The outcome of an ongoinglegal battle pitting theartist John Chamberlainagainst Gerard Malanga, oneof Andy Warhols principalassistants, could have animpact on the reputations ofmore than just those big-nameplayers. At issue is theauthenticity and multimillion-dollar sale of a work thatmay or may not be by Warhol.In late August, a judge determinedthat the suit, initiallyfiled nearly three years ago,could move forward to trial.

The subject of the legalwrangling is the billboard-size315 Johnscomposed of315 eight-by-eight-inch silkscreensof Chamberlain’shead—which Chamberlain,81, says he sold as a Warholto an unidentified collectorin 2000, shortly after theAndy Warhol AuthenticationBoard gave it a stamp ofapproval. The work is listed,with a date of 1967, involume 2B of the Warholcatalogue raisonné, whichcontains other, undisputedportraits of Chamberlain.

In the lawsuit, whichMalanga, who worked forWarhol from 1963 to 1970,initially filed in December2005 in Brooklyn SupremeCourt, the 65-year-old poetand photographer allegesthat 315 Johns was notChamberlain’s to sell andhad merely been stored foryears in Chamberlain’sTribeca loft by mutualagreement. Malanga furtherasserts that it was notWarhol but he himself whocreated it—in 1971, when hewas no longer workingin Warhol’s studio—togetherwith two other artists: IreneHarris and Jim Jacobs,who was then Chamberlain’sassistant and who hascorroborated Malanga’sstory. The suit seeks eitherthe return of the painting ormore than $250,000, aswell as punitive damages ofmore than $3 million. PeterStern, the New York lawyerrepresenting Malanga, saysproblems with schedulingdepositions and other proceduralmatters account formuch of the delay betweenthe original filing and thejudge’s decision this summerto green-light the trial.

Malanga’s complaintalso alleges that he and hishelpers “created an excessof 320 canvases depictingdefendant,” of which,according to Stern, “we areaware of the whereabouts offour.” One of these belongsto Irene Nolan, a friend ofMalanga’s. For referenceduring the case, the lawyerhas borrowed the panel, onwhose back are inscribed thewords “To Irene” followed bya message obscured bystretcher bars.

In an affidavit swornbefore the court last March,Chamberlain disputes allthese claims, asserting that315 Johns “was conceivedand created by Andy Warhol,in discussions with [myself]and Henry Geldzahler, andwas given to me by Andy aspart of an exchange for oneor more of my sculptures.”Chamberlain is the lonesurviving witness of thatalleged episode, sinceWarhol died in 1987 andGeldzahler, the influentialcurator of 20th-century art,passed away in 1994.

Malanga says he foundout about the sale of 315Johns in February 2004 atthe Art Dealers Associationof America annual artshow, in New York, whereChamberlain told him he hadgotten $5 million for thepiece, which he hadpresented as a Warhol. WhyChamberlain, an internationalart star, would riskeither hawking an outrightfabrication or claiming tohave done so is unclear, butone prominent New Yorkcontemporary-art dealerfamiliar with the artist’sbrash, rebellious manner andmercurial personality sayssuch an action “would bevery Chamberlain.”

Of course, questionsof attribution are not at allsurprising when dealingwith Warhol—an artist whofamously toyed with thevery notion of authenticityand originality by relying onmechanical means ofproduction and the help ofassistants. In another illustrationof the problemsraised by this artisticprocess, the filmmaker JoeSimon-Whalen has broughtsuit against the Andy WarholFoundation for the VisualArts and the authenticationboard for refusing to authenticatea Warhol self-portraithe owns. He accuses them oftrying to monopolize theartist’s market and is seeking$20 million in damages.It is ironic that Malanga,who has admitted forgingWarhols in the past, isnow claiming to exposeChamberlain for passingoff a fake. Some followingthe case wonder if he isactually suing because hedid not get a cut of the deal.

