Han van Meegeren had just created “the masterpiece” according to the art critic of the time. According to the “the pope” of Vermeer art historians during the period ----- while van Meegeren’s painting was “quite different from [Vermeer’s] other paintings” it still contained the “…sentiment, such a profound understanding of the Bible story – a sentiment so nobly human expressed through the medium of the highest art…”.
Oops, forgot to add — it was a “the masterpiece” with “such sentiment” only until it was discovered that it was van Meegeren and not Vermeer who was the artist.
OK, fair enough I suppose. Yet, later in that same article we’re given this –
OK – why the change of opinion? Or better put, “what do we value in art and why?” Is it the discovery of the ‘forgery’ itself that causes this 180 in perception - if so this is a comment on us — no? Or is it the painting itself? The beholding eye was fooled and none of those fine qualities ever existed in this second rate ‘van Meegeren’? “The pope” was just plain wrong. Or could it be that like expensive cars and ‘fine wine,’ - works of art surrogates for demonstrating to others who we are – our social status, the ‘level’ or the direction of our inner life? Nothing much more – not substantially less –
Hence the topic title ----- Why does forged art lose admiration once the forgery is discovered?
Not only that but much of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts Roman collection may well be fakes. Van Meeghren was able to pull off the forgeries because he studied Abraham Bredius’ fobles and vanities, and played him the way a seasoned con man plays his mark (victim).
I read that many of the (supposed) later works of van Gogh may be fakes…they started turning up in the 1920’s, with no good explanation of where they came from. The fact that these “unknown” paintings came to light, at a time when van Gogh began to be appreciated as a serious artist, is suspicious.
Art will continue to be forged, as long as big money is paid for it, and as long as the shadowy worldof dealers, fnces, and art thieves exists.
Anyone see the first episode of “My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss”? Cheap wine and “pate” was served. The pate consisted of mayonnaise and spam blended together I believe. Yet, the fooled guests were made to believe such delicacies were to be appreciated only by the higher, richer class. They made comments such as, “The pate was excellent! I could really get used to this lifestyle.” etc.
Is it easier to just like what you like, and hate what you hate? Or is it easier to have someone tell you what you like and what you hate?
The worst part is, given some of the pate recipes I’ve seen, this one is perfectly valid. It might have been better with egg whites instead, but mayonaisse isn’t too far off from that.
I don’t think we have to think of art lovers as all that odd to understand this.
People who follow painters have grown to appreciate how an artist describes the world. When a new work is discovered it generates enthusiasm because they get to see his/her take on a new subject (if we ignore, for now, the roar of cash registers). When accepted as authentic, fans must try to fold in discrepencies into the artist’s past work and ponder their purpose. When it turns out to be a fake people feel betrayed and foolish. It’s human nature to now “realize” all those discrepencies are actually flaws.
Or they could have been glaring flaws all along but people gave their favourite artist the benefit of the doubt. Not extended to fakers.
As indicated, ignoring the money paid for the painting before the forgery came to light — since that could very easily be driven by motivations other than the love of the painting. With that, appears that the painting was initially being judged on the message the painting itself, on the aesthetics of the painting itself ----- and it received the highest marks on all counts.
In this instance, at least, the forgery was called “the masterpiece” before the forgery came to light. And the accolades thrown around were describing the merits of the painting in itself, not inquiring into the meaning of a new style or debating an alleged message. The jury appeared already in and a judgment rendered on this painting ---- recall that Bredius described it not only as the masterpiece but as a sentiment so nobly human expressed through the medium of the highest art…". In that, to me at least, it is a discussion about “art” and not the “artist.”
IMHO, a lot of this isn’t about art at all — a lot is based on pretense and on non-aesthetic concerns. Not all “art” is like this IMO. For example, if you or I were to write a book of poetry under the name Robert Frost, one that was proclaimed as containing the best poems Frost had ever done — well — I suppose those would be damn good poems in their own right. The merit of the poems themselves are not in dispute. Poems described as “the best Frost had ever done” would touch a universal in us that would allow these poems to ‘stand on their own’ once the Frost name detacts. In fact, I suspect, the person who actually wrote these poems would be proclaimed as a poet equal to or even greater than Frost. -------
I swear — I just don’t get this ---- and it is easier to see how some who look at pictures of soup cans or splashes of paint called “art” develop deep, dark suspicions regarding certain types of “art” – suspicions along the king and invisible cloths variety –
So why doesn’t van Meegeren’s forgery, or any similar forgery, remain, the “masterpiece” it was once declared? ----- Why not van Meegeren’s masterpiece?
