NORVAL MORRISSEAU BLOG: Injustice for Norval Morrisseau (Part II)

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Injustice for Norval Morrisseau (Part II)

Spirit Walker reporting:

THINGS TO PONDER

The above posted images are original paintings of Norval Morrisseau. The one on the left is from 1977, "Father and Son" and the other one is from 1978, "Circle of Four"and is at the Senate of Canada collection (click on image to enlarge).

I am positive that if the experts were to investigate both of the paintings that they will come to the conclusion that both of the paintings above are painted by the same artist: Norval Morrisseau.

Would you think that the Senate of Canada would post fake Norval Morrisseau painting on their premises?

Note: Painting titled "Circle of Four" was presented in one of the previous postings of this Blog: Click here.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...: busy day on the blog today, please share a little more, I have read more today than in the past, lots of good topics and or solutions today, but no real details yet? we are all listening....; 20 February, 2008 16:39
Anonymous said...: I agree with above - busy busy busy but not much of any substance. Who actually wants to get down the bare facts and stand up and make a standment they can stand behind factually other then just presenting their beliefs and thoughts.

If these paintings are not by Morrisseau's hand then I feel sorry for the individual wiht a true talent that decide to work off of norval's name rather then realizing the gift they have and build a fantastic art career that would likely have resulted in them being financially rewarded far beyond what they are from peddling their paintings as they are being today.

So back to the point --- anyone actually have details and hard facts that they are will to share?

I think I know the answer to this.....; 20 February, 2008 16:43
Anonymous said...: I can tell you why people are tempted to copy art. it's because they cant create art.; 20 February, 2008 16:57
Anonymous said...: good point - thanks!; 20 February, 2008 17:04
Anonymous said...: Gary is Gary Lamont or Gary Bruce Thacky, email him and ask him if he sold it to the senate, want his phone #? I have that too.

www.woodlandartgallery.com; 21 February, 2008 17:33
Anonymous said...: hi all
I just went on the web site mentioned above, very very intresting. please have a look and post what you think.
the picture is almost complete, only a few more strokes and we are there.; 21 February, 2008 22:07
Anonymous said...: It might be worth summarizing the opinions so far on the FOR or AGAINST authenticity of FATHER AND SON:
FOR: is Joseph McLeod, current gallery owner and past professor with impressive credentials which exceed those of most members of the NMHS [partially itemized by TB888 in the lead article], who has personally examined the painting, has issued a certificate of appraisal, and states it is authentic.
FOR: the blogmaster of this web-site, who has examined 20 high-pixel detail digital images of the painting, and has stated he believes it to be genuine.
AGAINST: Bryant Ross, gallery owner without academic credentials, who has examined only the images posted on eBay
AGAINST: The Globe and Mail
When the case goes to court, possibly next month, the plaintiff is likely to subpoena to testify on his behalf: Joseph McLeod, all members of NMHS, two members of the Morrisseau family; two people from the chain of provenance.
Who is going to testify in favour of the Globe?
KHVH; 22 February, 2008 07:49
Anonymous said...: WEnt to the website mentioned. Not being an expert I would suggest that that individuals who claim their are fakes would suggest that the large part of this collection are fakes. They may feel that there are a couple of paintings in the mix that according to their standards could be original (Reflection of Astral Children, Childlike Simplicity, Nishnabwe Love...).

Question is - does Mr. Lamont provide provenance on this paintings? If so - what is it and is it creditable. Or is he buying them from the same Thunderbay supplier that provides them to the GTA-East auction house and that has shut the door on many others wanting access?

WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE OPINION OF OTHERS ON THESE PAINTINGS. It would not do any good to claim they are all fake so if you are of that camp look closely and provide us with an honest opinion and hopefully some insight; 22 February, 2008 10:17
Anonymous said...: All of Gary Lamont's paintings on www.woodlandartgallery.com are authentic.

For anyone who thinks differently let them do their homework and not try to put down individual that spent many years with the artist and showed more respect in honouring the artist than KRG and Gaba Vadas ever will.

To see history of his relationship with Norval Morrisseau go to: http://www.woodlandartgallery.com/norval-gary.htm

Thank you all...; 22 February, 2008 10:34
Anonymous said...: Thoughts from anyone else....; 22 February, 2008 10:39
Anonymous said...: If you have any respect for the lagacy of Norval Morrisseau you would not attack Gary Lamont unless you are envy of what he has and if you were poisoned by the fabrication stories about fakes.

