The outcome of an ongoing legal battle pitting the artist John Chamberlain against Gerard Malanga, one of Andy Warhol’s principal assistants, could have an impact on the reputations of more than just those big-name players. At issue is the authenticity and multimillion- dollar sale of a work that may or may not be by Warhol. In late August, a judge determined that the suit, initially filed nearly three years ago, could move forward to trial.

The subject of the legal wrangling is the billboard-size 315 Johns—composed of 315 eight-by-eight-inch silkscreens of Chamberlain’s head—which Chamberlain, 81, says he sold as a Warhol to an unidentified collector in 2000, shortly after the Andy Warhol Authentication Board gave it a stamp of approval. The work is listed, with a date of 1967, in volume 2B of the Warhol catalogue raisonné, which contains other, undisputed portraits of Chamberlain.

In the lawsuit, which Malanga, who worked for Warhol from 1963 to 1970, initially filed in December 2005 in Brooklyn Supreme Court, the 65-year-old poet and photographer alleges that 315 Johns was not Chamberlain’s to sell and had merely been stored for years in Chamberlain’s Tribeca loft by mutual agreement. Malanga further asserts that it was not Warhol but he himself who created it—in 1971, when he was no longer working in Warhol’s studio—together with two other artists: Irene Harris and Jim Jacobs, who was then Chamberlain’s assistant and who has corroborated Malanga’s story. The suit seeks either the return of the painting or more than $250,000, as well as punitive damages of more than $3 million. Peter Stern, the New York lawyer representing Malanga, says problems with scheduling depositions and other procedural matters account for much of the delay between the original filing and the judge’s decision this summer to green-light the trial.

Malanga’s complaint also alleges that he and his helpers “created an excess of 320 canvases depicting defendant,” of which, according to Stern, “we are aware of the whereabouts of four.” One of these belongs to Irene Nolan, a friend of Malanga’s. For reference during the case, the lawyer has borrowed the panel, on whose back are inscribed the words “To Irene” followed by a message obscured by stretcher bars.

In an affidavit sworn before the court last March, Chamberlain disputes all these claims, asserting that 315 Johns “was conceived and created by Andy Warhol, in discussions with [myself] and Henry Geldzahler, and was given to me by Andy as part of an exchange for one or more of my sculptures.” Chamberlain is the lone surviving witness of that alleged episode, since Warhol died in 1987 and Geldzahler, the influential curator of 20th-century art, passed away in 1994.

Malanga says he found out about the sale of 315 Johns in February 2004 at the Art Dealers Association of America annual art show, in New York, where Chamberlain told him he had gotten $5 million for the piece, which he had presented as a Warhol. Why Chamberlain, an international art star, would risk either hawking an outright fabrication or claiming to have done so is unclear, but one prominent New York contemporary-art dealer familiar with the artist’s brash, rebellious manner and mercurial personality says such an action “would be very Chamberlain.”

Of course, questions of attribution are not at all surprising when dealing with Warhol—an artist who famously toyed with the very notion of authenticity and originality by relying on mechanical means of production and the help of assistants. In another illustration of the problems raised by this artistic process, the filmmaker Joe Simon-Whalen has brought suit against the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts and the authentication board for refusing to authenticate a Warhol self-portrait he owns. He accuses them of trying to monopolize the artist’s market and is seeking $20 million in damages. It is ironic that Malanga, who has admitted forging Warhols in the past, is now claiming to expose Chamberlain for passing off a fake. Some following the case wonder if he is actually suing because he did not get a cut of the deal.

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.