Quiz about real versus fake

[jean]

A fake is presumably made with the (non-artistic) function of fooling the observer, however that doesn’t preclude the object also having artistic value.

That is true.

Most people who've admitted on this thread to having done any of the quizzes have been pleased when they got the answers 'right'.

It would be interesting to know why they were pleased.

[teamsaint]

That is true.

Most people who've admitted on this thread to having done any of the quizzes have been pleased when they got the answers 'right'.

It would be interesting to know why they were pleased.

I guess people have to speak for themselves.

personally, if I was pleased,(which I said I was), it might well be be because besides the question of real/fake, authentic/inauthentic, there are questions of quality.

Making a judgement about the quality of a work is the readers job,in a sense.

To do that job well, to draw conclusions that are valid, and might withstand questioning, (or trickery)requires the use of (admittedly partially developed) critical faculties.

So, it may be a vanity,but the "being pleased" aspect is perhaps a validation of the work put in to developing those faculties, and the journey travelled thus far.

[jean]

Why? How do you know?

I can only judge by what I read, and its context. I may be wrong.

What do you think he meant?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It would be interesting to know why they were pleased.

In my case, it is always a relief when it turns out that the things I think I'm okay at are actually the things I'm okay at. I'm so crap at so many other things that it's a relief to discover that my little plot of ability remains safe. For now.


I was also perversely satisfied not to get 100% - always room for improvement.

[Flosshilde]

I can only judge by what I read, and its context. I may be wrong.

What do you think he meant?

Well, yes. Taking the statement as a whole I thought he was laughing at the idea of the 'great genius' with a profound mesage compared with whom all other artists & attempts at art were nothing. But I haven't had the priviledge of discussing it with him so I don't know - it's just my interpretation.

Actually, I think the whole thing is a joke.

As for the bird poo v. Pollok - I have a photograph of a pallet streaked with bird droppings. it had been propped at an angle under a nest, so the streaks of poo are at an angle, & interrupted by the gaps between the pieces of wood. The wood was weathered silvery grey, & the poo was shades of black, grey & white. It was rather beautiful. I doubt if the birds thought they were creating anything, let alone art, & I would have the same doubts about whoever put the pallet there. But it was beautiful, and my appreciation of it could make it art.

[Flosshilde]

In my case, it is always a relief when it turns out that the things I think I'm okay at are actually the things I'm okay at. I'm so crap at so many other things that it's a relief to discover that my little plot of ability remains safe. For now.

[MrGongGong]

Actually, I think the whole thing is a joke.

Indeed it is
and probably intended also to be at the expense of the ENC brigade !

But it was beautiful, and my appreciation of it could make it art.

Of course

[french frank]

Indeed it is
and probably intended also to be at the expense of the ENC brigade !

I don't know why you should think that. It's only a cliché because people keep trotting it out to 'prove' what they think is worthless *is* worthless, and they've seen through it. Doesn't mean it can't sometimes be à propos. The exercise seems designed to prove both sides can sometimes be fooled.

(Why is he called Meegeren here rather than van Meegeren? Is that what they say in the US (as in Dyck, Eyck and Gogh)?

I read once, in connection with Meegeren, that it's well-nigh impossible for a faker to make the faces look authentic - they tend to have a look of the period they are painted in.

But he fooled the experts until he owned up himself. The only suspicion they had was of the number of new Vermeers turning up.

I did very badly on the Vermeer/van Meegeren quiz even though I have a book of the complete paintings of Vermeer and thought I knew them all. I got them wrong both ways, saying fakes were genuine and genuine ones were fake. (That's not a boast, by the way)

[jean]

Well, yes. Taking the statement as a whole I thought he was laughing at the idea of the 'great genius' with a profound mesage compared with whom all other artists & attempts at art were nothing...

Actually, I think the whole thing is a joke.

Of course the whole thing's a joke - it's a question of what sort of joke and at whose expense.

Does he think that Rothko et al. are just throwing pots of paint in the public's face, and his own non-art is just as bad? (the ENC position)

Does he think their production has real qualiity as art, but that actually his own efforts stand comparison? (This is the Mr GG position)

In either of these cases, people getting the 'wrong' answer will be what would be expected to happen.

Or does he believe there is a distinction between the two types of production, and in this case his belief will be vindicated by thoughtful and discriminating readers getting lots of 'right' answers - which is exactly what has happened on this thread?

I incline to this view, myself. That's why I thought, and still think (despite not having had the privilege of discussing it with him) that while his rather overblown description of the 'great art' was tongue-in-cheek, his assessment of his own work was what he really thought of it.

[MrGongGong]

Does he think their production has real qualiity as art, but that actually his own efforts stand comparison? (This is the Mr GG position)

That's not "my position" at all
I never said anything about quality

[jean]

As for the bird poo v. Pollok - I have a photograph of a pallet streaked with bird droppings. it had been propped at an angle under a nest, so the streaks of poo are at an angle, & interrupted by the gaps between the pieces of wood. The wood was weathered silvery grey, & the poo was shades of black, grey & white. It was rather beautiful. I doubt if the birds thought they were creating anything, let alone art, & I would have the same doubts about whoever put the pallet there. But it was beautiful, and my appreciation of it could make it art.

There's a name for that, of course - it's found art (an objet trouvé.)

Slanting the pallet was a trick they missed when preparing the quiz; the bird poo ones were very static, and thus easy to detect.

[jean]

That's not "my position" at all
I never said anything about quality

All right, I'll rephrase it slightly.

Does he think their production is indeed to be considered art, but that actually his own efforts are too?

[jean]

The Vermeer/van Meegeren quiz was the only one (of those I did, anyway) where an artist had attempted to pass off his work as that of someone more famous.

He had no success as an artist in his own right, but painted some very convincing pastiche Vermeers.

This could be taken as a sign that the art establishment had failed to recognise real talent. Or that mere technical facility is not enough.

I didn't do as well on that one as I thought I would - but the really horrible Christ-face which does not seem at all Vermeer like to me ws actually derived from a real Vermeer.

[Flosshilde]

But he fooled the experts until he owned up himself.

Yes, but the point is that they were looking at the paintings during the period (more or less) that he painted them, so if, for example, he painted his fakes in the 1950s, & the experts examined them in the 1950s, then they would see the faces in the portraits as 'neutral' faces, not '1950s faces'. It would be only later, when the 1950s faces could be seen as 'historic', but the wrong kind of historic, that they would look wrong, & of course by then the paintings were on display in museums, or had been bought as 'investments', so it wasn't in anybody's interests to say they were fake.

[Flosshilde]

I incline to this view, myself. That's why I thought, and still think (despite not having had the privilege of discussing it with him) that while his rather overblown description of the 'great art' was tongue-in-cheek, his assessment of his own work was what he really thought of it.

I thought his description of his own work was also overblown, & therefore tongue in cheek.