# The Arts/Volume 1/Issue 1/The False Renoirs

Layout 2
TWO DRAWINGS BY LUCIEN MIGNON, ONE SHOWING THE FORGED SIGNATURE OF RENOIR
THE FALSE "RENOIRS"
By The Editor
THERE has not been in many years any happening in the art-world which has aroused so much interest as the sale of drawings at the Anderson Galleries last spring on the night of April 16th. It surely would not be amiss if I should give an account of the whole affair.
On the evening of Monday the 12th a well-known lover of art was dining with me in Brooklyn. In the course of our conversation after dinner he asked me if I had seen the "Renoir" drawings which were then on exhibition and which would be sold on Friday evening. "I wish you would go to see them," he said, "I have just received a copy of the Bulletin de la Vie Artistique, and in it Pierre Renoir expresses the opinion that the work sold last February by the Anderson Galleries as being by Renoir is not his father's work. I do not know what I think about them, but go to see them and make up your own mind."
The next morning's mail brought me a letter from an artist-friend urging me to take the matter up and enclosing Pierre Renoir's letter which was published in the Bulletin of ​March 15th. I then went to the Anderson Galleries, and that afternoon the Brooklyn Daily Eagle published my declaration that the drawings were not by Renoir.
Let me first give C. Lewis Hind's enthusiastic introduction to the catalogue of the "Renoirs." Here it is:
"This extraordinary collection of pastels by Renoir, now offered for sale, comes from the same source as the thirty-three oil paintings and three pastels sold at the Anderson Galleries on February 6th last. They were all purchased in Paris nine years ago by a New York collector, who obtained them from a lady, an intimate friend of Renoir's, to whom the artist gave them. These pastels are the intimate thoughts and summary expressions of the master. They have a spontaneity and a gaiety that do not always mark his large, important pictures. Some of these exquisite nudes are more worked upon than others, especially those in which he has allowed himself a free and dazzling use of white chalk. The majority are signed either 'Renoir' in full, or with an 'R.' Thirty-nine have a drawing or drawings on each side of the paper. These have been framed so that the front and back drawings can be seen. A well-known artist who was acquainted with Renoir, and who is familiar with his work, after examining these ninety-six pastels, his enthusiasm rising as he turned them over, said: 'I never knew the beggar was as clever as this. The nude's the thing. What variety! What endless variety!
I shall now quote from the Bulletin of La Vie Artistique of March 15th.
"We have just received from New York a catalogue of a sale which is very upsetting. On February 6th a collection of thirty-three Renoirs was offered at auction at the Anderson Galleries. The collection was supposed to have been given by the master to one of his former models from whom the collector purchased them.
"These studies were sold for low prices, notwithstanding the enthusiastic comments in the catalogue. The two reproductions which we publish will justify one surprise that we feel when we see such work attributed to the master. M. Pierre Renoir, eldest son of the painter, shares our surprise. He has written to M. Durand-Ruel a protest which we reproduce:
"'I have just seen the catalogue of a sale of paintings made at the Anderson Galleries in New York February 5th, and I have been stupefied by what I have seen. Not only the reproduction gives the clear impression that we have before us a clumsy pastiche of the work of my father, but the preface adds insult to injury in giving the most fantastic story about Renoir, and I can affirm that he has never made a gift, even to a very intimate friend, of thirty-three paintings or drawings.
"'I shall be most grateful if you will use my protest if you feel there is need, as you feel is best.—Pierre Renoir.'"
Here is C. Lewis Hind's answer to the letter of Pierre Renoir:—
"When the thirty-three oil sketches and the three studies in red and white chalk and charcoal, by Renoir, were sold at the Anderson Galleries on February 6th last, certain persons expressed doubts as to their authenticity. I paid no attention to these cavilings, because it is the way nowadays for somebody to doubt everything, sometimes to the advantage of the doubter. The spirit and beauty of the sketches were obvious; they were signed by the master, and their pedigree, as supplied to me, seemed entirely satisfactory. Although I never knew Renoir personally, I am well acquainted with his work, and I decided, after careful examination of these sketches and studies, that they were by Renoir. That opinion I still firmly hold.
