A foundation is not always right: all acquitted in the Bolzano trial related to five alleged fake “De Dominicis”
The evidence brought by the prosecutor, namely the De Dominicis Foundation, which argued the inauthenticity of 5 works from a private collection, was deemed purely subjective, and the judge decided for acquittal.
The court highlighted that to prove the authorship of a work beyond any reasonable doubt, it is not sufficient to present evidence such as the “softness of the stroke” and “accuracy of detail”.
This points to a significant issue. In the absence of adequate regulation or impartial entities, despite the exchange of goods of considerable value, the art market in Italy, as in the rest of the world, has long relied on authentication through the inclusion of a work in a reasoned catalog compiled by a famous connoisseur, or certification by the archive or by the artist foundation.
However, within a criminal trial, these methodologies often have the value of mere interpretations, evaluations, and subjective opinions, rather than factual elements and are therefore legally irrelevant.
And they are often outright irrelevant. Especially when they are based on the personal opinion of an expert, without any proof, to the extent that they change with the changing of the expert.
The Bolzano verdict highlighted the need for a critical review of such practices, to ensure a fair and transparent authentication process.
In particular, some parts of the verdict are especially interesting, for example, the part that states the attribution of authenticity of an artwork is an activity open to anyone with expertise in the field and should not be limited by particular interests or exclusively reserved to the reference archive or family members. It is, “an activity that anyone can perform, precisely because it falls within the constitutional guarantee of the expression of thought and the freedom of science”.
In short, the proof of “fake” or “real”, in the absence of a document produced by the artist in life, cannot be linked to a certificate of authenticity issued or not issued by this or that Foundation or Artist’s Archive. Moreover, if these declare publicly not to recognize the certificates of authenticity issued by a third party, they can be accused of defamatory behavior.
In general, to bring elements that can prove beyond any reasonable doubt the authenticity or falsity of a work, it is better to rely not on opinions but on facts, such as those derived from scientific analyses or studies on provenance.
This applies to both ancient and modern works. In any case, technical-scientific analyses can provide objective considerations and information.
It is curious, however, that this trial was specifically about works by Gino De Dominicis.
The artist from Marche often played with the concepts of authentic and original. It is said he feared being spied on by Mario Schifano, who had a studio near his – and with a terrace from which he could see his works, but also that he made only one graphic work, just so he could say it was unique, and even sold an “invisible cube” to a collector, who received absolute nothing, shipped with a truck, along with a certificate of authenticity.
