It seems remarkable that the art world’s powerful gossip engine has been unable to identify the buyer of the painting or, given the controversy swirling around its authenticity, that he or she has not stepped forward. Even Chamberlain’s lawyer, Ross Gerber, of the Valley Stream, New York, law firm Minerva & D’Agostino, has little information. “We don’t know where the painting is. We don’t know who it was sold to,” he says. “We are trying to determine that now.”

In allowing Malanga’s slow-moving lawsuit to go forward, Judge Martin Schneier rejected Chamberlain’s motions for dismissal, which were based on the “conclusive evidence” of the Warhol authentication board’s finding that 315 Johns was genuine, which meant Malanga’s version of the facts “should be disregarded.” The judge noted that the court was not bound by that decision, whose “persuasive authority,” in any case, “is undercut by the fact that it was made without consideration of [Malanga’s] allegations.” He further pointed out that “Chamberlain is unable to produce the bill of sale, the name of the buyer, the shipping information or any other documentation that would be expected from a sale of this magnitude.” On the other hand, Malanga was also unable to provide a paper trail, aside from his and Jacobs’s signed statements, to substantiate his claim that he created the artwork.

Responding to the judge’s reasoning, Gerber conceded the lack of the types of proof of sale mentioned but cites in their place a copy of Chamberlain’s 2000 personal income tax return indicating capital gains of $3.8 million on a “fine art” transaction. Although neither the piece nor the artist involved was named on the return, Chamberlain’s accountant said in a deposition that the gain was realized on a work by Andy Warhol. In further support of Chamberlain’s position, Gerber asks why “someone who wasn’t asked by Andy Warhol [would] do the menial work to create such an elaborate and complex composition?”

It’s a question others have asked. One explanation is suggested by a source very familiar with the situation, who insists on anonymity—and whose story is backed up by someone else close to Malanga. The source tells Art+Auction that Malanga and the two others executed the silkscreens in 1971 as part of a project conceived by Chamberlain, who wanted to use the work as a frontispiece for his sculpture retrospective that year at the Guggenheim Museum in New York, but that it was rejected on the curatorial grounds that it was neither a Chamberlain nor a Warhol. This story is disputed, however, by the former Guggenheim curator Diane Waldman, who organized the Chamberlain retrospective. “As far as I recall, [such a piece] was never something we considered for the museum,” she says. Gerber, Chamberlain’s attorney, is similarly in the dark. “I know nothing about that,” he says. “It’s never been indicated to me by the plaintiff’s counsel. I don’t have a clue.”

The next pretrial phase will consist of more depositions, including one by Neil Printz, a coeditor of the Andy Warhol catalogue raisonné and a member of the authentication committee, and by Chamberlain’s ex-wife, Lorraine Chamberlain, who has said in an affidavit, that “on several occasions over the years, John [Chamberlain] referred to the canvas panels as ‘fake’ or ‘phony’ Warhols.”

Whatever the legal outcome, for some observers, the artistic verdict is clear: 315 Johns is a genuine Warhol. “I’ve seen the work, and there was nothing to say it wasn’t Andy’s,” says one Warhol expert, who insists on anonymity. “It’s very reminiscent of the ‘Happy 100 Times’ paintings [of Margaretta ‘Happy’ Rockefeller] that were done around the same time and very close to the portraits of artists collectively known as the ‘Castelli Portraits.’ ” On this matter, it seems, the law and the critical eye may diverge. “It should be remembered that courts and art scholars are operating under different standards when it comes to determining accuracy of fact,” cautions Ronald Spencer, the legal counsel for the Warhol authentication board. “The board is always open to receiving new information, and if reliable, relevant evidence emerges from the litigation, the board would certainly take that into account in assessing its opinion.”
"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.