Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A mediocre Dutch artist cast 'the forger's spell' (2008)

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: A mediocre Dutch artist cast 'the forger's spell' (2008)

#21

Post by mcv »

causi wrote: post #10
solomonb wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the book ("The Forger's Spell") this article is based on, the author actually gives Van Meegeren quite a fair analysis. His personal artwork is criticized but he is given a tremendous amount of credit as a forger. Unfortunately I cannot remember the specifics of the critique of his original paintings but it revolved around him being overly focused on classical technique and applying it to trite contemporary still…

classical technique and applying it to trite contemporary still lifes which were not considered of interest at the time. Doesn't that also describe half of the work of "great artists"? When they were painted they were just "some lady I know" or "some guys standing in a room".

It certainly shows the irrationality of art appreciation. It's not about the quality of the painting, it's about who made it. And that is what makes forgery attractive; it's worth more because people think it's make by a more famous painter. The value comes not from the art itself, but from the history.

It's the same with the talk about modern AI art. Does it devalue art because it's not made by people? The same image made by AI, a modern artist, or an old master, has a completely different value because of who made it.

So Van Meegeren's style not interesting when he painted it, because it's old fashioned, but it is interesting when people think it's painted by Vermeer. It wasn't old fashioned then; it was revolutionary. The historic context is really different. It's clearly not about the picture itself, it's about the history, the cultural significance, the context.

Re: A mediocre Dutch artist cast 'the forger's spell' (2008)

#22

Post by mcv »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #16

Reminds me of another Dutch forger called Geert Jan Jansen who was active until the mid nineties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Jan_Jansen He imitated a wide variety of painters and even got one of them (Karel Appel) to authenticate a forgery as real. He later opened a gallery where he now sells paintings signed under his own name in the style of several famous painters with very different styles. He's made qui…

What is it about Dutch painters that makes them so successful? Two recent very successful forgers, not to mention dozens of world class famous historical painters.

Re: A mediocre Dutch artist cast 'the forger's spell' (2008)

#23

Post by mcv »

Smithalicious wrote: post #9
rippercushions wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is so hell bent on casting a poor light on Han van Meegeren He forged art, made money by selling it to literal Nazis, and blew the money on hookers and palatial houses. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the guy? I do have complicated thoughts on the same piece of art being valued completely differently depending on if it's signed by person X or person Y, but for better or worse this is very much a thing.

When someone's crimes constitute fraud and doing business with nazis, sometimes two wrongs might make a right.

With him being paid in stolen Nazi art, he could even have framed it as getting stolen Nazi art back. Although obviously that wouldn't work if he'd sold those stolen paintings already.

Re: A mediocre Dutch artist cast 'the forger's spell' (2008)

#24

Post by mcv »

Someone wrote: post #20

> Van Meegeren was tried, convicted and sentenced to a year in prison in 1947. Nearly two months later, he died of a heart attack without serving even a day. What the article doesn’t say is that he originally was charged with selling Dutch cultural property to the Nazis, for which he could have gotten the death penalty. That made him confess that he sold a forgery. They didn’t believe it, so he “painted his last forg…

It's certainly a testament to his skill as a forger if he needs to put effort into convincing people that his forgeries are forgeries.

Not to mention how selling undetectable forgeries to Nazis turns two wrongs into a right. Possibly an accidental one; he doesn't sound like the kind of guy who was in it to fight fascism; it's just that the people he defrauded happened to be the worst kind of bad guys, turning him into an accidental hero.

Re: A mediocre Dutch artist cast 'the forger's spell' (2008)

#25

Post by woolion »

A "mediocre" thinker is able to conjure up "powerful truths" if he pretends they were said by somebody else.

A "mediocre" artist is able to make "masterpieces" if he pretends they were done by somebody else.

Somehow, one is acceptable, while the other is quite obviously nonsense, absurd fetishization due to bias.

What makes art so special? Especially when it is generally said that what makes a master is not simply technique, but their unique 'eye', perception of the world, way to express things in a certain harmony with technique and the zeitgeist. The profound feelings that people have in connection with art depend on what the opinion of others actually is, despite the apparent universality of the art language. The crime of forgery, within the art world, is similar to forbid anyone to express wrong theorems or false mathematical statements because of course, you wouldn't be able to distinguish that from the real mathematics of Gauss.

Re: A mediocre Dutch artist cast 'the forger's spell' (2008)

#26

Post by Dylan16807 »

rippercushions wrote: post #15
varajelle wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand this ethical framework. What can be done with these paintings? Must they be destroyed, or anything else is "profiting off victims of Nazis"?

It's stolen property that should be returned to its owners, and we have a standard legal framework for that. Obviously it's complicated when entire generations were annihilated, and there is still litigation going on today about the provenance and fate of some works stolen in WW2.

Okay, so he and the people that bought them from him should return them.

That doesn't make taking them from Nazis bad. It would be better if he took cash from them, but again he only gave the guy a painting, he didn't help the Nazis. And better he have the paintings then a major Nazi, even as stolen property. The absolute worst option would be the Nazis selling the pile of art for cash.

Re: A mediocre Dutch artist cast 'the forger's spell' (2008)

#27

Post by solomonb »

mcv wrote: post #21
causi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

classical technique and applying it to trite contemporary still lifes which were not considered of interest at the time. Doesn't that also describe half of the work of "great artists"? When they were painted they were just "some lady I know" or "some guys standing in a room".

It certainly shows the irrationality of art appreciation. It's not about the quality of the painting, it's about who made it. And that is what makes forgery attractive; it's worth more because people think it's make by a more famous painter. The value comes not from the art itself, but from the history. It's the same with the talk about modern AI art. Does it devalue art because it's not made by people? The same imag…

> It's not about the quality of the painting, it's about who made it.

I'm super pessimistic about the art world and I agree with you to some extent but I think what you are missing is that art/art history is a conversation amongst a bunch of stakeholders (artists, galleries, museums, critics, viewers, etc) and what is considered important art at any given moment changes as this conversation progresses.

Someone making a perfect classical oil painting today (without doing something to make it engage with the current conversation) is akin to coming up with the perfect come-back to an argument you had a week ago and then trying to bringing it up in an unrelated conversation today.

Post reply on HN