An Original Artwork Attributed To Keith Haring

If you’re considering the appraisal or purchase of an artwork attributed to Keith Haring, you’re stepping into a high-stakes corner of the contemporary art market. Haring’s instantly recognizable line, his enormous cultural resonance, and the volume of fakes that shadow blue-chip names make careful, methodical evaluation essential. This guide distills what matters most—terminology, materials and techniques, provenance, common red flags, and how condition affects value—so you can move from “attributed to” toward a supportable conclusion.

Why “Attributed To” Matters in Haring Appraisals

Precision in attribution language signals the confidence level behind an object’s identity. In appraisal and cataloging, the distinctions are not semantics; they meaningfully affect value and marketability.

• By Keith Haring: Widely accepted as an authentic work by the artist’s hand.
• Attributed to Keith Haring: Probably by the artist, but with some uncertainty.
• Studio of Keith Haring: Executed in the artist’s studio and time, possibly by assistants.
• Circle/Follower of Keith Haring: By an artist working in Haring’s manner, but not the artist.
• After Keith Haring: A later copy or work inspired by a known composition.

For Haring specifically, the path to certainty is complicated by the prevalence of fakes and the fact that the Keith Haring Foundation no longer provides authentication opinions. That means third-party expertise, robust provenance, stylistic analysis, and, where useful, technical testing carry more weight. The “attributed to” label should be treated as an interim state—your job is to find evidence that justifies moving the work up (or down) that ladder.

Materials, Motifs, and Techniques to Examine

Start with what’s in front of you. Haring’s materials, scale, and hand have recurring traits you can test against the object.

Medium and supports commonly seen in authentic works:

• Paintings: Acrylic or vinyl paint on canvas or tarpaulin; occasionally on wood or found supports. Tarps often have grommets and edge wear consistent with use.
• Works on paper: Sumi ink, brush and ink, felt-tip markers, or acrylic. Paper is typically decent quality; larger works may show laid lines or watermarks, though not consistently.
• Subway drawings: White chalk on the matte black paper that covered advertising panels in the New York subway (early 1980s). Genuine examples are rare, often heavily handled, and notoriously forged.

Known motifs and line quality:

• Radiant Baby, Barking Dog, dancing figures, hearts, UFOs, crawling figures, and bold, rhythmic lines with consistent pressure and few hesitations.
• Haring’s line tends to be decisive and fluid. Lines typically terminate cleanly; circles and curves look whipped-off rather than labored. Look for intentional spacing—he often uses negative space to balance the composition.
• For larger painted works, paint application is generally even, with crisp edges and minimal reworking.

Signatures and dates:

• Signatures vary: “K. Haring” or “Keith Haring,” sometimes with a copyright symbol or a quick glyph. Most are placed logically (lower right/left) but not always.
• Dates on works from the 1980s often appear as two-digit years (e.g., 84, 86, 88) and may be integrated into the design.
• Editioned prints are generally pencil-signed and numbered in the margins; the manner of numbering and signature should match documented practices for that edition.

Red flags in materials and execution:

• Subway drawings on poster board or chalkboard paint; genuine subway pieces are chalk on the black ad-paper substrate, not on standard art papers. Forced aging with soot, coffee, or abrasives is common in fakes.
• Slow, shaky line or repeated lift-offs in a medium where Haring would draw continuously.
• Oil paint in contexts where acrylic/vinyl is standard for Haring’s look.
• Garish UV-reactive paints presented as 1980s originals without period-consistent pigment behavior on inspection.

Technical tools:

• UV light can reveal modern optical brighteners in paper or overpainting not consistent with period practice.
• Infrared can show underdrawing or alterations (Haring’s process often required little underdrawing).
• Pigment/binder analysis can flag anachronistic materials (helpful to exclude, not to “prove” authenticity).
• Canvas, tarpaulin, or paper fibers can be dated or characterized to narrow plausibility.

Provenance and Paper Trail That Persuade

The strongest driver from “attributed to” toward “by” is verifiable provenance that links the object to the artist’s active years and legitimate channels.

Persuasive documentation:

• Original invoices or consignment papers from reputable galleries active with Haring in the 1980s.
• Exhibition histories, wall labels, and catalogue references contemporaneous with the artist.
• Period photographs or video clearly showing the artwork with the artist or in situ at a documented show or collector’s home.
• Correspondence (letters, postcards, notes) that mention the specific work, corroborated by dates and sender identities.
• For prints: edition records, publisher documentation, printer’s blind stamps or chops, and consistent paper watermarks.

What to scrutinize:

• Gaps in chain-of-title: A work that “surfaces” decades later with no paperwork is not impossible, but risk rises sharply.
• Conflicting stories: Family lore is not evidence; look for independent records that converge.
• Certificates of authenticity from unknown individuals or generic COAs: These carry little weight without corroboration.
• Subway drawings with neat, dealer-ready stories: Removal from subway panels was ad hoc and undocumented; genuine ones typically have rough histories, not tidy ones.

