[matthewowen]

From the article, it sounds like there are. It's pretty clear that it was painted by someone called Peter Doige, who has nothing to do with Peter Doig.

But the owner of this painting isn't happy with that, and wants to appeal to authorities. At some point, courts are the authority you reach.

[qbrass]

My guess is he's building hype around the painting to try and drum the price up.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Doig should paint a copy of Doige's work. Would go for millions from the publicity.

[Nadya]

>It's pretty clear that it was painted by someone called Peter Doige, who has nothing to do with Peter Doig.

I noticed the extra "e" on the painting too. Either that is common for Peter to sign, he changed his name to drop the "e", or he forgot how to spell his own name when he was 17. Or someone forged his name as a signature onto the painting but didn't know how to spell "Doig" and didn't bother to look it up hoping they could pass the painting off for millions of dollars.

[blakeyrat]

The article has quite clearly proven there was a man named Peter Doige who was in that correctional institution at the correct time and who painted landscapes.

It's just a different man from Peter Doig.

It's not a "forgery" made after Peter Doig became famous, there was no purposeful deceit here; it's simply another painting from another person who happens to have a similar name. It's coincidence.

[mark-r]

Not proven, merely provided evidence. They didn't actually search the records back far enough to prove there was a Peter Doige in the prison at the time in question. Nor do they have anything other than the sister's word that he painted landscapes.

I must say that it's one of the most remarkable coincidences I've heard of.

[dagw]

Nor do they have anything other than the sister's word that he painted landscapes.

The prisons former art teacher also claims to recognize Doige (with an E) as a former student and claims to remember him painting a painting at least very similar to the one in question. The owner of the painting also claims that the person he bought the painting off of joined the Seafarers International Union shortly after he bought the painting off of him and the Seafarers have a record of a Peter Doige during that time, but not a Peter Doig.

[Nadya]

>There was no purposeful deceit here; it's simply another painting from another person who happens to have a similar name. It's coincidence.

I'm not sure why you so quickly cross that idea out when there are millions of dollars on the line. I'm sure if Doig's paintings were worthless this case wouldn't be seeing the light of day. There is a plausible reason for purposeful deceit in trying to pass Doige's painting off as Doig's painting so the owner could profit millions.

If the painting was completely worthless I'd be inclined to believe that there isn't a chance in hell of purposeful deceit going on because there wouldn't be motivation to do so.

[NamTaf]

Except it was painted when Doig was 17, before he was famous and so at the time there was no reason to imitate some kid hundreds of kilometres away?

[Nadya]

Do you honestly think the owner of the painting would be arguing it is Doig's painting and not Doige's painting if there was no money to be made from it and Doig (currently, in the modern day, not 40 years ago) was a noname artist who's paintings were worthless?

Yes or no please.

[_quick_q]

I'm confused by your comment. The article mentions an entirely different person (now deceased) with that name (Peter Doige) and his sister has supported the whereabouts (high school, prison, etc). Are you suggesting that the painting is (a) authentic Peter Doig, but he is lying about it, or (b) that it is a bad forgery?

[Nadya]

I'm suggesting it is the wrong person. With the suggestion that due to the amount of money involved there is motivation to pass off artwork as Doig's when it is not.

People have a history of scamming for a personal profit. Throwing some artist's name on a painting when their paintings are worth millions, claiming they painted it decades ago, and trying to sell it for millions isn't too far-fetched of a scam. Maybe the artist doesn't remember 40 years ago and just says "Yeah, sure, whatever. I painted that 40 years ago." and you just made yourself $8,000,000 for paying someone down the street $80 for a painting.

[_quick_q]

Your original comment seems very much to suggest anything but that you believe it is the wrong person. That is the source of my confusion and I think possibly the others that replied.

[jamie_ca]

Also, the ID card for Mr Doige posted in the article is a few years off Mr Doig's birthdate on wikipedia...