Editor’s Note: This story originally appeared in On Balance, the ARTnews newsletter about the art market and beyond. Sign up here to receive it every Wednesday.
The owner of three paintings currently on view at the National Museum of Contemporary Art (MNAC) in Bucharest, Romania, is threatening to sue the art publication e-flux and Ukrainian American art historian Konstantin Akinsha for defamation.
The works—Suprematist Composition in Color (ca. 1915), Cubo-Futurist Composition (ca. 1912–13), and Linear Suprematism (ca. 1916)—are currently part of “Kazimir Malevich: Outliving History,” an exhibition that opened in May. The show also features 14 abstract works by contemporary Romanian artists. The owner of the three paintings— Yaniv Cohen, a Bucharest-based Israeli businessman—claims the works are by Suprematist painter Kazimir Malevich (1879–1935).
But on June 30, Akinsha, a curator and scholar of Eastern European modernism, sparked controversy by questioning the origins of the paintings in an article on e-flux. In it, he accused MNAC of “lacking expertise” and challenged the provenance of the previously unseen works. Akinsha further asserted that MNAC’s June 8 announcement for the exhibition, also published on e-flux, contained multiple errors and “historical misinterpretations” of Malevich’s biography. He wrote that these “misinterpretations” suggested “a lack of expertise not only in the biography of Malevich but also in the broader context of Soviet modernism.”
In response, Cohen told ARTnews that he sent a letter to e-flux and Akinsha via the Tel Aviv–based law firm Rosen-Ben Gal, demanding the removal of Akinsha’s article and an apology for the “reputational damage, professional harm, and personal distress caused” to him.
“Should you fail to comply with the above demands … we will pursue all legal remedies available to our client, including but not limited to initiating proceedings for defamation, injurious falsehood, and reputational harm, along with claims for damages and legal costs,” the letter reads.
The umbrella definition “Russian avant-garde” was introduced at the end of the 1960s, early 1970s and refers to modernist art of different trends that was made in the Russian Empire and Soviet Union between 1900 and the mid-1930s. Works associated with movements from that period are highly prized on the art market, with top pieces by its most celebrated figures fetching tens of millions of dollars. The current auction record for a painting by Malevich is $85.8 million, achieved in 2018 at Christie’s New York for Suprematist Composition (1916). That sale also set the record for the most expensive Russian artwork ever sold at auction.
But the market for the Russian avant-garde is also notoriously fraught. Several dealers, auction house specialists, and authenticators have told ARTnews that most of the works they encounter are not genuine. The issue is so well-known that in 2020, the Museum Ludwig in Cologne, Germany, staged an exhibition investigating the authenticity of its holdings, which include 600 Russian works produced between 1905 and 1930.
As ARTnews reported in a landmark 1996 investigation—of which Akinsha was a co-author—such works were frequently counterfeited after their repression under Stalin. Soviet authorities later prevented the works from leaving the USSR, which meant that when they did resurface, in the 1960s and ’70s, they often lacked complete—or any—provenance. With prices climbing, forgers seized the opportunity. In the decades since, numerous lawsuits involving works attributed to Malevich and other Russian avant-gardists have followed.
Related Articles
From Under the Bed to Museum Walls
Cohen has said he inherited the paintings from his 95-year-old grandmother, Eva Levando, who in turn received them from her Ukrainian Jewish father, Ben Ziion Levando. According to Cohen, Eva brought the paintings from Russia to Israel in 1990 and kept them under her bed until last year, when he had them authenticated and appraised by Ukrainian art historian Dmytro Horbachov, who said they were worth between $160 million and $190 million. (Cohen also said that Horbachov has included the paintings in a forthcoming book.)
Akinsha’s concerns stem from apparent gaps in the paintings’ provenance. The works are dated between 1912 and 1918, but Cohen has said his great-grandfather acquired one in 1929—from an unknown party as payment for accounting work in Odessa—and that he purchased the other two in 1930, also from an unidentified seller.