"Last month Mitchell Kennerley asked me to catalogue and to write an introductory note to another set of Renoir drawings, no fewer than ninety-six, which came from the same source as those disposed of on February 6th. I was very busy at the time and did not desire to add to my labors, but when I examined these ninety-six pastels I was so impressed by their beauty and spontaneity that I readily consented. It was a joy to handle them. I spent two days sorting and cataloguing these 'delight drawings,' quite convinced in my own mind that they are by Renoir, and quite sure that the cavilers would again cavil.
"The auction was fixed for the evening of April 16th, and as I have no financial or other interests in the sale except as a well-wisher to the Anderson Galleries, and as a possible buyer of certain pastels, so charming that I may not be able to resist them, I thought no more of the affair until Mr. Kennerley put into my hands a copy of Le Bulletin de la Vie Artistique, published by MM. Bernheim-Jeune & Cie., which he had just received from Paris. It contains a letter from M. Pierre Renoir, accompanied by a statement headed 'Thirty-three False Renoirs.' Mr. Pierre Renoir denies that these thirty-three sketches and studies are by Renoir, and he affirms that they were never given by his father to 'une tres intime amie'.
"In answer to this I would merely remark that neither M. Pierre Renoir nor M. Durand-Ruel, nor the editor of Le Bulletin de la Vie Artistique, has seen these thirty-three sketches and studies by ​Renoir. Their judgment is based on the smudgy illustrations in the catalogue, and on the still smudgier reproductions that appeared in Le Bulletin. They are as unlike the original as last year's leaves, that have been whirling about a city park, are unlike the fresh green of the spring trees.
"In regard to M. Pierre Renoir's affirmation that his father never gave these drawings to 'une tres intime amie,' I congratulate M. Pierre Renoir on being the one son in history who knows all that his father ever did.
"Doubtless these gentlemen will also deny the authenticity of the ninety-six Renoirs which will be sold on April 16th, and as it is the privilege of the Anderson Galleries to attempt to please everybody, I am desired by Mr. Mitchell Kennerley to say that these ninety-six Renoirs will be sold entirely on their merits, as delightful, delicate and dainty works of art. You are invited to decide whether you will buy through your eyes or through your ears. You can bid for them as by Renoir, or as by somebody else, some amazing Unknown who ought to be Renoir, but may not be. To dogmatize on the matter of their authenticity is ridiculous. That could only be done by someone who was in the master's atelier when he made these springtime pastels. I do not dogmatize. I but reiterate my opinion that they are by Renoir, and place before you this statement of all the facts known to me about the Renoir sale."
In answer to my declaration that the "Renoirs" were not genuine, Mitchell Kennerley said to an Eagle reporter:
"The statements of the experts do not worry me. I believe the pictures are genuine and shall sell them as such. The more experts that say they are not genuine the more I shall believe they are genuine. I respect the opinions of these men, but do not regard them as conclusive. I can bring an expert who will say the pictures are genuine for every expert who says they are not. It is the same old story. This morning I gave $100 to each of two experts to pass on a supposed master. One said the painting was genuine, the other said not. It's like a murder trial."
On Friday evening the drawings were sold, and before the sale the auctioneer announced that the drawings had been the property of the Baroness von Zimmerman, formerly a well-known figure in the Paris art-world, who had died two years ago in Los Angeles. He then made the statement that a meeting would be held at which "the full and complete authenticity of the drawings and the motives of the unsupported attack will be established." Because of this renewed declaration that the drawings were genuine, the prices obtained were fairly good, one drawing bringing $510.
