“Today's verdict is the long overdue vindication of what I have said from the beginning four years ago: a young talented artist named Pete Edward Doige painted this work, I did not,” said Scottish-born painter Doig in a statement read in the Federal District Court for Northern Illinois, July 23, 2016. “That the plaintiffs in this case have shamelessly tried to deny another artist his legacy for money is despicable. The deceased artist’s family and my family and friends have suffered mightily. Thankfully, justice prevailed, but it was way too long in coming. That a living artist has to defend the authorship of his own work should never have come to pass.” 

For anyone following the bizarre trial in which Peter Doig was accused of disavowing a painting that the plaintiffs in the case claimed he had created as a teen, roughly 40 years ago, there is much cause to wonder why this farce ever made it to the courtroom. Doig, whose works sell in secondary markets for upwards of $25 million, and his legal team, were notably absent when the verdict was read.

Almost as strange as the case is the daily coverage of the case by an anonymous blogger known as  Loyola Condenser, posting on Instagram. So if you’re in the dark, and your summer reads have run out, you can get the inside story fromLoyola Condenser, ArtNet News, the New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune. Upping the silliness ante, on Tuesday morning, NPR Morning Edition included a segment in which the plainiffs were given a nation-wide platform to air their grievance; shame! Doig refused NPR's request to comment; bravo! Above: the disputed painting, photo courtesy Bartow Gallery Ltd., one of the plaintiffs