Shopping on line can be easy, simple and save you lots of money. It can also take a lot of your time, frustrate you, and result in unwanted purchases. Now the same can be said for regular high street shopping, but with the vast opportunity presented by the Internet it will pay you to spend a few minutes reading this and understanding how to better optimize your Han Van Meegeren shopping experience:

1. Compare - without doubt the biggest advantage that the Han Van Meegeren offers shoppers today is the ability to compare thousands of Han Van Meegeren at a time. This is a great thing, but not necessarily all the time! Too much can be daunting at times so take advantage of the great comparison sites and where possible let them do the hard work for you.

2. Research - if it has been said it will be on the internet. Ignorance is no longer a justifiable reason for buying the wrong thing. Take the time to research in detail everything that you could possible want to know about

3. Testimonials - don't know anybody that has bought a Han Van Meegeren? Wrong! If the Han Van Meegeren is good the internet will let you know. Use the Internet as a friend and get testimonials before you buy.

4. Questions - Got a question about Han Van Meegeren then search the Forums, FAQ's, Blogs etc. Don't be afraid to ask .....

5. Reputation - Never heard of the company selling Han Van Meegeren? Don't worry, no reason why you should know every company in the world, but you know someone that does! Use the internet to find out what people are saying about Han Van Meegeren and build up a picture of their reputation for sales, returns, customer service, delivery etc.

6. Returns - still worried that even after all of the above your Han Van Meegeren wont be what you want? Check out the returns policy. There is so much competition now that someone, somewhere is bound to offer the terms that you are comfortable with.

7. Feedback - happy with your Han Van Meegeren then let people know, after all you are depending on others people input in your buying decision, so why not give a little back.

8. Security - check for the yellow padlock on the Han Van Meegeren site before you buy, and the s after http:/ /i.e. https:// = a secure site

9. Contact - got a question about Han Van Meegeren, or want to leave a comment then check out the sites contact page. Reputable companies have them and respond.

10. Payment - ready to pay for your Han Van Meegeren, then use your credit card or PayPal! Be aware of companies that don't accept them, there may be genuine reasons but given the huge amount of choice you have when buying online there is no reason at all not to buy via credit card or PayPal.

{{Infobox Person| name = Han van Meegeren| image = Van meegeren trial.jpg| image_size = 250px| caption = During his trial Han van Meegeren demonstrated his forgery techniques before the court by painting his last forgery Jesus among the Doctors.| birth_date = | birth_place = Deventer, Overijssel| occupation = Painter, Art forger| spouse = Anna de Voogt, Jo Oerlemans| parents = Hendrikus Johannes van Meegeren and Augusta Louisa Henrietta Camps| children = Jacques Henri Emil, Pauline, Viola de Boer (stepdaughter)-->

Han van Meegeren ([10 October 1889 in Deventer, Overijssel – 30 December 1947 in Amsterdam), born Henricus Antonius van Meegeren, was a Dutch painter and art restoration, and is considered to be one of the most ingenious art forgers of the 20th century.

As a child Van Meegeren developed an enthusiasm for the marvelous colours used by painters during the Dutch Golden Age, and later set out to become an artist himself. When art critics decried his work as tired and derivative, Van Meegeren felt that the critics had attacked him and had destroyed his career. Thereupon, he decided to prove his talent to the critics by forging paintings of some of the world's most famous artists. Van Meegeren spent six years researching techniques, finally producing perfect forgeries of paintings attributed to Frans Hals, Pieter de Hooch, Gerard ter Borch and Johannes Vermeer. He had so well replicated the styles and colours of the artists he copied, even the best art critics and experts of the time regarded his paintings as genuine, and sometimes exquisite, and the techniques he used could not be detected using authentication methods of the time.

During World War II, wealthy Dutchmen, wanting to prevent a sellout of Dutch art to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, avidly bought Van Meegeren's forgeries. Nevertheless a falsified "Vermeer" ended up in the possession of Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring. Following the war, the forgery was discovered in Göring's possession, and Han van Meegeren was arrested as a German Collaborator, as the officials believed that he had sold Culture of the Netherlands to the Nazis. These crimes threatened the death penalty and so Van Meegeren fearfully confessed to the forgery; he then sought to exonerate himself by painting another “Vermeer” from his jail cell. On 12 November 1947 Van Meegeren was convicted of falsification and fraud charges, and was sentenced to the legal minimum punishment of one year in prison. He never served his sentence; before he could be incarcerated Van Meegeren suffered a heart attack and died on 30 December 1947. It is estimated that Van Meegeren duped buyers out of $25–30 million dollars.

Artistic development Han (a diminutive version of Henri or Henricus) van Meegeren was born the third child of Roman-Catholic parents in the town of Deventer. He was the son of Augusta Louisa Henrietta Camps and Hendrikus Johannes van Meegeren, an English language and history teacher at the Lehrerbildungsanstalt in the city of Deventer.

Early years Early on, Han felt neglected and misunderstood by his father, as the elder Van Meegeren strictly forbade Han’s artistic development, and constantly derided him-“You do not know anything, you are nothing and you can do nothing."Doudart de la Grée, Marie Louise (1946a). The phenomenon: Dramatised documentary concerning the living art painter Han van Meegeren. Amsterdam: Omniboek. p134 – 161.Godley, John (Lord Kilbracken) (1951). Van Meegeren, master forger. p:127 - 129. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. LC call number: ND653.M58 K53 1966. On a visit to the Hogere Burger School, he met teacher and painter Bartus Korteling (1853 - 1930), who would become his mentor. Korteling had been inspired by Johannes Vermeer and showed the young Van Meegeren how Vermeer had manufactured and mixed his colours. Korteling had rejected the Impressionist Movement, as decadent, degenerate art, and his strong personal influence probably later led Van Meegeren to rebuff contemporary styles, and to paint exclusively in the style of the Dutch Golden Age.(Godley, 1951:129 - 134)

Van Meegeren's father did not share his son’s love of art, and instead, encouraged Han to study architecture. In 1907 Van Meegeren, compelled by his father's demands, left home to study at the Delft University of Technology in Delft, the hometown of the Johannes Vermeer. In addition to his architectural studies, Van Meegeren would often visit the art school. During his studies Van Meegeren was able to complete most of the preliminary examinations, but was twice unable to pass the Staatsexamen (final) examination; and in 1913 he gave up his architecture studies and concentrated on drawing and painting at the art school. Early on he studied contemporary art, but quickly became bored with it and was again drawn to the striking colours and perspectives of the Dutch Golden Age paintings. During this time, however, painters from the Hague School, with which Vincent van Gogh was associated early in his career, were highly regarded and in much demand in the Netherlands. On 8 January 1913 Han van Meegeren received the prestigious Gold Medal from the Technical University, for his Study of the Interior of the Church of Saint Lawrence (Laurenskerk) in Rotterdam.illustration found in (Goll, 1962) and (Schueller,1953) The award is given every five years to an art student that creates the best work, and is accompanied by a gold medal. However, Van Meegeren was financially broke and had to sell the study.

In 1911 Van Meegeren married fellow art student, Anna de Voogt, from Rijswijk. After the marriage ceremony, the couple left Delft, and went to live with Anna’s grandmother in Rijswijk. Their son Jacques Henri Emil was born on 26 August 1912 in Rijswijk. Jacques van Meegeren would also become a painter; he died on 26 October 1977 in Amsterdam.

