A Reexamination of Authenticity in Objects and Experiences

THESIS

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Stephanie Ann Hall

Graduate Program in Art Education

The Ohio State University

2012

Master's Examination Committee:

Dr. James H. Sanders III, Advisor

Dr. Vesta Daniel

Copyright by

Stephanie Ann Hall

2012

Abstract

This thesis seeks to open up new understandings of authenticity and create an open mode of thinking that includes comparisons of multiple criteria of just what authenticity can mean to different people. The truthfulness of objects and experiences is not a black and white proposition, and understanding multiple perspectives regarding authenticity can aid in pedagogical freedom. Objects and experiences mean different things to different people. Is there or can there ever be an inauthentic experience? Are objects or experiences in a museum valued more, and by whom? What is considered

“fake” for one group is very “real” for another. Through the examination of the literature relevant to these questions I question the negative connotations currently associated with

“inauthentic” objects, and instead offer reasons why these objects are important and useful in pedagogy.

ii

Dedication

For Sophia and Juliette.

Always challenge your limits.

iii

Acknowledgments

To my advisor, Dr. James Sanders III, I owe my deepest gratitude. Thank you for pushing me to finish. If not for your amazing attention to detail and thought provoking weekly conversations I would have never made it to the end.

Dr. Vesta Daniel, thank you for your time in reading through my work and for the thoughtful questions.

I send my most sincere thanks to my mother and father, Judy and Mike Guthrie, for all of their love and support from day one. Thank you for believing in me.

I also owe a special thank you to my husband John Hall and daughters Sophia and Juliette

Hall. I would not have been able to do this without you.

iv

Vita

1991...... Woodbridge Senior High School Woodbridge, VA

1996...... B.A. Art History (minor Classical Studies) George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

2012...... M.A. Art Education The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Fields of Study

Major Field: Art Education

v

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Dedication ...... iii

Acknowledgments...... iv

Vita ...... v

Fields of Study ...... v

Table of Contents ...... vi

List of Figures ...... vii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2: Authenticity and Original(ity) ...... 16

Chapter 3: Reproductions: casts and copies...... 30

Chapter 4: Fakes and Forgeries...... 50

Chapter 5: Conclusion...... 68

References ...... 83

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1 Barberini Faun, late third-early second century BCE...... 40

Figure 2 Laocoon, Roman Marble Copy, first century CE ...... 42

Figure 3 Laocoon, Sisto Badalocchio, 1606 engraving ...... 42

Figure 4 Zan Andrea. Four Women Dancing, not dated...... 43

Figure 5 Andrea Mantegan. Parnassus, 1497...... 44

Figure 6 Marcel Duchamps, L.H.O.O.Q., 1919...... 53

Figure 7 Marcel Duchamps, Fountain , 1917...... 54

Figure 8 Walker Evans, Alabama Tenant Farmer Wife , 1936, Gelatin Silver Print...... 55

Figure 9 Sherrie Levine, After Walker Evans , 1981...... 56

Figure 10 Michael Mandiberg, Untitled (AfterWalkerEvans.com/2.jpg) , 2001...... 56

Figure 11 Sherrie Levine, Fountain (After Marcel Duchamp), 1991, bronze...... 57

Figure 12 Han van Meegeren, The Supper at Emmaus , 1937 ...... 65

vii

Chapter 1: Introduction

“In the same way a translation, instead of resembling the meaning of the original, must lovingly and in detail incorporate the original’s mode of significance, thus making both the original and the translation recognizable as fragments of a greater language, just as fragments are parts of a vessel.” Walter Benjamin The Task of the Translator: An Introduction to the Translation of Baudelaire’s Tableaux Parisiens

In his essay, “The Task of the Translator,” Walter Benjamin writes on the nature of the written translation and the relationship between the original and the translation.

While Benjamin may be dealing here with original and translation in a literary sense, these same discussions may also be had surrounding the original and reproduction in the visual arts. Benjamin begins his piece with the notion that works are not intended for the reader, but for the creator himself. He explains, “Art, in the same way posits man’s physical and spiritual existence, but in none of its works is it concerned with response.

No poem is intended for the reader, no picture for the beholder, and no symphony for the listener” (Benjamin, 1968b). Benjamin places his discussion on nature and purpose of translations directly within this framework. He views both the original and the translation as significant in their own right without one being dependent upon the other.

1

This logic, as expressed by Benjamin, started me thinking about the concept of authenticity in the visual arts and how this related to museum education and audience experiences with art. Reflecting back on the quote from Benjamin he states, “…making both the original and the translation recognizable as fragments of a greater language, just as fragments are part of a vessel” (Benjamin, 1968b). I see this as a way of also describing the relationship in art between “original” works with that of copies and reproductions. Today, one often hears of value placed upon objects as “authentic” or

“inauthentic,” but I am now curious to know if one can look beyond these assessments of value and truly see all objects, and experiences, as parts of a greater language, fragments of a larger vessel, and intertwined pathways of a boundless maze.

Throughout history artists around the globe have employed the practice of

copying and reproduction as a common procedure. It has been a method utilized in

teaching, training, commercial production, idolization, and so on. Copying was heavily

used by the Roman civilization in trying to recreate the beauty found in Greek sculpture,

and the painters and printmakers employed in the Renaissance Guild system used

copying techniques as a method of mass production. Only in very recent history (the mid

1900’s) has the use of copies and reproductions been questioned, and, perhaps, not

considered for everything they have to offer. Many today frown upon the use of copies

as somehow being “inauthentic” or not as being of quality, but if one looks back through

history there may be something to learn.

I began this research on the subject of authenticity with an initial interest in the

use of copies by the Romans to replicate and reproduce highly valued and collected

2 pieces of Greek sculpture, and have also looked into the goals and uses of prints in the

Renaissance to replicate drawings, paintings and sculpture. I have always found this use of (currently acceptable) copying to be an interesting concept, and believe that there is a connection to be made between the use of these earlier casts and copies when compared to digital and virtual reproductions used today. Some of the questions I keep coming back to when considering the subject of authenticity are:

What is valued as art? and why?

Are experiences with objects more valuable than the objects themselves?

Is the authenticity of an object important in pedagogy?

and finally, what constitutes authenticity, and is authenticity a static concept?

Initially, I began looking at these questions with the idea that, with proper research, time

and thought I would be able to provide suitable answers. I was working towards an end,

to break down the idea of authenticity and compare how it was understood by the

primary constituents with in the museum: professionals, artist, producer, and ultimately,

the audience. My initial approach in this undertaking was to look at the history of the

museum through these multiple perspectives of authenticity to gain a clear understanding

of what value authenticity had in museums and pedagogy. I approached the literature in

themes of authenticity, museum history, copies/reproductions, connoisseurship,

restorations, printmaking, museum education, sculpture casts, and even cultural tourism.

The deeper I began to delve into the literature; the subject of authenticity began to expand

into an inexhaustible web of idea threads. After this initial investment of time and

thought, breaking to regain perspective, and starting again, I am now not sure one could,

3 or should, attempt to definitively answer any of the questions I posed above. Although, I do believe that looking at these themes does provide a solid point from which to start exploring these questions surrounding the nature and value of authenticity in art.

All artistic reproductions, like translations, will have certain elements unique onto themselves. Authenticity in art is widely written about and discussed, and is typically the most coveted declaration made about an object. Art collectors’ value authenticity in their collections, curators wish to tap into the aura of authenticity in their exhibitions and displays, and museum visitors seek authenticity in their experiences and interactions with museum objects and displays. Authentic, real, original, true are the desired qualities and experiences, while imitation, reproduction, copy, fake, adaptation, transformation, translation, duplication, replication, appropriation, interpretation and forgery are just some of the negative terms used today to discuss “inauthentic,” or seemingly undesirable, works of art. In our modern taste and judgment the former terms are tainted with a negative connotation, but what exactly do they all mean? What is this concept of authenticity and is it possible for objects and experiences to coexist in varying aspects of authenticity? My answer is, in a word, yes.

