The initial stages of an investigation into the role and value of forged artworks in the art market should begin with the Caslon Analytics profile on Forgery, Fraud and Forensics. As noted in the previous post, this site provides a wealth of information on the topic of forgery and fine arts through links to articles, websites and books that cover every possible aspect of the topic. Also useful for a brief overview of the topic are A History of Art Forgery, Art Cult and the Wikipedia page on Art Forgery.
Amongst the articles linked from the Caslon site is Professor Ken Polk’s article, Who Wins and Who Loses When Art is Stolen or Forged?, and Robyn Sloggett’s article All That Glitters …, both of which deal with a number of the issues connected with forged or fake artworks and the way in which they disturb the art market. Sloggett’s article is particularly useful as she makes the point that a fair amount of the fake art that is circulating in the art market has simply “slipped” in there. This includes works that were never manufactured to mislead, but with the passing of time developed reputations beyond their humble beginnings. It also includes unattributed works that gain attribution, as seen in the work of Will Blundell. Sloggett’s article also touches on the issue of verification and the role of scientific validation; an issue that is also taken up in a newspaper article titled ‘Original Sins’.
The science of art forgery
Some of the ways that authorities are dealing with the legal aspects of these practices are highlighted in Paul Baker’s article on Policing Fakes and the Simpsons Solicitors’ Fakes, Forgeries and Fees. Anecdotally there are more art forgeries in the market than was previously thought, and it is important to consider the impact that this has on museums, galleries, auction houses and the people working in these organisations who bear some responsibility for letting these fakes slip through the cracks. Reputations are at stake and no one wants to be the person to stand up and accuse a dealer of trying to sell a fake work.
The cultural significance of fake works is a fascinating element of this whole case study since it raises questions about the value of fake works and whether the artists who are creating these works deserve some acclaim. If an expert is unable to tell the difference between an original and a fake, then surely the fake is just as good as the original. However, if a fake is deemed to be equally “good” as the original, then this lessens the value of the original, by deeming a fake to be as culturally significant as the authentic work. These issues are particularly addressed by some of the articles in Ronald D. Spencer’s 2004 edited collection The Expert versus the Object: Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the Visual Arts.
NB: The picture is from Sciencelabs.com.