The truth behind the numbers: How reliable are the dates on works of art?

Dates on artworks – how reliable are they really?

Works of art are often inscribed with dates intended to give us insight into when they were created. But how reliable are these dates really?

The question of the accuracy of dates on works of art raises interesting questions and challenges us to take a closer look.

The provenance of this oil painting by Orazio Gentileschi been fully established:

• Commissioned in 1621 by Giovanni Antonio Sauli, Genoa
• Through descent and inheritance in the family of Thomas P. Grange, London, until 1975
• Sold to Richard L. Feigen in 1977
• Sold by him to a family foundation on October 2, 1998
• Sold at Sotheby's, New York, January 28, 2016, Lot 41

But it's not always so clear and unambiguous…

The truth behind the numbers on artworks

The question of dates on artworks often sheds light on the honesty and integrity of artists.

While many works are precisely dated, some reveal a disturbing tendency toward forgery. It is understandable that artists want to place their works in a specific time period. An exact date can help the viewer better understand the context of the artwork and place it within a historical framework.

Unfortunately, there are also some unscrupulous artists who exploit this possibility and deliberately provide false dates. This "deception" can have various reasons. Some artists may want to artificially make their work appear more ancient or attribute greater historical significance to it than it actually possesses.

Others, in turn, might try to increase the value of their work or portray themselves as particularly talented by falsifying dates. This phenomenon of manipulated dates not only affects the trust between artists and viewers, but also the art market in general.

Collectors and art dealers must be extremely careful and seek expert advice to ensure they do not acquire counterfeit or overvalued works.

To counteract this problem, various measures have been taken : art historians and restorers use their expertise to verify the authenticity of artworks. They analyze not only the style and technique of the work, but also historical documents and materials to identify any discrepancies.

Furthermore, modern technological methods such as carbon dating or infrared analysis now exist that allow for a more precise determination of a work of art's age. These advanced techniques help to uncover forgeries and enable more reliable dating.

, uncertainties still remain . Some falsified dates are so cleverly crafted that even experts cannot immediately see through them. Therefore, continuous research and development of analytical methods, as well as dedicated collaboration between artists, art historians, and collectors, are essential.

To what extent can we trust the information and what factors influence its reliability?”

Accurate dating can be challenging – sometimes significant information is missing, or the work is difficult to identify due to aging and restoration. The fact that some artists deliberately break or omit monograms or signatures further complicates the dating process.

experts and appraisers play an important role in determining the dates on works of art . They analyze not only the image itself, but also the historical context and compare it with other works by the artist.

The meaning of dates on works of art

A signature is not the only proof of authorship of an artwork. Dating also plays an important role, both for the art market and for art history.

In the art market, confirming the year or determining the period of creation helps to establish the commercial value of a work of art. For art history, dating is important for discussing the historical significance of a work. Furthermore, chronological classification allows for the creation of a chronology within the framework of a catalogue raisonné , which provides an overview of an artist's entire oeuvre.

It is important to note that incorrect or uncertain dates can significantly impact the value of a work of art. Collectors and investors often rely on such information to make purchasing decisions.

Uncertainties regarding dates can also affect exhibitions and museums, as they complicate the correct classification of the works. The truth behind the numbers on artworks is therefore a fascinating puzzle that invites us to look more closely and critically examine the meaning of dates.

The signature and date that artists include on their works can lead to both correct and incorrect conclusions. Often, the date is used manipulatively, with a deliberately incorrect year being given. This leads to confusion and misinterpretations among art historians, dealers, and collectors.

The challenges in determining year data

Determining the date of creation on artworks presents numerous challenges and can sometimes be a complex undertaking. It is not always easy to pinpoint the exact year a painting or sculpture was created, especially when there no clear signature or monogram .

Often, the artists' signatures are illegible or have been damaged over time by aging. In other cases, false signatures may have been deliberately applied to artificially inflate the value of a work.

Another obstacle to dating artworks is the lack of historical records . Especially with older works from past centuries, it can be difficult to find precise information about the artist's creative period. This is particularly unfortunate, as accurate dating is crucial for the art historical classification and evaluation of a work.

Technical aspects also play a role in determining the age of artworks. Sometimes scientific analyses, such as radiocarbon dating, can help to establish the age of certain materials within the artwork. However, these techniques also have their limitations and cannot provide absolutely precise results.

There have already been cases of controversy surrounding certain dates on well-known works of art. Such incidents highlight the importance of experts and appraisers, who play a crucial role in determining dates.

The role of provenance research and its limits

What is provenance research and how does it work?

Provenance research is an essential branch of art history that deals with the investigation and reconstruction of the origin history of artworks and cultural assets.

Provenance research uses a detailed examination of documents, archives, collections, and other sources to gather information about the origin of an object. The main goal of this field of research is to trace the history of a work of art or cultural asset back to its original owner.

Several aspects play a role here, such as the date of creation of the work, its previous owners, and possible changes in its ownership rights over time.

Provenance histories can be extremely complex and often take us on a fascinating journey through the centuries. They offer insights into past eras and allow us to better understand historical contexts.

Another important aspect of provenance research lies in its significance for restitution issues . Cultural treasures were often confiscated or illegally sold during colonial periods or political conflicts. Identifying such unlawful transactions plays a crucial role in restitution claims against rightful owners or their heirs.

The work of provenance researchers is not only academically significant, but also ethically and politically relevant. Through their efforts, stolen or unlawfully acquired artworks can be identified and, where appropriate, restituted to achieve historical justice.

Provenance research has gained considerable importance in recent years, as awareness of the history of cultural property and the need to return it to its rightful owners has grown. Museums , collections, and auction houses have begun to collaborate more closely with provenance researchers to ensure transparent documentation of the origins of their holdings.

