LADY SINGS THE BLUES…BUT STACKED THE GREEN: An Analysis Of The “Stay In Your Limited Lane” Revelation
Sometimes, life does imitate art.
Take Mask, the 1985 film starring Cher and Sam Elliott. In the scene shown above, Cher, and co-star Micole Mercurio, were discussing the men in their lives.
Cher tells Mercurio that being single has its advantages with this zinger: “You take their money, you gotta take their shit.”
I was reminded of “Mask” as I read the 41-page affidavit filed on June 23, 2022 by FBI Special Agent Elizabeth Rivas — attached to the search warrant allowing the FBI to seize the bogus Basquiats previously exhibited at the Orlando Museum of Art.
Included in the raid warrant was an excerpt from an email (now former) Museum Director Aaron De Groft sent to Jordana Moore Saggese, an academic who had been tasked with authenticating six artworks owned by Pierce O’Donnell and his “Basquiat Venice Collections” for their owners.
Sounding like he was rehearsing for a downscale dinner theater production of “Guys and Dolls”, De Groft (in a February 12, 2022, email sent to Saggese and copied to others) stated:
“You want us to put our there you got $60 grand to write this? Ok then. Shut up. You took the money. Stop being holier than thou. You did this not me or anybody else. Think (Saggese’s employer) would like to know? Be quiet now is my best advice. These are real and legit. You know this. You are threatening the wrong people. Do your academic thing and stay in your limited lane.”
Although De Groft’s email was clearly a dick move, in my opinion, Saggese is not exactly without potential culpability.
According to the warrant, Saggese was indeed paid “approximately $60,000 by several people and entities associated with the Mumford Collection”, including Los Angeles attorney Pierce O’Donnell, to “provide a report detailing her professional opinion of the Mumford Collection.”
It was the first time Saggese had ever been asked to provide such a report.
O’Donnell provided Saggese with “information regarding the backstory of the Mumford Collection, including a document O’Donnell termed a “provenance insert”.
The euphemistically-termed “insert” was, in fact, the “Declaration of Taryn Burns”.
According to the warrant, Saggese relied on the Taryn Burns “provenance insert” in “forming her opinion in as to the paintings’ authenticity.”
It appears Saggese did not seek to confirm the “facts” asserted in the Burns declaration, or perform any basic “due diligence” on the background and reputation of Burns, or her “partners Lu Quan and William Force”.
If Saggese had performed a simple Google search in 2017, she would have found a reference to a civil fraud case filed June 11, 2014 by Anders Karlsson in United States District Court in the Central District of California against Burns, Force, John Leo Mangan III (AKA “Lee”) and notorious Pollock forger, John Re.
Hell, the cover page of an August 29, 2014 “Affidavit” filed by Mangan in the civil fraud case even included contact information for Burns!
In July, 2018, I was investigating and reporting on a (wait for it!) Basquiat scam Burns was involved in, along with Lu Quan, William Force and David Damante. Looks like Burns’ low-rent criminal persona might have rubbed off on De Groft.
Here’s one of the emails Burns sent me.
According to the FBI warrant, Pierce O’Donnell was clear with Saggese that he “wanted to sell the paintings to make a profit.”
O’Donnell dangled a future revenue stream, telling Saggese that “after the artwork sold for millions”, he would “fund scholarships” that Saggese could establish at her “academic institution.”
According to the warrant, Saggese ultimately “authored a report as to the six pieces” (cover shown above) in Pierce O’Donnell’s collection, stating that it was “her professional opinion that this work is consistent with the hand of Jean-Michel Basquiat and may be attributed to him.”
“Despite variations with known works by Jean-Michel Basquiat, including the shape of the jawline and the rendering of the halo above the head, there are many common features with Catalogue 25 that support an attribution to Jean-Michel Basquiat. Further supported by the positive analysis of the signature “JEAN” in the lower right corner by handwriting expert Jim Blanco, it is my professional opinion that this work is consistent with the hand of Jean-Michel Basquiat and may be attributed to him.”
After the Orlando Museum of Art publicity machine went into high gear, Saggese sent an email to Pierce O’Donnell and former Museum Director, Aaron De Groft, backpedaling from her full-throated affirmation of the authenticity of O’Donnell’s six-painting collection.
