一幅究竟值5200美元还是520万美元的画作

The viscountess had decided to downsize.

子爵夫人决定节俭度日。

When Lady Hambleden, the former wife of the fourthViscount Hambleden, moved from her stately manorto a cottage in a village outside London, she had littleroom, and even less desire, for the Aubussoncarpets, Louis XV chairs, Regency girandoles andlesser English paintings that populated her estate.

第四任汉布尔顿子爵(Viscount Hambleden)的前妻汉布尔顿夫人从富丽堂皇的宅邸搬到伦敦郊外的乡村小屋，屋子里地方不够，她也没什么兴趣把原来大宅里的奥布松地毯、路易十五椅子、摄政王时代烛台和那些不那么英国的油画搬过来。

 

 

So, in 2013, she held a kind of “Downton Abbey” tag sale at Christie’s in London. Among the300-plus items she put up for auction was an oil sketch that copied “Salisbury Cathedral Fromthe Meadows,” one of the best-known works of the great 19th-century English landscapepainter John Constable.

于是，2013年，她在伦敦佳士得举办了一场“唐顿庄园”式的拍卖会，拍卖300多件物品，其中有一幅油画草图，模仿《洼地那边的塞利斯伯尔利教堂》(Salisbury Cathedral From the Meadows)，那是19世纪伟大的英国风景画家约翰·康斯特布尔(John Constable)最著名的作品之一。

“The painting was so black, so somber and a little nightmarish, with dark clouds and a ghostlikecathedral, I never considered it as important,” Lady Hambleden said in a phone interview.

“这幅画太黑暗、太阴郁，让人有点害怕，画面上有深暗的云朵和鬼魅般的大教堂，我从来不觉得它有多重要，”汉布尔顿夫人在接受电话采访时说。

Listed as the work of a Constable follower, it sold for just £3,500 (around $5,200).

这幅画被标记为康斯特布尔的模仿者所做，以3500英镑卖出(约合5200美元)。

But the anonymous buyer, an art dealer, had a hunch. Real Constables were often paintedover during the 19th century, when their rough, seemingly unfinished quality put offprospective purchasers. So the dealer had it cleaned and took it to a leading Constable expert,Anne Lyles, a former curator at Tate Britain.

这位匿名买家是一个艺术商，他却产生了一个预感。在19世纪，康斯特布尔的真迹经常被涂改，因为原来画面上那种粗糙，看似未完成的特质会令可能的买家望而却步。所以这位艺术商清理了画面，把它拿给重要的康斯特布尔专家——安妮·莱尔斯(Anne Lyles)，她曾是英国泰特美术馆的策展人。

“When I first saw this sketch, newly cleaned, there was just something about the applicationof the paint, the texture in the sky and the expression of the light and shade — all lookedpromising,” she said recently in a phone interview.

“第一眼看到这幅新近清理过的草稿，便可以看出颜料的应用，天空的质感，以及光与影的表达方式——一切看上去都很有希望，”最近，莱尔斯在接受电话采访时说。

In January, the painting, now deemed a true Constable by Ms. Lyles, was sold at Sotheby’s inNew York. It fetched $5.2 million.

这幅画已被莱尔斯女士鉴定为康斯特布尔真迹，一月，这幅画在纽约苏富比拍卖行卖出，达到520万美元。

At a time when the attribution of paintings can be so litigious that many experts haveretreated from the field, the startling reassessment of the “Cathedral,“ and its suddenexplosion in value, provides a rare window into the often imprecise, and debate-riddled, fieldof identifying the authorship of artworks.

如今这类鉴定非常易于引起争论，因此许多专家都退出了这个领域，而这幅《教堂》以及它的突然大幅升值为人们提供了少有的机会，可以一窥艺术品作者鉴定这个充满模糊和争议的领域。

The Metropolitan Museum of Art has twice changed its mind in the past four decades overwhether its portrait of Philip the IV is a masterpiece by Velázquez (the current view), or a finepainting by an also-ran. Sotheby’s was sued after it sold what it had determined to be a copyof Caravaggio’s “The Cardsharps” for £42,000 (about $83,000) in 2006, only to have a scholarlater declare it was actually by the master himself.

在过去的40年里，大都会艺术博物馆曾经两次改变主意，无法确定一幅菲利普四世的肖像究竟出自委拉斯贵兹(Velázquez)之手，还是另一位落选者的作品(目前该馆认为它是委拉斯贵兹的作品)。一幅名为《打牌作弊者》的油画曾被认为出自卡拉瓦乔(Caravaggio)的模仿者之手，2006年，苏富比将此画以42000英镑(合83000美元)拍出，一位学者鉴定此画是卡拉瓦乔本人所做后，苏富比遭到诉讼。

This time it is Christie’s that is facing questioning over whether it bungled the attribution of apainting. “We understand that there is no clear consensus of expertise on the newattribution,” the company said in a statement.

