Art Fraud
Bill
Commission
Art Fraud
Every year, American consumers lose hundreds of millions of
dollars purchasing supposedly valuable commodities that do not live up
to their billing. You should be aware that counterfeit art prints are
included in these items.
Among the most frequently counterfeited prints are ones
purportedly done by famous artists such as Salvador Dali, Pablo
Picasso, Marc Chagall, and Joan Miro. Consumers from all walks of life
are targeted in these scams. Recent FTC cases indicate that those
buying counterfeit art work include doctors, farmers, stockbrokers,
housewives, and even other artists.
If you are taken in by a false art sales pitch, what you get is
often much less than promised. After paying anywhere from $500 to
$10,000 or more, you may get art work valued at no more than $50 _ the
equivalent of a poster you might buy at a museum.
Many of these bogus pieces are copies of images created by
well-known artists, which are produced without the artist's knowledge
or authorization and carry a forged signature of the artist's name.
Others are counterfeit art pieces produced in the style of well-known
artists. In still other instances, the art work is authentic but its
value and investment potential are far less than what you are led to
believe.
How the Scam Works
The scenario for trapping consumers into paying inflated prices
for counterfeit art works varies. One common tactic is to send you a
letter describing a contest or drawing giving away a free original
lithograph by a famous artist. You are asked to return the postcard
with your name, address, and phone number. Your post card probably will
trigger a telephone call from the scam operator, who tries to convince
you to buy a valuable work of art. The caller may claim to be offering
a "fabulous opportunity" to obtain a limited-edition print that will be
an "excellent investment." You may be told that a famous artist is near
death and that you should buy now, since the value of the art work will
increase after the artist's death. You will likely be offered a
"certificate of authenticity" attesting to the genuineness of the work.
And, often you are promised a trial examination period with a 30-day
money-back guarantee. There are as many variations to this basic sales
pitch as there are con artists.
Fake art prints are not just sold over the telephone. They also
may be sold at seemingly reputable art galleries in your own community.
You may find authentic works by contemporary artists hanging side by
side with fake Dalis and Chagalls. Sometimes the dealer will pitch the
print as an investment opportunity. The dealer also may downplay the
investment angle and try to sell the print as a valuable collectible
To be continued.
sir_haxalot
don't if the FTC has to print an article about it. It definitely isn't
limited to "modern art" artists, either. I personally have seen
Rembrandt lithographs of suspect origin at serious art galleries. The
first clue that something's amiss is that some Rembrandt prints are
listed as reprints, and priced reasonably correctly. Curiously, other
prints in the same gallery are listed and priced as first-run
originals, but they don't look any older. IMHO, A first-run Rembrandt
lithograph is going to show some sign of age or wear. It shouldn't
look like a photocopy onto a $3.99 sheet Canson art paper. I tried to
look for eraser marks, lines in the paper, something with the hand of
the artist on it. In one case, one of the first-press ones looked
authentic to me, but there's no way I'd be buying it without having
some of my curator friends have a look with me. You want my $30,000+?
Not without unanimous consent from every art historian, auction
curator, etc. I can talk with.
-hax
chris
doubt there are many original Rembrandt lithos around. There are a fair
number of faked etchings, however, since many plates were never
destroyed. But generally they are characterized by the excessive wear
on the plate (which shows up as poor line quality), and clumsy repairs.
CB
Mani Deli
wrote:
>I would hope everyone would know about this, but apparently people
>don't if the FTC has to print an article about it. It definitely isn't
>limited to "modern art" artists, either. I personally have seen
>Rembrandt lithographs of suspect origin at serious art galleries.
Rembrandt didn't do any lithographs.
sir_haxalot
The first limited edition lithographic fine art prints were mass
produced over five hundred years ago.(...)The lithographic print copies
were conceived as a way to share art work with a larger or broader
based audience which could be reached in an effort to share the
original work of art. Rembrandt was one of the first artists to
appreciate this "collector" audience. He knew that he could
produce only a limited number of his original paintings during his
lifetime. And Rembrandt wanted to be able to share his work with
common people in addition to the rich and famous audience that could
actually afford his original paintings and etchings. Everyone knows
that his original paintings are now worth many millions of dollars
apiece. Not surprisingly even his derivative prints fetch many
hundreds of thousands of dollars per single edition.
Rembrandt's desire to share his visual creations in greater number
that led to his first mass produced publications came from his heart.
