In the Footsteps of Ernst Neizvestny: Who Is Responsible – the Forger, the Collector, or the Entire System?

The problem of forgery on the art market is not limited to the activities of individual criminals who imitate the works of recognized masters. When a scandal involving a fake erupts, the affected collectors traditionally declare themselves victims. Discovering that a purchased work – possibly one that has been exhibited in a museum – has no value indeed causes damage, both financial and reputational. However, analyzing the situation requires a broader perspective.

A significant number of collectors acquire art market “blue chips” at a price that does not correspond to market realities. In addition to the fear of missing out (FOMO), there is another factor that is discussed less often: the desire for supernormal profit. The buyer, convinced of their own luck and insight, often neglects proper verification of the work’s authenticity and provenance. Instead, they participate in constructing a myth. Flattering publications are commissioned in industry magazines; attempts are made to include the work in museum exhibitions, bypassing standard documentation and attribution procedures. While the work is on display, the owner simultaneously negotiates with dealers and potential buyers. The risk associated with acquiring a prestigious brand at a suspiciously low price is fully understood. In this segment of the market, there are no miracles: an object offered well below market value turns out to be either a fake or to have a provenance that cannot withstand critical scrutiny. Thus, the forger creates a false reality, but the collector voluntarily accepts it, helps disseminate it, and expects to profit from it. The market ecosystem merely reacts to the flow of money.

It is time to stop viewing collectors solely as passive victims and begin asking them questions about the nature of their choices.

A recent scandal at the State Tretyakov Gallery serves as an illustrative case study of the problem described above. The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation has opened a criminal case regarding the creation and sale of fake works by the nonconformist sculptor Ernst Neizvestny. The incident is directly linked to a large-scale exhibition that opened at the gallery last autumn in honor of the artist’s centenary and closed on May 12 of this year. The investigation has established that among the 150 exhibits presented at the leading national museum were copies that did not meet authenticity standards. These are sculptures that were recast using original molds but passed off as rare vintage works created many years ago. In effect, did the museum unintentionally legitimize counterfeit objects by placing them in an exhibition space?

An arrest has been made in the case. The suspect is an active employee of a Russian law enforcement agency; his identity is not being disclosed in the interests of the investigation. According to the indictment, in the early 2020s this individual organized an illegal business producing and selling fakes of Ernst Neizvestny. Some of these objects ended up in the Tretyakov Gallery exhibition. The case file includes evidence concerning 30 fake sculptures sold to a well-known collector. The total damage exceeds 30 million rubles. Two prominent figures in the art market appear as witnesses: Lyubov Agafonova, founder of the Vellum Gallery, and Roza Verkhovina, General Director of the First Names auction house.

An important detail that highlights systemic vulnerabilities is the fact that the exhibition was curated not by a Tretyakov Gallery staff member, but by an external expert – art historian Elena Gribonosova-Grebneva, Candidate of Art History, research fellow at the Department of History of Russian Art, Faculty of History, Moscow State University, and General Director of the Association of Art Historians. The issue is not her professional qualifications per se, but the organizational procedure: why did the museum entrust a key anniversary project to an external curator, delegating functions that, under normal circumstances, should be performed by its own expert departments? The Tretyakov Gallery, as an institution with the highest reputation in attribution, was obliged to conduct an independent verification of the provenance of each exhibit before including it in the exhibition. Thorough expert examination of authorship is a basic competence of any serious museum institution. If a museum of this level allows objects without confirmed legitimate provenance to be displayed, that indicates a systemic failure. The situation is aggravated by the fact that being exhibited at the Tretyakov Gallery automatically multiplies the market value of a work several times over, serving as a kind of “certificate of authenticity.” The museum became involved in the process of legitimizing fakes.

In the case of the Ernst Neizvestny forgeries, several actors can be identified, each of whom contributed to the final outcome. There is the forger, who organized the production and sale. There is the collector, who suffered damages of 30 million rubles and who either failed to conduct a proper expert examination, or knowingly took a risk and relied on the reputation of the seller and the museum. There is the management of the Tretyakov Gallery, which delegated expert functions to an external curator and failed to ensure its own rigorous verification of authenticity and provenance. There is also the Ministry of Culture, which supported the exhibition on its news feed. There is the external curator, who either could not identify the fake despite having sufficient qualifications, or, in the worst-case scenario, neglected crucial details. Added to this list is a broader context – the art market, where a museum “visa” becomes a commodity, and the reputations of participants often outweigh the factual data of expert examinations.

Finally, the professional community has drawn attention to another factor that previously remained in the shadows. For many years, Anna Graham has been recognized as the leading specialist on the legacy of Ernst Neizvestny, the custodian of his archive, and an authoritative expert on the attribution of his works. Her exclusion from the process of preparing the exhibition – or at least her non-involvement in the verification of the exhibits’ authenticity – raises questions. If the museum has the opportunity to consult an independent expert of the highest level who specializes precisely in that artist, and does not do so, that decision requires a public explanation. Until the management of the Tretyakov Gallery provides a clear answer as to why Anna Graham was sidelined or not brought in, and why the expert examination was entrusted to outside parties, the system will continue to display vulnerabilities. And along with them, the incentives for collectors to take risks in hopes of easy profits will persist, as will the incentives for forgers to supply the market with new fakes, now already carrying the implicit “approved by the museum” seal of quality.