Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by blakeyrat 3635 days ago
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.
2 comments
mark-r 3635 days ago
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.

link
dagw 3634 days ago
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.

link
Nadya 3635 days ago
>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.

link
NamTaf 3635 days ago
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?
link
Nadya 3634 days ago
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.

link