Buzz
The world of art is filled with imitations, forgeries, and deceptive masterpieces. While many are simple to identify, some works continue to baffle experts, with differing opinions on their true creators. What exactly defines 'authenticity' in art? This very question has sparked ongoing debates, leaving us to question the legitimacy of countless paintings, sculptures, and even renowned literary works.
10. Frankenstein; Or, The Modern Prometheus - Mary Shelley
Almost two hundred years after its release, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus still captivates readers. Not only has the novel become a cornerstone of both sci-fi and Gothic horror, but it also cemented its author as one of the foremost female novelists before the 20th century.
But what if Mary Shelley wasn’t the true creator of Frankenstein? As unbelievable as it may seem, this is the theory proposed by author John Lauritsen in his book The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein. Lauritsen contends that the celebrated novel was actually written by none other than Mary Shelley’s husband, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley.
Lauritsen’s argument is initially persuasive, despite his questionable reliability. (He lacks formal training as a literary historian and rejects the connection between HIV and AIDS.) He claims that Shelley, a young woman with limited education, could not have possessed the literary prowess and poetic brilliance seen in Frankenstein. Lauritsen also suggests that the novel is infused with themes of male homoeroticism, which he believes aligns more closely with Percy Shelley’s mindset than with his wife’s.
Lauritsen further asserts that the truth behind Frankenstein‘s authorship has been deliberately concealed by feminist academics. Some may see Lauritsen’s accusation as misogynistic. However, the controversy took an intriguing turn when feminist writer Germaine Greer weighed in. In her review of The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein, Greer contends that Shelley did indeed author Frankenstein, but argues that this is hardly a point of pride. In her view, Frankenstein is poorly written.
9. The Bust Of Nefertiti
“In an instant, we were holding the most lifelike Egyptian artwork ever discovered. Words cannot capture it. You must see it for yourself.” This is what archaeologist Ludwig Borchardt wrote in his journal shortly after his team uncovered the iconic bust of Nefertiti.
Borchardt’s words ring true. The bust, believed to portray the wife of Akhenaten, Egypt's Sun King, is nothing short of breathtaking. With its vivid colors and remarkable anatomical accuracy, it exudes a sense of majesty while maintaining an ethereal delicacy. It is almost beyond belief that such a fine work of art could have withstood the test of time.
But if we take the opinion of Swiss art historian Henri Stierlin, the survival of the bust is indeed unbelievable.
Stierlin argues that the bust’s misleading reputation originated with an aristocratic misunderstanding. In 1912, according to the tale, Borchardt hired an artist to craft a display piece for an ancient necklace. Wanting to experiment with authentic materials, Borchardt instructed the bust to be painted using pigments from his archaeological collection. (This is why the bust has been able to pass forensic analysis.)
However, when the Prussian prince, Johann Georg, viewed the bust, he mistakenly believed it to be an authentic artifact. Prince Georg was so captivated by the piece that Borchardt lacked the courage to confess the truth. Soon, the deception gained momentum, and today the world holds the bust of Nefertiti in esteem as a 3,000-year-old masterpiece... when, in reality, it’s a 100-year-old forgery. (The bust is currently housed in the Berlin Museum).
Stierlin’s version of events is a minority viewpoint. Nevertheless, skeptics are unlikely to be swayed anytime soon. As Stefan Simon, a scientist specializing in the authentication of ancient works, has admitted, “You can prove a fake, but you can’t prove originals.”
8. Flowers - Paolo Porpora
If you happen to visit Taipei, Taiwan, you might come across a painting titled Flowers, a still life attributed to 17th-century artist Paolo Porpora. However, an Italian auction house later confirmed that the same painting had appeared in their catalog and was actually created by a lesser-known artist named Mario Nuzzi.
Fakes and misattributions are fairly common in the art world, but what makes the case of the possibly misidentified Porpora so remarkable is the way in which the alleged mistake came to light. In August 2015, surveillance footage caught a 12-year-old boy accidentally punching a hole in the painting after seemingly losing his balance.
