REPOST FOR MANI DELI--- Forgery
mar...@spinnet.com
> Ok I did a bit of research and here is the relevant part of the mani
> article:
>
> ---------
> From: Mani Deli (md...@frontier.canrem.com)Subject: Re: Who is Mani
> Deli??
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fineView: Complete Thread (38 articles) | Original
> Format
> Date: 1995/12/10
>
> [cut some stuff]
>
> I used to do what I call phantom forgeries of old master drawings when I
> was a student. I sold them to an antique dealer. This is not illegal.
> Art auctions and museums often have phantom forgeries.
>
> My dealer would hang up the drawing in a battered frame and say
> nothing more about it. A buyer thinking its an original so-and-so
> would purchase it believing that he had made a brilliant discovery and
> purchased it at bargain price. Its an old story. Michelangelo did it.
>
> [cut morestuff]
>
> Mani DeLi
> .. If it needs a long sermon to claim its art its probably bullshit.
>
> ----------------------
>
> A phantom forgery is one where there is no signature. A blind forgery is
> one of a signature when theere is no model at hand to view or trace.
>
> My view is: what mani did was probably not illegal, but from his post
> above there certainly was an intent to deceive the buyers into "thinking
> its an original so-and-so would purchase it believing that he had made a
> brilliant discovery and purchased it at bargain price." so it is very
> unethical at least.
>
> Marcus
mdeli
Thanks for finding the article I lost track of it.
>mar...@spinnet.com wrote:
>> Ok I did a bit of research and here is the relevant part of the mani
>> article:
>> I used to do what I call phantom forgeries of old master drawings when I
>> was a student. I sold them to an antique dealer. This is not illegal.
>> Art auctions and museums often have phantom forgeries.
>>
>> My dealer would hang up the drawing in a battered frame and say
>> nothing more about it. A buyer thinking its an original so-and-so
>> would purchase it believing that he had made a brilliant discovery and
>> purchased it at bargain price. Its an old story. Michelangelo did it.
>>
>> [cut morestuff]
>>
>> Mani DeLi
>> .. If it needs a long sermon to claim its art its probably bullshit.
>>
>> ----------------------
>> My view is: what mani did was probably not illegal, but from his post
>> above there certainly was an intent to deceive the buyers into "thinking
>> its an original so-and-so would purchase it believing that he had made a
>> brilliant discovery and purchased it at bargain price." so it is very
>> unethical at least.
>>
I find most art dealers unethical and many art buyers total idiots.
I have nothing against deceiving art buyers. In fact I think artwork
should be forged, although this is not what I do or did. The best
way to express ones cynicism about the matter is to do what
Michelangelo did.
If painting were judged in terms of quality modern art history would
have to be reevaluated. The best forgeries hang in museums as
originals while the worst artwork of this century deserves to be
forged. Forgery often serves as the best criticism.
The really fine work of a genuinely exceptional artist is damned
difficult to imitate. This is rarely the case with Modern Academic Art
especially in its later examples. In Modern Academic Art each artist
basis all his work on one simple idea, like colored stripes, a
splatted canvas or schmiery somewhat recognizable images which are
stylistically and technically simple. The important thing here is to
give the public the impression that no one had ever done this sort of
thing before, that it's NEW.
The best paintings are unique in their execution. Many artists tried
to reach the heights of the greatest masters but never accomplished
the feat. Nevertheless many of these artists produced fine paintings.
In MAA there is no such thing as a lesser master. Picasso imitators
are considered trash. A Pollock styled work is worthless. Matisse and
Cezanne imitators are considered hack art school incompetents. With
Modern Academic Art value is a matter of believing a work to be a
signed original. Little more than the signature really counts. On the
other hand if a forged signature were found on a very fine old master
painting, as has often been the case, it is not considered trash but
is still judged on the basis of quality. If the quality is of a high
order the work still retains a value.
I always admired the forgers who forged all those classic Modern
Academic artists. There was an excellent film narrated by Orsen Wells
about one of these forgers. He did a Picasso drawing on camera. (He
was a Hungarian guy with a great sense of humor; forgot the name of
the film) Every now and then a new modern art forger is exposed.
Long ago there was a case where an artist, (Braque I think) denied
that a painting was his and a jury overruling the artist. Perhaps
someone can fill in the details.
I had friends in the gallery business who told me some interesting
stuff about abstract expressionist forgery which I won't repeat here
because I can't verify it.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
Mr. Tudball
The gallery that represents me sells 18th, 19th and early 20th
century paintings. Then I'm the oddball because I'm the only living
artist who's work they show.
The old paintings range from $16,000 for an impressionist landscape
by some guy I've never heard of to $1,500,000 for a Van Dyke portrait
(that recently sold...unbelievably) depending on the artist's name
value.
I was looking through the collection this morning and saw a small
painting priced at $68,000 by a German painter (don't recall the name)
and asked why the painting was $68,000.
Salesgirl launched into huge explanation of the money owed on the
painting, blah, blah, blah...but never commented on the painting.
By my standards, it was a decent painting, not great, not bad, but
not very good either.
It's a $68,000 painting because that is what the artist's work sells
for, regardless of technical merit.
Some artists just happened to be in the right place at the right
time, although they, for the most part, never saw the huge profits.
When a painting of Degas' sold while he was still alive for $385,000
he was asked what he thought about that. He said that he felt like the
horse, who after winning the big race, is fed his normal bag of oats.
Degas had sold the painting years earlier for $500. He saw no share of
the profits from its resale.
how or why I got off on this tangent, I have no clue. Regarding this
thread, if you do unsigned master copies and pass them off to your
dealer who in turn passes them off to clients as originals in this day
and age of high-falootin' technology that can discern the age of the
paints and canvas and mediums, more power to you.
If you sign them and try to pass them off as originals, you are
sorely lacking in scruples, but you are probably making some serious
dough. Serious dough beats scruples 100 to one in my book. Scruples,
schmuples- that's what I say.
I think that in the situation of the client buying name-brand
paintings, it should be buyer beware. I think the client should be
buying art because it is something they want to live with and enjoy
rather than a name on the picture that they have bought bragging rights
to.
Anyway, keep on forging, my unscrupulous money-grubbing fellow
artist. It is your right to make what you want to make and sell what you
want to sell. However, if you knowingly deceive your client, you are
committing fraud and can be prosecuted.
your pal,
mr. Tudball
(names and places have been changed to protect the value of my
paintings)
mdeli
> Regarding this
>thread, if you do unsigned master copies and pass them off to your
>dealer who in turn passes them off to clients as originals
Nothing was passed off as originals
> If you sign them and try to pass them off as originals, you are
>sorely lacking in scruples, but you are probably making some serious
>dough. Serious dough beats scruples 100 to one in my book. Scruples,
>schmuples- that's what I say.
Mine bore no signatures. However check out Eric Hebborn's books. I
fully approve of his stuff.
> I think that in the situation of the client buying name-brand
>paintings, it should be buyer beware. I think the client should be
>buying art because it is something they want to live with and enjoy
>rather than a name on the picture that they have bought bragging rights
>to.
> Anyway, keep on forging, my unscrupulous money-grubbing fellow
>artist.
I guess you can't talk about forgery without expecting some twit
assuming you are a forger.
> Anyway, keep on forging, my unscrupulous money-grubbing fellow
>artist. It is your right to make what you want to make and sell what you
>want to sell. However, if you knowingly deceive your client, you are
>committing fraud and can be prosecuted.
P.T. Barnum deceived his clients.