Friday, May 9, 2008

Norval Morrisseau Comparison Report (Part I)

-
"Separated at Birth?"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"Sacred Caribou with Spirit Man", acrylic on canvas, 37"x51", © c. 1966 Norval Morrisseau /from the book: "Norval Morrisseau Travels to the House of Invention" - page 94; Key Porter Books Limited, ISBN: 1-55013-880-4/
(Click on image to enlarge)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"Sacred Moose with Spirit Man", 2-2 acrylic on canvas, size not known, © 1966 Norval Morrisseau /from "eBay" purchase; Private Collection/
(Click on image to enlarge) -
-

"Sacred Moose with Spirit Man" /Back/

(Click on image to enlarge)

Even the painting "Sacred Caribou with Spirit Man" was labelled to be circa 1966 I believe that it is dated 1966 and inscribed on the back of the canvas in the same fashion as painting "Sacred Moose with Spirit Man" 2-2, © 1966.

There are too many elements in both of these paintings that someone could make an intelligent guess that both of these paintings were created by the same painter, titled very much alike and executed with same sureness that only genius of Norval Morrissea could provide.

Is it really possible that they were "Separated at Birth"... or is it possible that the second word in title of the "Sacred Caribou with Spirit Man" was purposely changed from "Moose" to "Caribou" just to eliminate anyone trying to challenge original owner(s) on this issue? If they are not a pair meaning that "Sacred Caribou with Spirit Man" does not have a label 1-2 and it is not dated 1966 this would be a perfect example of Norval Morrisseau repeating the painting designs with slight variation of the theme.

For the sake of the "Study of the Norval Morrisseau Painting Styles" I would greatly appreciate if the owner of the "Sacred Caribou with Spirit Man" provide me an image of the back of the canvas and the owner of the "Sacred Moose with Spirit Man" the size of the canvas.

Thank you all for reading the Blog and for all of those placing the comments I thank you for your active participation.

Spirit Walker -

Posted by at

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

SW - Those paintings were CLEARLY not done by the same hand. You are proving the opposite of what you intend.

Robert T.

09 May, 2008 08:28
Anonymous said...

I have seen the second painting - Sacred Moose - in person. It was owned by a Toronto Collector who is a doctor. He bought a large collection of paintings at Kahn Auction and then fairly quickly began selling them off on ebay - a number of other paintings he owned have been pictured on this blog - all sold on ebay. He recently sold what he said was his last Morrisseau he had to offer. My guess is that since the rest of his paintings which had no provenance other then to Kahn that this one too was from Kahn. It was a rather large canvas and would guess that it was a similar size to Sacred Caribou.

That all being said the difference between both paintings is Caribou has provenance to the artist and Moose has provenance to Kahn Auction and then no where. We all know the problem with paintings associated with Kahn!

I do not see how anyone could think that both of these paintings were painted by the same person. The artistic style is not even similar. As well, the artistic style of Caribou is in line with Norvals style carried out from the 60s, 70s, 80s you get it. Not only is not of the same style it is not of same quality(a fault with a lot of these paintings).

T.C.

09 May, 2008 09:44
Spirit Walker said...

Important note to mention is that the first image was published in a book while the other one was taken with digital camera.

I would appreciate if the owners of the paintings in question send me high resolution images of the front and back of the canvases to assist for further investigation.

I am convinced that both of the paintings are original works of Copper Thunderbird better known as Norval Morrisseau.

Megwetch, SW

09 May, 2008 10:09
Anonymous said...

I have seen the second one (moose) in person and can guarantee you it does not compare even to the picture of the first one (caribou). Therefore I am convinced they are not both by Norval Morrisseau.

Have you seen either of them???

T.C.

09 May, 2008 10:31
Serpent'sDesire said...

Excellent example SpiritWalker and detective work.
You have clearly shown a connection between these two pieces Morrisseau had painted.
The signature on the reverse checks out and has many of Morrisseau's caligraphic peculiarities.
How many paintings by Norval Morrisseau do you own Robert T.? and the same question goes to you as well T.C.?

09 May, 2008 10:40
Anonymous said...

I own three Morrisseaus - one is questionable and the others are not. There you go...

