I'm going to publish this press release exactly as I received it. It's too well written and backed up with legal and moral facts to be messed with:
On page 670 of the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, ''fraud'' is defined as: ''A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment.''
INTRODUCTION
John Lennon died in 1980.
In 1986 Yoko Ono hired individuals (chromists) to create work John
Lennon might have done if he had lived. Yoko Ono then took these black-and-white
reproductions of John Lennon’s black-and-white drawings and misrepresented them as the “Artwork of John Lennon” ie. original printmaking ie.
“lithographs,” “serigraphs,” “woodcuts” and “etchings,” for $500 to $8,000 each.
Shortly thereafter in 1986, when Yoko Ono found out these non-disclosed black-and
white reproductions were not selling quickly at the prices being asked, she had them professionally colorized. Yoko Ono then counterfeited John Lennon’s personal chopmark/signature to each one to create the illusion he either created them, much less approved them.
Fortunately, dead men don’t create art or approve its’ colorization,
much less sign it.
Unfortunately, Yoko Ono and her business associates believe the laws of
nature and the rule of law does not apply to them.
So for the last 19 years (1986 to 2005), Yoko Ono and her business
associates have misrepresented more than 35,000 black-and-white
reproductions and/or colorized fakes as the “Artwork of John Lennon,”
all with a posthumously applied counterfeit John Lennon chopmark/signature,
at $500 to $8,000 each for a gross of over $100 million dollars worth of
fraud.
If you believe Yoko Ono and her business associates, then John Lennon
has created more artwork ie. original printmaking in the last 19 years than
any living artist in the history of man and he’s dead. How’d he do that?
The enclosed press release documents the facts behind this fraud.
Gary Arseneau
artist, printmaker of original lithographs, independent scholar author
*NOTE: No photographs or graphs are displayed in this version of
this Press Release. Footnotes are not elevated and are enclosed with {}.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Why is this so-called Artwork of John Lennon fake?
1. DEAD MEN DON’T CREATE ART
John Lennon died in 1980.
Since 1986, Yoko Ono and her associates have
misrepresented over 35,000 posthumous reproductions as “Artwork of John
Lennon” ie. “lithographs,” “serigraphs,” “etchings” and “woodcuts.”
Dead men don’t create original printmaking.
2. DEAD MEN DON’T SIGN ANYTHING
John Lennon died in 1980. Yet, all the so-called “Artwork of John
Lennon” produced after 1986 have his so-called “chop {mark}” “embossed
signature” applied to it, to create the illusion that he approved it.
Dead men
don’t sign anything.
3. DEAD MEN DON’T NUMBER ANYTHING
John Lennon died in 1980.
Yet, all the so-called “Artwork of John
Lennon” produced after 1986 is in numbered editions with artist proofs. Dead
men don’t number anything, much less have artist proofs.
4.
DEAD MEN DON’T COLORIZE ANYTHING
John Lennon died in 1980. John Lennon’s drawings were in black and
white. In 1986 Yoko Ono began colorizing them.
Dead men don’t approve colorizing.
5. ALL BUT ONE LITHOGRAPH ARE FAKE
With the exception of one lithograph, actually created by John Lennon
himself in 1969, the so-called lifetime Bag One lithographs are actually non-disclosed reproductions.
John Lennon participated in this fraud
when he was alive.
6. CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
7.
NEW YORK CIVIL CODE
8. FLORIDA STATUTES
9. UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
10.
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE
Fraud and Swindles
Precedent
CONCLUSION
FOOTNOTES
BIO
1. DEAD MEN DON’T CREATE ART
On Legacy Production Inc.’s current 2004
www.
johnlennonartwork.com/shows.html website, it states: “The limited
edition artwork in this exhibition consists of lithographs, serigraphs,
and copper etchings, hand-reproduced from the original drawings.
