The Courbet That Might Be Too Good
A private dealer offers the Museum of Western Art a 65 × 81 cm oil landscape, “Cliff at Étretat,” signed “G. Courbet” lower right, for €2.3 million. The museum’s acquisition budget is €2.5 million. Provenance records begin with a Paris gallery in 1955 and have a gap from 1938 to 1945; the dealer says the wartime owner was “a Swiss private collection.” The canvas bears a stamp from P. Foinet, a Paris supplier active in the 1860s–1880s. The paint handling includes heavy palette-knife passages consistent with Courbet’s later landscapes. Infrared reflectography, however, shows a graphite grid and ruled underdrawing, which Courbet rarely used. A preliminary pigment spot test reports titanium white in the highlights; titanium white was not commercially available before the 20th century. The curator is eager because the museum lacks a Courbet. The board asks whether to proceed, and if so, under what conditions.
1. Should the museum proceed with the purchase at €2.3 million? Identify the decisive evidence and the due diligence still needed.
Read the worked answer
The museum should not proceed at €2.3 million on the present record. The decisive evidence is the reported titanium white: if confirmed, it is anachronistic for Courbet, who died in 1877, and would make the painting a later copy or forgery. A spot test can be wrong-contamination or misidentification-so the next step is laboratory analysis (XRF, Raman, cross-sections) before any commitment. The provenance gap from 1938 to 1945 is independently disqualifying until resolved, because it falls in the Nazi-era period and the museum’s policy should require a documented chain of ownership. The canvas stamp only gives a date range for the support; it does not authenticate the hand. The curator’s desire to fill a gap in the collection is not a reason to lower standards. The board should decline the purchase at that price, request the full technical report, and ask the dealer for pre-1970 and wartime provenance. If the painting is a later copy, the museum may still consider it as a study object, but not as a Courbet.
2. Draft a due-diligence checklist with at least five items and explain each.
Read the worked answer
- Full provenance: trace every owner from creation to 1955, with special attention to 1933–45; check the Art Loss Register, lostart.de, and archival records. 2. Pigment analysis: XRF and Raman on multiple points, plus cross-sections, to confirm or exclude titanium white and other anachronisms. 3. Signature and inscription: compare with documented Courbet signatures under magnification and ultraviolet light. 4. Canvas and stretcher: record the Foinet stamp, thread count, and stretcher construction; compare with dated Courbet works. 5. Underdrawing: infrared reflectography to see whether the grid is consistent with 19th-century academic practice or with a copyist. 6. Condition and restoration history: identify old linings, retouching, and any added signature. 7. Legal title and export documents: obtain seller warranties and check national export rules. 8. Independent attribution: consult two Courbet specialists who have no financial interest. Each item is a gate: a failure at pigment analysis or provenance stops the acquisition.
3. If the museum still wants a Courbet, what ethical acquisition path could it take?
Read the worked answer
If the museum still wants a Courbet, it should pursue a transparent, title-safe route. It could ask the dealer to consign the painting for technical study rather than purchase, with a written agreement that no sale occurs until provenance is cleared. It could seek a long-term loan from a private collection with a complete pre-1970 provenance, or approach another museum about a shared acquisition. It should not accept a “Swiss private collection” claim without documents. If the painting proves to be a later copy, the museum could acquire it as a documented study example only at a price reflecting that status and with a label that says “after Courbet.” If evidence of Nazi-era looting emerges, the museum should notify the appropriate authorities and the Art Loss Register, not negotiate a quiet return. The ethical path is slower but protects the museum’s reputation and the public’s trust.