In the email, Saggese stated:
“It has come to my attention that my name has been used in association with the works in your exhibition at the Orlando Museum of Art. However, as I stated before I am in no way authorized to authenticate unknown works by Jean-Michel Basquiat and want no involvement in this show. I do not want to be further associated with any promotion of these works for financial gain or otherwise. Any use or continued use of my name in association with these works will be considered defamatory and I reserve the right to pursue punitive damages if this continues.”
Wow, “I don’t want to be associated with any promotion of these works for financial gain” just morphed into “punitive damages” right before our eyes.
So does that mean Saggese will give the money back?
Nahhh!
Hey, Dr. Saggese, you took their money…now it looks like you gotta take their shit.
BACKGROUND: OMERTA IN ORLANDO?
Here are excerpts, written by Pierce O’Donnell, that appeared in the Orlando Museum of Art’s “Heroes & Monsters” Basquiat exhibition.
And excerpts from Saggese’s report:
“Given our knowledge of Jean-Michel Basquiat’s travels to and from Los Angeles in the period between 1982 and 1983 and the timeline of when these works were reportedly acquired from the artist (see Appendix B), we could conclude that the works in the Basquiat Venice Collection may have been produced during the winter months of 1982–83. One of the artist’s studio assistants in Los Angeles has written of Basquiat bartering works in another instance during his time there; therefore, one can imagine that additional informal transactions took place (without the knowledge of his dealer/landlord Larry Gagosian) while the artist was in LA.”
“Works numbered twenty-one through twenty-seven share common materials, as well as media support. We see also the repetition of certain colors, which suggests the works were completed by the artist concurrently with one another. Reports on the provenance, provided by Taryn Burns (see Appendix B), also suggest that these seven works were discovered as a single collection in Los Angeles in 2012. I was able to observe all seven paintings in San Francisco in July 2017, and in my professional opinion, they were all in excellent condition considering the reported age. I saw no obvious flaking of paint, aside from Catalogue Number 25, which is the only work of the seven with pastel on its surface. Reports from conservators similarly confirmed the condition of these works as excellent.”
“Another major, and more likely, factor may very well have been at play. Gagosian likely would have furnished Basquiat with the canvas to create paintings for his exhibitions in Los Angeles. If Basquiat used those canvases to paint pictures that he was “selling out the back door” for walking around money, Gagosian might have noticed. So, Basquiat could have turned to cardboard, paperboard and wood panels to stay safely under Gagosian’s radar.”
“Whatever the motivation, with inexpensive cardboard and no pressure for high-priced gallery sales, Basquiat had welcome opportunities to experiment, to rework old ideas, as well as develop new themes, motifs, and expressions of his multi-faceted ideas. Likewise, he could mix and match various types of media on cardboard, wood, and paperboard substrate without worrying about what the art critics, Nosei, or hovering art collectors would say. Several of the works in the Basquiat Venice Collection contain motifs, themes, and images that Basquiat would later repeat or reinvent in successive works on canvas as he was known to do. The seven paintings in the Basquiat Venice Collection attest to the fact that his use of cardboard, paperboard, and wood did not hinder his creativity. One thing is certain: these paintings should not be devalued because they are not painted on canvas.”
“As explained in more detail below, it is my professional opinion that Catalogue Numbers 21–27 may be attributed to Jean-Michel Basquiat based on their comparison to known works, with which these paintings share imagery and icons. The paintings contain many of the most popular symbols of Jean-Michel Basquiat, including: crowns, figures with halos, arrows, figures with top hats, skulls, birds and bird-like figures. We also see several examples of cars and trucks, which held a personal significance for the artist given his childhood experience of being hit by a car. The constellation of images that appear on the surfaces operate outside of a specific narrative; it seems that instead that the works have been radically distilled to include only the most salient symbols, as if an attempt is made here to represent the artist via specific reference to his best-known works. Here, the symbols themselves become a type of currency, a recognition of the artist’s marketability and significance on a global scale.”
“Despite variations with known works by Jean-Michel Basquiat, including the shape of the jawline and the rendering of the halo above the head, there are many common features with Catalogue 25 that support an attribution to Jean-Michel Basquiat. Further supported by the positive analysis of the signature “JEAN” in the lower right corner by handwriting expert Jim Blanco, it is my professional opinion that this work is consistent with the hand of Jean-Michel Basquiat and may be attributed to him.”