All
reproductions are clearly identified as posthumously created under the
control and supervision of Yoko Ono Lennon.” (underline mine)
“Lithographs,” “serigraphs” and “etchings” are original works of art
created directly by living artists and “reproductions” are copies of
original works of art done by someone else other than the artist.
Obviously, anything posthumously reproduced would be, at best, a reproduction.
U.S. CUSTOMS
This is confirmed in an April 2004 U.
S. Customs Informed Compliance
Publication. In part, it states: “original engravings, prints and
lithographs - means - wholly executed by the artist - excluding any
mechanical or photomechanical process{1}.
”
WHAT IS A REPRODUCTION?
On page 350 in Ralph Mayer’s HarperCollins Dictionary of Art Terms
Techniques, the term “reproduction” is defined as: “A general term for
any copy, likeness, or counterpart of an original work of art or of a
photograph, done in the same medium as the original or in another, and
done by someone other than the creator of the original.”
Therefore, since Legacy Production Inc.
admits John Lennon was dead
when this so-called “artwork” was created, under U.S. Customs, these
posthumously reproduced images could never be considered “artwork” ie.
“original
engravings, prints and lithographs” as misleadingly labeled.
IF JOHN LENNON DIDN’T CREATE THEM, WHO DID?
The majority of these non-disclosed reproductions of John Lennon’s artwork were reproduced by ateliers{2} in Toronto, Canada and imported into the United States.
ATELIER GF
In a September 4, 1998 letter to this author from the Atelier GF “Fine
Art Printer” Robert Game (hired by Yoko Ono to create work John Lennon
might have created if he had lived longer), the chromist (someone who copies
for a living artist or in this case dead) wrote: “In collection of Printer’s
Proofs and have many favourites, some for their artistic, some for technical
solutions. For the John Lennon images, it was interesting to create the
woodblocks for “SAMURAI” or the background for “HE TRIED TO FACE
REALITY.”
(underline mine)
What would the public think if they found out the so-called “Artwork of
John Lennon” ie.
“SAMURAI,” they just purchased, was not created by John
Lennon but by a chromist Robert Game?
* {photograph not shown}
John Lennon’s “chop-mark” “embossed signature?”
(Detail from a so-called John Lennon serigraph titled ‘The Hug{3}”)
2.
DEAD MEN DON’T SIGN ANYTHING.
Another of Yoko Ono’s business associates Pacific Edge Gallery, on
their website{4}, states: “In 1986, Yoko Ono, acting for the John Lennon
Estate, began releasing limited editions of some of the most meaningful
drawings, using only fine art printing techniques - Each limited edition fine art
print is authenticated by John Lennon's embossed signature, the embossed
printer and publisher's mark, Yoko Ono Lennon's hand-signature, and
John's personal chop mark.” (underline mine)
WHAT IS A CHOP-MARK?
Additionally, on Pacific Edge Gallery’s website, it defines a “chop
mark” as: “Artists in the Orient sign their works with an individual,
patented stamp known as a chop. John Lennon's, which is hand-stamped in red on
each edition, was designed by him to read "Like a Cloud, Beautiful Sound."
(underline mine)
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SIGNATURE SIGN?
On page 1387 in the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, the
term “signature” is defined as: “A person’s name or mark written by that
person or at the person’s direction.” On page 1386, in the Seventh Edition of
Black’s Law Dictionary, “sign” is defined as: “to identify (a record)
by means of a signature, mark, or other symbol with the intent to
authenticate it as an act or agreement of the person identifying it.”
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AUTHENTICATE?
On page 127 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, “authenticate”
is defined as: “To prove the genuineness of (a thing).”
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF GENUINE?
On page 695 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, “genuine”
is defined as: “(Of a thing) authentic or real; something that has the
quality of what it is purported to be.
”
Since John Lennon died tragically in 1980, in 1986 his so-called
“embossed signature” and “chop {mark}” could not have been “written by {him} or
at {his} direction” to “authenticate” anything.
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF “COUNTERFEIT?”