Authenticity can be discussed on multiple levels with varying characteristics and

values. This literature review will look at the multiple ways authenticity is reflected, in

terms of objects, museum collecting, and viewer experiences, by examining the historic

body of literature already written on the subject. It will explore the physical, historical,

experiential, aesthetic, and educational shifts in perceptions of authenticity, and then set

up a path going forward where these multiple perspectives can, and are, considered

4 relevant. This will demonstrate that the concept of authenticity is ever-changing, and that there will never be concrete conclusion to be drawn in regard to use and value.

Coming back to this work, after a substantial break, I have mustered some new perspective on the topic. These questions and ideas have played in my head off and on, consciously and subconsciously, and I now believe that the best way I could approach this subject is by looking at the body of literature as an epistemological maze. The concept of authenticity is an ever-changing topic, and one which will hold different meanings for different groups at different times. The approach I will now take in understanding the nature and value of authenticity in terms of museum objects and audience experiences is to look at the body of literature thematically and then explore each theme in terms of physical, historical, experiential, aesthetic and/or educational trends, and see how this has shifted throughout time. I understand that not all literature will touch upon these trends, but I will use this set of criteria to guide my construction of this conceptual maze.

Before moving forward I think it is helpful to discuss some of the “basics”. So, what is this “authenticity” I’m talking about? Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate

Dictionary defines authenticity, in part, as authoritative, trustworthy, not imaginary, false or imitation (Merriam-Webster, 1988). The concept of authenticity as discussed for this literature review will be assessed through a multitude of criteria. The criterion through which authenticity is examined and addressed throughout this paper will be discussed at great length, but the following notes briefly illustrate the direction of each discourse.

Authenticity, in terms of the physical criteria, can be considered as the perception of

5

“realness” of the physical object or experience within the museum. In historic terms, authenticity deals with the truthfulness the object had in representing a period of time.

The experiential or social aspect of authenticity addresses the genuineness of the engagement by the audience in their interaction with the museum and its collection. The aesthetic value of authenticity focuses on the perception of beauty in relation to the object and it’s interaction with the viewer. Finally, in relation to the educational criteria, authenticity addresses the use of the object or experience in teaching and learning in a museum.

This review of literature will, in part, delve into the how technological developments throughout history, in conjunction with museum practices at the time, have altered the notions of authenticity and how it is perceived and valued by both museum professionals and museum audiences. The educational criteria are the primary set of values under which authenticity is assessed for the purposes of thesis, as my arguments fundamentally recognizes that one of the museum’s primary functions is to serve as an institution of learning. If the museum is to serve a primary educational function, then it is important that both groups of users (professionals and audience) understand how concepts of authenticity plays a role for each. As the history and uses of objects immediately dismissed as “non authentic”, i.e. “fake”, are looked at under this rubric, then the hopes are that experiences coming out of interactions with these traditionally, non-authentic objects are still valid and valuable for the user. To reference back once again to Walter Benjamin, I will seek to explore how all objects, and experiences, as parts of a greater language, fragments of a larger vessel, and intertwined pathways of a

6 boundless maze. It is my belief that all objects, regardless of their “authentic” nature do overlap and intertwine to create a unique experience, a maze, for all who choose to play.

It is important to note, that for the purposes of the discussion here, only select museum users and criteria were chosen for discussion. It is understood that there are many groups who play a role in the function of the museum, but for the purposes of this paper where museum education is the key, I will focus primarily on these three groups of users: museum professionals, audiences, and object creators. These three groups represent the major players in an inquiry into authenticity. The museum professionals, the audience, and the creator play an important role in the assessment of authenticity, just as there are other constituency groups who play a role in the institutional make-up of the museum, so too are there additional criteria under which authenticity could be explored for the purposes of this discussion. For the sake of this literature review the list was limited to the four criteria I felt most central to my inquiry- aesthetic, educational, historical, and physical- for the discussion in relation to the function of education in the museum. Some of the additional criteria realized, but not explored in this paper include: the economic, spiritual, psychological, political and social. Admittedly, these criteria could be endless, but again for the sake of this review, it would not be possible to include succinct discussion on each. The criteria chosen for inclusion here are felt to best address the concept of authenticity as it related to museum professionals and the museum audience, and the object creator.

One final thing to note for the sake of this thesis is how the varied aspects of

authenticity may vary, as seen from different cultural perspectives. It is understood that

7 different cultures will have different approaches to each of these criteria, but this literature review will focus primarily on the museum, users and criteria as seen from the perspective of the Western/European history and culture. This is by no means to say that it is the preferred culture or viewpoint, only that this is culture for which the paper is centered based upon my background knowledge and experiences.

To begin this inquiry on authenticity and relevance to museum function and practice it is necessary to define the key terms discussed within. The basic terms relevant to this inquiry include those of authenticity, original(ity), reproduction, cast, copy, fake and forgery .

Authenticity

Art collectors’ value authenticity in the artwork they collect, curators wish to tap into an aura of authenticity in their exhibitions and displays, and museum visitors seek authentic experiences and interactions with museum objects and displays. Authenticity can be discussed on multiple levels such as experiential, physical, social, educational, and historic, but first it is necessary to formulate a definition which will span multiple levels.

The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English defines authenticity by stating, “1.

Of undisputed origin; genuine. 2. Reliable or trustworthy” (Abate, 1999, p.45).

Les Field, from the Department of Anthropology at The University of New

Mexico, examines authenticity in his article, “Four Kinds of Authenticity: Regarding

Nicaraguan Pottery in Scandinavian museums, 2006-2008” published in American

Ethnologist, August 2009. In this article he discusses, what he believes to be, four types

8 of authenticity: Ethnographic, High Art, Engineered, Brand Named. For Field,

Ethnographic Authenticity refers to a type of authenticity where objects “accurately represent a bounded, named culture, cultural groups, or cultural identity.” (Field, 2009, p.510) For objects of Authentic High Art, Field explains, “the identity and bankable reputation of the individual maker, and, thus, the uniqueness and virtuosity of the object in question, is the paramount factor in determining authenticity.” (Field, 2009, p.511)

Engineered Authenticity refers to mass produced objects, where the level of authenticity is determined by the “adherence to design standards”, and finally, Brand-named

Authenticity is much like Engineered Authenticity, but they “embody particular corporate and national iconographies.” (Field, 2009, p.511). While all of these types of authenticities referred to by Field are different, each one, in its own way, has an underlying element of truthfulness involved. For his Ethnographic Authenticity, the

“truth” is in relationship to the named culture. The “truth” is expressed in high art via the uniqueness of the individual object. Engineered and Band Named Authenticity, both, express their element of truth in their relationships with the measure of design standards and the corporate image they are trying to convey.

Taking my cue from the logic expressed by Les Field for the purposes of this paper, whether it is in relation to object, ideas, or experiences, authenticity will be considered a concept related to truthfulness in creation or inception.