I have seen the second painting in person (moose) and it does not even compare to the picture of the first painting(caribou). Have you seen either painting?


T.C.

09 May, 2008 11:11
Anonymous said...

Robert T. your obviously a professional ( LOL) Morrisseau expert. SW - Those paintings were CLEARLY not done by the same hand. You are proving the opposite of what you intend. You claim you don't own a painting, never owned one, only viewed photos on the net, probably never seen one up close and yet you continually claim your an expert? Your credibility is ZERO. Stop posting your making a FOOL of yourself..Nobody should follow your advice. Your not a hands on expert except with your keyboard.

AKA..LOL

09 May, 2008 13:03
Anonymous said...

AKA,

You are right about SW proving the opposite to his intension. Thank you for exposing the truth SW!

But AKA, what does owning more paintings have to do with expertise? I own some paper and some canvas works by Norval and many more by others. So what?

I think Robert T knows what he's talking about he has provided good input on this blog! He does have some expertise. I like to know the credentials of the experts I listen to and/or you've got to make a lot of sense. Robert T seems like a strait from the shoulder guy. Thank you everyone who is supplying information and facts!

What do I know? -SS

09 May, 2008 16:28
Anonymous said...

SS, how can an individual who has NEVER held a Morrisseau painting in his hand, be an expert on these paintings? Thats a complete insult to the Morrisseau camp! Would you hire a TV repairman that has never seen a real TV? At least I can state I have held a Morrisseau painting in my hand regardless of what the naysayers state. Robert T. should only be viewed as entertainment!

AKA ...LOL

09 May, 2008 17:17
Anonymous said...

Sorry AKA,
I meant Serpent's Desire's question, about how many paintings someone owns. I don't think it is proof of expertise. -SS

P.S. who's got real ones?
Thanks again.
SS

09 May, 2008 17:34
Hugh said...

SS,
Don't bother being polite to AKA. He doesn't add anything to the blog, but name calling and unintelligible commentary

Hugh

09 May, 2008 18:58
Anonymous said...

When I first came on here, I was completely happy to learn and share information about Norval Morriseau. When the debate erupted over these 70s paintings, I sat back and watched. When I started to see some clearly biased posts, I started to input logic in the hopes that it would assist in learning the truth of this matter.

However, this is now becoming too funny.

The recent posts here are demonstrating to anyone unbiased and open to learning that this debate is truly nothing more than a tool for propaganda.

For your information, and since I am being attacked again, I have never said I didn't own any paintings. Where exactly do you get that from? I said I never owned any of the non-genuine 70s Morrisseaus.

I bought several Morrisseau pieces less than 10 years ago and I have 4 Morrisseaus hanging on my walls at home including two pieces which are measured in feet.

The Norval Morrisseau paintings have full provenance and can be traced back straight to the personal collection of Norval Morrisseau himself. There's no debate regarding my paintings.

SO---

Not only are you now misquoting me --- your theories and suppositions are again incorrect.

Regardless, it would be clear to even a novice that the second painting is a pale copy of an original Morrisseau. It actually demonstrates how profoundly different they are in skill levels. One's a master (that would be Norval)- the other a student (whomever painted the other one).

The fact that some of you would use this latest information as your evidence is simply a demonstration of how little evidence you actually have to support your argument in this ongoing debate.

Quite frankly, it appears the debate is over.

There is no evidence as promised. Time and time again, I may add....

If this is all you have - then only a buffoon would buy these paintings and believe they are Morrisseaus. Or someone hoping to sell them to a buffoon at a profit.

I was more than willing to give Spirit Walker the benefit of the doubt but his latest post is confirmation that he is not simply misguided but an active participant in a campaign designed to add some manner of credibility to these debated Morrisseaus.

I see no evidence to support your findings SW. I believe these paintings are simply ersatz.

Sorry.

And in regards to my "expertise" - it is foolish to make assumptions when you have no data to interpret and then reach uneducated conclusions.

I didn't buy these type of paintings when I had the opportunity - you did. I think that alone demonstrates that my expertise is superior to some.

