3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat was my thought too. Perhaps this is more a case of successful social engineering of museum acquisitions people than of artistic prowess.
- bmelton 12y agoI 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 agoAgree, 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 agoThe colours are different because of the difference in age. They tend to fade...
- exceptione 12y agoI 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.