I was rather sad to hear on the radio that someone has just been sent to prison for a number of years for art forgery. I can’t help but feel a sneaking admiration for someone who has the talent to produce a work of art that fools the experts. And it highlights all too clearly what a delicately insubstantial bubble the commercial art world is.
Either a painting (say) is great, or it isn’t. So either the fake is great… or the original was all hype and no substance. Both seem to be possible. It’s interesting that it has recently been shown that the scientific test that is supposed to be able to identify Jackson Pollock’s work from its fractal ‘structure’ showed several of his works didn’t have the right fractal signature. Yes it really is just a set of drips a monkey could have made.
This isn’t an anti-art rant, honestly. I love plenty of art – but there’s an awful lot of pretentious rubbish out there too. In the end, I return to the point that if a fake is so good that it’s indistinguishable from an original, either it’s great art too, or the original was rubbish too. If I make some sodium chloride in a lab it’s just as much salt as the stuff dug out of the salt mine.
Like your clothing question, this is very interesting in that it questions our motivations for doing things.
When we buy “art”, what are we paying for? Something pleasing or meaningful to hang on our wall, or something that is “an investment”? Are we paying the artist for his work or are we paying… well someone else?
For something to hang on the wall, a good/meaningful print or “fake” is always better than a bad/nothing original, in my opinion, but of course I am not an expert.
My favourite personal anecdote relating to art goes like this: My approach to art galleries is to keep moving. If something causes the physical reaction of making me stop in my tracks (either pleasant or unpleasant reaction), I rest there and have a good look. When I was at the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam this happened only 3 times, and each time the artist turned out to be Monet. It seems that I don’t care that much either way for VG.
Sidetrack: Another of my favourite boardgames is Modern Art invented by Reiner Knizia. Modern Art is really good for five players and involves auctioning art that will be later re-sold at a price determined by the relative “popularity” of the artist.
Auctioning and betting games are always quite interesting as it is easy to confuse the motivation to win the auction with the aim of winning the game. The advantage of the game is that it is possible to stand back from it and laugh at the mistake, but it is harder to objectively question the value we place on things in real life.
Bronwen –
I like the link of the art world to betting, because as well as feeling sorry for good (caught) art fakers, I also sympathise much more with the clever people who beat casinos using maths or technology than I do with the casino owners who lose a fraction of their millions in profits.
I know, for instance, that casinos ban people for counting cards – but that’s like saying ‘you can’t play if you’ve any skill’. Imagine banning people from chess tournaments if they knew all the moves, or from Wimbledon if they had a coach…