It seems remarkablethat the art world’s powerful gossip engine hasbeen unable to identify thebuyer of the painting or,given the controversy swirlingaround its authenticity,that he or she has notstepped forward. EvenChamberlain’s lawyer, RossGerber, of the Valley Stream,New York, law firm Minerva& D’Agostino, has littleinformation. “We don’t knowwhere the painting is. Wedon’t know who it was soldto,” he says. “We are tryingto determine that now.”

In allowing Malanga’sslow-moving lawsuit togo forward, Judge MartinSchneier rejectedChamberlain’s motions fordismissal, which were basedon the “conclusive evidence”of the Warhol authenticationboard’s finding that 315Johns was genuine, whichmeant Malanga’s versionof the facts “should bedisregarded.” The judgenoted that the court was notbound by that decision,whose “persuasive authority,”in any case, “is undercutby the fact that it was madewithout considerationof [Malanga’s] allegations.”He further pointed out that“Chamberlain is unableto produce the bill of sale,the name of the buyer, theshipping information or anyother documentation thatwould be expected from asale of this magnitude.”On the other hand, Malangawas also unable to providea paper trail, aside fromhis and Jacobs’s signedstatements, to substantiatehis claim that he createdthe artwork.

Responding to thejudge’s reasoning, Gerberconceded the lack ofthe types of proof of salementioned but citesin their place a copy ofChamberlain’s 2000personal income tax returnindicating capital gains of$3.8 million on a “fineart” transaction. Althoughneither the piece nor theartist involved was named onthe return, Chamberlain’saccountant said in a depositionthat the gain wasrealized on a work by AndyWarhol. In further support ofChamberlain’s position,Gerber asks why “someonewho wasn’t asked by AndyWarhol [would] do themenial work to create suchan elaborate and complexcomposition?”

It’s a question othershave asked. One explanationis suggested by a sourcevery familiar with thesituation, who insists onanonymity—and whose storyis backed up by someoneelse close to Malanga. Thesource tells Art+Auction thatMalanga and the two othersexecuted the silkscreensin 1971 as part of a projectconceived by Chamberlain,who wanted to use thework as a frontispiece for hissculpture retrospectivethat year at the GuggenheimMuseum in New York, butthat it was rejected on thecuratorial grounds thatit was neither a Chamberlainnor a Warhol. This story isdisputed, however, by theformer Guggenheim curatorDiane Waldman, who organizedthe Chamberlainretrospective. “As far as Irecall, [such a piece] wasnever something we consideredfor the museum,” shesays. Gerber, Chamberlain’sattorney, is similarly in thedark. “I know nothing aboutthat,” he says. “It’s neverbeen indicated to me by theplaintiff’s counsel. I don’thave a clue.”

The next pretrial phasewill consist of more depositions,including one byNeil Printz, a coeditor of theAndy Warhol catalogueraisonné and a memberof the authenticationcommittee, and byChamberlain’s ex-wife,Lorraine Chamberlain, whohas said in an affidavit,that “on several occasionsover the years, John[Chamberlain] referred tothe canvas panels as ‘fake’or ‘phony’ Warhols.”

Whatever the legaloutcome, for some observers,the artistic verdict isclear: 315 Johns is a genuineWarhol. “I’ve seen the work,and there was nothing tosay it wasn’t Andy’s,” saysone Warhol expert, whoinsists on anonymity. “It’svery reminiscent of the‘Happy 100 Times paintings[of Margaretta ‘Happy’Rockefeller] that weredone around the same timeand very close to theportraits of artists collectivelyknown as the ‘CastelliPortraits.’ ” On this matter,it seems, the law and thecritical eye may diverge.“It should be rememberedthat courts and art scholarsare operating under differentstandards when itcomes to determining accuracyof fact,” cautionsRonald Spencer, the legalcounsel for the Warholauthentication board. “Theboard is always open toreceiving new information,and if reliable, relevantevidence emerges from thelitigation, the board wouldcertainly take that intoaccount in assessing itsopinion.”
"The Mysterious 315 Johns" originally appeared in the November 2008 issue of Art+Auction. For a complete list of articles from this issue available on ARTINFO, see Art+Auction's November 2008 Table of Contents.