 |
All About Fake Morrisseaus 1 |
School of Morrisseau: Some fakes are unintentional; Norval had followers/students in the 1970s who wanted to learn "how a pro does it." Like art teachers, from times immemorial, Norval might show a young artist how to start and design a picture; the beginner would finish it as best he could. The result was a "Morrisseau," passing on his way of expressing his artistic creativity, though these were never intended to cheat or fool anyone. But these "instructional knock offs" don't really look like a real Morrisseau, once you've studied a few. (Below, purported to be a genuine Morriseau, Shaman from 1976. The signature certainly looks totally authentic in every way.)
Norval's simple painting style soon attracted imitators, artists who thought he was on to something, and also art forgers and unscrupulous art sellers. Fakes began to show up regularly at some Toronto auctions. But many of the fakes become easy to spot, and tell apart from Norval's own work. Telltale Signs: What to watch for: Norval's figures are always extremely graceful, and "fluid looking." Neither the figures or the overall composition are blocky or awkward in presentation anywhere on the canvas. The faces - note the lips - of people are graceful, almost feminine, in design and execution, very pleasant to look at. The figures are commonly outlined with thick black borders. Norval also fills the canvas with his composition; he does not leave huge empty borders or undeveloped canvas areas. There is also a unified symmetry to his composition. like Man Changing into Thunderbird, 1977, below, from Norval's high period, the 1970s.
Did he paint when he was "down"? You can't keep a good painter down. No doubt he painted then too. How well would his paintings turn out at those time?. Probably not great; some probably distinctly awful. Would Norval want those around? Quite obviously not. But others, who could only see money, when they looked at Norval, would have squirreled these away after having Norval sign them. Or perhaps a sub contractor. How many of these bad canvases are out there? Probably more than a few. And more are turning up as Norval's fame and prices are going up. Just like every Group of Seven chicken scratch in pencil or ink is coming out of the woodwork, hoping to make a quick buck for someone, so anything Norval ever did - and lots he didn't - is appearing at auctions. It is up to you to protect yourself and your hard-earned money from buying a bogus or inferior work. Remember art auctions offer you no protection from forgeries. Read the fine print in their catalogues and online contracts. Once you've paid, there are no returns, even if you've bought a fake. So familiarize yourself with his style, and his signature, to protect your investment... |
Later, when Norval's work started to attract good prices, some of these "school of Morrisseau" paintings began to appear with Norval's name tacked on. But these signatures don't look like Norval's either. Many are gross distortions even to the uninitiated. 
 Great Canadian Heritage Treasure (TrashSure) |
|
| Who Painted This? A pupil of Morrisseau's, an art student on a lark, or a devious forger? | |
 |
 This huge canvas, some 4 x 5 feet, was recently sold at a public auction by a prestigious Toronto art auction house.
Could this be a fake? Here's why we wonder... The signature (red above and right) is not a convincing match for others known to be by Norval. At least four of the letters are out of line with those from real Norval signatures. One, OK; two, hmmm; three, no way José; four, not with my money! See detail below. The drawing composition is completely off centre, giving a great feeling of discomfort because of a tight margin on the left and too much space left on the right. How could you Norval? (Compare this with the design positioning by Norval in his other canvases published here and see what we mean.) The colour design is off substantially, the red bar splitting this canvas vertically - without a reason - in a way that destabilizes the composition and upsets the viewer. It is doubtful that this would come from the artistic sensibility of a master in the use of colour like Norval. (He did this once for his famous Time magazine cover below to suggest racial divides that separate White Men from the Red. But he masterfully integrated the colour split artistically and thematically so it works beautifully here whereas left, it doesn't at all. And that canvas also has no title, or explanation, etc. on the back.)