The video quickly went viral, prompting the Italian auction house to reach out to the media and inform the world of the blunder. And what a blunder it was. The painting the boy damaged had been valued as a $1.5 million masterpiece, while the Nuzzi work it turned out to be was only worth around $30,000.
Despite this revelation, the organizers of the Taipei exhibition still claim that their Flowers is an authentic Porpora, though they have yet to provide any proof to substantiate their claim. The situation takes a strange turn, as it appears that museum oversight in Taiwan is quite relaxed, and the entire Taipei exhibition may, in fact, be a counterfeit operation. For example, the exhibition isn't affiliated with any recognized museum. Instead, it occupies a rented space, lacking the necessary climate controls and security measures to safeguard the priceless works it supposedly houses.
If you're ever in Taipei and wish to visit, the exhibition is titled “The Face of Leonardo, Images of a Genius.” But beware—the self-portrait of Leonardo on display has also been called into question for its authenticity.
7. La Bella Principessa - Leonardo Da Vinci
The painting, famously known as La Bella Principessa (The Beautiful Princess), was sold at auction in 1998. Initially believed to be a German piece from the 19th century, its age was soon questioned. With its extraordinary precision, the piece raised suspicions that it could be the work of a genius artist, leading the owner to agree to a thorough analysis. The results astonished the art world.
It was determined that La Bella Principessa was, in fact, a masterpiece by Leonardo Da Vinci.
A group of experts, led by Oxford scholar Martin Kemp, conducted a series of meticulous tests to confirm the painting's attribution to Leonardo. Every detail was scrutinized, including the direction of the brushstrokes. Even one right-handed stroke would have cast doubt, given that Da Vinci was famously left-handed. However, Kemp's thorough analysis gained acceptance from leading authorities in the field.
Despite the excitement surrounding the attribution, a group of persistent skeptics continues to challenge the claim. Some argue that the artwork lacks the essence of Da Vinci's genius, while others point out questionable details. For instance, the piece is created on vellum, a medium that Leonardo is not known to have used. Additionally, in November 2015, convicted art forger Shaun Greenhalgh asserted that he had created the drawing, claiming it was inspired by a girl he encountered at a supermarket he frequented.
The painting’s current owner, Peter Silverman, strongly rejects Greenhalgh’s assertion. He has publicly challenged Greenhalgh to recreate La Bella Principessa in front of a panel of experts, offering a £10,000 (around $15,000) reward if he succeeds. Should Greenhalgh fail, Silverman quips, 'He goes back to jail where he belongs.'
6. Ariel And Other Poems by Sylvia Plath
In 1963, Sylvia Plath, at 31, was a poet with a modest reputation. Recently separated from her husband, the poet Ted Hughes, Plath was spending the winter in London, caring for the couple’s two young children. Tragically, on the morning of February 11, she took her own life by inhaling gas from her townhouse oven.
After her death, Plath left behind a finished collection of poetry, which, due to her dramatic life story and exceptional talent, quickly became recognized as a literary masterpiece. The book, titled Ariel and Other Poems, was published in 1965 and continues to be regarded as one of the 20th century’s most influential poetry collections.
Many of Plath’s admirers, however, argue that the Ariel we know today is not the one Plath originally intended. Although Plath and Hughes were separated at the time of her death, Hughes, as her literary executor, had full control over her posthumous works. Hughes confessed to altering the order of the poems and excluding those he felt were overly “personally aggressive,” meaning those that expressed anger directed at him.
Following Hughes’s death in 1998, the couple’s daughter helped release Plath’s original manuscript in 2004, now titled Ariel: The Restored Edition. Critics noted that while Hughes’s version focused on Plath’s themes of despair, the restored edition revealed a more hopeful tone. For instance, Hughes had chosen to conclude his version with the somber “Edge,” a haunting poem. In contrast, the restored edition ends with the reflective “Wintering,” which concludes with these hopeful lines:
What will they taste of, the Christmas roses? The bees are flying. They taste the spring.
