Bibliography

PUBLISHED BOOKS

  1. Clark, Colin, Younger Brother, Younger Son (London: HarperCollins, 1997)
  2. Colacello, Bob, Holy Terror: Andy Warhol Close Up (London: HarperCollins, 1990)
  3. Feldman, Frayda, Schellmann, Jörg & Defendi, Claudia (eds.), Andy Warhol Prints: A Catalogue Raisonné 1962–1987 (New York: Distributed Art Publishers, 2003)
  4. Fraser-Cavassoni, Natasha, After Andy: Adventures in Warhol Land (New York: Blue Rider Press, 2017)
  5. Kvaran, Gunnar B. & Malanga, Gerard, ‘Long Day’s Journey Into the Past’ (Skira and Astrup Fearnley Museum, 2008)
  6. Polsky, Richard, I Bought Andy Warhol (London: Bloomsbury, 2003)
  7. Scherman, Tony & Dalton, David, Pop: The Genius of Andy Warhol (New York: HarperCollins, 2009)
  8. Warhol, Andy, The Andy Warhol Diaries, edited by PatHackett (London: Penguin, 2010)
  9. ————, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (from A to B and Back Again) (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975)

ARTICLES IN JOURNALS

  1. Dorment, Richard, ‘What Is an Andy Warhol?’, New York Review of Books (22 October 2009), pp. 14–18
  2. ————, ‘What Is an Andy Warhol?’, New York Review of Books (19 November 2009), pp. 64–5
  3. ————, ‘What Is an Andy Warhol?’, New York Review of Books (17 December 2009), pp. 99–109
  4. ————, ‘The Warhol Foundation on Trial’, New York Review of Books (25 February 2010), pp. 41–2
  5. ————, ‘What Andy Warhol Did’, New York Review of Books (7 April 2011), pp. 28–30
  6. ————, ‘What Andy Warhol Did: An Exchange’, New York Review of Books (9 June 2011), p. 73, and www.nybooks.com/u/4
  7. ————, ‘What is a Warhol? The Buried Evidence’, New York Review of Books (20 June 2013), pp. 24–75
  8. ————, ‘Letter to the editor: where are the 35 “fake” Warhols later reassessed as authentic?’, Art Newspaper (14 November 2013)
  9. Ekstract, Richard, ‘Warhol Under the Waldorf,’ New York Review of Books (7 August 2011), p. 88
  10. Hughes, Robert, ‘King of the Banal’, Time (4 August 1975)
  11. Rose, Barbara, ‘New York Letter: Andy Warhol’, Art International, vol. 8, no. 5–6 (Summer 1964)
  12. Wolf, Reva, ‘What Andy Warhol Did: An Exchange’, New York Review of Books (9 June 2011), p. 73, and www.nybooks.com/u/4

NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES

  1. Anonymous, ‘Parton Portrait: Is it Andy’s?’, New York Post (19 November 2006)
  2. Alexander, Paul, ‘Warhol and Peace’, New York Magazine (14 December 1998)
  3. Cash, Stephanie, ‘Chamberlain and Malanga Settle Fake “Warhol Suit” ’, Art in America (16 August 2011)
  4. Cowan, Alison Leigh, Bell, Charles V. & Rashbaum, William K., ‘Lawyer Seen as Bold Enough to Cheat the Best’, New York Times (13 December 2008)
  5. Fury, Alexander, ‘Carolina Herrera’s Very First Show and What it Meant for Fashion’, New York Times (16 April 2018)
  6. Grimes, William, ‘The High-Minded Road as the Path to Success’, New York Times, 8 November 1993
  7. Leigh, David, ‘Is this a $2m Warhol, or a fake? Art world sees red over self-portraits’, Guardian (4 December 2009)
  8. Levy, Adrian & Scott-Clark, Cathy, ‘Warhol’s Box of Tricks’, Guardian (21 August 2010)
  9. Shnayerson, Michael, ‘Judging Andy’, Vanity Fair (November 2003)
  10. Thomas, Kelly Devine, ‘Authenticating Andy’, ARTnews (September 2004), pp. 128–37
  11. Thornton, Sarah, ‘Rogue Urinals: Has the Art Market Gone Dada?’ The Economist (24 March 2020)
  12. Vogel, Carol, ‘The Art Market’, New York Times (21 May 1993)