这一次佳士得也面对质疑，他们是否弄错了画家。“我们理解，对于这项新鉴定，专家没有清晰的一致意见，”公司在声明中说。

It then provided the name of an expert who holds a different view from Ms. Lyles. “I could seeno sign of Constable’s hand in the work,” said Conal Shields, an art historian and Constablescholar.

之后公司公布了一位不同意莱尔斯意见的专家的名字。“我在这幅作品中看不出康斯特布尔亲手绘制的迹象，”艺术史学家与康斯特布尔专家康诺尔·西尔德斯(Conal Shields)说。

Nonetheless, some in Hambleden, an idyllic village of brick and flint cottages that was thebackdrop for movies like “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” and often fills on weekends withequestrians and shooting parties, say they feel aggrieved on behalf of the viscountess.

汉布尔顿小村庄风景如画，布满砖石农舍，《飞天万能车》(Chitty Chitty Bang Bang)等影片曾在这里取景，周末常常有骑马和狩猎活动。不管怎么说，在这里，有人为子爵夫人感到愤愤不平。

“Lady Hambleden is a lovely person — very gracious, friendly and kind,” said Steve Skowron, aneighbor of the viscountess, who was Countess Maria Carmela Attolico di Adelfia when shemarried William Herbert Smith, the fourth viscount, in 1955.

“汉布尔顿女士是个好人，她慷慨、友好，善良，”子爵夫人的邻居史蒂夫·斯科隆(Steve Skowron)说。子爵夫人于1955年与第四任子爵威廉·休伯特·史密斯(William Herbert Smith)结婚的，当时是玛利亚·卡梅拉·安托里克·德·阿德尔菲亚女伯爵(Countess Maria Carmela Attolico di Adelfia)。

“She’s very well liked in the village,” he said. “She has an annual Christmas party and inviteseveryone over. The case of the John Constable painting is a very strange one. How canChristie’s have missed it? I think the consensus of the village is that she should sue.”

“村子里的人都喜欢她，”他说。“每年她都举办圣诞派对，邀请所有人参加。这幅约翰·康斯特布尔的画是件怪事。佳士得怎么会搞错?我想村子里的人都认为她应该打官司。”

Yes, admits Lady Hambleden, 84, when she first learned the painting was by Constable, “I feltlike a fool! I know it’s not my fault, but that was my first feeling.”

是的，84岁的汉布尔顿夫人说，当她知道这幅油画是康斯特布尔的真迹时，“我觉得自己太傻了!我知道这不是我的错，但我的第一感觉就是这样的。”

But she said she has no intention of suing over a work for which she had little affection andthat her mother-in-law had stuffed in a cupboard for 60 years.

但她说，她不想为了一幅自己不怎么喜欢的画打官司，60年前，她的婆婆把这幅画塞进了一个柜子里。

“It was sold under my name,” she said, “but on behalf of my children. So it would be theirdecision whether or not to bring legal action.”

“它是在我的名下卖掉的，不过却是代表我的孩子们。所以由他们来决定要不要采取法律行动。”

Her sons did not respond to a number of messages seeking comment.

本文作者多次发送信息要求她的儿子们对此作出评论，他们均未予以回应。

In the 2006 case involving Sotheby’s and Caravaggio’s “The Cardsharps,” the reattribution alsocame after a scholar had the painting cleaned and restored.

2006年，苏富比的卡拉瓦乔《打牌作弊者》一事中，也是画面先做了清理和复原，再由一位学者进行重新鉴定。

The consignor sued, alleging negligence and breach of contract. But in January a judge ruledin Sotheby’s favor.

拍卖委托者发起诉讼，称拍卖行疏忽大意，违背合同。但是一月，法官做出了有利苏富比的判决。

Karen Sanig, the head of art law at Mishcon de Reya in London, said the crux of the case wasn’twhether the painting was a Caravaggio or not.

伦敦Mishcon de Reya律师事务所艺术法部门的主管凯伦·萨尼格(Karen Sanig)说，此案的重点并不在于那幅油画究竟是不是卡拉瓦乔的真迹。

“It all comes down to a question of whether the auction houses carried out their analysis withenough care and attention,” she said. “Which the court found they did in the circumstances.”

“问题在于，拍卖行做出分析是否足够细致周到，”她说。“法庭认为在当时的情况下，他们确实做到了。”

Ms. Lyles’s willingness to register an opinion on the Constable contrasts to the situation inthe United States, where scholars and artists’ foundations, like the Roy LichtensteinFoundation, are increasingly sitting out authentication battles because of fears of being sued.