On Sunday the 18th I reaffirmed my belief that the drawings were not by Renoir and reproduced one of them which I have had reprinted for The Arts. Let me quote from my article:
"I have been asked how it is possible to be so sure that the drawings are not by Renoir. In order to make it clear I have had one reproduced on this page. The indefinable flavor which you get from the work of a man is the thing which counts, but that is something which it is hard to communicate in words. The particular flavor of the drawing which is reproduced seems to me very far from that of Renoir. It seems very close to the flavor of a drawing by F. S. Church and not wholly unlike that of work by Warren Davis or C. H. Shannon. As I have said the particular flavor is not that of a Renoir drawing. You might hide all the drawing but a square inch and yet I could from that square inch tell that the work was not Renoir's. That is because the drawing is fluent. It is like the handwriting of a man who has done much writing. Now Renoir never drew much. Among modern artists he is known as one who sketched almost invariably in paint. Drawing seems to have been distasteful to him. He is a clumsy draughtsman. We admire his drawings because of their power of suggestion, their absolute sincerity, not for their technical ease. Every square inch of the drawing reproduced (it is the drawing which sold for $510) shows ease, fluency. That is enough to prove that it is not by Renoir.
"Let us analyze the drawing. The face is distinctly 'pretty,' and this is a quality which one virtually never meets in drawings by Renoir. The arms are slender, too slender. With Renoir they are full and plump. The waistline is low, abnormally low. Renoir's waistlines are high. The hips are narrow where they should be full. The man covers his paper with his pastel in spots, whereas Renoir delighted in allowing his paper to show through even in his darks. Then there are the shadows, as, for instance, the shadow behind the back. Renoir usually drew without introducing shadows. It is true that his drawings are shaded, but the shading is not shadow. Shading, with Renoir, is a means of expressing form. It is not related to the way the light falls but is purely arbitrary. In these drawings attributed to Renoir the light and shade are as we see them. In Renoir's drawings they are not at all as we see them, but they are used to express ​modeling and we who love Renoir's art accept his convention. Again, Renoir is interested in mass, in the modeling within the outline, and the shading is used to express the modeling, not, as I have said, to indicate light and shadow. The drawings attributed to Renoir show an interest in line not in the form within the outline. Renoir is monumental; these drawings do not go beneath the surface. They are sentimental.
"In 'Aratra Pentelici,' Ruskin says of the head on a Greek coin of the debased period: 'The third coin will, I think, strike you by what we moderns should call its "vigor of character." You may observe also, that the features are finished with great care and subtlety, but at the cost of simplicity and breadth. But the essential difference between it and the earlier art, is its disorder in design—you see the locks of hair cannot be counted any longer—they are entirely dishevelled and irregular.' I cannot recall a single drawing by Renoir in which the locks of hair are dishevelled or irregular. The treatment of the hair in his drawings is almost sculpturesque.
"Lastly, let me speak of the signatures on the drawings. Renoir signed his drawings as a man of taste would sign them. The signatures never obtrude. Usually they are placed in one of the lower corners, and from a few feet off they are invisible. Many of these ninety-six drawings are signed in most conspicuous places; in places where they injure the works by their undue prominence."
The next installment of the story was published in the Eagle the following Sunday. Here it is:
"From the moment I entered the room where the 'Renoir' drawings were being shown at the Anderson Galleries there was no question in my mind about their authenticity. They were false. There was, however, the question whether the hand which had signed the drawings had not also fabricated documentary evidence which might prove troublesome. That no such evidence had been given out was no proof that it did not exist. There were rumors that there were many more pastels and drawings at the source from which these two first installments had been drawn. It would not have been strange if the 'irrefutable' evidence was being held back for a subsequent sale. A Sherlock Holmes was needed. The mysterious owner must be discovered.
"Save for the showcases and the fact that the proprietor and his clerks stood behind them, instead of sitting Turk-fashion on piles of rugs, the illusion was all but complete. I might have been in Stamboul. Before me were piled up rugs, shawls, tapestries, works of art of all kinds and of all periods, things of value, things which had never had a value and never would have, curious odds and ends. I wished to ask the proprietor two questions, and I wished to see him alone. From the conversation I soon found out which person he was. When I succeeded in gaining his ear, after gossiping about art, I asked him my questions: 'How do you know that your drawings which were sold at the Anderson Galleries were genuine Renoirs?' 'I have only the word of the person who gave them to me.' 'May I see those which you have not yet sold?' 'I have sold them all. I have no more left.'"
The mysterious owner was Mr. C. V. Miller of whom I was destined to hear further.
