This is the second documentary I've seen on the Knoedler Gallery Con (the first being Made You Look) involving Ann Freedman, who to my amazement is still gainfully employed as an art dealer. She even has her own firm, Freedman Art, logo and all. How in the world is that possible? Freedman sold at least 40 fake paintings to wealthy collectors, who doled out millions upon millions for the works.
What I find most interesting about this particular version of the story is the gushing sympathy for the prime perpetrator, Glafira Rosales, who made up elaborate fables to sell the works to the Knoedler gallery, which Freedman accepted despite the complete absence of any provenance documentation! (It's called "wishful thinking", which is easy to succumb to by those driven by greed.) At the end of this amazing tale, everyone (lawyers, art critics--everyone!) expresses sadness that Glafira Rosales led a troubled life of abuse. Okay, fine. But how does that justify a long con over fifteen years, and the theft of millions of dollars from at least forty different victims (we don't even know who else she suckered beyond Ann Freeman...)?
Rosales ended up losing her fortune but walking away free, with no prison time beyond that already served (three months). Mind you, I'm no fan of putting people in cages, but let us not forget that many people who sold a bit of pot back in the day ended up with life sentences.
I suspect that Glafira Rosales duped the judge just as she duped Ann Freedman (which is not say that I believe that Freedman was completely innocent in all of this). Moral of the story: Once a con artist, always a con artist...
What I find most interesting about this particular version of the story is the gushing sympathy for the prime perpetrator, Glafira Rosales, who made up elaborate fables to sell the works to the Knoedler gallery, which Freedman accepted despite the complete absence of any provenance documentation! (It's called "wishful thinking", which is easy to succumb to by those driven by greed.) At the end of this amazing tale, everyone (lawyers, art critics--everyone!) expresses sadness that Glafira Rosales led a troubled life of abuse. Okay, fine. But how does that justify a long con over fifteen years, and the theft of millions of dollars from at least forty different victims (we don't even know who else she suckered beyond Ann Freeman...)?
Rosales ended up losing her fortune but walking away free, with no prison time beyond that already served (three months). Mind you, I'm no fan of putting people in cages, but let us not forget that many people who sold a bit of pot back in the day ended up with life sentences.
I suspect that Glafira Rosales duped the judge just as she duped Ann Freedman (which is not say that I believe that Freedman was completely innocent in all of this). Moral of the story: Once a con artist, always a con artist...