Canadian filmmaker Barry Avich.Supplied
In Barry Avrich’s startling 2020 documentary Made You Look: A True Story of Fake Art, the veteran Canadian filmmaker dissected a scandal that rocked the international art world: the closing of New York’s prestigious M. Knoedler & Co. gallery amidst an FBI investigation into phony Rothkos, Pollocks and other supposed masterpieces. A few years later, the scandal’s stench still lingered in the high-stakes scene, inspiring Avrich to revisit the controversy in his new book, The Devil Wears Rothko.
But unlike the many faux works that once crowded Knoedler’s storage units – in actuality the work of a brilliant Chinese forger – Avrich’s book is far from a copy of his original film. Going back to the scene of the crime, Avrich incorporates new reporting and insights to unravel a grand scheme that aimed to bilk millions out of a moneyed crowd too sensitive toward their social status to admit they were even duped.
Ahead of The Devil Wears Rothko’s publication on June 24, Avrich sat down with The Globe and Mail to talk painting a familiar story on a new canvas.
Simon and Schuster/Supplied
Did the idea for a book come to you while making the original film?
When the doc was released, I got approached by a group in Los Angeles that wanted to shop the scripted rights for a fictional version, so they optioned the rights. They saw it as a Succession version of the art world, so I sat through this whirlwind of six weeks of them pitching the studios and the streamers, but the more I listened to their scripted version of what it might be, I thought, there’s a book here. I already had so much that didn’t make it into the film, so that was the beauty of it.
How much new reporting did you have to do versus the archival material you already had?
I’d say 40 per cent is a completely new discovery of material. There was this lawyer character for the person who was accused of selling the forged art, who was a real character and came forward with phenomenal information. I also wanted to unpack the relationship between the gallery’s director Ann Freedman and David Mirvish, who is a major art collector and got dragged into this.
When you approached Mirvish to be involved for the doc, he declined, telling you that his mother taught him that “if he doesn’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it.” How did it go this time?
We were at a dinner party while I was working on this, and he reminded me again of what his mother would say. I think every Jewish mother would say something like that. Mine would. But he basically decided to distance himself from the entire scandal.
Have you heard from Freedman since the documentary came out?
Not from her, but from mutual friends. It’s more like, “Why won’t he leave this story alone? Wasn’t the film enough?” When she did finally watch the film, I got a note from her that only said, “Great editing job.” Which was her way of saying I edited it to make her look bad.
Has the art world changed much from the time you made the doc until now?
You have to look at it through two lenses. In the art world itself, given what’s been happening in the economy, the market has softened dramatically. The gallery business is slow, there’s less of a flow of art being sold. Having said that, there are still huge pieces being sold. Secondly: Nothing has changed in terms of regulation or ensuring there’s no fraud. If anything, I think it’s increased. People want to get a deal, and they’re not looking as closely as they should be at the provenance. People fall in love with the idea of art – they need to have it on their walls, even if they need to look the other way.
It’s shocking that some of the work even got away with the signature of the artist misspelled on the canvas.
Someone in the book says that all over the world, there are potentially fakes hanging in galleries and museums. No museum is going to come forward and say, “We have an entire inventory of fakes.” Nobody’s going to do that. If someone reads this book, goes back to their own collection and discovers a fake, the likelihood of them coming forward is next to nothing. They’re going to be embarrassed. They don’t want the headline.
Is there still hope that this story could be turned into a fictional version, whether a series or film?
Never say never, and I hope this book engages Hollywood. When I went through that pitching session a while back, I felt the pitch was so complex and layered that of course it wouldn’t sell. Succession was about a family and the complexity of families – the broadcasting world was the background. Billions is not about hedge funds and trading, but crazy characters. You can get lost in the art world with this story, which is an industry that isn’t accessible. It’s difficult to understand. But the characters here are complex and rich. So, we could focus on that. Ann Freedman would be perfect for Meryl Streep. And maybe Alfred Molina could play the lawyer. You never know.
This interview has been edited and condensed.
The Devil Wears Rothko (Post Hill Press) is available starting June 24.