UNPUBLISHED

  1. Exhibit 1: Wachs deposition – Wachs admits the case is costing the Warhol Foundation $450,000 per month
  2. Exhibit 2: Supreme Court of the State of New York County or New York Summons on behalf of Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company against the Andy Warhol Authentication Board, Inc., The Estate of Andy Warhol, Vincent Fremont and Vincent Fremont Enterprises, 28 April 2010
  3. Exhibit 3: Judd Burstein email to Joe Simon, 27 August 2010: ‘You are a victim of what I believe is perhaps the most irresponsible lawyering…’
  4. Exhibit 4: Nicholas Gravante email to Seth Redniss, 31 July 2010: ‘I hope you [have] very good malpractice policies’.
  5. Exhibit 5: Letters to the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board from Paul Morrissey, 1 November 2002; John Richardson, 1 February 2003. Billy Name-Linich, email to Joe Simon, 1 February 2003: ‘the people who make these decisions were not there… I think it is a cruel joke’.
  6. Exhibit 6: Michael Hue Williams email to Joe Simon, 9 January 2002: ‘I am delighted to confirm that the Andy Warhol painting from 1964 [sic] entitled Self Portrait… had already been authenticated by Fred Hughes by that time. However, a few months later, I had lunch with Fred Hughes and he reiterated that he had authenticated the above work in his capacity as executor of the Andy Warhol estate…’
  7. Exhibit 7: George Frei examines Andy Warhol’s Red Self-Portrait in Simon’s flat, 17 July 1996
  8. Exhibit 8: Neil Printz deposition – Printz admits the existence of databases in joint project for a catalogue raisonné at Thomas Ammann Gallery, Zurich and at Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board in New York. Simon’s attorney asks, ‘Did you provide that database to your attorneys?’ Printz: ‘It was there’. Gravante: ‘We’ll take it under advisement’.
  9. Exhibit 9: ‘Forged’ Dollar Bill Piece: Boies Schiller, attorneys for the Andy Warhol Foundation: ‘Defendants are entitled to question Mr Simon-Whalen about whether he personally created the forged Dollar Bills [in the] ‘Warhol’ and, if not, how he came to possess it.’
  10. Exhibit 10: King-Nero email to members of the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board, 16 July 2003, subject: ‘Additional Dollar Bill Collage’ – ‘I believe the real collage was seen by the Estate in 1989 and what Joe Simon purchased is a forgery made to look like the original right down to the inscriptions.’
  11. Exhibit 11: US Secret Service Agent Alfie Quinn email to Joe Simon, 23 June 2003 – ‘I can confirm that Ortega was Treasurer of the United States and Brady was Secretary of the Treasury during the period when these federal reserve notes were produced.’
  12. Exhibit 12: Von Beeren, ‘May be in China’, Court Record, 26 March 2010, p. 17 lines 21–2
  13. Exhibit 13: Kelly Devine Thomas, ‘Authenticating Andy’, ARTnews, September 2004, p. 135 and Michael Shnayerson, ‘Judging Andy’, Vanity Fair (November 2003), p. 210. Horst Webber von Beeren helped Simon publicise the enormous number of unauthorised prints after Warhol that he and other printers made
  14. Exhibit 14: Transcription of Court Proceedings, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 26 March 2010, p. 17. Simon’s attorney Brian Kerr requests that Gravante produce Horst Webber von Beeren so that he can be deposed. Gravante: ‘We will try to contact him. I’m not sure where he is at this point in time. I know he travels extensively out of the country, but we will undertake to…’ Judge Peck: ‘He gave you an affidavit a month ago.’ Gravante: ‘And we have tried to call him this week. We understand he may be in China’.
  15. Exhibit 15: Adrian Levy & Cathy Scott-Clark, ‘Warhol’s Box of Tricks’, Guardian, 21 August 2010
  16. Exhibit 16: 44 acrylic silkscreen images on canvas: Vincent Fremont Deposition letter to Fred Dorfman and Mark Smith, 25 September 1991: ‘The Warhol Estate has requested that you relinquish any right, title, or interest you may have in the paintings and assign the same to the Warhol Estate’.
