1/Reading more about this and was reminded of Elmyr de Hory, considered the greatest art forger of the 20th century. He was unique in that he could copy seemingly *any* painter or style.
Robert Anton Wilson had this to say about him:
Robert Anton Wilson had this to say about him:
https://twitter.com/jposhaughnessy/status/1368030936269459458
2/ "[He] was the greatest art forger of the 20th century. He was versatile. Previous art forgers have specialized in one or two artists, but Elmyr was doing van Goghs and Cezannes and Modiglianis and Rembrandts and damn near everybody. It is
3/ believed by many that there are Elmyrs hanging in every major museum in the world still. Which makes sense, because the experts who authenticated them would look less like experts if they announced, “We’ve changed our mind and we now think they’re forgeries.”
4/This brings to mind a real challenge in the way subjective value is determined. All of the experts are hamstrung by their unwillingness to admit to an error, as they believe that it will call into question *all* of their previous opinions on provence of an artwork.
5/ but the inability to correct previous errors starts an unfortunate downward spiral, since error-correction is a vital part of improving and upgrading your process.
“Without error-correction all information processing, and hence all knowledge-creation, is necessarily bounded."
“Without error-correction all information processing, and hence all knowledge-creation, is necessarily bounded."
6/ That's a quote from @DavidDeutschOxf whose book "The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World" I am currently rereading.
A common theme he returns to again and again is that it was in "The Enlightenment" period that the "Question Authority" and
A common theme he returns to again and again is that it was in "The Enlightenment" period that the "Question Authority" and
7/ Horace's "Nullius in Verba" became the standards that replaced the unquestioning faith that many had in "the Authorities" of either the Church or State.
Which brings me back to the conundrum facing the art world: If the so-called "experts" are so easily fooled, coupled with
Which brings me back to the conundrum facing the art world: If the so-called "experts" are so easily fooled, coupled with
8/ their unwillingness to admit to and learn from their errors, how will we ever have faith that something we're looking at is a true Rembrandt or van Gothe? And--this is a much thornier question--does it matter?
Presumably, a work of art that has given some form of joy or
Presumably, a work of art that has given some form of joy or
9/ insight to a viewer has done its job, and the question of authenticity tied to a particular artist should be of secondary concern.
But that's not the way things work in the real world. It seems a common component of our HumanOS is to strongly desire "scarce" resources,
But that's not the way things work in the real world. It seems a common component of our HumanOS is to strongly desire "scarce" resources,
10/ perhaps as a signaling mechanism to our rivals that we are higher in the social hierarchy then they. This leads to any number of questions about the nature and purpose of art that will have to be left for another thread.
In the meantime, it seems that a natural outcome
In the meantime, it seems that a natural outcome
11/ here will be an unestablished person or group, with perhaps a new, more technical standard for authenticity and provence, will burst on the scene and make all of the current "experts" look foolish, but it also wouldn't surprise me one bit if the network of galleries, museums
12/ high-end dealers and collectors might be, ah, putout by such a thing happening. Imagine all of the museums who think they own Picassos worth $100 million finding out that it is, in fact, a Elmyr forgery, worth exactly zero. This alone makes your head spin as it brings up the
13/ much deeper question--what, in the end, is "value" and how complex is the web surrounding it. Which, in this era of NFTs, competing digital currencies and similar innovations is a very important question to try to answer.
In the meantime, let's leave with a suitable
In the meantime, let's leave with a suitable
14/ mindfuck. Orson Welles made the "documentary" "F is for Fake" near the end of his life. It concerns Clifford Irving, the famous hoaxer who wrote a fake biography of Howard Hughes and was, at the time, writing a fake biography about a fake artist. Got it so far? As it turned
15/ out, Welles admitted that the "documentary" was *itself* fake (in its presentation at the very least) so we have the delicious treat of a fake movie, about a fake writer wring a fake biography of Hughes and, for good measure, on the forger Elmyr de Hory. Whew! The head spins.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
