Similar economic incentives drive similar situations, or so sez me. Fraud in the art auction market is not so different from fraud in the wine market, except for higher tickets on the art, and that all of our "galleries" are still in business.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Some reflections of Rudy
- Thread starter SFJoe
- Start date
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
The more interesting art frauds to me are the authentic works that sell for obscene amounts of money despite evidencing no skill, aesthetic or intellectual appeal, or redeeming value of any kind. There are wine analogues to these, too.
U
Unknown
Guest
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
The more interesting art frauds to me are the authentic works that sell for obscene amounts of money despite evidencing no skill, aesthetic or intellectual appeal, or redeeming value of any kind. There are wine analogues to these, too.
Are there flying consultants for this kind of art as well, or just commercial real estate brokers in Soho?
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
authentic works that sell for obscene amounts of money despite evidencing no skill, aesthetic or intellectual appeal, or redeeming value of any kind.
Reminds me of William F. Buckley: "The Beatles are not merely awful. They are so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic."
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by SFJoe:
Some reflections of RudySimilar economic incentives drive similar situations, or so sez me. Fraud in the art auction market is not so different from fraud in the wine market, except for higher tickets on the art, and that all of our "galleries" are still in business.
Except of course that a painting good enough to pass as say a Rothko by people who can tell the difference really is as good an artwork as a Rothko by Rothko. It just doesn't happen to be by Rothko. No doubt its exchange value is different, but that's a different issue.
The same would be true of a "1947 Cheval Blanc" that tasted exactly like a 1947 Cheval Blanc. But I don't believe anyone does such side by side tastings or care because for wine of that price, exchange value is value.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Yes, with the caveat that "people who can tell the difference" is not quite so clear cut. There is often considerable disagreement amongst experts. In any case, the growing and widespread use of fabricators by artists has made the autograph aspect that is at the heart of the issue here somewhat dispensable.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by SFJoe:
Some reflections of RudySimilar economic incentives drive similar situations, or so sez me. Fraud in the art auction market is not so different from fraud in the wine market, except for higher tickets on the art, and that all of our "galleries" are still in business.
Except of course that a painting good enough to pass as say a Rothko by people who can tell the difference really is as good an artwork as a Rothko by Rothko. It just doesn't happen to be by Rothko. No doubt its exchange value is different, but that's a different issue.
The same would be true of a "1947 Cheval Blanc" that tasted exactly like a 1947 Cheval Blanc. But I don't believe anyone does such side by side tastings or care because for wine of that price, exchange value is value.
People pay large amounts for these objects for different reasons. You're not saying, for example, that a perfect replica of a Gutenberg Bible would sell for the same price as an original, are you? Or, to generalize, there is no reason why anyone would pay the tariff for a first edition of a book that can be read online for free or bought in an inexpensive paperback or electronic edition?
I.e., what you refer to as "exchange value" is valuing something other than the aesthetic value.
With respect to fake paintings or manuscripts, etc., there is a value to many of us in having an accurate historical record from which to write history.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by SFJoe:
Some reflections of RudySimilar economic incentives drive similar situations, or so sez me. Fraud in the art auction market is not so different from fraud in the wine market, except for higher tickets on the art, and that all of our "galleries" are still in business.
Except of course that a painting good enough to pass as say a Rothko by people who can tell the difference really is as good an artwork as a Rothko by Rothko. It just doesn't happen to be by Rothko. No doubt its exchange value is different, but that's a different issue.
The same would be true of a "1947 Cheval Blanc" that tasted exactly like a 1947 Cheval Blanc. But I don't believe anyone does such side by side tastings or care because for wine of that price, exchange value is value.
I have an empty bottle of '47 Cheval Blanc on a shelf in my dining room that I'm pretty sure didn't contain any '47 Cheval Blanc by the time my corkscrew reached it.
I was pretty convinced of that at the time I opened it.
The mercy of the paintings is that at least you can take a look before you buy.
I've tasted a lot of fraudulent wine in the last 20 years. I'm sure some of it fooled me, but a lot of it was quite obvious at the time.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by SFJoe:
Some reflections of RudySimilar economic incentives drive similar situations, or so sez me. Fraud in the art auction market is not so different from fraud in the wine market, except for higher tickets on the art, and that all of our "galleries" are still in business.
Except of course that a painting good enough to pass as say a Rothko by people who can tell the difference really is as good an artwork as a Rothko by Rothko. It just doesn't happen to be by Rothko. No doubt its exchange value is different, but that's a different issue.
The same would be true of a "1947 Cheval Blanc" that tasted exactly like a 1947 Cheval Blanc. But I don't believe anyone does such side by side tastings or care because for wine of that price, exchange value is value.
I have an empty bottle of '47 Cheval Blanc on a shelf in my dining room that I'm pretty sure didn't contain any '47 Cheval Blanc by the time my corkscrew reached it.