5. Teri Horton’s Jackson Pollock
Teri Horton, a 73-year-old former truck driver, bought a painting for five dollars from a local thrift store. Originally, she intended to give it to a friend. However, when it turned out to be too large for the friend's trailer, Horton decided to sell it at a yard sale. That's when a local art teacher recognized that the painting resembled the distinctive style of Jackson Pollock. But was it a genuine Pollock?
Many believe it could be. Forensic tests on the painting revealed a fingerprint matching those found on authenticated Pollock works. Additionally, Nicolas Carone, a renowned artist and close friend of Pollock, vouched for the painting’s authenticity. Despite this, some remain skeptical. The fingerprint analysis has been questioned, and critics argue that the painting’s quality falls short of Pollock's typical standard, given his unique, hard-to-reproduce techniques.
Regardless of the painting’s true origins, Horton’s story has a happy ending. She was offered $9 million for the artwork by a Saudi buyer, but she declined, stating that she would only accept an offer of $55 million. To learn more about the debated Pollock painting, check out the film Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?
4. To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
y
Before their eventual fallout, Capote and Lee maintained a close friendship, exchanging ideas and reading each other's work. However, rumors have circulated suggesting that their relationship was more than just literary support. Some claim Capote may have played a significant role in writing large parts, if not the entirety, of Lee's acclaimed novel To Kill a Mockingbird.
Though they eventually grew apart, the bond between Capote and Lee during their early years was one of mutual respect and intellectual camaraderie. Their literary relationship may have even contributed to the creation of some of the most iconic works in American literature, including To Kill a Mockingbird.
The rumor that Capote had a hand in writing To Kill a Mockingbird is said to have been sparked by Pearle Belle, an editor from Cambridge, Massachusetts, who claimed that Capote had confided in her about the secret. Additionally, Capote’s father, Archulus Persons, suggested that Lee only provided the basic framework for the novel, crediting his son with making the story come to life.
The speculation surrounding Capote's involvement seemed to subside when a letter from Capote to Lee surfaced in 2013. In the letter, Capote congratulated Lee on her novel, though there was no mention of any collaboration. However, the historian Wayne Flynt argued that the strongest case against Capote’s authorship lies in his well-known tendency for “self-promotion” and his “enormous ego.” Flynt asserts that, given Capote’s jealousy of Lee's success, it’s hard to believe that he wouldn’t have taken credit for Mockingbird had he contributed to it.
3. The Polish RiderRembrandt
In 1639, the renowned Dutch artist Rembrandt bought an imposing house in one of Amsterdam's most stylish neighborhoods. At the time, he was already an internationally celebrated painter, but the cost of the house was ultimately too high for him to sustain. By 1656, he would face bankruptcy.
However, in order to fund his grand purchase, Rembrandt took on a large group of students. This move undoubtedly benefited the art scene in Amsterdam, though it caused significant challenges for future art scholars. It turns out that Rembrandt’s workshop was so extensive and his students so skilled that it became difficult for experts to differentiate between his own works and those created by his talented pupils.
To address this issue, the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP) was established in 1968, with the ambitious goal of verifying the authenticity of every painting attributed to Rembrandt. This led to significant fluctuations in the number of confirmed Rembrandts. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the count of “genuine” Rembrandts plummeted from over 700 in the 1920s to under 300 by the 1980s.
Given the high stakes, it’s no surprise that heated debates continue, and the RRP itself has often revised its conclusions. This brings us to The Polish Rider, a masterpiece now displayed at New York’s Frick Collection. Though long considered one of Rembrandt’s finest works, its authenticity was questioned by a member of the RRP. After some disagreement among the team, the consensus is now that the painting is indeed by Rembrandt—with notable contributions from his students.
