The Pietro Psaier Saga One-Year Update

My how time flies as we all breathlessly await conclusive research. In August of 2008, I wrote a post entitled "Who on Earth Was Pietro Psaier?" about an artist with that name. Pietro Psaier's works frequently appear at auction and are routinely snapped up by art lovers. Long story short: Psaier supposedly had a connection to Andy Warhol, buyers purchase his works on the strength of this connection and, curiously, no one has been able to produce a verifiable legal document proving Pietro Psaier was ever born, died, took out a loan or occupied a residence--let alone breathed The Factory air. To say that this post generated a lot of comments and will not gently fade away is an understatement.

In the year since, it's been a long, strange (please allow me to emphasize the word "strange") trip on this end. Cryptic emails, indignant emails, emails with warnings and, worst of all, sad emails from Psaier buyers wondering if they had erroneously paid a premium for the Psaier-Warhol connection.

The last point was my sole motivation for posting in the first place. I love art. I am delighted when others love art, too, and even more delighted when people buy art because a piece brings them joy. Whether art is purchased for pleasure, investment purposes or both, buyers should, at the very least, not be defrauded. Yes, it happens, and happens with unfortunate regularity. If questions are raised about authenticity--involving ANY artist's works--I feel it's my duty to (1) disseminate said questions and (2) listen to feedback on the issue.

Over the past 12 months, both public and private feedback on Pietro Psaier's existence has been overwhelmingly in the "nay" category. I am still awaiting word of conclusive proof that the person who painted these canvases is who he is purported to be. Meanwhile, here are the latest three updates:

1. An August 30, 2009 article from the Times Online entitled "Andy Warhol acolyte may be artistic illusion."

2. A lengthy rebuttal from the Pietro Psaier researcher entitled "THE DEFINITION OF 'BLACKMAIL' (v) To 'Exert pressure on someone through threats'"

3. An open letter rebutting the preceding rebuttal, from Gary Comenas at warholstars.org.

Full disclosure: Gary Comenas and I have corresponded sporadically over the past year regarding the Psaier issue. While we have never met, I can tell you three things about Gary. First, his Warhol research is impeccable. Second, Warholstars is an old (in terms of Internet presence) and highly respected site. Finally, Gary is very clear-eyed about the whole matter. He has no financial stake in Pietro Psaier being real or fictional, and has never, despite being five time zones away, sent me an email in the wee hours of my morning threatening me with UK libel law for running an open comment thread.

Which brings me to this section of the first rebuttal:

Having been unable to comment on Wikipedia Mr. Comenas then moved on to the Art History secion [sic] at About.com; part of the New York Times Group. This site is run by Shelley Essak [sic]. Her site has several links to Andy Warhol but interestingly enough, none to this research site so that readers can participate in a balanced debate. The site belonging to Ms. Essak [sic] has a comments section that has been running for a year dedicated to the “Psaier debate.” Allegations and comments surrounding Psaier are made by anonymous posters. Comments have been edited in the past at a posters request. When pietropsaierartist.com was published Mr. Comenas complained on About.com that a large part of the research site was attacking him. Anyone seeing the site can see that it is not so. What it has done is to challenge the allegations made by Mr. Comenas who surprisingly does not seem to think he warrants it? Posters argue with each other and accuse each other of being vendors in disguise. One cannot do anything about sites such as this. Despite apparently stating that the comments were not biased by the owner of the site she continues to state that she does not believe in the existence of Psaier which has an influence on the debate that rages there. Last year when the initial allegations began I emailed Shelley Essak [sic yet again and, c'mon, already; "they" say any publicity is good publicity, as long as one's name is spelled correctly ...] to ask her to be patient whilst the research was carried out and said that I would let her know when it was complete. Obviously as an art "guide" she failed to understand the length of time a process of research such as mine would take.

Honestly? It came as a surprise to me that this had somehow gotten personal. Yes, I have deleted comments. Some at the request of a poster, and a handful of overly head-on attacks. Read the About.com User Agreement that's linked to every single page on the network and you'll find that this is my prerogative. And I'm pretty sure I've never stated that I don't "... believe in the existence of Psaier ..." What I've questioned repeatedly is a lack of proof of that existence, as well as the lack of additional proof that Psaier buyers aren't getting fleeced for a Warhol connection. However, I do support the ideal that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion whether I agree with them or not. So we'll let the inflammatory rhetoric go, and I'll simply address the last two sentences.

Last year when the initial allegations began I emailed Shelley Essak [sic] to ask her to be patient whilst the research was carried out and said that I would let her know when it was complete.

Hmmm. I've been the soul of patience. It's the Psaier buyers who keep emailing me that have found theirs exhausted. "Was he real or wasn't he?" It certainly sounds like an easy question, doesn't it?

Obviously as an art "guide" she failed to understand the length of time a process of research such as mine would take.

There are indeed a multitude of things that I don't understand (theoretical particle physics comes right to mind), but researching artists' lives isn't one of them. That is my job. And as a "guide," and although that's meant pejoratively in the quotation, I can tell you the approximate length of time it takes to track down a facsimile of a legal document proving that So-and-so walked the earth. A couple of hours. On a bad day. For an artist who lived 500 years ago. If International phone calls requiring interpreters are involved.

In regards to a globe-trotting artist who supposedly lived during the 20th-century, and given my own research experience, I would think that one notarized, independently verifiable piece of paper might have surfaced within the past three years. The researcher is 100% correct in opining that I have "...failed to understand the length of time a process of research such as mine would take." Bingo! This "process of research" is quite plainly some entirely new form of primary source research that I, yes, absolutely cannot grok. Guilty as charged.