There is a wonderful exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum called ‘Fakes and Forgeries‘. I’m sorry to be recommending it so late in the day – it finishes this Sunday (7th Feb).
The exhibits ‘belong’ not to some rich collector or charitable foundation, but to the Metropolitan Police, and they are all items that have been used as evidence in recent forgery trials.
In the first room there are some masterpieces by de Staël, Chagall and Giacometti – but they are really by John Myatt, one of the greatest forgers of the late 20th century. And as an example of changing fashions within the art market there is a ‘Balloon Girl’ stencil print in the style of Banksy, the contemporary graffiti artist.
It raises so many questions. If John Myatt can paint as well as de Staël, Chagall and Giacometti, does that mean he is the greater artistic genius (because unlike them he is not trapped within a certain style)? Why should the price of a luminous painting crash just because the certificate of authenticity is shown to be worthless? (I know, because it’s a market, and we are paying for the connection with the artist and for the investment).
A lovely twist arises from the fact that some of Myatt’s paintings are now becoming collectors’ items in their own right because of his fame and the notoriety of the cases.
I learnt some legal definitions. A ‘fake’ is an ‘innocent’ object that is later tampered with, e.g. by adding a fake signature. A ‘forgery’ is an object that is ‘guilty’ from the start – it was created in order to deceive someone. A ‘copy’ is a replica of a work of art that is created without any intention to deceive. A beautiful ‘Matisse’ is displayed here, even with his signature copied in the corner – but this is perfectly legal, because no-one was trying to pretend that it was really a Matisse.
Much of the skill lies in creating a false provenance: fake letters of authentication, false stories about how the work passed from the artist’s studio to the present-day, even tampering with archives in order to create the impression that a non-existent work really did exist in the documented history.
I know forgery is wrong, but the exhibition had all the fascination of a good heist film, and I couldn’t help admiring – not the dishonesty of the forgers, but their artistic skill and ingenuity.
I do not normally waste my time in writing to or in trying to educate the un-educationable (if that qualifies as a word?)
But, I have been reading recently of the so-called ‘celebrated Master Forger’ John Myatt, including your article.
What absolute rubbish is spouted about this man.
Master Forger indeed!
In my book he doesn’t even qualify as a forger, let alone a ‘Master’.
I cringe every time I see any of his ‘work’.
His fakes, copies, forgeries – call them what you will, are simply PATHETIC.
As a forger, faker, copy-er myself I take exception to his being lauded as (and I quote you!) “one of the greatest forgers of the late 20th century”.
My pride as an artist and forger would make me ashamed to produce and present such awful and hideous images, and I take exception to you and others describing him in such glowing but totally inaccurate terms.
Like many other ‘experts’ you appear to be taken in by this man’s infantile daubings which are really an INSULT to the intelligence and expertise of myself and my fellow forgers, who because we are so adept, are rarely if ever in the headlines.
If you would really like to learn something about art and in particular the human form, then take a look at Myatt’s picture of Myleene Klass and the relative distance and position of her neck and shoulder, as opposed to the most beautiful original, Myatt’s figure-work is truly that of an infantile amateur who needs a very long course in appreciation of figure-drawing – and even then, I do not think he would get very far because he is patently lacking in TALENT!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/John-Myatt–The-art-forger-using-celebrities-models-create-world-famous-masterpieces.html
What the so-called experts and columnists ought really to be talking about is the puerile and stupidly dumb, gullible public and overpaid ‘experts’ who fall for this arrant nonsense.
I hope your judgments and teachings on philosophy and theology are better informed than your judgments on artists and forgers!
And I also hope that the people who are buying, at exhorbitant prices, the works of art for the nation out of the National Purse, employ some regular forgers such as myself to guide them in their purchases – instead of wasting our money on such obvious ‘trash’ in the future.
I do not expect a response!
I completely agree – belatedly- with Mr Como.
The forgeries of Mr Myatt are absolutely pathetic.
That some “experts” could even believe for a minute that it was the real thing (as happened for instance in the case of Giacometti) is appalling.
