In Search of Psaier Press

THE DEFINITION OF “BLACKMAIL”

(v) To “Exert pressure on someone through threats”

Why the term “blackmail”?

Blackmail has a subtle form. It is inflicted on many, both in and out of the public eye. It sits alongside, “intimidation” when those who cannot get what they want increase the pressure on their "targets" in the hope of a successful outcome to their demands. This will become clearer as you read this statement.

I am writing this statement on my own behalf and not at the request of any third party. I do not apologise for its length as it is important for the truth surrounding articles published in the press to be heard.

It has always been made clear on this site that anyone who has primary source evidence that can be verified by a third party relating to Pietro Psaier is invited to contact the site and share that evidence. Sadly, in many cases this invitation has been ignored and the main protagonists have taken their allegations of a "scam or hoax" to the press or Internet blog sites in order to manipulate and influence in their attempts to discredit the research into the life and work of Pietro Psaier. The majority of these people remain anonymous, hiding in the shadows of the Internet.

For almost three years I have been researching the life and works of Pietro Psaier. This research has never been done before and is covering decades, continents, thousands of hours and miles, documentation and artworks. It is based on primary source evidence. I have always stated that as an when the research is complete it will be published in full on the Internet for everyone to see, not just for a few selected journalists who would deem it their right to incomplete research in order to grab a headline regardless of the consequences to the general public and vendors who have been buying and selling Psaier’s works for decades.

Sadly but specifically I speak of The Times and the Sunday Times.

It is important to note there has been fair and unbiased reporting from journalists such as the Editor of the Antiques Trade Gazette, Ivan McQuisten and Colin Gleadell of the Daily Telegraph who, as responsible journalists took the time to view our evidence prior to writing any articles.

The aim of my research has and always will be to establish Psaier in his own right as an artist regardless of any link to any other artist.

For those of you who do not know the background to this I will give a brief summary of where and when these allegations began.

I began my research before any allegations had appeared regarding Psaier. No vendor of Psaier’s works at that point in time had attempted to research his life or his works. When Mr. John Nicholson heard of my research he opened his doors to me giving me access to all documentation, photographs and artworks. As an independent researcher I am not funded. Despite press comments to the contrary I had not been hired by Mr. Nicholson but have his complete support which allows me to continue with my research, including travelling to interview those connected to Psaier.

Just over a year ago, an article appeared in The Times written by, Dalya Alberge, their arts corresponded at that time. The article had been “inspired” by allegations made on the Internet by Gary Comenas of warholstars.org, an intense site dedicated to Andy Warhol. Mr. Comenas made allegations on Wikipedia that a biography written about Pietro Psaier was not true and further alleged that Pietro Psaier the artist had never existed. This he had done without any research at that time. Sadly, despite an invitation to view the evidence and artworks, Ms. Alberge declined the offer and went to print. Her reason for this being that she had a scoop and wanted to go to print before any other newspaper got hold of the story. (Later Greg Hurst, Editor at the news desk contradicted this and said it was done quickly because there was an up and coming sale of Psaier’s work. This sale was weeks away at that time) After I had stated that the comments Mr. Comenas had made on Wikipedia were libellous in their content, only then did he go on to publish around 12 pages of comments on his own website as Wikipedia had asked him not to comment further during the debate that followed. Those 12 pages were taken down following the sale. (The Wikipedia biography was eventually taken down but not on the grounds of an alleged "scam/hoax" but on the basis of the lack of third party references)

As a result of this article the allegations were then taken up by most international newspapers. These articles remain on the Internet. A series of fruitless telephone conversations with Dalya Alberge and Greg Hurst then ensued during which demands were made for our evidence to be taken to London because they wanted to take them to the Warhol Foundation. We were at a loss as to why the Warhol organization needed to see the works and evidence relating to Pietro Psaier as they were set up to authenticate works by Warhol, not other artists. During one of many telephone calls between The Times and ourselves, Ms. Alberge called John Nicholson a “liar”. In response to a query from me she said that that a comment by Vincent Freemont of the Warhol Foundation quoted in her article was an “interviewees jokey comment” when saying he had never heard of Psaier. At no point would anyone reading the article see the funny side. This article remains on the timesonline website.

The article itself contains errors that remain uncorrected. Either because she was misinformed by a third party or because she wanted to add credence to her article, Ms. Alberge stated that Mark Wrbican, archivist at the Warhol museum had requested the deletion of the biography on Wikipedia. This was not so. As to the comments made by Vince Fremont, and contacted who, the news desk and Ms. Alberge couldn’t seem to get it right and contradicted each other on the issue. Ms. Alberge stated to me that her article was not as the result of any allegations on the Internet and yet couldn’t give an answer as to how it all came about. However, she stated to Mr. Nicholson that Vincent Freemont contacted her. The failure of The Times to follow good practice in this case leads us to ceasing any further communications with them and we withdrew our offer to see our evidence.