I was pretty convinced of that at the time I opened it.
The mercy of the paintings is that at least you can take a look before you buy.
I've tasted a lot of fraudulent wine in the last 20 years. I'm sure some of it fooled me, but a lot of it was quite obvious at the time.
I was talking with the chef of a very celebrated restaurant here a few weeks ago (someone who actually takes a serious interest in wine), and he said that he sees lots of expensive fake bottles brought into his restaurant.
What's particularly interesting is the denial that is going on with some collectors. To admit that they may have fakes in their collection would then call for a mea culpa like that issued by Paul Wasserman about what Rudy did to him -- he no longer knows what part of his knowledge is based on genuine wine and what part on fakes. And so they lose much of their "authority." (Um, not to mention, also, that admitting purchase of fakes will decrease the value of their collections, which are often so large that there is a significant resale calculation built in.)
The denial is totally amazing. The dudes with ridiculous wines who will totally serve them with a straight face. Who think that is less mortifying than acknowledging what's what.
But running around serving ridiculous wines and asking people to accept them as real, or otherwise to call you out for a duel, is so juvenile and yet so common among our 0.1%.
But running around serving ridiculous wines and asking people to accept them as real, or otherwise to call you out for a duel, is so juvenile and yet so common among our 0.1%.
Ken Schramm
Ken Schramm
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
authentic works that sell for obscene amounts of money despite evidencing no skill, aesthetic or intellectual appeal, or redeeming value of any kind.
Reminds me of William F. Buckley: "The Beatles are not merely awful. They are so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic."
Some beholders simply do not deserve eyes. Thank goodness it was for William F. Buckley to decide. He was so... down to earth.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by SFJoe:
Some reflections of RudySimilar economic incentives drive similar situations, or so sez me. Fraud in the art auction market is not so different from fraud in the wine market, except for higher tickets on the art, and that all of our "galleries" are still in business.
Except of course that a painting good enough to pass as say a Rothko by people who can tell the difference really is as good an artwork as a Rothko by Rothko. It just doesn't happen to be by Rothko. No doubt its exchange value is different, but that's a different issue.
The same would be true of a "1947 Cheval Blanc" that tasted exactly like a 1947 Cheval Blanc. But I don't believe anyone does such side by side tastings or care because for wine of that price, exchange value is value.
People pay large amounts for these objects for different reasons. You're not saying, for example, that a perfect replica of a Gutenberg Bible would sell for the same price as an original, are you? Or, to generalize, there is no reason why anyone would pay the tariff for a first edition of a book that can be read online for free or bought in an inexpensive paperback or electronic edition?
I.e., what you refer to as "exchange value" is valuing something other than the aesthetic value.
With respect to fake paintings or manuscripts, etc., there is a value to many of us in having an accurate historical record from which to write history.
I believe if you look closely, you will find you repeated what I said: exchange value differs from aesthetic value. By the way, I am hardly the only or the first one to use the term "exchange value," though I would be happy to have credit for the concept purloined off on me.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
A "Rothko that doesn't happen to be from Rothko" is useless, perhaps worse than useless. As the owner of a Dali that happens to be from Carlos Galofré, I believe I know whereof I speak.
[ I am reminded, in the reverse way, of the recent kerfuffle in Florida concerning the destruction of a piece of work by Ai Weiwei. The destroyer -- a local artist who thought he could make a point about how the museum should pay attention to local artists instead of foreign ones -- destroyed one of Ai Weiwei's pots. He did not stop to consider that Ai Weiwei makes a point of using real Han dynasty antiques in his work. ]
[ I am reminded, in the reverse way, of the recent kerfuffle in Florida concerning the destruction of a piece of work by Ai Weiwei. The destroyer -- a local artist who thought he could make a point about how the museum should pay attention to local artists instead of foreign ones -- destroyed one of Ai Weiwei's pots. He did not stop to consider that Ai Weiwei makes a point of using real Han dynasty antiques in his work. ]
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
A "Rothko that doesn't happen to be from Rothko" is useless, perhaps worse than useless. As the owner of a Dali that happens to be from Carlos Galofré, I believe I know whereof I speak.
[ I am reminded, in the reverse way, of the recent kerfuffle in Florida concerning the destruction of a piece of work by Ai Weiwei. The destroyer -- a local artist who thought he could make a point about how the museum should pay attention to local artists instead of foreign ones -- destroyed one of Ai Weiwei's pots. He did not stop to consider that Ai Weiwei makes a point of using real Han dynasty antiques in his work. ]
A Rothko that doesn't happen to be from Rothko may be worthless. I expect a Rothko that is from Rothko is as useless as one that isn't (except for the purposes of investment). But a Rothko not from Rothko may or may not be a better painting, according to your taste.