9

Original(ity) and Reproduction

The overall concept of originality is usually seen as being synonymous to that of authenticity as the original object, or experience, can also be considered authentic. Just as authenticity is synonymous with truthfulness, so too is original(ity). Peggy Phelan, professor of English at Stanford University, writes in her book, Unmarked: The Politics of Performance , “Performance occurs over a time which will not be repeated. It can be performed again, but this repetition itself marks as “different.” The document of a performance then is only a spur to memory, an encouragement of memory to become present” (Phelan, 1993, p.146). While Phelan was writing specifically in regards to performance, this reasoning can also apply to physical objects. Her idea of repetition marking a reproduction as “different” indirectly makes the initial object as creatively independent of anything else. In her essay, “Originality in Postmodern Appropriation

Art,” Julie Van Camp, professor of philosophy at California State University, addresses the analytical versus Postmodern problems/approaches when defining originality. She points out the analytic rationale takes two basic approaches, “originality as property of the work of art itself and originality as property of artists” (Van Camp, 2007, p.248).

This would relate originality to authenticity, uniqueness, creativity, and genuineness of expression. According to Van Camp, the postmodern approach argues that there is no such thing as originality because artists can no longer produce art without being influenced by a source outside themselves, and technical reproductions have done away with the authenticity surrounding works (Van Camp, 2007, p.253). Van Camp herself, proposes a two-pronged approach to address these issues. She writes, “First, the meaning

10 of the term “original” speaks to the relationship between the artist and his or her work….Second, we should consider what evidence we use to assess originality” (Van

Camp, 2007, pp.255-256), for her, a work may not be historically unique, but could be original for the artist.

I agree with Julie Van Camp, in that it is difficult to divorce novel thought from outside influences, yet, it is still possible for a unique work to be created regardless of these external influences. For the purposes of this paper I assume a more analytical approach to originality, and consider the term only as it relates to the physicality of an art object and the relationship to the maker. An original object is one which displays the truthfulness in creation and creatively independent of anything else. In this respect, the original art object is considered authentic because it relates the truth of the maker in creation.

A reproduction is a duplicate made in the likeness of an original work of art, with the original object as the source material from which reproductions based. A reproduction is the remanufacture of an object in the likeness of the first. These two terms, original and reproduction, are closely related, as the very act of reproducing, basing one object upon another, gives rise to the original. An original object (or experience) can exist independently, but a reproduction is dependent on the existence of an original.

Cast and Copy

11

Casts and copies, are at related to and fall under the auspices of reproduction. In my writing henceforth, a copy will be considered equivalent to a reproduction. That is, an object created out of the likeness of another.

Like a copy, a cast may also be reproduction, but specifically related to three dimensional objects. A cast can also refer to a serial work, but for the sake of this discussion I will refer to casts in relation to copies, and specifically with reference to plaster casting of historic, one-of-a-kind, sculptural works.

Fakes

Hilde Hein, associate professor emerita of philosophy at the College of the Holy

Cross, provides a working definition of an artistic fake as follows,

A fake resembles another object in appearance and may be mistaken for

that object. Its primary value derives from that resemblance, but fakes can

also come to be appreciated on their own account for other reasons –

economy, efficiency, moral independence, or even, of late, for their

ostensive flamboyance. (Hein, 2000, p.73)

Hein also explains that museum fakes often turn out to be works misattributed after production, and are only fakes because they were not what they were initially thought them to be. (Hein, 2000, p.73) So, essentially, what is presently labeled as a fake may not have been seen as such in the past. A fake may be seen as a cultural construct, and not characterized as object specific. Hein notes that “Their [fakes] inauthenticity relative

12 only to their status in a value hierarchy. In a manner of speaking they are imposters, though not through their own fault” (Hein, 2000, p.73).

The immediate benefits of fakes may not be fully understood, but they can prove important in providing clues to both past and present trends in the market, what purchasers want, and the types of objects concerned. Mark Jones, editor and contributor to the book, Why Fakes Matter: Essays on the Problems of Authenticity (1992) and,

exhibition catalogue, Fake? The Art of Deception (1990), explains, “Fakes are, however,

only secondarily a source of evidence for the outlook of those who made and uncovered

them. They are, before all else, a response to demand, and ever changing portrait of

human desires.” (Jones, 1990, p.13) If one understands that a society will “fake” the

things they collect, then this will begin to tell us what was important in the past and what

is important today. (Jones, 1990) He notes, “…fakes represent what purchasers most

wanted in the class of objects concerned.” (Jones, 1992, p.9) Jones also reasons that

object faking, and those objects chosen to be faked, provide a more accurate history of

taste than original objects passed through collection to collection.

Forgery

To provide a working definition for a forgery, I again turn to Hilde Hein, who

explains that a forgery, like a fake, involves resemblance to another object, but the

intention is to deceive a viewer about the history of the forged object. A forgery may be

an exact copy of an original work, or it may be a stylistic imitation to fit within a body of

work. (Hein, 2000, p.74) In his book, The Fake: Forgery and its Place in Art , Sandor

13

Rodnoti explains, “forgeries are popular variations of a certain theme, adjusted to suit the spirit of age and designed to be more easily comprehended than the original” (Radnoti,

1999, p.35). Similar to what was learned from Hein, Rodnoti also notes, “Forgery is applied art that relies for effect on the surface attraction of another work, or another style, flattering the eye by pretending to be exactly that.” (Radnoti, 1999, p.14). Radnoti continues to explain that one judges works of art not only on their aesthetics, but also their significance throughout history. He explains, “the forger attacks originality from the point of view of historical authenticity, insofar as his work gives the impression that it contains the story that conveys the same historical evidence as the original” (Radnoti,

1999, p.43).

Considering the points of view of these various scholars the primary difference between a fake and a forgery appears to be the intent to deceive. This intent is something which may, or may not, have been intended by the maker, but the values placed on the objects over a period of time, by those representing them, have, at some point cast a negative light back onto the object itself. If one takes Hilde Hein’s definition of a fake as an object appearing to be, and mistaken for, something it is not (Hein, 2000, p.73), then one could reason that a forgery is a type of fake, differing only by that intention to deceive. A forgery is the more actionable and value laden term of the two, subjected to the values of the time, and is determined by both the market and the courts. An artistic forgery is the product of art serving as a commodity and only relevant when art is being sold, collected, bought, exhibited, and published as authentic.

14

Although each of these terms can stand alone, each is closely related, and all can in some aspect be considered related to the concept of authenticity. Again, this multidimensional concept of authenticity will be an overriding factor throughout this paper, and the various levels will be highlighted at different times in different sections.

The definitions provided are meant to explain these words for use in this inquiry, and to help shape this investigation into an exploration of educational value and changing notions of authenticity surrounding reproductions.

Ultimately, this paper seeks to open up new understandings of authenticity and create an open mode of thinking that includes comparisons of multiple criteria of just what authenticity can mean to different people. The truthfulness of objects and experiences is not a straight line proposition, and understanding multiple perspectives regarding authenticity can aid in pedagogical freedom. What is considered “fake” for one group is very “real” for another. Moving forward I have broken down the literature in terms of Authenticity and Original(ity), Reproductions, (casts and copies), Fakes and

Forgeries, and finally how these play a role in pedagody. It is my hope that by looking back through the body of literature I will be able to show that object authenticity should not be the only desired quality, and instead open up modes of thought to argue that “fake” is not necessarily always a “four letter word.”

15

Chapter 2: Authenticity and Original(ity)

“The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.”

Walter Benjamin The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

This chapter examines the concept of authenticity, as related to artistic reproductions, focusing specifically on the aesthetic, educational, experiential, historical, and physical characteristics. This examination will show how authenticity is a fluid concept and may morph and change based upon the goals and perspective of the individual (or institutions) involved. In today’s society authenticity, and the aura of the authentic, is highly desired by artist, museum, or collector; be it the authentic experience, the means of providing the authentic experience, or the authentic nature of the object itself. When applied to museums and museum functions, the concept of authenticity tends to refer to a very rigid provenance, but for the audience, their definition may be looser depending on the nature of their goals in experiencing the museum. In order for museums to remain successful, as places of learning, then concepts of authenticity must be understood and some balance reached to ensure that the needs of all are fully met.