Career as a painter In the summer of 1914 Van Meegeren moved his family to Scheveningen. He completed the diploma examination at the Royal Academy of Art (The Hague) in The Hague, receiving his diploma in drawing on 4 August 1914. The diploma would allow him to teach, and soon after he was offered a position as a Professor at the Academy of Arts. However, wishing to remain an independent artist, Van Meegeren rejected the offer. Instead Van Meegeren left Delft and took a position as an Assistant Professor of Drawing and Art History in Gips, for the small monthly salary of 75 Dutch gulden. In March 1915 his daughter Pauline (later called Inez) was born. To supplement his income, Han would sketch posters and paint small pictures (generally Christmas cards, still-life, landscapes, and portraits) for the art trade.

Van Meegeren showed his first paintings publicly in Delft, where they were exhibited from April to May 1917 at the Kunstzaal Pictura in The Hague. In December 1919 he was accepted as a select member to the Haagse Kunstkring, an exclusive society of writers and painters, who met weekly in the Binnenhof. From his view of the royal palace gardens, adjacent to his studio at The Hague, Van Meegeren would often paint the tame Roe Deer, belonging to Princess Juliana. He made many sketches and drawings of the deer and in 1921 painted Hertje (The fawn), which became quite popular in the Netherlands. Van Meegeren undertook numerous journeys to Belgium, France, Italy and England, and acquired a name for himself as a talented portraitist. He earned stately fees through commissions by the English and American society-circles, which spent their winter vacations on the Côte d'Azur. His clients were impressed by his understanding of the 17th century techniques of the Dutch masters. Throughout his life Van Meegeren would paint pictures to which he would sign his own signature, which differed greatly from the marks he used on his forgeries.Schueller, Sepp (1953). Fake or genuine? The case of Van Meegeren. Bonn. Language: German.

By all accounts promiscuity and alcohol abuse were responsible for the break up of Van Meegeren’s marriage to Anna de Voogt, and they were divorced on 19 July 1923.Godley, 1951:143-147 His wife left with the children and moved to Paris, where from time to time, Van Meegeren would visit his children. Following his divorce the quality of Van Meegeren’s work declined dramatically. Although he had not passed the portrait-painting section of his diploma examination in 1914, he now dedicated himself to portraiture, as it served to earn him the most money.Godley, 1951:142 - 145 In 1929 he was remarried, in Woerden, to the actress Johanna Theresia Oerlemans (also known as Jo van Walraven and Jo Oerlemans), with whom he had been living for the past three years. Jo had previously been married to art critic and journalist, Dr. C H. de Boer (Karel de Boer),and she brought their daughter, Viola, into the Van Meegeren household.

Emergence of the forgeries In the Netherlands Han van Meegeren had become a well-known and wealthy painter. Hertje (1921) and Straatzangers (1928) were particularly popular, and until 1927 he had received mostly praise for his works from the art critics. By 1928 the similarity of Van Meegeren’s paintings of those of the old masters began to draw the reproach of Dutch art critics, which were, at that time, more interested in the Cubist and Surrealist Movements. It was said that Van Meegeren’s gift was in imitation and that, outside of copying other artist’s work, his talent was limited. One critic wrote that Van Meegeren was "A gifted technician who has made a sort of composite facsimile of the Renaissance school, he has every virtue except originality." In response to these comments he published a series of aggressive articles in the monthly magazine De Kemphaan (“The Combat Cock”). Between April 1928 - March 1930, and together with painter, Theo van Wijngaarden, and journalist, January Ubink, Van Meegeren raged against the art community, and in the process lost any sympathy with the critics.Van Meegeren, Han (partly under alias) (April 1928–March 1930). De Kemphaan.

Van Meegeren felt that his genius had been misjudged, and set out to prove to the art critics that he could not only copy the style of the Dutch masters in his paintings, but that he could produce artwork so magnificent that it would rival the works of master painters. Preparations for his forgeries took him six years (1932 - 1937). In the end, he forged works by Frans Hals, Pieter de Hooch, Gerard ter Borch and Johannes Vermeer, that even the critics and art experts could not distinguish from the originals.Goll, Joachim (1962). Art counterfeiter. p.183. Leipzig: E.A.Seemann Publishing House. Language: German (with pictures Number 106 – 122 and literature pp. 249 – 250). Van Meegeren most often forged paintings by the Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer, who died in 1675. Vermeer had not been particularly well-known until the beginning of the twentieth century; his works were both scarce—only about 35 of Vermeer's works have survived—and valuable. Another factor that may have influenced his choice of Vermeer was that during WWII most of Vermeer’s actual works were in protective storage and were unavailable for comparison with Van Meegeren's forgeries.Bailey, 2003:233

Inventing the "perfect forgery" Van Meegeren delved into the biographies of the old masters, studying their lives, their occupations, their trademark techniques and their catalogues. In October of 1932 Dr. Abraham Bredius published an article about a recently discovered Vermeer which he described as a painting of a Man and Woman at a Spinet.Bredius, Abraham (October 1932). "An unpublished Vermeer". Burlington Magazine 61:145. The painting was later sold to Amsterdam banker, Dr. Fritz Mannheimer. It is thought that this painting was the first of Han van Meegeren’s Vermeer forgeries.

In October 1932 Van Meegeren moved to the village of Roquebrune-Cap-Martin with his wife. There he rented the furnished mansion, “Primavera”. In Roquebrune he set out to define the chemical and technical procedures which would be necessary to create his perfect forgeries. Van Meegeren found a 17th century canvas to paint on, and mixed his own paints from raw materials (such as 140 gram lapis lazuli, white lead, indigo, and cinnabar) using old formulas to ensure that they were authentic. In addition he made genuine hair paintbrushes, similar to those Vermeer was known to have used. He came up with a scheme of using phenol and formaldehyde to cause the paints to harden after application, making the paintings appear as if they were 300 years old. After completing a painting, he baked it to dry it out completely, rolled a drum over it to crack it a bit, and later washed it in black (India ink) ink to fill in the cracks.Godley, 1951:43-56, 86-90



It took Van Meegeren six years to work out his techniques, and when he was done he was pleased with his work, on both an artistic and deceptive level. His first two forgeries, using the falsification technology he had developed, were two “Vermeers”: Lady Reading Music after Vermeer’s Woman in Blue Reading a Letter in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, and Lady Playing Music after Vermeer’s Woman with a Lute near a window at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. Van Meegeren did not sell these paintings, as he felt that they were too recognizable as forgeries.

Following a journey to the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, Van Meegeren painted The Disciples at Emmaus, using the ultramarine blues and yellows preferred by Johannes Vermeer and other Dutch Golden Age painters. After learning that the experts assumed Vermeer had studied in Italy, Van Meergeren used :Image:Caravaggio.emmaus.750pix.jpg by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, located at Italy’s Pinacoteca di Brera, as the model for his next work. He had always wanted to walk in the steps of the masters, and he felt that his forgery, The Disciples at Emmaus, was a fine work in its own right. Van Meegeren gave the forgery to his friend, the attorney C. A. Boon, telling him it was a genuine Vermeer, and persuaded him to pass the painting on to potential buyers as authentic.Schueller, 1953:26

Famous art connoisseur and Vermeer expert, Dr. Abraham Bredius, examined the forgery in September 1937,Bredius, Abraham (November 1937). "A new Vermeer". Burlington Magazine 71:210-211. and despite some doubts whether it was a genuine Vermeer, the painting was purchased by shipowner Daniel George van Beuningen for 550,000 guilders ($300,000 or about $4 million today.To obtain the relative value in U.S. currency for a given year the number of guilders was divided by the rate of exchange (guilders or pounds per dollar) for that year. The value in U.S. currency for a given year was then entered into the formula at What is the Relative Value? to obtain the relative value in currency in “today’s” money (Consumer Price Index for 2005).) In 1938, the piece was highlighted in a special exhibition at the Rotterdam museum along with 450 Dutch masterpieces dating from 1400-1800. In the "Magazine for History of Art", A. Feulner wrote that: “In the rather isolated area, in which the Vermeer picture hung, it was as quiet as in a chapel. The feeling of the consecration overflows on the visitors, although the picture has no ties to ritual or church."Schueller, 1953: 28 The emotional effect of the picture as religious experience was so profound that many art critics no longer questioned the authenticity of the piece.

