janisj

fall06: I don't really have a horse in this race -- however to say you could obviously spot a fake is plain silly. What about all the hundreds of copies/fakes that over the years have been scrutinized by, and hung in, world famous galleries/museums from the MOMA to the Getty to the Tate to the National gallery to the Louvre to the Prado to, to, to. Not until they were subjected to modern scientific techniques were most discovered.

Maybe you should hire yourself out as an expert - oh never mind . . . . .

Dukey

Neo: Why do some folks insist on demeaning those who have the absolute temerity to disgree with them?

fall06

janisj, excuse me, but I never said any such thing. I wasn't talking about fakes. Other people were. Please read what I wrote.

NeoPatrick

I am not demeaning someone for disagreeing with me, Dukey, what a bizarre thing to say. But yes, I AM challenging ANYONE who is so silly they say that no one could fool them with a fine forgery of the Mona Lisa behind glass from 15 feet away-- even if the person saying that is a master art historian, restorer, or other expert. That's not only silly, but just plain ludicrous.

Janis has it right. And while I don't want to speak for her, I don't think the "you" in her sentence referred to you specifically, fall, but rather to anyone who says they can spot a fake from a distance.
Of course someone could tell the difference between a printed poster and the real thing, but a carefully forged copy done by a "master forger" -- NO WAY! And yes, I will continue to disagree with anyone who thinks they are above all the experts in this regard.

nessundorma

fallo6,

No, I don't work for museums. (And I never said sculpture didn't mean anything to me either, as you might have guessed by now. Sorry the link doesn't work.) But seriously, you really shouldn't bother. People are not going to read what you write. Too late for that. You suggested the world might be different from what they know.

Neopolitan,

Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! What else might it take to get you off this fixation? Go in peace. Life is short. Turn a page. Happy travels! Hugs and kisses. It's not important.

NeoPatrick

Fixation? I merely used an example to answer a question/comment here, remembering a bizarre story of a woman who said she was better than all the art experts of the world and no one could fool her with a forgery of a master whether it was behind glass or not.
I doubt I will ever get over that funny, funny idea. It's a hard image to shake.

And for the record I'm not the one so "fixated" on this that I spent the time to search and search for a year old post so I could repost it. Nor when I used my example did I feel it necessary to point out the NAME of the original poster, even giving a history of her other names she's posted by, or making comments about her "obsessing", or misquoting her "fixations". Yet someone else did think it necessary to do all those things. But you are right, let's BOTH turn the page, shall we?

Merry Christmas to you too. But please forgive me if I do comment on posts that people make her in the future -- that's what the website is for, I do believe.

nessundorma

NeoPatrick,

Is that really the way you remember that conversation? It's not hard to find it at all with the search feature. I just found it in less than a minute:

Author: Neopolitan
Date: 04/11/2006, 08:45 pm
I haven't been to the Louvre in a quite a few years. When I last went I did one of those "3 hour tours" as bookmarked above. I guess we were so involved in trying to follow the directions and getting to the right spots, I really don't remember experiencing much art. Yes, I do know we saw the Mona Lisa and Winged Victory. Anything else? I'm not sure. I'd try to avoid being so regimented. And this summer, I pledge to go back and stroll almost at random with a map in my hand. Maybe next time I'll remember something.


Author: nessundorma
Date: 04/12/2006, 05:46 am
It's really unfortunate what has happened to the Mona Lisa. Many years ago, when I lived in Paris, I went to the Louvre at least twice a week. I had little interest in seeing the Mona Lisa, having not liked it in reproductions, so I never sought it out.

One day I walked into the Louvre and found the Mona Lisa and only a half dozen people were there. Within a few minutes, I was the only person there.

The Mona Lisa greatly exceeded my expecations and I learned a great deal about not Leonorado Da Vinci from that day, but about art and painting, too.

The last time I was in Louvre, there were hundreds of people waiting to jam into the small gallery where the painting was hanging. When the reached the Mona Lisa, they began furiously snapping flash cameras that blinded everyone else. People had no compunction about standing directly in front of the painting to have a friend take a picture of themselves. You couldn't see anything.

I'm sorry it is now impossible for people to actually see the Mona Lisa anymore. It's a great loss.


Author: Neopolitan
Date: 04/12/2006, 11:25 am
About the Mona Lisa. Let's face it. We've all seen about a million copies of the painting, often displayed in a much larger size even. So looking at the original behind glass from a bit of a distance can't be much of anything special except for the knowledge of knowing this is indeed the original. To be honest, is there a person here who at that distance and through the glass could actually see any difference if it were just a copy? No.