The RRP concluded its work in 2011, falling short of confirming every true Rembrandt. In hindsight, it may be that the RRP’s mission was a fool’s errand all along. As art critic Robert Hughes noted, “If one of [Rembrandt’s students] did a painting he liked, he was quite capable of signing it with his own name, keeping it and selling it as an autographed work by ‘Rembrandt.’ Criteria of originality and authorship were much more relaxed in the 17th century than they are now.”
2. The ‘Bruno B’ Red Self-PortraitAndy Warhol
The artwork known as the “Bruno B” is a self-portrait of Andy Warhol, created using one of his own silk-screen plates. Warhol signed the piece and dedicated it to his friend, art dealer Bruno Bischofberger, which is how it came to be known as the “Bruno B.” So fond was Warhol of the piece that he selected it to grace the cover of his first major monograph, published in 1970.
Despite the clear markers of authenticity, the “Bruno B” is not classified as an original Andy Warhol—at least not by the Andy Warhol Authentication Board, Inc., the official body responsible for validating works attributed to the famous artist.
When the current owner of the painting submitted it for authentication, the board returned it with the stamp “DENIED.” What was their reasoning? The work couldn’t be deemed a genuine Warhol because the artist himself was not physically present during its creation. In reality, “Bruno B” was silk-screened by an independent printing firm that had received permission from Warhol to use his plates.
There’s just one issue with this reasoning. Warhol rarely created his own pieces. At the peak of his career, he would typically only be involved in the conceptual phase of a work. The actual production was handled by assistants at his studio, famously known as “The Factory.” Often, Warhol’s only direct involvement in a painting was when he signed it.
In fact, Sam Green, curator of Warhol’s retrospective at Philadelphia’s Institute of Contemporary Art, notes that Warhol admired “Bruno B” because it “embodied his new technique of having works made without his personal touch.”
All things considered, it seems that the rejection of “Bruno B” as an authentic Warhol was an overreach by the members of the artist’s foundation, none of whom, ironically, were actually appointed by Warhol himself.
1. The Madonna Of The PinksRaphael
For many generations, it was common practice for art apprentices to refine their skills by replicating the masterpieces of renowned artists. In an age before the widespread use of photography, these reproductions were highly valued and circulated extensively.
Would it really be a surprise if, after centuries, one of these copies were mistakenly recognized as an original? Such was the fate once thought to have befallen The Madonna of the Pinks, a painting by the renowned Renaissance artist Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino, better known as Raphael.
For many years, a particular painting was believed to be Raphael’s Madonna of the Pinks. Small enough to fit on a standard sheet of paper, the work portrays the Madonna and Child, each holding a carnation. (The carnations, or “pinks,” as referenced in the title, symbolize marital love and the Virgin Mary’s role as the Bride of Christ.) However, in 1860, Raphael scholar Johann David Passavant condemned the painting as a copy. For decades, his judgment was regarded as definitive. It wasn’t until 1991 that a gallery curator named Nicholas Penny re-examined the painting. Intrigued by a minor irregularity in the background, Penny arranged for the work to be analyzed using modern forensic techniques.
The new techniques uncovered, among other findings, the painting’s underdrawing, which unmistakably matched Raphael’s signature style. Additional evidence further supported the claim of Raphael’s authorship, and the painting was subsequently restored to its original brilliance. Today, it is widely accepted as a genuine Raphael, residing in the National Gallery in London.
However, one particularly sharp critic, Brian Sewell, remained unconvinced by the small oil painting’s authenticity. Sewell rejected the attribution, citing both the painting’s quality and the timing of Raphael’s career. He doubted that the work could be an early Raphael from 1506–1507, as claimed.
Sewell also offered his perspective on why “rediscovered” masterpieces often receive such enthusiastic reception. According to the critic, “Many people want to be deceived. They long to uncover another Rembrandt drawing. If you find a true Rembrandt... you become associated with it. It elevates you, because it’s significant.”