In the summer of 1938 Han van Meegeren moved to Nice. Using the proceeds from the sale of The Disciples at Emmaus he bought a 12 bedroom estate at Les Arènes de Cimiez. On the walls of the estate hung two of Van Meegeren’s best forgeries, Interior with Cardplayers and Interior with Drinkers, both displaying the signature of Pieter de Hooch. During his time in Nice, Van Meegeren painted The Last Supper I, in the style of Vermeer.The Last Supper I was later recovered in September 1949, during a search of the estate of Dr. Paul Coremans; x-ray examinations revealed that Van Meegeren had reused the canvas of a painting by Govert Flinck.

On 29 July 1939, as the Second World War threatened, Han van Meegeren returned to the Netherlands. He remained at a hotel in Amsterdam for five months and in 1940 moved to the city of Laren. Throughout November and December of 1941 Van Meegeren issued his designs, which he would publish in 1942 as Han van Meegeren: Catalogue I. During this time Van Meegeren created several forgeries, including The Head of Christ, The Last Supper II, The Blessing of Jacob, and The Washing of the Feet, all in the manner of Vermeer. On 18 December 1943 he separated from his second wife, Jo Oerlemans. Around this same time the quality of van Meegeren's forgeries worsened and he became addicted to alcohol and morphine.

In November 1944, Van Meegeren moved to Amsterdam, where he took up residence in the exclusive Keizersgracht 321.Boissevain, Jeremy (1996) Coping With Tourists: European Reactions to Mass Tourism. Berghahn Books. p233. ISBN 1571818782 His forgeries had earned him between 5.5 to 7.5 million guilders ($2-$3 million, or about $23-30 million today.Bailey, 2002:234 He used this money to purchase a large amount of real estate, as well as works of art, and to further his luxurious life-style. In a 1946 interview, he told Marie Louise Doudart de la Grée that he had owned 52 houses and 15 country houses around Laren, among them "Grachtenhaeuser", a protected monument;Godley, 1951:43 and in Amsterdam, he had operated several nightclubs.Schueller, 1953:39Godley, 1951:215

The forger fools Hermann Göring Under the German occupation of the Netherlands, Van Meegeren sold a Vermeer forgery, Christ with the Adulteress, to banker and art dealer Alois Miedl in 1942. Experts could have easily identified it as a forgery, as Van Meegeren had used cobalt blue, a colour invented well after Vermeer’s death.Bailey 2003:255 Miedl later sold it to Reichsmarshall Hermann Göring for 1.65 million guilders ($625,000 or $7 million today.)

It is believed by some that Göring cheated Van Meegeren by paying him in counterfeit currency.

Hermann Göring showcased the Vermeer forgery at his residence in Carinhall (about 65 kilometers north of Berlin). On 25 August 1943 Hermann Göring hid his collection of looting artwork, including Christ with the Adulteress in an Austrian salt mine, along with 6,750 other pieces of artwork looted by the Nazis. On 17 May 1945, the allied forces entered the salt mine, where Captain Harry Anderson discovered the previously unknown "Vermeer."

In May of 1945, the allied forces questioned banker and art dealer, Alois Niedl, regarding the newly discovered Vermeer. Niedl confessed that he had purchased the Vermeer from Van Meegeren. On 29 May 1945 Han van Meegeren was arrested and charged with fraud and aiding and abetting the enemy. He was remanded to Weteringschans prison. As an alleged Pursuit of Nazi collaborators and Nazi plunder of Dutch cultural property the authorities threatened Van Meegeren with extensive prison time or the death penalty.

Faced with these bleak choices, and after spending six weeks in jail, he confessed to forging the paintings attributed to Vermeer and Pieter de Hooch. On 12 June 1945 he exclaimed: “The painting in Göring’s hands is not, as you assume, a Vermeer van Delft, but a Van Meegeren! I painted the picture!”Schueller, 1953:16 Several experts were wary of Van Meegeren’s tale of the "Vermeer", so between July and September 1945, in the presence of 6 witnesses (including a Vermeer expert, a photographer, and four police officers), Van Meegeren painted his last forgery, Jesus among the Doctors.

Trial, sentence and death The trial of Han van Meegeren began on 29 October 1947 in Room 4 of the Regional Court in Amsterdam.Doudart de la Grée, 1946a:176–217Godley, 1951:268-281 The collaboration charges had been dropped, since the expert panel had found that the "Vermeer" sold to Hermann Göring by Han van Meegeren had been a forgery and was, therefore, not the cultural property of the Netherlands. The public prosecutor, H. A. Wassenbergh, brought charges of forgery and fraud against Han van Meegeren, and demanded that the defendant serve two years in prison for his crimes.

The court commissioned an international group of experts to address the authenticity of Van Meegeren's paintings. The commission included curators, professors and doctors from the Netherlands, Belgium and England and was led by the director of the chemical laboratory at the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, Dr. Paul Coremans.Coremans, Paul B. (1949). Van Meegeren’s faked Vermeers and De Hooghs: a scientific examination. Amsterdam: J. M. Meulenhoff. .Schueller, 1953: 18-19 Over a two-year period, the commission examined the Vermeer and Frans Hals paintings which Han van Meegeren had designated as forgeries. With the help of the commission Dr. Coremans was able to determine the chemical composition of Han van Meegeren’s paints. He found that Van Meegeren had prepared the paints by mixing modern white lead with the plastic bonding agent Albertol (also sold under the name Ampertol), a phenol formaldehyde resin. Both of these components were introduced and manufactured in the 20th century, proving that the “Vermeers” and “Frans Hals” examined by the commission were not painted in the 17th century by the Dutch masters, but were in fact recent endeavours.Roth, Toni (1971). "Methods to determine identity and authenticity". The art and the beautiful home 83:81-85. The test results obtained by the commission appeared to confirm that the works were forgeries, but their authenticity would continue to be debated by experts until 1967, when new investigative techniques were used to analyze the paintings.

On 12 November 1947 the Fourth Chamber of the Amsterdam Regional Court found Han van Meegeren guilty of forgery and fraud, and sentenced him to a minimum sentence of one year in prison.TIME Magazine "Truth & Consequences" Monday, Nov. 24, 1947. On 26 November 1947, the last day to appeal the ruling, Van Meegeren suffered a myocardial infarction and was rushed to the Valeriuskliniek hospital in Amsterdam.Godley, 1951:282. While at the hospital, Van Meegeren suffered a second heart attack on 29 December, and was pronounced dead at 7:00 pm on 30 December 1947. His family and several hundred of his friends attended his funeral at the Driehuis Westerveld Crematorium chapel. In 1948 his urn was buried in the general cemetery at Raalterweg 29 in the village of Diepenveen (municipality of Deventer).

Aftermath

The court ruled that Van Meegeren’s estate be auctioned and the proceeds from his property and the sale of his counterfeits be used to refund the buyers of his works, to pay income taxes on the sale of his paintings, and to pay for the services of the middlemen and dealers who had sold his works. In December of 1945 Van Meegeren had filed for bankruptcy. On 5 and 6 September 1950, Van Meegeren’s Amsterdam house at Keizersgracht 321 was auctioned by order of the court, along with 738 pieces of furniture and works of art, including numerous paintings by old and new masters from Van Meegeren's private collection.

