The Price of Forgery

AnotherAbby and mmanzone proudly present: The Price of Forgery

Bold sections were written by AnotherAbby.

Italicized sections were written by mmanzone.

The sections were meant to be able to be read together as one or separately. Enjoy.

REMBRANDT HARMENSZOON VAN RIJN, or more simply Rembrandt, is one of the most famous painters in history. Recognized even before his death, a fairly uncommon feat in the art world, Rembrandt ran an art school where his pupils apprenticed him and learned his style. No pupil was allowed to sign their name on their work, creating a slew of artworks done in Rembrandt’s style but of unintentionally questionable authorship.  This, among other reasons, has created major doubt in the art world as to the authenticity of so-called “real” Rembrandts. However, the authenticity of a piece only creates an issue for those shopping for “a Rembrandt”. For all intents and purposes, the style, technique, and ideas of these “forgeries” are the same as those of the Dutch Master--their only condemnation comes from the fact that they were not painted by a famous artist.  These paintings, done in Rembrandt’s style and thought to belong to him, lose their value once they are labeled as forgeries, but does that label really detract from their quality?  Does a forged painting show less creativity or beauty than an original?  Art can still be enjoyed whether it is forged or created by a well respected artist.

Art forgery includes both the reproduction of famous pieces of art, as well as the the creation of original work in the style of a famous artist, and then the attribution of that piece to the famous artist rather than its actual creator. It’s like reverse plagiarism.  

Forgery in the art world is the recreation of a piece of artwork that belongs to another person, with the ultimate goal being to pass it off as the original creator’s.  Though it is not an honest way of earning a living, it does show a great deal of talent and respect for past artists.  Every artist has distinct styles (brushstrokes, colors, angles, subjects etc.) and to recreate a piece so precisely, it could be argued, shows even more talent than the original creator.

Many people speak of mimicry as being the highest form of flattery and, in the strictest sense of the word, forgery is mimicry to the extreme.  It is the close study of a specific artist’s style, a sort of “fingerprint” in the artworld to identify an artists work as their own.  Forgers examine the distinct brushstrokes of painters or the sharp angles of sculptures to such an extent that they can recreate them with enough skill to fool experts. Art appraisers and experts have almost always had difficulty differentiating between a true masterpiece and work done by a student or forger, leading to messy sagas of artworks being wrongly attributed back and forth--real to forgery, forgery to real--across history. They’ve celebrated art that they’ve later denounced, and dismissed art that they later praised. The exhausting hypocrisy of it all has left many disillusioned with the ability of experts to spot forgeries, and has moved the fakes further into the limelight.

Forgeries have even become a source of entertainment for art enthusiasts.  Several museums offer chances to see exhibits specifically about forged art (one even teaches how pieces of art are analyzed to discover their validity).   Instead of dismissing any possible enjoyment from the forged piece, enjoyment is found in determining its authenticity.

Forgeries have also become the proverbial “monster under the bed” of the art world; keeping art dealers and connoisseurs on their toes about the authenticity of any work of art, and keeping private collectors from driving the price of master works up too high for museums and public collections to stand a chance of getting them. This allows the public galleries to buy artwork at lower prices, and thus allows them to share more art with the world.

Forgeries have even become a source of entertainment for art enthusiasts.  Several museums offer chances to see exhibits specifically about forged art (one even teaches how pieces of art are analyzed to discover their validity).   Instead of dismissing any possible enjoyment from the forged piece, enjoyment is found in determining its authenticity.

Disregarding forgeries that mimic the style of an artist--not those that replicate a specific piece-- is akin to saying that a work of art is only as good as the name that painted it. That gets into the realm of artist idolatry, and completely eschews the point of art, which is not to put the artists themselves on a pedestal, but rather to recognize the value of the art they make for what it is, and through that, be able to appreciate the artist. Theoretically, the name on the frame should have no bearing on the overall enjoyment of the piece, yet so much value is constantly placed on the creatorship of great works rather than the piece itself that it sometimes seems as if the tag attached to the painting is the real work of art.

A forged work of art, at least a well-forged work, can frequently be passed off as the real thing and earn the artist a large sum of money.  If the piece is discovered to be forged, however, the purchaser might have much more difficulty in re-selling the piece, because who would want a piece by Joe Smith instead of Rembrandt or Renoir.  The fact is, however, that the forgery would only be priced highly if it was truly believed to be an original work, meaning that the quality is so high many experts could not even tell the difference.  Does the simple fact that the painting (or other medium) was created in the 20th century and not the 18th really detract from its value?  Whether it is created in a basement in Ohio or a cottage in France, a beautiful painting is a beautiful painting.  

Bibliography

Cascone, Sarah. "When Is a Rembrandt Not a Rembrandt?: Forgeries at Fordham." Art in America. N.p., 7 Aug. 2007. Web. 09 Dec. 2013. <http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/news/when-is-a-rembrandt-not-a-rembrandt-forgeries-at-fordham-/>.

Gopnik, Blake. "Rembrandt's Geius Lies in the Brand, Not the Hand." The Washington Post 30 Apr. 2006: n. pag. The Washington Post. Web. 9 Dec. 2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042800426.html>.

Hope, Charles. "The Art of the Phony." New York Times Book Review. New York Times, 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 09 Dec. 2013. <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/aug/15/forgery-art-phony/?pagination=false>.

Kennick, W. E. "Art and Inauthenticity." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 44.1 (1985): 3-12. Print.

Max, Arthur. "Study Reports Many Rembrandt Paintings Are Fakes." Artinfo. Blouin, 23 Jan. 2007. Web. 09 Dec. 2013. <http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/1316/study-reports-many-rembrandt-paintings-are-fakes>.

Radnóti, Sándor. The Fake: Forgery and Its Place in Art. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. 12-24. Print.

"Rembrandt Harmenszoon Van Rijn: Fakes and Forgeries." Art Experts. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2013. <http://www.artexpertswebsite.com/pages/artists/super_rembrandt_fakes.php>.