Professor Robertson’s Astonishing Kevin Hearn “Expert Report”

UPDATE Oct.16

World Premiere – “Wascana Creek Academic Event of the Year”
Unveiling the Professor Robertson Report

“As an Indigenous Art Historian who has studied, taught, and researched contemporary Indigenous art since 2001 in a university context, I have brought a solid scholarly context to my analysis. My Lakota-Scottish ancestry drew me to contemporary Aboriginal art… It is from this context that I shall offer my opinion on the painting in question.
(Professor Carmen Robertson, Visual Arts, Univ. of Regina, expert report p3)

Until I released it to the public on Oct. 3, 2017, I was one of only two or three people who had ever seen, let alone read, the notorious Professor Carmen Robertson, so-called “Expert Report” calling Kevin Hearn’s Morrisseau painting, “Spirit Energy of Mother Earth,” a fake, and maliciously and deliberately Libeling the good and highly reputable, the late Joe McLeod, as some kind of fraudulent seller of crooked forgeries.

ALL WITHOUT A SMIDGEN OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND DESPITE A MOUNTAIN OF JUDICIAL AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE THAT SHE IS AS WRONG AS WRONG CAN BE. And that her report betrays multi-level transgressions of academic malfeasance.

SO DOING GREAT IRREPARABLE HARM TO THE ART AND ARTISTS OF CANADA’S INDIGENOUS PEOPLE.

So many people have requested to see the actual report, I am offering its World Premiere here, so you can see how many other Academic Malfeasances you can discover to add to my list of 64.

DOWNLOAD PDF HERE:

Professor C. Robertson “expert report” on Hearn’s “Spirit Energy”

Duped by Dupes: Colour – Brush Strokes – Impasto…

Petocahhanawawin or Poundmaker, is simply the most fabulous portrait of a Canadian Indian chief ever painted (pastel on paper), by Edmund Morris before he died in 1913. Today “his Indian portraits are now considered priceless.” Only three original copies Edmund painted of this portrait, are known to exist, in Archives Canada, Museum London, and in the celebrated “Hall of the Chiefs” in the Saskatchewan Legislature. There was no provenance or chain of title*** that came with this fabulous original work, on which I was reliably informed that the unhappy under bidder was the Royal Ontario Museum. ***This is, of course, the case with 99% of ALL the thousands of paintings sold at fine art auctions across Canada every year. So, it is also the case with Morrisseaus. Especially since most of his were sold on the street or door to door. Anyone claiming to have credible provenance, like KRG says it offers, on ALL their Morrisseaus, better suspect a “motivated seller” NOT an honest broker…

I believe my original Morris pastel of Poundmaker is superior to the one in the Saskatchewan legislature. Based on my “in-hand” examination of BOTH originals.

I am the only person who has ever done this, so I am the only person who can make this claim.

Because NONE of you know whether the colours, hues, sharpness, tone, exposure and contrast, etc. which I processed into the picture (right) before I published it here, accurately reflect – at all – what is on the original painting I have before me as I write. It would be utterly foolish for anyone to claim otherwise.

Which is why I refuse to pomposit about and make judgments of originals – let alone slang people and paintings – from pictures in books, or low res files of art or memorabilia of which I have not seen the original in hand.

Which is, unfortunately, a terrible habit unique to Professor Robertson, and her hopelessly flawed methodology of judging original paintings, from lowlife dupes, which she outlines in detail, in her “expert report.”

To my mind, as a credentialed and hugely international award-winning visual arts professional, for over forty years, Professor Robertson has an unacceptable methodology, of using clones, or copies, or low res stand-ins, to make damning judgments about colour, texture, and authenticity, in originals which she has NOT seen…

And then in making totally unwarrantable deductions on whether an original which she has not seen, is genuine or a fake, based on seeing some kind of dupe…

And making totally unwarrantable claims about the original colours of any original, or any brush strokes they may or may not have, or degree of impasto involved, if any… It would be farcical to do so…

And then going on to make totally unwarrantable claims about decent reputable people being guilty of deliberate fraud, without a smidgen of credible evidence. ALL OF IT BEING BASED ON PICTORIAL HEARSAY, AS WELL AS WORD OF MOUTH HEARSAY, ABOUT A PAINTING SHE HAS NEVER SEEN, AND A PERSON SHE HAS NEVER MET OR NEVER EVEN INTERVIEWED….

Professor Robertson did her analysis of 38 Morrisseau paintings almost entirely by viewing them as “dupes” in picture books (26 of them, out of 38), or from low res digital file “dupes” sent by various informants. She lists only 10 – ten – as “observed” basing her analysis of 28 paintings she has NOT seen or examined in the flesh, just evaluated through “dupes” of totally unknown origin and processing.

As a longtime practicing historian, investigative journalist, museum curator, and publisher of film, video and digital images, slanging original paintings and people from dupes is totally unforgivable to me.

However that may wash in Wascana Creek, ANY and ALL CONCLUSIONS OR CLAIMS made in this manner are ALL totally, without a single caveat, utterly false and invalid, and when used to attack genuine paintings and decent people without cause or evidence, reprehensible, especially for a person claiming academic credentials.

And certainly not befitting any professional report by a person claiming to be any kind of academic or expert on painted or printed visual materials.

This fabulous original annotated artist’s proof, of Madeleine de Verchères by JD Kelly, which I own, will become the cover for a book by US Professor Dr. Gina M. Martino, “Women at War,” to be published by the University of North Carolina Press. None of them will ever know – and neither will you – whether the high res file I created from a photo I made, then processed in Photoshop, and sent the University is – in any way at all – a faithful, accurate, or representative reproduction, of the colours, the hues, the sharpness, the exposure, the contrast, the brush strokes, the impasto, etc. of the original I have in hand. I have no way of knowing how the studio artist will further change this image in preparing his copy for publishing. It would be idiotic for any of you to claim I am wrong and that you could do so.  And yet that is exactly what Professor Robertson has done in her “expert” report, based overwhelmingly, on only viewing dupes, over and over, and then going on to attack the original Morrisseaus – which she has not seen – as fakes, and the people associated with them as a fraudsters. Just because her dupes don’t look like the other dupes… Yes the Canadian fine art bureaucracy is as surreally nonsensical as this.

I have spent most of my adult life earning a living as a highly successful and top Canadian visual artist, creating highly regarded, and multiple international award- winning, original visual arts materials: for television broadcast, and for use in magazines (Canada’s History Magazine); academic books by professors and curators (the US and Canada); popular books (National Geographic, UK, etc.); posters & brochures (US Parks Service, National Capital Region, Ottawa, etc.); giclée copies of original paintings & prints (US, Titanica Museum, Branson MO, UK, Canada etc.)

I have supplied original paintings and prints to international museums (Ford Museum, US; UK, etc.)

I have supplied, on request, multiple original Canadian art works, for display at major fine art shows at top Canadian and American museums, alongside the best works from the National Gallery of Canada, the Royal Ontario Museum, the Art Gallery of Ontario, etc.

“He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.” GB Shaw

Professor Robertson has spent the last few years “talking” about visual arts… to a handful of students on Wascana Creek, Saskatchewan. 

And fraudulently bad-mouthing real art she has never seen, and on that basis unwarrantably and maliciously, vilifying multiple people she has never talked to.

To my mind, totally unforgivable…

Is it any wonder Professor Robertson’s report is shot through with so many fallacies.

Poundmaker and his people lived around Wascana Creek. I have visited both his original grave (Blackfoot Crossing) and his final resting place (Cut Knife), and believe that he would be utterly dismayed at the Great Irreparable Harm that Professor Carmen Robertson, living only a stone’s throw from the Saskatchewan Legislature’s “Hall of Chiefs,” is doing to the art and artists of his people.

I drove 11 hours across the Roger’s Pass during a blinding snowstorm, to get a chance to bid on this large and utterly fabulous original pastel on paper, of Crowfoot, by John S Perry, the noted early 20th century portraitist. I was the winning bidder at a Doug Levis Auction in Calgary. The unhappy under bidder, was Chief Strater Crowfoot, the chief’s great, great grandson. I interviewed Strater, on camera, at Blackfoot Crossing, just before “his” magnificent museum, celebrating Blackfoot people, opened in 2005. I also acted as his archival advisor, on Day 1 of the auction, regarding his spending priorities for Indigenous Canadian pictorials, to help him get the best materials at the auction for his museum. But as the saw goes, there are no friends at an auction. On Day 2, I outbid him on this fabulous painting. Strater comes from a highly educated and accomplished family, has an MBA, and was twice, elected Head Chief of the Siksika Nation. Which incidentally, is where Gerald McMaster says he is registered.