On page 354, in the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary,
“counterfeit” is defined as: “To forge, copy, or imitate (something) without a right
to do so and with the purpose of deceiving or defrauding.
”
Therefore, would the posthumous application of a so-called “John
Lennon’s embossed signature” and “chop {mark},” to non-disclosed fakes, be
considered “counterfeit?”
* {photograph not shown}
(Detail from a so-called John Lennon serigraph titled ‘The Hug{5}”)
3. DEAD MEN DON’T NUMBER ANYTHING.
On Yoko Ono’s business associate Legacy Production Inc.’s 2005
website{6}, it states: “The limited edition artwork in this exhibition consists of
lithographs, serigraphs, and copper etchings, hand-reproduced from the
original drawings.” (underline mine)
Additionally, on page one of Yoko Ono’s published 1991 “Artwork of
John Lennon” catalogue, it states: “During 1986 Yoko Ono Lennon decided to
share John’s artistic genius with the public by publishing the first series
of prints entitled “This is My Story Both Humble and True”, followed in
1988 with “Bag One Continued.
..” and the “Dakota Days.
” On page 25, it
states:
“The edition size on all the prints is 300, with 25 A.P.’s, with the
exception of #35 which has 150 prints with 25 A.
P.’s.” (underline mine)
U.
S. COPYRIGHT LAW - WORK OF VISUAL ART
Under U.S.
Copyright Law 101. Definitions, a “work of visual art” is
defined as: “a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a
single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are
consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author.” (underline mine)
Once again, since John Lennon died tragically in 1980, in 1986 this
so-called “artwork” could not have been “consecutively numbered by
{John Lennon},” much less “bear {his} signature.
”
In otherwords, under U.S. Copyright Law, if John Lennon did not create
them, number them and signed them, they would not be considered a “work of
visual art” by him.
TWENTY-FIVE ARTIST PROOFS
As documented earlier, in 1986 Yoko Ono also began offering for sale,
as part of these so-called “limited edition{s},” “25” so-called “A.P.s”
ie.
artist proofs.
WHAT IS AN ARTIST PROOF?
On page 22 of Ralph Mayer’s 1991 The Harper Collins Art Terms
Techniques Dictionary, “artist proof” is defined as: “one of the PROOFS in a
LIMITED EDITIONS of ORIGINAL PRINTS.
An artist’s proof must bear the artist’s
signature or mark and, since the early 20th century, is usually numbered.”
Aside that these so-called “A.P.
’s” ie. artist proofs, reproduced after
John Lennon’s death, would not have “{John Lennon’s} signature or mark,”
how could anyone promote with a straight face that a dead artist could
proof anything?
WHAT IS A “FAKE?
”
On page 617 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, the term
“fake” is defined as: “Something that is not what it purports to be.”
4. DEAD MEN DON’T COLORIZE ANYTHING.
On Yoko Ono’s business associates Legacy Production Inc.’s old 2002
website{7}, it states: “The OnoLennon collaborations is still taking
place. Yoko has blended her art with John's in the color renditions within
this collection.
She personally hand-colors maquettes of the original drawings,
from which the atelier reproduces the shading for the final editions.”
(underline mine)
ENHANCE THE MEANING OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS
On Pacific Edge Gallery’s 2005 www.lennonart.
com/lennonas.htm website,
it states: “Continuing a collaboration that was at the heart of their
relationship throughout their life together, Yoko Ono, a world-renowned
artist herself, chose colors that she felt would enhance the meaning of
the original drawings.” (underline mine)
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF “COLLABORATE?
”
On page 66 in the Webster New World Pocket Dictionary, “collaborate” is
defined as: “to work together.”
WORK OF VISUAL ART EXCLUDES COPIES THAT ARE COLLABORATIVE
The Visual Artist’s Rights Act (H.R.
bill 5316), which amended the
Copyright Act of 1976, was signed into law on December 1, 1990. In the 1995 The
Visual Artist’s Business and Legal Guide compiled and edited by Gregory T.
Victoroff, Esq.
, attorney Katherine M. Thompson specifically addresses
issue of “collaboration” in the 1990 Visual Artist’s Rights Act. On
page 28, the attorney writes: “The VARA amends the Copyright Act to create a
definition for a “work of visual art.
” According to Section 602, -excluded
are items - that generally exist in multiple copies and are
collaborative in nature.” (underline mine)
In otherwords, you can’t collaborate with the dead.
So what was the real motivation behind the posthumous colorization of
reproductions of John Lennon’s black and white drawings?
YOKO ONO CRITICIZED FOR ADDING COLOR
In the July 16, 1997 Detroit News “in loving color: Lennon art with an
Ono flair -- comes to Ann Arbor” article by Art Critic Joy Hakanson Colby,
Yoko Ono describes the actual events that led to the colorizing of the
so-called John Lennon “lithographs” and “screenprints.” It first quotes Yoko as
stating: “Yes, I’ve been criticized for adding color to John’s
black-and-white drawings,” she acknowledges, “but when I explain why it
happened, people usually understand.”
Did Yoko Ono really plan all along that the posthumous colorizing of
John Lennon’s black-and-white drawings to “enhance the meaning of the
original drawings?
”
COLORIZING LENNON’S DRAWINGS WOULD COMMAND ATTENTION
The article continues: “Ono has been touring Lennon’s lithographs and
screenprints for the last 10 years, making the work available to the
public that reveres him as a musician and raising money for charitable causes.
Bookings are handled by a team of organizers who want to give the work
as much visibility as possible. When a gallery wanted to display one of
Lennon’s prints in the window to advertise the show inside, it was
determined that the little black-and-white line drawing was too slight
to command attention.
Ono was informed that color would achieve the
desired effect.” (underline mine)
YOKO ONO A PURIST UP TILL 1986?
Yoko Ono is quoted as stating: “I was shocked when they showed me a
drawing that had been colored in terrible, screaming hues.
I told them what
they had done was sacrilege,” Ono recalls. - Up to that point I had been a
purist. But I figured if some of John’s drawings needed color, I’d do it
myself.
”
(underline mine)
In otherwords, the real motivation for the posthumous colorization of
reproductions of John Lennon’s black-and-white drawings was because
they couldn’t sell them. The bologna about “enhancing {their} meaning” is
just part of a larger cover-up to sell these non-disclosed fakes at $500 to
$8,000 or more each to the unsuspecting public.
* {photograph not shown}
“1970 LENNON BAG ONE SHOW BOOK{8}”
www.
strawberrywalrus.com/johnyoko.html
5.
ALL BUT ONE LITHOGRAPH ARE FAKE.
John Lennon only created one lithograph in his life (1969) known as the
“frontspiece{9}. All other so-called “Bag One” lithographs made during
his lifetime were actually non-disclosed reproduction/posters reproduced by
the Curwin Studios in England.
ANTHONY FAWCETT, PERSONAL ASSISTANT TO JOHN LENNON
This is confirmed in Anthony Fawcett’s published 1976 book titled: One
Day At A Time. The former art critic Anthony Fawcett worked full time as a
personal assistant to John Lennon and Yoko Ono, “running their office,
organizing their daily schedules, cataloging their writings and
films{10}” from early 1969 till May 1970. The following excerpts, from his book,
document John Lennon only created one lithograph in his life.
JOHN LENNON DRAWINGS REPRODUCED
On page 164, the Anthony Fawcett writes: “John would be able to draw or
paint in his usual manner. The images could later be transferred from
the paper onto sensitized zinc plates by means of an advanced technical
process, and the lithographs printed in the traditional way.” (underline mine)
Once again, under U.
S. Customs regulations, a lithograph must be
“wholly executed by the artist” and “excluding any mechanical and
photomechanical process.” Therefore, the transfer of John Lennon’s original drawings
and paintings to “sensitized zinc plates” and the subsequent printing would
be reproductions and not “lithographs” as misunderstood by Anthony
Fawcett.
JOHN LENNON CREATES ONE LITHOGRAPH IN HIS LIFETIME
This is additionally confirmed, on page 171, when Anthony Fawcett
writes:
“John became more involved, in his on and off way, and came to visit
Curwen Studio to see the printing process in action. While there, he created
the image for the frontispiece, a simple sketch of himself crouched on the
ground holding Yoko, which he drew directly onto a zinc plate.”
(underline
mine)
YOKO ONO CONFIRMS LENNON ONLY CREATED ONE LITHOGRAPH
This is confirmed by Yoko Ono in the January 11 -January 17, 1996
Tucson Weekly published “Matisse, Picasso --And Lennon?
{11}” article by
Margaret Regan. In the article, the reporter wrote: “Lennon himself made only
one lithograph in his life that she knows of, Ono says.”
In otherwords, in 1969 John Lennon, for “forty pounds each or five
hundred and fifty pounds each for set,{12}” misrepresented over 3,000
reproductions of his drawings as “lithographs.
” Some thirty-six years later, these
non-disclosed reproductions{13}, are still being misrepresented as
“John Lennon lithographs” by Yoko Ono and her business associates Legacy
Production Inc. and Pacific Edge Gallery.
6.
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
In the State of California under California Civil Code 1741-1745, it
states:
"California law provides for disclosure in writing of information
concerning - whether the multiple is a reproduction” {when} “offered
for sale or sold at wholesale or retail for one hundred dollars ($100) or
more, exclusive of any frame.”
The potential penalties for violation of California Civil Code statutes
may include but not limited to “refund”, “interest”, “treble damages”,
“court costs”, “expert witness fees”, “attorney fees” and potential $1,000
fine per occurrence.
This “Artwork of John Lennon” exhibit is run by “Legacy Productions
Inc.
” company located at 632 Third Street Santa Rosa, California 95404.
So the two questions are: “Does Legacy Production Inc. give full and
honest disclosure to reproductions as “reproductions,” as required by law, in
California and not in other states or does Legacy Production Inc.
not
give full and honest disclosure to reproductions in California as well as in
other states?”
7. NEW YORK CIVIL CODE
Under New York Civil Code 15.
01 (2.) states: “Article fifteen of the
New York arts and cultural affairs law provides for disclosure in writing
of certain information concerning multiples of prints and photographs when
sold for more than one hundred dollars ($100) - whether the multiple is a
reproduction.”
The penalties for violation of New York Civil Code statutes under 15.
15
may include but not limited to “refund”, “treble damages”, “court costs”,
“expert witness fees”, “attorney fees” and not to mention potential
civil fines.
In the State of New York under New York Civil Code 11.01, the term
“counterfeit” is defined as: “a work of fine art or multiple made,
altered or copied, with or without intent to deceive, in such a manner that it
appears or is claimed to have an authorship which it does not in fact
possess.
”
Yoko Ono’s company Bag One Arts Inc. is located at 110 West 79th
Street, New
York, NY 10024-6402.
Therefore, the question is: “Are Yoko Ono and her business associates
“alter{ing}” the non-disclosed reproductions, in the so-called “Artwork
of John Lennon,” “in such a manner that it appears or is claimed to have
an authorship which it does not in fact possess?
”
8. FLORIDA STATUTES
Under Florida Statutes 817.034 “Florida Communications Fraud Act” under
“DEFINITIONS” (3d), it states: "Scheme to defraud" means a systematic,
ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud one or more persons,
or with intent to obtain property from one or more persons by false or
fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises or willful misrepresentations of a future act.
”
The potential penalties for such conduct, under ”OFFENSES “(4),
states: “(a) Any person who engages in a scheme to defraud and obtains
property thereby is guilty of organized fraud, punishable as follows: 1. If the
amount of property obtained has an aggregate value of $50,000 or more,
the violator is guilty of a felony of the first degree, punishable as
provided in s. 775.
082, s. 775.083, or s.
775.084. 2.
If the amount of property
obtained has an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, but less than
$50,000, the violator is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as
provided in s. 775.082, s.
775.083, or s. 775.
084. 3. If the amount of
property obtained has an aggregate value of less than $20,000, the
violator is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.
083, or s. 775.084.
”
Would the sale of non-disclosed reproductions, in the State of Florida
and misrepresented as the “Artwork of John Lennon for $500 to $8,000 or
more each,” be considered a "scheme to defraud?"
9. UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
In September 1998 Art World News trade magazine, the attorney Paul
Winick (partner in the New York office of Thelen, Marrin, Johnson Bridges),
who
specializes in intellectual property law, litigation and represents
galleries, publishers and artists, wrote the article Certificates of
Authenticity: Dealer Liability.
In his article he explains the application of the Uniform Commercial
Code as
it applies to the “sales of most forms of visual art.” The author
writes:
“UCC express warranty arises from two sources: The description of the
goods
given by the seller, and the seller statements made to induce the
sale.”
Those statements are said to become part of the “basis of the bargain”
made
between buyer and seller and, therefore, a basis for legal action if
the
description or statements turn out later to have been false.
”
“Warranties need not depend on the sale document and can arise in
statements made in advertisements or catalogues, so long as the buyer relied on
those statements in formulating the bargain with the seller.” (underline
mine)
The author continues by writing: “Warranties are applicable regardless
of fault or intent. It is no defense that the seller did not mean to make
a misstatement, or that he thought the misstatement to be true.
If the
goods (the artwork) do not conform to the promise made (the warranty), the
seller is liable, whether or not he knew it to be true.”
When it comes to “disclaimers”, Paul Winick writes: “Disclaimers are
not viewed favorably by courts and, unless there is some way to reconcile
the disclaimer and the representation, the disclaimer is disregarded and
the representation is given effect.”
REPRESENTATION DOES NOT MATCH DISCLOSURE
Yoko Ono and her business associate Legacy Production Inc.
’s
“representation,” of their so-called “Artwork of John Lennon,” does not
match their “disclosure” on their website. (underline mine)
On Legacy Production Inc.’s 2005 website, it states: “The limited
edition artwork in this exhibition consists of lithographs, serigraphs, and
copper etchings, hand-reproduced from the original drawings.
All reproductions
are clearly identified as posthumously created under the control and
supervision of Yoko Ono Lennon.” (underline mine)
For the Yoko Ono and her business associate Legacy Production Inc. to
make a “representation” in the title of this exhibit “artwork” then make the
“disclosure” hidden in the small print of their website that in reality
the so-called “artwork” was posthumous “reproductions,” as if these
concepts were interchangeable, would be, at best, a “non-sequitur{14}.
”
WHAT IS FRAUD?
Once again, on page 670 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law
Dictionary, “fraud” is defined as: “A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or
concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment.”
Would a Yoko Ono and her business associates Legacy Production Inc.
and
Pacific Edge Gallery misrepresentation a posthumous reproductions as
“artwork” be committing fraud ie. “a knowing misrepresentation of the
truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or
her detriment?”
10.
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE
In Section 1341, Fraud and Swindles of the UNITED STATES POSTAL
INSPECTION SERVICE, it states: “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any
scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by
means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation or promises, or to
sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or
furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin,
obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated
or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of
executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any
post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing
whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or
causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to sent or delivered by
any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives
therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by
mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the
place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is
addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial
institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or
imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.”
PRECEDENT
In the March 17, 2004 News-10-Now’s “US Attorney’s Office investigates
art fraud” story by Carmen Grant (news10now.
com/content/all_news/?ArID=
12317 SecID=83), Assistant U.S.
Attorney Lisa Fletcher is quoted as
stating:
“What we found is that Anthony Marone and William Yager conspired with
one
another, since at least as far back as 1999, to post on ebay for
auction works of art that they represented to be original by original famous
artists, and what they actually sold was counterfeit works of art. By
doing that they committed several federal offenses including conspiracy to
commit wire fraud and mail fraud.”