Before progressing any further I would like to explain and expand upon the definition I provided for authenticity in the Introduction. Authenticity is generally

16 defined as displaying the characteristics of trustworthy, genuine and truthful. Webster’s

Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary in 1988 defines authentic as

1: obs : AUTHORATIVE 2: worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming

to fact or reality: TRUSTWORTHY 3a: not imaginary, false, or imitation

b: conforming to an

original so as to reproduce essential features

colonial farmhouse>” (Merriam-Webster, 1988, p.117).

Published eleven years later in 1999, The Oxford American Dictionary of Current

English has a similar definition, stating, “1. Of undisputed origin; genuine. 2. Reliable or trustworthy” (Abate, 1999, p.45). The 2002 definition in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate

Dictionary- 10 th edition , in 2002, mirrors their earlier definition from 1988. Wikipedia, from 23 April 2012, defines authenticity as follows, “Authenticity refers to the truthfulness of origins, attributions, commitments, sincerity, devotion, and intentions.”

(Wikipedia, 2012). While the concepts of genuine and truthfulness, in relation to authenticity, hold true, their application also varies depending on the function of the object or experience being discussed. For the purposes of my discussion here I consider authenticity to refer truthfulness in artistic creation or inception; the “realness” of the physical object or experience within the museum. While the history and uses of objects immediately dismissed as “non authentic”, i.e. “fake”, are frowned upon, I still hold that that the experiences coming out of interactions with these traditionally, non-authentic objects may still be valid and valuable for the user.

17

The writings chosen for inclusion here have been selected to assist in opening up new understandings of authenticity and create an open mode of thinking. This examination delves into the how technological developments have unfolded throughout history, have altered the notions of authenticity and how both are perceived and valued.

As the history and uses of objects immediately dismissed as “non authentic”, are examined, I will argue that experiences emerging from interactions with these traditionally, non-authentic objects can be seen as valid and valuable for the user.

The truthfulness of objects and experiences is not a black and white proposition, and varying perceptions of authenticity can be understood and addressed in multiple ways. Objects and experiences mean different things to different people. Is there, or could there ever be, an inauthentic experience? Are objects or experiences in a museum valued more, and if so, by whom, and in what contexts?

The starting point for my examination of authenticity is grounded in examinations of reproductive arts in the writings of Walter Benjamin, and in specific, his essay, “The

Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Benjamin begins his essay by explaining that art replicas have always been produced, and works of art have always been reproducible. The important distinction for Benjamin is the rise of the technological or mechanical reproduction. He writes,

Replicas were made by pupils in practice of their craft, by masters for

diffusing their works, and finally, by third parties in pursuit of gain.

Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents something

18

new. Historically, it advanced intermittently and in leaps and long

intervals, but with accelerated intensity. (Benjamin, 1968a, p.323)

Benjamin notes that the Greeks were able to reproduce bronzes, terracottas, and coins in mass quantity but all other works could not be mechanically (mass) produced. Benjamin believes that only with the invention of lithography was reproducibility commonplace, and then not long after, far surpassed by photography. (Benjamin, 1968a, p.323) Now I would contend that this could also include the internet, digital technologies, virtual realities, and perhaps soon, nanotechnologies.

Benjamin was concerned with the presence of the aura of the work of art, and that resulting lack of aura in the reproduction. He writes, “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happened to be” (Benjamin, 1968a, p.324). He also notes,

“The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity”

(Benjamin,1968a, p.324). Benjamin points out that technical reproductions are more independent of the original, and do not have the same closeness with the original as a manual reproduction. He believes the downside to a mechanical reproduction is that the quality of the presence of the original (its aura or authenticity) is depreciated by the introduction of the reproduction. An authentic work has a basis in ritual, and the mechanical reproduction separates art from ritual. It is through this separation that the aura of the work depreciates, or at the very least, that the ritual of the process is depreciated.

19

David Lowenthal, Emeritus Professor of Geography, University College London, discusses the issue of authenticity in his essay, “Authenticity? The dogma of self- delusion”. Lowenthal begins by writing,

The cult of Authenticity pervades modern life. Titles of publications with

the works ‘authentic,’ ‘authenticity,’ and ‘authentication’ have multiplied

fivefold since 1970.” “Over-use has utterly debased the term authenticity

itself. Anything so-called now appears not authentic but contrived to seem

so, like ‘authentic wooden lard beater’ used by ‘authentic colonial

housewives. (Lowenthal, 1992, p.184).

Here, Lowenthal is reflecting on the same idea as Benjamin when he discussed the lack of aura in the reproduction versus the original. Lowenthal points out,

An original is authentic by definition, a replica is made authentic by hard

work….The skill and ease of replication make authenticity all the more

elusive today. As fakes and replicas become harder to tell from originals

(if not more attractive than them), other traits- uniqueness, symbolic

association, historical credibility- gain canonical authentic status.

(Lowenthal, 1992, p.188).

Lowenthal argues that an object in a museum and one’s experiences with it can never be completely authentic because we will never see it as it was produced by its maker.

Our view on objects will always be shaped by events and other objects which post-date the artwork in question. Lowenthal explains that no work of art will ever

20 remain as it was originally created because time, corrosion, and restoration are always taking place. He also makes the point that the “commodification of culture” treats art and antiques as merchandise and this in turn raises, or depreciates, the worth of authentic works (Lowenthal, 1992, p.188). This notion is very similar to that made by Hans Tietze in his book Genuine and False: Copies, Imitations Forgeries , where he notes that items which are aesthetically in favor at the time of their making are those things which will be reproduced (Tietze, 1948, p.16). Lowenthal concludes his essay by noting, “Revealing hidden assumptions about the past they claim to stem from, fakes advance our understanding no less than the truths that expose them” (Lowenthal, 1992, p.190). This essay makes the argument that being authentic is not always better, and is, in the end, never achievable.

Mark Jones, writing in 1990 as the Assistant Keeper in the Department of

Coins and Medals at the British Museum, and editor of the exhibition catalogue, “Fake?

The Art of Deception”, touches upon an important educational aspect in the concept of authenticity in his essay “Why Fakes?” Jones asserts:

Now a new concept of authenticity is emerging which encourages us to

accept that objects have a continuing history, that they are damaged and

repaired, cleaned and restored, and that their present state records not only

the moment of creation but also a whole subsequent set of events.

(Jones,1990, p.14)

What Jones is getting at here is the fact that objects do have that notion of a

“continuing history”, and that the history of the restoration and repair over time

21 also speak to us now about the changing tastes of popular culture. At one point sculpture was viewed as less authentic in a fragmented state, since it was not representative as it would have been seen at the moment of creation. Later, a shift in perception now sees these previous historical restorations as marring the aura, or the authentic nature, of the original works.