Limits and uncertainties

In an essay on artnet Ronald D. Spencer and Gary D. Sesser , art historians, examined the shortcomings and limitations of provenance research in the art market (see Volume 4, Issue No. 1 of Spencer's Art Law Journal ) and drew the following conclusion:

Provenance: Important, yes, but often incomplete and often enough, wrong.”

They argue that it is often unclear whether existing standards in the art world regarding the inclusion of provenance are followed regularly, or at all, for practical reasons. Although theoretically a “chain of titles” should encompass every owner of the work since its creation, provenance is generally viewed as a non-exclusive listing of interesting facts about the work's background.

This includes, among other things, notable previous owners (at least those who are willing to reveal their identity) and exhibiting the works in prestigious venues.

Examples of incorrect/incomplete provenance information

The two essay authors mention a case in which an art dealer was confronted with the claim that the provenance of a painting given to him was incomplete, as it did not include all the owners that traced back to the artist.

According to the disgruntled buyer, this omission was essential, as the provenance included a gallery embroiled in a high-profile forgery scandal, and it would therefore have been difficult to resell the painting at a reasonable price without verifiable provenance tracing back to the artist.

When the buyer in the USA attempted to rescind the sale due to this “incomplete” provenance, he argued that the provenance constituted a guarantee under the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) because it was part of the “basis of the transaction” .

According to UCC § 2-313(1)(a) , “any statement of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer relating to the goods and forming part of the basis of the transaction constitutes an express warranty that…” The goods must conform to the promise or promise.

The buyer was therefore lucky and was able to reverse the purchase. From the seller's perspective, a disclaimer of liability in the contract might have been helpful.

Be that as it may, this example illustrates the problems that can arise from (inaccurate or incorrect) information regarding the date of manufacture, origin and provenance.

The New York Times reported on a famous case in 2019, when the provenance claim made by the renowned auction house Sotheby’s at an auction was disputed by heirs of art lost during the Nazi era.

In 2019, Sotheby's sold a work by the master painter Giovanni Battista Tiepolo that had been left behind in Austria in 1938 when a Jewish gallery owner fled the Nazis. Therefore, the auction catalog merely mentioned that the work came from a "significant private collection" and had once been owned by the Wolfgang Böhler Gallery in Bensheim.

However, according to court documents submitted on Friday, the painting did indeed fall into the hands of Julius Böhler, an independent art dealer in Munich, who, according to American authorities, was involved looted art

Now, three heirs of the Jewish gallery owner Otto Fröhlich claim in court documents that Sotheby's misled by falsely attributing the painting to the wrong gallery. This, they argue, facilitated the sale and perpetuated the cycle of injustice and exploitation that began in 1938 and which international and national restitution laws and guidelines were intended to prevent .

Sotheby's subsequently attributed the provenance information in the 2019 catalogue to "human error" .

Doubtful dating of works by famous painters

In art history, there are recurring cases of incorrect or questionable dating of works by certain artists.

Some names often mentioned in this context are Wassily Kandinsky , Joseph Kosuth , Francis Picabia Giorgio de Chirico and the German Expressionist Ernst Ludwig Kirchner . It is known that these artists' works were not always dated correctly.

Research has found that these incorrect dates were either made deliberately or arose due to uncertainties regarding the time of origin (see FAZ article by Hubertus Butin: The matter of the date ).

Of particular interest are the latter two – Ernst Ludwig Kirchner and Giorgio de Chirico. They are considered true masters at giving false dates.

Their motivations for this can vary: sometimes they wanted to conceal their own artistic development or increase interest in their work. In other cases, it may simply have been a playful form of self-promotion.

The Expressionist artist Ernst Ludwig Kirchner liberally predated numerous paintings, drawings, and prints. One example is a work offered by Sotheby's in Cologne in September 2023. Created during a summer holiday on the island of Fehmarn, the work depicts a tree and several bushes in a wild, highly abstract style beneath a violet sky.

Although the painting is signed by Kirchner in the lower left corner and dated "08" , a stylistic comparison suggests that it was probably not created before 1913. This assessment is also confirmed by the Kirchner Archive in Wichtrach near Bern .

Kirchner's incorrect date on the paper reveals his exaggerated need for recognition . He constantly tried to feign greater art historical significance by claiming that he had pursued an abstract style from an early age.

Kirchner did not want to be compared to other artists like van Gogh , Munch , or his Brücke colleagues. He considered the mention of other artists a personal insult and damage to his reputation, as he wanted to be perceived as unique.

Giorgio de Chirico was less interested in art historical relevance than in the financial aspect. His most significant creative period, the Pittura Metafisica , spanned from the end of 1908 to the beginning of 1919 and comprised nearly 140 paintings. These works from this time are particularly sought after by the art market, collectors, and museums, and are an integral part of the historiography of modern art.

De Chirico was already unable to meet the increasing demand for his paintings by the early 1920s. For this reason, in 1924 he began producing replicas – that is, hand-drawn copies of his own works.

The production of replicas is not unusual in the art world. It is artistically legitimate and also legally permissible. De Chirico's decision to produce replicas allowed him to make his popular paintings accessible to a wider audience while maintaining his financial success.

Although some might argue that this compromised the authenticity or originality of his artwork, it remains true that De Chirico's reputation as an artist was hardly diminished by this practice. There are even examples of other renowned artists, such as Rembrandt or Picasso , who also produced their own reproductions of their works—whether for commercial reasons or simply as a means of disseminating their artistic vision.

This practice has contributed to the fact that the works of these artists are known worldwide and can be seen in numerous exhibitions.