Large blank areas of the canvas are left undeveloped and are not integrated into the composition like Norval usually does. Where are the many embellishments that Norval usually fits into these blank areas, or if he doesn't, the connective lines or spirit emanations that he uses to interconnect the elements of his composition? The internal embellishments on the figures are minimal, awkward, haphazardly placed, poorly executed, and indifferently arranged. There is a lack of grace in the figures. The man on the left looks like he has a broken neck.. There is a poor and simplistic execution of a major animal figure. Norval would not leave a large animal body like this without embellishing it with his x-ray technique. Compare it to other animal figures Norval has integrated into his other works. The canvas looks like someone was keen on working on some parts, then suddenly lost interest in others. Obviously a student of Morrisseau's or a lackadaisical forger, or just an art student who did this for a lark. Remember, copying the work of master's has been going on for centuries. Even master painters like Krieghoff and Berczy painted copies of masters for practice. So was this the work of an awed art student, doing homage to a painting hero? Or do artists have bad days?
Sorry! I draw a blank here... Will the back of this canvas have to be the last word on this work by Norval? |
| No Back-up! There was no signature on the back of the canvas, no copyright, no year, and no title, unlike those often found on the back of Norval's known works. (See published examples, page1)
And that's often important... Here's why. Norval was not just a pretty picture painter like AY Jackson, or Cornelius Krieghoff, or Lawren Harris; he was a story-teller too! He used his paintings to tell tales, or express spiritual truths, about the heritage of his tribe. (That's why his people were at first angry with him - for publicizing clan secrets. Hey, have you ever heard of a farmer yelling at AY for distorting his barn so untruthfully?) So to Norval a title on a canvas was important because he wanted to do more than paint one-dimensional souvenir art, like Krieghoff; and he did not set out to pursue a career in art as a preferred way to make a living - read money - like white painters like Bateman or Keirstead or Romance. Norval started painting because he wanted to express the eternal spiritual truths of his culture. He wanted to speak, not paint, at first. He became a lonely artist, isolated in the remote backwoods of Northern Ontario, about the worst place in Canada to start an "art business." But that wasn't Norval's intention, after all. That is why his titles are so important - they identify the mystical beliefs Norval is trying to convey on canvas for the uninitiated Making money from/through his art came later, for Norval, when an entrepreneur, who made his living doing that, engaged Norval to do the same. Norval's paintings - originally made for himself - were destined, later, not for his own people but for white people, outside his community, who would not understand what he was painting. His titles were meant to bridge the gap of cross cultural ignorance. So Norval, why didn't you give us a title for this canvas? Without it we can't understand what you are saying, what we are to make of this work! You obviously had something specific in mind when you painted this. It is a most intriguing juxtaposition of images to say the least. But what was it? What exactly is going on here? You spent all the money on this huge canvas, spent all this time thinking this up, executing it, all the paint it cost you, the effort - and you forgot to sign off on the back? And what about your one liner name to clarify things for us non-Indians? Oh! OK. I get it. It's not your work you say.... Sure, you say, you didn't always sign all your canvases. But that was on little ones; so those are out there, without name or title. But on the huge ones, you say, you wouldn't forget - as best as you can remember... Now it all starts to make some sense... It's your money... You decide... Remember, you are your only safety net. Everyone else just wants to make money by turning art over and over, to new - uninitiated - neophyte buyers... |
|
| Great Canadian Heritage Treasure (TrashSure) |
|
| Who Painted This? A pupil of Morrisseau's, an art student on a lark, or a devious forger? | |
| Test Your Skill - Is this Norval's Work?
Is this Norval's signature?  Open up a second page with Norval's first page of his genuine art and compare the figures, the spacing , the arrangement, execution, and artistic presentation.. Or was Norval constipated when he did it? Do you really believe Norval created this work? Where are Norval's heavy black outlines of the figures? Would Norval create an awkwardly standing figure like this with oddly shaped and attached arms? Were those mouths and lips done by Norval? Was this just Norval on a bad day? Or did a forger or clumsy student of Norval's try to copy some of Norval's techniques - badly - and do this? |
 |
 Oh, No! Not Another One!