Cross-verification:

• Dates on labels should match the artist’s known travels and projects.
• Dimensions and medium should be consistent across all references.
• Handwriting on labels or documentation should be plausible for the claimed origin.

Condition, Conservation, and Value Drivers

Condition both informs authenticity and affects value. Haring used robust, modern materials, but they age in characteristic ways.

Condition patterns to expect:

• Acrylic/vinyl on canvas: Generally stable. Look for minor abrasion on high-relief ridges and edge scuffs consistent with storage and handling. Tarps may show creases at fold lines and wear around grommets.
• Ink and marker on paper: Marker can bleed slightly into fibers; black lines may show a shallow halo on absorbent sheets. Paper may tone with age, especially if framed with poor-quality mats.
• Subway chalk: Erosive and friable; genuine chalk will smudge, lift easily, and show embedded grime. A fixed or sprayed “chalk” surface may indicate tampering.

Conservation cautions:

• Day-glo/fluorescent pigments are light-sensitive; excessive UV exposure fades them. Maintain low light levels and UV filtration.
• Avoid solvent cleaning on acrylic—many solvents will burnish or disrupt the surface.
• For works on tarpaulin, monitor plasticizer migration; consult a conservator familiar with modern materials.
• Never attempt to “clean up” chalk or marker works yourself; stabilization requires specialist protocols.

Value drivers in the Haring market:

• Medium and scale: Major canvases and tarpaulins command the highest prices; large, well-documented works on paper follow; small sketches and ephemera are more accessible.
• Subject: Iconic motifs (Radiant Baby, Barking Dog, dancing figures, heart imagery) typically outperform less recognizable images.
• Date: Peak 1980s works can carry premium weight when combined with strong provenance.
• Editioned prints: Condition, complete sets, correct signatures/numbering, and paper quality drive value. Popular series and images can range from a few thousand to substantial five figures, depending on edition size and state.
• Provenance and exhibition history: A documented chain to the artist’s lifetime and recognized galleries or exhibitions can materially increase value.
• Condition penalties: Discoloration, over-cleaning, flaking, or restoration mismatches can significantly reduce value, particularly on otherwise blue-chip pieces.

Appraisal strategy:

• Assemble documentation first, then get preliminary opinions from specialists. If signals are positive, pursue a formal written appraisal aligned with USPAP or equivalent standards.
• For selling, weigh the benefits of established auction houses (broader exposure, fees) versus private dealers (discretion, potentially quicker sale). Items with attribution risk often benefit from auction platforms that can underwrite research.

Practical Checklist: Pre-Vetting a Haring Attribution

• Identify the medium and support with precision; photograph front, back, edges, and any inscriptions.
• Map measurements to the millimeter and compare to known period formats and print sheet sizes.
• Examine line quality for decisiveness and rhythm; note hesitations, fill-ins, or wobbles.
• Inspect under UV for modern retouching, whiteners, or suspicious repairs.
• Check signatures/dates against verified examples; verify pencil vs marker where appropriate for prints.
• Compile provenance: invoices, labels, emails, photos, and any contemporaneous records; verify names, addresses, and dates.
• For prints, confirm publisher/printer chops, edition size, numbering style, and paper watermark.
• Note condition issues carefully; avoid cleaning or “improvements.”
• Seek a qualified contemporary art appraiser or a specialist with Haring experience for a preliminary read.
• If warranted, commission targeted scientific tests (pigment, fiber, IR/UV) to exclude anachronisms.

FAQ

Q: Does the Keith Haring Foundation authenticate artworks? A: No. The Foundation does not issue authentication opinions. As a result, authentication relies on independent scholarship, provenance, comparative analysis, and, where useful, technical testing.

Q: My artwork is unsigned. Is it automatically not by Haring? A: Not necessarily. Some genuine works are unsigned, especially sketches and certain projects. However, unsigned pieces require stronger provenance and more rigorous stylistic and material scrutiny.

Q: Are “subway drawings” safe to buy? A: They are high-risk. Many are forged or removed under dubious circumstances. Without rock-solid documentation and expert backing, proceed with extreme caution.

Q: Can scientific testing prove a Haring? A: Testing can robustly exclude a work (e.g., anachronistic pigments) and support plausibility, but it rarely proves authorship alone. Connoisseurship and provenance remain central.

Q: What’s the best next step if I have a promising “attributed to” work? A: Consolidate all documentation and high-quality images, then consult a reputable contemporary art appraiser or auction specialist for a preliminary assessment. If indicators are positive, commission a formal appraisal and consider targeted technical analysis.

A disciplined, evidence-led approach is the best way to move an “attributed to Keith Haring” into clearer territory. Focus on the material facts—support and medium, line quality, edition practices, provenance, and condition—then leverage qualified expertise to build a defensible conclusion and, if appropriate, a confident valuation.