Together with his Amsterdam house, estimated to be worth 65,000 guilders, the proceeds of the sale amounted to 123,000 guilders. Van Meegeren’s unsigned painting The Last Supper I was bought for 2,300 guilders, while the forgery Jesus among the Doctors (which Van Meegeren had painted while in detention) sold for 3,000 guilders (about $800 or about $7,000 today.) Today the painting hangs in a Johannesburg church. The sale of the Van Meegeren’s entire estate amounted to 242,000 guildersTIME Magazine "Not for Money" Monday, Sep. 18, 1950. ($60,000, or about $0.5 million today).

Jacque van Meegeren’s claim In January 1951 Han van Meegeren’s son announced to the Paris press that his father had forged four additional paintings:



However, when Jacque van Meegeren could not provide any documents, sketches or witnesses to prove that the paintings were forgeries, the authorities lost interest in his statements.Schueller, 1953:46-48

M. Jean Decoen's objection M. Jean Decoen, a Brussels art expert and restorer, stated in his 1951 book that he believed two of Van Meegeren's paintings, The Disciples at Emmaus and The Last Supper II, to be genuine Vermeers, and that it was after these two models that Han van Meegeren had falsified his Vermeers. Decoen went on to state that conclusions of Dr. Paul Coreman’s panel of experts were wrong and that the paintings should again be examined.Decoen, Jean (1950). Back to the truth, Vermeer-Van Meegeren :Two genuine Vermeers. Rotterdam: Editions Ad. Donker. Illustrations: b/w. .Schueller, 1953:48-58

The buyer of The Last Supper II, Interior with Drinkers, and The Head of Christ, ship-owner Daniel George van Beuningen, demanded that Dr. Paul Coremans publicly admit that he had erred in his analysis of Van Meegeren’s paintings. When Coremans refused, Van Beuningen sued him, alleging that Coremans’ wrongful branding of The Last Supper II diminished the value of his “Vermeer” and asking for compensation of £500,000 (about $1.3 million or about $10 million today.) The trial was set for 2 June 1955, but was delayed owing to Van Beuningen's death on 29 May 1955. Approximately seven months later, the court heard the case on behalf of Van Beuningen's heirs. The court found in favour of Coremans, and the findings of his commission were upheld.Godley, 1951:256-258

The Carnegie Mellon examination In 1967, the Artists Material Center at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania examined several of the “Vermeers” in their collection. Under the direction of Dr. Robert Feller and Dr. Bernard Keisch, the examination confirmed that several of their paintings were, in fact, created using materials invented in the 20th century. They concluded that the “Vermeers” in their possession were, in reality, Van Meegeren forgeries. In the process of their examinations Feller and Keisch also confirmed the findings of the 1946 Coremans commission, and refuted the claims made by M. Jean Decoen.Keisch, Bernard, Robert L. Feller, A. S. Levine and R. R. Edwards (1967). " Dating and authenticating works of art by measurement of natural alpha radiation". 155 (3767):1238-1242. The test results, obtained by the Carnegie Mellon team are summarized below.

Han van Meegeren knew that white lead was used during Vermeer’s time, but of course Van Meegeren had to obtain his stocks through the modern colour trade, which had changed significantly since the 17th century. During Vermeer’s time, Dutch lead was mined from deposits located in the Low Countries; however, by the 19th century most lead was imported from the rich ores of Australia and the Americas. Thus, modern white lead differs greatly from the white lead Vermeer would have used, both in the isotope composition of the lead and in the content of trace chemical element found in the ores. Dutch white lead was extracted from ores containing high levels of trace elements of silver and antimony.Strauss, R.(1968). "Analysis of investigations of pigments from paintings of south German painters in the 17th and 18th century." (With 62 slides). Thesis. Technical University Munich. On the other hand, the modern white lead used by Han van Meegeren contained neither silver nor antimony, as those elements are now separated from the lead during the modern smelting process.Exhibition catalog Essen and Berlin. Falsification and Research (1976) "Museum Folkwang, Essen and Staatliche Museen Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin". Berlin. Language: German. ISBN 3-7759-0201-5.

Forgeries in which modern lead or white lead pigment has been used can be recognized by using a technique called Pb(Lead)-210-Dating.Keisch, Bernard (1968). " Dating works through their natural radioactivity: Improvements and applications". Science 160:413-415. Pb-210 is a naturally occurring radioactive element that is part of the Uranium-238 Decay chain, and has a half life of 22.3 years. To determine the amount of Pb-210, the alpha radiation emitted by another element, Polonium-210 (Po-210), is measured.Flett, Robert (October 8, 2003). Understanding the Pb-210 Method. Thus it is possible to estimate the age of a painting, within a few years' span, by extrapolating the Pb-210 content present in the paint used to create the painting.Froentjes, W., and R. Breek (1977). "A new study into the identity of the of Van Meegeren". Chemical Magazine: 583-589.

The white lead in the painting The Disciples at Emmaus had Polonium-210 values of 8.5 +/- 1.4 and Radium-226 (part of the Uranium-238 Radioactive decay series) values of 0.8 +/- 0.3. In contrast, the white lead found in Dutch paintings from 1600-1660 had Polonium-210 values of 0.23 +/- 0.27 and Radium-226 values of 0.40+/- 0.47.

Legacy Van Meegeren played many different roles, most of which were shrouded in fraudulent intentions. Early on Han’s father may have foreseen his path, as his father once told him: “You are a cheat and always will be."Doudart de la Grée, 1946a:145, 230 He deceived and disappointed those around him in order to fulfill his goal of besting his critics. After Van Meegeren was released on bail he continued to paint, signing his works with his own name. His new-found popularity ensured quick sale of Van Meegeren's new paintings, often selling at prices that were five times what they had before he had been unmasked as a forger. Van Meegeren also told the news media that "he had an offer from a Manhattan gallery to come to the U.S. and paint portraits "in the 17th century manner" at $6,000 a throw."TIME Magazine The Price of Forgery Monday, Nov. 18, 1946.

A Dutch opinion poll conducted in October of 1947 placed Han van Meegeren’s popularity second in the nation, behind only the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. The Dutch people viewed Van Meegeren as a cunning trickster, who successfully fooled the Dutch art experts, and more importantly fooled Hermann Göring himself. In fact, according to a contemporary account, when Göring was informed that his “Vermeer” was actually a forgery " looked as if for the first time he had discovered there was evil in the world". Han van Meegeren remains one of the most ingenious art counterfeiters of the 20th century. After his trial, however, he declared: “My triumph as a counterfeiter was my defeat as creative artist."Doudart de la Grée, 1946a:224

Works List of Han van Meegeren’s forgeries:Van Brandhof, Marijke (1979). "Early Vermeer 1937. Contexts of life and work of the painter/falsifier Han van Meegeren". (Catalogue of Han van Meegeren work pp. 153-163, with numerous illustrations of the pictures with the signature H. van Meegeren.) Dissertation. Utrecht: The Spectrum.De Boer, H., and Pieter Koomen (1942). Photographs of the paintings of Han van Meegeren: Han van Meegeren (Teekeningen I). With a preface by Drs-Ing. E. A. van Genderen Stort. 'sGravenhage: Publishing House L. J. C. Boucher.