Forgerers are not “heroes” or geniuses they are just smart thieves taking advantage of gullible and greedy collectors and of the ignorance of the art world about copyright issues.
Fondation Alberto et Annette Giacometti, Paris
Hello! to Fondation Alberto et Annette Giacometti, Paris!
I am so pleased that you appreciated my comments.
Incidentally, I HAVE NOT HEARD ONE WORD from the writer of the article which I commented on, I think it was one Stephen Wang – but he is not the main transgressor – not by a long way but I thought at least I would get SOME kind of a response – but I suppose his silence is worth more than his measly-mouthed words.
Perhaps at least he is ashamed of his deification of the pathetic , nay, hideous offerings of Myatt and the like.
What the so-called experts ought really to be doing is to tell the world just how hideous this man’s works (and the others!) are, instead of allowing the ‘agents of criminals’ to profit from deceit and notoriety – but I am afraid that is what the world had descended to – the admiration of the criminal, the celebrating of the crude and ugly instead of basking in the glory of those great individuals who have shown us their rare and delighful talents through the ages, oft times never enjoying the fruits of their considerable labours or talents.
Perhaps I might not be so offended if his work was accurate or beautiful – then perhaps he, Myatt, might just experience how darned difficult it really is to produce heavenly works of art.
But anyone with the merest hint of talent who has ever genuinely picked up a brush or trowel or knife can surely see through this man’s chicanery. But that is to be expected – after all what attributes do you need to have to be an expert these days? I will tell you – a great amount of greed, a neat suit, money to start you off, an empty head, and accomplices such as the ‘great’ Auction Houses, who’s only yardstick in life is HOW MUCH CAN I EARN OFF THAT OBJECT.
I was always led to believe that a criminal should not be able to prosper from his crime – yet this man Myatt and others, have been accepted by the ‘Establishment’ and PRAISED for their criminality – how bizarre is the world getting? – and these charlatans are now making a comfortable living from hideous and monstrous daubs which my grandchildren could surpass.
Whilst I pillory the ‘experts’ and commentators who laud these ‘idiots’, and cheat and lie and line their grubby pockets, I do however spring to the defence of those artists who, in their search for improvement and excellence, try to work in the style or influence of the Great Masters – in fact it was always so. Monet, Van Gogh, Picasso – they all paid homage to their great predecessors by studying their techniques and finesse.
I only wish that my comments, and yours, could reach a wider audience. But, those who are continuing to plot and steal from the brilliance of the REAL masters, will go on their merry way pocketing their ill gotten, fraudulent ‘thirteen pieces of silver’ – The Art World and most of the ‘hangers-on’ have descended into the abyss, and Hieronymus Bosch accurately predicted their eventual downfall and depicted their image.
With kind regards,
Paulcomo
Hi Paul,
I hope that having been welcomed to express your opinion here that it will diffuse some of your anger.
Firstly I think the wonderfulness of this exhibition was its exposure to people who remain unaware and uneducated to these offences. I don’t believe that anybody is worthless enough to be thought of as un-educationable.
Out of amusement and interest I just re-read the original blog post. Loving art and the freedom to express, but not being quite so passionate as you appear to be about art, I was not offended. I think mostly because the post can be read ambiguously, especially with questions like…..
“WHAT IF a forgery is as good as the original?” I did not read the article as sayings that John Myatt does paint as well as the original, but only What if . and then….
“It raises so many questions. IF John Myatt can paint as well…etc etc”.
You did not expect a response, and then you felt disappointed because you expected one and you didn’t get one. I hope you feel like your points have been received and that you have taught us something that we were all unaware of.
Thank you all for a very rounded education on Forgery in the art world and what an amazing and wonderful blog too for a lesson and perfect example of humility and Grace. x
‘My name is red’ by Orahn Pamuk is a wonderful thriller, which I need to read again all about forgeries.
The blurb on the back reads
‘Magnificent… In this world of forgeries, where some might be in danger of loosing their faith in literature, Pamuk is the real thing, and this book might well be one of the few recent works of fiction that will be remembered at the end of this century.’ Avkat Altinel, observer