Rembrandt to Picasso: Five ways to spot a fake masterpiece • Hacker News Board

Re: Rembrandt to Picasso: Five ways to spot a fake masterpiece

#11

Post by _tik_ » Sat, Mar 15, 2025, 5:00 AM UTC

6stringmerc wrote: post #8

mootothemax wrote: post #6

Once upon a time, I worked on behalf of a few luxury goods makers, tracking down counterfeit versions of their items, and getting the obvious and less obvious fakes removed before anyone could waste money (and their perception of the brand) on them. A few times, I would be invited to company HQ and introduced to the product, have the stitching and design details explained to me, a lay humble scruffy programmer. I can…

I’m not an expert but it’s incredible with guitars as well - the craftsmanship when comparing something off an assembly line versus a true luthier crafted instrument. There are visual clues easy to spot like the tuning pegs, but upon closer inspection of the fretboards the material used for inlays is an indication, and then the intricacy of fitment. With something like an acoustic guitar - Pimentel versus an off the…

There is a market for Chibsons—not everyone is willing to spend on expensive instruments.

As a beginner, I’m too much of a cheapskate to drop $9,000 on a musical instrument. I can’t even play properly or distinguish the right tones yet.

I agree with you that, at my current skill level, my ability to express creativity and individuality is limited. But I’m okay with that. For now, I just want to enjoy learning to play the music I love. I’ll consider upgrading once my skills improve.

I am not learning guitar.

Re: Rembrandt to Picasso: Five ways to spot a fake masterpiece

#12

Post by bruce511 » Sat, Mar 15, 2025, 5:12 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #2

It's kinda funny in a way. If you believe it is real, does it matter if it is a fake? If the only difference is titanium in the paint, does that make the actual painting better or worse?

There are two ways to look at art. First is for you personally to have something you enjoy to look at. Second is to have sonething that impresses others (perhaps a buyer.)

Owning a beautiful Van Gough is a pleasure to look at. Frankly if it visually fools an expert then it completely fulfill goal 1.

But if you're trying to impress others, or a buyer, then the point is not the painting itself, but rather the status it imbues. To those that value status, faked status is the worst offense.

Of course if the point is to show "I can afford to spend x million on a painting ", and you did, then forgery or not presumably you've achieved the goal.

Once you get beyond "pretty picture" the art world is completely arbitrary.

Re: Rembrandt to Picasso: Five ways to spot a fake masterpiece

#13

Post by sagacity » Sat, Mar 15, 2025, 6:35 AM UTC

umvi wrote: post #4

WalterBright wrote: post #2

It's kinda funny in a way. If you believe it is real, does it matter if it is a fake? If the only difference is titanium in the paint, does that make the actual painting better or worse?

Art is like cryptocurrency. It's valuable because it's scarce, not because it has intrinsic worth or beauty.

If that were the case, why do museums exist, according to you?

Re: Rembrandt to Picasso: Five ways to spot a fake masterpiece

#14

Post by ljf » Sat, Mar 15, 2025, 6:40 AM UTC

sagacity wrote: post #13

umvi wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art is like cryptocurrency. It's valuable because it's scarce, not because it has intrinsic worth or beauty.

If that were the case, why do museums exist, according to you?

As an opportunity to look at scarce things, that we are told are beautiful or interesting?

Re: Rembrandt to Picasso: Five ways to spot a fake masterpiece

#15

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Mar 15, 2025, 6:46 AM UTC

bruce511 wrote: post #12

WalterBright wrote: post #2

It's kinda funny in a way. If you believe it is real, does it matter if it is a fake? If the only difference is titanium in the paint, does that make the actual painting better or worse?

There are two ways to look at art. First is for you personally to have something you enjoy to look at. Second is to have sonething that impresses others (perhaps a buyer.) Owning a beautiful Van Gough is a pleasure to look at. Frankly if it visually fools an expert then it completely fulfill goal 1. But if you're trying to impress others, or a buyer, then the point is not the painting itself, but rather the status it…

I've hung prints on the walls, but they aren't as nice as an actual painting, as the paint gives it a glow and 3D look that a flat print cannot match.

I'd be happy hanging up worthless fakes that it takes an expert to discern from original great art.

