As Peter Plagens and Yahlin Chang note in “Van Gogh or No Gogh?”, van Gogh’s Sunflowers are, paradoxically, “instantly recognizable but easy to imitate,” (Plagens and Chang, 72) due not only to the inconsistent style of its copies, but also to its hazy provenance. With regards to this suspected counterfeit work of van Gogh, or “a faux van Gogh” (Ryback), forgers have tried to capitalize and exploit the unsubstantiated provenance, or history of ownership, of his painting. Most recently, scholars find themselves at odds with the debated provenance of the Yasuda Sunflowers (pictured to the left) from the time period of 1891 to 1907, a dispute Martin Bailey proffers in “Stems of Division in the Provenance of ‘Sunflowers,’ ” since a chronological gap exists in the written records of the painting’s ownership ("Stems of Division").
The early provenance of the Yasuda Sunflowers is undisputed, but the chronological gap that exists partly discredits the validity of the painting. As such, the provenance of the Yasuda copy of Sunflowers is a contentious factor that counters its academic consideration as an authentic work by van Gogh. At the focal point of the painting’s provenance is an individual named Claude-Emile Schuffenecker, who was also a reputed forger of artwork, particularly of other van Gogh pieces. After both van Gogh’s and Theo’s deaths, Theo’s widow, Jo Bonger-van Gogh, loaned eight van Gogh paintings to a an art critic, Julien Leclercq, who in turn called upon Schuffenecker to organize an exhibition for van Gogh works (Ryback). It was around this time in 1901, as Bart de la Faille notes in his catalogue raisonné of van Gogh pieces, that Schuffenecker acquired the painting ("Stems of Division"). But this theory is challenged by a hypothesis proposed by Dr. Roland Dorn, a German art historian, who claims that the painting had passed through the ownership of a Parisian collector, Comte de La Rochefoucauld, prior to reaching Schuffenecker’s possession ("Stems of Division"). Yet another theory suggests that the piece is not even a genuine piece of artwork, but simply a fabrication by Claude-Emile Schuffenecker himself. Set forth by Ben Landais and Antonio de Robertis in 1998, the conjecture lacks solid evidence and only offers an elementary explanation of the painting’s hazy provenance from 1891 to 1907.
Ironically, it was Schuffenecker who was ultimately accused of forging the original Sunflowers piece and fabricating the Yasuda copy, but it was also he who began establishing a reputation for van Gogh’s name among public awareness – a reputation that has only continued to grow rapidly with time. This peculiar twist involving Schuffenecker only compounds the mystery surrounding the genesis and transfer of ownership of the painting, a notion that some historians dismiss due to the lack of “serious research” and flawed information, as described by Jeff Daniel in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper article (Daniel, F1).
However, those van Gogh experts who support the authenticity of the Yasuda work offer some evidence suggesting that the obscure provenance of the painting is unproven. For instance, Walter Feilchenfeldt, a longtime van Gogh expert, “expresses complete satisfaction with its authenticity” (Ryback). Art historian Ronald Pickvance, also asserts a similar position, sustaining the notion that this version could not have been forged by the prime suspect, Claude-Emile Schuffenecker, despite unbridled media supposition. Regardless, the different provenance theories of the Yasuda Sunflowers have kept scholars in hot debate throughout the decades until recently, when the work was finally declared authentic.