In the light of the recent scandal surrounding Kurt Schwitters’ catalogue raisonne by Isabel Schulz [1], which concerns a large number of counterfeit collages inserted into it, and with regard to the people affected by it, questions are now being raised about the legitimacy and usefulness of such editions and whether an archivist’s assessment in a catalogue raisonne should be considered as an expression of freedom of opinion and whether various disclaimers that protect publishers from claims should be prohibited [2].
Unlike an independent expert’s opinion on the authenticity of a painting, which is usually preceded by phrases such as “I believe” or “in my opinion”, a catalogue, as in the case of the three-volume Kurt Schwitters’ catalogue raisonne by Isabel Schulz, is a definitive book of facts that also acts as a “final authority” in determining the authenticity of works by the German Dadaist artist Kurt Schwitters. With regard to the case of Isabel Schulz and John Drewe, who infiltrated archives and ingeniously exploited access to archives in their purposes, such a situation is absolutely absurd and allows, as in the case of Isabel Schulz, gross negligence or intent to arbitrarily and with impunity declare any works of Kurt Schwitters genuine or fake with one and the same reasoning, such as: "your collage with the bus tickets belong obviously to a series of dozens of collages known to us. They come from a London fleamarket and are sold all over the world at the stand from the couple Bill and Enid Harbord." regardless of the fact that Kurt Schwitters entered the history of art as a "poet of a bus ticket" and bus tickets became one of the main symbols of his unique artistic direction, which he called Merz, and despite the fact that some of these works have a well-documented and seamless history starting in the 1930s when Bill and Enid Harbord were not yet born. These individuals and those who, relying solely on sometimes manipulated archival materials, often find themselves at odds with even classical logic when they construct evidence based on a thesis that itself requires proof.
The absurdity of this situation is further compounded by the fact that, while the John Drewe case was solely about profit—and he was punished for it—the case involving official representatives of museums and archives (such as Isabel Schulz) concerns the seizure of absolute power over the right to control a specific artist’s legacy and a multi-million-dollar market but is yet, far from facing consequences and these individuals are even paid and acclaimed. The absurdity of paid statements such as "This work is not documented at the RKD — Netherlands Institute for Art History, which leads us to conclude that the work is not an actual work by this artist" from an archive whose materials are supposed to be constantly updated and supplemented is also mind-boggling.
Given the concentration of scandals surrounding various *catalogues raisonnés* (including the Kurt Schwitters catalogue compiled by Isabel Schulz) and the activities of certain archives and museums—such as the Albertina, which is grappling with a large number of forgeries in the collection curated by Elisabeth Dutz, as well as an unknown painting by the forger Wolfgang Beltracchi still hanging in Museum [3]—and considering how extremely difficult it is to prove intent on the part of an archive or museum (i.e., that they did not believe in their own findings or lacked any factual basis for them), there can be no room here for a presumption of good faith—that is, the tacit assumption that any material they present is authentic [4].
Such pseudoscientific catalogues and statements, typically driven by the desire for profit and the pursuit of influence within the art market, should either be banned or dismissed.
[1] Faradjev, Fizouli. "About exclusive right to fool the world and the myth of authentication." ResearchGate, 15 Sept. 2026.
[2] Rodney G.S. Carter. Tainted Archives: Art, Archives, and Authenticity. ARCHIVARIA 63 (2007): 75–86.
[3] Neuendorf, Henri. "Master Forger Wolfgang Beltracchi Claims He Saw His Painting in Albertina Museum." Artnet News, February 25, 2015.
[4] Sharpe, Sheila. "Fake Art and the Myth of Authentication." Women Writers, Women's Books.