My computer "wallpaper" throws up scans of great works of art. Unfortunately, it is bafflingly hard to find good scans of that stuff. It's all public domain, what's the problem?

Re: Rembrandt to Picasso: Five ways to spot a fake masterpiece

#16

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Mar 15, 2025, 6:47 AM UTC

mmooss wrote: post #9

WalterBright wrote: post #2

It's kinda funny in a way. If you believe it is real, does it matter if it is a fake? If the only difference is titanium in the paint, does that make the actual painting better or worse?

I agree to a great extent, especially regarding copies. Why don't people just have top-notch copies of masterpieces made for their walls? Status? You look cheap? (Possibly, the undistinguishable works in the article are of rare quality, and others are missing what makes the masterpieces special.) But to the degree art is an individual's self-expression, then the fake is what you want. It's not giving you insight into…

> It's not giving you insight into and empathy with a person

I'm interested in the beauty of the painting.

Re: Rembrandt to Picasso: Five ways to spot a fake masterpiece

#17

Post by 331c8c71 » Sat, Mar 15, 2025, 6:59 AM UTC

6stringmerc wrote: post #8

mootothemax wrote: post #6

Once upon a time, I worked on behalf of a few luxury goods makers, tracking down counterfeit versions of their items, and getting the obvious and less obvious fakes removed before anyone could waste money (and their perception of the brand) on them. A few times, I would be invited to company HQ and introduced to the product, have the stitching and design details explained to me, a lay humble scruffy programmer. I can…

I’m not an expert but it’s incredible with guitars as well - the craftsmanship when comparing something off an assembly line versus a true luthier crafted instrument. There are visual clues easy to spot like the tuning pegs, but upon closer inspection of the fretboards the material used for inlays is an indication, and then the intricacy of fitment. With something like an acoustic guitar - Pimentel versus an off the…

> Pimentel versus an off the rack Breedlove, the sound will be staggeringly

Not sure about acoustic guitars specifically but for electrics there's plenty of evidence that the magic is mostly in the hands (and the brains) of the player.

Plenty of yt videos on that subject blind trials and stuff as well as stars playing regular or cheap kits.

Re: Rembrandt to Picasso: Five ways to spot a fake masterpiece

#18

Post by elnatro » Sat, Mar 15, 2025, 7:30 AM UTC

If the fake has been a great art effort… wouldn’t that be an art piece by itself? What I mean by this is that the Roman copies of Greek statues are seen as “art” today. Is just a matter of perspective or legality?

Re: Rembrandt to Picasso: Five ways to spot a fake masterpiece

#19

Post by Daub » Sat, Mar 15, 2025, 7:51 AM UTC

True story. When I was a kid I worked in an auction house that sold many paintings. Painting of ships flying the American flag were very highly sought after. It was an open secret that paintings flying any other flag would be bought and the flag replaced by an American one by an ‘art restorer’. These were then sold at great profit.

Re: Rembrandt to Picasso: Five ways to spot a fake masterpiece

#20

Post by bsder » Sat, Mar 15, 2025, 7:55 AM UTC

331c8c71 wrote: post #17

6stringmerc wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not an expert but it’s incredible with guitars as well - the craftsmanship when comparing something off an assembly line versus a true luthier crafted instrument. There are visual clues easy to spot like the tuning pegs, but upon closer inspection of the fretboards the material used for inlays is an indication, and then the intricacy of fitment. With something like an acoustic guitar - Pimentel versus an off the…

> Pimentel versus an off the rack Breedlove, the sound will be staggeringly Not sure about acoustic guitars specifically but for electrics there's plenty of evidence that the magic is mostly in the hands (and the brains) of the player. Plenty of yt videos on that subject blind trials and stuff as well as stars playing regular or cheap kits.

For a nylon string classical, the sound must come from the wood and the construction--there is nothing else to generate the sound. There is a balance between tone, volume, and tension that different guitar makers choose (for example, flamenco guitar builders generally choose to make the attack and decay quick relative to a "standard" classical guitar--you can see this in the waveforms on an oscilloscope if you so choose) .

And, sure, a master player can make any guitar sound good, but it's a lot easier for an amateur to make a nice guitar sound good.

Electrics are a totally different story. It's pretty much all about pickups, strings, and the distance between the two. Wood is almost completely irrelevant.