View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Universidade de Lisboa: Repositório.UL UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA FACULDADE DE LETRAS PROGRAMA EM TEORIA DA LITERATURA Fakes in Art Maria Teresa Gonçalves Doutoramento em Estudos de Literatura e Cultura Teoria da Literatura 2013 UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA FACULDADE DE LETRAS PROGRAMA EM TEORIA DA LITERATURA Fakes in Art Maria Teresa Gonçalves Dissertação orientada por: Professor Doutor Miguel Tamen Doutoramento em Estudos de Literatura e Cultura Teoria da Literatura 2013 To my parents. Contents Acknowledgements 1 Abstract 4 Introduction 5 1. Judgement and Attribution of a Work of Art: What Do Experts Look at? 8 2. Attribution: Luckily It Is Not a Science 27 3. Reattribution and Value 64 4. Authenticity and Value: What Is Wrong with a Forgery? 102 5. Trust, Silence and Implausible Confessions 157 Works Cited 182 Acknowledgements Writing the acknowledgements section has the effect of making all the hard work, worries and doubts that writing a dissertation entails seem less hard. Knowing there would be a lot of people to thank and share this work with is one of the reasons why it was worth doing. First, I would like to thank Professor Miguel Tamen for his support, patient guidance and invaluable suggestions throughout all the stages of the process. His supervision and seminars reminded me how thrilling changing one’s mind can be. To Professor António M. Feijó I owe much encouragement and stimulating questions. Some years ago, I learnt that spending a whole semester reading Hamlet is not too long – something I would never have realised had I not attended his lectures. I gratefully acknowledge Fundação Gulbenkian for the financial support. I was a recipient of a PhD scholarship from September 2009 to August 2012 which allowed me to do research in London. I was released from teaching for three school years, from September 2009 to August 2012. The conditions to focus on research and writing were provided by Ministério da Educação. I am indebted to Professors Frederico Lourenço and Abel Barros Baptista for their generosity and thought-provoking seminars. In London, I am grateful for the assistance of the staff at the National Art Library, at Sotheby’s and Christie’s and to Mr Vernon Rapley, head of security at the Victoria and Albert Museum. I cannot thank my friend Charles Hill enough for thoroughly answering all my questions and being so open about his work. I also thank him and his wife Carol for the hospitality. This work benefited enormously from discussions with Pedro M. Alvim, who could not have been more liberal with his time. I also would like to thank all the friends who have always been available despite my absence from social gatherings, recurring topics of conversation and occasional bad mood. My dear friend Claudia Fischer has been exceedingly supportive and affectionate, offering all kinds of help and advice. To Alexandra Mariano and Miguel Dias, António Ramalho, Elisabete Sousa, Fernando Carita, Maria Sequeira Mendes and Alex Gozblau, Patrícia and Nuno Proença, Pedro Lucena, Raquel Macedo and Rodrigo Magalhães I owe decades of loyal friendship, which have made my life richer in so many ways. Alda Rodrigues, Ana Paulino and João Figueiredo’s sensitivity, insightful remarks and optimism were very welcome. Ana Cláudia Santos, Joana Meirim, Nuno Amado, Manuel Oliveira Dias and Rita Furtado have kept in touch and showed interest in how the work was progressing, and that certainly made a difference. Ana Paula Silva and José Rodriguez offered accurate technical assistance. I appreciate everything Elísia Monteiro, Nilza Neves and Rui Esteves did to improve my working conditions. For the last twenty years I have relied on Maria José and Tomás Oliveira Dias’s affection, support and sense of humour. I have enjoyed these years immensely. 2 And last but not least, I thank my parents for everything. 3 Abstract Knowing a work of art is fake influences one’s opinion about it. Moreover, it has important effects on the lives of people who are interested in art. These claims will be made in articulation with the following: judgements about art are not much different from judgements about actions that are unrelated to art. Art forgery is not a special case within the judgement of actions and intentions. Opinions about works of art, particularly about the intention to deceive, are moral descriptions. Keywords: Art Forgery – Attribution – Intention – Value – Aesthetics – Market Resumo Saber que uma obra de arte é falsa influencia a nossa opinião acerca dessa obra e tem consequências importantes na vida das pessoas que se interessam por arte. Defender-se-á também que opiniões sobre arte não são muito diferentes de opiniões a respeito de acções que nada têm a ver com arte. As falsificações em arte não constituem um caso especial da avaliação de acções e intenções. Opiniões