Or maybe I am underestimating- maybe these people knew these were not real when they bought them?

That would just prove the buyers were greedy and devoid of any respect for Norval Morrisseau:

Exactly the opposite of what is claimed as the reason for this Blog.

I welcome evidence - but at this stage it seems there is none. I feel my declining the opportunity to buy any of those 70s types was a good decision.

Thanks for clearing things up SW.

I now suspect you're simply part of the propaganda team. I am sorry if this post upsets you ( i expect more insults, false statements and illogical arguments directed at me) but I am very dissapointed.

For those who now make a habit of attacking me everytime I post: thank you. Thank you for confirming that I am correct.

As my father once told me:

"They only tackle the guy with the ball, son..."

It must be really frustrating to learn that not everyone is an easy mark. Especially when you put some much effort into it.

Just be.

Robert T.

09 May, 2008 21:10
Serpent'sDesire said...

What did you do with those 28 paintings you bought at Khann's Auction back in October 2000 to May 2001 Don Robinson of Kinsman Robinson Gallery?
You said that they were given to the NMHS for research? You gave away $50,000.00 Cnd. to a defunct committee that can't even authenticate the 1700 pieces they have now? I don't believe you!
You were pissed off that the auction house was churning out Morrisseaus's too fast for your liking and you even tried to corner the market with the auction houses's supplier,but it back fired on you big time! So you went to the papers and yelled "FAKE...FAKES being sold!"
You didn't give those 28 paintings to NMHS you kept them and sold them or probably still have them stashed away waiting for a better time to sell once the secondary market dries up...very clever.
If they were given to the NMHS for research it means you found them to be questionable...why didn't you return them to the auction house for a full refund of your money?
Your star of greed shines through your cloak of smoke and mirrors Don Robinson...you should be booted out of the Art Dealers Association of Canada.
Now you quote me verbatim on your Blog.It was I who wrote against your RACIAL PROFILING of SpiritWalker.I came in anonymous until I learned that I could sign in as Serpent's Desire.I will coil myself around you and poison you with my truth.
As for you Robert T. start supporting your statements with facts.This world grows weary of your piggybacking on other peoples hard work.Stop being a lagard and start working for once in your miserable life.Tell me the "Why" not the "What".
T.C you want provenance do you? A piece a paper like any can be copied and forged.You want pictures of Morrisseau painting every piece he ever made do you?That's rediculous.Perhaps that could have been the case if it were not for the fact that Digital cameras like today were not available in the 50's,60's,70's and 80's.
You are protecting yourselves or someone else's investment into forgeries which you people are connected with I am sure.
The last thing you guys want to see is a real genuine Morrisseau come onto the secondary market and compete against your over priced gallery pieces OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU DO.Your gonna have to wait along time before the secondary market dries up.
AKA...all I can say about you is that you are bum...and I believe that all three of you work for Kinsman Robinson Gallery...or Gallery 223.The spin doctors of the East meet the spinners of the West...be careful lest you kill your patient-"the customers..."

09 May, 2008 22:59
Anonymous said...

When I first came on here, I was completely happy to learn and share information about Norval Morrisseau. When the debate erupted over these 70s paintings, I sat back and watched. When I started to see some clearly biased posts, I started to input logic in the hopes that it would assist in learning the truth of this matter. However, this is now becoming too funny.

The recent posts here are demonstrating to anyone unbiased and open to learning that this blog is truly nothing more than a tool for propaganda.

For your information, and since I am being attacked again: I have never said I didn't own any paintings. Where exactly do you get that from? I said I never owned any of the non-genuine 70s Morrisseaus.

I bought several Morrisseau pieces less than 10 years ago and I have 4 Morrisseaus hanging on my walls at home including two pieces which are measured in feet.

The Norval Morrisseau paintings have full provenance and can be traced back straight to the personal collection of Norval Morrisseau himself. There's no debate regarding my paintings.

SO--- Not only are you now misquoting me --- your theories and suppositions are again incorrect.

Regardless, it would be clear to even a novice that the second painting is a pale copy of an original Morrisseau. It actually demonstrates how profoundly different they are in skill levels. One's a master (that would be Norval) - the other a student (whomever painted the other one).

