Fetterman still selling art?
Regina Hackett, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer art critic who wrote and interesting article about my book FAKE and its unusual connection to her city and newspaper, has posted an equally fascinating blog entry about my former partner-in-crime Ken Fetterman, and what he may be up to these days.It seems he may still be selling art, at least on the side. This doesn't surprise me.
I can only say this: Caveat Emptor.
As an aside, if you're ever interested in what's been written about FAKE in blogs, or seeing an archive of coverage in the mainstream media, I try to keep track of it on the media page, which you're free to peruse at any time.
3 Comments:
I must agree with your comment, "Caveat Emptor"... that is, after I looked the meaning of it up on Answers.com.
Throughout the first half (or solid first third) of your book I kept thinking to myself: "I really see nothing wrong with what Walton and Fetterman are doing... the buyer has to fill in the blanks and connect his/her own dots."
When those buyers asked you for a refund, I was like: "Damn, you bought so you gotta pay for it."
As an art buyer and seller myself (primarily the former), I have to place a lot of the blame on the buyer. If they're willing to take such a risk, they deserve to take the fallout. I'd never fork over $1,000 or $100 for something I am only presuming to be kosher... well maybe $100 if it would look good on my bathroom wall. Risks are called risks because they're risky... art buyers (particularly) should have the word "RISK" flashing in their minds in neon letters before they shell out a cent.
Until you began putting suspiciously signed works up for auction, and until you signed the RD52 yourself -- AND EVEN TO AN EXTENT AFTERWORDS -- I believed that the buyer shared 50%, or more, of the purchase blame.
What do they say?... never put all your eggs in one basket? or all your grocery money into one painting? Sage advice.
I learned early on that certain art buyers on eBay were willing to speculate on art that carried no guarantee. When these buyers thought they'd found something valuable being sold by a seller who was unaware of its value, this seemed to encourage them even more. As I explained in the book, many of them thought they were scamming me by fooling me into selling things for unbelievably low prices. Some took great measures to hide from me why they'd paid so much for what they were purchasing, thinking that if they told me the truth I'd back out of the sales.
Their lack of innocence doesn't excuse what I did, but it makes the moral calculus of the story more complex and interesting. It is also what helped me to justify my own behavior as I went down my own fraudulent path. I wasn't luring senior citizens into investment scams, I was beating art sharks -- guys who would steal a painting from your grandmother for next to nothing if they thought she didn't know what it was worth -- at their own game.
This is what I told myself, anyway. It was true some of the time, but not always. And it still doesn't excuse what I did.
You're right that art buyers -- especially when they buy online -- should proceed with great caution. Speculating is dangerous.
That quote from the eBay rep is hilarious-"Walton's a criminal--what does his opinion matter?" Dude doesn't get that you totally dumped out your bag of tricks to show online buyers how not to get scammed. I'm just curious how much eBay earned in fees from your sales. I think they have been hypocritical about the whole thing. PS- Your book is great. I hope you have another odd episode in your life that inspires you to crank out another.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home