Nestled within the elegant ambiance of the Jean-Georges restaurant at the Mark or the plush setting of the Carlyle’s Gallery, the residents of Manhattan’s Upper East Side operate within an insular bubble. The art world here is rife with personalities and controversies, where scandals can elevate or vilify individuals overnight. Ann Freedman, once the president of the prestigious Knoedler & Co. gallery, navigates this space with an air of mystery, especially following her resignation over scandalous ties to an art fraud case that shocked the elite art community over 15 years ago. Barry Avrich, a documentary filmmaker who encountered her during this tumultuous period, reflected on her compelling presence, noting that even years after the fallout, she remains a pariah, a term that speaks volumes about her current standing in the world she once dominated.
The art fraud case that catapulted Freedman into infamy began in 2016, culminating in what many dubbed the “art fraud trial of the century.” Freedman was accused of facilitating the sale of nearly $80 million in forged artworks, including pieces misattributed to iconic artists like Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, and others. The scheme was executed by a duo of Long Island con artists and a skillful forger, Pei-Shen Qian, who produced works that deceived collectors, experts, and museums alike. However, the trial took an unexpected turn when it settled before Freedman had to take the stand. This left lingering questions regarding her culpability—was she a participant in a grand deception, or merely another victim caught in a web of deceit?
Despite her claims of being duped, a notable segment of the art community holds Freedman accountable for the tarnishing of their reputations. Pierre Lagrange, an aggrieved collector, exemplified this sentiment when he reportedly threatened her, enraged at discovering that the Pollock he purchased was a forgery. As reported, the foundational crisis for Knoedler & Co. began in the early 1990s, with con artists introducing fakes to the art market. The gallery, which had been a fixture since 1846, continued doing business with the individuals involved even after the first fake was publicly identified, raising serious ethical questions about Freedman’s judgment.
In Avrich’s newly released book, “The Devil Wears Rothko,” he chronicles the dramatic decline of Knoedler amid a backdrop of deceit and high-stakes art fraud. Building upon his earlier work, a documentary titled “Made You Look,” he offers a comprehensive exploration of the machinations behind the fraud and its wider implications within the art world. The narrative emphasizes how the deception, which swindled high-profile collectors and museum experts, ultimately exposed a greater issue of faith and trust within an industry that often operates behind veils of ambiguity and exclusivity.
The fates of the key players reveal a stark contrast between Freedman’s experiences and those of the fraud perpetrators. While Freedman continues to operate an art space in the same vicinity as her former glory, the con artists gained far less scrutiny for their roles in the scheme. Rosales, a dealer who facilitated the sale of the forgeries, suffered some consequences but managed to evade a longer sentence, while artworks she facilitated ended up seized by authorities. On the other hand, the original forger Qian has attracted interest as an artist in his own right, further complicating notions of culpability and success within this saga.
Despite maintaining a low profile, Freedman’s continued presence in the art world is met with skepticism, as revealed in a myriad of sarcastic online reviews mocking her efforts. Though she is still engaged in selling art, her public perception remains marred, and the legacy of the fraud continues to overshadow her career. While Avrich faced criticism for not being harsher in his portrayal of Freedman, he chose to let her present her own narrative, allowing audiences to ponder the complexities of her involvement and the broader implications of deceit within the art community. This ongoing debate reflects the tangled web of morality, responsibility, and identity within a market driven by both prestige and fragility.