The fact that some of you would use this latest information as your evidence is simply a demonstration of how little evidence you actually have to support your argument in this ongoing debate. Quite frankly, it appears the debate is over. There is no evidence as promised. Time and time again, I may add....

If this is all you have - then only a fool would buy these paintings and believe they are Morrisseaus. Or someone hoping to sell them to a fool at a profit.

I was more than willing to give Spirit Walker the benefit of the doubt but his latest post is confirmation that he is not simply misguided but an active participant in a campaign designed to add some manner of credibility to these debated Morrisseaus. SW, I see no evidence to support your findings. I believe these paintings are simply ersatz. Sorry.

In regards to my "expertise" - it is foolish to make assumptions when you have no data to interpret and then reach uneducated conclusions. In any event, it is not I who is claiming expertise – that’s the kettle calling the pot black my friends.

I didn't buy this type of paintings when I had the opportunity – but you did. I think that alone demonstrates that my expertise is superior to some. Or at least my judgment.

Of course, maybe I am underestimating you all? Maybe these people indeed knew these were not real when they bought them… Of course that would just prove the buyers were greedy and devoid of any respect for Norval Morrisseau: Exactly the opposite of what is claimed as the reason for this Blog.

I welcome evidence – ANY EVIDENCE - but at this stage it seems there is none.

I feel my declining the opportunity to buy any of those 70s type paintings was a good decision.
Thanks for clearing things up SW.

I now suspect you're simply part of the propaganda team. I am sorry if this post upsets you but I am very disappointed in you continuing this charade of admiration for Norval Morrisseau. (YES -I expect more insults, false statements and illogical arguments directed at me).

For those who now make a habit of attacking me every time I post: thank you. Thank you for confirming that I am correct. As my father once told me:

"They only tackle the guy with the ball, son..."

It must be really frustrating to learn that not everyone is an easy mark. Especially when you put so much effort into it.

Let's see if this gets posted... 2nd attempt...

Just be.

Robert T.

10 May, 2008 00:43
Serpent'sDesire said...

Robert T. submit your pictures of your paintings to this blog for all of us to scrutinize them in the name of art and the legacy of Norval Morrisseau.And make damn sure you also send pictures of the signatures painted on the reverse of these questionable pieces of art that you have and claim to be genuine Morrisseau's.Submit your provenance papers aswell.If you have nothing to hide you will not be bothered by these requests.
You have nothing of the kind I bet and you never have...
You guys with the big mouths have NEVER BROUGHT FORTH ANY EVIDENCE YET TO YOUR CLAIMS OF FORGERY!
Put your money where your mouth is...lets see these paintings you have Robert T.
What are you worried about if their real then you will recieve free popularity and advertising on the public record of your pieces which can only make them more valuable...waiting

The questionable 80's and 90's must now be addressed...

10 May, 2008 03:07
Spirit Walker said...

Robert T. stated that he hoped his comment would be posted in the second attempt. Both of your comments have been approved for posting.

If you read note at "Leave your comment" page you will clearly see that "Comments posted herein will be approved or rejected not later that 24 hours from the publishing time. Thank You For Your Patience."

Megwetch, SW

10 May, 2008 04:22
Anonymous said...

Robert T. wrote that "They only tackle the guy with the ball, son..."

To quote Mr. Lavack: "Keep up the good work Spirit Walker. Norval would be proud in the way you are presenting the creative aspect of his life."...

... and ignore the KRG and their disciples: thickblacklines, Three Owls, Roland905 and such...

... and walk on the higher ground.

M&M

10 May, 2008 04:33
Anonymous said...

As previously stated:

"YES -I expect more insults, false statements and illogical arguments directed at me."

Robert T.