Now I'm not begrudging the idea of standing there admiring one of the "world's greatest paintings". I really do understand why it is special to know you are looking at the original, but I'm just explaining why I don't think it ends up being the big deal a lot of people expect.

On the other hand, I sort of expected the same sort of "so what?" on going to see the David in Florence. After all, I had seen about a million copies of that sculpture. But seeing that original in its full glory, beautifully displayed and lit really did take my breath away. A totally different experience from seeing the Mona Lisa.

Anyone agree with that assessment?



Author: nessundorma
Date: 04/12/2006, 01:24 pm
I was very encouraged to read the report that by going early in the morning, one can still have a chance to see the Mona Lisa in relative peace, and that cameras have been banned.

I, too, had seen many reproductions of the Mona Lisa and avoided it because I thought I would react as Neopolitan is describing. To this day, I cite my experience of seeing the actual painting by Leonardo da Vinci as an example of how reality overturns preconceptions. I had no trouble whatsoever seeing in an instant why this painting had become world famous and why its reputation for art and craft and mystery had endured through the centuries -- and all this through the glass, too!

Few other paintings transmit such power. And, again, I was expecting to be indifferent.

Whether or not one feels or experiences the impact of a painting has a lot to do with the circumstances of the viewing. Feeling hungry, tired, distracted, in a bothersome crowd can block the appreciation -- as well as individual taste or expectations, etc.

There is no reason one must appreciate the Mona Lisa. And many people can't discern the difference between the real thing and a copy. But to imagine such apprecation is impossible for others is inaccurate.

I can't comment or compare to David -- and I don't know what would be the point of comparing a painting to a sculpture -- but I've never seen the original David in Firenze because Michaelangelo's work holds so little interest for me. If I see it the next time I am in Firenze, I hope I have the same insights I had viewing the Mona Lisa, but if I don't, I'll hardly come back to Fodor's and post it's a crock.

For many of us, there is a distinct difference between seeing the original of a painting and reproductions, whether we are talking about Mondrian or the Mona Lisa. And the original is so often a revelation, we are drawn to museumgoing as a major part of our lives.

I have to say, I do wish the people who can't tell the difference would stay home and look at art books. I am mystified why so many people pack into museums on vacations when they are not really interested.

--------------

And you never responded -- until now. And the things you claimed are in the original conversation aren't there at all.

nessundorma

Finally, to believe that there is no difference between originals and copies would mean believing that all the effort being made to preserve originals, all the money spent on insuring them when the travel, all the art exchanges made are meaningless. Surely the art experts who run museums would simply make copies to lend rather than send the originals, right, if there was no difference?

I am genuinely puzzled what people think museums are, or that they have never apparently never asked themselves why copies of all famous paintings aren't in every museum, or why we should pay taxes to support museums.

Again, if art experts and curators don't accept copies to hang in their museums, do you think that's all a big sham?

NeoPatrick

Gee, didn't someone say "let it go. It isn't important."
I just looked and saw a gigantic post, and NO I am NOT even reading it. This is too silly.

I did see something on the beginning of yet another post saying something about no difference between copies and originals which only shows that this poster doesn't have a CLUE what I am saying. I certainly don't believe that and never have. Enough.

I have let it go. Time for someone else to as well.

ira

>I'm under the impression there is no persuading you that original painting has a life that copies don't,...<

Some paintings, like some other forms of great art do.

>...and that you are hostile to having your ideas contradicted.<

I am always open to new ideas. I am not always convinced.

... Master forgeries or unauthenticated art in people's homes isn't really what I was talking about. <

If three or four experts agree, by relying on their experience at visual examination, that a painting is by Rembrandt, and go on to exclaim (in writing) that it has all of the hallmarks of the Master and shows the vibrancy and life that only Rembrandt could achieve - and it turns out (using physical and chemical methods of analysis) that it was not painted by Rembrandt - what _are_ you talking about?

Have you looked into how many paintings attributed to the Great Masters (new and old) are being downgraded to "from the studio of", "from the school of", "in the manner of"?

Any one who can paint a good forgery can paint a good copy.



I have always wondered: if a forgery is so good that it can fool experts, why isn't it a great work by itself?

NeoPatrick

OH, ira, I'll answer that last one.