Posthumously, Van Meegeren's forgeries have been shown in exhibitions around the world, including exhibitions in Amsterdam (1952), Basel (1953), Zurich (1953), Haarlem in the Kunsthandlung de Boer (1958), London (1961), Rotterdam (1971), Minneapolis (1973), Essen (1976-1977), Berlin (1977), Slot Zeist (1985), New York (1987), Berkeley, CA (1990), Munich (1991), Rotterdam (1996), The Hague (1996) and more recently at the Haagse Kunstkring, The Hague (2004) and Stockholm (2004), and have thus been made broadly accessible to the public (Schmidt, 1953; Mondadori, 1991, and Van Wijnen, 1996).Mondadori, Arte Arnaldo (1991). "Genuinely wrong" (Villa Stuck, München). Fondation Cartier.Schmidt, Georg (ed.) (1953). "Wrong or genuine?" (Basel, Zurich). Basel Art Museum.Van Wijnen, H. (1996). "Exhibition catalog Rotterdam". Han van Meegeren. (With 30 black-and-white and 16 colour pictures.) The Hague. Language: Dutch.

Notes and references Further reading Han van Meegeren biographies

Novels about or inspired by Han van Meegeren | publisher = Penguin Classics (1993-reprint) | date = 1955 | id = ISBN 3-442-44878-6-->

Films about or inspired by Han van Meegeren

External links



{{Persondata] {{Infobox Person| name = Han van Meegeren| image = Van meegeren trial.jpg| image_size = 250px| caption = During his trial Han van Meegeren demonstrated his forgery techniques before the court by painting his last forgery Jesus among the Doctors.| birth_date = | birth_place = Deventer, Overijssel| occupation = Painter, Art forger| spouse = Anna de Voogt, Jo Oerlemans| parents = Hendrikus Johannes van Meegeren and Augusta Louisa Henrietta Camps| children = Jacques Henri Emil, Pauline, Viola de Boer (stepdaughter)-->

Han van Meegeren ([10 October 1889 in Deventer, Overijssel – 30 December 1947 in Amsterdam), born Henricus Antonius van Meegeren, was a Dutch painter and art restoration, and is considered to be one of the most ingenious art forgers of the 20th century.

As a child Van Meegeren developed an enthusiasm for the marvelous colours used by painters during the Dutch Golden Age, and later set out to become an artist himself. When art critics decried his work as tired and derivative, Van Meegeren felt that the critics had attacked him and had destroyed his career. Thereupon, he decided to prove his talent to the critics by forging paintings of some of the world's most famous artists. Van Meegeren spent six years researching techniques, finally producing perfect forgeries of paintings attributed to Frans Hals, Pieter de Hooch, Gerard ter Borch and Johannes Vermeer. He had so well replicated the styles and colours of the artists he copied, even the best art critics and experts of the time regarded his paintings as genuine, and sometimes exquisite, and the techniques he used could not be detected using authentication methods of the time.

During World War II, wealthy Dutchmen, wanting to prevent a sellout of Dutch art to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, avidly bought Van Meegeren's forgeries. Nevertheless a falsified "Vermeer" ended up in the possession of Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring. Following the war, the forgery was discovered in Göring's possession, and Han van Meegeren was arrested as a German Collaborator, as the officials believed that he had sold Culture of the Netherlands to the Nazis. These crimes threatened the death penalty and so Van Meegeren fearfully confessed to the forgery; he then sought to exonerate himself by painting another “Vermeer” from his jail cell. On 12 November 1947 Van Meegeren was convicted of falsification and fraud charges, and was sentenced to the legal minimum punishment of one year in prison. He never served his sentence; before he could be incarcerated Van Meegeren suffered a heart attack and died on 30 December 1947. It is estimated that Van Meegeren duped buyers out of $25–30 million dollars.

Artistic development Han (a diminutive version of Henri or Henricus) van Meegeren was born the third child of Roman-Catholic parents in the town of Deventer. He was the son of Augusta Louisa Henrietta Camps and Hendrikus Johannes van Meegeren, an English language and history teacher at the Lehrerbildungsanstalt in the city of Deventer.

Early years Early on, Han felt neglected and misunderstood by his father, as the elder Van Meegeren strictly forbade Han’s artistic development, and constantly derided him-“You do not know anything, you are nothing and you can do nothing."Doudart de la Grée, Marie Louise (1946a). The phenomenon: Dramatised documentary concerning the living art painter Han van Meegeren. Amsterdam: Omniboek. p134 – 161.Godley, John (Lord Kilbracken) (1951). Van Meegeren, master forger. p:127 - 129. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. LC call number: ND653.M58 K53 1966. On a visit to the Hogere Burger School, he met teacher and painter Bartus Korteling (1853 - 1930), who would become his mentor. Korteling had been inspired by Johannes Vermeer and showed the young Van Meegeren how Vermeer had manufactured and mixed his colours. Korteling had rejected the Impressionist Movement, as decadent, degenerate art, and his strong personal influence probably later led Van Meegeren to rebuff contemporary styles, and to paint exclusively in the style of the Dutch Golden Age.(Godley, 1951:129 - 134)

Van Meegeren's father did not share his son’s love of art, and instead, encouraged Han to study architecture. In 1907 Van Meegeren, compelled by his father's demands, left home to study at the Delft University of Technology in Delft, the hometown of the Johannes Vermeer. In addition to his architectural studies, Van Meegeren would often visit the art school. During his studies Van Meegeren was able to complete most of the preliminary examinations, but was twice unable to pass the Staatsexamen (final) examination; and in 1913 he gave up his architecture studies and concentrated on drawing and painting at the art school. Early on he studied contemporary art, but quickly became bored with it and was again drawn to the striking colours and perspectives of the Dutch Golden Age paintings. During this time, however, painters from the Hague School, with which Vincent van Gogh was associated early in his career, were highly regarded and in much demand in the Netherlands. On 8 January 1913 Han van Meegeren received the prestigious Gold Medal from the Technical University, for his Study of the Interior of the Church of Saint Lawrence (Laurenskerk) in Rotterdam.illustration found in (Goll, 1962) and (Schueller,1953) The award is given every five years to an art student that creates the best work, and is accompanied by a gold medal. However, Van Meegeren was financially broke and had to sell the study.

In 1911 Van Meegeren married fellow art student, Anna de Voogt, from Rijswijk. After the marriage ceremony, the couple left Delft, and went to live with Anna’s grandmother in Rijswijk. Their son Jacques Henri Emil was born on 26 August 1912 in Rijswijk. Jacques van Meegeren would also become a painter; he died on 26 October 1977 in Amsterdam.

Career as a painter In the summer of 1914 Van Meegeren moved his family to Scheveningen. He completed the diploma examination at the Royal Academy of Art (The Hague) in The Hague, receiving his diploma in drawing on 4 August 1914. The diploma would allow him to teach, and soon after he was offered a position as a Professor at the Academy of Arts. However, wishing to remain an independent artist, Van Meegeren rejected the offer. Instead Van Meegeren left Delft and took a position as an Assistant Professor of Drawing and Art History in Gips, for the small monthly salary of 75 Dutch gulden. In March 1915 his daughter Pauline (later called Inez) was born. To supplement his income, Han would sketch posters and paint small pictures (generally Christmas cards, still-life, landscapes, and portraits) for the art trade.

Van Meegeren showed his first paintings publicly in Delft, where they were exhibited from April to May 1917 at the Kunstzaal Pictura in The Hague. In December 1919 he was accepted as a select member to the Haagse Kunstkring, an exclusive society of writers and painters, who met weekly in the Binnenhof. From his view of the royal palace gardens, adjacent to his studio at The Hague, Van Meegeren would often paint the tame Roe Deer, belonging to Princess Juliana. He made many sketches and drawings of the deer and in 1921 painted Hertje (The fawn), which became quite popular in the Netherlands. Van Meegeren undertook numerous journeys to Belgium, France, Italy and England, and acquired a name for himself as a talented portraitist. He earned stately fees through commissions by the English and American society-circles, which spent their winter vacations on the Côte d'Azur. His clients were impressed by his understanding of the 17th century techniques of the Dutch masters. Throughout his life Van Meegeren would paint pictures to which he would sign his own signature, which differed greatly from the marks he used on his forgeries.Schueller, Sepp (1953). Fake or genuine? The case of Van Meegeren. Bonn. Language: German.