He also believed that his original works of art not only came from, but
also reflected his soul. Because of Rembrandt's genius and knowledge
that only rich and powerful people could afford his actual original
works of art, so he began self-publishing his lithographic print
editions in the year 1620. His fine art paintings and sketches were
thus offered to interested regular hard working people who did not have
the means to either afford his original work or because Rembrandt did
not have the time to accept their commissions. Thus he successfully
sold the lithograph reproductions to a larger base of collectors and
achieved his goal of sharing his heart and soul which he so accurately
captured in his original oil paintings. "
Ha ha, you're busted. Nice try, though.
chris
on lithography (as well as wikipedia, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithography; the australian NGA :
http://www.nga.gov.au/FirstImpressions/index.cfm, and virtually every
source in between) all indicate invention by Alois Senefelder in
Bohemia in 1798.
We may be busted, but now you've got to provide some evidence stronger
than an unreferenced quote from a crank commercial artist like this
http://rickbroome.com/lithographs.htm .... (Unless, of course, this
falls under some NSA jurisdiction or another :). BTW, Google dug your
quote out pretty quick, you'll have to try harder...
CB
sir_haxalot
designed for copy. The point in reference to my original text, was
that some of these "WORKS" are of suspect origin. Yes, I'm painfully
aware of the technical difference between an etching and a lithograph.
The point is Rembrandt made works designed for copy. It is common to
refer to use etching, print, and lithograph interchangeably in
conversation, and only in terms of the medium on a particular piece
would it be specified exactly which it is. For example, "crank artist"
Rick Broome, or at an auction:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/05/nharr05.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/09/05/ixhome.html
A rembrandt lithograph going for 4000 pounds. Are they talking about
an etching? Yes. Does anyone care? No. Because when you look at the
medium on the provenance of the work, it will say which it is (just in
case it isn't obvious from looking at it).
And now, since you want to have references, here's a deluge of
references for the interchangeable use of etching, print and lithograph
in conversation, versus its use describing the medium:
Medium:
http://libweb.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/aids/gc070.html
Conversation:
http://www.halcyongallery.com/artists/homes/Rembrandt/
Medium:
http://www.masterworksfineart.com/inventory/rembrandt.htm
Conversation:
"Rembrandt stands out as the baroque graphic master. Accomplished in
rendering a wide range of subjects from portraits and religious scenes
to landscapes, Rembrandt produced prints of both power and subtlety,
such as Self-Portrait of the Artist Leaning on a Stone Sill (1639). "
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Arts/Graphicartists/generalities/Historyofprintmaking.htm
Conversation:
"The finest impressions by Rembrandt (1606-1669), one of the most
experimental and greatest printmakers..."
http://www.absolutearts.com/artsnews/2000/09/21/27471.html
chris
to Rembrandt producing lithographs, and in fact one refers to the
invention of the technique as occuring at the end of the 18th century
(which is correct).
It is NOT common to refer to any old printing technique as a lithograph
any more than it is common to refer to any old painting technique as
painting with oils. Lithography (invented circa 1800) and intaglio
(invented god knows when) are hugely different, and to conflate the two
is simply stupid. If someone makes a claim about Rembrant's
"lithographs", I can only accept that - without further proof - as
either fraud or foolishness.
All you have to do is provide me a substantial, generally accepted
educated reference that describes Rembrandt's work as "lithographic",
and be glad to accept your point. But until then, the ball is still in
your court; and Mani is very much right, with respect to this.
Perry Mason, for the defense :)
sir_haxalot
older/newer "oil paintings" as just "oil paintings", whether the oil
paint was in tubes or hand-mixed with pigment dyes.
Rembrandt was doing what Lithography requires (the drawing), but
without the slightly different method of lithography's final steps.
For his technique, the result would be virtually identical. As my
previous sources cite, Rembrandt was a master at the drawing part of
printmaking. Thus, his technique would've translated well to a medium
that captures even more intimately the gestures and details of lines
(1).
(1) http://www.greatart.co.uk/gerstaecker_2191.html
Just to clarify my previous point, I will now point to the technical
details describing the Lithography process as etching, plus some extra
steps not important right now:
"...the design is put or sprayed on with lithocrayon and lithographic
drawing ink. Then, the stone is etched. The aim of etching is to make
those parts of the stone, which are covered by design, able to absorb
grease, whereas those parts which are not covered by design are
prepared to absorb water and to repel grease." (2)
(2) http://www.the-artists.org/graphics/lithography.cfm
It follows that a lithograph, in its basic form, can be very much like
an etching. So from the drawing to the etching part, Rembrandt was
essentially making a basic lithograph manually.