Ms. Alberge is no longer works working for The Times.

(During this time I emailed the Warhol Museum and Authentication board to ask if Mr. Comenas was acting on their behalf, this email was passed to KC Maurer, Treasurer of the Foundation who replied stating that the Foundation had never heard of Mr. Comenas and he did not speak or act on their behalf despite that Mr. Comenas regularly throughout the past year quotes and speaks as if representing them in some way.)

Mr. Comenas then launched an email campaign to get his point across.

At no time has anyone who is quoted as being an official of the Warhol organizations ever contacted me or anyone else to my knowledge connected to this research. This is despite them having access to do so. All “comments” from them come through third parties and remain hearsay. At no time did Mr. Comenas himself contact us with his queries despite driving the allegations and comments through the past year.

Because of the worry and concern that had been caused to the general public who are the priority and the buyers and vendors of Psaier’s works I estblished pietropsaierartist.com.

Having been unable to comment on Wikipedia Mr. Comenas then moved on to the Art History section at About.com; part of the New York Times Group. This site is run by Shelley Esaak. Her site has several links to Andy Warhol but interestingly enough, none to this research site so that readers can participate in a balanced debate. The site belonging to Ms. Esaak has a comments section that has been running for a year dedicated to the “Psaier debate.” Allegations and comments surrounding Psaier are made by anonymous posters. Comments have been edited in the past at a posters request. When pietropsaierartist.com was published Mr. Comenas complained on About.com that a large part of the research site was attacking him. Anyone seeing the site could see this is not so. What it has done is to challenge the allegations made by Mr. Comenas who surprisingly does not seem to think he warrants it? Posters argue with each other and accuse each other of being vendors in disguise. One cannot do anything about sites such as this. Despite apparently stating that the comments were not biased by the owner of the site she continues to state that she does not believe in the existence of Psaier which has an influence on the debate that rages there. Last year when the initial allegations began I emailed Shelley Esaak to ask her to be patient whilst the research was carried out and said that I would let her know when it was complete. Obviously as an art "guide" she failed to understand the length of time a process of research such as mine would take.

Over the past year since the allegations were first posted by Mr. Comenas, the debate surrounding Psaier has continued. Often in subterfuge and in shady corners by those who wish to remain anonymous.

NB: Update to the above

Sadly, as a result of email correspondence between one of the people commenting on About.com and Mr. Comenas, I have received an email from the person involved who has stated that his private email address was given to the Sunday Times by Mr. Comenas without this person's permission. This does compromise the integrity of the site and any others commentating there need to be aware that their personal details may be handed on to a third party.

Secondly, despite the following statement on each page of this website: "No part of this website, including text and images may be copied, reproduced or transmitted to a third party in any form for either professional or personal use without written permission" Mr. Comenas in an open letter to me that can be read by many, has quoted and copied directly from this site.

While all this has been going on I have continued with my research. Having traced Carlos Langelaan Alvarez I have interviewed him on four occasions. On my last trip I was accompanied by John Nicholson who spoke in depth with Carlos. I also attended the fund raising exhibition in Madrid of Psaier’s work for the Fundacion Pietro Psaier which has been set up to build a school and hospital in Sri Lanka where Psaier was last known to have lived and where he was lost in the 2004 Tsunami. In my second interview with Carlos he described the distress of Psaier when he told him of how an agent had disappeared taking much of Psaier’s artworks with him. He described how the agent had initially paid for Psaier’s treatment bills but then disappeared leaving him penniless. Psaier continued with intermittent treatment but could only pay with his art.

In the meantime I also traced Paloma Aznar, a Spanish journalist who claimed she had known Pietro Psaier for four years. I had found an article from the Spanish newspaper El Independiente in which there was an interview Ms. Aznar had carried out with Pietro Psaier in 1990. It also contained photographs of Psaier and his art work. I returned to Spain and carried out an informal interview with Ms. Aznar alongside her chosen interpreter. She described the four years she had known Psaier and life during that time in Madrid. She also described her involvement in the promotion of artists and others involved in the arts. She stated how Psaier and Warhol had the same Madrid gallerist, Fernando Vijande. At the invitation of John Nicholson, Ms Aznar and her interpreter came to England and she was interviewed by Ivan McQuisten, Editor of the Antiques Trade Gazette. He was shown the original photographs which she explained were set pieces done for promotion. I also showed her some other photographs I had managed to obtain and she identified the apartment where Psaier lived.

