Fake Painting?

[headscratcher4]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/art_britain_raphael_dc

Did the National Gallery pay $41 million for a fake? An interesting story...

[Bikewer]

A few years ago, I watched a PBS special on artists who specialize in "reproductions". Some of these folks spend a great deal of effort (and no small amount of talent) in exactly reproducing the techniques, materials, and subject matter of the original.
One fellow was quite surprised to find one of his works hanging in a prominent museum, labled as an original. Or so he claimed, at any rate. Says he had no intention of producing forgeries, and his works were always sold as reproductions.

Still, two or three owners removed....

producing convincing copies of drawings, especially in charcoal, can be managed by anyone with access to the original, a good projector, and a steady hand.

[kittynh]

You would enjoy reading Thomas Hovings book about Fakes. He's a great guy, and I remember walking with him through a museum and him just pointing and going ,"fake, fake, fake...."


He's bought fakes, even when he was in charge of the Met.

He points out that museums buy because they WANT to believe something is real. They work to prove something is real, rather than working to prove something isn't real. He's the skeptic of the art world - and a real thorn to those museums that don't want to admit they were duped. It shows why critical thinking skills and being a skeptic should be taught to eveyrone. Art students don't get a lot of skeptic training, and the result is museums packed with fakes.

[mickky]

Who cares?



If the 'Fake' is so good that it fools the 'experts', does it really matter if Raphael painted it? Can't it stand on its own merits?

(The article doesn't mention if there's a signature or other attribute, thus being intended to decieve.)

I think the 'art experts' attach an unnecessary importance to a name. They really are no different from the pop culture press they claim to be so far above.

[Bikewer]

The art world is incredibly convoluted.... Still, as an artist meself, I would get rather cheezed if someone copied one of my works and passed it off as an original. Copywright sort of thing and all.

Now, if you wanted to pay me to grant a licence for reproductions, you're talkin' buisness.

The counterfeiter/copyist/faker isn't doing original work, though he might be a master of technique.

[kittynh]

Also, it went for a lot of money because of the reputation of the artist. Some other artist is piggybacking on anothers name. It didn't get that high price because it's done well. Also, a missing work of art can help fill in the history of an artist. Seeing the progression of an artists work is wonderful, and it makes a work worth more as it is of historic interest. Many artists have
"lost years".

A fake usually does not hold up well over time. The colors used by the masters are not available today (for good reason). Newer works fade, they don't have the same time put into them. When I make something I make it to last, not to fool someone until I can cash the check. Putting your own name on a work is a source of pride, and someone using your name is just plain wrong. Every once in awhile, new works by literary masters have come to light. For a while they fool people.

Museums that buy fakes are engaging in the same lack of critical thinking as the woo woos. Just because you want it to be real, doesn't mean it is.

[mickky]

I'm not really curious to know why the work was done. I really want to know why doubts about any artworks' origins tend to decrease its' value.
(I too have been an artist in several mediums for many years, and I'd be PO'd if someone stole my stuff, BTW.)

This isn't a brand new version of the painting-it has been around for a while, so it will last...

Also, Camuccini wasn't the one who sold it for $40 mil.-so we don't really know his motives for doing the work in the first place-maybe he just really liked Raphael. He may not have been piggybacking on anyones rep.

I'm trying to find more info on this guy...(the purported forger!)

[kittynh]

And don't forget, as long as there has been art, there have been forgers. The Romans were notorious for forging Greek statues.

[davefoc]

mickky said:
If the 'Fake' is so good that it fools the 'experts', does it really matter if Raphael painted it? Can't it stand on its own merits?


My own answer to this is a little different than kittynh's.

The price of a piece of artwork much beyond a few thousand dollars has nothing to with its aesthetic value.

It is a collection of other things that drive up the price of art.
The desire to have the notoriety of owning something famous.
The desire by people to see art created by somebody that they've heard of.
A desire by many of us to own something old as opposed to something new which might be indistinguishable from the old thing.

But largely, there seems to be a situation where increasing value creates an expectation of more increased value until a completely absurd price is reached and then the value of the artwork plummets leaving perhaps one disappointed buyer but certainly lots of happy art dealers along the way.

