Sunday, July 4, 2010

Norval Morrisseau Conspiracy Unveiled (Part XXXII)

-
-

Exhibit No. 29
-

--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
© 1970s Norval Morrisseau
~ Genuine Norval Morrisseau painting purchased at Kahn Auctions by Donald C. Robinson of Kinsman Robinson Galleries which is part of below presented scientific paper
-
--
An Introduction:
-
Art is an apples to apples and oranges to oranges affair. Artists over time will change their style and ability to paint and/or sculpt. Time becomes a fingerprint to period works easily identified by art connoisseurs who are sensitive to any beloved piece of art. In other words we can tell from which decade or period of art a Norval Morrisseau painting came from just by looking at the piece. We look for colour, palette of coulurs, theme, signature(s) and general feeling. This type of 'seeing' is backed up by a database of thousands of other Morrisseau paintings to compare the piece too that art historians rely on. 'The James Z. Wang report' supports 'art historians' as having the last say in the authenticity of a Norval Morrisseau piece of art in Dr. James Z. Wang's own e-mail and analysis report admissions. Data however can be easily manipulated and misunderstood. Thirty five paintings were submitted to Dr. James Z. Wang for 'curve line coherence analyisis' by the Kinsman Robinson Galleries of Toronto, Ontario. Other individuals and institutions also involved in communication with Dr. James Z. Wang are Richard H. Baker, John M. Newman, Paul C. H. Robinson, John Zemanovich, the City of Toronto and the Norval Morrisseau Heritage Society (NMHS).
-
The findings of this report begins with skewed data unknowingly given to Dr. James Z. Wang. The report has scientifically identified a slight change in curve line coherence within the samples of the Norval Morrisseau artworks supplied to Dr. James Z. Wang. These paintings were supplied in form of digitized pictures of the said 35 artworks submitted to Dr. James Z. Wang and his team and not the actual pieces of artwork. The paintings that were identified in Dr. Wang's analysis that showed curve line coherence differences were labeled as 'fakes' on his report. This group consisted of 16 paintings and Dr. Wang was told beforehand that they were 'fake Morrisseaus' by the above listed individuals. The Wang report shows only 6 paintings and omits the images of the other 29 paintings conducted in this study? Requests to Dr. Wang to produce the other 29 images were denied by our research and investigative team. Of the six images of paintings shown two were labeled as fake and four others were labeled as authentic. The public will never learn how the other 29 paintings in this study looked like? Dr. Wang has made an unfortunate intellectual error in dealing with these individuals. Dr. Wang has shown a keen interest in how his data is not conclusive. The e-mails at the end of this article attest to Professor Wang's position in this matter. His words speak for themselves at the conclusion of this article.
-
Let us analyze. What we have here are 35 paintings coming from different decades 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's? Naturally there would be slight changes in the way the artist Norval Morrisseau painted his images over time. Period decades were mixed up completely in this analysis. Paintings from the 1960's were compared to pieces from the 1980's. 1990's were compared to pieces from the 1970's and so on and so forth. Each decade of Morrisseau's work is marked by distinctive differences in his execution of a painting which all art historians on Norval Morrisseau would agree. Even Elizabeth McLuhan, member of the NMHS, stated that "his brilliance lies in his ability to break away from his own conventions, to constantly renew his vision." This is a common behaviour trait among all great artists. Pablo Picasso's work was no exception. Why do paintings change over time with an artist? Painting is an emotional thing. An artist's emotions from an hour to hour and day to day basis will vary. This will and does affect the nature of the artwork's final outcome. Norval Morrisseau was no exception to this rule. Morrisseau painted drunk. Morrisseau painted sober. Morrisseau painted stoned. Morrisseau painted happy. Morrisseau painted sad. Morrisseau painted angry. Ask any art historian familiar with Pablo Picasso and of his paintings and they will agree to emotional influence as being a primary factor in regards to how any given Picasso appears. An expert on Picasso's artwork can easily identify what period an artwork by this famous artist came from and how this artist was feeling at the time. Emotions leave behind tell tale fingerprints. Did the artworks by Picasso remain the same through out the decades of this man's existence as a painter? Of course not. Look at your own writing for example. Does your calligraphy look and write the same today in your life as it did when you were nineteen years old? No. Your calligraphy has changed because you have changed. Would the artworks by Pablo Picasso show curve line coherence changes if they were compared to each other separated by decades? Absolutely!
-
'The James Z. Wang report' does have it's merits and place as an extra tool in an art historian's tool box. It does prove that art done by the same artist over time changes as art historians have always known this to be the case. The program could also be used to test authenticity in a case sample where 2-3 paintings are submitted that are each identical copies of each other. One of the three paintings would be an original authentic piece and the other two are skillful forgeries. The curve line coherence program created by Dr. James Z.Wang could be put to the test in this hypothetical case in the discovery of a curve line coherence change among the three paintings in this testing. This would of course depend on a database of authentic works inputted into the Edison program before hand as referencing data. Success in determination of any curve line coherence difference in our test could be hampered by the ability of a skilled forger as Dr. James Z.Wang states in his dissertation on the last page of his report. Dr. James Z. Wang admits this three times and leaves it up to the 'art historians' as having the final say if a painting is 'real' or 'not'. Computers are as fallible as their makers.
-
Dr. Wang is well aware of these limitations and factors that are beyond his curve line coherence program abilities. The 19 paintings submitted beforehand to Dr. James Z. Wang along with 16 other paintings which were labeled 'fake' by the individuals mentioned above. Where is their proof that these 16 paintings are fake? There isn't any proof except that paintings were "the ones that were disavowed by Norval Morrisseau at an NMHS meeting and donated by KRG to the NMHS" as per Donald C. Robinson's statement presented below. It's just them saying that these 16 paintings were 'fake'. These individuals knew very well that there would probably show a curve line coherence difference because they are very well aware that an artist's work changes over time. These individuals banked on this being misunderstood by the public. Back to apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Period works of art should have been scrutinized. In other words 1960's compared to other 1960's paintings, 1970's compared to other 1970's paintings, 1980's compared to other 1980's paintings and 1990's compared to other 1990's paintings by Norval Morrisseau.
-
NOTE: The following individuals have also shown support to this scientific paper's research: Gabor M. Vadas, Bryant Ross, Ritchie R. Sinclair a.k.a. Stardreamer, Mark Anthony Jacobson a.k.a. PEY-SIM-AWAY-APEY-BINASI & Dr. Jonathan Browne who was a webmaster of now non-active www.morrisseaubuyersbeware.com.
-
--
a)
-
>>> Computerized analysis of paintings has recently gained in­terest. The rapid technological advancements and the ex­panding interdisciplinary collaboration present us a promis­ing prospect of computer-assisted authentication. This technique has been applied to the paintings of renowned aboriginal Canadian artist Norval Morrisseau and represents material which is based upon work supported in part by the National Science Foundation and The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania (see below presented scientific paper or click HERE):
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
- The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania; Lei Yao, Jia Li, James Z. Wang (Page 1) /Click on image to enlarge/
-
* Note that the authors of this scientific paper thanked the Kinsman Robinson Galleries, Canada, the Norval Morrisseau Heritage Society (NMHS), Canada, the City of Toronto, Richard H. Baker, John M. Newman, Paul C. H. Robinson, and John Zemanovich for their assistance.
-
- The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania; Lei Yao, Jia Li, James Z. Wang (Page 2) /Click on image to enlarge/
-
* Note that paintings which were originally acquired from Kahn Auctions, Pickering Ontario by Donald C. Robinson of Kinsman Robinson Galleries and labeled in this paper as 'fake' or 'counterfeit' Norval Morrisseau paintings.--

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania; Lei Yao, Jia Li, James Z. Wang (Page 3) /Click on image to enlarge/
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"CHARACTERIZING ELEGANCE OF CURVES COMPUTATIONALLY FOR DISTINGUISHING MORRISSEAU PAINTINGS AND THE IMITATIONS"
- The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania; Lei Yao, Jia Li, James Z. Wang (Page 4) /Click on image to enlarge/ -

* It is noted in the conclusions of Dr. James Z. Wang's scientific paper "whereas the techniques demonstrate their power on this dataset, they may be insufficient in identifying skillfully forged paintings. A study involving forgeries from additional sources will be desired. Finally, it is clear that the presented techniques may not be suitable for analyzing some styles of paintings. We plan to further study the applicability of these techniques for other painting styles."
-
-
b)
-
>>> The following is an excerpt from Donald C. Robinson's questionable report dated November 10th, 2009 (click on the image below for full report; see pages 66 & 67) which pertains to the Dr. James Z. Wang's scientific research. This excerpt was part of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Court File 58871/08, Otavnik vs. Sinclair (see 'Exhibit No. 27'):
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
"Recent promising developments in the analysis of high resolution images may soon be available to support results obtained using traditional art historical methods to detect art forgeries. Following earlier success with the artworks of Van Gogh, the computerized analysis of high resolution images of brushstrokes has been undertaken on the artworks of Norval Morrisseau. Dr. James Z. Wang, of Penn State University used curves resulting from brushstrokes to compare the steadiness of the brushstrokes from 19 known authentic Morrisseau paintings to 16 Potter-sourced paintings [1]. The 16 Potter-sourced paintings were the ones that were disavowed by Norval Morrisseau at an NMHS meeting and donated by KRG to the NMHS.
-
Initial results from Dr. Wang concluded that the authentic Morrisseau paintings had a consistently higher level of steadiness of the brushstrokes. Dr. Wang plotted on charts the data from all 25 paintings used in the study. His charts clearly demonstrate a highly distinctive and consistent difference between the two groups of paintings. He concluded that the smooth steady flow of the lines and paint showed less hesitancy and more steadiness from Morrisseau than from the fabricator of the Potter-sourced paintings. Prof. Wang's research provided data which indicates there is a statistically significant difference between the set of paintings known to be authentic and the Potter-sourced paintings that Morrisseau himself told the NMHS were counterfeit. This scientific data corroborates the statements made by Norval Morrisseau to the NMHS about this particular group of paintings. A formal scientific paper has been prepared and will be presented to leading world scientists at the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing in November [2]. Dr. Wang's paper is also available online (click HERE)."
-
-
[2] - 2009 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (November 7th - 10th, 2009); click HERE to view the 'List of Accepted Papers' and see the scientific papers 3706: CHARACTERIZING ELEGANCE OF CURVES COMPUTATIONALLY FOR DISTINGUISHING MORRISSEAU PAINTINGS AND THE IMITATIONS submbitted by Dr. James Z. Wang and his team.
-
* Donald C. Robinson clearly stated that paintings he had purchased at Kahns Auctions (see 'Exhibit No. 4') were later donated by Kinsman Robinson Galleries to the Norval Morrisseau Heritage Society (NMHS). These were the same paintings supposedly disavowed by Norval Morrisseau at an NMHS meeting? Also, Donald C. Robinson of Kinsman Robinson Galleries stated that the data presented in Dr. James Z. Wang's scientific paper "corroborates the statements made by Norval Morrisseau to the NMHS about this particular group of paintings."
-
-
c)
-
>>> The following is an e-mail communication between the art connoisseur Mr. Walter Bond and co-author of the above presented paper Dr. James Z. Wang from Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
--










-
-
-
-
-
- An e-mail communication between the art connoisseur Mr. Walter Bond and
Mr. James Z. Wang of Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania - dated August 27th, 2009 /Click on image to enlarge/
-
* It was clearly noted by Dr. James Z. Wang that "for a given painting, the computer cannot be 100% sure if it is fake or not. But the information can be useful for art historians who has the final say on a painting."
/see encircled red/ -
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- An e-mail communication between the art connoisseur Mr. Walter Bond and
Mr. James Z. Wang of Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania - dated October 23rd, 2010 /Click on image to enlarge/
-
--
The conclusion:-
-
To conclude this exhibit we are going to quote Dr. James Z. Wang who in his response to Mr. Walter Bond stated the following (see the above screen capture of forwarded Mr. Bond's e-mail to the Blog Master):
-
"This project was concluded years ago. The findings, as reported in the paper, were based on training examples identified by the art gallery in Canada [1]. And even with that the computer was not able to completely identify the fakes. So in another word, the findings in the paper cannot be used to identify any particular painting as fake or not. And hence no one will be able to use the findings to judge in favor or against a particular painting."
-
Dr. James Z. Wang, August 23rd, 2010
-
-
[1] - Kinsman Robinson Galleries, Toronto, Ontario.
-
--
~ Continued on: Norval Morrisseau Conspiracy Unveiled (Part XXXIII) ~
-

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great article SpiritWalker and superb detective work once again!
Professor James Z.Wang clearly states his reports position that it cannot be used in identifying an authentic Morrisseau or a fake Morrisseau. However on page 2 of his report he has labled two out six paintings on this page as fakes and the other four as authentic works of art. Mr.Wang should revise his report to not include this submission otherwise he is in contradiction to his own words in these emails listed in this posting.


Good Work

Anonymous said...

Hi Spirit Walker. This is a fine example of how it is people continue to create conflict, regardless of the ulterior motive. An environment of imaginary scandal to intrigue people is nothing more than a feigned ordeal. The reality of it is embarrassing, because of the manner with which it has been done. It does a great insult to the legacy of Norval to observe certain things done by others with total disregard of those who have had nothing to do with illegal conduct.

In short form, it makes better sense to report certain criminal acts to the police so they can do their job which is complicated enough. With civil litigation it is hard for the police to make good use of court time. Those who admire and marvel at the splendid talent of Norval should not be completely disgusted nor distraught. Rather, they should retain that feeling of possessing a visual form of Morrisseau communication.

The unfortunate thing in all of this is that Professor Wang may have been subjected to the CSI effect on the quest to differentiate between originals and forgeries. His research proves some rather important scientific points and is about as genuine as Morrisseau originals. Something art historians will eventually agree on when the exaggerated quantity is accurately identified and Chicken Little heeds the law of limitations. To examine some of Norval's work while listening to Sarah McLaughlin sing a song of Silence captures the mood of runic edge.

Given proper funding, James Wang probably would have designed a custom software program, but that is not the way things went and he still produced a result.

Concerned reader

Anonymous said...

Hi Spirit Walker,

I have mixed feelings… on the positive side, it helps build the credibility of your site and of your posts. Bravo to you.

On the negative side, the Penn state analysis impacted me. It has credibility. I now understand why Kinsman Robinson did NOT return the paintings that it thought were fakes.

I realize that the analysis was not definitive in nature. However, very little is. I believe that 'where there is smoke there is fire' and this analysis generates significant smoke.

If this analysis has impacted me this way, imagine how others might have been affected!

What is very concerning for me is, the two classified as fakes are of a similar style (and look) of some that I have.

What year were the two supposedly painted? I have always felt strongly that no one would have been forging Morrisseau in the 1970's because his works weren't worth enough. Why forge them if you aren't going to get anything for them!! Further, it is very (highly!) unlikely that someone would try forging a 1970's painting in the 1990's…. I believe there are sound means to confirm when it was painted.

My two cents.

KP

Anonymous said...

Table1. and Table2. curve line coherence analysis:

Chart number 1. on page four of the Wang report shows an average difference found between 10% and 90% of all the paintings submitted (35 in this case) was only .0698575
Add up this difference column and divide by 9.

Out of the 35 paintings submitted, the Wang report found only 6.9% curve line coherence change. Which reflects as 2.415 paintings in the entire group of 35 paintings submitted and labled as 'fakes' and 'authentic' pieces to Dr. James Z.Wang.

This leaves behind 14 paintings out of the 16 paintings supposedly being forged works and/or 17 paintings out of the 19 authentic paintings submitted depending on how you view the stats tables 1. for comparison.

In other words out of 35 paintings submitted only 2-3 paintings were found to have a curve line coherence difference leaving the approximately 32-33 paintings being compatible with each other in this group submitted as 'fake and/or authentic' pieces of art by Norval Morrisseau.

This shows up as well in the SVM. cross reference Table 2. In group 1. two out of nine paintings and in group 4. as two out of eight paintings for this last group. In both groups 1.and 4. a total of 17 paintings. A total four paintings showed a curve line coherence difference. Leaving behind 13 paintings as being compatible in SVM.cross reference to each other. Groups 2. and 3. in Table 2. show no curve line coherence change in this group of 18 paintings(0%) submitted as fakes and forgeries.

Please make note again that in painting groups 2. and 3. in Table 2. there was 0% change found among these18 paintings submitted as 'fakes and forgeries' to Dr. James Z.Wang.

In conclusion out of 35 paintings submitted to Dr.James Z.Wang for analysis only an average of 2.415 paintings were discovered to have a curve line coherence change.Leaving approx. 32-33 paintings as compatable with each other in his curve line coherence analysis study.

SPQR

Anonymous said...

Thanks SPQR for your input on this. From my understanding The James Z. Wang report shows more compatibility among the group of 35 paintings submitted than incompatibility among the 35 paintings submitted.

This is my guess as to why only two of the supposed 'fake' Morrisseau paintings show up on his report and he omits inclusion of the other 14 paintings that were submitted to him and his team as 'being part of the 'fake' group. These people who submitted these paintings as examples for analysis are probably tongue tied as to why the other 14 paintings in their mislabeled group of 'fakes' didn't show any difference in curve line coherence change to the other group of 19 labeled authentic paintings done by Morrisseau.

I can also conclude that Dr. Wang didn't want to include the images of the other 14 paintings labeled to him as 'fakes' because these other paintings all resemble the two he did admit in his report as being 'fake'. That would have made his report look weak in the eyes of his critics.

NM collector

Anonymous said...

In Table 2. of this report we see that four groups of paintings were made.

Group 1. has 4 'fakes' and 5. authentic paitings.
Group 2. has 4. 'fakes' and 5 authentic paintings.
Group3. has 4.'fakes' and 5 authentic paintings.
Group 4. has 'fakes' and 4 authentic paintings.

Groups 1. and 4. showed up with 2 paintings in their groups totaling 4 paintings out a group of 17 paintings showing a slight curve line coherence difference.
Groups 2. and 3. showed no curve line coherence difference.

Out of these 4 paintings in groups 1. and 4. which ones were they?
We are not told in this report.

There are three possible scenarios:
1.all 4 paintings were from the so called'fake'groups.
2.all 4 paintings were from the authentic group.
3 or a mixture of 2 from 'fake' and 2 from authentic groups or 1 'fake' 3 authentic or 3 'fake' 1 authentic...either way a mixture.

So out of 35 paintings submitted for anaylisis only 4 paintings showed a slight curve line coherence difference leaving the other 31 paintings as matching each other.

The so called 'fake' group of paintings submitted to Dr.James Z.Wang by the N.M.H.S/Kinsman Robinson Gallery/Richard H.Baker/John MacGregor Newman of Kinsman Robinson Gallery/Paul C.H.Robinson of Kinsman Robinson Gallery/and John Zemanovitch turned out NOT TO BE 'FAKE' AFTER ALL! And this study also points to the fact that the group of paintings labled as 'authentic' and 'fake' have both been mis- labled beforehand as Morrisseau paintings.

The people and the Norval Morrisseau Heritage Society mentioned above need to make a public apology to Dr. James Z. Wang for giving him skewed data by misrepresenting these two groups of paintings as 'fake' and authentic paintings in their 16 and 19 groups respectively given to Mr.Wang for analysis.

Mr. Wang should have been given two groups of paintings labled Group 1A. and Group 1B. or even better not grouped at all and just had 35 paintings submitted to him and see what happens after that.

What do the other 31 paintings look like?

Anto