Full details of Ivan McQuisten’s interview with Paloma Aznar can be found on the Antique Trade Gazette’s website.

Sadly there is a more sinister side to all of this. It has involved harassment, intrusion into private lives, blackmail of the monetary kind, the attempted discrediting of serious research and the attempted blackening of reputations.

And so we turn to now and the definition of blackmail.

We have always known through those who understand the serious aspect of research, that the allegations and whispers have continued. Over the past ten days, emails began to arrive on my laptop. At first they came from Georgia Warren, Home News reporter at the Sunday Times. In a series of emails, Ms. Warren attempted to extract information contained in my research. On each occasion I answered that as and when the research was complete it would be published on the Internet for the benefit of all and not just for one news publication. I also told her that we would not be dealing with The Times due to our previous experience with them. I had in fact said the Sunday Times incorrectly but in any case Ms. Warren stated that the Sunday Times was a separate from The Times and in fact her comment was they were “rivals” in fact. How strange that rival publications share the same website and are interlinked in many ways. I asked Ms. Warren why she was suddenly interested in Psaier (even though the answer was obvious). She emailed me to say that she had heard about him and was intrigued regarding the story. At no point in her emails to me did she say there was anything else in this. She did say she had seen a statement on an auction site that there was an up and coming sale of Psaier's works, however after I checked this out, it was incorrect and had been placed in error.

Ms. Warren’s emails became insulting and intimidating. She commented that the Spanish journalist, Paloma Aznar was a “sex columnist who had met Psaier only once”.

On Friday I met with a solicitor.

Eventually Ms. Warren went away and up popped Steven Swinford on the Friday afternoon, and the “blackmail” began culminating in an email starting with the following comment:

“We are intending to publich (yes that is the spelling in the email) a piece in this weekend’s Sunday Times which will state that you have been involved, wittingly or unwittingly in an art fraud.”

Mr. Swinford then went on to ask the same set of questions asked by Ms. Warren. He said he had to have the answers by Saturday lunchtime. He also named those who “may be” involved in the said fraud. An attempt was made to discredit me as a researcher by questioning my qualifications. After having restated the answer I had given to Ms. Warren a pointless exchange of emails ensued. Mr. Swinford refused my request to have his email to me and the responses to be sent to their Editor in Chief.

There comes a point when “enough is enough” and I contacted the Press Complaints Commission and they intervened on my behalf by sending a statement from me via them in order to stop the harassment.

I am not the only one who has been targeted with these attempts to blackmail people into giving answers through a fear of being cast as being complicit in an art fraud. The same email with variations on a theme was sent to those who would not bow to the Sunday Times demands. Private homes and families have been door stepped, solicitors acting on behalf of clients have been called in order to extract interviews from their clients, and places of work have been targeted on numerous occasions, work colleagues targeted and more.

Yesterday (Saturday at 11:45 prior to publication of the Sunday Times article) a comment appeared on About.com whereby an anonymous poster who owns works by Psaier states that they has been contacted by a Sunday Times journalist stating they had fake certificates attached to his works. Why would and the Sunday Times journalist be contacting an anonymous web site poster on a site that is biased towards Warhol and how were they contacted? How was he given that contact? Has the owner of that site given private information relating to those who comment on her site to the press or has she passed that information onto a third party who in turn passed it to the press? How did the Sunday Times journalist know about the “fake” certificates owned by this person?

Tonight at midnight the Sunday Times published its article. It can be found if you type in Pietro Psaier into the search box at the timesonline as well as in its broadsheet edition.

The article written by the Times "rival" (as described by Georgia Warren) the Sunday Time’s is accompanied by links to the previous year’s article written by Dalya Alberge of The Times. It has the same link to Warhol at its side - Times Archive – 1971 Andy Warhol Twilight of the Stars. Initially the timesonline version of the article was preceded by graphics that were 32 cans of soup credited to Andy Warhol?? This has now been changed to work accredited to Psaier. By whose influence was this change made? If there had been a complaint, surely this should have been noted as a side to the article and the reasons as to why the change was made and by whom?

Headline: “Warhol acolyte may be artistic illusion”

And so the “may be” news story begins

First paragraph: (Remembering this is a news story)

“An artist who has sold hundreds of works through his association with Andy Warhol may be” (lets underline may be just to be certain that we got that right) “an elaborate hoax involving a convicted art fraudster.”