Here's another one, presented by a major western Canadian art auction as a Morrisseau... What do you think of their abilities as art evaluators if they think this is an example of Norval's work? And that this is an example of his signature?
Or did Norval really do this? Are you ready to gamble? It's your money... And art auctioneers will offer you no guarantees once you have paid... |
|
| theCanadaSite.com |
| Copyright Goldi Productions Ltd. - 1996, 1999, 2005 |
Above, ten "n"s from genuine Morrisseaus - each pair from the same canvas - with either, thin and or lifted front legs and pointy or thin tops suggesting a sudden change in brush direction.
The two "n"s from the above canvas depart strongly from these in having a) a pronounced long foreleg, b) a rounded top, and c) a very thick or heavy top. It suggests completely different mechanics - or mechanic - were used to make the last two. Is this an alarm bell or not?
Ask yourself... How much has your signature changed over the years? Besides just getting more sloppy as time passes? Does the tilt or shape of your letters suddenly change, markedly, from alimony cheque to alimony cheque? Or does it not really vary much through time unless you decide on a sudden makeover, you know to go along with your Lexus, or impress your new mistress? To artists, their signature is important to establish and maintain. It's part of who they are, and identifies the paintings they sell. Art buyers would be disturbed to see paintings, ostensibly by the same artist, where the signature varies considerably. So artists don't fool with their copyright signature, unless they do it when they're high on dope, or drunk, which is sometimes the lot of creative spirits, when they see only gloom ahead... Yes, and they paint, and sign paintings, in that disoriented state... Right, is the signature on a painting the McMichaels bought from Norval in 1979. It was not one of Norval's better signatures... But conforms pretty well to what we say below. |
|
|
Norval's signature, see Shaman above, whether vertical or horizontal, should be fluid looking - like yours - not crude, or painted with what looks like workmanlike or shaky precision by a copier. Four of these are Norval's; two are fakes! Compare them to the Shaman, above.
|
  |
Compare the last two symbols, above, on each of his signatures, four of which are taken from bona fide Norval canvases.
And lest you quibble about the yellow signature, remember it has been straightened/tilted to fit this page. Check it out on the big painting on page 1, and you'll see that Norval put in the exact same angles on the symbols when he signed off...
The fake one (on tan) was done thoughtfully, with workmanlike precision, by a klutz who did an "a" first then added a second vertical stroke... And the red "d" is the only one which is decidedly top heavy, not thin pointed like all the others, suggesting a completely different mechanical approach to making that letter.
N The red one may be a new fake - we think... Read on. |
|
Norval's Signature: You Pick the Fake!!!
Note how - on four signatures - the droopy pointer of the "male symbol" aims off to the left, unerringly at the same angle. And doesn't it look like Norval started it at the tip, moved right, and then curled down around, and up, all in a single motion? On two of these characters, above, it looks like a two stroke production - why would Norval depart from the other certified way in making this symbol in his signatures?
The tail on the last "?" also unerringly trails off at the 5:30 position. Which is pretty amazing when you consider that Norval walked up to each canvas on separate occasions yet drew the tail of the last symbol at exactly the same angle each time.
If you're still confused, look at the "backward six" in the middle of the signature. Norval's are xerox copies of each other, done the same way you write your own name, quickly, without thinking, with a convincing motion, finishing at the same angle.
And look at the second symbol, the "sickle." Norval's always tails off as an upstroke, not down, like on the two fake ones.
Now look at some of the other letters in this signature and see how the forger went over some letters twice - to make sure he got them right - and how he made the central "tipi" look more like a two-stroke or round-topped "n" than a Norval inverted "v."
oval is also pretty consistent in where he places the dot on the triangle, virtually dead centre, and out the same distance each time. And his "base line" angles up pretty convincingly to the left, and isn't horizontal at all, like in the fakes. The tan one is a pretty wild overall copy; the red one not that much better.