the man. The problem is not to calculate but to understand".

This is all basically of my own oppinion of what I was to ascertain by studying Vincent Van Gogh.  I am sure some will think some of this very degrading, but I believe it to be the absolute truth.   History will tell if it ever gets around to it.