That's my 2 cent worth...; 22 February, 2008 10:56
Anonymous said...: Do not know who Gary is so I am not attacking him. BUT simply stating that Gary and Norval were friends does not necessarily add any creditability to his collection. Do we know if he acquired this paintings via his friendship with Norval and is this the provenance of these pieces? He also from time to time has had postings on this site asking people to let him know if they have paintings they want to sell him suggesting that not all paintings have been acquired directly from the artist as a result of a friendship and business partnership. Big question is - and it should not be hard to answer - where did these paintings come from? Is this informaiton he can provide? IF so - what is the answer? If not - why not?

This should not be hard to answer but seems to be avoided...leading to the question...why?

Same as paintings being offered at Kahn and Potter. Story behind them??? Not to answer so why no answers?; 22 February, 2008 11:05
Anonymous said...: Do not know who Gary is so I am not attacking him. BUT simply stating that Gary and Norval were friends does not necessarily add any creditability to his collection. Do we know if he acquired this paintings via his friendship with Norval and is this the provenance of these pieces? He also from time to time has had postings on this site asking people to let him know if they have paintings they want to sell him suggesting that not all paintings have been acquired directly from the artist as a result of a friendship and business partnership. Big question is - and it should not be hard to answer - where did these paintings come from? Is this informaiton he can provide? IF so - what is the answer? If not - why not?

This should not be hard to answer but seems to be avoided...leading to the question...why?

Same as paintings being offered at Kahn and Potter. Story behind them??? Not to answer so why no answers?; 22 February, 2008 11:05
Anonymous said...: C.T. here
no doubt gary met the artist, I would not state that there are fakes on his site, I don't know the guy. but I can say there are many on the site that I would not buy, even with your money.; 22 February, 2008 11:05
Anonymous said...: Why would he disclose name(s) of his sources?

While the supply lasts nobody is going to disclose names of their sources.

You think it is selfish? You bet it is but it is the way it is!; 22 February, 2008 11:25
Anonymous said...: please name one major art work by a top notch artist that has been sold to a serious buyer anywhere, ever, with no provenance?

C.T.; 22 February, 2008 11:30
Anonymous said...: C.T. makes some of the best comments on this blog - guess it shows the thoughts of someone with no bias as C.T. does not own a Morrisseau.

The name of the source is most likely not hidden and known to many and is an individual not willing to sell to anyone expect a few. If this is the case then these individuals have nothing to fear about protecting their source. If it makes you feel better don't name names but how about shedding some light on where this source acquired them and how he came to own such a large collection. That should be too difficult and should not threaten anyones connection to their supplier....; 22 February, 2008 11:40
Anonymous said...: I agree with Spirit Walker that the bast signature of Norval Morrisseau is in the paint application.

Once the trusworthy authorised individual is assigned to do authentication of Norval Morrisseau work the provenance is going to be important but not the most important thing...; 22 February, 2008 11:40
Anonymous said...: Paintings being offered - although perhaps original Morrisseaus - are not major pieces of art. They are pieces that allow those who want to get in to the Morrisseau market the opporutnity to acquire an average piece of Norvals work and not a masterpiece. As such their value is more affortable. Does not mean that provenance should not be shared. Examples of key pieces of Morrisseau work include the Subway exhibit at Maslak Mcleod and pieces at KRG (recall a very large and early painting of Kraft paper offered a number of years back - think it was titled Victoria)as well as pieces being offered by Steffich, Lattimer, Bau Xi Vancouver, Robert Mede, Hambleton just to name a few.

Look at those then compare them to these and make your own judgement. Paintings at these galleries typically are $10,000 - $20,000 plus and topping $90,000. What are the prices of the paintings on this site - a few thousand?; 22 February, 2008 11:46
Anonymous said...: Perhaps the above shows the difference of pieces with provenance and quality. Those looking for a deal and acquiring pieces with no provenance do so at their own risk. Perhaps the lure of owning an original Morrisseau overshadows the need for an individual to know the provenance of the piece. They see it as an opportunity to get in to the market....; 22 February, 2008 11:49
Anonymous said...: C.T. here
good, valid and intresting points all around.
let me pose this question.
would anyone buy a house, if they could only examine it from the sidewalk?
I'd personally would be curious to see if there were any actual walls on the inside?
but that's just me being too picky?; 22 February, 2008 12:14
Anonymous said...: It is simple - with provenance you have value. Without it you are left arguing a point on this site with little to stand on. Morrisseau's artist career was long and very complex. Not sure if anyone really could claim to be THEY expert on his work which leaves a lot in interpertation. For those that can afford it there are solid Morrisseau paintings to be purchased that will not be questioned. Those with these paintings will not hesitate to forward an image to the NMHS and will not be concerned about how long the process takes.

