Art has been used as a mode of expression and individualism since its ‘invent’ many thousands of years ago. It has been used to portray love and hate, beauty and disgust and resonates with in each of us in its own way. As art has become universal, certain artists’ works have become quite valuable. In recent history an original Picasso painting sold for more then $100 million and works from other artistic mavens have been considered priceless. As the price of paintings from certain well known artists’ have increased, forgeries have become so common that it can some times be difficult to discern between the original and the copy. I believe that we have allowed forgeries to become so common that our society may be one day known as the “copycat” generation.
This new insight into forgeries has been ignited by Patricia Cohen and William K. Rashbaum’s article entitled “One Queens Painter Created Forgeries That Sold for Millions, U.S. Says.” The article discusses the shocking tale of an art dealer who misrepresented buyers into paying an estimated $80 million over a 15-year period for art that was allegedly painted by greats like Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning. Sadly these masterworks have been traced back to a single Queens garage where a struggling artist was hired to create imitation pieces. Interestingly enough the artist himself was not included in the indictment perhaps because he wasn’t involved in the sale of the pieces and wasn’t fully aware of what was happening. What makes matters worse is these canvases were sold through a reputable Upper East Side gallery that took in most of the profits. What’s remarkable is how many years had gone by before the forgeries were red flagged. How could it be that the forgery of so many pieces went undetected under the noses of connoisseurs of modern art? How could it be that a man once unappreciated for his art, under different pretenses was selling paintings along side famed artists like Franz Kline and Robert Motherwell? How does a man once in such financial troubles that he was selling his art on the streets under a different façade have his paintings sold for millions of dollars? That begs the question what is art and who defines it? When on the streets his paintings were sold for nearly nothing and in a famous gallery they were reaching prices one could only dream of. Is it the mask and curtains that makes art desirable or is there an intrinsic value?
This article brings to the forefront the idea that forgery is unacceptable and cannot overtake our generation. Greed has clearly made its mark upon the art industry and it must be stopped. Yet the question remains unsolved, what in fact is art and who gives it its value? What makes one piece so much more valuable than another? Is it the art dealer, the art critic or maybe the artist himself?
RASHBAUM, WILLIAM K., and Patricia Cohen. “One Queens Painter Created Forgeries That Sold for Millions, U.S. Says.” The New York Times. N.p., 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 16 Sept. 2013.
(Link to the original article is embedded as a hyperlink in the title of the article in the blog post)
It’s interesting that you chose the same article as Emily Obviously people seem to find it crazy that art forgery still exists especially when it is sold by such a reputable company. I still find it rather terrible that such little compensation was given to the artist who did the actual painting, especially considering how much time and effort it must have taken to replicate every brush stroke perfectly.
Let me start with how much I loved this article. I found it absolutely hysterical how all of these people who were obviously super-rich and probably considered themselves “learned” as far as art goes all dropped millions of dollars on scam pieces of art. They must be feeling pretty foolish. But the reason I actually loved this article was because of how little I appreciate the “great” artists. I feel that many of the greats arn’t much better than many contemporary artists and that there work only sells for such expensive prices because they are known, not because they are good. This article proves my point precisely.
What I really drew from this was who really is to say that the works created by this guy in his garage isn’t “worth” as much or even more than the originals themselves. This can also be see with anything collectible. Besides the forgery aspect that it has in common, take sports memorabilia. Who is to discern the value between autographs of certain players? And yeah, I have a great appreciation for the “starving artist”. If you think about it, It’s almost like Picasso or Van Gogh etc. He never got the recognition for his replications that must obviously have been spot on.
P.S: Josh, I didn’t see too many grammatical mistakes, so don’t worry
-Ralph
That is sad that poor artist was exploited like that. But there are people out there who are only concerned with one thing: money. I feel that whatever amount someone is willing to pay for a piece of art determines its value. Of course, this is relative to everyone — some things may be worth more or less to other people. I agree with Nick that some art pieces (in my opinion) don’t necessarily have to be good, just painted by someone famous. For example, Van Gogh only sold one painting during his lifetime. It wasn’t until after he died did his work become popular.
I think that this can be related to forgery in literature, in an indirect way. The first novels in history all sort of plagiarized off of one another, and it wasn’t considered wrong to do so. As is probably commonly known by now, it is questionable whether Shakespeare actually wrote many of his plays, and whether they were his original ideas (Though hundreds of years later, Shakespeare receives the credit). Yet we hold these to be some of the greatest works of literature. The same question emerges, and it’s an interesting one, of what art actually is. Is it a wholly original field?
Anyway, back to paintings, I think this is really funny. Not even another great renowned artist, but some guy in his garage, was able to recreate “masterpieces.” I wish he’d gotten the money for this! The greed should at least have benefited the person who did all the work. While I think this is very wrong to do, I think that a lot of art is all talk, and this article proved that to me.
Why do some artists today who paint really elaborately and well get no recognition (unless they forge another famous artist’s work that is), while others paint a canvas red and get it hung on the wall of MOMA? It all just confuses me.