sobre obras de arte, particularmente sobre a intenção de enganar, são descrições morais. Palavras-chave: Falsificações em Arte – Atribuição – Intenção – Valor – Estética – Mercado 4 Introduction This dissertation is about how in our relationship with art, being sure that what one is looking at, buying, selling or showing is authentic makes all the difference. It will be claimed that information such as by whom and when an object was made is crucial in the judgement museum visitors, collectors, curators, art experts and dealers make about artworks every day all over the world. To demonstrate the relevance of such information, the intentions and actions of experts and art forgers are considered with the purpose of assessing the effects they have on the art market. My main claim is that finding out one has seen, sold or bought a fake art object is decisive in one’s judgements about art because valuing art is not separable from judging intentions and actions. Opinions about authenticity in art are, necessarily, opinions about intentions and actions. And those are moral opinions. Ultimately, the art market provides ample evidence for such assertion. The five chapters of this dissertation focus on the not so distinct aspects, at times, of the actions of art experts and forgers. The problems addressed are often interrelated. What follows is a summary of the contents of each chapter. Chapter 1 examines the role of the trained eye of the art expert in the attribution of a work of art and how that talent is developed. The combination of scholarship, experience, sensitivity to detail and an alert mind are the attributes an expert has to display so as to be recognised as such by his peers. Moreover, the chapter highlights the unscientific nature of the process of attribution of artworks. There is not a universally established protocol as far as judging art is concerned. There are, however, some procedures which are usually followed by connoisseurs. The chapter ends with the suggestion that the scientific tests available to analyse works of art do not override the trained eye of the expert. The description of the attempts to make connoisseurship a scientific subject is the object of chapter 2. I show the inadequacy of theories which presuppose that our relationship with art can be defined as an activity whose effects may be predicted. In my approach to the problem, explanations that restrict the appreciation of artworks to the identification of patterns and recurring elements in identical objects are refuted. In this context, the method of connoisseurhip developed by the art historian and doctor Giovanni Morelli is looked at closely. He believed that artists could be identified by the minutiae that are usually overlooked in paintings, rather than by larger elements. Morelli’s interest in anatomy informed his method. He argued that the way an artist renders hands, fingernails or ears is what should be examined in the attribution of artworks. In chapter 3 the talents of experts are again brought to the reader’s attention. The problem of attribution, or rather, of the consequences of the change of status of a work of art for its market value, is considered in conjunction with the growing reluctance on the part of experts to openly express their opinions about artworks for fear of litigation. In a market that lacks regulation and heavily relies on trust to work smoothly, less scholarship being produced and less experts willing to be clear about the authenticity of works will allow the proliferation of forgeries. The chapter also addresses the relationship between supply and demand and its implications for the 6 production of forgeries. Forgers are aware of the kind of objects that are scarce at a particular time. Hence they forge what is sought-after by collectors. Still, fakes are products of the period in which they were created – and that cannot be disguised. The transition to chapter 4 is made through the introduction of the influence that the knowledge about the authenticity of the objects one looks at has on one’s relationship with art. Thus, I show how the judgement of art forgeries is a moral problem. Chapter 4 turns to the relationship between authenticity and value, and the implications of distinct descriptions of authenticity for the establishment of the question of forgery as a moral problem. The classic debate about the physical properties of aesthetic objects is reviewed, as well as the theory that judgements are the attribution of intentions and properties to objects. In what follows the latter view is endorsed. In the evaluation of the intention to deceive as the key factor to describe art forgery as a moral issue, the seriousness and prevalence of art crime are also examined. They are contrasted with the glamorised depiction currently favoured in the media, which tend to treat art criminals as gentlemen who are interested in objects that are not subjected to market rules.