D
chris
print and a lithograph in any detail? the whole line quality -
especially when you look at intaglio prints like Rembrandt's (mostly
nitric etching, and dry point, IIRC) is just completely different. Sure
litho stones and intaglio plates both get etched (though printing
plates are also subject to drypoint, or mezzotinting) - but with very
different results. They hold and release the ink differently, they
respond to the media differently, and they evolve differently under
use.
If it turns your crank to consider them the same, well, so be it, that
sort of visual illiteracy is just beyond redemption.
Cheers;
CB
sir_haxalot
etching, they're both etchings, right? Thanks, that's all I wanted to
hear.
chris
sir_haxalot wrote:
> So while one looks more refined because it's more modern process of
> etching, they're both etchings, right? Thanks, that's all I wanted to
> hear.
>
That's sad when folks nominally involved in the arts seem proud to hear
only what confirms them in their idiocy. But when it comes right down
to it, you were dead wrong - Rembrandt didn't make lithos; and Mani was
right, and you aren't capable of admitting your error. I guess you
should stick to making lithos of airplanes.
BTW, the older process of intaglio - which includes etching, mezzotint
and drypoint among various techniques - lends itself more to subtlety
and refinement than traditional (not photo based) lithography, because
it allows a greater degree of control and delicacy. (Modern high-tech
lithography is great of course for very fine detail, like making
computer chips, but WGAF.) But you would have known that, if you had
the slightest clue about the subject on which you have been expounding
at length.
CB
chris
sir_haxalot wrote:
> So while one looks more refined because it's more modern process of
> etching, they're both etchings, right? Thanks, that's all I wanted to
> hear.
>
And btw, a good deal of Rembrandt's intaglio work was not etched at
all, but drypoint. Please look up the process before commenting
further, there's a chance you might learn something.
CB
sir_haxalot
wrong to call a Rembrandt etching a lithograph. However, Mani only did
that to distract from what I was talking about. I guess that's been
hopelessly lost now. I'm not so ignorant that I don't know what's
going on, I just tried to humor the discussion in order to get back to
my original point, which has clearly been abandoned in order to try to
make me look dumb.
chris
Cheers;
CB
sir_haxalot
try not to get upset at the obligatory Mani posts.
Mani Deli
On 20 Dec 2005 10:10:36 -0800, "sir_haxalot" <devin...@gmail.com>
wrote:
sir_haxalot
done fueling the Mani brand insult machine.
Erik A. Mattila
> So while one looks more refined because it's more modern process of
> etching, they're both etchings, right? Thanks, that's all I wanted to
> hear.
Naw...they ain't both "etchings." Perhaps you're conflating with the
old courtship line: "Please come upstairs and I'll show you my etchings."
Here's an important typological differce from the start - when you make
a lithograph you draw directly on the stone or metal plate. You do the
opposite in etching - you remove material to make a mask of your lines.
That's why stone lithography is popular with many artists - it's
closet to "the artist's hand" of all printmaking techniques.
Lithography is "additive" while etching is "subtractive." Yes,
yes...dry point is "additive" but it's seldom confused with an etching.
Erik A. Mattila
I don't agree with that at all, Chris. I think lithography is more
detailed and delicate.
Don der Blitsen
e...@nospamimpix.com says...
>I don't agree with that at all, Chris. I think lithography is more
>detailed and delicate.
I think you both could have a "point" since engraving
can impart a very fine thin line that would be difficult
to achieve with a lithographic crayon - with the exception
possibly of using a 'reductive' drawing method in litho.
Also...while stone lithography has its merits, the artist
can draw with equal involvement onto aluminum plates
instead of using a stone.
An aside...I recently found some old used litho plates with which I
experimented - recycling the plate as a finished oil painting.
The grained aluminum plate makes a superb support for anyone
liking to paint with a finish that has the look of enamel.
chris
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> >
> I don't agree with that at all, Chris. I think lithography is more
Interesting, maybe we could have a dream team competition LoL... It
would be fun to put up lithographers against intaglio printers, though
I'm terrible at remembering the names of both. & Sticking to
traditional methods, like I said before, lithography can certainly
create much finer work when combined with photography or electron
microscopes or whatever the techs do these days.... I guess I'd start
(off hand) with Rembrandt & Cassatt in the intaglio field as widely
known & capable of quite delicate work, who would you put up in the
litho's as comparable? BTW, I'm not dissing litho's, generally I'd say
the media is just better suited for strong work (eg Lautrec or
Kollwitz..)
