MATERIALS OBTAINED FOR THE LEWIS HINE INVESTIGATION
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
Interview on youtube of Paul Messier regarding the Lewis Hine investigation (short version)
Interview on youtube of Paul Messier regarding the Lewis Hine investigation (long version)
The original request that I sent to the FBI, which included the death notice below:
"Walter Rosenblum (deceased: January 23, 2006) was the subject of an FBI investigation in 2001 regarding his alleged sales of vintage photographs. I would like to see his case files."
Proof of Death from The New York Times required by the FBI to access file:
The FBI’s file on the investigation dealing with alleged fraud committed by Walter Rosenblum:
END OF FBI REPORT.
Too Much of a Good Thing (The Atlantic)
The theoretical physicist who ignited the biggest firestorm in the history of the American photography market was simply trying to figure out if his vintage photos were genuine. By the time he learned the answer, two of the country's best-known photography scholars had come under a cloud of suspicion
Art forgery is a peculiar crime. Reliant on camouflage and deception, on the rhetoric of the believable lie, it is an act both audacious and self-effacing. For the imitation to succeed in fooling us, it must resemble one or more things that we have been led to believe are undoctored originals. Without something to mimic, the fake could not exist. And the forger of old masters' drawings, like the forger of twenty-dollar bills or U.S. passports, must be skilled enough to fool eyes that by now are practiced at uncovering deceit.
In 1999 a major scandal involving the authenticity of photographs attributed to Lewis W. Hine (1874−1940) shocked curators, collectors, dealers, and auction houses. In a field where multiple copies of an image can be produced by a photographer, the issue of unauthorized copies can be problematic. Museums and collectors value the artistry of the original artist/photographer, but it is not difficult for an experienced photographer to create new prints from original negatives.
Today Lewis Hine is considered one of the most influential photographers of the 20th century and a pioneer of social documentary photography. At the end of his life, however, few people were interested in his work, and he died in financial difficulty. After Hine’s death, his son donated his prints and negatives to the Photo League, a group of socially committed professional photographers. After closure of the league, the collection was stored in the home of a member, Walter Rosenblum (1919−2006), before being donated to the George Eastman Museum.
The photograph shown here was donated to the Greenville County Museum of Art in South Carolina by Naomi and Walter Rosenblum, Hine experts and respected members of the New York photography scene. It has two stamps on the back. One reads “LEWIS W. HINE / INTERPRETIVE PHOTOGRAPHY / HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON NEW YORK” and the other “Photography by Lewis W. Hine / from the / Walter B. Rosenblum Collection.”
[Article continues at website]
Luminous-Lint
Lewis Hine article has biography and other items of interest. Perhaps a contact? (The French researcher).
Shadows Cast by Forgery; The F.B.I. Investigates Complaints About Lewis Hine Prints
How did one of America's most famous photographers manage to sign his name again and again on paper that did not exist in his lifetime?
For more than two years, dismayed dealers and collectors of art photographs have been contemplating this anomaly in the works of Lewis W. Hine, the social realist known for his documentary images of immigrants, child laborers, factory toilers and ironworkers on the Empire State Building.
Hine died in 1940, but that doesn't seem to have kept him from churning out and signing hundreds of increasingly valuable prints from his negatives -- these on photographic paper that scientific tests show were not available until the 1950's. Sold as vintage photographs supposedly printed by Hine about the time the negative was made, these works cost much more than posthumously printed ones.
A finger of suspicion points to an unlikely figure -- a longtime Hine authority and collaborator, retired Brooklyn College professor and three-time president of the Photo League cooperative where Hine left his archives. This expert, Walter Rosenblum, 82, an esteemed photographer in his own right, reached a confidential out-of-court settlement with six dealers early this year to create an escrow fund of about $1 million to reimburse dissatisfied Hine buyers, dealers with the arrangement said. Whether or not Mr. Rosenblum was an unwitting participant is unresolved.
The F.B.I. said yesterday that it is conducting a criminal investigation into a dealer's complaint about Mr. Rosenblum.
[Article continues on New York Times website]
The Collecting Couple Who Became Sleuths of Photographic Forgery
Karen Chernick
Mar 22, 2019 5:11pm
Many newlywed couples make big purchases in the early years of their marriages, procuring grown-up furniture, upgraded kitchenware, and perhaps a 30-year mortgage. But when Judy Hochberg and Michael Mattis wed in the early 1980s, the items on their wishlist were moderately sized, two-dimensional, and black-and-white. The pair, then doctoral candidates of modest means at Stanford University, started to collect photographs—specifically 19th-century prints, the earliest in the medium’s history.