Akinsha pointed to apparent provenance gaps of up to 17 years. “There is no information about who owned these paintings before Mr. Levando,” he said.
Following the publication of Akinsha’s opinion piece, e-flux appended a note to MNAC’s original exhibition announcement. It reads: “e-flux became aware after the publication of this announcement that the Malevich works on which this exhibition is based are likely forgeries. We apologize for inadvertently disseminating information about this.” e-flux did not respond to a request for comment from ARTnews.
An MNAC spokesperson, meanwhile, referred ARTnews to a disclaimer published on the museum’s website on July 3, which described the exhibition as “a curatorial experiment” intended to “reflect on how art historical meaning is constructed, interpreted, and challenged over time.”
“The inclusion of the disputed works should not be interpreted as institutional validation of their authorship or authenticity,” the statement continued. “Since the exhibition’s opening, concerns have been voiced in public discourse regarding the authenticity or attribution of the three historical pieces signed Malevich. The museum would like to clarify that it does not possess or claim expertise in authenticating these particular works.”
That position marked a notable shift from MNAC’s initial e-flux announcement, when it wrote that it “assumed that the expertise assessing the authorship of the three Malevich pieces, and the explanation of their provenance through an adventurous rescue from the Soviet Union to Israel are solid enough to allow the public exposure.”
Alexandra Kusá, former director of Slovakia’s National Gallery, told ARTnews that museums have a responsibility to take strong positions on provenance and avoid questionable works.
“To display art with disputed provenance is a no-go zone—we do not only work with art, but also with reputation and trust,” Kusá said.
In an interview with ARTnews, Cohen dismissed MNAC’s updated disclaimer as “standard institutional practice when dealing with historic works that may not have complete archival documentation.”
“MNAC reviewed the scientific reports, restoration documentation, expert evaluations, and provenance materials before agreeing to exhibit the works publicly,” he said. “I therefore believe the exhibition itself, along with the accompanying wall texts and catalogue, speaks volumes about the institution’s view of their significance.”
While Akinsha has argued that there is no documentation from the artist’s lifetime to support the works’ authenticity, Cohen has maintained that he “categorically rejects the insinuations” and told ARTnews he possesses original documentation proving their lineage and legitimacy.
“No one who is writing negative things about the paintings has come to see them in person, nor have they asked to see the provenance themselves,” he said.
However, when ARTnews asked to review the full provenance, Cohen said it would not be possible until August due to a non-disclosure agreement signed with “a major museum who is interested in exhibiting the three works.” He also claimed to be in discussions with three institutions—one in New York, one in the Middle East, and one in Vienna. (Cohen also provided what appeared to be a customs receipt from Romania’s Ministry of Public Finances, which he said he received when bringing the works in for the exhibition.)
“As for the NDA, a portion of the provenance involves materials shared with a European museum under conditions of confidentiality during ongoing institutional review,” Cohen said. “This is a temporary restriction, and I expect that in due course—pending formal resolution—these materials can be disclosed publicly.”
He added: “The information presented by MNAC was based on reputable academic sources, including the published works of Dmytro Horbachov, one of the foremost scholars on Malevich … Any suggestion that the museum engaged in historical misrepresentation is unfounded and defamatory … We stand by the integrity of the MNAC curatorial team and the legitimacy of the exhibition.”
Horbachov did not respond to ARTnews’s request for comment.
Sponsorship Questions
The show’s financing has also drawn scrutiny. MNAC lists one sponsor for the Malevich exhibition: Dental Clinic Herăstrău, which is owned by Cohen. When asked whether this constituted a conflict of interest, MNAC director Călin Dan declined to comment and abruptly ended the interview with ARTnews. The museum did address the issue, however, in the July 3 disclaimer posted to its website.