Second paragraph:

“Hundreds of Psaier paintings have been sold through auctioneers through Britain and abroad” (forgot to mention the hundreds of galleries, exhibitions and private sales)”, including Christies, Sotheby’s and Bonhams. My, my how busy Mr. Swinford must have been contacting all those people and telling them they were about to be implicated wittingly or unwittingly in an art fraud – did he or was he selective in his democratic process?

Until yesterday I had no knowledge of any art fraud committed by John Fairchild. Since the publication of the article I have found an old press article relating to this. However, I have no knowledge of any existing may be art fraud. Nor has anyone else that I know of associated with my research.I have had no sight of any documents that may relate to this. Does the Sunday Times have such "evidence", if they have surely they would have forwarded it to appropriate authorities instead of using that "evidence" as a headline news story to intimidate the buyers and vendors of Psaier's work. Isnt that the responsible thing to do.implicated in one now.

The company registrations and their history have been in the public domain as registered companies. These are being researched.

The son has the rights to Psaier’s works. That would be normal practice in the death of a parent. .

In regard to the statement, "Peter Psaier claims to be Psaier senior’s son”. Take away the word “claims” and it changes everything.

Press releases: All based on previous press releases that have accompanied Psaier’s work and exhibitions for more than a decade. All in the process of being researched.

In regard to the comment that only after allegations in the press did my research begin. This is not true. I have already stated that my research began and my first interview with Carlos Langelaan was already planned. The delay was not down to a scrambling around for evidence prior to the first sale as quoted in the press, nor was that sale cancelled. The reason for the delay was that Carlos was recovering from yet more surgery. Unlike the press our priority has always been to have concerns for all who we contact in our research.

In regard to the statement made by Uri Geller. When first contacted by Dalya Alberge on the Wednesday prior to her article being published last year in The Times, John Nicholson was on holiday in the Mediterranean. Uri Geller had come to John Nicholsons saleroom and during a conversation with Mr. Nicholson stated that he (Uri Geller) had been to The Factory and during that time he had seen and met with Pietro Psaier. When Ms. Alberge questioned Mr. Nicholson on that day he recounted Uri Gellar’s visit to the saleroom and his statement. Mr. Geller denied his comment, although now he states he can’t recall it. There is a difference. Why on earth would Mr. Nicholson recount a statement that a very public figure who is not adverse to publicity ihad made f it were not true? It was a statement that could be easily checked out with one phone call. It simply doesn’t make any sense.

When asked by John Nicholson as to how she had obtained her story, Ms. Alberge stated she had been contacted by the Warhol Foundation; again this was contradicted in subsequent conversations and it was alleged it was noted that she in fact had contacted them.

In regard to Carlos Langelaan Alvarez, therapist and friend of Psaier, he speaks the truth about his hospitalization and visits. There is no doubt about that as I have been witness to this. Interestingly, despite knowing Carlos did not want to be interviewed in regard to Psaier, as is his right to decide, Gary Comenas turned up at his office one day in Madrid using the pretext to wish him well. Mr. Comenas goes all the way to Madrid to wish well someone he has never met?? Extreme pressure has been placed onto Carlos in the past weeks. Despite the press having been told of the situation regarding his accident and subsequent multiple surgery they, the press have been relentless in their pursuit of him for over a year since he made his first statement to us regarding his friend and patient, Pietro Psaier.

NB: Mr. Comenas has stated in an "Open Letter" to me on his website, that it was not he who went to Madrid. Was the person who turned up at the offices of Carlos Langelaan some kind of stalker who stated that "Please tell Dr. Langelaan that Gary Comenas sends his regards and wishes him well" ???

In regard to comments from those associated with Warhol officially or by connection to him in life, I repeat that no official from the Warhol organizations has been in contact with either I, apart from the email from KC Maurer, and to my knowledge any vendor of Psaier’s works. There were and are many talented people who were associated with Warhol, equally there are many who make a living simply because of their association to his name. These people do the rounds of exhibitions and openings of theatres simply based on that. If the Warhol organizations are going to challenge Psaier, let them open their doors and archives to independent researchers who can verify the “Warhol” statements as to their being no record of Psaier along with many Factory workers who have never been given a credit for their work. Anything other than primary source evidence that can be verified by a third party is hearsay and has no relevance in true research. Whenever my research by association leads up to any connection to Warhol, the same hearsay accusations rear their heads.

There does appear to be a somewhat Jekyll and Hyde characteristic about the Sunday Times in what they have published on the timesonline. Apart from the Warhol Soup Can graphics that were removed (Couldnt they distinguish between a Warhol and a Psaier?) there is a series of comments about Andy Warhol and The Factory to accompany their article as well as in the broadsheet. Even more contradicting is an advertisement accompanying their timesonline today (31st August 2009) alongside their article in the sponsored link section. Virtue Antiques advertising original Pietro Psaier works???

