quote:A Raphael painting bought by Britain's National Gallery this month for $41.7 million is a fake, a U.S. art professor says. . .
An ancestor of the Duke bought the 1507-8 picture in 1853 but it was long considered a copy until 1991 when Nicholas Penny, the Gallery's curator, examined the picture and hailed it as the rediscovered masterpiece.
Beck told the paper his research led him to believe the painting was in fact made in 1827 by Vincenzo Camuccini, a frequent copyist of Raphael and a recognized faker.
"I think he did this not only for money, but to compete with the Great Masters and fool the public," he said.
The Gallery has listed 40 versions of the painting around the world, while Beck said he had found at least five more. Beck said he believed none of the surviving versions was by Raphael.
The Gallery has said the picture, which measures just 11.4 by nine inches, had a different finish and coloring to other Raphael's but added it followed the advice of 25 Raphael experts who all confirmed the attribution.
So here's my question; apart from the dishonesty of the forger which is inherently wrong, does it matter whether or not any piece of art is exactly what we think it is?
This all comes down to the sanctity of the "grand masters." What makes the Mona Lisa so valuable and such a hot commodity? Is it any better than anything else in the Louvre? Is it a technical marvel? The only reason it's so valuable is because we've assigned it value.
When people marvel at a work of renaissance art, they're not marvelling at a physical canvas and overcome with the fact that Raphael actually touched it with his own two hands. They're marvelling at the brilliant mind that thought to portray the Virgin as a loving mother sitting in a triangular composition in a pastoral setting, using linear perspective. They're marvelling at the artwork as a digital object (a noumenon, if you will) rather than an analog object (a phenomenon) simply because we have no way of truly knowing the authenticity of anything. Everything we admire is admired in the context of a story. If one part of that story happens to be physically insubstantiateable, does that make the cultural story any less meaningful?
If physical reality has to be established, then a large number of contemporary artists from Jeff Koonz to Christo to Matthew Barney are not artists at all (heh - I suppose this could be argued anyway) because they do no more of the execution of their artwork than an architect does of his building. Their work could be "forged" - masterfully re-created by a Vincenzo Camuccini, and it would be every bit as valid as the first time it was exhibited. As long as, of course, it had the official sanction to be so.
So if the National Gallery tells us it's a Raphael, isn't it - for all intents and purposes - a Raphael?
posted
Hmm. I can't think of a way to address this that doesn't bring up the Iraq WMD intelligence. It seems that when these experts are putting together their opinions, someone has an interest in coming to a conclusion that apparently is not right. Who is to blame?
But the multi-million pricetag as a feature of authenticity has always been rather ludicrous to me. I remember when some paintings done by Hitler were auctioned for a fair bit, and some folks thought it was disgusting that anyone would honor his memory by wanting them. Particularly because they were artistically unremarkable. But the folks who want these things get some kind of charge from connecting with history. I guess it's as inexplicable as those who find meaning in the pain of childbirth.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why art is subjective. I think it is silly to value "famous" works more than less famous works. I don't think that any piece of artwork has more intrinsic value because of its creator.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess there are those that can appreciate a work in its context of the artist's career. I'm not that knowledgeable about Art History. But in a general sense, I think it is possible to appreciate something for more than its actual appearance.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why the originals shouldn't be worth more. I mean, they're worth more because people want them more. Sure, the image is what you really want, but knowing that Raphael actually made it with his own hands adds to the value for many people. On the other hand, many people couldn't care less if it's an original, but those people don't buy originals. But I don't see why a forgery should have the same value as an original just because they look alike.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is why art is subjective. I think it is silly to value "famous" works more than less famous works. I don't think that any piece of artwork has more intrinsic value because of its creator.
Interesting point, ludosti. So, what are your views between "good art" and "bad art" or "fine art" versus "craft?"
And in your view, should all art be sacrosanct as the grand masters, or should none? Are you a Mark Rothko or an Andy Warhol?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I agree with you Annie, but I have one factor that I can't quite let go of.
You are right, if when we look at a painting all we are seeing is it -- if we're taking in the work itself without any other cultural baggage to inform our viewing of it.
But it's pretty hard to look at art that way. Part of the reason that we want a work to be authentic is because if it really is a Raphael then it connects to his other works and his biography -- both of these things create a context. And that context needs to be authentic, I think. Why? Because while this context is a story, is artificial, we have a hard time immersing ourselves in it if we can *feel* the made-up part of it, the inauthenticity. Or at least, I think this is true of many viewers of art.