“We started the collection when we got married and had a little money,” Hochberg, who holds a doctorate in linguistics and teaches Spanish at Fordham University, told Artsy. “Photography seemed like something that we could afford.”
[Article continues on website]
Pulling focus on rare photographs
William Henry Fox Talbot. Articles of China, 1844. Courtesy of The Barnes Foundation, Michael Mattis and Judy Hochberg.
“The first photographs we collected we no longer have,” Hochberg admitted, referring to some posthumous prints produced from the negatives of big-name shutterbugs (such as Eugène Atget). “There was definitely a learning curve.”
They learned fast. After a year or so of what Hochberg calls “making mistakes,” Mattis (formerly a physicist by profession) realized that 19th-century photographs were incredibly undervalued. These were early experimentals with a now–incredibly pervasive medium—rare and trailblazing exemplars of new photographic processes.
“We decided we would move in on it, in a big way,” Hochberg recalled. “We were beginning collectors, we didn’t have a big budget, but as much as we could, we tried to be aggressive.”
Fakes are possibly the most fascinating slice of the art world. From time to time, a suspicious work slips by authentication experts and draws an extraordinary amount of media attention. Additionally, museums learn of possible fakes through the grapevine and reexamine pieces in their collections. Art institutions and private collectors have spent large sums of money purchasing works of art to add to their collections, only to discover the purchase was a fake, leaving them with a worthless piece of artwork and a headache. Fortunately, an increase in the scientific examination of dating paints and canvas types has assisted in the detection of faked works of art. Sadly, the reality is that although institutions have detected fakes in their collections, any number of major museums, galleries, and private collections may own a fake and not even know it.
One sector of the fraudulent art market, less publicized, is photography. Forgery– a concept hardly associated with photography – runs rampant in the art market today. For decades, photography has fought to be regarded as a collectable fine art only to be set back by a number of issues. For most art collectors, the key pitfall of photography is the possibility of reproduction. Since its development in 1839, photographs – to some extent – could be printed and reprinted indefinitely. Over the years, the rise of new and better technology made the ease of reproducibility increase exponentially. Copies of high-valued prints could enter the market years after the death of the artist and still fetch a reasonable sum. Estates of deceased photographers attempt to control the number of new prints with specific edition numbers and strict regulations for reproduction, but forgeries still occur. Unfortunately, for every new legitimate copy, a never-ending stream of illegitimate copies appears.
For photography, defining ‘fake’ or ‘forgery’ with regard to photography is probably the least difficult issue. Finding a definition for the word “vintage” is necessary to further the authentication process and define forgery. In March of 2004, the International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR) held a conference pertaining to issues of authenticity in photography. During the conference, the guest panelists attempted to define “vintage.” Denise Bethel, Chairman of Photographs at Sotheby’s New York, gave the auction house’s definition of a vintage print as a print made within ten years of the negative. Peter R. Stern, an art law attorney with McLaughlin & Stern LLP, defined a vintage print as a print created at or around the time the negative was made. The discussion continued and in the end, the group concluded there is no one definition for ‘vintage’ photographs.
[Article continues on website]
Interview of Drs. Mattis and Hochberg (note some of the elements would not copy):
What are optical brightners?
Element removed
Why are they important with regard to vintage photographs?
OBA’s were only incorporated into photographic paper starting ca. 1955 so any photograph that fluoresces under black light was printed after around 1955
You found out that a supposedly vintage Hine photograph to be auctioned had optical brightners, and according to the reporter, you called it a “complete fake.” Why?
Lewis Hine died in 1940 and this print not only fluoresced under blacklight (hence dated from at least 15 years after Hine’s death) but also apparently bore Hine’s signature. Since the signature was necessarily a forgery, this proved that the print was made to deceive.
What action did you take, if any?
Right after the sale of the piece, but before any buyer would have had the chance to pay for it, I quietly informed the auction house of my suspicions about the print
The NYT article indicates that somebody bought that vintage photograph for over $20k, but nobody knows who, while some think Walter Rosenblum bought it back. What do you think?
