Fake paintings

[ZeroOne]

I just saw a TV document about counterfeited paintings and discovering if they are original or not. They used all kinds of funny stuff like some proton cannon to measure the x-rays sent back and electron microscope to see the paint particles...

Now my question is this: if the fake painting looks just like the original, no one could tell the difference if not *very* conversant with counterfeits, why isn't it as valuable as the original? Sure the original author author would lose money but what if s/he had been dead for 500 years already. Then that problem doesn't exist.

We shall assume that this painting is not like Mona Lisa which is safely where it is and if another one was brought up it could be judged as a counterfeit without even looking at it.
A long lost or a totally new ([claimed to be] found from someone's attic) painting from some known author would be a case we are talking about.

Is it just the name that costs, the subject, the paints, the way it's made with (brush draws etc.), what? Why?

[avdven]

I think a very big part of the cost of images such as the Mona Lisa is, in fact, the name of the artist and/or the work of art in question. My ex-girlfriend, for instance, was very much into the humanities (art, culture, etc.) and she showed me images of (in my opinion) very poor works of art by very famous artists which auctioned off at outrageous amounts of money.

Counterfeits, even hand-made ones, will also never be worth as much simply because they *aren't original*. Just relate it to movies... saw I were to remake a famous movie, it wouldn't make nearly as much money or earn very much respect, even if I did a masterful job on it, simply because it'd already been done before. I would also be violating the copyright laws on it (something which applies to art as well (though maybe by a different name)).

Finally, in response to question regarding finding a long lost or totally new piece of art by a famous artists, there are always ways to tell whether it is authentic or not, such as dating the piece of art (to ensure that it was made during the correct time period), authenticating the style, types of material used, signature (if present), etc.

AJ

[Joey_Batch_File]

I would like to point out one thing everyone knows about collecting. An item is valued at how rare it is, and the demand for it. Any Joey_Batch_File would be able to afford a replica piece of art, because s/he may not understand art, and only be purchasing it for its looks. When it comes down to ART, the people who are purchasing these pieces are trying to buy original one of a kind conversation pieces, and for an original one of a kind paintings that were originally created in the 1800's, and is still in marvoulous condition. You are looking to be paying big bucks. So I would say the age of it would also have an part in this whole discussion. Also remember, their paint, and brushes were different back in the days. It really is a piece of history.

[Palemoon]

As an artist I will say this an original was created by the painter with all their moods their time in history often times as now days they were out of the box but made nothing more then maybe a meal for their works. A copy of these works do not hold the soul of the painter any artist put a part of their soul spirit their baggage of their life in their works good and bad lacking a precepption of soul and spirit they record their prespective of everyday life. Copies hold little value because they are that only a copy and not the spirit of the artist nor express the daily struggle many artist live, they lack copies the originator the artist and copies are for selfish profit, art is given to all it's value is set by men and women to the artist the reward is the work.

[MrBert]

Realating this to movies is not a good comparison not even comparing it to music would be suitable. Due to the fact that there is a lot of money made from reproducing originals. Sure it is not the same sometime even better. Oceans 11 reacently made a lot of money and it was a remake of an older ver of the movie. Cover songs are a big part of the music industry.

[Joey_Batch_File]

I agree Mr. Bert, not to get off of ZeroOne's Topic, because this thread is about the value of paintings. I do believe Paintings cannot be compared to Movies/Music. I believe alot of people look for the advancements in technology to take over with the re-releases and remakes of movies, and as far as music goes. It is often looked at as how it is improved, or changed. I don't believe people want to see art changed, or recreated. They appreciate originality, and that is not seen often enough in the creation of Music & Movies.

[avdven]

You're right... it was a poor analogy (I'm really tired today and it made sense at the time...) But anyway, I do agree with everyone's ideas about originality (that was what I was trying to go for, but it came out kinda wrong) and that a majority of art is popular or expensive or what not due to that originality. I really like how Palemoon put it when he said:

"Copies hold little value because they are that only a copy and not the spirit of the artist nor express the daily struggle many artist live, they lack copies the originator the artist and copies are for selfish profit, art is given to all it's value is set by men and women to the artist the reward is the work."

I think that covers it very well. :-)

AJ

[ZeroOne]

Originally posted here by avdven
Counterfeits, even hand-made ones, will also never be worth as much simply because they *aren't original*.

Just to ******** this, we are talking about quality fake paintings made by experienced, skillfulled falsefiers. You can't see the difference between this and the original without some hi-tech things.

Finally, in response to question regarding finding a long lost or totally new piece of art by a famous artists, there are always ways to tell whether it is authentic or not, such as dating the piece of art (to ensure that it was made during the correct time period), authenticating the style, types of material used, signature (if present), etc.

It's much easier to tell if the painting is a fake than if it is an original. Let's take Van Goch's Sunflower-series: http://www.vangoghgallery.com/misc/sunflowers.htm
He made eight different pictures of sunflowers. What if a new similar pic was found and identified to be from around 1888? Cannot be proven that it was made by Goch but neither can be proven that is wasn't.

Originally posted here by Palemoon
Copies hold little value because they are that only a copy and not the spirit of the artist nor express the daily struggle many artist live, they lack copies the originator the artist and copies are for selfish profit, art is given to all it's value is set by men and women to the artist the reward is the work.

What would happen if we got an Universal Replicator(tm) which could create a molecule perfect copy of, say, Mona Lisa? Would both paintings still be as expensive as the one used to be? Would their prize go to half of the original?

[Palemoon]

Again the point you cannot see a painting holds the sum of the artist the work was not produced to make money was only an expression of the artist. Make a perfect copy I'd notice subtile things, laike lack of emotions of the copy. I'm not a collector hoard works of art as a means to say I can afford them. If one looks beyond the price one finds the artist expression is that work a prize for one? Is it a copy? Art speaks of humanity what value it may have a copy shold be labeled a reproduction to the final stroke of the brush. If you place vale in a copy so be it if you value the original has no price it is for all, own it wow hide it away in the collection. The value of art is what is on displayed not in some collectors private I own it cause I can vault. Art has no price in it's original state, again maybe the artist just needed to eat that day.

[qwerty_smith]

would both of their prices fall? is the first one worth less now that there are two of them? imho, the first one, lovingly created by the artist as s/he touches paint to canvass or whatever the case may be, that one should be worth more. however, if you put them both under the nutshell game, would we be able to tell the difference? ,maybe not. that is why duplications are wrong. perhaps the mona lisa we see in the louvre was a fake created just after da vinci did it and the real one is hanging in someone's garage thought a fake? that really brings to question the validity of the paintings we see. how many slip through? those would be some interesting statistics.