Those who play in other markets do so at their own risk. This is why disclosing the provenance (perhaps not name but origin of the collection) of Kahn, Potter and other such painting (Lamont?) is key to the stability of the market at question here (primarily 70's with signature on back etc...).; 22 February, 2008 12:36
Anonymous said...: Two items - 1) why does gary go by both Gary Lamont and Gary Bruce Thacky?

2) Were are the painting shown in the Adventures of Norval Morrisseau and Gary Lamont of the two lying a collection of paintings - I would be interested in all them if they were posted for sale! Look at the artistic quality of all the paintings in the pictures posted ...in my opinion they are all of a different calibre then the ones posted for sale??!!??; 22 February, 2008 16:33
Anonymous said...: good point. sharp eye. why are none of these for sale? Gary?; 22 February, 2008 17:17
Anonymous said...: You ask why those images are not for sale... IT IS!

If you look closely at page: http://www.woodlandartgallery.com/norval-gary.htm , check 7th & 8th image from the top... behing Gary & Norval you will see that has been offered for sale at Maslak McLeod Gallery at page: http://www.maslakmcleod.com/norval_subway.html , check second image from the top: "Shaman with Medicine Turtle"...

If we know that this image is an original works of Norval Morrisseau why would we doubt that the rest of the images on www.woodlandartgallery.com is not authentic too?; 22 February, 2008 17:28
Anonymous said...: Ya it is for sale BUT BY Maslak Mcleod not Woodland Art Gallery. That does not build creditablilty around the paintings being offered for sale on this site.

Not arguing Gary did not have a friendship/business partnership with Norval but the quality of the paintings in these pictures (all from the 1980's) show quality Morrisseau. As another blog member stated - he would not even use my money to purchase one of the paintings for sale on the website.

Question is --- if he had this relaitonship why is he selling mostly (AND I DID SAY MOSTLY) paintings that some would find questionable???? Makes you suspecious. If he was friend - why not share the provenance of each piece as it would build creditablity. The story goes on....; 22 February, 2008 18:22
Anonymous said...: C.T. again

good point and a sharp eye.
the "rest"? look at the quality of the work. why do so many of the others just not compare?
I'm just a po white boy shlep from the burbs,so what could I possibly know.; 22 February, 2008 18:26
Anonymous said...: let me ask this......... If a person acquires a piece directly from an artist, who supplies the provenance? Is it a letter from the artist stating he sold it to said buyer? Help me here MG in QB; 24 February, 2008 09:42
Anonymous said...: C.T. here
it could be, it could be a picture in a major publication, printed and not disputed while the artist is alive. a gallery or auction house photo? the artist with or seen painting the work. all of these help in the provenance of an item, but does not always make it so? if not directly from the artist, witnessed by an unbiased
3rd party ( sale at a gallery ?)
this all helps. it's when items appear out of no where, with no details or history or previous "owner", that's when you need to park your cash elsewhere.
there are galleries which sell Morrisseau's work who will at a future date buy your work back if it were to be discovered not to be authentic. that's why you should buy from well established galleries.; 24 February, 2008 10:54
Anonymous said...: C.T. again

I would not be surprised if in the near future many of the questionable works will now start to appear "with full provenance"
then we go back to reputation of the seller. period.; 24 February, 2008 10:58
Spirit Walker said...: Several comments have been deleted from this post due to the issues presented in "Blog Master's Public Address II".

Thank you,; 24 February, 2008 16:38
Anonymous said...: Re provenance directly from artist. The paintings in question (and it is a very large number) are not even be provided with that information. If I acquired a piece directly from the artist and was looking to sale it I would be able to provide the interested person with an account of my relationship with the artist or how I came to acquire it adding some provenance. These paintings in question come with very little as those that know the provenance are not sharing it which is the problem.; 25 February, 2008 09:37
Anonymous said...: Re what if it was acquired directly from the arist.

This is the provenance. YOu have something. If you acquired it from the artist directly and you are selling it you can share your relationship or how you came to acquire it directly from the artist adding some provenance tothe piece. The problem simply is that the painting in question come with no provenance and no one wants to share the provenance which starts to raise questions.; 25 February, 2008 09:40

Important Court decision completely ignored by Jamie Kastner's THERE ARE NO FAKES 'documentary'

Total Pageviews:

* 2,698 posts

Translate

Contact us:

.

.

.

.

PUBLIC SUPPORT: .

Signature Analysis: .

.

.

Norval Morrisseau Quotes:

Others about Norval Morrisseau:

Links of Interest:

Auction Houses:

Galleries:

Blog Archive

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Injustice for Norval Morrisseau (Part II)

33 comments: