Visual inspectionTheresa Franks, Fine Art Registry, Theresa Franks' partner John C. Golfis, Thomas Hanley, Pat A. Wertheim, Larry Rooney
and
Jackson Pollock's paint can
---
by
Peter Paul Biro
of
Forensic Studies in Art
Fingerprints in the Art Authentication Process
To start, allow me to say a few words about my work and past experience.
I have been pioneering and developing the methodology to successfully utilize forensic evidence left behind by artists on their creations. Some 20 years ago I broke the ice with the first ever use of fingerprint science in art authentication with the identification of a painting by J. M. W. Turner by successfully matching a fingerprint left in the painted surface with one on an undisputed painting by Turner. Since then, I have identified numerous other works by major artists and I have been building the world's first ever database of artists' fingerprints with now close to 2000 impressions.
Successfully utilizing fingerprints on works of art requires considerably more than the typical knowledge of the fingerprint examiner working in law enforcement. It requires a thorough understanding of the artistic process as well as the materials artists used in the ages past to the present. It also requires a comprehensive background in art conservation, imaging techniques, image analysis and interpretation. Also, the types of chemical development techniques of latent fingerprints currently used by law enforcement have no place in this new discipline because many of them are destructive processes. Only non-destructive and non-invasive methods can be used on works of art . Thus my heavy reliance on imaging, special-technique imaging as well as digital image processing that are so vitally important.
My background is principally in art conservation going back some 35 years. My experience in fingerprint work spans about 20 years. Parallel with these, I am a microscopist in both optical and electron microscopy and an experienced imaging specialist and a leading innovator in that field.
My laboratory is equipped for investigations that go beyond the depth and scope of the capabilities of fingerprint examiners. In addition, the laboratory is equipped with an imaging system capable of Gigabit resolution in hyperspectral imaging surpassing any camera in existence today. The instrument was developed and built here in the lab and it is the only one of its kind in the world. It allows investigations with such high resolution that from a whole view of a large painting one can zoom in on a pigment particle. This unique capability that I developed is highly important in my methodology. In contrast, the photographic equipment of today's fingerprint examiners cannot resolve details that are required in this new field of fine art forensics. That lack can lead to dreadful mistakes in judgment.
Perhaps the best way to demonstrate how fingerprint evidence plays a part in authenticity issues is an actual case example. The following is also an excellent illustration of how even respected and experienced fingerprint examiners can make far-reaching errors because of their lack of knowledge of the art object, the creative process, the paintings' conservation history and its physical/chemical makeup. Thus a strong multidisciplinary background is vital.
As an analogy, a crime scene is much the way in which one approaches forensic evidence on a painting - it has its timeline, embedded history and unique context. Thus, approaching a painting has its own special requirements just as a crime scene does. This is a fundamental requirement if one is to produce reliable work.
My approach always rests on an initial and complete examination of the artwork to ascertain its conservation history first. This includes:
Visual inspection
Ultra high resolution imaging with special techniques such as ultraviolet
fluorescence, ultraviolet reflectance, infrared reflectance, infrared
luminescence, etc
Illumination and transillumination techniques
Inspection under magnification with stereo microscopy and compound microscopy
Sampling and examination of the materials that comprise the artwork
Inspection of pigment samples to check for possible anachronisms
Once the results of these examinations are analyzed, the conservation history of the piece can be mapped out. Forensic evidence can then be evaluated and its relationship correctly understood with respect to the work of art. For example, fingerprints may be left by restorers and conservators in later interventions with the object. It is therefore fundamental that even before forensic evidence is evaluated and a conclusion rendered, the painting's conservation history must be understood. As I mentioned before, the background and training required to correctly implement this methodology are outside of the realm of a fingerprint examiner’s training. To establish this, consider how fingerprint examiners approach fingerprint evidence on a work of art.
The present case - synopsis
About four years ago, a large painting was brought to my laboratory by a Mr. Ken Parker from the United States. He described himself as a well-to-do individual and stated his profession to be a private investigator. He described the painting's history and the problems he faced in bringing it to market. The painting was in a deteriorated condition having suffered water damage, punctures and general mishandling. I described what I could do for him in both respects - exploring the possibility of authentication, and, the substantial conservation/restoration work the painting needed. The picture is painted in the manner of the famed American Abstract Expressionist Jackson Pollock. The painting went through a full examination and fingerprints were found. These fingerprints were compared to fingerprints I documented in Pollock's studio now called The Pollock-Krasner House and Study Center on Long Island, New York. After careful study I concluded that the clearest fingerprint on the object matched with a fingerprint on a blue paint can in the collection of the Pollock-Krasner House and Study Center. I issued a report of my findings and the painting was returned to the owner.
The case - in more detail
In 2007, a Theresa Franks and her partner John C. Golfis, who appear to own and operate and internet based commerce, hired a fingerprint examiner by the name of Thomas Hanley from East Middlebury, Vermont, to conduct a 'peer review' of the by then much talked-about painting belonging to Teri Horton. Horton refused to cooperate with Theresa Franks on grounds that her case is “none of Franks' business” and Franks being an art dealer with a commercial agenda cannot possibly be impartial. Naturally, I respected Horton’s wishes.
Since early 2007, Theresa Franks has been busy attempting to intercept my clients by publishing malicious internet postings. Ken Parker, a client of mine, walks onto the stage set by Franks who then hires Tomas Hanley to examine my work, this time on Parker's painting. Later on in 2007, she hires yet another examiner - Pat Wertheim. Neither examiner requested my cooperation.
In hindsight, I would have cooperated with Parker and both of the examiners had it not been for a published report that implicated Theresa Franks in an art forgery and conspiracy to defraud (see the notes at the end of this presentation). I then knew what probable outcome to expect from the subterfuge ‘peer review’ she financed likely with John C. Golfis convicted criminal. Theresa Franks and the Fine art Registry along with co-defendants like David C. Phillips are just sued in two states so far, for defamation, tortuous interference and conspiracy: http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/04/22/_Fine_Art_Registry_Accused_Of_Defamation.htm. The Complaint's full text can be found here: http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/04/22/FineArtHoohah.pdf.
Upon some initial investigation of the owner of the Fine Art Registry some alarming associations come to light. In November 2007, Fine Art Registry partnered with Gamut Control LLC. The latter company's owner is allegedly John C. Golfis, a convicted felon who served time for wire fraud and is also a listed sex offender. The relevant link is here: http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/28267/, The Texas Department of Safety arrest record is DPS 03576577. The sex offender listing is at https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/DPS_WEB/Sor/index.aspx?PageIndex=Display&SID=03576577 . Theresa Franks has publically admitted to her partnering With John C,. Golfis, a wanted criminal with a huge record. The "writer" for hire or blogger David C. Phillips who masquerades under various pseudonyms and pretends to be a "journalist" on the FAR and other web sites has also been well aware. Biro and others are now commissioning investigations of their actions and claims. The presence of a large number of highly dubious works by major artists as "by" on the FAR web site is nothing short of alarming. Peter Paul Biro is taking his time to conduct an full independent investigation. Stay Tuned.
The information on the above links will shed some light on who the source of these internet publications and press releases are as well as the motives behind them. This will too: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/internet-company-and-its-owner-in-default-in-michigan-lawsuit,432715.shtml
The backdrop
Both examiners published their reports on Theresa Franks’ website that she calls the Global Fine Art Registry - FAR for short. The business Franks conducts appears to be one of an art dealership. As far as I could tell, the appearance of the huge web site is quite deceiving as she is reportedly running the operation by herself out of her home. The writers and 'columnists' she uses are harvested from her internet postings looking for commercial writers-for-hire with an 'irreverent' take for a fee. Frank's web site also hosts comments signed by aliases (some quite recognizable and paid by Franks) who make arguably libellous and defamatory statements. Franks plies her trade by selling tags to apparently fledgling artists who buy into her antics. Her product - tags you can stick on your painting, are represented as some idea to authenticate them. The artists, who no doubt provide plenty of personal information and credit card numbers to purchase her stickers are blissfully unaware that they could better protect their paintings for free simply by using their own unique marks - their own fingerprints. Franks' perception of the threat of a free alternative to her scheme now becomes clear - as do her motives. If her clients used their own fingerprints Franks' business would likely suffer. They could have themselves fingerprinted for free and their records would be kept by law enforcement – in effect replacing the need for Franks’ registry altogether. Such is the backdrop to Theresa Franks' 'independent peer review' behind which lies a clear issue of simple business competition. Most recently, with another report, she claims that the fingerprints on Parker's painting were made by a rubber stamp.
To appreciate and understand the fallacy and mean spirited nature of that accusation, as well as the misinformation she has been spreading, the reader only needs to examine the actual reports by her fingerprint examiners. These are not complicated matters as any person called to jury duty has to deal with fingerprint evidence.
The Hanley report, October 10, 2007
Hanley's report - see the FAR web site - is essentially inconclusive. It describes the exemplar on the blue paint can as several impressions partially overlapping. More specifically, he describes the print as two touches and states that it lacks sufficient detail to individualize. This is important because the later report by Pat Wertheim describes it as one fingerprint - not two! (Hanley in fact published 3 separate reports on the FAR web site. Two of them now appear to be blank PDF pages.) Hanley's work includes some substandard photography, an image that appears out of focus and reproductions of my photography down-sampled to a level as to make one wonder why.
So, who is right? Hanley considers the print unusable for individualization. Wertheim considers it usable. Hanley stated that the prints do not match. Wertheim says they match. These are hugely important points because such contradictions by two examiners are beyond perplexing. Logically, at least one of the reports has to be thrown out as both cannot be right. I chose to discard both.
Wertheim’s report, March 14, 2008
Wertheim's report, contrary to Hanley's, is conclusive. Wertheim concludes that the print on the blue can is indeed a match to the print on Parker's painting thus contradicting Hanley's conclusions. Hanley notes differences between the blue paint can print and the one on Parker's painting. Wertheim does not. This situation thus rules out a rubber cast to duplicate the print because a rubber cast would pick up an exact copy of the blue paint can print along with every detail of the paint can’s surface as both these examiners demonstrated by actually making three casts from the can. These are contradictions and discrepancies neither examiner made any effort to resolve or even mention.
Wertheim, contrary to Hanley, declared the blue paint can print and the Parker prints a match! He then takes a huge turn and declares the fingerprint on Parker's painting a forgery made by a rubber stamp. Meanwhile, the blue can in the Pollock-Krasner House quietly sits in a Plexiglas display case inaccessible to anyone without the permission of the museum's Director, Helen Harrison.
As I stated before, working with fingerprints in connection with works of art is not a task where the usual expertise of a fingerprint examiner guarantees the correct results. In this case, Wertheim’s lack of knowledge of artists’ techniques actually created his fundamentally erroneous conclusion. Examine the image below. This is his own photograph of the print from the edge of the canvas of the Parker painting. He is overlooking a most important piece of evidence that proves him wrong! This is where the timeline of the painter's creative process becomes critical. In the image below, look for droplets of paint that are directly on top of the fingerprint impression. Especially the larger black droplet in the lower left. This is clear indication that the print was left while the painting was still being created and thus rules out a later application.
But, Wertheim’s report has more problems than that. There is another fingerprint in this area of the painting which he did not report - as reproduced below on my photo, as indicated with a red arrow on the left. This print is partially covered with grey paint, paint that you can also find in close proximity of the two prints. I examined these areas under the microscope and found that without any doubt the fingerprint is partially covered with paint. From this image below, one gets a better understanding of what is happening on this canvas in terms of the creative process and the relationship of the prints to the painting process. It is clear that both of these prints already existed when the painting was being created. This also rules out the rubber stamp theory.
Neither examiner reported on this fingerprint on the left in this image below. My question is: why not?
On the basis of the foregoing, my position is that there is enough evidence that the rubber stamp theory can be discarded. But, being thorough, let us examine the Wertheim report more closely especially his 8 criteria by which he comes to his conclusion on page 22 of his report. He tables a ‘yes - no’ list of his answers to his questions. Interestingly he omits a column for ‘other possible explanations’. Let us look at them in his sequence. The reader will need his report open at page 22.
Wertheim's reasoning is thus fundamentally flawed and his final conclusion invalid.
Other observation/evidence contradicting Wertheim’s conclusions
Wertheim's report suffers from inconsistencies and internal contradictions. For example, on page 20 of his report he states that the print on Parker's painting can not be individualized to Jackson Pollock. Right above this statement he individualizes the print to Jackson Pollock in the caption of the illustration!
Another significant flaw in the Wertheim report is that his casts did actually pick up the fine cracks in the paint on the paint can. These fine cracks do not appear on any of the Parker prints. Why not? Where did they go? He demonstrates trapped air bubbles in his own cast which are as small or smaller that the cracks in the paint. How did the alleged rubber stamp 'selectively' preserve features of one type but not another while being of comparable dimensions? If the prints on the Parker painting had been made from a cast such as Hanley and Wertheim made, the cracks would logically and certainly be visible in the impressions made from his cast. And, in fact he does demonstrate it as the fine cracks are clearly visible on the impression he made from his own cast. The surface characteristics and topography as present on the blue paint can print and in Wertheim’s cast - additional to the fingerprint itself - are not evident in any of the Parker prints.
Wertheim also neglected to take into consideration the surface topography of the substrates that the Parker prints were left on. He refers to ‘small irregular voids’ on page 21 of his report and compares those with flaws in his cast and bases a good part of his argument for a rubber stamp on that. But, what is the relationship? The positions of the ‘voids’ he observes do not correspond when the Parker print and his casting are compared. Logically these voids then would not be part of the original surface but features of the casting process. If the Parker print were made with a rubber stamp, then all the surface features should correspond to those of the casting. But, they do not. In addition, the painted surface itself is irregular and has a varied topography containing microscopic bubbles, indentations, pits, scratches and general surface wear typical of a badly treated and damaged work of art such as the Parker painting.
Even if Wertheim is wrong in just a few of these points his rubber stamp theory is “dead on arrival”. And indeed, he is wrong on all of them.
Mr. Wertheim also appears to have authenticated Parker’s painting referring to it as “Parker’s Pollock” on page 22 of his report. Just how did he arrive at that conclusion? And, according to Franks’ website, Parker has allegedly sold his painting recently. Wonders never cease!
Another huge blunder in Wertheim's report is that even though Pollock was never fingerprinted he goes ahead and individualizes the print on the Parker painting to Jackson Pollock (page 20, caption of figure 19). This is a significant error in judgment even for a junior examiner to make.
The examiners who looked at the Parker painting and visited the Pollock museum have committed further blunders. I have documented a large and clear fingerprint at the Pollock museum that all these examiners missed. (One would wonder how they do actual crime scene work.) This particular print appears on a wooden stick in a paint can in the same showcase as the blue paint can. The stick was used to stir the paint; it is exactly like those stirring paddles you get at the hardware store when you buy your house paint. This particular print has every one of the features that Wertheim bases his 'rubber stamp' theory on. First - it preserves an irregular outline and second - many small voids that are not consistent with pores. Wertheim's problem is that he has zero experience with artist's materials. Small bubbles in the paint can be created by stirring, mixing with other ingredients, the application process and the drying process - all factors Wertheim misses or purposely ignores.
Another misleading aspect in Wertheim's report is that the fingerprint about which he notes the 'small voids' is not even the fingerprint that was actually compared to the blue paint can print! And that print has no 'small' voids in it. When The Parker prints is examined more closely, the small 'voids' are actually consistent with abrasion as image analysis shows that they tend to have direction. And direction can well be consistent with abrasion - a factor unnoticed or disregarded by Wertheim.
And what do the Parkers say whose painting has been disparaged by Franks' process of 'bringing order to the art world'? Mr. Parker recently wrote: