FAKE OR FORTUNE SE5EO1 FREUD

London-based designer Jon Turner is eager to prove that a painting he inherited from two friends is in fact an early portrait painted by Freud whilst at art school in 1939. If it's genuine, it could be worth around half a million pounds. But who is the mysterious man in the portrait - and why did Freud deny it was his work?
As the team hunt for clues, they are drawn into a world of feuds, rivalries and intrigue. Can those who knew Freud best help unlock the painting's secrets?

[@ImpartiallySpeaking]

Not merely entertainment - this incredible team are changing the history of art

[@weddinginvitationsdurban]

Agree, this is so much better than learning about famous artists and artworks at school. It's such an awesome show for anyone interested in art.

[@gisawslonim9716]

I love Lucien Freud's paintings so this is a real feast for me. One of the greatest I ever saw was one of himself, in the nude, all crumpled up as if fallen from a great height, and scrunched up at the very bottom (as if his body were an accordion!) and thinking, "Yep, I've had days like that too."

[@tbeneby1108]

Bendor at 25:10 - “...and even something called a pig rolling competition, which was won by a lady called Mrs. Death, and frankly, the mind boggles...”. F'in' hilarious.

[@01123581321341]

one the best lines ever! I had such a laugh at that - how he says it in that great accent just makes it hilarious somehow

[@maxshiraz3447]

@@01123581321341 Mrs Death is the boss at pig rolling

[@tothelighthouse9843]

Haha yes, that bit rang out like bells for me too. I sat on my sofa saying 'the mind boggles' out loud several times after that clip. Testing whether my version could be anywhere near as effective as Bendor's.

[@risk5riskmks93]

Loved this

[@jutta3378]

I just love Bendor's composure!

[@marywest2896]

I think he denied the work as his because the HATED the school mate who had it, so he was making sure that school mate or any of his friends would make money off of him....

[@allensaunders449]

I think the artist denied this pic because he hated the person who owned it

[@fromthepeanutgallery1084]

What an amazing team these individuals are. Very interesting!

[@dawn5227]

What ever the result maybe, its ugly. If it was mine I might be tempted to deny it aswell.

[@ScoriacTears]

I wouldn't admit to painting it either.

[@jessicamartinez3613]

lol

[@WillN2Go1]

Raises the Van Meergren problem. Van Meergren made Vermeer fakes that fooled a lot of people in the early 1940s, but to our more modern eyes look nothing like Vermeer's work. This seems to happen a lot with fakes made long after the period of the artist, after a generation or two what seemed similar no longer appear similar at all. This is an early Freud, Freud says no. Does it matter that he finished it or not? Looks finished enough to me. The Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena California has a very nice large Dega that has a curious problem. The artist has redrawn the outline of at least one of the dancers so it looks like a stuttered double exposure. Never the less it's a Degas. Is it finished? I've seen lots of things that are exactly like this work, the creator looks at it and thinks, it would be much better if that figure was in a slightly different position, and they draw enough of it so they can see. Yep. So what is it now? It's a work that didn't work and the fix messed it up. But it's a Degas and a millionaire bought it and built a museum--so it's okay. So this Freud. I think it's a very interesting Freud, it's almost like Freud or someone else had turned aspects of Freud's style into a cliche. If it is as it appears in this low resolution video, then it's remarkable. The features of the face just pop out more than any Freud I've ever seen, and they may also be extremely annoying--which is a difficult trick to pull off, so quite deft, but to the artist perhaps too annoying. At one point watching the video I wondered if perhaps the instructor at the school had dashed it off, deftly executing the elements of young Freud's developing technique. Apparently not. I would say following the result of the 'experts' that while this may not quite fit in the accepted canon of the artist's work, it is by him and next to his other work is extremely interesting. At the beginning of this video I was desperate for the straight on still image of the canvas so I could screw up my eyes and see if I could tell if the painter is left or right handed and if the face and nose 'popped' Freud's painting do this very well. It jumped right out of my tiny 15" MacBook screen. I'm almost afraid to see a higher resolution image--but the real painting? Well I couldn't resist. Back to the Van Meergren problem. I was photographing paintings in an artist's studio. He was away, but his studio assistant was there with a couple of art school friends. He deftly cranked out two paintings in the style of the master in a matter of minutes. Doesn't diminish the artist's work at all. When he started to wipe them out, I begged him to let me buy one. They were terrific paintings even as copies. I'd never try to pass them off, but the rules the assistant lived by said the paintings had to be deleted. I think in a couple of generations, or a couple of hundred years the similarity of those two paintings to his master's would not diverge as did Van Meergren's Vermeers. A couple of other studio assistants I knew would set up blank canvases and paints for another artist. He would come in and quickly paint one canvas after another, then he'd break for lunch. Afterward he would look at the paintings, select some to keep, most to be wiped and re-primed. But this day during lunch the two assistants painted a couple of the blank canvases. After lunch the artist included one of their paintings in his group of keepers. Did anything wrong happen? I don't think so. I don't think the artist would've liked finding out that his assistants could mimic his work, and he certainly wouldn't like it getting around that this could be done. I would suggest a contest, where other painters try to mimic this guy's work, and in a couple of generations (it's been one already) others try it. I suspect that the assistant's work would still match his better than anyone else's. Just thinking out loud.

[@jessicamartinez3613]

Probably my favorite museum, the Norton-Simon.

[@jimmycranier3668]

I think leaving the landscape background sideways on a distorted painting is clever and intentional and completed.

[@carlotta4th]

Well considering the solicitor only says he did the person and not the landscape part you can't attribute the best part of the picture to him at all.

[@danielartist123]

Wonderful show!

[@hlloyd-fs4uf]

Is anyone else not surprised a descendent of Freud would behave in this manner? Freud the painter was a little too Freudian.

[@SleutherStrode]

All artists are a little tilted it is not unique to LF, look into the French Impressionists, Degas with his rampant anti Semitism, Manet destroying other artists works. Gauguin having sex with a 13 year old girl in Tahiti.... Geniuses of any kind are are often flawed. Your opinion is lazy and ill informed.

[@dawn5227]

It actually looks alot like the owner. Lol

[@normanmerrill1241]

It is extraordinary…with a whisper of a”Freudian slip” well done…

[@capt.molyneaux7037]

Great show !

[@cvbzizou]

I would like to say. THANK YOU for uploading all these seasons! Subscribed!

[@mightwenotbehappy]

Thankyou for subscribing 👊🏻

[@ellenmadsen7308]

I would gladly own this painting.

[@theresabraddock9310]

I like the painting as it is and feel the landscape is also by his hand as if he is experimenting incorporating the landscape colors into the portrait. it does have an unfinished naive look about it but its still really appealing.

[@tilkaynine7902]

The background landscape that Freud painted over WAS by someone else - isn't that what he could have meant when he said he didn't paint it 'all ' ? He even left a bit showing through on the face - under the lip. I was waiting for this point to be raised, but no-one mentioned it...

[@giuseppenero110]

I think you got it Watson!

[@jamiehancock6296]

Exactly!!

[@cladqueen8054]

I was thinking the same he used someone else’s canvas

[@Trigsbroom]

I agree, he said that he 'started it', and they seemed to have interpreted that as "....and someone else finished it", whereas, he could have meant "I started it, but it's not finished".

[@chattykathie7129]

I’m 20 mins in, it is intriguing, but confusing, of course I have a headache. I’ll start it over to make sense of it.

[@Elizabeth-yg2mg]

I've begun watching many documentaries more than once to get it all in!

[@robertgiles9124]

That face looks like it would make a great Scary Mask for Halloween.

[@thepz22]

My opinion i think lucien freud denied this picture because he use the used canvas from another artist who paints the landscape background to paint this picture. We can also see he tried to cover the landscape. Given his trait who is very perfectionist and controlling about his works, this makes him said that this picture is not by him (based on his daughter’s story that her brothers usually being asked to destroy the art that he dislike)

[@wayway9895]

I love the part at the East Anglian School of Painting and Drawing. Both at the table talking and drinking a glass of red, nice. Only question who's driving back. opps

[@kingsleysaxon9710]

Looks like the joker who owns it. I say bollocks! If Freud denies that he did it then he did not do it.

[@loanacrap9248]

Well said Zaharia!

[@stuart8663]

It will make it easier in the future if they (all artist) fingerprint the painting in the corner with their name and drop in a hair to the oils. On a more serious note, finding a hair and DNA-ing it, is not the ultimate word on the canvas. Another person walking by, a gust of wind, a few factors of similar nature could have happened. And still Lucien Freud may have been sitting there painting it or the oils or medium were drying and caught it. Or Gladys the Tea lady deliberately put it there .

[@MichaelandCathy1999]

But it is a solid idea , but you would have to have a Bank of Artist’s fingerprints somewhere secure to lodge all the evidence. I like it.

[@johnstewart439]

Agree. There's a grasshopper in one of van Gogh's paintings. It doesn't show the grasshopper painted it.

[@carlotta4th]

The problem with this idea is that if any high resolution print exists then someone could imitate it. Ironically handwriting is harder to fake because it has to have the same exact curves and speeds ...by contrast it would be pretty easy to just copy a thumbprint and embed it in fresh paint.