By all accounts promiscuity and alcohol abuse were responsible for the break up of Van Meegeren’s marriage to Anna de Voogt, and they were divorced on 19 July 1923.Godley, 1951:143-147 His wife left with the children and moved to Paris, where from time to time, Van Meegeren would visit his children. Following his divorce the quality of Van Meegeren’s work declined dramatically. Although he had not passed the portrait-painting section of his diploma examination in 1914, he now dedicated himself to portraiture, as it served to earn him the most money.Godley, 1951:142 - 145 In 1929 he was remarried, in Woerden, to the actress Johanna Theresia Oerlemans (also known as Jo van Walraven and Jo Oerlemans), with whom he had been living for the past three years. Jo had previously been married to art critic and journalist, Dr. C H. de Boer (Karel de Boer),and she brought their daughter, Viola, into the Van Meegeren household.

Emergence of the forgeries In the Netherlands Han van Meegeren had become a well-known and wealthy painter. Hertje (1921) and Straatzangers (1928) were particularly popular, and until 1927 he had received mostly praise for his works from the art critics. By 1928 the similarity of Van Meegeren’s paintings of those of the old masters began to draw the reproach of Dutch art critics, which were, at that time, more interested in the Cubist and Surrealist Movements. It was said that Van Meegeren’s gift was in imitation and that, outside of copying other artist’s work, his talent was limited. One critic wrote that Van Meegeren was "A gifted technician who has made a sort of composite facsimile of the Renaissance school, he has every virtue except originality." In response to these comments he published a series of aggressive articles in the monthly magazine De Kemphaan (“The Combat Cock”). Between April 1928 - March 1930, and together with painter, Theo van Wijngaarden, and journalist, January Ubink, Van Meegeren raged against the art community, and in the process lost any sympathy with the critics.Van Meegeren, Han (partly under alias) (April 1928–March 1930). De Kemphaan.

Van Meegeren felt that his genius had been misjudged, and set out to prove to the art critics that he could not only copy the style of the Dutch masters in his paintings, but that he could produce artwork so magnificent that it would rival the works of master painters. Preparations for his forgeries took him six years (1932 - 1937). In the end, he forged works by Frans Hals, Pieter de Hooch, Gerard ter Borch and Johannes Vermeer, that even the critics and art experts could not distinguish from the originals.Goll, Joachim (1962). Art counterfeiter. p.183. Leipzig: E.A.Seemann Publishing House. Language: German (with pictures Number 106 – 122 and literature pp. 249 – 250). Van Meegeren most often forged paintings by the Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer, who died in 1675. Vermeer had not been particularly well-known until the beginning of the twentieth century; his works were both scarce—only about 35 of Vermeer's works have survived—and valuable. Another factor that may have influenced his choice of Vermeer was that during WWII most of Vermeer’s actual works were in protective storage and were unavailable for comparison with Van Meegeren's forgeries.Bailey, 2003:233

Inventing the "perfect forgery" Van Meegeren delved into the biographies of the old masters, studying their lives, their occupations, their trademark techniques and their catalogues. In October of 1932 Dr. Abraham Bredius published an article about a recently discovered Vermeer which he described as a painting of a Man and Woman at a Spinet.Bredius, Abraham (October 1932). "An unpublished Vermeer". Burlington Magazine 61:145. The painting was later sold to Amsterdam banker, Dr. Fritz Mannheimer. It is thought that this painting was the first of Han van Meegeren’s Vermeer forgeries.

In October 1932 Van Meegeren moved to the village of Roquebrune-Cap-Martin with his wife. There he rented the furnished mansion, “Primavera”. In Roquebrune he set out to define the chemical and technical procedures which would be necessary to create his perfect forgeries. Van Meegeren found a 17th century canvas to paint on, and mixed his own paints from raw materials (such as 140 gram lapis lazuli, white lead, indigo, and cinnabar) using old formulas to ensure that they were authentic. In addition he made genuine hair paintbrushes, similar to those Vermeer was known to have used. He came up with a scheme of using phenol and formaldehyde to cause the paints to harden after application, making the paintings appear as if they were 300 years old. After completing a painting, he baked it to dry it out completely, rolled a drum over it to crack it a bit, and later washed it in black (India ink) ink to fill in the cracks.Godley, 1951:43-56, 86-90



It took Van Meegeren six years to work out his techniques, and when he was done he was pleased with his work, on both an artistic and deceptive level. His first two forgeries, using the falsification technology he had developed, were two “Vermeers”: Lady Reading Music after Vermeer’s Woman in Blue Reading a Letter in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, and Lady Playing Music after Vermeer’s Woman with a Lute near a window at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. Van Meegeren did not sell these paintings, as he felt that they were too recognizable as forgeries.

Following a journey to the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, Van Meegeren painted The Disciples at Emmaus, using the ultramarine blues and yellows preferred by Johannes Vermeer and other Dutch Golden Age painters. After learning that the experts assumed Vermeer had studied in Italy, Van Meergeren used :Image:Caravaggio.emmaus.750pix.jpg by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, located at Italy’s Pinacoteca di Brera, as the model for his next work. He had always wanted to walk in the steps of the masters, and he felt that his forgery, The Disciples at Emmaus, was a fine work in its own right. Van Meegeren gave the forgery to his friend, the attorney C. A. Boon, telling him it was a genuine Vermeer, and persuaded him to pass the painting on to potential buyers as authentic.Schueller, 1953:26

Famous art connoisseur and Vermeer expert, Dr. Abraham Bredius, examined the forgery in September 1937,Bredius, Abraham (November 1937). "A new Vermeer". Burlington Magazine 71:210-211. and despite some doubts whether it was a genuine Vermeer, the painting was purchased by shipowner Daniel George van Beuningen for 550,000 guilders ($300,000 or about $4 million today.To obtain the relative value in U.S. currency for a given year the number of guilders was divided by the rate of exchange (guilders or pounds per dollar) for that year. The value in U.S. currency for a given year was then entered into the formula at What is the Relative Value? to obtain the relative value in currency in “today’s” money (Consumer Price Index for 2005).) In 1938, the piece was highlighted in a special exhibition at the Rotterdam museum along with 450 Dutch masterpieces dating from 1400-1800. In the "Magazine for History of Art", A. Feulner wrote that: “In the rather isolated area, in which the Vermeer picture hung, it was as quiet as in a chapel. The feeling of the consecration overflows on the visitors, although the picture has no ties to ritual or church."Schueller, 1953: 28 The emotional effect of the picture as religious experience was so profound that many art critics no longer questioned the authenticity of the piece.

In the summer of 1938 Han van Meegeren moved to Nice. Using the proceeds from the sale of The Disciples at Emmaus he bought a 12 bedroom estate at Les Arènes de Cimiez. On the walls of the estate hung two of Van Meegeren’s best forgeries, Interior with Cardplayers and Interior with Drinkers, both displaying the signature of Pieter de Hooch. During his time in Nice, Van Meegeren painted The Last Supper I, in the style of Vermeer.The Last Supper I was later recovered in September 1949, during a search of the estate of Dr. Paul Coremans; x-ray examinations revealed that Van Meegeren had reused the canvas of a painting by Govert Flinck.

