Fake Artworks: What Is the Real Value of Art?
April 30, 2018, NewYork Times stated: “French Museum Discovers More Than Half Its Collection Is Fake”. Terrus Museum of Elne, France.
November 29, 2018, Artnet stated: “A Jury Sides With Top Art Collector Andy Hall in a Dramatic Lawsuit Over Fake Golub Paintings, Awarding Him $468,000”.
February 6, 2019: Artnet stated: Police Accuse Italy’s Former Culture Minister of Authenticating Fake Works by Late Avant Garde Artist Gino De Dominicis.” His name: Vittorio Sgarbi.
It seems that at least half of the art market is composed by fake artworks: some state that actually the percentage is lower, others argue that the percentage is higher. Nevertheless, the aim of this article is not to find out which is the right percentage, neither to go into the substance of the single discoveries mentioned above. One thing is sure: forgeries in the art market are a fact. And the width of the matter is quite relevant. Shocking? Common sense would say yes. Personally I would say yes. Let’s try to analyse the phenomenon.
Firstly, how is it possible that a big part of the market is fake? Experts should have discovered frauds. Curators, critics, operators and dealers in general, should be the primary defenders of artwork authenticity. It is part of their job. It is likely that they are doing their best yet there are very talented and clever counterfeiters.
Secondly, which kind of artworks are counterfeited? Mostly (although not only) the ones made by contemporary artists. The reason is enough evident. As Fabio Castagna, the commander of Counterfeiting and Contemporary Art Section of Carabinieri, said, contemporary art is easy to trade. While replicating a Rubens is difficult, just by the fact that old materials have to be used (such as the frame), for an artwork of a contemporary artist it is possible to acquire materials from the corner store. Considering that some counterfeiters are technically really good and they are able to anticipate the market trends, Bob’s your uncle!
Last but not least, why authenticity is so fundamental? Or rather, is authenticity so fundamental? A clarification is necessary in order to answer these questions: the gap between authentic and fake is attribution. Of course if the author confirms the property of an artwork, the artwork is authentic, although it is not made by him. Just to give an example, this is the case of Damien Hirst: some of his artworks were done by collaborators such as the artist Rachel Howard, and finally signed by him. The signature is the value of the artwork. What really matters is the brand: more or less like in fashion. Moreover, if the art system attributes an artwork to a certain artist, and none argues the contrary, that artwork is authentic and it has value. Having said that, it is understandable that it seems to be a certain convenience in implementing a fake market: market demand is satisfied and operators make more money. Everybody’s happy. Ultimately, the real aim of an artwork is to raise emotions, isn’t it? Some state yes. Maybe to the present day, the answer to the timeless question of what is art is just raising emotions.
This statement could be nearly persuasive with a certain extent of open-mindedness, if it were not for figures like Carlo Pepi. He is a great Italian collector, from Tuscany, who during his life has collected circa twenty thousand artworks. One of his favourite artists is Modigliani, whose he owns an amazing number of works. He is truly passionate about art, the classic man that collects art for art’s sake, and that has never bought artworks for investment purposes. He is the one who found out that some of Modigliani’s artworks weren’t actually Modigliani’s, when no one else said it. Not only none said it, but also he was on trial for this reason. People didn’t want to believe a marginal actor of the art system. Why should a non recognized expert understand more that real experts?
Using science to detect forgeries: X-ray image of a Songye power figure