Response by Mr Wang Zineng to Mr Rick Paddock's New York Times article: "Vietnamese Art Has Never Been More Popular. But the Market Is Full of Fakes."

Dear Mr Paddock,

I refer to your 11 Aug 2017 published article on Vietnamese art: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/arts/design/vietnamese-art-has-never-been-more-popular-but-the-market-is-full-of-fakes.html

Unlike some other major news media, the New York Times does not allow for online comments by readers of the paper's articles. I have a few thoughts, and some questions for you as well and so the only recourse is for me to write to you. For clarity, I have grouped my comments and questions into sub-headers below. 

The motive and intent of your article 

The greater part of your article focuses on the controversy arising from the July 2016 exhibition 'Paintings Returned from Europe' which took place at the Ho Chi Minh City Museum of Fine Arts. 

Compare your article to various other articles from a year ago available online: https://tuoitrenews.vn/lifestyle/35972/art-exhibition-featuring-renowned-vietnamese-painters-found-entirely-fake, or https://www.thanhniennews.com/arts-culture/vietnam-museum-says-all-paintings-fake-in-highprofile-exhibition-64416.html. I was looking for new insights you could have surfaced in your article beyond what has been covered by other journalists, especially as your article comes more than one year on after the July 2016 exhibition, but I gleaned nothing new. Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't investigative journalism get to the heart of issues, and not merely re-assert claims and reiterate events already conveyed to readers by other journalists?

In the year since the controversy, did you show how various art experts you cited in your article have progressed with demonstrable action to determine the inauthenticity of the exhibited paintings? I would think that would have added more value to your article and move you beyond the exercise of regurgitating old news. 

Responsible journalism makes clear its intent in selecting, pursuing and finally surfacing a news lead. Could you share with me your motive for publishing this article a full year on from the July 2016 exhibition, particularly as it seems there has been no new developments in the controversy?

In my opinion, your article has served to do nothing but to fan flames that had already dissipated for lack of evidence. The insinuations that your article puts out based on a pastiche of old snippets and quotes that are at best tenuously linked to the issue at hand are worrisome coming from as reputable a platform as the New York Times.

Jean-Fran?ois Hubert and other 'Vietnamese art experts'

Jean-Fran?ois Hubert is a published author of several titles on Vietnamese art and an acknowledged authority on the subject. Amongst the titles he has authored and co-authored, and artist's films he has been featured in:

Arts du Vietnam: La Fleur du Pêcher et l'Oiseau d'azur, Musée Royal de Mariemont, 2002

Arts du Vietnam, Parkstone, 2002

Le Pho, featuring Paulette Le Pho as well, National Gallery, Singapore, 2011

Academics, curators, art collectors and others in the artworld refer to these titles commonly as the best in class references for Vietnamese art. I trust you know that the single line in your article in which you focused on the art which I shall cite - The best of them (earlier generations of Vietnamese artists) synthesize European post-Impressionist trends with classical Asian styles and subjects - you actually gleaned from observations Hubert first made in his 2002 publications. 

You suggest at numerous instances in your article that he dealt, and dealt dishonestly at that, with the paintings and Mr Chung in the exhibition 'Paintings Returned from Europe' and unprofessionally with To Ngoc Van and Le Van De paintings offered at Christie's the auction house. I read and re-read but I do not see solid evidence backing your assertions. Perhaps you could care to elaborate?

 You quote Vietnamese art experts repeatedly in your article. These experts are by and large unnamed and their credentials unclear. Could you please provide their credentials? And if they do have objections to the artworks auctioned by Christie's and/or handled by Hubert, what have they concretely done to raise their concerns? Have there - to the best of your knowledge – been, for instance, any withdrawals and/or refunds of successful sales of artworks sold by the major auction houses that have questions of authenticity on them?

At various junctures in your article, you mentioned Vietnamese art experts challenging the legitimacy of the artworks that Christie's and by association, Hubert, brought up for sale. I am quite certain that as the writer of the article, you are aware of your own obvious and unrelenting focus on Hubert's part in these controversies you have raised. As such, your article may be – correctly or otherwise – interpreted to be carrying someone else's agenda to slander the reputation of an expert in the field. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this observation. 

Origin of citation

In your article, you quoted me as having noted in an email to a Vietnamese journalist that I am “absolutely convinced that the works presented by Mr. Chung are authentic and genuine.” As far as I am aware, this statement has not been published in print. May I know from whom and how you obtained this quote? 

It is somewhat regrettable that in spite of an extensive hour-long Whatsapp call on 24 May 2017 that we had in response to your request to interview, nothing I had noted was directly cited and you somehow had to quote me from another source. Could you shed light on the purpose of the call then?

Timing of your article

It is unfortunate to note, but the timing of appearance of your article and previous articles by other journalists decrying the prevalence of fakes in the Vietnamese art market have coincided, rather sinisterly - if I may add - with watershed moments in the international auction market for the category of Vietnamese art: April 2008, when Sotheby’s held a single-owner collection sale of Vietnamese art in Hong Kong (Hubert was Vietnamese art consultant to Sotheby’s then) and May 2016, when Hubert and I convened the present highest grossing sale of Vietnamese art ever in a single auction session at Christie’s Hong Kong. I am genuinely concerned that certain interest groups that wish to arrest the momentum of the art market to further their self-serving interests are using you. Again, I would like your thoughts on this observation.

Sensationalism

 Finally, I am not entirely sure if you come from a school of journalism that believes sensational news sell. It would seem you subscribe to this view from the hyperbolic title of your article: "Vietnamese Art Has Never Been More Popular. But the Market Is Full of Fakes."

I think you would agree with me 'full of fakes' is a callous throwaway statement that even the anonymous Vietnamese art experts you have cited would find an irresponsible exaggeration. I trust you know that art forgery in the Vietnamese context is an extremely layered and complex issue, especially as it involves corruption and larceny, bad hiring within the museum sector in Vietnam, and the oft-cited intent and exercise to conserve and preserve artworks in the context of the Vietnam War; your colleague Seth Mydans has raised this issue as early as 2009 in an article you cited. In view of these complexities, I think it would have done your article greater service to use the words 'fake', 'forgery', '(not) authentic' and 'genuine' with greater circumspection.

Summary

In summary, I think your article could have taken a broader view of the controversy; it could have, for instance, delved into the complexities of authenticating artworks in the context of Vietnamese art against other categories of art and design. Vietnamese art is not singular in having to confront the quagmire of art forgery – in Asia, the same can be said of Chinese classical and modern paintings and antiquities, Indonesian and Indian modern paintings and others. To take a blinkered approach, focusing on just the category of Vietnamese art to even neglect to mention other fields, accentuating the fault line in it, rehashing a controversy belatedly as you did, with no new insights on the case, while pointedly focused on the roles particular individuals played, make you and the New York Times seem that you are being deployed by self-serving entities who wish to deflate the momentum of the market. In this sense, you have done great disservice to the field of Vietnamese art that I am sure you care about to the degree of wanting to write about it. 

I have more questions for you but I am aware you may be busy in your pursuit of the next burning issue within Southeast Asia to report on and you may not have the time to reflect upon the content of this email; hence I end here with the above comments and questions and look forward to your response.

Regards, Wang Zineng.