paintings in museums: any chance they are fake ?
Rick S.
"theee", maybe) self-portrait by Vincent Van Gogh.
Now as I remember, about 10 or 15 years ago, folks in Japan were
buying flower pictures by Van Gogh for 80 million dollars.
So I'd guess even a conversative estimate would be that that's 30 million
dollars hanging on the wall, that I saw on Sunday. Or was it really ?
I asked myself.
I mean if you were on the "fruitcake" side of life you might want to try
to smuggle a small knife into the museum and try to do as much damage
as you can to a 30 million dollar painting, before the security guards
wrestle you to the ground.
It seems that if the total cost is 30 million, you could probably do
5 million dollar's worth of damage with just one quick, diagonal cut,
in 5 seconds or less.
But then I asked myself, what are museums all about, anyways ? Would
it really make any difference if the painting hanging on the wall was
just a very, very, very good copy ? Sure, some people would say, "oh
but I wanted to see the original", but I'd imagine if you got a really,
really talented person to do the copy ... nobody would ever know.
And so maybe a fake painting on the wall could serve merely as a "focal
point" to inspire people to think about great works of art, and do
the job very well, even if it isn't the original ?
Kheepur Panzon
rick...@hotpop.com says...
>And so maybe a fake painting on the wall could serve merely as a "focal
>point" to inspire people to think about great works of art, and do
>the job very well, even if it isn't the original ?
You'll never know how many fakes are displayed
in place of the real thing in various museums,
or in a jeweler's showcase for that matter.
It's a closely guarded secret in most places
where fakes substitute for the real thing.
People are SOOOOOO gullible!
Flobby Bischer
wide. You would be surprised they say, if you knew all the fakes. Generally
though the paintings that are fake, are misattributions the museum doesn't
wish to acknowledge, such as the Frick's Rembrandt Polish Rider. But that
doesn't mean there are not fakes, deliberately made either. Many say a
number of Modiglianis, Matisses and Picassos are obvious fakes. Personally I
also think the Rembrandt in the Montreal Museum of Fine Art is fake. Also
the style of many paintings is so evident that to fake them would take
uncanny, so with wires, guards and giant frames, they're pretty hard to take
out the front door. But you're right, to slash them is easy, I guess it's
the risk they decide to take.
More down to earth, the people I know say many objects of art, gold
things, diamond encrusted whatnots, and sculptures of "bronze" or "marble"
are fake because it's too dangerous to the item, either by theft or
touching, to leave the real one on display.
"Kheepur Panzon" <3...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:400d...@news.zianet.com...
Michael
> "theee", maybe) self-portrait by Vincent Van Gogh.
>
> Now as I remember, about 10 or 15 years ago, folks in Japan were
> buying flower pictures by Van Gogh for 80 million dollars.
>
> So I'd guess even a conversative estimate would be that that's 30 million
> dollars hanging on the wall, that I saw on Sunday. Or was it really ?
> I asked myself.
I share your concern. I hope no one would ever do that.
Regarding fakes, there are lots of fakes in museums but they were faked a
long time ago and the museums don't want to admit they spent millions on a
fake painting. Many Van Gogh's are fake, including at least one in the
Musée d'Orsay. I forget which ones, try a search on it.
Iluvbirdys
point" to inspire people to think about great works of art, and do
the job very well, even if it isn't the original ?>>
Yeah, that's a good idea, to just get a general idea of it all instead of
relying on the hope that it's the real thing.. and then you won't be let down
so easily too.
Lauri Levanto
I saw Magritte's shoes wit toes at Moderna Museet in Stockholm, Sweden
The next day I wisited a museum in Denmark ( I don't remember if it was
Glyptothek
oe Nasjonal Galleriet) and there was the same piece with a notation
borrowed from Moderna Museet, Stockholm.
One of the must have been a copy, if not both.
-lauri
Kheepur Panzon
>Two years ago
>I saw Magritte's shoes wit toes at Moderna Museet in Stockholm, Sweden
>The next day I wisited a museum in Denmark ( I don't remember if it was
>Glyptothek
>oe Nasjonal Galleriet) and there was the same piece with a notation
>borrowed from Moderna Museet, Stockholm.
>
>One of the must have been a copy, if not both.
>
>-lauri
That reminds me of the story that I've told here
in the past, so bear with me if you recall it.
I was cruising a museum of art one time in an
exhibit of contemporary works in various mediums.
And inside a glass-enclosed floor stand sat a
battered old leather suitcase. The gallery where
this "treasured" piece of junk resided was crowded
with people at the time, and not a single person
was curious enough to more than glance at the
suitcase, much less ask why it was on display.
And of course no one was taking the time to read
the usual title card attached to the side of the
display stand.
That is...
Until I remarked to the person that I was
with that it was CERAMIC - not leather. Boy
did that make everyone suddenly take an interest
and crowd around to see for themselves, and
oooh and aaah where before they couldn't care less.
Mani Deli
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 even 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 Modern Academic Art 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.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
walnut earl
Yup, there are fakes. Not for security reasons though.
The Barnes Foundation outside of Philly is has more than a few
paintings of dubious provenance. Barnes never let the work be
photographed or loaned out. Some said that he did this out of fear
that his purchases would be found to be forgeries.
