3 ms·

It's kinda funny in a way. If you believe it is real, does it matter if it is a fake? If the only difference is titanium in the paint, does that make the actual

It's kinda funny in a way. If you believe it is real, does it matter if it is a fake? If the only difference is titanium in the paint, does that make the actual painting better or worse?

umvi 2y ago
Art is like cryptocurrency. It's valuable because it's scarce, not because it has intrinsic worth or beauty.
- sagacity 2y ago
  If that were the case, why do museums exist, according to you?
  - ljf 2y ago
    As an opportunity to look at scarce things, that we are told are beautiful or interesting?
    - sagacity 2y ago
      If the only reason you enjoy art is because someone else tells you it's beautiful, then sure, maybe it's not for you.
mmooss 2y ago
I agree to a great extent, especially regarding copies. Why don't people just have top-notch copies of masterpieces made for their walls? Status? You look cheap? (Possibly, the undistinguishable works in the article are of rare quality, and others are missing what makes the masterpieces special.) But to the degree art is an individual's self-expression, then the fake is what you want. It's not giving you insight into and empathy with a person. You might as well be in love with an AI.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > It's not giving you insight into and empathy with a person I'm interested in the beauty of the painting.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Right, that was one of the possibilities I intended in the GP. So why not get good copies made of masterworks? I've thought seriously about it. I sort of tried one. One challenge is that what makes great art exceptionally beautiful is in the 0.0..01% - it's the 99.99/0.01 rule of art. Can an artist making copies reproduce that, even following the genius's completed idea? (Also, they probably won't be working from the original.) I am also going to present an idea for something in addition: The beauty of almost anything is mostly emotional appeal. That song I love, the person I'm attracted to, the architecturally amazing building I see on my commute every day - they have an emotional effect. Arguably, what else is 'beauty' in our minds? What else is the effect of the harmony of certain sets of colors or shapes or representations of life, or the disharmony of others? In much artwork, we can find a deeper emotional connection when we choose to, seeing as a product of the creator's mind and soul, one work a result of a lifetime of being human, maybe decades of exploration as an artist as well as expert skill and knowledge development, and the weeks / months / or more put into that particular vision. And we get to stand there and stare at it, at them, delving into their mind and soul. When else can we do that; when else does someone express something so deep so openly - and with such expertise - and we can examine it?
bruce511 2y ago
There are two ways to look at art. First is for you personally to have something you enjoy to look at. Second is to have sonething that impresses others (perhaps a buyer.) Owning a beautiful Van Gough is a pleasure to look at. Frankly if it visually fools an expert then it completely fulfill goal 1. But if you're trying to impress others, or a buyer, then the point is not the painting itself, but rather the status it imbues. To those that value status, faked status is the worst offense. Of course if the point is to show "I can afford to spend x million on a painting ", and you did, then forgery or not presumably you've achieved the goal. Once you get beyond "pretty picture" the art world is completely arbitrary.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  I've hung prints on the walls, but they aren't as nice as an actual painting, as the paint gives it a glow and 3D look that a flat print cannot match. I'd be happy hanging up worthless fakes that it takes an expert to discern from original great art. My computer "wallpaper" throws up scans of great works of art. Unfortunately, it is bafflingly hard to find good scans of that stuff. It's all public domain, what's the problem?
dontlaugh 2y ago
Indeed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake
xhkkffbf 2y ago
I agree that it doesn't matter to many people. If the image is great, then it's great art. End of story. But when it comes to history, fake art can pollute our knowledge of the painter and the history. While many fakes use the same typical subjects, imagine that a faker created a canvas with a different story. If this story gets injected into the history, everyone's knowledge of the painter is corrupted.

It's kinda funny in a way. If you believe it is real, does it matter if it is a fake? If the only difference is titanium in the paint, does that make the actual painting better or worse?

umvi 2y ago

Art is like cryptocurrency. It's valuable because it's scarce, not because it has intrinsic worth or beauty.

sagacity 2y ago
If that were the case, why do museums exist, according to you?
- ljf 2y ago
  As an opportunity to look at scarce things, that we are told are beautiful or interesting?
  - sagacity 2y ago
    If the only reason you enjoy art is because someone else tells you it's beautiful, then sure, maybe it's not for you.

mmooss 2y ago

I agree to a great extent, especially regarding copies. Why don't people just have top-notch copies of masterpieces made for their walls? Status? You look cheap? (Possibly, the undistinguishable works in the article are of rare quality, and others are missing what makes the masterpieces special.) But to the degree art is an individual's self-expression, then the fake is what you want. It's not giving you insight into and empathy with a person. You might as well be in love with an AI.

WalterBright 2y ago
> It's not giving you insight into and empathy with a person I'm interested in the beauty of the painting.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Right, that was one of the possibilities I intended in the GP. So why not get good copies made of masterworks? I've thought seriously about it. I sort of tried one. One challenge is that what makes great art exceptionally beautiful is in the 0.0..01% - it's the 99.99/0.01 rule of art. Can an artist making copies reproduce that, even following the genius's completed idea? (Also, they probably won't be working from the original.) I am also going to present an idea for something in addition: The beauty of almost anything is mostly emotional appeal. That song I love, the person I'm attracted to, the architecturally amazing building I see on my commute every day - they have an emotional effect. Arguably, what else is 'beauty' in our minds? What else is the effect of the harmony of certain sets of colors or shapes or representations of life, or the disharmony of others? In much artwork, we can find a deeper emotional connection when we choose to, seeing as a product of the creator's mind and soul, one work a result of a lifetime of being human, maybe decades of exploration as an artist as well as expert skill and knowledge development, and the weeks / months / or more put into that particular vision. And we get to stand there and stare at it, at them, delving into their mind and soul. When else can we do that; when else does someone express something so deep so openly - and with such expertise - and we can examine it?

bruce511 2y ago

There are two ways to look at art. First is for you personally to have something you enjoy to look at. Second is to have sonething that impresses others (perhaps a buyer.) Owning a beautiful Van Gough is a pleasure to look at. Frankly if it visually fools an expert then it completely fulfill goal 1. But if you're trying to impress others, or a buyer, then the point is not the painting itself, but rather the status it imbues. To those that value status, faked status is the worst offense. Of course if the point is to show "I can afford to spend x million on a painting ", and you did, then forgery or not presumably you've achieved the goal. Once you get beyond "pretty picture" the art world is completely arbitrary.

WalterBright 2y ago
I've hung prints on the walls, but they aren't as nice as an actual painting, as the paint gives it a glow and 3D look that a flat print cannot match. I'd be happy hanging up worthless fakes that it takes an expert to discern from original great art. My computer "wallpaper" throws up scans of great works of art. Unfortunately, it is bafflingly hard to find good scans of that stuff. It's all public domain, what's the problem?

dontlaugh 2y ago

Indeed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake

xhkkffbf 2y ago

I agree that it doesn't matter to many people. If the image is great, then it's great art. End of story. But when it comes to history, fake art can pollute our knowledge of the painter and the history. While many fakes use the same typical subjects, imagine that a faker created a canvas with a different story. If this story gets injected into the history, everyone's knowledge of the painter is corrupted.