[@lorijones9579]

Wow, I never realized how complicated a painting by this artist can be.

[@hodderpaul]

The face looks like Lembit Opik.

[@wanderwoman5558]

I hope it brings half a million!.....Freud treated the portrait like a bastard child. Lol

[@TheOrcanum]

Bendor is the man

[@ivydickson7596]

He is, and is there some programmes of his? I would be very interested if they are uploaded.

[@annabellelee4535]

The only reason I think an artist would deny his own work would be to hurt the person who has the work and if it's a lover's spat then it can get very heated.

[@kristi.s9922]

The owner is obsessed, because the portrait looks like him. But yeah, even if you painted it, you have the right to say no.

[@canaandaddario1992]

The one thing that every art dealer and auction house never want to hear a wealthy client say : This painting is a counterfeit, I've been taken for a fool! FAKE OR FORTUNE

[@danoslehoy]

Is it possible to upload videos in higher resolution, HD (720) or FHD (1080)?

[@rosered103]

just change the settings...bottom right.

[@chrisdark999]

@@rosered103 Have you tried to do that ;)

[@tip0019]

@@chrisdark999 R R means Random Rambling 😎

[@SantaBarbaraBiking]

I thought that the portrait looked like the owner. Time traveler?

[@benediktmorak4409]

what a cliffhanger. wonder how this will go on and on and on?

[@soniatriana9091]

How often do you get to see the weir & unusual intricacies of the art world, unweave & reweave, the idiocies, the volatile, & psychological neurosis of a famous artist? Especially when this artist’s obsessive behaviors are from the grandson of Sigmund Freud? That’s a weird connection!

[@sonjabrisson8318]

Could we love Vendor more? No.He's the bomb!

[@mightwenotbehappy]

It’s Bendor

[@sonjabrisson8318]

Oops! Slip of the thumb.

[@cliffordhurst2564]

Another painting by a "name" that nobody in their right mind would give wall space to, let alone pay thousands for. But all art is subjective. Heigh ho!

[@toddaulner5393]

It is in my opinion, of low expertise and maybe he was embarrassed.

[@vgovger4373]

The picture looks like the current owner?

[@Norfolk250]

23:34 UGHHHHH! How much more would the bidding war go if the hair, or part of the hair, as LEFT IN the painting. Good grief.

[@ankiking]

The owner looks like one of Freud’s many children.

[@TsetsiStoyanova]

It is or it isnt, its still a caricature

[@scrivener6450]

The concept of this show is fascinating, but the scripts are endlessly repetitive. Often the voice-over will tell us something. Then we have a scene where the on-screen people repeat the information. It happens over and over. Whether they believe no one is paying attention, or maybe they need to fill the time, it's super annoying.

[@grenvillecharles]

yep that's the way of all documentary tv now, they make a 10 minute program last an hour! as you say super annoying!

[@gillianwhitfield9746]

Looks like Charles!

[@singlesideman]

The painting of Dickie Chopping looks like Mr. Yunioshi from Breakfast at Tiffany's.

[@stuart8663]

Lost me at the statement about the DNA and his kids (33:10) Why weren't his children of any use? Genuine question.

[@minixyoutube3615]

It sounds as if the expert was referring to mitochondrial DNA, because that DNA (present in the mitochondria within each cell) is always inherited from the mother, never the father. Given this, the mitochondrial DNA present in Freud's children would not have matched Freud's because they would have inherited it from their mother, not their father. Freud would have inherited his mitochondrial DNA from his mother and indirectly from his grandmother. His mother and his mother's sister (and therefore his mother's sister's daughter) would also have inherited their mitochondrial DNA from Freud's grandmother and so were good candidates for a match. (I think!)

[@Celtopia]

Im not surprised Freud denied it,its shit beyond embarrassing.......

[@drustopia5881]

The painting depicts Froyd himself.

[@sourcreamking]

Freud or fraud?

[@Annie1962]

I hope he got big bucks for it. It might not be a pretty picture, but it has a story worth its weight in gold

[@ivorytower99]

Dry episode.

[@jessicamartinez3613]

Isn't it possible that Freud took it down himself and later gave it to his friend?

[@dadodydo]

45:31 The doctor must be joking. The long nose is not in the photo, it is his own.

[@gerhardrohne2261]

obviously the hair is of the sitter...and lucian acted as madame potiphar...

[@renaenolen8461]

Kinda looks like King Charles or any of his Windsor relatives.

[@jasontemlett]

42:28 sums it up for me...

[@wildandbarefoot]

I love Lucy

[@pattersonparkin7303]

Great but to many add breaks

[@mightwenotbehappy]

Pay £15.99 for premium then!

[@u.v.s.5583]

So when the National Bank declares that this legal tender is not one of their works, should we doubt them?

[@Filbert66]

Mould is such a gallery owner......always thinking about the money! It is a rubbish painting!

[@7ofthem]

Filbert66 you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about / just check his resume. What he’s discovered

[@SleutherStrode]

yes but its important

[@Heronjim]

Really? I don't think you know much about painting.

[@carlotta4th]

His job in authenticating paintings is to prove it because then his client and he are both paid. He doesn't get as much if he can't prove it so of course it's "about the money" in a show called "fake or fortune!" Aside from that it's definitely an ugly painting, but his own personal collection is much more tasteful.

[@mema9802]

fascinating episode, but isn't anyone else bothered by the fact that owner of the painting intends to sell it, so they are basically helping the guy make a lot of money from a painting that a) the artist himself did not approve of and b) was probably stolen in the first place?

[@annabellelee4535]

So what? I hope he gets a bundle from that ugly painting.

[@carlotta4th]

Why? ...Would him keeping it affect you personally any more than him selling it? You're not really affected either way. Life goes on, you won't remember this in a year.

[@michaeloliphant2073]

If the hair found in the painting was from Freud then it would be considered Freud did the painting. Then why when the hair was found not to be From Freud is the painting considered not to be from Freud?

[@andyc1955]

Even though the test on the hair did not prove it was his, it does not prove he didn't paint the picture. Since this was painted in a school setting, with likey many people milling about, it's very possible that a hair from another student could have got into the wet paint.

[@carlotta4th]

Same reason a cat isn't considered to be a murderer at the murder scene. You've only proved they were there when it happened--not that they themselves did it.

[@greendalegardens]

.

[@maggiesatterfield2402]

Art officiants forgive me. But this painting is ugly.

[@Jefferdaughter]

It has been said that 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Be that as it may, perhaps the most scathing insult in the art world is, 'It's pretty'. So many of the most heavily promoted artists did not/do not produce works of beauty- Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst. These three often did not even physically produce the works that are considered 'their' art. On the other hand, artists that produce work of unique and compelling beauty, like Andrew Wyeth, have been denounced for this. In the end, most of those who are buying the works of Lucian Freud and artist of the likes of Warhol, Koons, and Hirst are not purchasing them for their beauty. Or sometimes not even because they like them. Like the Nazis, they are trophies. And/or investments.

[@massimopoggio4142]

Apparently, Freud didn't think much of it either as it seems that he went to great lengths to distance himself from it. If he didn't like it, he should have destroyed it when he had a chance. Be as it may, there are some pretty ugly paintings that don't look like anything but blotches with a paintbrush, and have sold for millions. This one at least has character.

[@SoneBlink]

@@Jefferdaughter Wyeth was denounced for the beauty of his art? why? is his art he can do whatever he want.

[@ivydickson7596]

Maggie, we all have to start somewhere. He was 16 when he painted it. Just learning.

[@carlotta4th]

I know people say paintings coast on the painter's name--but this one is **definitely** coasting on the association with Sigmund Freud.

[@abinam2255]

Rubbish arguments to convince themselves.

[@FigaroHey]

"Lucian Freud was one of the most valuable artists until his death." The ARTIST was 'valuable' until his death? Then when he was a dead body, the ARTIST was no longer 'valuable'? Who was putting a price on the artist while he was alive? I can understand that his dead body was less valuable than his living body, but who was buying and selling the artist?

[@geoffdundee]

its fake

[@muffin6369]

I am NOT fond of this one. Probably the only one. The man is obnoxious and yes it makes somewhat of a difference. Not the actual painting but the man personality artist. He seems a little mean.

[@picksalot1]

Does not sound credible to me. As convoluted and distorted as the painting itself.

[@SleutherStrode]

I cant stand this dude, he doesnt care about the painting he just wants to say I have got a Freud and then sell it.

[@annabellelee4535]

Why not? The painting is repulsive.

[@carlotta4th]

He has a whole house full of paintings already, who would keep this one when you can sell it and make boatloads?

[@alex007thebest]

Degenerative art 21th century

[@johnnydepp3801]

Ok Adolf

[@dadodydo]

11:11 "It's got power and presence"!

[@rafaeltorres4728]

What an ugly painting.

[@ots1634]

their accents are soooo annoying

[@Elizabeth-yg2mg]

Very hoity-toit.

[@carlotta4th]

Lack of punctuation is more annoying.

[@bigbearfuzzums7027]

Even more degenerate art!

[@SleutherStrode]

stop it hitler

[@greendalegardens]

.