Keep in mind that in the article quoted the author says:
He’s looking at the painting from a distance in time as well as with the foreknowledge that it was a forgery, rather than as a person convinced it was a Vermeer to begin with. Thus a different analysis of the painting.
As far as why people can be so quick to reverse their opinions once they learn something is a forgery and even worse, act like they knew all along that it was so, I imagine it’s just a matter of damaged pride and a need to try to save face. Imagine an art critic thinking “I’m an expert so I can’t have been taken in, even if I was.”
It’s also important to remember that forgeries can be valued in their own right. I’ve read that there are collectors who actually specialize in the works of forgers, simply because they’re such good artists to begin with.
Ahhhh, I was under the impression you were talking about forgers who copy works of art rather than pass off works as those of other artists.
In the case of copying the works, the copy is of lesser value because the value of the art is in the workmanship involved in painting it and the vision behind the painting. If you are only doing the more workmanlike job of copying the look of a painting it’s not as much of an accomplishment.
And come to think of it, if you only copy another artist’s style it is also not worth as much, because an artist can have an overall style or vision that has been built up over his or her career. It would not be possible for their magnum opera, as well as copiers forgeries, to exist without the sweat they put into developing their overall style. When a forger copies that style, they don’t get the appreciation points for developing the style, at least in my book.
People pay a premium for originality and when an item is revealed to be a simulacrum untouched by the hand of the artist it’s perpetrated as being by, it loses a lot of its relative value.
You could still make money selling reproductions, for example you could paint up a mean copy of Starry Night and it would be worth maybe a few hundred bucks in any store as a decorative object. But say that Van Gogh was the guy who did it, and you are willfully decieving for the purposes of creating value where there is none.
Consider counterfeit money for a moment. It may look and feel the same. I’ll let the Secret Service explain to you why our society does not place the same value on it as we do on real money made by the artisans at the US Mint.
But then you have an artist like JSG Boggs ( www.jsgboggs.com/ ), who makes semi-simulacrums of money notes, but takes pains to be very clear that they are art and not real. His money pieces are worth far far more than face value of the actual note. Still, the Secret Service considers him a threat, or at least a pain in the ass.
Be aware that this quote from Bredius may be taken out of context. You see, it could be argued that the point still stands, that the ‘sentiment’ of The Supper at Emmaus is more ‘profound’ than that of any genuine Vermeer. Van Meegeren knew what he was doing. He was deliberately providing the sort of religious profundity that Bredius had detected in Vermeer’s work but which other art historians had doubted. Picking a religious subject rammed this home in the most obvious way. If one already thinks that it’s Vermeer and are writing in the flowery style of most art history in the 1930s, much of the quote is not particularly outrageous or even inaccurate.
Although the 20th century “modernist” school of critics would disagree with me here, I do not believe you can ever completely separate a work of art from its artist. Much of what we value (aesthetically, intellectually, and monetarily) in a work of art is the vision of the artist. Vermeer’s paintings are widely admired because of how he translated his vision of the world into a work of oil and canvas (or wood panel–I forget what he used). Van Meegeren’s “Vermeer” offers us no comparable vision of van Meegeren as an artist, since he’s merely offering us a warmed-over version of Vermeer. It may still be visually pleasing, but we don’t value it much beyond the visual aspects because it lacks everything else that makes a Vermeer a Vermeer.
Marla Olmstead, the 4 year old ‘prodigy’ whose abstract works sold for $24K, was featured on a 60 Minutes Wednesday segment last evening in which the authenticity of her ‘works’ :dubious: were put into question.
I wonder if auction houses, dealers and studios carry ‘oops, it turned out to be a fraud’ insurance in the event they’re required to refund their bilked clientele.
I wonder how the following might affect ones opinion if what most of you say here is actually the case ---- if, for example, it comes to light that van Gogh had secretly copied the style of a “lesser” contemporary artist, and that art passes down to us as that of the lesser artist – that is, until one day it is discovered as the product of van Gogh himself. Wouldn’t that recently discovered forgery of the lesser artist’s style, the “lesser’s” vision, when done by an artist of van Gogh’s stature, increase the appreciation of that forgery? Since it is only the van Gogh name that attaches, and not his ‘message,’ and not his ‘style,’ van Gogh would be merely offering us his “warmed over version” of this lesser and relatively unknown artist? Yet, I suspect critics would be much more kind to these newly discovered forgeries by van Gogh than they ever were previous to the discovery of the forgeries. This, as I understand it, isn’t inconsistent with what most of the posts in this thread seem to be saying. That is, admiration of art is tied both the subjective experience derived from the art in itself AND from the subjective understanding of the artist — even absent ‘style’ and ‘message.’