莱尔斯愿意为康斯特布尔的作品发表自己的意见，这和美国当前的情况形成鲜明对比。在美国，学者和艺术家基金会(比如罗伊·利希滕斯坦基金)担心遭到控告，日益淡出对作者身份进行鉴定的争论。

“If you lower the reputation of an artwork incorrectly, then you’re liable for damages,” saidMs. Sanig, referring to the legal concept of slander of title to goods. “We don’t have lawsuitsinvolving artwork on the same basis in the U.K.”

“如果你错误地降低了一件艺术品的声誉，你对物主的损失便富有责任，”萨尼格说，她是指诋毁物权的法律概念。“在英国，同样的情况下就不会有涉及艺术品的法律诉讼案。”

Constable, who is known for his expressive brushwork, often done with a palette knife, andfor mixing colors on the canvas, is now viewed as a precursor to Impressionism. But fordecades after his death in 1837 his sketches were over-painted to make them more palatableto buyers who expected something more finished.

康斯特布尔以其富于表现力的笔触闻名，经常用调色刀作画，还常常在画布上混合色彩，如今他被视为印象派的先驱。他于1837年去世，在他去世几十年间，他的草图经常被覆盖和修改，好让它们显得更像已经完成的画作，令买家更易接受。

“He leaves bits of the primed canvas showing through a finished painting; he leaves thesevisible brush strokes; he doesn’t smooth out the tones of his colors so there’s an evengradation,” said Jonathan Clarkson, a senior lecturer in the history and theory of art at theCardiff School of Art and Design and the author of a monograph on Constable. “And at the timepeople just thought this was sloppy practice, that it was because he couldn’t paint betterrather than he was choosing to paint this way.”

“在完成的油画中，他让底层的画布露出来，让笔触清晰可见，他从不把色调弄得平顺缓和，也没有渐变效果，”卡迪夫艺术与设计学院的艺术史与艺术理论高级讲师约拿森·克拉克森(Jonathan Clarkson)说，他还曾写过一篇关于康斯特布尔的专著。“当时人们觉得这只是随意的练习，觉得他没法画得更好，他们不明白他是故意这样画的。”

Complicating matters: as Constable’s reputation grew, forgers and imitators picked up theirpace. And one of his seven children was also an accomplished artist, whose work cansometimes be difficult to distinguish from that of his father.

更麻烦的是，随着康斯特布尔的名声渐渐增长，伪造者和模仿者们也随之而来。康斯特布尔的七个儿子之中，有一位也成了成功的艺术家，他的作品有时候会被人和其父的作品混为一谈。

So before Ms. Lyles would affix her name to a reattribution of the 18-inch-by-24-inchHambleden “Salisbury Cathedral,” she wanted to show it played a role in the evolution of thefinal work, rather than being someone’s imitation, albeit with brilliant brushwork. She foundseveral features that, to her, proved the link, including the striking way the light from thestormy sky falls on the Cathedral spire.

所以，莱尔斯为汉布尔顿这幅18x24英寸的《塞利斯伯尔利教堂》做出重新鉴定时，她希望说明，除了精美的笔触，这幅草图还在最终作品的形成过程中起到了一定作用，并不是其他人的仿作。她发现了若干特征可以证明这种联系，包括暴风雨的天空中透出的光线落在教堂尖顶上这种惊人的方式。

Sotheby’s later hired her to write the catalog entry for the sale, for an undisclosed fee. “Obviously,” she said, “I’m not going to risk putting my name to something that I don’t believein.”

苏富比后来雇用她为这次拍卖撰写拍品目录介绍，润笔费数额不详。“显然，”她说，“我不会冒险为自己不相信的事情而签下自己的名字。”

With her imprimatur as the bedrock evidence, the painting was put up for sale as a Constableat Sotheby’s Jan. 29 sale. The bidding soon surged past the high estimate of $3 million andended light years from the high estimate that Christie’s in 2013 placed on the work — $1,200.

她的认可被视为可靠的证据，1月29日的苏富比拍卖会上，这幅画被当做康斯特布尔的真迹。拍卖迅速超过300万美元的最高估价，这和2013年佳士得为这幅画所做的最高估价可谓相去甚远——当年它的最高估价是1200美元。

And even that value would have been excessive for Mr. Shields, the dissenting Constableexpert: “It’s a really crass, inept painting.”

持不同意见的康斯特布尔专家西尔德斯觉得，1200美元也有点太多了，“这就是一幅粗笨拙劣的画。”