My going abroad was an interruption to the publication of the story, but I came back with absolute proof that the drawings were not by Renoir but by Lucien Mignon. In the Eagle of October 31st appeared the continuation of my story:
"When I left for Europe last spring after the publication of my three articles on the drawings wrongly attributed to Renoir, but which were sold as his work at the Anderson Galleries, I felt as if a serial detective story had suddenly been interrupted after the third installment. Let us resume the publication.
"Lucien Mignon, a Parisian painter, living somewhat apart from his brother-artists, was looking over a number of the Bulletin de la Vie Artistique early one evening about the middle of May. Suddenly an illustration caught his eyes and held them, for it was a reproduction of one of his own drawings. He read the text which accompanied it and was stupefied to learn that the drawing was one of many which had been sold in New York at auction as being by Renoir. Immediately Mignon recognized that his honor was at stake. He must prove without delay that he had had no part in the fraud. He hastened to the theatre where he knew Pierre Renoir was playing. The doorkeeper at the stage entrance told him that the actor was on the stage and could not be seen until the intermission. The minutes of waiting seemed to Mignon to lengthen out into days. At last Pierre Renoir appeared. Mignon explained hastily about the false Renoir drawings, how he had sold them himself as his own work to a New York antiquity dealer, and that each drawing when it left his hands bore the signature 'Lucien Mignon.' 'How came it,' asked Pierre Renoir, that they bore my father's signature?' 'That,' answered poor Mignon, 'I can in no way explain.'
"The next morning, when Joseph Durand-Ruel came to his gallery on the Rue Laffitte, he found Mignon and Pierre Renoir, who had been waiting for him for hours. Before the close of the interview Lucien Mignon had been completely exonerated.
​"When the notice of Mignon's statement that he had made the drawings which had been sold as Renoir's work was brought to the attention of Mitchell Kennerley, head of the Anderson Galleries, he made the following statement, published in the New York Times on June 2d:
"'I never heard of Lucien Mignon, and I doubt the story of the forgeries. Pierre Renoir is a boy about eighteen years old, and it appears that he will believe anything dealers tell him. I have known these Renoirs for the past nine years. They were the property of Baroness von Zimmerman, who died two years ago in California, and she bought them from Renoir's model. I prefer not to say anything further until I learn more about this man Mignon and communicate with Paris. We are still searching for further information in Paris about the history of the paintings.'
"As soon as I learned that Mitchell Kennerley did not accept Lucien Mignon's statement that he was the maker of the drawings sold last spring as the work of Renoir I felt that I ought to continue my investigations. I hastened to Paris, taking with me one of the drawings sold at the Anderson Galleries. I took it to Mignon first. He lives on the top floor of an old building near the Hotel des Invalides. A young boy was just going in, 'You want to find Mr. Mignon? Why, I'm his son and I'll take you right up!' The door opened into a cheerful little apartment decorated with paintings, largely the work of Mignon.
"'Ah, you were the critic who had the courage to denounce the sale of the false Renoirs? It gives me pleasure to see you. It is a sorry affair and I have been much annoyed at the way the Bulletin has attacked my art. You have perceived that my work is not an imitation of Renoir but something personal. Let me tell you the story. A Mr. Miller came to see me last fall. He brought an introduction from another dealer. He expressed himself as delighted with my work and bought a large number of my sketches in oil and of my drawings. I signed them all as I always do with work which I sell. I have his card somewhere. Oh, I think I put it in this desk. Yes, here it is. "C. V. Miller, 249 Fifth Avenue, New York." I had no idea of anything wrong. You said you had brought with you one of the drawings from the sale. Let me see it.'
"When I brought out the drawing he said: 'Yes, I remember it well, and here is a whole portfolio of drawings which you will immediately recognize as being by the same hand. I am glad you like them. You want me to write on the back of the drawing a few words to confirm what I have said? Let me have it again.'
"I gave him the drawing and here is the translation of what he wrote: 'I affirm that it is I who made this drawing and that originally it bore my signature. The series of these drawings was sold by me at my residence, 1 Rue Surcouf, Paris, in October, 1919, to Mr. C. V. Miller, of New York, 249 Fifth Avenue. Lucien Mignon.'
