Is there Value in Forged Art?
-
-
- wayseeker
- added this
Image: Supper at Emmaus” by Han van Meegeren.
On July 21, 1945,The Times weighed in on the story: “Authenticity of Several Paintings Sold as Vermeers Is Questioned” (pdf).
The authenticity of several paintings introduced to the public as newly discovered works of Jan Vermeer, seventeenth century Dutch master, is in question and the case has become a national sensation in England. Originally many of these paintings were introduced to the public by Hans van Meegeren (sic), modern Dutch painter. Soon after the liberation of the Netherlands Van Meegeren was arrested for collaboration with the Germans and is now in prison awaiting trial. The press agency Anepaneta, which operates as a government mouthpiece, asserted a few days ago that Van Meegeren had made a statement that he himself painted the supposed Vermeers… Art experts say they are not convinced that the statements attributed to Van Meegeren are true. The director of the Rotterdam Museum said the prisoner was a fantasist who had a grudge against museums and similar institutions. A painting restorer in The Hague said that if one of the disputed works which he transferred to new canvas recently, “Pilgrims to Emmaus” [“Supper at Emmaus”] was indeed a forgery, then the painter must be considered a genius in that particular line.
“A genius in that particular line.” But what “particular line” is this? If the painting was indeed a forgery, then must the painter be considered a genius? Incredulity followed by skepticism. The Times article continued:
“If the rumors prove to be true,” the newspaper ["Volkskrant"] said, “then the best experts and completely reputable persons have been the dupes of a deception which was fashioned with unparalleled skill and in which, besides the forger himself, many middlemen must have taken part…” Van Meegeren and other major figures in the Netherlands charged with collaboration have yet to be brought to trial.
Van Meegeren was one of the “major figures in the Netherlands charged with collaboration.”
* * * * * When this subject was posted and discussed in Current a while back a few members said since the forgery looks just like the original what difference does it make?
In a statement made in today's Time a reader said: : "Art forgery is a lot like character impersonation. We applaud someone who can create a credible Elvis, George Bush or Bill Clinton but become irate if this is done to deceive us and vindictive if we suffer financially from it. The forged work might possibly be considered a great work of art forgery and the forger a great forger, but it requires no more genius than a great impersonator."
How important do you think it is that art frauds are discovered and prosecuted?
On July 21, 1945,The Times weighed in on the story: “Authenticity of Several Paintings Sold as Vermeers Is Questioned” (pdf).
The authenticity of several paintings introduced to the public as newly discovered works of Jan Vermeer, seventeenth century Dutch master, is in question and the case has become a national sensation in England. Originally many of these paintings were introduced to the public by Hans van Meegeren (sic), modern Dutch painter. Soon after the liberation of the Netherlands Van Meegeren was arrested for collaboration with the Germans and is now in prison awaiting trial. The press agency Anepaneta, which operates as a government mouthpiece, asserted a few days ago that Van Meegeren had made a statement that he himself painted the supposed Vermeers… Art experts say they are not convinced that the statements attributed to Van Meegeren are true. The director of the Rotterdam Museum said the prisoner was a fantasist who had a grudge against museums and similar institutions. A painting restorer in The Hague said that if one of the disputed works which he transferred to new canvas recently, “Pilgrims to Emmaus” [“Supper at Emmaus”] was indeed a forgery, then the painter must be considered a genius in that particular line.
“A genius in that particular line.” But what “particular line” is this? If the painting was indeed a forgery, then must the painter be considered a genius? Incredulity followed by skepticism. The Times article continued:
“If the rumors prove to be true,” the newspaper ["Volkskrant"] said, “then the best experts and completely reputable persons have been the dupes of a deception which was fashioned with unparalleled skill and in which, besides the forger himself, many middlemen must have taken part…” Van Meegeren and other major figures in the Netherlands charged with collaboration have yet to be brought to trial.
Van Meegeren was one of the “major figures in the Netherlands charged with collaboration.”
* * * * * When this subject was posted and discussed in Current a while back a few members said since the forgery looks just like the original what difference does it make?
In a statement made in today's Time a reader said: : "Art forgery is a lot like character impersonation. We applaud someone who can create a credible Elvis, George Bush or Bill Clinton but become irate if this is done to deceive us and vindictive if we suffer financially from it. The forged work might possibly be considered a great work of art forgery and the forger a great forger, but it requires no more genius than a great impersonator."
How important do you think it is that art frauds are discovered and prosecuted?
-
- groups:
- Culture
-
- tags:
- Culture, People, World Affairs, The Arts
