6 ms·
I’m convinced by the article which is so hell bent on casting a poor light on Han van Meegeren it’s hard to care enough to read but if you are interested in for
by WastingMyTime89 4y ago
I’m convinced by the article which is so hell bent on casting a poor light on Han van Meegeren it’s hard to care enough to read but if you are interested in forgers and forgery - a fascinating subject - I heartily recommend Orson Welles F for Fake. It’s for most part a documentary about the famous forger Elmyr de Hory and his biographer Clifford Irving, himself somewhat a forger. I say for most part because to serve its point the documentary itself intentionally verges into the forgery territory in an amount which is hard to gauge. It’s an extraordinary brilliant and personal reflection on the place of authenticity in film and the art.
The movie notably includes this brilliant quote by Elmyr de Hory: “Guilty? Of what? Making masterpieces?”.
- jacquesm 4y agoI know a Dutch painter whose main trade is that she can basically copy any style in a way that even trained people have a very hard time telling from the real thing. It's a good thing she's not into forgery.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
- rippercushions 4y ago> which is so hell bent on casting a poor light on Han van Meegeren He forged art, made money by selling it to literal Nazis, and blew the money on hookers and palatial houses. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the guy? I do have complicated thoughts on the same piece of art being valued completely differently depending on if it's signed by person X or person Y, but for better or worse this is very much a thing.
- sokoloff 4y ago> He forged art, made money by selling it to literal Nazis, and blew the money on hookers and palatial houses. Could be re-written as “via deception/trickery, deprived Nazis of monetary resources and increased the wealth of working ladies and tradespersons he associated with.”
- Dylan16807 4y ago> made money by selling it to literal Nazis He gave Nazis something with zero practical use in exchange for huge amounts of money. This is a bad thing?
- rippercushions 4y agoThe article says the Nazis traded him 137 looted paintings in exchange for the Vermeer, so yes, at the very least he's profiting off the original owners, who likely died in concentration camps.
- varajelle 4y agoI don't really understand this ethical framework. What can be done with these paintings? Must they be destroyed, or anything else is "profiting off victims of Nazis"?
- rippercushions 4y agoIt's stolen property that should be returned to its owners, and we have a standard legal framework for that. Obviously it's complicated when entire generations were annihilated, and there is still litigation going on today about the provenance and fate of some works stolen in WW2.
- Dylan16807 4y agoOkay, so he and the people that bought them from him should return them. That doesn't make taking them from Nazis bad. It would be better if he took cash from them, but again he only gave the guy a painting, he didn't help the Nazis. And better he have the paintings then a major Nazi, even as stolen property. The absolute worst option would be the Nazis selling the pile of art for cash.
- Smithalicious 4y agoWhen someone's crimes constitute fraud and doing business with nazis, sometimes two wrongs might make a right.
- mcv 4y agoWith him being paid in stolen Nazi art, he could even have framed it as getting stolen Nazi art back. Although obviously that wouldn't work if he'd sold those stolen paintings already.