3 ms·
> Hebborn would only sell his works to art dealers and historians who "just should have known better." > If an expert couldn't tell the difference between an a
by everdev 8y ago
> Hebborn would only sell his works to art dealers and historians who "just should have known better."
> If an expert couldn't tell the difference between an authentic and an imitation piece, in Hebborn's eyes it was their own fault.
It was more than pranking, it was selling forgeries.
- StavrosK 8y agoSure, but how was the intent to prank more nefarious than actually selling forgeries?
- everdev 8y agoTrue, nefarious is a strong word. Sounds like he thoroughly embarrassed the art world but I would reserve nefarious for a select group of serious crimes.
- jacquesm 8y agoEmbarrassing art connoisseurs is roughly equivalent with high treason in that world. The last thing they need is for an actual artist to show they're full of it. Just like the clothiers didn't like the boy in the story of the Emperor.
- winchling 8y agoTrue. The art world, or at least the modern art world, would prefer to be embarrassing us!
- astazangasta 8y agoThe primary purpose of art is as a store of value - i.e., in some ways it behaves like a currency. This store is extremely important to rich people, who can thereby store tens of millions of dollars worth of value in a single canvas. But there is no central regulator of this currency, and no treasury issuing notes - its value comes entirely from perception and some historical myth-making. Forgery here has the same impact as forgery in any other currency - it debases the value of the currency. But imagine if you could debase an entire currency by issuing a single false note. Art forgery confuses the value of art - is it the object that is important? Apparently not - the only possibility, then, is the chain of authenticity demonstrating, e.g., "Picasso made this shitty painting". Forgery means the painting as object is less meaningful AND it means demonstrating the chain of authenticity is more important to maintaining its value. This is really bad for some rich people who own a lot of art.
- scarejunba 8y agoHonestly, I think it's just a bit of light comedy with the "more nefarious". Quite confused by the responses you're getting, tbh.