This is an exhibition about suspected fakes and possible forgeries, about works that cause us to doubt history, experts, and art itself. It is about doubt as an essential part of art attribution, while it is also about how knowledge can transform skepticism into assurance. With a focus on the Thomas P. Whitney Collection, a collection of over six hundred objects housed at the Mead Art Museum, “Art in Doubt” marks the first scholarly presentation of dubious works of Russian and Soviet modern art in the United States. In two parts, the exhibition continues throughout the 2023-24 academic year. Part 1 featured exclusively artworks of disputed authenticity—those with imaginary histories of ownership, unreliable authenticity certificates, misleading signatures, and fabricated artist biographies. Part 2 offers a wider range of artworks whose authenticity has been questioned, some of which are highly dubious and some of which now appear to be genuine.
In the 1960s, Westerners discovered the experimental modern art produced in the Russian Empire and the early Soviet Union, and it soon gained wide popularity among art enthusiasts and professionals of all kinds. This resulted in an unprecedented demand for what was named Russian avant-garde art. Banned in the Soviet Union, these works were extremely hard to find in the West. This lack of available artworks on the market, combined with the lack of knowledge and experts in the field, created ideal conditions for forgers.
Unlike numerous other collectors who were unaware of the scale of the problem, Thomas P. Whitney ‘37 (1917–2007) strove to avoid dubious works as much as possible. The ubiquity of fakes concerned him so much that he considered giving up his passion for collecting entirely. Fortunately, Whitney chose to continue, and he assembled one of the most important private collections of its kind in the West. The collection he donated to Amherst College comprises over six hundred artworks, largely acquired before the Soviet Union’s collapse paved the way to an open art market and a true epidemic of fakes. This timing, paired with Whitney’s careful approach to collecting, has resulted in surprisingly few dubious artworks in his collection.
But, as Whitney knew, some works would still slip through. The current exhibition examines those objects, while displaying them alongside archival documents: correspondence, invoices, and statements made by a number of experts. Put together, they lift the veil on how museum curators approach the task of authenticating the art in their care. In the end, the artworks in the show leave us with new questions: if a fake is good enough to convince us of its authenticity for decades, what do we gain, and what do we lose, once it is exposed? How do we decide what evidence is enough to call a work a fake, or to assert its authenticity? What is the balance between certainty and doubt?
Left: Leon Bakst, formerly attributed to. Costume Design for “The Fairy Doll”, 20th century. Watercolor, ink, pencil on hand-made paper mounted on cardboard. Gift of Thomas P. Whitney (Class of 1937) | Right: Leon Bakst (1866-1924), designer ; unknown lithographer. “The Fairy Doll” from the set of chromalithographed postcards with costumes from the ballet “The Fairy Doll” (Hermitage Theater, 1903). Aleksei Il’in Lithography, Saint Eugenia Congregation Publishing House, Saint Petersburg, 1904.