If my understanding is correct, than merely calling the source (the artist) of the art into question would appear to have an affect how one views that art. That is, if it comes to light that artist of a painting isn’t the artist you thought it was, the art then becomes either more or less appealing, but only if the artist is more or less appealing, since both attach to your admiration of the art. Now — as another poster in this thread pointed out – there is a concern that “much of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts Roman collection may well be fakes” ---- and the “later works of van Gogh may be fakes”. Assuming these suspicions are the consensus of the ‘experts’ opinions on the matter – would mere suspicions like these, affect the admiration due the work in itself? Wouldn’t the seriousness of the questions surrounding the artist of picture lessen (or maybe enhance) the appreciation by some related degree? That’s my understand of what most of the posters here seem to be saying —
But this calling into question only seems to apply to piainitings — if indeed what is being said is the case. This duality of art and artist when gauging ones appreciation seems attached only to paintings and not to other types of art like poetry or to the debate surrounding something like the ‘true author of some of Shakespeare’s work?’ If, for example, Hamlet or the sonnets were written by someone other than Shakespeare – are they now less Hamlet and now less The Sonnets? Somehow I doubt that — yet this is the position when appreciating a painting. It seems the profound message will remain for us despite the author ---- but somehow attaches / detaches according to the identified artist.
IMO. . . (rambling)
It’s all fetishism (both psychoanalytically and Marxist), which the issues of “aura” and the “hand of the artist” figure into. How does a slip of parchment with Abe Lincoln’s signature on it end up being worth more than the cost of a piece of parchment and some ink? Why is a baseball struck by Babe Ruth worth more than any other example of that time? Simply as a historical document? Nah, it’s a relic, no? What kind of information does it provide? Do we believe the hand of the artist leaves some kind of holy relic residue on the object?
On the one hand (as an art historian) the signature Vermeer offers some information/ insight/ material culture that was in fact current for the 17th C. The van Meegheren on the other hand does not, although it may be very skillfully and beautifully done. It may, though, be considered similarly a very important work with insight into 20th c culture, or a historiographical document relating to the 20th c view of the 17th c, etc.
But these are historical issues and separate from ‘admiration’-- that’s a market and fetish problem. I think (personally) that in a market fetish environment that aesthetics plays a minor role, really, and at least partially serves as rationalization for value judgements which are actually based on other factors.
If you’re interested in these issues, there’s an extremely important old Walter Benjamin essay called “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” that you might want to get your hands on that discusses similar problems.
An interesting case to me is Teri Horton , a retired trucker who paid $5 for a huge canvas (about 6 x 8 feet as memory serves) at a thrift store; she bought it as a gag housewarming gift for a friend who had recently moved into a tiny trailer. After having her laugh she put the painting in storage for years when eventually an acquaintance who was familiar with the work of Pollock saw it and this set off an authentication struggle.
IF the piece was done by Pollock (it has been DNA tested and examined by experts and opinions are mixed) it is estimated to be worth as much as $25 million. If it isn’t then it’s worth what she paid for it. The quality of the painting remains exactly the same either way (some even say that if it is a Pollock it’s one of his best pieces), but that means that each letter of Pollocks name is worth over $1 million. More info
I was reading up on the van Meegeren forgeries a few months ago. Granted, I have the benefit of hindsight, but van Meegeren’s works seem so much cruder than Vermeer’s that I’m surprised they were considered legit. I guess that goes along with CarnalK’s theory that it’s the artist’s take on new subjects (religious imagery, in the case of van Meegeren) that is valued.
Et tu Ward Churchill??? --------- No, you didn’t accidently click the Ward Churchill thread. This is still the art forgery and art admiration thread — the one about how an artist’s essence can actually be found locked in his or her “art” - making the true artist of origin highly important, deciding what is or isn’t a “masterpiece” all else but the artist being equal, and all of that.
So -------- it seems that Ward is also an “artist” — or, if not, he is at least in the art business. Ward Churchill painted a work titled Winter Attack. Some years ago Duke Prentup purchased Winter Attack directly from Ward. Prentup, the purchaser of what was thought an original painting by Ward Churchill, now claims to be a “little shocked” and a “little disappointed” that his painting isn’t an original, ummm ‘Ward Churchill,’ after all. It is instead a lift from an earlier work done by another “artist.” As such, it contains none of the essence that is Ward Churchill ------ which, it seems, could explain Prentup’s use of the words “little” in the quotes above --. Anyway, it is yet another example of ‘admiration’ lost.