Why is that only now when the only research carried out by anyone into the life and works of Psaier do the Warhol organizations rear their heads? For decades they have made little if no comment. Who is driving these allegations and why over the past year? Is it all down to an Internet “Blogger” or is there another reason behind all of this? I leave the public to make up their own minds based on solid primary source evidence that can be verified by a third party. They are the people who matter, not headline seeking journalists using poorly sourced research. It is well documented that the press can be manipulated and the Times and the Sunday Times journalists should look closely at what they are being fed and more importantly, why and by who. Why have the only articles written by the Times Group been based on discrediting Pietro Psaier and his art?

NB: Why would an "American" living in London, who is clearly associated to Warhol through his website and the owner of a website that comes under the New York Times Group and whose main links are to Warhol be determined to discredit the research being carried out regarding Psaier? That also doesnt make sense. Wouldn't you, as a "protagonist" be saying to yourself: "At last someone is researching Psaier and the truth will come out?" Wouldn't you also have been in touch and shared any primary source evidence that you have to back up your allegations in a professional manner, not through your website in order to bring attention to yourself? Just take a second or two here and think this paragraph through.

Why instead of open letters to myself placed on the Internet by Mr. Comenas and Shelley Esaak, can they not act professionally and conduct their "research in a credible manner? My statement here is to clarify what has been happening in the press and the allegations. I have not sought or intend to share the "limelight" but simply to counter the above allegations. I do not go to Twitter or Facebook, or conduct email campaigns. I have not sought attention or publicity. I have continued with my research. This statement and another on this site have been made in order to counter what I believe to be a malicious campaign to discredit my research.

In recent days I have been asked if I am going to continue with the research. That was a decision that never crossed my mind. The answer to the question is, yes. As to the time scale, let us remember that this research has never been done before and it has taken decades to archive all of the work of Warhol for instance and they purportedly had everything documented already.

Thank you for your patience.

Jacqueline Chapman

August 31st^th 2009

Following the same intense hounding by the press, Carlos Langelaan Alvarez has released the following statement to the Sunday Times. The statement has been sent on the headed notepaper of the Fundacion Pietro Psaier of which Carlos Langelaan is President. The following words are a copy of what is contained in the statement. I stress that these are the words of Carlos Langelaan Alvarez and have not been altered.

Attn: Georgia Warren

The Sunday Times, London

The Press showed absolutely no interest in Pietro Psaier prior to his death almost five years ago.

"I have a loyalty to my late friend and patient but I feel it is important to address this matter in writing and would be most grateful for this brief statement to be published at the same time as any forthcoming article.

To establish a complete picture of Psaier, the man, the artist and for some "the man who never was" I have released my preliminary psycholgical profile to John Nicholson and Mrs. J Chapman and a copy of his death certificate. I have been following every twist and turn of this developing story. I have been hounded by the Spanish and British Press for over a year. The British Press have tried to establish a complete picture of Pietro Psaier, extracting statements and so many out of context and building the word "hoax" into many articles worldwide. I knew Pietro Psaier for a number of years while he lived in Madrid. Psaier's principle art dealer Nicholas Benedict had enjoyed financial reward from the art by Pietro Psaier, leaving Pietro many times pennyless. Over the years Pietro would up root and travel to India and later Sri Lanka and developed a love for Sri Lanka and its people. As an accomplished artist he would teach the local people the art of silk screening. It would appear that Psaier's link to the Warhol Factory is a spur to rumour -spreading. The gossip has raged within the artwold, and in turn, it would appear that Psaier's art is be sold in countless world wide auctions as being an investment class of Warhols. In my opinion this has accumulated into a "major crossroad" in the world of art. I believe purley by accident, time and human greed, a fiendish brillient developing market has continued to expand.

I had no objection in making my sworn statement regarding my late friend and patient as his psychiatric doctor for over 7 years.

At this moment in time I am the President of "Fundacion Pietro Psaier", duly chartered by the Ministry of Education in Madrid. Deed of registration No 1022, a non profit making organisation helping Sri Lanka and its people. For anyone interested in Pietro Psaier's life, one should not believe the skullduggery and most sensational, "Who done it" articals. My friend died a poor man, but these poorly researched pieces will only make many others richer, but I believe Pietros immensely popular art will live on.

Doctor CARLOS LANGELAAN ALVAREZ

president "Fundacion Pietro Psaier"