John Ng
> it really make any difference if the painting hanging on the wall was
> just a very, very, very good copy ?
Interesting post. It doesn't make a difference at all! In fact, it
shouldn't. Only investors who want to recover their money mind that.
One should always judge a painting by its cover (at least the paint on
canvas). And if you judge that a fake is good, does it matter?
I believe art faking should not be illegal. The whole art world would
benefit by that. Then prices would become more realistic and
paintings would be judged as what they really are, and not who painted
it. Finally, Picassos would be so much faked that it is worthless,
and Bouguereaus would remain expensive because nobody could copy one
properly.
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Iluvbirdys
I'm sorry but I think honesty is such an important virtue, especially in
artists. It's sad thinking you're coming into a world of people who are more
like yourself, only to find out they are totally the opposite. Sometimes I
want to give up on humanity altogether.
Thur
"Rick S." <rick...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:21790eb9.04012...@posting.google.com...
According to a recent news report, there are many Rembrandt
"fakes" and false attributions of his works, and that New York
has the largest collection.
Thur.
Kye Ohtie
says...
>According to a recent news report, there are many Rembrandt
>"fakes" and false attributions of his works, and that New York
>has the largest collection.
>
>Thur.
To my way of thinking, there is a vast gulf
between "fakes" and "false attributions."
The latter could well be just as "real" as
any "real Rembrandt" - only Rembrandt was
not the actual artist. Then there are those
by "Rembrandt's understudies" - artists who
studied under his tutelage.
Fakes, OTOH, could still have wet paint
on them. Faking another artist's work
is more of a latter day phenom, I think.
Thur
"Kye Ohtie" <ho...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:4026...@news.zianet.com...
fakes being produced either during or just after
the time a great artist (such as Rembrandt) lived.
These are the ones which require much research and
some guessing too. Technology can't hack it
when this happens.
The recent example of the Madonna of the Pinks which
has now been attributed to Raphael rather than one of
his apprentices, shows the difficulty.
Deciding whether a work which has been falsely attributed
was meant to have been a fake or simply a genuine
work as a tribute to the Master is also very difficult to sort
out.
That is why some of the greatest museums have been fooled
or have fooled themselves.
Thur
Kye Ohtie
says...
>I do not believe this.
Then you are, of course, free to believe
whatever you like. All I can suggest to
you is that you do the research to support
your beliefs. Whatever...
Erik A. Mattila
Not to take sides on this, Jack...but I think Thur's got it right. (boy,
am I blowing hot air here.) But seriously, you wrote "latter day
phenom" so it boils down to what you mean by that.
Check out this web page - one of my favorite stories from my art history
days.
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/discipline/fine-art/theory/analysis/morelli.htm
So at least fakes were around in Giovanni Morelli's day (late 19c.) I
don't know if this article spells it out, but I read elsewhere that when
his method was applied a huge percent of art in Europe, in museums and
private collections, proved to be counterfeit (something like 40% as I
recall). My guess that many of the ptngs exposed had some provenance to
them (bought and sold /documentation by several collectors), so I would
assume by that that the forger's art is several centuries old, at least.
Here's an irony: I have a little ceramic dog from Western Mexico (Taras
can/Otomi? style). It was made in a village a few years ago, and it
copies the ones that are in the museum of anthropology etc. Or does it?
I man, in precolumbian times these clay dogs were popular as funiary
regalia, and these western Mexican villages were the manufacturing
centers, although the were exported to many other parts of Mexico. The
same industry survives today, but only the market has changed. So
what's "fake" about it?
Erik
>
>
>
Kye Ohtie
>so I would
>assume by that that the forger's art is several centuries old, at least.
Oh, I have no doubt that forgers were at work
anytime money was to be made, then or now.
I was simply yanking Thurs chain for his retort
when he said "I don't believe that."
>Here's an irony: I have a little ceramic dog from Western Mexico (Taras
>can/Otomi? style).
I presume you know of the big flap about ten
years ago when some potter in Mexico confessed
to having "faked" many of the artifacts on
display in major museums around the world that
were attributed to ancient cultures - Olmec,
Aztec or whatever they were. My ex-wife was
(and still is) a collector and had many of the
contemporary "artifacts" from Mexico that were
replicas of museum pieces. So the question then
becomes, were her replicas of replicas? Quien sabe!
Erik A. Mattila
Oh, yeah. It's been going on for years. I remember in the 50s my
stepmother telling me about her adventure in Mexico City while
attempting to buy illegal artifacts on the black market...including the
door in a dark alley with a peep-hole slider and the instructions to say
"Gonzalez sent me."
BTW, museums themselves have been known to be involved in black market
art - the pressures on curators to enhance the collection is often
enormous. One of the greatest adventure stories I ever read was about
the disposition and acquisition of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948? 49?
Some of the top museums, internationally, played a devil's role in
preventing the fragments from ending up in ONE collection. That story
would make a great movie - better than Indiana Jones, in my opinion.
The hero was a slight Arab archaeologist employed by the British Museum
(Ben Kingsly would be perfect for the role). He even had a Brit
girlfriend, as I recall, and that was causing a stir from the British
"Raj" set. It has everything - stealth, danger, sex, colonialism ---
any script writers out there?
Erik
>
>