For example, Matthew Barney's vasoline sculptures [which I've never seen in person] could be made just as easily by someone else, but they wouldn't mean quite the same thing without the context of Barney's bio and other work.
Now some work can be appreciated entirely on its own [although, I would say that if you see something as *art* then it's never entirely on its own -- it still has a context and history]. But at some point you can't appreciate it further without embedding it in a context -- in a story. And because art is physical -- it takes up space -- I think we want that story to be as true as possible (with the requisite glossings over and exaggerations of course -- we care that Van Gogh cut off his ear, not what he ate for breakfast on Tuesday mornings in April). And so that's why it matters whose hands held the brush or the hammer and chisel.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not quite the same thing but related - an autographed copy of "Ender's Game" has absolutely no intrinsic improvement over an unmarked copy. The story is the same, the condition is the same (better, as it's unsoiled), it doesn't even increase the weight or nutritional content.
But a copy you've had signed, watching OSC sign it and smile at you and seem absolutely delighted that you came to see him and that his work made a difference in your life, that can be a valuable thing indeed. The way I value art has very little to do with intrinsic value and everything to do with what it means to me personally.
Similarly, if the visual impact of the art is all that matters, I'm happy with a print. But if for whatever reason I have a personal connection to the artist behind the work, then the original will have much more meaning for me.
[ February 20, 2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Now if someone else made a copy of the Raphael, even with his permission, it wouldn't be the same, not if I was a devotee.
To stretch my pained analogy even further, a book OSC signed to me, in front of me, has much more meaning than an autographed one I could buy from eBay. There's no connection there, no sense of continuity.
Again, this is just me. I don't buy art over $20 anyway. But there is a difference to me between going to a museum and looking at an original vs looking at the copy of it for sale in the museum gift shop. It's not just a visual experience, it's the sense of history and my connection to it.
I'm not sure I can explain it, but it's there.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you've changed the question. I still consider copies art. I consider almost anything art that's created. Whether it's good art is highly subjective, as it must be. Whether it's important is for others to decide. Whether it's valuable art is for the market to establish.
You were asking about the value of the art and what makes one version more valuable than another. Heck, even different paintings by the same artist have different values, determined by the quality of the work, the rarity of the piece, the significance to the world of art, and how much people want it.
[ February 20, 2004, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Duchamp's "read mades" aren't works of art -- they're statements of art criticism. That kind of stuff can be okay, but too much of it informs the modern world of art, and it doesn't do much for me.
Now don't force me to distinguish between when a work is a piece of art and when it is art criticism -- all works are both to some extent, but I don't know that I can draw many lines.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it was at Endercon that OSC said someone asked him to sign their first edition of Ender's Game, and he told them it would decimate the value, but they didn't care. They wanted the autograph more than the collectability value. I thought that was nice. I mean, I hope that person was so attached to the book they would never sell it anyway. Maybe I messed up the story.
That's interesting that Raphael produced copies, but then they didn't have other means of making copies back then. I don't know if him making copies makes him less of a "great master" any more than him being a "great master" makes his work more valuable.
This reminds me of the argument over the value of gold. I contend that it is arbitrary, but my husband thinks it is inherently more valuable than silver or printed paper. Now when I say it is arbitrary, I don't mean that I personally arbitrate the value. Just that the value is relative to the society.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A friend and I once thought that we'd love to see a place like the Louvre remove all the labels from all their exhibits, just for a week, to watch where the people would choose to mill about if they didn't know which pieces were "important." This would be especially interesting at a museum of contemporary art. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the National Gallery were trying to raise funds to buy the painting, they ran a campaign on the principle that this painting was an icon for teenage, single mothers, demonstrating the deep and abiding love a young mother could have for her child, against all the odds.
Art can be viewed on many levels. I think those who cannot see beyond the name of the man or woman who painted it are missing most of the meaning behind a painting or sculpture. Art, to me is about how these things touch you, what you see in it. There are some paintings that I see differently every day, that change their meaning for me year on year. Those are the paintings that mean something to me, and I don't care who painted them.
The idea that something like this might be an inspiration for a young woman searching for a role model, that some strokes of paint on a piece of cloth might give hope and meaning to someone - that means more than a name, surely?
But then, I'm not an art dealer. What do I know?
Posts: 119 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
