5 ms·

An Infamous Art Forger on His Most Convincing Works

26 points by sew 12y ago

tjr 12y ago
Some very skillful work, though I have a hard time imagining a museum accepting such copies as originals, at least assuming they had a print of the original to compare with. The basic structure is there, and pretty perfectly from what I can see, but some details differ. What kind of review process goes on at museums in these situations?
- wanderingstan 12y ago
  That was my thought too. Perhaps this is more a case of successful social engineering of museum acquisitions people than of artistic prowess.
- bmelton 12y ago
  I was awestruck at how easily detectable these things were, side by side to the originals. It's amazing to me that in this day and age, if this is considered 'par', that any paintings could be successfully forged. That said, in a day and age before the internet, before the originals could be easily pulled up on a phone, I could very easily see how these would be convincing.
- exceptione 12y ago
  Agree, the examples shown here are not convincing. I am aware that my screen might not render the colors faithfully, but the fakes really lack subtlety and 'understanding'. For example, look at Charles Courtney Curran, “Three Women” (1894). The left piece is completely wrong; sunset but the highlights are blueish white. The right piece makes me looking at it by the subtle evening light that brings the scene to life—highlight on the hair, cheeks, the robes. All is gone on the left. The same holds for “Terrassiers, au Trocadero”, the warm blue's are replaced by some heavy cold ones. Also a lot of lost detail again. I have seen way better replica's.
  - sodonan 12y ago
    The colours are different because of the difference in age. They tend to fade...
    - exceptione 12y ago
      I know they change, but not this way for this age of the painting. Also: not fading per se, (oil) paintings tend to get dirty over time and hence get darker.
sp332 12y ago
I think everyone should watch Orson Welles' F for Fake. The main theme of the documentary/exposé is that art is too rarely appreciated for what it is, but more for who made it. And everything went downhill as soon as "experts" started claiming that they could tell a "real" painting from a "fake" and acting as if the fake weren't also valuable as a work of art. If we just got rid of the experts... Wikipedia calls it "meandering" but Welles is far too charismatic to be boring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake <- spoiler in the last 2 paragraphs of the "Plot" section
- frandroid 12y ago
  A copy is not a piece of art. It's a copy of a piece of art. The original was made by the person who conceived the art. That is the value.
  - kazinator 12y ago
    The logical conclusion is that "digital art" is an oxymoron, since it allows exact copies, indistinguishable from originals. If you record yourself playing the violin, but digitally, that sequence of easily reproduced bits isn't a work of art, just a copy: the first copy, of which there will be a second and so on. Also, literature cannot be art, because the words themselves are the poetry or prose, and not the specific representation in orgiginal handwriting or typesetting. When you read an author, you're not really reading the art, but a copy of the art. A handwritten manuscript may be a form of visual art, but what if the manuscript was produced with a generic typewriter, or digitally ...
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      I think what was meant is that the act of copying is not art. Downloading an application isn't programming.
  - sp332 12y ago
    Then how can the "original" painting be a work of art? It's just an artifact of an act of creation. If art is in the act, then the artwork is dead as soon as it is finished.
mlvljr 12y ago
reminds of the nice Incognito movie from 1997 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oCcOh4_LBg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oCcOh4_LBg, if you can handle Russian :) ...or http://vdownload.eu/watch/12633399-incognito-1997-eng.html http://vdownload.eu/watch/12633399-incognito-1997-eng.html if you can handle pirate)

26 points by sew 12y ago

tjr 12y ago

Some very skillful work, though I have a hard time imagining a museum accepting such copies as originals, at least assuming they had a print of the original to compare with. The basic structure is there, and pretty perfectly from what I can see, but some details differ. What kind of review process goes on at museums in these situations?

wanderingstan 12y ago
That was my thought too. Perhaps this is more a case of successful social engineering of museum acquisitions people than of artistic prowess.
bmelton 12y ago
I was awestruck at how easily detectable these things were, side by side to the originals. It's amazing to me that in this day and age, if this is considered 'par', that any paintings could be successfully forged. That said, in a day and age before the internet, before the originals could be easily pulled up on a phone, I could very easily see how these would be convincing.
exceptione 12y ago
Agree, the examples shown here are not convincing. I am aware that my screen might not render the colors faithfully, but the fakes really lack subtlety and 'understanding'. For example, look at Charles Courtney Curran, “Three Women” (1894). The left piece is completely wrong; sunset but the highlights are blueish white. The right piece makes me looking at it by the subtle evening light that brings the scene to life—highlight on the hair, cheeks, the robes. All is gone on the left. The same holds for “Terrassiers, au Trocadero”, the warm blue's are replaced by some heavy cold ones. Also a lot of lost detail again. I have seen way better replica's.
- sodonan 12y ago
  The colours are different because of the difference in age. They tend to fade...
  - exceptione 12y ago
    I know they change, but not this way for this age of the painting. Also: not fading per se, (oil) paintings tend to get dirty over time and hence get darker.

sp332 12y ago

I think everyone should watch Orson Welles' F for Fake. The main theme of the documentary/exposé is that art is too rarely appreciated for what it is, but more for who made it. And everything went downhill as soon as "experts" started claiming that they could tell a "real" painting from a "fake" and acting as if the fake weren't also valuable as a work of art. If we just got rid of the experts... Wikipedia calls it "meandering" but Welles is far too charismatic to be boring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake <- spoiler in the last 2 paragraphs of the "Plot" section

frandroid 12y ago
A copy is not a piece of art. It's a copy of a piece of art. The original was made by the person who conceived the art. That is the value.
- kazinator 12y ago
  The logical conclusion is that "digital art" is an oxymoron, since it allows exact copies, indistinguishable from originals. If you record yourself playing the violin, but digitally, that sequence of easily reproduced bits isn't a work of art, just a copy: the first copy, of which there will be a second and so on. Also, literature cannot be art, because the words themselves are the poetry or prose, and not the specific representation in orgiginal handwriting or typesetting. When you read an author, you're not really reading the art, but a copy of the art. A handwritten manuscript may be a form of visual art, but what if the manuscript was produced with a generic typewriter, or digitally ...
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    I think what was meant is that the act of copying is not art. Downloading an application isn't programming.
- sp332 12y ago
  Then how can the "original" painting be a work of art? It's just an artifact of an act of creation. If art is in the act, then the artwork is dead as soon as it is finished.

mlvljr 12y ago

reminds of the nice Incognito movie from 1997 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oCcOh4_LBg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oCcOh4_LBg, if you can handle Russian :) ...or http://vdownload.eu/watch/12633399-incognito-1997-eng.html http://vdownload.eu/watch/12633399-incognito-1997-eng.html if you can handle pirate)