Looking again at Walter Benjamin and his essay, “The Task of the Translator,” the relationship between original and reproduction is explored. Walter Benjamin’s primary concern is with the nature of written translation and the relationship between the original and the translation. This concept of the original and “copy” can also been viewed in an artistic versus literal sense. He views both the original and the translation as significant in their own right, without one being dependent upon the other. All artistic copies, like translations, will have certain elements unique onto themselves, and no translation (or copy) would be sufficient if it sought only complete likeness of the original. This mode of reasoning could also be applied to the translations of original art works by others, such as Roman copies of Greek sculpture, an apprentice’s interpretation of a master painting, or an engravers translation of a painting, drawing, or sculpture. To elaborate on this notion we again look to the words of Benjamin, “While a poet’s words endure in his own language, even the greatest translation is destined to become part of the growth of its own language and eventually to be absorbed by its renewal” (Benjamin,

1968b, p.73)

Les Field, Professor of Anthropology, at the University of New Mexico also weighs in on the subject of authenticity in his article, “Four Kinds of Authenticity?

22

Regarding Nicaraguan pottery in Scandinavian museums 2006-08.” In this article Field deals with the issues surrounding authenticity when pottery from the Nicaraguan village of San Juan de Oriente is shown at different types of venues in Scandinavia. Field is looking at the objects from an anthropologic viewpoint, by investigating the San

Juanense pottery “in the context of contemporary Scandinavian configurations of high art, artisanally produced crafts, globalized commodities, and national iconography”

(Field, 2009, p.507). Field first describes his views on authenticity, which are useful for my discussion. On authenticity Field (2009) writes,

These transformations have made it possible for San Juanense ceramics to

embody aspects of what I conceive of as four different types of

authenticity- ethnographic, high artistic, engineering, and brand named-

that have developed during at least the last century and that coexist, albeit

uneasily and contradictorily, at the current time. (p.508)

These ‘types’ of authenticity, as Field lays out, are important in showing how elusive a single definition for authenticity can be to pin down, especially when dealing with objects over different periods of time. The first type of authenticity Fields defines is ethnographic authenticity . He believes this to be, “a troupe deeply embedded in

anthropology’s historical relationships with Native peoples…Objects are considered

authentic under this rubric in that they accurately represent a bounded, named culture,

cultural group or cultural identity” (Field, 2009, p.510). The second type of authenticity

fields considers is authentic high art . He explains, “The archetypical form of this type of

authentic object is the masterpiece : a completely unique object whose value is

23 constructed as much by the reputation of the individual maker as by its unique aesthetic and technical attributes” (Field, 2009, p.511). The third type of authenticity Field writes about is engineering authenticity . He sees this type as one of mass produced objects

where the maker is otherwise invisible, and the authenticity is in relation to design

standards. (Field, 2009, p.511). This relates closely to the forth type of authenticity, that

of brand-named. Like the third type, the brand-named authentic object is mass produced,

but these objects, “are also identified by and thus gain their authenticity through their

ability to embody particular corporate and national iconographies” (Fields, 2009, p.511).

Writing for Museum News in 2007, B. Joseph Pine and James H. Gilmore provide

a museum standard for authenticity in their article, “Museums and Authenticity”. They

begin by stating that authenticity has become the “new consumer sensibility” and that

authenticity is desired above price and quality (Pine and Gilmore, 2007, p.76). Pine and

Gilmore are looking at authenticity more as it relates to experience, and write, “in a word

increasingly filled with deliberate and sensationally staged experiences- and increasingly

unreal world- consumers choose to buy or not buy on how real they perceive an offering

to be” (Pine and Gilmore, 2007, p.76). Pine and Gilmore believe that museums need to

“learn to understand, manage and excel at rendering authenticity...Museums must get

real. The #1 challenge today is the management of consumer perception of authenticity”

(Pine and Gilmore, 2007, p.76). They then go on to address authenticity on three levels,

artifacts, edifices and encounters. They write,

There are three primary levels to consider in thinking about museums and

authenticity: artifacts, edifices and encounters…artifacts are the product of

24

artifice, if not at their creation or when in situ, then when artificially

placed within the confines of the museum…our encounters with artifacts

within those edifices are, indeed, authentic for there is no such thing as an

inauthentic experience. Why? Because experiences happen inside of us,

they’re out internal reaction to the events that unfold around us. (Pine and

Gilmore, 2007, p.78).

They continue,

Two key dimensions compose the essence of what it means to be

authentic. The first is readily apparent: being true to one’s own

self….There is a second dimension, however, that is just as important:

being what you say you are to others…To get real, museums must

confront these two standards for all of their artifacts, edifices and

encounters: (A) Is it true to itself? (B) Is it what it says it is? (Pine and

Gilmore, 2007, p.79).

The authors address how the architecture of the museum can direct the aesthetic experience- “edifices too are artifice, constructed increasingly for engaging entertainment value as much as for any functional purpose” (Pine and Gilmore, 2007, p.78). They believe that the encounters with objects (artifacts) within the walls of the museum (edifices) are authentic, because they believe there is no such thing as an inauthentic experience. (Pine and Gilmore, 2007, p.78). Pine and Gilmore, while writing

25 in reference to authenticity in museums, also convey the idea of truthfulness, as key to understanding authenticity.

Turning again to Hilde Hein and her book, Museum Experience and the

Real Thing , Hein, examines authenticity in terms of authentic experiences. Hein’s chapter on museum experiences and the “Real Thing” deals with the subject of authenticity in museums. She begins by explaining that museum visitors expect the real thing, but they do not take the time to contemplate what is meant by the term “real thing.” She discusses history and ideas of reality through Platonic ideals and how Plato’s legacy continues to influence contemporary thought; high regard for reality, less “real” equals less desirable. Hein mirrors the concept of authenticity as put forward a decade earlier by Mark Jones. She too touches upon the idea that authenticity traces an object’s path through time. She writes,

“Determining a things authenticity often involves tracking it to its source and monitoring any interventions that might have modified it en route from that point to its present state.” (Hein, 2000, p.73) Hein then goes into discussion on appearance and authenticity. She also defines fakes and forgeries, and makes the point that many museum “fakes” are works which turn out to be misattributed after production. They are now only considered “fake” because they were not what they were thought to be. Hein is writing here in part of a larger discussion on fakes and forgeries I will look at in a subsequent chapter, but I believe this reflected idea of objects having a “continued history”, as similarly discussed by

Mark Jones, is worth pointing out. Hein also looks at authenticity and how this

26 plays in the idea of a virtual reality, and how this new “reality” can make the viewer feel as they are interacting with the “real.” This is important thought as it questions the meaning of real versus fake in relation to museum experience and new technologies.

I’d like to look again to David Lowenthal but this time in his 2008 article,

“Authenticites Past and Present” to touch upon another aspect of authenticity to add to the mix. This article by Lowenthal tackles the issues of authenticity but from the perspective of historical preservation. While the issues he deals with here are mainly concerned with heritage sites, many concepts discussed, and questions posed, may also be asked of authenticity in art objects. He begins by asking the general question, what is authenticity and why is it desired? Based upon his personal experience in the 1990 British Museum “Fakes” exhibition,

Lowenthal notes that “judgments about authenticity depend as much on where as

what things were.” (Lowenthal, 2008, p.6) The fraudulent objects in the show were viewed with just as much awe as the originals just because of their placement within the museum setting. Lowenthal also discusses the problem of restoration in relation to historical sites. This is also an issue for preservation of art objects, as techniques in preservation and restoration have changed over time.

In regard to historical preservation he states that the “criteria of authenticity we choose reflect current views about how yesterday should serve and inform today”

(Lowenthal, 2008, p.9) This also applies to objects as well, and how what was considered in the past to be authentic shapes what is considered as such today.

27

The concept of original(ity) is usually seen as being synonymous to authenticity, in that, the original object, or experience, can also be considered authentic. Just as authenticity is tantamount to truthfulness, so too is originality. Peggy Phelan, professor of English at Stanford University, writes in her book, Unmarked: The Politics of

Performance ,

Performance occurs over a time which will not be repeated. It can be

performed again, but this repetition itself marks as “different.” The

document of a performance then is only a spur to memory, an

encouragement of memory to become present.” (Phelan, p.146)

While Phelan was writing specifically in regards to performance, this reasoning can also

apply to physical objects. Her idea of repetition marking a reproduction as “different”

indirectly makes the initial object as creatively independent of anything else. In her

essay, “Originality in Postmodern Appropriation Art,” Julie Van Camp addresses the

analytical versus Postmodern problems/approaches when defining originality. She points

out the analytic rationale takes two basic approaches, “originality as property of the work

of art itself and originality as property of artists” (Van Camp, 2007, p.248). This would

relate originality to authenticity, uniqueness, creativity, and genuineness of expression.

According to Van Camp, in the postmodern approach one argues that there is no such

thing as originality because artists can no longer produce art without being influenced by

a source outside themselves, and with technical reproductions have done away with the

authenticity surrounding works (Van Camp, 2007, p.253). Van Camp herself, proposes a

two-pronged approach to address these issues. She writes, “First, the meaning of the

28 term “original” speaks to the relationship between the artist and his or her work….Second, we should consider what evidence we use to assess originality” (Van

Camp, 2007, pp.255-256). For VanCamp, a work may not be historically unique, but could be original for the artist. This originality relates to authenticity, uniqueness, creativity, and genuineness of expression.

The goal of this chapter was to provide an overview on the concept of authenticity, and as previously stated show how authenticity is a fluid concept and may morph and change based upon the goals and perspective of the individual (or institutions) involved. One of the major concepts discovered about authenticity is the idea that objects have a “continuing history,” as noted by Mark Jones. Jones also raises a valuable point to consider in regards to authenticity going forward,

“Why, if what we value from a work of art is the aesthetic pleasure to be gained from it, is a successful deceptive fake interior to the real thing?” (Jones, 1990, p.15) After looking at authenticity I will take the next chapter to flip the coin and examine the topic of reproductions.

29

Chapter 3: Reproductions: casts and copies

"What is REAL?" asked the Rabbit one day, when they were lying side by side near the nursery fender, before Nana came to tidy the room. "Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?"

"Real isn't how you are made," said the Skin Horse. "It's a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real."

Margery Williams The Velveteen Rabbit

This chapter examines the topic of artistic reproductions, focusing in specifically on casts and copies. As initially raised in the introduction, a reproduction is a duplicate made in the likeness of an original, with the original object operating as the source on which that reproduction is based. A reproduction is therefore the rebirth of an object in the likeness of the first. An original object can exist independently, but a reproduction is always dependent on the model of the original. Robert Dornsife, in his article, “Coming to (Digital) Terms: The Work of Art in the Age of Non-Mechanical Reproduction” also makes this point. While Dornsife is looking more at the concept of original and reproduction in terms of analog versus digital technology, this distinction between original and reproduction is still relevant today.

30

Dornsife writes,

Within an analog world, the copy was marked by a degradation when

compared to the original, a comparison itself made possible by this very

marking. Thus, the copy was as a result of its relation to an original, just as

the original was as a result of its relation to a copy. Further, such potential

was as much at play as any actual manifestation of original to copy. The

original need not have been copied to achieve its status as original. The

very possibility that the original might be copied, and if it were to be

copied, that the copy would be marked by a degradation of quality,

marked each accordingly. (Dornsife, 2006, para. 5)

While Dornsife is specifically referencing analog versus digital reproductions, it is within this discussion that he teases out the overall concept of original versus copy, an argument that I will keep in this examination.

Another aspect of reproduction related to digital reproduction is discussed by

Robert Nelson in his article, “The Slide Lecture, or the Work of Art “History” in the age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Here, Nelson looks at the use of digital reproductions and their use in education via the slide lecture. In his article, Nelson is asking, what knowledge is produced by the slide lecture? And why audiences accept speakers with reproductions? He explains that in the slide lecture the image never stands for just an image, but it is part of a trichotomy consisting of speaker, image and audience.

31

Through example of passages from Wasserstein’s The Heidi Chronicles, Nelson demonstrates how the slide in the art history lecture is not looked upon as a reproduction

(or copy) of the original, but as an object itself. Nelson examines both the audience’s and the lecturer’s relationship with the slide. Lecturers (usually Art Historians) are familiar with slides as reproductions and are experienced with lectures. Audiences on the other hand are not as experienced, and through the dark physical setting of a slide lecture, the audience builds an intimate relationship with the slide image. Nelson refers back to

Walter Benjamin’s essay “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, and explains that if a photographic reproduction reduces the aura of the original, then the use of a slide accompanied by lecture is another matter altogether. Nelson argues that slides can change art into visual facts because they are removed from the original and can be replicated and studied.

Martin Heidegger’s essay, “The Origin of the Work of Art” also deals with this idea of the “object-ness,” and as the title of the essay would suggest, Heidegger begins with an examination on the nature of origin in art. Is the artist made out of the artwork, or the artwork made from the activity of the artist? He explains that “art” is just a name within itself which corresponds to something which would have to be described as the nature of what it is. This leads into his discussion of the thing and the "thingly" aspect of a work. Heidegger believes artworks are things, or, something which is not anything, but is also something more in and of itself. I believe this holds true for reproductions. They too are things, and something more in and of themselves. Heidegger seeks to explain the nature of the thing by looking at it in terms of thing and work, with the distinction of

32 matter and form. He discusses art in terms of equipment and tries to invoke a sense of truth into the art not relying solely on form and matter. By granting art a social utility he fills it with life. He then goes on to describe the work in terms of truth and talks of this in terms of “world” and “earth.” The “world” being the inactive surroundings set up around a work, and the “earth” being what is set forth from the world. He explains that the world and earth are very different from each other, but never separated as the world is grounded in the earth and the earth cuts across the world. Artworks battle this earth-world struggle and from it arises the truth of the work. To Heidegger, truth is the nature of the true, or the real. Lastly, he discusses truth and art and how “art breaks open an open place, in whose openness everything is other than usual” (Heidegger, 2000, p.98). Heidegger’s essay represents a hermeneutic circle that is never ending, or completely answered. This look into the origin of a work could be pointed onto the origin of a reproduction and the same questions asked to determine the “authenticity” of the copy.

In examining this notion of what it means to be a reproduction, I extend my thinking to consider about what it means in art, and for art, to be a reproduction in the forms of casts or reproductive copies. As I mentioned previously, casts and copies are directly related to the concept of reproduction. I consider a copy to be equivalent to a reproduction, that is, an object made out of the likeness of another. Casts too are reproductions, but are specifically three dimensional in nature. As explained in the introduction, this thesis emerged from my fascination with of Roman marble copies of

Greek Bronze originals, and was pushed further as I considered the collection and use of plaster casts of these Roman marbles. These plaster casts can be up to three times

33 removed from their “original,” and yet, still are collected and used heavily in the field of education. I approach this chapter on reproductions initially by looking at the literature surrounding the history of plaster casts and reproductive engravings and by discussing these specific methods of production and how their uses in education can be transferred through expanding technologies that include digital imagery and forms of virtual reality.

The hearty value we now place on original works of art has not always been in

existence and our collecting fashions have changed throughout history. Touching upon

this idea, while focusing on the use of plaster casts, James McNutt writes on “Plaster

Casts After Antique Sculpture: Their Role in the Elevation of Public Taste and in

American Art Institutions.” (1990) In his article, McNutt follows the history of cast

collections in America from colonial times up to their fall from favor in the late

nineteenth century. His examination of this history argues for the educational value of

plaster casts and its role in elevating public taste for classical art. According to McNutt,

in the sixteenth century, only the wealthiest and hence most powerful, collected antique

sculpture. “Originals” (if one accepts Roman marble copies as original) were in limited

supply, and only the most privileged class was able to afford them. In order to keep up

with the taste of the time, other members of the aristocracy began commissioning copies

made in marble and bronze. By the middle of the sixteenth century plaster casts were

being employed to make these copies. The molds for these casts were taken directly from

the original works, and copies were more easily produced for mass consumption.

(McNutt, 1990) In the seventeenth century these plaster casts were introduced into

European art academies for use as instructional aids. By the eighteenth century the

34 ownership of art, be it casts, copies or originals, was closely associated with good taste.

McNutt points out these casts were the only exposure to sculpture for many, while at the same time they were looked down upon by others because they were reproductions and composed of “common” materials. This trend was not specific to Europe, but also spread to the American colonies. (McNutt, 1990)

During this time ancient sculpture was seen as an exemplification of an ideal beauty. This aesthetic introduced the idea of taste and culture within the American colonies. Prominent American statesmen such as George Washington and Thomas

Jefferson both collected and ordered casts from abroad. Washington received a collection of military busts including Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar to decorate

Mt. Vernon, while Jefferson received copies of Venus de’Medici, Apollo Belvedere, and the Farnese Hercules for display at Monticello. (McNutt, 1990) The introduction of copied art, sculpture and paintings to America not only served aesthetic and decorative purposes, but also served an instructional function as well. McNutt’s article brings out an important point in the history of cast collecting, that the casts could be used for both art instruction as well as serving the function of a museum for non-students. This look at cast collecting in early America demonstrates how these “inauthentic” works could, and were, used not only for instruction but also was useful in elevating of public taste to value

European art.

Aspiring artists in Europe and America were urged to study original works.

(McNutt, 1990) While this would have been difficult for many in Europe it was even more of a challenge for those in America. Art instructors in American Academies

35 discovered that the use of plaster casts was just as effective in communicating the ideal nature of these sculptures. (Haskell and Penny, 1981) In 1806 the first shipment of plaster casts was sent to America, and from this shipment casts were delivered to the

Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts to aid their students in drawing classes. (Department of History and Art History, George Mason University, n.d.) It was even suggested that

American artists study casts at home before travelling abroad so they would be familiar with what they were studying and able to accomplish more in a shorter period of time.

(McNutt, 1990) Plaster casts also aided in the instruction of the figure. Study of live models was not looked upon favorably in America until latter portions of the nineteenth century. (Bellows, 1869) The study from these casts was so important that the collections amassed by American museums became increasingly important, and thus helped to shape the American views on Western Art. From the period of time between the mid-nineteenth century to early twentieth century Pennsylvania, Chicago, and New

York became the leading areas in cast collecting. (Department of History and Art

History, George Mason University, n.d.)

In 1883 The Metropolitan Museum of Art was bequeathed a large sum of money with the intended purpose to begin collecting casts, copies, models, and photographs. As a result, the Metropolitan Museum of Art had a very strong and distinguished cast collection, which contained works representing the most important works from antiquity.

This collection was then displayed in the Great Hall of the Museum. Other museums with robust collections of plaster casts were the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and the

Corcoran Gallery of Art. Museums were not the only institutions to collect casts, but

36 schools and academies also collected plaster casts to use in teaching, especially for studio art and art history courses.

Academic institutions with cast collections included the Art Institute of Chicago,

Vassar College, and as discussed earlier, the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. Some institutions even went so far as to send representatives to Europe with the primary intent of ordering copies to bring back to their home institutions. This would not have been an out of the ordinary occurrence as many American artists set up shop in popular European destinations such as France and Rome to create copies for tourists and exportation.

(Musacchio, 2006) Vassar College commissioned copies by an American artist, Emma

Church, to “execute copies of Old Master paintings as the basis for the College’s collection.” (Musacchio, 2006) These copyists abroad were so popular that many guidebooks even provided their studio addresses to help tourists plan their visit. Casts and copies had become synonymous with education that in 1917 the College Art

Associations’ Committee on Reproductions of College Museums set forth a recommended list to be used by academic institutions contemplating the purchase of reproductions. (Robinson, 1917) Their minimum list was set at $1000 and recommended works from periods of Greek Art. Some of the pieces included were statues from the Temple of Aegina, the Doryphoros by Polykleitos, and the Venus of

Melos. The second list was for collections equaling roughly $3000 and in addition to

Greek Art included Egyptian, Assyrian, Roman, Byzantine, Medieval and Renaissance.

The last list delineated was for a $5000 collection which they felt was the maximum amount any institution would devote to a collection. Of this $5000, the first $3000 was

37 suggested for purchases in classical art, and the remaining $2000 for purchases in any other style. In their statement they also noted an August Gerber in Cologne as the best cast-maker. (Robinson, 1917) It is interesting to note how they also explain how large museums will fill orders for casts, and that American museums will even go so far as to make casts from casts. (Robinson, 1917) This is an interesting statement because it testifies to the fact that plaster casts were widely used by institutions, and that more accessible and affordable alternatives were being sought out to fill this growing demand.

By the early twentieth century plaster casts began to fall out of favor as attitudes changed and museums began collecting more original works of art. In order to provide space for their new collections plaster casts were either destroyed or relegated to storage.

For example, the Art Institute of Chicago destroyed a large portion of their collection citing fire hazard, and the collection belonging to the Metropolitan Museum of Art was placed in storage. The collection held at Vassar College was eventually destroyed as well. (Musacchio, 2006) As aesthetic appreciation for original works began to take precedence over pedagogy the cast collections began to disappear. Today, there is resurgence in the taste for the antique, and cast collections are beginning to make their way back into university collections.

The vast collection of plaster casts once housed at the Metropolitan Museum of

Art has now been loaned or gifted to universities across America. Two such universities to receive casts from the Metropolitan’s collection include Fairfield University in

Fairfield, Connecticut and George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. The collection of casts held at Fairfield University is primarily composed of examples from the

38

Parthenon frieze, metopes, and pediments. This collection at Fairfield it being heavily used in teaching students not only about the examples as portrayed, but also about the history of plaster casts. They are taking responsibility for the cleaning and restoration of the pieces in order to make them ready for public display. These casts are providing students at Fairfield with experiences and opportunities unique to this type of cast collection. (Schwab, n.d.)

While the cast collection at Fairfield University consists of pieces obtained from other collections as well as those from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the collection now housed at George Mason University is composed exclusively of pieces from the former Metropolitan collection. In 2003 the first shipment arrived at the University, followed by two additional shipments in 2005. These were originally on long-term loan, but are now considered as gifts from the museum. (Department of History and Art

History, George Mason University, n.d.) Again, as was the case with the Fairfield collection, students (as interns) are taking on the role of cleaning and restoring these casts. At George Mason, the students are also involved with cataloguing the collection with the hopes of later publication. After being stored for so long, many of these casts were in desperate condition upon receipt by the university. (Department of History and

Art History, George Mason University, n.d.) Many were black upon arrival, and the students spent many hours cleaning them into an acceptable condition. (Rich, 2005) The casts in this collection are being used for not only technical experiential purposes, but also for teaching in the classroom. Drawing, photography and art history students have been utilizing them, and an art history seminar course has been designed specifically

39 around this collection. An example from the collection housed at George Mason

University is shown below in figure one.