Would Yoko Ono’s and her business associates Legacy Production Inc.
’s
and Pacific Edge Gallery’s promotion and sale of non-disclosed
reproductions as the “Artwork of John Lennon” through their websites be considered “wire
fraud?”
CONCLUSION
What needs to be accomplished is the full and honest disclosure of
“reproductions” as “reproductions” by the Yoko Ono, her business
associates Legacy Production Inc. and Pacific Edge Gallery.
If the Yoko Ono and
all other participants, in this fraud, will give full and honest disclosure
to these chromist-made (someone hired to create an image for the artist)
and/or photo-mechanical reproductions as: “reproductions”, it would allow the
public to give informed consent if they chose to purchase one of these
“reproductions.”
But if these “objects” are not “reproductions” or copies of the
artist’s original artwork but posthumously colorized “fakes” or “something that
is not what it purports to be” with counterfeit signatures or chop-marks
posthumously applied then serious consequences of law may come into
play for those who chose to misrepresent these “fakes” for profit.
The reputations and legacy of living and past artists, present and
future art gallery patrons and the art-buying public deserve the
re-establishment of the obvious; that the living presence and participation of the
artist to once again be required, as it always should have been, to create the
piece of art attributable to the artist if indeed it is attributed to them,
much less purported to have been signed by them.
FOOTNOTES:
1. Works of Art, Collector’s Pieces Antiques, and Other Cultural
Property *
An Informed Compliance Publication * U.S.
Customs April 2004 “The
expression
“original engravings, prints and lithographs” means impressions
produced
directly, in black and white or in color, of one or of several plates
wholly
executed by the artist, irrespective of the process or of the material
employed by him, but excluding any mechanical or photomechanical
process.”
2. ROBERT GAME .
SUSAN FARQUHAR . FINE ART PRINTERS 512 LANSDOWNE
AVENUE
TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA M6H 3Y3 TEL/FAX 416 588-7399
3.
http://cgi.
ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
ViewItem category=20148 item=3774421395
rd=1
4. www.lennon art.
com/lennonas.htm Pacific Edge Gallery
5.http://cgi.
ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
ViewItem category=20148 item=3774421395 rd=1
6. www.johnlennonartwork.
com/shows.html
7. www.
johnlennonartwork.com/frame.html Legacy Production Inc’s old
2002
website
8.
Original 8 1/2"x11", 20 page booklet for the February 7 through
February 28, 1970 show held at the Lee Nordness Galleries in New York. Each
lithograph is shown (one per page). This was the set that John gave to
Yoko after their honeymoon.
The lithographs were issued in a limited edition
of just 300 each. Shows some age yellowing around the edges. $40.
00
+shipping”
9. Page 171, Anthony Fawcett’s 1976 One Day At A Time (ISBN
0-8021-4333-4
Copyright © by Anthony Fawcett)
10. Page 11 Introduction Anthony Fawcett’s 1976 One Day At A Time
(ISBN
0-8021-4333-4 Copyright © by Anthony Fawcett)
11.
www.tucsonweekly.com/tw/01-11-96/review1.
htm
12. page 172 One Day At A Time by Anthony Fawcett ISBN 0-394-17754-1
13. “BAG ONE 1969 -Bag One, Honeymoon, I Do, Exchange of Rings, John
Yoko, Erotic #1, Erotic #2, Erotic #3, Erotic #4, Erotic #5, Erotic #6,
Erotic #7, Erotic #8” (Legacy Production Inc.
’s
www.johnlennonartwork.com/price.
html website)
14. On page 1080 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary,
“non-sequitur” is defined as: “An inference or conclusion that does not
logically follow from the premises.”
