4 ms·

In the book ("The Forger's Spell") this article is based on, the author actually gives Van Meegeren quite a fair analysis. His personal artwork is criticized bu

In the book ("The Forger's Spell") this article is based on, the author actually gives Van Meegeren quite a fair analysis. His personal artwork is criticized but he is given a tremendous amount of credit as a forger. Unfortunately I cannot remember the specifics of the critique of his original paintings but it revolved around him being overly focused on classical technique and applying it to trite contemporary still lifes which were not considered of interest at the time. I remember a lot more about what was said on his forgeries, which were described as genius on 2 counts: 1. He utilized cutting edge technology (bakelite plastic) to emulate the hardening process of centuries old oil paint. This defeated all the standard tests for aging oil paint. 2. He tapped into the desires of the art historical community. Vermeer's paintings fall into two distinct styles without a clear transition between the two. This was a hot topic at the time and art historians were hoping to find a painting (or paintings) which showed a clear transition between Vermeer's early and late work. Van Meegeren intentionally created paintings to fit this transition phase. The book also reveals in great detail how the forgeries were not actually executed very well from a technical painting perspective. There are images in the book and they show really badly proportioned figures, broken use of perspective, etc. The quality of the earlier forgeries is definitely better then the later ones but they all have issues. People wanted these paintings to be real so badly that he didn't need to work hard to trick them.

causi 4y ago
classical technique and applying it to trite contemporary still lifes which were not considered of interest at the time. Doesn't that also describe half of the work of "great artists"? When they were painted they were just "some lady I know" or "some guys standing in a room".
- solomonb 4y ago
  The key part of that sentence is "which were not considered of interest at the time". When Van Meegeren was working, the artistic zeitgeist was focused on exploring new concepts of abstraction and extended technique.
- mcv 4y ago
  It certainly shows the irrationality of art appreciation. It's not about the quality of the painting, it's about who made it. And that is what makes forgery attractive; it's worth more because people think it's make by a more famous painter. The value comes not from the art itself, but from the history. It's the same with the talk about modern AI art. Does it devalue art because it's not made by people? The same image made by AI, a modern artist, or an old master, has a completely different value because of who made it. So Van Meegeren's style not interesting when he painted it, because it's old fashioned, but it is interesting when people think it's painted by Vermeer. It wasn't old fashioned then; it was revolutionary. The historic context is really different. It's clearly not about the picture itself, it's about the history, the cultural significance, the context.
  - solomonb 4y ago
    > It's not about the quality of the painting, it's about who made it. I'm super pessimistic about the art world and I agree with you to some extent but I think what you are missing is that art/art history is a conversation amongst a bunch of stakeholders (artists, galleries, museums, critics, viewers, etc) and what is considered important art at any given moment changes as this conversation progresses. Someone making a perfect classical oil painting today (without doing something to make it engage with the current conversation) is akin to coming up with the perfect come-back to an argument you had a week ago and then trying to bringing it up in an unrelated conversation today.

causi 4y ago

classical technique and applying it to trite contemporary still lifes which were not considered of interest at the time. Doesn't that also describe half of the work of "great artists"? When they were painted they were just "some lady I know" or "some guys standing in a room".

solomonb 4y ago
The key part of that sentence is "which were not considered of interest at the time". When Van Meegeren was working, the artistic zeitgeist was focused on exploring new concepts of abstraction and extended technique.
mcv 4y ago
It certainly shows the irrationality of art appreciation. It's not about the quality of the painting, it's about who made it. And that is what makes forgery attractive; it's worth more because people think it's make by a more famous painter. The value comes not from the art itself, but from the history. It's the same with the talk about modern AI art. Does it devalue art because it's not made by people? The same image made by AI, a modern artist, or an old master, has a completely different value because of who made it. So Van Meegeren's style not interesting when he painted it, because it's old fashioned, but it is interesting when people think it's painted by Vermeer. It wasn't old fashioned then; it was revolutionary. The historic context is really different. It's clearly not about the picture itself, it's about the history, the cultural significance, the context.
- solomonb 4y ago
  > It's not about the quality of the painting, it's about who made it. I'm super pessimistic about the art world and I agree with you to some extent but I think what you are missing is that art/art history is a conversation amongst a bunch of stakeholders (artists, galleries, museums, critics, viewers, etc) and what is considered important art at any given moment changes as this conversation progresses. Someone making a perfect classical oil painting today (without doing something to make it engage with the current conversation) is akin to coming up with the perfect come-back to an argument you had a week ago and then trying to bringing it up in an unrelated conversation today.