Skip to comments.Churchill Art Piece Called Into Question
Posted on 02/24/2005 10:19:19 PM PST by Fizzie
Churchill Art Piece Called Into Question
by CBS4 News reporter Raj Chohan
Feb 24, 2005 8:03 pm US/Mountain BOULDER, Colo. (CBS4) Boulder County resident Duke Prentup has been a fan of native American art for as long as he can remember. That love of art took him to the home of Ward Churchill in the early 1980's, where Prentup bought several pieces of Churchill's art, including a serigraph titled "Winter Attack."
"I have enjoyed them ever since immensely, they're obviously up inside my house," Prentup said.
Last month came a stunning revelation, though, as as Prentup flipped through a 1972 book called The Mystic Warriors of the Plains written and illustrated by the late artist Thomas E. Mails. He found a sketch that was strikingly similar to the Churchill piece.
(Excerpt) See the rest of the article, and photo comparisons of the 2 pieces of art here: http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html
(Excerpt) Read more at news4colorado.com ...
Exactly... the feathers in the headdress was the first thing I focused on when trying determine if Churchill's drawing was copied. It's an obvious match.
Found it here, Turtle Island Publishing, the caption reads:
Museum Collection Notecards
Institute of American Indian Arts
These high-quality blank notecards feature artwork from five renowned American Indian artists in the IAIA Museum Collection. Their work reflects the diverse tribal sensibilities that exist among native nations. T. C. Cannon (Caddo/Kiowa), Jonathan Warm Day (Taos Pueblo), Peggie Deam (Suquamish), Ward Churchill (Keetoowah/Cherokee), and Randy Chitto (Choctaw) are featured in this first volume.
Ten notecards, 2 each of 5 images. 5 ¼ x 4 ¼ ".
Suggested retail $7.95
Bumpity bump bump! And PING this entire thread!
By the way, I wasn't on this thread last night but I read one post that said that these are not all produced in the same style, and that in itself indicates fakery. I agree. An artist may change his style, but not so quickly. A change in style evolves over time.
I just talked to a News 4 reporter here in Denver to alert them to the "Little Big Man" Churchill fraud drawing from earlier in this thread. They are now looking at that one in addition to the one they reported on last night.
It's out there, though. This one follows the same pattern: A duplicate, but a little less detail.
If Churchill did his interpretation it would be one thing, but these were done by mechanical means.
"It is an original art work by me, after Thomas Mails," Churchill said. "The fact that the purchaser was ignorant of the reality of what was perfectly publicly stated at the time the edition was printed is not my responsibility."
A closer examination of the Churchill piece revealed there is no credit given to the original artist. And, Churchill refused to provide us with documentation that would prove his claims.
But even if its exists, it wouldn't be enough to protect Churchill from copyright infringement unless he had permission from the copyright holder.
"Unless there was consent for Churchill to do the piece, then there is a copyright infringement here," Hubbell said.
It seem to me the school will HAVE to fire him. Hehehehe
Yep. Make sure you check out the posts at #167, 168, and especially 187 and 189. Make sure you're not drinking coffee or you'll lose your keyboard! ;-)
You've got some art background, right? How do we track down the other originals? I've been searching through Google Images, but it's just hit and miss hoping some combination of keywords brings something up.
There's an old technique of copying an image using prismatic effect of light through glass.
Copies the image in reverse.
Dick Blick art supply has something like it, currently looking to see if it's still listed on their website.
(It was in the catalogue I have of theirs from a few years back!)
Friend's kids have something like it, and it uses two plastic pieces to 'mirror' the image onto your clean sheet of paper so you can trace it.
Well... it was fun... off to sleep after working the overnight shift. The continued investigation is in good hands.
I had my wife take a look at that painting. She said most of her students could have done at least that well. My wife taught elementary students.
I know I've seen these pictures before. I think they were individual black and white photos that WC put together and colored for this picture.
More proof that Churchill is a colossal fraud.
Nez Perce (I happened to notice that Colorado has a Nez Perce collection in the department of ethnic studies)
Chief Joseph (because of the Nez Perce thing)
19th century Indian photographs
So far I have found nothing.
