Real or fake?

July 27, 2005 8:37 AM

Is this a Paul Klee watercolor or not?

Is there anyone on Ask Metafilter familiar with Paul Klee's works to say whether this is a known Klee watercolor (which I'm told was painted in 1914)? Thanks for any tips or pointers to reference material.

posted by Rothko to Media & Arts (18 answers total)

Seems awfully straight-edged and figurative, doesn't it?
I don't know the answer, but I'd be very interested in anyone who does.
posted by NinjaPirate at 8:52 AM on July 27, 2005

Best answer: I wouldn't say so, it looks way too modern to be Paul Klee. It has elements of Klee but that figure is too cartoony and modern in my opinion and the colours are too bright, like something from Burger King circa 1991. Signature looks tentative and wrong as well. Couldn't tell you if it's a famous work as I'm not familiar with his entire oeuvre, but it doesn't look like him. Someone at Christies.com will tell you definitively if you send them this jpeg, they do stuff like that for free.
posted by fire&wings at 8:54 AM on July 27, 2005

Best answer: The Zentrum Paul Klee archive list (which only contains their collected works, I believe) suggests that he was only just beginning his rough cubist style in 1914, and certainly not with the pallette this work has.

(an inexpert) thumbs down from me.
posted by NinjaPirate at 9:03 AM on July 27, 2005

Best answer: My first thought is that if it is a Klee, it's sure a bad one. I'm not currently at work (I work at an art museum) but I'll see if I can track down a catalogue raisonne when I get there and take a look. (The curator who would immediately know for sure is currently on a boat in Alaska, otherwise I'd just ask her.)
posted by scody at 9:07 AM on July 27, 2005

Response by poster: The Zentrum Paul Klee archive list (which only contains their collected works, I believe) suggests that he was only just beginning his rough cubist style in 1914, and certainly not with the pallette this work has.

It's colorful, but I agree that the 1914 dating is suspicious, based on the timing and qualities of similar work.

F&W, thanks for the Christie's tip. I believe this is what you're referring to.
posted by Rothko at 9:25 AM on July 27, 2005

I spent my life teaching art, and I say no. It looks too cluttered and unsophisticated, even for a child's work. The composition is very bad, the colors aren't subtle enough, the eye, fish and hat gimmicks look like a typical eBay fake.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:29 AM on July 27, 2005

Although as a non-expert I have no opinion on the painting's status as a Klee original, I will note that a google image search for "Paul Klee" fails to turn up that picture on the first 20 pages of results.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:30 AM on July 27, 2005

Best answer: Compare it with the real thing . What's your gut reaction?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:36 AM on July 27, 2005

Response by poster: What's your gut reaction?

I did the same search and my gut said fake — but I'm not an expert, and thought I'd go here for tips on validating artwork.
posted by Rothko at 9:44 AM on July 27, 2005

It really doesn't look like a watercolour to me -- look at the highlights on the hat.
posted by beniamino at 9:48 AM on July 27, 2005

Response by poster: I will note that a google image search for "Paul Klee" fails to turn up that picture on the first 20 pages of results.

My only problem with a Google Images search is that the results can be incomplete or subject to the vagaries of whatever is published online. But in conjunction with other search engines this is a good tip.
posted by Rothko at 9:51 AM on July 27, 2005

Best answer: Rothko - Staff at Christies will look at artwork very informally, you don't need to enter into any paid appraisal. Find the sale category, then the expert in the correct field then just email them and ask whether they will look at your jpg. They will at least tell you whether a painting is by who you think it is, and all for free. They have helped me with a lot over the years.
posted by fire&wings at 9:53 AM on July 27, 2005

Notice how your eye wanders evenly around a Klee work, picking out soft little jewels. The works can be busy, but never cluttered. In your example, my gaze immediately goes to the too-obvious eye, then is dropped with the fish by the painfully awkward hand into the hat at bottom right. The rest is bad wallpaper. Squint until all colors disappear. What's left? The hat. Great artists have done bad work, but if this is a Klee, he wouldn't have signed it.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:57 AM on July 27, 2005

Best answer: I showed it to another curator, who immediately said that the palette, technique, and subject matter simply don't match known Klee paintings from the same period. (Compare to his Red and White Domes from 1914, for example.)
posted by scody at 11:39 AM on July 27, 2005

90% sure that it's a no, and I'd contact the new Klee museum if I wanted to know for sure.
But Klee did leave well over 10,000 works when he died, and a lot of 'em are of lesser quality.... I just wouldn't buy this one, no matter.
posted by klangklangston at 11:59 AM on July 27, 2005

No way. This is so far from Klee it's hard to believe that someone would try to pass it off as his work. What's the story behind the picture?
posted by Termite at 1:30 PM on July 27, 2005

Response by poster: What's the story behind the picture?

It's an eBay auction that has been offered as a second chance item at a moderate price, and one which I shall pass upon.
posted by Rothko at 1:33 PM on July 27, 2005

No way is that a Klee.
posted by R. Mutt at 8:41 PM on July 27, 2005