Because a work of art must involve imagination and creativity. A great forgery does neither. It merely copies. It doesn't create or even interpret. It fact a master forgery cannot interpret at all, or something would change in the work of art.

It could even be argued that a great forger of paintings is not really an artist, but simply a master craftsman. There is a difference.

Now this may seem to contradict some of my statements about no one really being able to tell the difference at 15 feet. Not at all. I still maintain that a fine craftsman can totally copy the original work of art so that not even an expert could tell the difference -- this is a known fact, backed by millions of dollars spent paying experts to try to tell the difference. But I'll still say we all have certain illusions about ourselves. If someone wants to believe he/she is the only person alive who could actually spot the difference from 15 feet and from behind glass, well whom is their little dream hurting after all? Let them live the dream.

NeoPatrick

A very interesting article about the "big business of forgeries" and about a special exhibit of them at the V&A in London:

http://tinyurl.com/yyyero

kleeblatt

Interesting subject.

Walking over the Chapel bridge in Lucerne, I quite often look at the triangle paintings located below the roof.

They are all copies because a fire destroyed most of the bridge in 1993 along with the original paintings.

I personally think it makes absolute sense to replace originals with their copies in public places like churches, bridges, etc.

Museums, of course, are another subject.

http://www.divus.cz/umelec/en/pages/...2006&cis=2

ira

Hi NP,

>Because a work of art must involve imagination and creativity. A great forgery does neither. It merely copies.<

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.

I didn't mean a copy of an existing work, but a painting meant to look like the work of a Great Master.

Doesn't it take just as much artistic creativity to paint something that Corot might have done?

If it is accepted as a Corot, shouldn't it be just as important a work of art as if Corot had done it?

I'm not talking price here, just the artistic worth.

NeoPatrick

Oh, I see. Well, now we're tiptoeing on thin ice. Imitating someone else's creativity may take some special talent beyond the "craftsman" designation, and I suppose if that forger is able to create a totally new subject with the same style and look as the "master", that's certainly falling into the "work of art" category. Let's face it, many great and famous artists got their start by "copying" the style of other painters, but creating their own work and yet they are recognized as great artists. Yet they are generally not considered as great as those they copied, until or unless they developed some new style, technique, or look of their own.

ira

Thank you, NP

fall06

Thanks nessundorma! I can see what you mean. But what the heck?

Ira,

Again, my remarks about being hostile to different ideas weren't directed at you. And again, I wasn't talking about forgeries. It's like a red herring. Maybe if you thought about why it doesn't matter how well somebody imitates Frank Sinatra, nobody buys their records, you'd come up with the answer to your own question.

Neopatrick,

I read everything that nessundorma posted and you obviously misinterpreted her remarks and keep on doing it. It's also pretty obvious that had she picked Michaelangelo's David for her example, you would have agreed with every word she wrote. Where does this "15 feet" thing come from? Nobody talks about it but you. It's a straw man you're knocking down and declaring yourself an intelletual champ. What nessundorma is saying is the same thing you are saying about David: She saw a lot of reproductions but was moved when she saw Leonardo's actual work. It didn't match the reproduction. It was better. You know what she's talking about. Why keep pretending otherwise?

NeoPatrick

You're missing one major point, fall06. The orignal thread turned ugly and the specific insistance that the named poster could tell the difference between a forgery and the real thing even behind glass and from a distance is no longer there -- or least the poster has chosen not to copy and paste that part. Trust me. The original argument was that there was NO WAY she could be fooled by a forgery, even behind glass. That is the ONLY issue I have.

And I did not mean to imply that I would know the difference if a great copy of the David was made and put in place at the Academia. I would be fooled just like everyone else. My point was that I was moved by it in its splendid setting and the "idea" that it is the original. If someone came along and informed us that what we've all been seeing at the Academia is indeed a copy, I would be hurt, but I would not insist that they are making a mistake because I am such an expert I KNOW the difference. If someone says they are moved by the Mona Lisa hanging in the Louvre, yes that is the same thing. But it is not the same thing when they claim they can actually see the original artists brush strokes and genius even from behind the glass, and no one could ever create a copy to fool them -- sorry, but that's pure hogwash. Even the experts must use chemicals, magnification, and lots of time and study to tell the difference when it's right under their noses.

But talk about "misinterpreting" -- it is sad that anyone would insist what I've said is the same as saying "there is no difference between originals and copies". Now that is what I call misinterpreting comments.