BIO:
An independent scholar, Gary Arseneau has authored and self-published
the
books The Monument to Victor Hugo DECEPTION, The marketing and profit
of
“inauthentic” and “counterfeit” Degas Bronzes, Casting Doubt and The
Gates
of Hell, Are these really Rodins?
Additionally, as an artist and printmaker of original lithographs, Gary
Arseneau has published and distributed worldwide dozens of press
releases documenting the misrepresentation of reproductions as original
printmaking. These include, but not limited to, the misrepresentation of
photo-mechanicaland/or chromist-made reproductions as the “Art of Dr. Seuss,” “Artwork of John Lennon,” “Norman Rockwell lithographs,” “Jerry Garcia lithographs” and “Thomas Kinkade lithographs.
”
Gary Arseneau’s allegations of art fraud have been published by dozens
of newspapers and magazines around the world, including but not limited
to, Art Auction, London Times, Wall Street Journal, Australian Financial
Review, Globe and Mail (Toronto) and Winston Salem Journal. Additionally,
television news affiliates in Minneapolis (Minnesota), Detroit (Michigan),
Jacksonville (Florida), Tulsa (Oklahoma), Buffalo (New York) and others have
televised news stories of art fraud as documented by Gary Arseneau.
Furthermore, he participated as one of the featured speakers in the
November 2001 “Rodin” symposium held at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto,
Canada.
At this symposium, Gary Arseneau documented that seventeen of the 18
so-called “Rodins,” on exhibit at the ROM from the MacLaren Art
Centre, were fake with counterfeit signatures applied.
On the November 7, 2001, the Globe and Mail newspaper published the
“Rodin at ROM are fakes, art sleuth tells symposium” article by James Adams.
The reporter wrote that the senior curator of the MacLaren/ROM exhibition
David Schaff “called Mr.
Arseneau’s line of reasoning “a reductio ad
absurdum” and said the Floridian used definitions and legal precedents that
“disenfranchise” earlier, valid viewpoints while denying the legitimate
pleasures to be had from the MacLaren collections.”
Gary Arseneau has taken the common sense perspective that “dead men
don’t create art.” To refute this, some in the museum and auction house
industry have spoken out against him.
For example, in a January 13, 2002 Grand
Rapids Press published “Rodin exhibit dogged by challenge to several works’
originality” article by Pat Shellenbarger, in response to Gary
Arseneau’s remark that “dead people don’t make art,” senior vice-president of
Sotheby’s John Tancock is quoted as stating: “he’s 100 percent wrong.” In an
earlier
August 31, 2001 Las Vegas Sun published “Rodin exhibit reopens lively
authenticity debate, Can bronzes cast after death of artist be called
original?” article by Kimberley McGee, this same senior vice-president
of Sotheby’s is quoted stating: “you have to get away from focusing on the
fact that they are posthumous.
”
The general consensus by the some in the museum industry was summed up
by the North Carolina Museum of Art’s curator of sculpture David Steel in
a July 16, 2000 Winston Salem Journal published “A Question of Ethics”
article by Tom Patterson. The article published Gary Arseneau’s allegations
that 66 of the so-called “Rodins,” in a North Carolina Museum of Art exhibit,
were fake. In the article, it is written: “For his part, Steel said he
doesn’t see Arseneau’s point, and he went on to speak frankly about his anger
at Arseneau for his perseverance in making it.
Referring to Arseneau as
“obnoxious” and “a maniac,” he said that within the field of Rodin
collectors and scholars, “he’s pissed everybody off.”
In closing, Gary Arseneau believes the living presence of the artist is
required to create art much less to sign it. And he backs it up when he
writes about these contentious issues of authenticity by using
independent definitions he didn’t define, statutory law he didn’t legislate and
historical documented references he didn’t published to reach the
obvious factual conclusion that dead men don’t create art, much less sign it.
PRESS RELEASE
February 1, 2005 (amended February 2, 2005)
from: Gary Arseneau
Ribault’s Gallery of Fine Art
319 Centre Street
Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034
(904) 321-0021
gwarseneau@hotmail.com
News RSS