7 replies to this topic

[CstsMarked]

http://www.telegraph...n-original.html

This article talks about forgeries in art and weather or not it matters if the piece is an original or not. What do you guys think?

[arunma]

I've actually heard of famous (while living) artists making stuff and releasing their art under different names to see if it still sells as well. I guess names do matter. Largely I think this is a subjective issue. To me it's quality that matters. I don't much care for modern art at all. I like my paintings boring, photo-realistic, and not trying to make any philosophical pronouncements. Some people like that kind of shit. And some people care about names. In some sense this is a lesson in capitalism. If there's a market for art made by person X, then that person's name is worth whatever people will pay for it.

[Chikara Nadir]

Yes, the art loses context under the guise of belonging to that particular artist. As that Gauguin forgery said, we can no longer look at it as a symbol of his feelings of impotence during a failing marriage in the 19th century winter of its making - because it was actually created by someone else entirely in the 20th century. Is it any less beautiful or meaningful in its own way? No. It just gives the art critics a run for their money in trying to re-create their own artistic impressions of it.

There are, of course, plenty of people who pay just to see the name. But unknown artists create great works, wonderful artists make pieces that one can regard as failures, and even forgers can make an 'authentic' masterpiece if they know what the public eye expects to look for.

[Raien]

I would like to believe that art has its own intrinsic value, but the art enthusiasts (and arthouse crowd in general) like to believe that their understanding and appreciation of art connects them emotionally to the feelings of the artist. This is why the name counts for so much, the art is merely a tool to connect the artist with the viewer.

[Jezzer]

I would figure that if more and more convincing fakes of an original art were made, wouldn't it drive up the demand and price for the real deal?

Just like any industry and any type of creation there are bound to be fakes but the true professionals should be able to make the distinction between the real deal and the fake.

Edited by Jezzer, 19 June 2010 - 09:07 PM.

[Fizzbit]

If the "original" artist is still living, then yes, it's a big deal.

Let's say I, Clara Leet, am a big-name artist. People pay thousands of dollars to see my works.

Someone, maybe a college student or fellow artist, studies my style enough to create works of their own that could be mistaken for works that I have done, be they copies of pieces I have already done, or pieces I have never ever even considered making.

By selling their work under my name, or selling a forgery under my name, they are not only selling publicity that I did not create, but also using my name to make a quick buck.

If the original artist is dead but perhaps funds from art sales go to a family member, then the same applies, except money is being directed away from the family of the artist.

So I I think it does matter if it is original.

[Showsni]

*Posts a relevant Simpsons clip*

Lisa: Oh, Kenny... look at the interplay of light and shadow, it's so
luminous and vibrant!
Kenny: Heh, oh thanks, Lisa! I painted that one. [Whispering] The real
one's in my garage.

Lisa the Simpson

If there's no discernible difference between the real picture and a fake, leaving aside the question of people making money off of forgeries, I don't see that there's any loss in the artistic quality of the piece. To a collector, of course, only the original will do; but to an admirer of art, then a photocopy might be just as good as the real thing.

[lord-of-shadow]

The key thing is this: does the fact that ti is original or copy, assuming all else is equal, impact your ability to appreciate and enjoy the art?

For most people in most situations, the answer is no; they're looking at the art on it's own merits.

In some situations, it matters even to people it wouldn't normally matter. If I were to be in a room at a museum full of original pieces by someone like Picasso, I - someone who doesn't even like his art - would be impressed and interested by the sheer weight of all that history, context, and value.

If you're an art connoisseur, who keeps in mind context and has a mental image of the artist as a person, having the original probably really does impact the ability to enjoy the art.