[Ed]

There is a very good (to me at least) film on art forgery called "Incognito" wherein a guy fakes a Rembrant. And, Kitten, a careful forger will reproduce the pigments to a faretheewell (in the movie, the guy got some old lead soldiers to get the lead oxide to make his whites) in fact a noted art forger (who died under mysterious circumstances) wrote a Fakers Cookbook that tells you how.

Also in the movie, they are yakking about signed and unsigned paintings and it is pointed out that a signed Rembrant is worth x$ more than an unsigned one. The character says something to the effect that that is not a work of art, it is an autograph.

I collect stuff and have gotten bitten by fakes now and then. I get rid of them, regardless of the quality. My feeling is that a fake is a lie.

[Bikewer]

Not quite in the same league, but the technology is interesting:

The various "artsy" stores like the Museum Company sell reproductions that are made by an interesting process. The company gets the rights to scan various works and the equipment makes a textured "surface map" of the painting, capturing the brush strokes, impasto effects, and so forth. This is then translated into a 3-dimensional representation of the surface of the painting, which is then actually painted on by the copiers to produce an item that looks pretty much like the original.

These would never hold up as fakes, as the "ground" portion is a very high-tech item indeed.

[kittynh]

And let's not forget art is politics. By that artists come in and out of fashion. When an artist (usually long dead) becomes "hot" it's amazing how many "undiscovered" works show up.

as for myself, I have to "pace" my high priced stuff. Like many artists (and authors) I produce under several names. If you flood the market with too much stuff, it will drop in value. It also helps if there are rumors you are going blind, or have a fatal illness! (don't laugh, I had a friend do this - his stuff skyrocketed in price). So, I do another type of artwork that pays less, and is produced much more quickly - and hopefully no one ever figures it out! It's very troubling to most artists when they wake up one day and figure out it's not all about talent (or genius) and is a lot about marketing.

Van Gogh painted because he had to. Most of the great artists I know feel the same way, and would do so no matter if they sold a work or not. But, trust me, they'd rise up from the dead (if at all possible) and kill in a very nasty way any future artists that stole their name!

[William H.]

Originally posted by Bikewer
A few years ago, I watched a PBS special on artists who specialize in "reproductions". Some of these folks spend a great deal of effort (and no small amount of talent) in exactly reproducing the techniques, materials, and subject matter of the original......

I remember seeing that, I liked the museum curator's analogy when he found out the painting was fake, he said it was like being in love with a beautiful woman for several years and then finding out that she has been cheating on you the whole time.

[Skeptic]

One fellow was quite surprised to find one of his works hanging in a prominent museum, labled as an original. Or so he claimed, at any rate. Says he had no intention of producing forgeries, and his works were always sold as reproductions.

He's telling the truth. It is concievable, although rare, for someone to produce a new painting and claim it is a "lost" van Gogh or Rembrant. But nobody would make a reproduction of a KNOWN old master's painting with intent to decieve--everybody who would possibly be interested in buying would already know where the original is hanging!

[billydkid]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/art_britain_raphael_dc

Did the National Gallery pay $41 million for a fake? An interesting story...

You know, this is what really bugs me about the whole immortal art thing. Should a museum be buying painting because they are really excellent or merely because so and so painted them. I don't think anyone could deny that there are few subcultures that are very much more pretentious than that of the world of fine arts. Talk about people only too eager to be led by the nose. I will grant you that owning a painting by hugely famous artist would be cool, but that is really entirely secondary to the wonderfulness of the works. Frankly, I can only feel a sense of amazement at someone who can fabricate a painting in the style of the great masters and do it well enough to fool the experts. My feeling is that those people are every bit as much geniuses as the masters they are mimmicking.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Skeptic
One fellow was quite surprised to find one of his works hanging in a prominent museum, labled as an original. Or so he claimed, at any rate. Says he had no intention of producing forgeries, and his works were always sold as reproductions.

He's telling the truth. It is concievable, although rare, for someone to produce a new painting and claim it is a "lost" van Gogh or Rembrant. But nobody would make a reproduction of a KNOWN old master's painting with intent to decieve--everybody who would possibly be interested in buying would already know where the original is hanging!

It's like the perfect murder, you just don't know.