  17. Exhibit 17: Fremont Deposition, 7 July 2010; 44 fakes, p. 213: ‘the more I looked at the ones that we deemed originally or the estate deemed originally as not authentic, there was less and less there that was problematic – with the exception of the signature… and some sizes of some of the work, but they became, to me, worthy of review… and I made a suggestion to the foundation maybe that these should be – you know, reviewed again, by an independent body, not by me but by an independent body, being the art authentication board’; ‘they went through the normal process… Some were authenticated and some weren’t’, p. 209 lines 3–7; p. 200, lines 16–25. Kerr: My question is whether or not there are… at least some occasions when you’re selling a foundation work, that the work first gets authenticated… before that sale goes through. That happens; right?’ p. 16, lines 23–5: ‘there’s only been the one occasion, which would be the Dorfman paintings.’
  18. Exhibit 18: K. C. Maurer Deposition: ‘As I sit here today I have no recollection…’
  19. Exhibit 19: Wachs Deposition, Andy Warhol painting owned by Tom Ford sold for, I think, $31 or $32 million
  20. Exhibit 20: Fremont authenticates prints
  21. Exhibit 21: New York Attorney General investigates Fremont and Foundation. Paul Alexander, Warhol and Peace, New York Magazine
  22. Exhibit 22: Fremont Deposition, 6 July 2010 commission (6% Cap of $950,000). Wachs or Maurer also discuss Fremont’s payments
  23. Exhibit 23: Maurer Deposition – Maurer appraises works for sale with Sally King-Nero and Defendi
  24. Exhibit 24: Printz Deposition, 6 July 2020, on Sam Green. Sam Green writes to Authentication Board, 30 January 2003
  25. Exhibit 25: 7 July 2010, Printz Deposition on Bischofberger and the importance of the artist’s signature and date
  26. Exhibit 26: Printz Deposition on Crone
  27. Exhibit 27: King-Nero’s Deposition on Crone
  28. Exhibit 28: Rainer Crone’s letter to the New York Review of Books
  29. Exhibit 29: King-Nero calling herself ‘Professor von Silk Screen’ to Printz, 5 May 2003: ‘In my exploration of the world of silk screening, I have discovered that the acetate as we call it or the film positive as it is referred to by the silk screeners in the know… is in fact what is used to make the screen.’ Neil Printz to Sally King-Nero, 6 May 2003: ‘This helps, but several questions remain’. Printz clearly is hearing the term ‘film positive’ for the first time. He wants to know if there is a negative in a ‘film positive’. In summary, he asks King-Nero, whom he calls ‘Professor von Silkscreen’: ‘does acetate = film positive?’ King-Nero to Printz tells him that is correct, 5 June 2003
  30. Exhibit 30: Fremont Deposition. Fremont talked to Gagosian about the Red Self-Portrait
  31. Exhibit 31: ‘Andrew Johnson Warhol Wars: Legal Battle over Authenticity’, Independent, 11 July 2010
  32. Exhibit 32: Wachs Deposition, 9 July 2010. Wachs says he’d ‘be upset’ if a picture submitted by the Board for authenticity turned out to be a fake
  33. Exhibit 33: Fred Hughes to Ronald Feldman, 3 January 1991, Re: Andy Warhol Self-Portrait with red background – silkscreen… authenticated. Estate agrees to purchase the work from Feldman for $64,123.29
  34. Exhibit 34: Wachs Deposition, Employees of the Foundation are indemnified against lawsuits
  35. Exhibit 35: David Leigh, ‘Is this a $2m Warhol, or a fake – Art world sees red over self-portraits’, Guardian, 4 December 2009
  36. Exhibit 36: In legal advice printed at the back of Christie’s and Sotheby’s auction catalogue under the heading ‘Terms of Authenticity’, the procedure is explained. In most cases an auction house will not sell a painting unless it has been approved by the Warhol Foundation. The exact wording is ‘Warranty of authenticity states that if the standing Body of an artist says it’s not right, we will revoke the sale.’
  37. Exhibit 37: Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark, ‘When is a Warhol not a Warhol? The $2 million self-portrait turning the art world on its head’, Mail Online, 16 January 2010
  38. Exhibit 38: Simon’s letter to Judge Peck copied to Judge Laura Swain, 5 November 2020