Forensic Warning – As a longtime art collector and curator of a museum of some 7,500 historic paintings, prints, and memorabilia, I entirely concur with the methodological practice of forensic scientists, and professional art authenticators.

And not with the sage of Wascana Creek.

That you must have the original materials in hand – in all cases – and view BOTH the FRONT and BACK before you make any determination of authenticity of a colour painting, NOT based on comparisons between pictures in books, or low res files created by who knows where, and when, in whatever circumstance.

(A professional methodology that Professor Carmen Robertson, of the University of Regina’s Visual Arts department, has clearly never learned.)

Since 1999, I have been a professional curator of an internet museum (based on a bricks and mortar collection of some 7,500 historical items) which includes thousands of images of original historical paintings and memorabilia, which I use in educational internet and television productions, to inform people and infuse them with enthusiasm about Canadian history.

Like all my fellow curatorial colleagues, I would never even dare make any claims, or reach any conclusions, of any kind, about an original work of art, or a historical artifact of any kind, without closely examining it in hand first, front and back.

Let alone, going on to use second or third-hand pictorial research or copies, as a basis to slang another human being – especially an art expert far above the level of Professor Robertson – as being a deliberate lowlife seller of forgeries.

Romanshorn (CH) Hafen on the Bodensee, which was Zeppelin central of the world from 1900 to 1939. Switzerland is in the foreground; 10 kms across the water is Germany on the left and Austria on the right. Along this harbour wall, every summer during the 1940s,  I learned to fish as a boy. How well I remember the day the zeppelin flew low over the harbour… NOT!!! It’s a totally faked dupe, lying in wait for the Professor Robertsons of the world, who never look beyond a dupe before making definitive and totally nonsensical statements about, for example, zeppelins in Romanshorn, etc. or Morrisseaus this or that, by relying on lowlife copies. International archival research by me, of original materials, uncovered the earlier lower dupe, so exposing the zeppelin version as a total fake. I have no way of knowing if even that one is also not a FAKEOGRAPH. From which one was the train added, or removed???  Note the difference in clouds, and smoke from the factory and steamer. I believe, from experienced research, that even the steamer St. Gotthard, is faked in BOTH. Its perfect artistic positioning, its side wheels grinding out full power, but showing no wake, and ready to collide with the dock in seconds, instead of being aimed out the harbour entrance (top r), is 100% suspicious. It’s NOT the captain who placed the ship there, but a conniving devious studio artist in creating a Dupe to fool Dunces. So BOTH are multilevel FAKEOGRAPHS betrayed by other existing copies. Neither I – nor Professor Robertson – can dare say anything whatsoever, about the ORIGINAL these fakes are based on. (Both ultra-rare postcards from my collection, date from 1910.) I have literally hundreds of BEFORE and AFTER fakes, like the two at the top. I can safely say, that 99% of ALL so-called photos of zeppelins, taken from 1900 to 1940, are FAKEOGRAPHS, the product of studio fakers, and NOT photographers. ALL these production hazards apply and lie in wait for anyone using dupes of Morrisseau paintings, so preventing anyone from saying anything remotely accurate, let alone fair, about originals they have not seen. Any dupe is a bad dupe. A dupe always compromises the look of the original. As those of you who are literate know, the reproductions of the art of the European Masters, as illustrated in books, commonly features huge colour shifts so wildly out of wack with each other, they often appear to be different paintings. But it does no harm. No one is using them to maliciously slang the original paintings, or to falsely slang or discredit innocent people.

And I know, as a CSC, and from long years of experience – over 40 years – as a professional film, and video cinematographer, editor, and photo publisher, that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE can say anything even remotely valid about colour cast, colour palette, colour hue, color usage, colour selection, period changes in colour or palette, representative colour, abnormal colour, normal colour, you name it… from dupes or reproductions of any kind whether in books or digital files.

Or anything else, for that matter…

In fact, I have spent most of my adult life as a top Canadian cinematographer and film and television editor, changing the original colour, and colour cast. of thousands of miles of film and television images precisely to make sure that the audience NEVER sees the original colour or colour cast, etc. of the original footage. Or in photography, of the original photo.

It would be nothing short of asinine for anyone to ignore this publishing standard, and go on to pomposit definitively about comparisons of this or that colour or hue in his art, or changes in an artist’s palette, from one era to the next, etc., from picture books.

If I had to make a definitive statement about my experiences as a private and professional life as a photographer and cinematographer, I would say this: I have never, ever published a single photo – of untold thousands I have taken – or published a single film or television image – of hundreds of thousands of miles of footage I have shot and edited – in which I did not change the colour of the original.

(And like other filmmakers it has cost me scores of thousands of dollars to have it done. In the industry it is called “colour correction” and no professional would even think of finishing a film, video, or colour photo, without doing lots of it. Which of course, the viewing audience will never know anything about.)

Go Ahead Professor – tell me which one is the fake!!! All are original photo postcards I own, of Luzern, Switzerland, my grandfather’s home town. They date from c 1910, and were taken from the same window of the Schwanen Hotel. I have some twenty other originals, shot from exactly the same window, showing the “Rigi,” Luzern’s famous mountain, moving all over the place behind the town, courtesy of different early 20th century photo fakery fiends. Professor Robertson’s methodology would not allow her to be aware of any of this, of course. She would grandly pomposit on and on from dupes like these – her comparative standard of analysis – about which mountain is the real one, etc. and so which photo is the real one and which is the fake. In fact the top two are fakes. Each one, taken in isolation, DOES NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE ORIGINAL IT IS A COPY OF OR THE ORIGINAL SCENE IT SEEMS TO REPRESENT. And, neither you or Professor Robertson would ever know that from these dupes without going to look at the original scene itself. And in fact, the actual view with the same lens – would not show the Rigi at all, as it’s off-camera to the right… And yes, the flag is faked too. This is one of Switzerland’s most published postcard views, thanks largely to the Rigi being fraudulently added in to create the perfect photo with perfect lines, and something of interest in every plane, the dream – seldom realized – of every photographer. But an everyday achievement for studio fraudsters creating FAKEOGRAPHS. Because faked dupes like these have fooled the Professor Robertsons of the world for centuries. In fact after researching over 1 million postcards of this area of central Europe, and purchasing some 900, so I could personally examine key, original materials in-hand FRONT and BACK, I have come to the conclusion that 99% of these postcards, advertised as “echte photo,” or “Authentic Photo Postcards,” are in fact, lowlife fakes. So I have coined a new term – FAKEOGRAPH – to identify original photos that have been faked over in some way or other before being published. I can say without fear of contradiction, that FAKEOGRAPHS – deliberately created to target Dunces with Dupes – far outnumber the published, unaltered Photographs, in the history of world postcard production from 1895-1945. Astonishingly enough there was NO previous word to describe manipulated published photo materials of this kind, even though they far outnumber published original photos.  In Morrisseau terms it means that the dupes Professor Robertson uses to assess original Morrisseau works of art, are, from the start, far more misrepresentative of the originals, and of the Truth than of anything else.

But then Professor Robertson, who demonstrates no background in the field at all, wouldn’t know those realities involved in publishing original colour materials, and explains why she became so famously hoisted on her own petard.

As a webmaster of the biggest internet museum in the world I have changed the colour cast, colour hues, etc. of every single image, of the many thousands that I have posted since I became one of the very first to start posting large images to the internet in 1996.

Everyone with a background – which Professor Robertson seems to have successfully escaped – in film and television production, photography, and publishing colour images, very well knows all that as a total given.

And in parallel, they also know, that unless you have the original painting in hand, that no expert would ever dare say anything even remotely credible about brush strokes on a painting, or whether there is impasto, or not, being used by the artist, without being laughed out of the room full of visual or publishing professionals.

Because they all know what shows up in copies or prints of originals in books or digital files, regarding COLOUR, regarding BRUSH STROKES, regarding IMPASTO, etc., TOTALLY DEPENDS ON HOW THE PAINTING WAS LIT AND PHOTOGRAPHED.

LIGHTING AND PHOTOGRAPHY CREATE OR OBLITERATE ANY BRUSH STROKES OR IMPASTO THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ON THE ORIGINAL.

Though it may wash in Wascana Creek, no visual arts professional anywhere else would ever do what Professor Robertson does. Because they know there would be NO validity to any of it… NIAOBs…

So why does Professor Robinson persist with her invalid methodology, ludicrous analysis and false claims…

If academic Truth, and research transparency, and scientific analysis, are apparently NOT important to her, then what is?

Could it be that she has a hidden agenda, that she is fulfilling for someone?

Like the secret, unidentified person or entity, who commissioned her to write this undated, unsigned, and embarrassingly sloppily executed, draft “expert report.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.