"From Mignon's residence it is not so very far to the home of Pierre Renoir. I was fortunate in finding him at home. The 'eighteen-year-old boy,' as Mitchell Kennerley has called him, must be almost forty. In the picture, 'Mother and Child,' painted, as I remember, in 1885, and shown last year at the Metropolitan Museum, Pierre figures as a child of a year or two old. 'It is interesting to see one of the drawings sold in New York as being by my father,' Pierre Renoir said to me, taking up the drawing. 'The signature is cleverly made, but the drawing bears little or no resemblance to my father's workmanship. I should be happy to write my opinion on the back of it if you so desire.' He wrote (translated): 'I guarantee that this drawing is not by my father, P. A. Renoir. Pierre Renoir.' Just then a gentleman entered the room. 'Monsieur Gangnat, this is Mr. Field, of the Brooklyn Eagle. Monsieur Gangnat is the largest collector in France of my father's work.' The visitor was much interested in the drawing and added his testimony to its not being by Renoir. 'It looks to me much like Mignon's work.'
"Then I visited the dean of art critics, the man best qualified to judge if the drawing was the work of Renoir—Theodore Duret. A lifelong friend of the great artist and therefore competent to judge of the authenticity of work of every period of Renoir's life, he unqualifiedly denounced the drawing I showed him as not being by the master. 'You are from Brooklyn. I was there about sixty years ago. We drove out into the country to a creek. Calling out to a fisherman we asked him to row us across. Five minutes' walk from the other side took us to the ocean. Coney Island the place was called, and they tell me it is quite built up now.'
"Mr. Mignon writes me suggesting that each purchaser of a false Renoir drawing should efface Renoir's signature and place a note saying that the drawing is by Lucien Mignon. With the forgery which I own I have preferred to leave the forged signature and to add a commentary to it stating the circumstances. Mr. Mignon has kindly offered to sign any of the drawings which may be sent to him."
In the Eagle of November 1st Mr. Miller denied ever having seen Lucien Mignon and that he had ever guaranteed the drawings as being by Renoir. His other statements were evasive.
On Sunday the 7th I returned to the attack and published in the Eagle the following:
"The past week has seen a shifting of the situation in regard to the 'Renoir' drawings. The position of Mr. C. V. Miller is that he never saw Lucien Mignon, who declared that he made the drawings and that he sold them to Mr. Miller, signed with his own name in October, 1919. Mr. Miller maintains that he bought them of the Baroness von Zimmerman many years ago. He is confirmed in this statement by Mitchell Kennerley, who claims that he has known the drawings for nine years.
"Lucien Mignon's declaration has been corroborated by Mme. Mignon, and by the fact that he has in his possession Mr. Miller's card. That Mignon made the drawings even C. Lewis Hind and Joseph Pennell would be forced to admit should they ever compare the 'Renoir' drawings with those signed 'Lucien Mignon' in Mignon's portfolios. The drawings are by Mignon. There remains, however, the question of how the drawings came into Miller's hands and how the signature 'Renoir' was substituted for that of Mignon. If Mr. Miller should admit that he bought the drawings of Mignon it would be practically a confession of guilt.
"In Paris I was unable to find anyone who had ever heard of that woman so 'well known in Parisian art circles,' the famous 'Baroness von Zimmerman.' I wish Mr. Miller and Mitchell Kennerley would throw some light upon her career. I wish also they would give us the facts as to the whereabouts of the drawings themselves during the last nine years.
"Lucien Mignon stated that the drawings were made at the 'Acadèmie Humbert,' an art-school, 104 Boulevard Clichy, during the winter of 1918-1919. While in Paris I went to see the director of the school—Mr. Maurice Tastemain—a man of unquestionable probity, and he confirmed Mignon's statement that he had worked there during that winter. The question then is whether the drawings sold at the Anderson Galleries were made there at that time. The Acadèmie Humbert is one of the most popular of the Paris art-schools. There would be among the students many who would recognize the models of the 'Renoir' drawings as being the models who had posed there during the session 1918-1919 and would also recognize the drawings themselves. If the Anderson Galleries will have a dozen photographs made of the most characteristic of the 'Renoirs' and will send them to Mr. Tastemain I am sure that we shall have made an important step towards the discovery of the truth as to when the drawings were made. There are surely many persons who have seen the contents of Lucien Mignon's portfolios who would be able to declare that they had seen the drawings in his studio years after they were said to have been bought by Miller. Let the photographs be made and let them be sent to Paris without delay. The Anderson Galleries owe it to the art-buying public. That Mr. Miller was so anxious not to have his name used in connection with the sale was in itself suspicious. If it is true that he only bought the drawings of Mignon a few months before, his object in having the sale made anonymously is clear.