I am going to look at the picture again to see if it gives any clues.
ALL SALES FINAL, ASK QUESTIONS FIRST, THANKS
Didn't someone mention that his name is really something like Walter Churchill Ward? I'm sure I read it on one of the threads but can't find it now.
AS in all liberals it's always the other guys fault.
I think you are onto something. The dress in these two figures is different, as is the detail. I think you are right.
Yes, I can see it. He is the type that feels so "put-upon" and he is never challenged in his protective liberal cocoon of the university, that one day when someone gets in his face he's going to go nuts.
I'll tell you, if he ever visits "to lecture" in my city with three very prominent universities, I will be there "in his face". I will be in the audience and I'll be ripping him a new one about everything that he has lied about -- especially the lies about his military service!
'Professor Sitting B*llsh*t' is going to blow........ maybe one of us can help light the fuse.
I was thinking the exact same thing, the original(s) may be two separate images. The shadows on the faces do seem to match, but he could have fixed that. There's something about the positioning of the people that seems to hint at them having been spliced together, but I can't say for sure.
I was keeping an eye out for that as I was Googling, looking not just for two people posed that way, but for each individual. I can't search any more this morning, plus I'm just on dial-up and it's slow loading even the thumbnails!
Ward Churchill (real name?) is an onion, and Freepers keep on peeling away the layers of his lies. I love this place and the Freepers who expose imposters like him.
I won't be able to search much longer. I have a couple of books downstairs that may have some photos. I also think I am going to check the National Archives photo collection.
You are right,I do love it... I just read it....this morning first thing....the end is near for the Imposter Indian, the Imposter Indian artist, the Imposter Intellectual.
Wow, indeed. The man is a complete fraud. Amazing the left hasn't gone after him for copywrite stealing from a protected class...the Indians.
I work at an antiques & fine arts place that deals with this sort of thing. I'll take a look at the books we have on photography today.
When are the people of Colorado going to get rid of this fraud? Free speech or not, this guy has lied about his roots and has committed artistic plagarism. Ethical standards alone should require his dismissal.
The original artist is dead, and so probably won't be filing a suit, though I suppose his heirs might.
The guy who bought the piece from Ward Churchill would seem to have grounds for a suit, for having been sold a fraudulent piece of 'original' signed artwork.
If you haven't been through the entire thread, we found another fraud at post #187.
I'm willing to bet anything Ward says is a fraud.
Oops, you seem to have gotten a can of ZotYourButt opened on you, troll.
"ZYB, does a troll good."
He smokes cigarettes.
Yeah, he's got some interesting "art" in his office too. An American flag with $$ instead of stars and "Free Mumia" written on it.
He'll get away with this by calling it "homage".
Great great catch there on Berry - one of the most dispicable people in public life - and now this? The unveiling begins, eh?
See, that art knowledge of yours is handy, LOL. I've spent hours Googling random "indian photo" type phrases, and never thought of that.
It's pretty obvious we will eventually track down the source images, Churchill's M.O. is pretty clear. But "art" is so subjective, he'll just say what he's done is like Warhol re-interpreting Marilyn Monroe photos and Campbell's Soup cans. Isn't the real question we need to dig into whether he represented these pieces when he sold them AS such interpretations, or as ORIGINAL works of art? What is the usual way someone would be expected to give credit on such stuff?
New research being done....Looks like the new red flannel PJs (with feet) arrived just in time!
What a day-brightener! I've been chuckling all morning :-)
Knowing what we know about him, I would doubt it. Anyway, his work is not an interpretation, but more like a reproduction.
I need to leave for a good chunk of the day. I will be home in the afternoon and do some more searching.
The question is, who did Mary Francis Berry copy her works from?
Her public utterances make it very, very unlikely that she earned a law degree from Michigan, and her PhD is very likely phony.
Bump for his demise watch.
Looks like he used an overhead projector. Copied it onto a transparency and then reversed it and copied it onto his canvas.....A real artist! NOT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.