Cheers;
Chris
Mani Deli
der Blitsen) wrote:
>In article <9YCdnSBxhv9q0zfe...@adelphia.com>,
>e...@nospamimpix.com says...
>
>>I don't agree with that at all, Chris. I think lithography is more
>>detailed and delicate.
>
>I think you both could have a "point" since engraving
>can impart a very fine thin line that would be difficult
>to achieve with a lithographic crayon - with the exception
>possibly of using a 'reductive' drawing method in litho.
>
Why argue over various classical techniques? Its obvious that one
might prefer one to the other. There is so much to choose from. I like
most all 19th century graphics, etching, lithos mezzotints, wood
engraving etc. And what about Brughel, Goltzius, Schongauer, Callot,
Lucas Van Leiden, Japanese woodblocks etc etc.?
I don't care how the thing was done I judge what I consider the merits
of the image. There are hundreds of artists to choose from during any
age. Today the major graphic technique is computer.
chris
Mani Deli wrote:
> Why argue over various classical techniques?
Probably because I'm an a**hole & like to argue over anything, given
the proper mood :)
>Its obvious that one
> might prefer one to the other. There is so much to choose from. I like
> most all 19th century graphics, etching, lithos mezzotints, wood
> engraving etc. And what about Brughel, Goltzius, Schongauer, Callot,
> Lucas Van Leiden, Japanese woodblocks etc etc.?
>
> I don't care how the thing was done I judge what I consider the merits
> of the image. There are hundreds of artists to choose from during any
> age. Today the major graphic technique is computer.
I agree with most of what you said; after all, its how the technique
was used rather than the technique itself that is important. OTOH I am
pretty uncertain re. the computer imagery. I relize it is a process
just in it's infancy, but one wonders whether there is too much
technology in the way (or will future generations be able to get over
that?). And the fact that a computer image is almost infintely
replicable; one wonders what that will do to folks trying to support
themselves in the arts. For example, will it eventually come down to
rich folks/industries or even governments hiring artists to create work
for giant plasma displays, and enforcing copyright laws to keep anyone
else from having the image? Maybe a means to create art for the masses,
much like the old stained glass windows, or the murals that used to be
painted on the exteriors of buildings?(IIRC, that's how Holbein
started..). But now painted with light, and dynamic, not static.
However the political implications are a little odd. Anyway, I'd be
curious as to where you think this is headed...
Personally, I have a long running idea to dynamically image the
acoustic and or financial worlds (since I have background in both) in
large public displays, but it's a rather expensive proposition, and for
me it's not as gratifying as painting/drawing. But if you have a few
hundred K you'd like to blow, let me know :)
Merry Christmas;
CB
artangel
have a great deal of knowledge on the subject.
Thank you for not letting Manis' posts distract you. (He tried his
best)
Erik A. Mattila
arugment. But in my browsing I was always amazed by the artists who
reproduced painted works in stone litho, usually in one color.
Hey, BTW, Feliz Navidad to you and all who read this.
Ho ho ho,
Erik
andy gee
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> You may find authentic works by contemporary artists hanging side by
> side with fake Dalis and Chagalls. Sometimes the dealer will pitch the
> print as an investment opportunity. The dealer also may downplay the
> investment angle and try to sell the print as a valuable collectible
>
Am I being scammed? A friend of my wife's (supposed friend I guess) is
uttering verbiages eerily remeniscent of the warnings in this warning
message from the FTC. I cannot for the life of me imagine that this
person would try to put one over on us. However, there may be one
question the answer to which might point to what's really going on.
Are there a "substantial" number of Chagall lithos, hand signed in
pencil, hand numbered, making their rounds of galleries and auctions, in
editions of 500? I was under the impression (pardon the pun) that
Chagall kept the litho runs generally under 100 but then made up for it
by passing out complimentary signature lithos to his friends. Am I
wrong?
Thanks --
--ag
Bill
strangers and don't know who the patsy is, then the patsy is YOU !
When in doubt about buying art, my suggestion is to RUN, do not walk to
the nearest exit.
Have a nice day.
Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket
Thur
"Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1136029284.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> All art is fake. There are no originals.
>
Minimalism.
You have reduced the amount of words to such an extent
that they do not have a clear meaning.
Can you be saying that all art is fake art? This seems illogical.
Are you saying that all art is some kind of illusion? Others
have said it before you.
--
Thur
Ashley Clarke
news:1136029284.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------