Art Fakes And Forgeries Example

The following sample essay on Art Fakes And Forgeries deals with a framework of research-based facts, approaches, and arguments concerning this theme. To see the essay’s introduction, body paragraphs and conclusion, read on. The two essays, “What is Wrong with a Forgery,” by Alfred Lessing and “Artistic Crimes,” by Denis Dutton, explore the different reasons that they give negative connotation to the concept of an artistic forgery. Each author concludes that a forgery is indeed wrongful, however their reasons for this conclusion differ in several distinct ways.

This essay will summarize both authors’ main points and compare and contrast the fundamental differences of their arguments.

Lessing begins “What is Wrong with a Forgery” by establishing that forgeries are not void of aesthetic value. In fact, he states that a clear distinction must be made between the qualities that make a piece of art aesthetically pleasing and the non-aesthetic qualities that art critics consider when analyzing a piece. The concept of a forgery, he says, is purely non-aesthetic and should not be used to describe the beauty of a piece.

To further illustrate this point and later points in his essay, Lessing introduces the case of the Johannes Vermeer fakes done by Hans van Meegeren.

The painting The Disciples was thought to be a Vermeer masterpiece for 7 years until van Meegeren revealed that he had actually done the painting and misrepresented it as Vermeer’s. Lessing says, “The fact that The Disciples is a forgery is just that, a fact. It is a fact about the painting which stands entirely apart from it as an object for aesthetic contemplation.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified

Proficient in: Aesthetics

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The knowledge of this fact can neither add anything to nor subtract anything from the aesthetic experience. Here Lessing establishes that his problem with the forgery does not lie within the aesthetic value of the art, so he introduces what he believes to be the real problem with a forgery: that it is an offense against what he calls “the spirit of the art,” and he contends that a forgery, such as The Disciples, “lacks artistic integrity. ” To further illustrate this he considers that the concept of forgery cannot be applied to the performing arts, a concept which Dutton refuses to accept in his essay, which we will explore later.

Lessing uses this concept to draw a distinction between creativity or originality and reproduction or technique. Technique, he says is public, it is something anyone can possess or learn, while originality or creativity is a deeper concept to explore. Both qualities in perfect balance, he asserts, are necessary to create a great work of art. Lessing says forgery is in the concept of originality and not technique stating, “forgery is a concept that can be made meaningful only by reference to the concept of originality, and hence only to art viewed as a creative, not as a reproductive or technical, activity.

The element of performance or technique in art cannot be an object for forgery because technique is not the kind of thing that can be forged. Technique is, as it were, public. ” In the Vermeer case, it is not the technique that was forged but his discovery of it; his originality in its use. Lessing further defines his view of artistic originality and its importance. He contends that true artistic originality comes from the impact on the history and progression of art. Vermeer, he says was a great artist because he brought new and original technique and style to the artistic community and profoundly impacted art history.

The ability to produce aesthetically beautiful pieces of art is not all that makes a great artist, but it is this originality or “the fact that [Vermeer] painted certain pictures in a certain manner at a certain time in the history and development of art. ” Van Meegeren did not possess this, he only had the technique to reproduce Vermeer’s originality. Lessing concludes with the assertion that since van Meegeren’s painting is aesthetically beautiful it is actually shows what a great artist Vermeer was.

It is a testament to the original genius of Vermeer’s style and technique brought about in the 17th century. In Dutton’s essay, “Artistic Crimes” he, like Lessing, agrees that the intrinsic aesthetic properties of a work of art are not changed by the revelation that the piece is actually a forgery. Dutton’s stance on the issue of why a forgery is wrong differs most from Lessing’s in that he argues that there can be no distinction between creative and performing art. In Dutton’s opinion, every work of art involves some element of performance.

The difference is whether we perceive the moment of performance or if we only see the end product of the performance. Regardless, this performance must be considered in appreciating a work of art. A performance he says represents a sense of accomplishment or achievement. Dutton states, “As performances, works of art represent the ways in which artists solve problems, overcome obstacles, make do with available materials. ” This is an aspect of a piece that cannot be ignored when fully appreciating its artistic value.

Dutton’s main problem with forgery then is not the lack of originality that Lessing speaks of, but that a forgery misrepresents achievement. In the van Meegeren case, for example, the problem is in that it was a much greater achievement for Vermeer to paint his masterpieces during the 17th century with the resources and technology at that time, than it is for van Meegeren to paint the same way in the 20th century with many more resources available. Another difference between Lessing and Dutton’s argument is that Dutton believes that a forgery does have originality and this is not its problem.

Lessing believes that this lack of originality is the fundamental problem with the forgery, but Dutton states, “even forgeries – those putative paradigm cases of unoriginal effort – can have strikingly original aspects. ” He goes on further to say that the van Meegerens are actually original van Meegerens, an original performance by van Meegeren was misrepresented as a Vermeer performance. Here, he asserts, is the misrepresentation of achievement that is the problem with a forgery.

Dutton reiterates that the knowledge of the origin of a work and the artistic achievement that the piece represents is crucial to appreciating a work of art. The “aesthetic experience” that Lessing speaks of in his essay, Dutton discredits stating, “The encounter with a work of art does not consist in merely hearing a succession of pretty sounds or seeing an assemblage of pleasing shapes and colors. ” The artistic experience he asserts is much more complex than that and when the performance that led to a piece of art is misrepresented the achievement that the art represents is misrepresented.

To learn this fact changes the entire artistic experience when appreciating all aspects of the piece including the performance that led to its existence. Both Lessing and Dutton agree that the aesthetics of a piece are not altered by the acquired knowledge that it is a forgery. Where the two authors differ is in their concept of experiencing art. Dutton discredits Lessing’s belief in a purely aesthetic experience, believing that there are many more aspects involved in the artistic experience than pure aesthetics.

The authors’ other key disagreement is in Lessing’s distinction between performing and creative art, saying that a forgery only exists in the creative aspect and the lack of originality in style and technique is where the forgery is wrong. However, Dutton disagrees, asserting that every piece of art involves a performance and this misrepresented performance misrepresents achievement. This is Lessing’s problem with a forgery because the achievement of the artist must be considered during any artistic experience.