I heard that same rumor from an auction house insider but don’t have first-hand information
What else was in your “tool kit” to detect fakes back then?
This tool kit was developed by the brilliant Boston-based photo conservator Paul Messier. It includes paper fiber analysis; the specific composition of the wood products that go into the manufacture of paper -- all paper, not just photographic paper -- have evolved over time and can be used to bracket dates. An additional part of Messier’s tool kit is the identification of photo paper watermarks (such as Agfa) and matching the specific font choice in the watermark to Agfa’s historical database of papers.
What is in your “tool kit” now?
Same thing except paper fiber analysis has gotten more sophisticated, as has Messier's database of photo paper watermarks.
What is in the minimum “tool kit” that a modern vintage photograph buyer should have when he or she wants to buy a photograph?
Vintage print collectors should have a portable black light on hand to quickly ascertain if a print was made after around 1955.
What other advice would you give to him or her?
Buy from reputable sources such as top auction houses or reputable galleries. There are lots of fakes on eBay.
As somebody who has never attended a Sotheby’s pre-sale viewing, can you tell us about them? Who is allowed in (generally)?
In non-pandemic times, Sotheby’s previews are open to the general public
How much time do you have with each piece?
Basically as long as needed to evaluate condition and the “object quality” of the piece. Auction house employees will assist in removing photographs from the frame so you can examine the surface directly, not just through glass.
I imagine that you are escorted, but is that so?
Not so! But there are watchful auction personnel including security guards in each room.
What of your “tool kit” is allowed in with the piece?
A portable blacklight is fine to have with you.
Has that changed since you first discovered the Hine fakes?
Yes
What are auction houses doing now to authenticate a vintage photograph.
Auction house personnel at the top houses have acquired years of connoisseurship from having handled thousands of valuable photographic prints by the master makers. And this old-fashioned connoisseurship is augmented by the tool kit described above.
At daily kos, we’ve explored forgeries and potential forgeries in the past. One of my favorites, which we haven’t solved yet, is titled, “An Art Mystery: The Search for an Italian Princess.” The question in that case is whether da Vinci drew an elaborate sketch of an Italian Princess, or whether notorious English forger Shaun Greenhalgh bought a piece of vellum from an antiques dealer and drew a likeliness of a teenage cashier at his local grocery store. Can one purchase pre-1950 photographic paper and other media anywhere?
Fortunately, photographic paper from the pre-digital age expires so the answer is no (unless it was miraculously kept in a freezer for 70+ years)
What about pre-1930’s material?
same
Same question for pre-1900’s material?
same
Is it possible that that material exists in the estates of long-deceased photographers?
See above comment about expiry date
How easy or hard would it be to duplicate the vintage-era development process of negatives?
No opinion, best to inquire from a darkroom hobbyist
Is there a chance in the future that we see “deep fakes” prepared by Artificial Intelligence or other elaborate computer programs?
In all the art media (painting, sculpture, prints, photographs, etc.) there is a race between forging techniques and scientific methods of detection. An inevitable part of the art market. But it’s very tough to make a convincing forgery; Hine notwithstanding, incidents are still few and far between.
What Scientific advances have made it harder for forgers and fakers who might try using older (but still available) media to produce what looks like authentic vintage photographs?
It’s gotten harder to forge an old-fashioned gelatin silver print since photographic paper from the darkroom (pre-digital) era is increasingly hard to come by
You have a celebrated collection of vintage photographs. You have also been kind enough to share your collection and exhibit with famous museums. I have lots of questions about that. Why did you decide to collect vintage photographs?
We fell in love with art photography as grad students at Stanford Univ in the mid-1980s; it was very affordable back then, and seemed a good value besides
Where have you exhibited?
Many dozens of museums but we’re proudest of our two shows at the Barnes Foundation in Philadelphia in 2016 and 2019 (see attached reviews of the two shows, I also attach other press material).
This is for both of you: Which are your favorite photographs?
Depends on my mood!
Can we show one or two of them with proper attribution in our story?
Yes
Again, questions for each of you: What makes a good vintage photograph? A great one?
What makes for a good or great painting or sculpture? Same question! Breaking it down: it starts with the identification of a significant artist, then one looks for key subject matter from that artist, and graphic quality/compositional strength -- and this all gets rolled up with that ineffable characteristic known as “object quality” or “print quality” which is related to the psychological/emotional impact of the piece. Generally I find that the impact of a great vintage photograph is instantaneous; for a merely good one, there’s generally a balance of pros and cons, more head than heart.
What would be your advice to young folks who might want to start a collection?
Start by building a library of monographs and classic histories of photography; a fantastic first book to acquire is John Szarkowski’s Looking at Photographs. In parallel to this, browse the on-line archive of past photo sales at Sotheby’s, Christie’s, Phillips and Swann Galleries to get an idea of the varied marketplace for vintage photos. You’ll quickly see that some images come up again and again, and you’ll ascertain that vintage prints (prints made by the artist close to the time of the negative) generally transact for far more than prints made two or three decades later, especially posthumous prints.
How are your photographs exhibited to show them off to their best advantage but also keep them safe from the elements?
Only a small fraction of our collection is on the wall; these are all framed with archival materials (acid-free mat board and so forth) and behind UV-filtering plexiglass, and not hung in direct sunlight. The bulk of our collection is kept in archival dropfront boxes from suppliers like Archival Methods, stacked on wire shelving units.
How do you store your photographs?
See above
Are there levels of protection and storage that you reserve (for reasons of cost) depending upon the value of the photograph?
pass
From what I read, you had over 10k photographs in your collection a couple decades ago. Has your collection grown since then?
“over 10k” is safe to say
Do you have experts help you authenticate photographs, or do you have the expertise now to do it yourselves?
We generally rely on our own hard-won connoisseurship
I sent to you a copy of the FBI file for the Lewis Hine – Walter Rosenblum matter that I obtained using the Freedom of Information Act. I have a couple of questions about that: Was there anything in the FBI file that you didn’t already know?
I honestly don’t know anything about the FBI’s involvement, they never contacted me, I think because there ultimately was a civil settlement with Rosenblum, that put an end to any possible criminal inquiry. I have a feeling the FBI never got past square one frankly. In other words their investigation was ‘open’ in name only and they didn’t actually commence it
What kind of reception did you get from the FBI? Do you know if the FBI agent in New Mexico did anything about your case? Do you know the name of the FBI agent in New Mexico? Why do you think the FBI didn’t press charges against Rosenblum?
[No answers to these questions]
In the Atlantic article, you seemed to place great weight on the fact that, over a six-month period, Walter Rosenblum did not once take the opportunity to view the scientific testing and expert examination that you had performed on the purportedly vintage Hine’s. I also think that that is significant, but why do you feel that way?
Speaks for itself
Once you confronted Rosenblum, did the issue of faked Hine prints trickle down and then stop?
The real reason it slowed to a stop is that the auction houses and principal galleries were all put on notice; overnight, the Rosenblum provenance switched from being a selling point to being the kiss of death
In the Atlantic article, it mentions that you two went over to Rosenblum’s house to talk about the issue. I have a couple of questions about that. First, did the Rosenblum’s keep a neat house? Second, did you get to see his study or other place he stored his photographs, and, if so, was that area neat?
It was neat, middle-class, and traditionally furnished
In that same Atlantic article, Rosenblum seemed to suggest that maybe somebody had gotten ahold of his materials and attached them to the Hine prints. You didn’t buy that defense. Why?
[No answer]
Do you know the terms of the settlement between Rosenblum and the New York Photography dealers?
He bought every questionable print back with interest, is my understanding. Thus the galleries, in turn, could refund their clients
What were the terms of your settlement with Rosenblum?
We returned the false Hine prints to him in exchange for original prints by another artist, Paul Strand, that Rosenblum had in his personal photo collection
I believe in the Atlantic article it was mentioned that there was an exchange of the three Hine prints for three Paul Strand’s. Was that the case?
Yes
Do you think the vintage photography market is now “clean” or at least “cleaner” because of your efforts at advancing the Scientific process in discovering fakes?
Despite my involvement in l’affair Hine, I don’t think that fakes have been a big problem in general in the field of vintage photography; certainly today we all have a better tool kit (see above)
Do you think that that advancement might have played a role in the FBI not filing charges? (e.g., There’s no justification to file charges for the purpose of deterrence if the crime becomes impossible or at least very hard in the future).
As stated, I don’t think they ever conducted an inquiry, never got past square one
Do you think that Mr. Rosenblum’s record as a distinguished War Photographer, Photo League President and retired university professor played a part in no charges filed?
Doubt it
His age at the time?
old
What defenses or arguments, if any, did Rosenblum make to you when you spoke or corresponded with him? (Beyond the someone forged his materials and signatures).
He said that possibly he’d accidentally plucked a few prints from the “wrong pile”, not very convincing
In the New York Times article, there is mention that both Sotheby’s and Christie’s had to deal with potential Lewis Hine fake prints. There was you, as well as the dealers in New Mexico, New Orleans, and approximately six vintage Photography dealers in New York and California that were affected. How many fake prints were involved? Can you estimate the number?
Several hundred
My friend (daughter of a Photo League member) has suggested that I obtain the FBI file regarding the Photo League and their charge of un-American activities. As scholars of photography, do you have any knowledge of those events?
McCarthyism is the well-known reason that the Photo League was disbanded
I have failed to ask some very important questions. Can you tell me what I missed?
An article about Paul Messier, the Photography Conservationist who supplied the proof of the Hine forgeries. The article is located on an official Yale website at this link: westcampus.yale.edu/...
Yale researcher brings photography’s material history to new scale
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
It was April 1999 when a client of Paul Messier came to him with a straight question: was his recently purchased photograph really by American sociologist and landmark photographer, Lewis Hine?
Lewis W. Hine, American, 1874 – 1940. Powerhouse mechanic 1920. Gelatin silver print. George Eastman Museum.
The print, of Hine’s famous Powerhouse Mechanic, had come onto the art market in the late 1980s. To establish authenticity of the photograph, Messier, a private art conservator in Boston at the time, relied on available secondary sources such as back printed manufacturer logos, paper fibers, and fluorescence to determine the print, and many others from the same source, was a deliberate fraud made after Hine’s death in 1940. “These prints eventually were subject to a FBI investigation. With such high stakes, I really should have been able to bring firsthand knowledge based on materials, but I felt somewhat exposed - being reliant on my own interpretation of secondary sources was a major problem,” explains Messier, now head of the Lens Media Lab at Yale’s Institute for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage (IPCH).
In the early 1990s web-based consumerism, coupled with the notable rise of a certain online auction site, began to seep into public consciousness. For the first time, photographic papers and other primary sources from the medium’s history were there for the taking.
What Messier calls “the genome of the photographic medium” was up for sale. “With analog photography being replaced by digital photography, we had a fairly narrow window to establish a baseline. The opportunity was to aggregate these historic materials and conserve them for further study,” recalls Messier, who set to amassing a photographic paper collection, now considered the largest of its kind in the world, that is presently housed at the IPCH at West Campus.
[Article continues on website]
The article as it appears on Daily Kos:
An Art Mystery: The Lewis Hine Photography Puzzle
Sadie Phifer was nine years old and working in a cotton mill in 1908 when she was photographed by Lewis Wickes Hine. She started working eleven-hour shifts at the age of seven. It was around this time that Hine became a one-man National Geographic. He stormed around the country using ruses to sneak into factories and onto fields and streets to photograph children working at all hours of the day and night.
Lewis Hine, Photographer, Sociologist, Hero, 1930; Gelatin silver print; The George Eastman House Museum.
Lewis Hine was an American Charles Dickens, using a camera instead of a pen to expose the heartbreaking conditions endured by child laborers.
He also took famous photographs of immigrants, and you’ve undoubtedly seen his breathtaking images of construction on the Empire State building. Hine was a member of the famed Photo League of New York, as well as an inspiration to the group, which received his photographs and negatives upon his passing.
There are two great mysteries involving the photographs of Lewis Hine.
You see, Hine managed to sign some of his photographs on photographic paper that wasn’t manufactured until decades after his death. And, even though those photographs were sold as authentic Lewis Hine prints—potentially creating millions of dollars in fraudulent sales—the person responsible never faced criminal consequences.
Why?
Those are our mysteries.
THE BEGINNING OF AN INVESTIGATION
The daughter of a member of the famed Photo League of New York asked me to investigate the Lewis Hine matter. She had known the participants in this drama, and yet she didn’t know how the play ended. It had been a news story from 1999 through 2001 that caught the attention of The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal in its “Art & Money” section.
But it was a story with no ending ...
… just a beginning and the start of a middle. Allegations had been levied. The FBI became involved. Attorneys were hired. Stories had been written and printed. But nothing has been published about what happened, or didn’t happen, since then.
What I needed was the FBI file.
THE FBI FILE
Using a Freedom of Information Act request, I acquired the FBI file. The allegation that formed the basis of the complaint was that another photographer, Walter Rosenblum, obtained an assortment of Lewis Hine negatives and prints after Hine’s death, and that Rosenblum subsequently created and sold new prints claiming that they had been created (and sometimes signed) by Hine himself.
Collectors of Art and History pay a premium for works produced by the hand of the Master. More so, if those works are signed by that same hand. Walter Rosenblum had worked with Lewis Hine, and he had received Hine’s prints and negatives from the photographer’s son when Hine passed. So, his sale of Hine prints seemed akin to a golden provenance to the vintage photography market. This is what the redacted allegations looked like in the FBI file:
FBI Report, Subject: Walter Rosenblum
The FBI file contained a number of other items, including newspaper articles that had already been written by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. It also held a very curious and exhaustive and conclusory forensic study of the allegedly fake prints.
And yet the FBI file, like all of the newspaper reports, lacked one essential element: A conclusion. What happened to the Lewis Hine prints? What happened to Walter Rosenblum? What was the outcome of the “very large civil law suit against subject Rosenblum,” as described in the FBI complaint?
THE VERY LARGE CIVIL LAW SUIT AGAINST SUBJECT ROSENBLUM
The next step in my investigation was to find what the FBI complaint described as a “very large civil law suit.” Since most of the key participants were located in New York, New Mexico, California and Michigan, this would be easy. However, a comprehensive search of court filings in those states turned up nothing. All that I could find was a control group for my search: A couple of the New York galleries that had purchased fake Hine prints had filed suit against other individuals but in unrelated matters. They would sue, it seems, if necessary.
And yet a civil lawsuit was never filed against Walter Rosenblum.
Like the FBI file and the news reporting and the criminal case, there would be a beginning to civil lawfare but nothing beyond that except for a dead end. So, why did the FBI and these private litigants choose not to prosecute their allegations in criminal and civil courts? The answer must lie in the FBI file and news reporting from the time.
A PAIR OF YOUNG VINTAGE PHOTOGRAPHY COLLECTORS
It was clear from the media reports and the FBI file that the reason anything at all was done about the Lewis Hine fakes was because a pair of young collectors bought a number of the prints and became suspicious. Doctors Judith Hochberg and Michael Mattis purchased the Hine prints from one of the best photography galleries in the country owned by Andrew Smith and, at the time, headquartered in New Mexico.
After becoming suspicious, the gallery owner, Andy Smith, sent an amazing letter directly to Walter Rosenblum. This is what that letter looked like in the FBI file:
FBI Report, Subject: Walter Rosenblum
“Quite simply put: Did you print Hine prints from his negatives after Hine died, and if so, did you place Hine’s stamp and put a facsimile signature on the backs of the prints?”
This letter served as a first shot across the bow, an immediate attention-grabber. The pressure on Walter Rosenblum would only increase after this.
DOCTORS MATTIS AND HOCHBERG
Michael Mattis and Judith Hochberg were graduate students at Stanford studying Physics and Linguistics respectively. Besides both becoming doctors, they shared a love for vintage photography and began collecting old prints.
They admit to buying haphazardly to start, and in the late 1990s, the couple purchased a number of Lewis Hine prints that were incredible in condition. Some were signed by the Photographer. They had added to their collection important pieces like Three Riveters and Powerhouse Mechanic:
Lewis Hine, Photographer, Hero; Three Riveters, Power House Mechanic; Carnegie Museum of Art
But it was too good to be true.
The doctors and the owner of the gallery from whom they had purchased the prints began to question the stated provenance of the photographs, especially the signatures. Andy Smith wrote the letter above to Walter Rosenblum, and Michael Mattis and Judith Hochberg retained Paul Messier, a young Photography Conservator, asking him to examine the prints.
PAUL MESSIER, PHOTOGRAPHY CONSERVATOR
After an education that included a degree in Art History and advanced degrees in paper conservation, Paul Messier obtained an apprenticeship position with one of America’s leading photography conservators. Eventually, he set up his own shop in Boston and began taking private clients.
That’s when Doctors Mattis and Hochberg sent him twenty Hine prints for evaluation. Messier’s charge was to determine if the prints were manufactured during the lifetime of Lewis Hine, who had died in 1940.
Messier devised a protocol to test the photographs that included (1) ultraviolet examination of the prints, which would indicate the presence of optical brighteners, a chemical process used to treat photograph paper after 1950, (2) watermark examination that compared the manufacturing marks made by the paper manufacturers during specific time frames, and (3) paper fiber examination to determine if substances were included in the paper that were distinct to certain time periods.
Three of the prints failed these examinations and could not have been produced before the 1950s. One of those prints contained the Hine signature. This is from Paul Messier’s amazing final report, which was found in the FBI file:
FBI Report, Subject: Walter Rosenblum
I was able to interview this remarkable person, who is now the Chair of Yale’s Institute for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage, as well as the Director of that school’s Lens Media Lab. I told him that when I discovered his report in the FBI file, I knew the only recourse for Walter Rosenblum was to settle the civil matter. Messier’s report was so devastating, so comprehensive, and so pointed, it must have fell like a meteor upon Walter Rosenblum.
He modestly replied, “When it comes to the physical evidence … there really was no ambiguity….” But without the efforts of Mr. Messier, there may have never been a resolution of the matter. Here is the short version of our interview:
”They thought they were buying genuine prints. And so, when you have new paper, and an artist’s signature, it does imply strongly, I think, that there was an intention to deceive.” — Paul Messier
Out of the scandal, a new tool was created to help future generations uncover photographic fakes and forgeries. Paul Messier thought to collect unopened packages of photographic paper from the various eras. Now he, and others, can use this very large and very unique library as a means to match an unknown print with known papers.
THE REASON FOR NO ARRESTS OR CIVIL LAWSUITS
The FBI will hesitate before initiating criminal proceedings when a civil remedy is available. From what I saw in their file, the FBI didn’t appear to be gung-ho to prosecute. That was also the opinion of Doctor Mattis, who wrote this to me:
“I honestly don’t know anything about the FBI’s involvement, they never contacted me, I think because there ultimately was a civil settlement with Rosenblum, that put an end to any possible criminal inquiry. I have a feeling the FBI never got past square one frankly. In other words their investigation was ‘open’ in name only and they didn’t actually commence it.”
With prints sold across the country that potentially involved millions of dollars in fraudulent sales, the FBI had jurisdiction, but they elected not to proceed. The case, you see, did not involve the running of guns or the robbing of banks. It didn’t involve anything as scary as an African-American protesting the over-policing of her neighborhood.
It involved photographs.
Moreover, it also involved as the subject of the investigation an individual who seemed completely out of place as such. Walter Rosenblum was an unlikely defendant.
WALTER ROSENBLUM
Rosenblum went to work as a young man in the office of the Photo League in New York City. It was there that he met Lewis Wickes Hine, and at least according to Rosenblum, worked with him on photography projects. Rosenblum would subsequently become a President of the Photo League, and then go off to war, earning a Purple Heart and taking famous pictures of the invasion on D-Day.
He returned after the war to another term as President of the Photo League. Upon his death, Hine’s son donated his father’s prints and negatives to the Photo League in the care of Walter Rosenblum.
Later, Rosenblum became a distinguished professor, and his wife became a recognized authority on the social reform movement among photographers, including Lewis Wickes Hine. Rosenblum was an upper-middle-class and comfortable gentleman in his 80s at the time of the scandal.
A MESSY COMPLICATION
As a trial attorney in a previous life, I can say without reservation that the evidence presented in the FBI file, especially the exhaustive forensic report from Paul Messier, was completely damning. Hine signatures exist on photographic prints that were developed on paper that was manufactured at least fifteen years after his death. Walter Rosenblum had control over those items.
I would have advised a hasty settlement with all parties.
Yet, Rosenblum drew out the matter for months. Finally, Michael Mattis paid him a visit in New York and confronted him with the evidence. When I asked Dr. Mattis what Rosenblum said in his defense, I received this response: “He said that possibly he’d accidentally plucked a few prints from the ‘wrong pile’, not very convincing.”
This is what I would call the “Uncle Leo Defense”:
The messy complication mentioned in the subheading is that Rosenblum could’ve claimed that Hine’s son had forged the names before handing over the prints to him. Desperate criminal and civil defendants will throw a lifeline in any direction. Hine’s son had passed away by that time.
The defense would not be very convincing, though, because there was evidence that Rosenblum had sold his own prints that he claimed to have developed years before on paper of a more recent vintage. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, this would be admissible to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2).
THE RED SCARE
There is also the possibility that the FBI didn’t want to pick at a scab. You see, during the McCarthyism era, the United States government publicly and officially and sadly listed The Photo League of New York as a “subversive” organization.
Lewis Hine was a member of the Photo League, and at or near the time of the publication of the Federal Register (above), Walter Rosenblum was its President. The FBI would inevitably be attacked, fairly or not, for continuing their red scare ways.
I don’t believe this was part of the calculus. The matter never rose to the level that would’ve garnered the attention of any political appointees. Still, it is something to consider.
WHERE WE STAND TODAY
In my interviews with the doctors and Paul Messier, I found them to be upbeat about the current state of the vintage photography market. Forgery and fakes are something to be cognizant of, but with proper awareness and procedures, a collector can avoid most of the pitfalls. Mr. Messier did indicate that he was always looking to hone his skills to keep ahead of the spy vs. spy game.
”There’s a Spy vs. Spy component for all of this. As you get better tools, sometimes the forgery techniques become more refined.” — Paul Messier
If I were to combine their advice to collectors of vintage photographs and those who want to begin collections, they would suggest that you develop a network of experts—and not just the deep connoisseur—but also the conservation expert, the trade expert and others. Also, avoid eBay. Instead, buy from a reputable gallery. Learn how to use a UV light safely and correctly. And steer clear of anything that looks too good to be true. The doctors provided this as a good start to collecting:
“Start by building a library of monographs and classic histories of photography; a fantastic first book to acquire is John Szarkowski’s Looking at Photographs. In parallel to this, browse the on-line archive of past photo sales at Sotheby’s, Christie’s, Phillips and Swann Galleries to get an idea of the varied marketplace for vintage photos.”
CONCLUSION
I believe that we have solved our mysteries.
Walter Rosenblum did create those fake prints. The evidence is compelling and meets the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. Additionally, I think it is safe to say that he was not prosecuted and didn’t face civil trial because he settled with the injured parties and because of who he was. In my opinion as a former trial attorney, Rosenblum settled because there was an astonishing amount of evidence to prove his guilt/liability.
He had to settle.
I also believe that the vintage photograph community owe a forever-debt to Paul Messier and his clients, Doctors Michael Mattis and Judith Hochberg. As I discussed in a previous article entitled, “An Art Mystery: How Did Anybody Fall for Those Vermeer Forgeries,” the forger is aided by the psychology that inhibits people, even museums, from admitting that they were victims of fraud because of pride and the money involved.
Our young doctors, on the other hand, saw a problem and immediately resolved it. Their actions, I would argue, not only benefited all of vintage photography, but they also, in the end, ensured that their own collection contains an unimpeachable imprimatur of genuineness. Paul Messier, for his part, pioneered techniques that will be used for a long time to root out photographic fakes and forgeries.
There are still an unknown number of Rosenblum-donated Hine prints in museums across the country, and that raises a final question: What manner of tax benefits did the Rosenblums’ obtain from those donations?
EPILOGUE
I attempted to contact the estate of Walter Rosenblum through his daughter, documentarian Nina Rosenblum, but received no response. Additionally, I contacted a number of museums around the country with a request to use a blacklight (UV device) to inspect their Lewis Hine prints donated by Walter Rosenblum. From a list of eight such museums, I received permission from zero of them.
That’s a problem.
As Paul Messier stated in his interview, “Is the connection that’s being made between the viewer and the artist … is that real? Is it reliable? That’s pretty fundamental.” It is also a responsibility that museums must assume.
But there is also some very good news.
The Lewis Hine photographs titled The Three Riveters and Power House Mechanic shown above are described by Carnegie Museum of Art as having been “printed posthumously.” That is commendably fair labeling.
And most importantly, the American Charles Dickens, Lewis Hine, is receiving his due.
A few days ago, the Wall Street Journal published a review of an exhibit of Lewis Hine photographs showing the “Faces of America.” The exhibit is ongoing at the Asheville Art Museum and contains 65 authentic Lewis Hine prints showing construction workers crawling over the Empire State Building, immigrants and child laborers.
All of the prints come from the collection of Doctors Michael Mattis and Judith Hochberg.
Comments
Post a Comment