"The paper of the 'Renoir' drawing which I own I compared carefully with the paper of drawings which were in Mignon's portfolios. It is identical. That would tend to prove Mignon's statement as to the date of Miller's purchase of the drawings. The watermarks and texture of the paper of the 'Renoirs' will furnish clues as to the date of its manufacture. If the paper is not nine years old that, in itself, would disprove the contention of Messrs. Miller and Kennerley.
"The work of an artist is autobiography. The aroma of the work of a man like Renoir is as individual as that of a fine quality of Formosa tea. It is unmistakable. The Government employs experts to test tea. The odor of each sample stamps its kind and its quality. A man who could not distinguish between Formosa and Ceylon tea would not be an expert. The man who cannot distinguish between a group of ninety-six Mignon drawings and an equal number of Renoir drawings is no expert. The difference is as marked as between Ceylon and Formosa tea. It is but fair to the public to say that those ardent defenders of the authenticity of the 'Renoirs,' C. Lewis Hind and Joseph Pennell, however easily they may write on art, are not art experts. Possibly they know more about tea.
"The purchasers of the 'Renoir' drawings, have the right to demand that the promise made by the Anderson Galleries be fulfilled, that a meeting be held at which 'the full and complete authenticity of the drawings and the motives of the unsupported attack will be established.' If my motives in attacking the 'Renoir' drawings were other than those of wishing to establish the truth, I should not be a fit person to be an art critic. My honor is involved in the statement which was made at the opening of the sale of the drawings. I also have the right to demand that the Anderson Galleries keep its promise to hold a public meeting for the discussion of the authenticity of the 'Renoirs.' I now formally demand that the meeting be held or that the Anderson Galleries withdraw the insinuations against my honor."
Since I wrote the preceding article I have compared the drawings which I got from Mignon all signed with his signature with several of the drawings sold as "Renoirs" at the Anderson Galleries. Not only is the handiwork the same but the texture of the papers used, the sizes of the sheets, the color ​and quality of the crayons are all identical in the two sets of drawings. Furthermore a drawing sold at the "Renoir" sale has come into my hands which is a most important piece of evidence. It bears the "Renoir" signature and also the half-effaced but still recognizable signature of Lucien Mignon.
The drawings were catalogued as being by Renoir. Before the sale the auctioneer read a statement in which he said: "It is proposed to announce a meeting at the galleries when the full and complete authenticity of the drawings and the motives for the unsupported attack will be established." I have the support of George and Joseph Durand-Ruel, Renoir's agents; of Pierre Renoir, his son; of Theodore Duret, his life-long friend; of Mr. Gangnat, the principal French collector of his work; of Dr. A. C. Barnes, the principal American collector. I have a signed statement from Mignon, the maker of the drawings, that they are his own work, and bore his signature when sold to Miller.
Most important perhaps, of all my evidence, is the drawing which I now own, one of those sold by the Anderson Galleries on April 16th. It bears, as I have already said, the half-effaced signature of Mignon as well as the forged signature of Renoir. The paper is identical with that of drawings I bought from Lucien Mignon last summer. Not only is the quality the same, but the paper bears the water-marks of the same maker. From this evidence it is now clear that the drawings sold as being by Renoir by the Anderson Galleries on April 16th, 1920, were the work of Lucien Mignon and that the signature of Renoir had been forged.
The American art-loving public should have the same protection which art buyers have in France. The French law requires those who conduct auction sales of works of art to guarantee their authenticity. Our laws should afford us equal protection.
THE DRAWING WHICH BROUGHT $510 AT THE "RENOIR" SALE