“As part of the defamatory discourse against the Museum, a truncated and malicious information was released concerning the sponsorship of the exhibition,” the museum’s statement said. “We would like to clarify that the amount in question is dedicated entirely to covering the costs of additional security required for such exhibitions, a financial effort surpassing MNAC’s possibilities.”
The museum declined to answer further questions about the sponsorship.
Cohen told ARTnews that he personally paid €24,000 “for laser trip wires and security guards,” as well as €1,800 for a buffet for VIP guests at the exhibition’s opening on May 14. He added that he insured the paintings himself for €50 million because “MNAC was only able to insure them up to €10 million.” Cohen also provided videos that appear to show the paintings arriving in Bucharest, escorted by armed guards.
A Market ‘Heavily Impacted by Forgery’
The persistent problems in the Russian avant-garde market have made many buyers and sellers wary of such works.
Jo Vickery, director of Vickery Art Ltd. and former international director of Russian art at Sotheby’s, told ARTnews that the major auction houses will not handle a Malevich unless there is “solid and compelling evidence linking the work to the lifetime of the artist.” She added that technical testing and independent condition reports are typically required, along with provenance documentation.
“A photograph of the artist standing next to a work is always reassuring. However, even vintage photos can be doctored or used by fakers to create facsimile works, so they must be verified too,” she said.
In February, Cohen hired the Paris-based company Institut d’Art Conservation Coleur (IACC) to restore and analyze the three paintings. Its report stated that “the pigments, fillers, and organic binders identified are consistent with the presumed period of [the works’] creation (1879–1935).”
However, Steve Maslow, CFO of ArtDiscovery—an art analysis and authentication company with laboratories in London and New York—warned against using such tests as definitive proof of authorship. He told ARTnews that “in a market so heavily impacted by forgery, the only responsible standard is robust, multi-technique analysis.”
“Basic analytical tests leave too many questions,” he said. “Scientific data must also be contextualized against the known working methods of the artist. In the case of Malevich, that means specific pigments, surface preparation, and technique. Without this level of scrutiny, material findings alone say very little about authorship.”
Cohen told ARTnews he has no intention of selling the works. “I only want to exhibit them around the world to honor the wishes of my grandmother,” he said. However, he added last Thursday that he might consider selling them after her death.
While Cohen does not have a photograph of Malevich with the paintings, he said he does have photos of his great-grandfather standing with them, taken between 1970 and 1976. “These photographs clearly document the presence of the works in the family’s possession during that period—well before their eventual transfer to Israel,” he said.
“This proves they are real,” Cohen claimed. “Because there are no Malevich fakes made before the 1970s.”
But Aleksandra Shatskikh, an art historian specializing in Malevich and the Russian avant-garde, told ARTnews that fake Malevich paintings were already circulating by the early 1970s, created in cities like St. Petersburg and later brought to Israel.
Cohen said the works were stamped by Soviet authorities before their export. “In 1990, shortly before immigrating to Israel, Eva Levando stamped the reverse of each painting with an official seal of the Soviet ministry of culture,” he said. “This seal has been unequivocally authenticated by certified experts as well as through independent scientific analysis conducted at a laboratory in Paris [IACC].”
Akinsha cast doubt on Cohen’s claim, telling ARTnews, “It is highly unlikely that experts from the USSR culture ministry would have permitted the export of works by Malevich, especially considering that the Soviet authorities themselves confiscated two of his paintings from the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow for politically motivated exchanges. The export of works from the USSR created before 1945 was strictly prohibited.”
He added: “It is well known that the private collecting of radical modernist art in the Soviet Union was virtually non-existent during the 1920s and 1930s.”
Still, Akinsha told ARTnews that if his concerns regarding the paintings’ provenance are disproven with what he considers credible documentation, “I will gladly retract my so-called ‘slanderous accusations’ and express my regret.”
If you have any tip-offs or art world stories, write to me at gnelson@artnews.com. I will follow up for ARTnews.