10 May, 2008 10:10
Anonymous said...

SW,

Great examples of Norval's works. We believe these two examples are both by Norval's hand. It was not uncommon for Norval to copy a painting from memory and change it a bit.We think Serpents desire hit the nail right on the head. Let's see Robert T's paintings here. Put your money where your mouth is. Sw, ignore the KRG blog and there loyal servants. ThickBlackLines, Robert T, Three Owls, Roland 905 etc.
Spirit Walker is attacked time and time again on here. We think for individuals to keep saying that this one is fake and this one is real and so on is just an opinion. That's the beauty about art. Everyone has an opinion. What is right for some might not be right for others. Not many photos will exist of Norval painting in the 50's and 60's and 70's. Not of everything he ever did, he wasn't as famous as he is now, certainly not in the 50's and 60's and 70's at least. If he had of been this famous, I guarentee he wouldn't of been homeless and broke most of those years.
SW, most people only attack others when they feel threatened. So keep up the good fight! Dont stop for anyone! People ask on here why the big guns don't say anything on this blog. We assure you the Morrisseau family is watching and enjoying what you do SW to carry on the legend and legacy of Norval Morrisseau. You are showing Norval the utmost respect and honour with this blog. We can't say the same for a certain other blog and some of its members. Again, we are watching from a distance. Sometimes the loudest statement is no statement.
We give you our blessings SW. You truly have the proper name, Spirit Walker. You may not be native indian by birth, but you are in Spirit!
Happy trails SW,
THE ELDERS OF THE SPIRIT BEAR CLAN
VANCOUVER,B.C.

10 May, 2008 10:53
Hugh said...

Dear Elders,

As Spirit Walker said, you don't have to be native to know the art of Norval Morrisseau. Correct! In fact, I was taught even the elders can be wrong, especially when they try to throw their weight around in areas they are not expert.

You are wrong on a number of points,aside from your artist opinion. You speak of others attaching SW,! I only hear questions, not attach. Though I hear from members other then SW a lot of attach and no answers in return to these reasonable questions. Shame on you, more attach and no answers.

Norval morrisseau's legacy doesn't need your approval. So follow Norvals' wisdom "Just Be"

We all support SW's search for truth. Let us continue seeking it without the slinging of words. Valid questions are not an attach.

Speaking for those of us open to all information, who listen to all sides of a story... thank you for your side Spirit Walker.

Just be,
Hugh

10 May, 2008 11:26
Hugh said...

P.S. I don't really believe that post was from any real elders.

I apologize to the real elders of the world. Someone is slandering you.

Just be,

Hugh

10 May, 2008 11:40
newmanarts said...

From The artist's perspective:

Serpent's Desire must be questionable. He uses the painted signature on the back as proof. The artists who knew Norval Morrisseau in the seventies and any other period, for that matter, know this is not common, if ever. He was very careful of the back, usually writing in pencil, when he wrote at all. In the sixties it was often on a piece of paper separate to the painting. I suggest the painted signature is by no means proof, but the contrary!

Plus, someone mentioned provenance as a piece of paper, that is not true, actually it is trail of imformation that proves the connection to the artist. This is why formal representation by a gallery is so important. It also begs the question why did JackPollock not have this style of work, if it were really Norval Morrisseau's?

humbly

HVK

10 May, 2008 12:10
Anonymous said...

why do the supporters of the questionables continue to slander? why not share with the readers the history of these works. I think this may silence the critics from the few galleries? am I wrong?
also, I don,t see any attacks on the blogmaster, only the works.
I am still waiting for SW to post anything to support these works.
I also have to say that as of yet, SW just has not done that.
please share details.
AKA and a few others keep asking the critics for proof or details, how about something, anything to support the position of those who say these works are real.
anything. please.
thank you
Tony.D in Toronto

10 May, 2008 14:00
Anonymous said...

Hugh,
We ask that you guard your words very carefully.You are speaking on topics and individuals you truly know nothing about. You use the words "just be"
You should take those words and live by them. Just be, and leave Spirit Walker and others on this blog to "just be" in the words of the great Copper ThunderBird. Who we are is no never mind to you. But we take our clan name very seriously. Don't be disrespectful to people on this blog. We don't talk disrespectful to you, we'd expect the same courtesy.
Thank you again SW,
We will continue to watch you carefully. Until then,
we bid you all a happy journey.
THE ELDERS OF THE SPIRIT BEAR CLAN

10 May, 2008 14:27

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)