On 29 July 1939, as the Second World War threatened, Han van Meegeren returned to the Netherlands. He remained at a hotel in Amsterdam for five months and in 1940 moved to the city of Laren. Throughout November and December of 1941 Van Meegeren issued his designs, which he would publish in 1942 as Han van Meegeren: Catalogue I. During this time Van Meegeren created several forgeries, including The Head of Christ, The Last Supper II, The Blessing of Jacob, and The Washing of the Feet, all in the manner of Vermeer. On 18 December 1943 he separated from his second wife, Jo Oerlemans. Around this same time the quality of van Meegeren's forgeries worsened and he became addicted to alcohol and morphine.

In November 1944, Van Meegeren moved to Amsterdam, where he took up residence in the exclusive Keizersgracht 321.Boissevain, Jeremy (1996) Coping With Tourists: European Reactions to Mass Tourism. Berghahn Books. p233. ISBN 1571818782 His forgeries had earned him between 5.5 to 7.5 million guilders ($2-$3 million, or about $23-30 million today.Bailey, 2002:234 He used this money to purchase a large amount of real estate, as well as works of art, and to further his luxurious life-style. In a 1946 interview, he told Marie Louise Doudart de la Grée that he had owned 52 houses and 15 country houses around Laren, among them "Grachtenhaeuser", a protected monument;Godley, 1951:43 and in Amsterdam, he had operated several nightclubs.Schueller, 1953:39Godley, 1951:215

The forger fools Hermann Göring Under the German occupation of the Netherlands, Van Meegeren sold a Vermeer forgery, Christ with the Adulteress, to banker and art dealer Alois Miedl in 1942. Experts could have easily identified it as a forgery, as Van Meegeren had used cobalt blue, a colour invented well after Vermeer’s death.Bailey 2003:255 Miedl later sold it to Reichsmarshall Hermann Göring for 1.65 million guilders ($625,000 or $7 million today.)

It is believed by some that Göring cheated Van Meegeren by paying him in counterfeit currency.

Hermann Göring showcased the Vermeer forgery at his residence in Carinhall (about 65 kilometers north of Berlin). On 25 August 1943 Hermann Göring hid his collection of looting artwork, including Christ with the Adulteress in an Austrian salt mine, along with 6,750 other pieces of artwork looted by the Nazis. On 17 May 1945, the allied forces entered the salt mine, where Captain Harry Anderson discovered the previously unknown "Vermeer."

In May of 1945, the allied forces questioned banker and art dealer, Alois Niedl, regarding the newly discovered Vermeer. Niedl confessed that he had purchased the Vermeer from Van Meegeren. On 29 May 1945 Han van Meegeren was arrested and charged with fraud and aiding and abetting the enemy. He was remanded to Weteringschans prison. As an alleged Pursuit of Nazi collaborators and Nazi plunder of Dutch cultural property the authorities threatened Van Meegeren with extensive prison time or the death penalty.

Faced with these bleak choices, and after spending six weeks in jail, he confessed to forging the paintings attributed to Vermeer and Pieter de Hooch. On 12 June 1945 he exclaimed: “The painting in Göring’s hands is not, as you assume, a Vermeer van Delft, but a Van Meegeren! I painted the picture!”Schueller, 1953:16 Several experts were wary of Van Meegeren’s tale of the "Vermeer", so between July and September 1945, in the presence of 6 witnesses (including a Vermeer expert, a photographer, and four police officers), Van Meegeren painted his last forgery, Jesus among the Doctors.

Trial, sentence and death The trial of Han van Meegeren began on 29 October 1947 in Room 4 of the Regional Court in Amsterdam.Doudart de la Grée, 1946a:176–217Godley, 1951:268-281 The collaboration charges had been dropped, since the expert panel had found that the "Vermeer" sold to Hermann Göring by Han van Meegeren had been a forgery and was, therefore, not the cultural property of the Netherlands. The public prosecutor, H. A. Wassenbergh, brought charges of forgery and fraud against Han van Meegeren, and demanded that the defendant serve two years in prison for his crimes.

The court commissioned an international group of experts to address the authenticity of Van Meegeren's paintings. The commission included curators, professors and doctors from the Netherlands, Belgium and England and was led by the director of the chemical laboratory at the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, Dr. Paul Coremans.Coremans, Paul B. (1949). Van Meegeren’s faked Vermeers and De Hooghs: a scientific examination. Amsterdam: J. M. Meulenhoff. .Schueller, 1953: 18-19 Over a two-year period, the commission examined the Vermeer and Frans Hals paintings which Han van Meegeren had designated as forgeries. With the help of the commission Dr. Coremans was able to determine the chemical composition of Han van Meegeren’s paints. He found that Van Meegeren had prepared the paints by mixing modern white lead with the plastic bonding agent Albertol (also sold under the name Ampertol), a phenol formaldehyde resin. Both of these components were introduced and manufactured in the 20th century, proving that the “Vermeers” and “Frans Hals” examined by the commission were not painted in the 17th century by the Dutch masters, but were in fact recent endeavours.Roth, Toni (1971). "Methods to determine identity and authenticity". The art and the beautiful home 83:81-85. The test results obtained by the commission appeared to confirm that the works were forgeries, but their authenticity would continue to be debated by experts until 1967, when new investigative techniques were used to analyze the paintings.

On 12 November 1947 the Fourth Chamber of the Amsterdam Regional Court found Han van Meegeren guilty of forgery and fraud, and sentenced him to a minimum sentence of one year in prison.TIME Magazine "Truth & Consequences" Monday, Nov. 24, 1947. On 26 November 1947, the last day to appeal the ruling, Van Meegeren suffered a myocardial infarction and was rushed to the Valeriuskliniek hospital in Amsterdam.Godley, 1951:282. While at the hospital, Van Meegeren suffered a second heart attack on 29 December, and was pronounced dead at 7:00 pm on 30 December 1947. His family and several hundred of his friends attended his funeral at the Driehuis Westerveld Crematorium chapel. In 1948 his urn was buried in the general cemetery at Raalterweg 29 in the village of Diepenveen (municipality of Deventer).

Aftermath

The court ruled that Van Meegeren’s estate be auctioned and the proceeds from his property and the sale of his counterfeits be used to refund the buyers of his works, to pay income taxes on the sale of his paintings, and to pay for the services of the middlemen and dealers who had sold his works. In December of 1945 Van Meegeren had filed for bankruptcy. On 5 and 6 September 1950, Van Meegeren’s Amsterdam house at Keizersgracht 321 was auctioned by order of the court, along with 738 pieces of furniture and works of art, including numerous paintings by old and new masters from Van Meegeren's private collection.

Together with his Amsterdam house, estimated to be worth 65,000 guilders, the proceeds of the sale amounted to 123,000 guilders. Van Meegeren’s unsigned painting The Last Supper I was bought for 2,300 guilders, while the forgery Jesus among the Doctors (which Van Meegeren had painted while in detention) sold for 3,000 guilders (about $800 or about $7,000 today.) Today the painting hangs in a Johannesburg church. The sale of the Van Meegeren’s entire estate amounted to 242,000 guildersTIME Magazine "Not for Money" Monday, Sep. 18, 1950. ($60,000, or about $0.5 million today).

