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:
Duped by Dupes: Colour – Brush Strokes – Impasto…
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….
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.”