Jacque van Meegeren’s claim In January 1951 Han van Meegeren’s son announced to the Paris press that his father had forged four additional paintings:



However, when Jacque van Meegeren could not provide any documents, sketches or witnesses to prove that the paintings were forgeries, the authorities lost interest in his statements.Schueller, 1953:46-48

M. Jean Decoen's objection M. Jean Decoen, a Brussels art expert and restorer, stated in his 1951 book that he believed two of Van Meegeren's paintings, The Disciples at Emmaus and The Last Supper II, to be genuine Vermeers, and that it was after these two models that Han van Meegeren had falsified his Vermeers. Decoen went on to state that conclusions of Dr. Paul Coreman’s panel of experts were wrong and that the paintings should again be examined.Decoen, Jean (1950). Back to the truth, Vermeer-Van Meegeren :Two genuine Vermeers. Rotterdam: Editions Ad. Donker. Illustrations: b/w. .Schueller, 1953:48-58

The buyer of The Last Supper II, Interior with Drinkers, and The Head of Christ, ship-owner Daniel George van Beuningen, demanded that Dr. Paul Coremans publicly admit that he had erred in his analysis of Van Meegeren’s paintings. When Coremans refused, Van Beuningen sued him, alleging that Coremans’ wrongful branding of The Last Supper II diminished the value of his “Vermeer” and asking for compensation of £500,000 (about $1.3 million or about $10 million today.) The trial was set for 2 June 1955, but was delayed owing to Van Beuningen's death on 29 May 1955. Approximately seven months later, the court heard the case on behalf of Van Beuningen's heirs. The court found in favour of Coremans, and the findings of his commission were upheld.Godley, 1951:256-258

The Carnegie Mellon examination In 1967, the Artists Material Center at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania examined several of the “Vermeers” in their collection. Under the direction of Dr. Robert Feller and Dr. Bernard Keisch, the examination confirmed that several of their paintings were, in fact, created using materials invented in the 20th century. They concluded that the “Vermeers” in their possession were, in reality, Van Meegeren forgeries. In the process of their examinations Feller and Keisch also confirmed the findings of the 1946 Coremans commission, and refuted the claims made by M. Jean Decoen.Keisch, Bernard, Robert L. Feller, A. S. Levine and R. R. Edwards (1967). " Dating and authenticating works of art by measurement of natural alpha radiation". 155 (3767):1238-1242. The test results, obtained by the Carnegie Mellon team are summarized below.

Han van Meegeren knew that white lead was used during Vermeer’s time, but of course Van Meegeren had to obtain his stocks through the modern colour trade, which had changed significantly since the 17th century. During Vermeer’s time, Dutch lead was mined from deposits located in the Low Countries; however, by the 19th century most lead was imported from the rich ores of Australia and the Americas. Thus, modern white lead differs greatly from the white lead Vermeer would have used, both in the isotope composition of the lead and in the content of trace chemical element found in the ores. Dutch white lead was extracted from ores containing high levels of trace elements of silver and antimony.Strauss, R.(1968). "Analysis of investigations of pigments from paintings of south German painters in the 17th and 18th century." (With 62 slides). Thesis. Technical University Munich. On the other hand, the modern white lead used by Han van Meegeren contained neither silver nor antimony, as those elements are now separated from the lead during the modern smelting process.Exhibition catalog Essen and Berlin. Falsification and Research (1976) "Museum Folkwang, Essen and Staatliche Museen Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin". Berlin. Language: German. ISBN 3-7759-0201-5.

Forgeries in which modern lead or white lead pigment has been used can be recognized by using a technique called Pb(Lead)-210-Dating.Keisch, Bernard (1968). " Dating works through their natural radioactivity: Improvements and applications". Science 160:413-415. Pb-210 is a naturally occurring radioactive element that is part of the Uranium-238 Decay chain, and has a half life of 22.3 years. To determine the amount of Pb-210, the alpha radiation emitted by another element, Polonium-210 (Po-210), is measured.Flett, Robert (October 8, 2003). Understanding the Pb-210 Method. Thus it is possible to estimate the age of a painting, within a few years' span, by extrapolating the Pb-210 content present in the paint used to create the painting.Froentjes, W., and R. Breek (1977). "A new study into the identity of the of Van Meegeren". Chemical Magazine: 583-589.

The white lead in the painting The Disciples at Emmaus had Polonium-210 values of 8.5 +/- 1.4 and Radium-226 (part of the Uranium-238 Radioactive decay series) values of 0.8 +/- 0.3. In contrast, the white lead found in Dutch paintings from 1600-1660 had Polonium-210 values of 0.23 +/- 0.27 and Radium-226 values of 0.40+/- 0.47.

Legacy Van Meegeren played many different roles, most of which were shrouded in fraudulent intentions. Early on Han’s father may have foreseen his path, as his father once told him: “You are a cheat and always will be."Doudart de la Grée, 1946a:145, 230 He deceived and disappointed those around him in order to fulfill his goal of besting his critics. After Van Meegeren was released on bail he continued to paint, signing his works with his own name. His new-found popularity ensured quick sale of Van Meegeren's new paintings, often selling at prices that were five times what they had before he had been unmasked as a forger. Van Meegeren also told the news media that "he had an offer from a Manhattan gallery to come to the U.S. and paint portraits "in the 17th century manner" at $6,000 a throw."TIME Magazine The Price of Forgery Monday, Nov. 18, 1946.

A Dutch opinion poll conducted in October of 1947 placed Han van Meegeren’s popularity second in the nation, behind only the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. The Dutch people viewed Van Meegeren as a cunning trickster, who successfully fooled the Dutch art experts, and more importantly fooled Hermann Göring himself. In fact, according to a contemporary account, when Göring was informed that his “Vermeer” was actually a forgery " looked as if for the first time he had discovered there was evil in the world". Han van Meegeren remains one of the most ingenious art counterfeiters of the 20th century. After his trial, however, he declared: “My triumph as a counterfeiter was my defeat as creative artist."Doudart de la Grée, 1946a:224

Works List of Han van Meegeren’s forgeries:Van Brandhof, Marijke (1979). "Early Vermeer 1937. Contexts of life and work of the painter/falsifier Han van Meegeren". (Catalogue of Han van Meegeren work pp. 153-163, with numerous illustrations of the pictures with the signature H. van Meegeren.) Dissertation. Utrecht: The Spectrum.De Boer, H., and Pieter Koomen (1942). Photographs of the paintings of Han van Meegeren: Han van Meegeren (Teekeningen I). With a preface by Drs-Ing. E. A. van Genderen Stort. 'sGravenhage: Publishing House L. J. C. Boucher.



Posthumously, Van Meegeren's forgeries have been shown in exhibitions around the world, including exhibitions in Amsterdam (1952), Basel (1953), Zurich (1953), Haarlem in the Kunsthandlung de Boer (1958), London (1961), Rotterdam (1971), Minneapolis (1973), Essen (1976-1977), Berlin (1977), Slot Zeist (1985), New York (1987), Berkeley, CA (1990), Munich (1991), Rotterdam (1996), The Hague (1996) and more recently at the Haagse Kunstkring, The Hague (2004) and Stockholm (2004), and have thus been made broadly accessible to the public (Schmidt, 1953; Mondadori, 1991, and Van Wijnen, 1996).Mondadori, Arte Arnaldo (1991). "Genuinely wrong" (Villa Stuck, München). Fondation Cartier.Schmidt, Georg (ed.) (1953). "Wrong or genuine?" (Basel, Zurich). Basel Art Museum.Van Wijnen, H. (1996). "Exhibition catalog Rotterdam". Han van Meegeren. (With 30 black-and-white and 16 colour pictures.) The Hague. Language: Dutch.

Notes and references Further reading Han van Meegeren biographies

Novels about or inspired by Han van Meegeren | publisher = Penguin Classics (1993-reprint) | date = 1955 | id = ISBN 3-442-44878-6-->

Films about or inspired by Han van Meegeren

External links



{{Persondata]

 

Han Van Meegeren



 
Copyright © 2008 Hintcenter.com - All rights reserved.
Home | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
All Trademarks belong to their repective owners. Many aspects of this page are used under
commercial commons license from Yahoo!