Figure 1 Barberini Faun, late third-early second century BCE, located in College Hall, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, On loan from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

As has been demonstrated from these examples, the use of casts has been anything but second rate, and in fact has provided students with exceptional opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable to them. Although one should never discount the value behind the study of original works of art, one should also be open to the value which copies, casts and other reproductions have added to the learning process. Funding, and consequently accessibility, is still an issue in many schools across the United States.

Students, and much of the general public, do not have access to original works of art. As discussed previously, plaster casts provided this accessibility in the past.

40

I would like to now turn the attention from plaster cats and sculptural copies, and look at the historical examples of prints and engravings in replicating two-dimensional works of art. To begin this inquiry it is first necessary to begin with a brief discussion on the definition and characteristics of the reproductive print. In his essay “Observations on the History of Reproductive Arts,” Franz Wickhoff developed the meaning of the

“reproductive arts,” and how this could apply to printmaking (Pon, 2004). The period of the Renaissance spawned a great love for all things antique, especially in Italy, where discoveries of ancient sculpture were frequently made. As Francis Haskell and Nicolas

Penny discuss in their book, Taste and the Antique (1981), this attitude towards antique sculpture provided ample opportunity for engravers to begin reproducing these sculptures in print form. For example, the ancient Roman marble Laocoon (albeit a copy of the 2nd century BCE Hellenistic work) (fig two) was highly admired for its realism in anatomy, and thus widely copied in engravings (fig three). These engravers were working much more removed from the original artists than were those who moved engraving from a

“productive arts to a reproductive arts.” (Pon, 2004)

41

Figure 2 Laocoon, Roman Marble Copy, first century CE after second century BCE original

Figure 3 Laocoon, Sisto Badalocchio, 1606 engraving

42

The true birth of Reproductive engraving is widely considered to come about in the early 1500’s in Italy at the time Marcantonio Ramondi began making prints of paintings by Raphael. Wickhoff believed Marcantonio was working in an entirely reproductive manner, although we now know otherwise, as Marcantonio created over one hundred and sixty prints of his own design (Pon, 2004). Jay Levenson, in his article,

“Reproductive Engravings: ’Some of the finest Italian Prints of the Early Renaissance’” argues that reproductive engraving has been a practice since the early 1460. He points out collaborative arrangements on the same order of Raphael and Marcantonio Ramondi.

One example he provides is that of Zoan Andrea’s Four Women Dancing (figure 4) as a reproduction (in reverse) of Mantegna’s Muses in the Parnassus (figure 5).

Figure 4 Zan Andrea. Four Women Dancing, not dated.

43

Figure 5 Andrea Mantegan. Parnassus, 1497.

Regardless of when the practice of reproductive engraving began, the problems we currently hold with standards of authenticity still apply. David Landau and Peter Parshall in their book, The Renaissance Print, 1470-1550 (1994) provide an explicit definition for reproductive printmaking as follows,

a print that was a faithful and complete copy of an independent work of art

in another medium; a print whose apparent purpose was to provide a

straightforward representation in black and white or in color; a print that

was not the fruit of collaboration between designer and printmaker; and,

lastly, a print whose maker’s exclusive purpose was to adapt his technical

skill to the reproduction of the chiaroscural effects of his model. (p.162)

44

If this definition is to be taken word for word, then even the reproductive works

Marcantonio Ramondi made after Raphael would need to be revaluated.

To the modern taste for the “authentic,” the idea of copies and reproductions are tainted with a negative connotation, but in the period of the Renaissance this was not the case. In their essay, “On Imitation and Invention: an Introduction to the Reproductive

Print” Rebecca Zorach and Elizabeth Rondini (2005) write,

The period from 1500 to 1800 not only witnessed the appearance and

refinement of printmaking techniques in Europe, but might even be called

the Age of Imitation, when artistic education became codified as a practice

of copying the highly prized works of the past. (p.3)

It is impossible to reconcile the differences when we attempt to apply modern concepts to a time when they did not exist. Again, from Zorach and Rondini (2005),

Reproduction held deep cultural value in the early modern period; it was a

means of transmitting ideas and developing an artist’s own visual

vocabulary. To discard it as a concept because of later historical prejudice

is to deny reproduction’s value as an approach to visual culture that was

recognized in its own day as important, influential, and productive. (p.6)

It is also necessary to consider the purpose for which the print was being made. As discussed, this was the period of time where art education was driven by replication of highly valued works, and this common practice would not have been viewed as anything by the standard. Prints were also produced as a type of advertisement for the artist/designer him or herself. Prints had a way of going where paintings could not. For a

45 savvy artist to work in collaboration with an engraver his work could then be exported to just about anywhere. Printmaking was a collaborative effort during the Renaissance.

From a technical standpoint alone it was typical for there to be someone to create the design, someone else to engrave the work, and then others in the print shop to assist with the physical pulling of the print. Knowing the usefulness of prints to their success, many artists worked in tandem with an engraver to help market their work and their name.

Depending upon the level of collaboration it was possible to find engravers working from drawings or designs provided by the artist/designer. The artist and engraver relationship is an important one because it can tell us about how a work might have progressed through the stages of creation, document painting or drawings now lost, and about the nature of taste and connoisseurship at the time.

I would like to look once again to Walter Benjamin’s 1936 essay, “The Work of

Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”. Here, he is coming at the issue of mechanical reproduction in a more political way than necessary for this discussion, but he also raises some issues which are important when considering the reproduction of artworks as technology changes from a standard of engraved reproductions to the of photographic reproduction. Benjamin is concerned with film and mass communication, but reproductive prints could also be considered as falling under the umbrella of mass communication. Benjamin points to a vast difference between manual reproductions and technical reproduction. Per Benjamin manual reproduction is one which would involve the hand of the reproducer, and would usually be branded as a forgery. With the advancement of lithography and photography the hand is removed and only the likeness

46 of the original is left in place. According to Benjamin (1968a) photography and lithography brought, “For the first time in the process of pictorial reproduction, photography freed the hand of the most important artistic functions which henceforth devolved only upon the eye looking into a lens.” (p.219)

Benjamin argues that while the aura of a work of art may be lost through this process of mechanical reproduction, it is okay because now the image is available for enjoyment by a mass audience. Benjamin wrote from a Marxist perspective, and from this viewpoint, his argument is well made. When looking at this technological advance from the perspective of printmaking and rarified collecting practices, it does not necessarily hold true. One of the first books of photographic work published as a book containing photographs by Benjamin Delessert of Marcantonio’s engravings. It was published between 1853 and 1855, and documented many of the engravings from his collection. In 1855 at the Exposition Universelle, Delessert demonstrated the difference in cost between owning a photo of an engraving as opposed to the engraving itself. (Pon,

2004) This demonstration was both praised, because now, as supported later by

Benjamin, the art was brought down to the masses, and at the same time rejected, because photography would never have the aura and character of an original engraving. (Pon,

2004)

Alexandra M. Korey, PhD, in her essay “Creativity, Authenticity, and the Copy in

Early Print Culture,” discusses how printmakers in the Renaissance would create original works of art based on existing images. She explains how the introduction of the printing

47 press brought about a group of artists who were able to create a name for them-selves by reproducing the work of others. Korey explains,

’reproductive prints’ play a paradoxical role in relation to the

dissemination of fame and to the concept of originality. On one hand, the

prints provided a convenient medium for the transmission of ideas and

styles, rendering them accessible to a wide public and contributing to the

renown of their creators, as well as of their copyists. On the other hand,

by facilitating the copying of those individual elements that made works

‘original,’ reproductive prints could also raise questions about the

authorship, originality, accuracy, and even truthfulness of images.

(Korey, 2004, p.31)

Korey contends that a reproductive print is more than a mere copy, but has a much broader scope, and provides the opportunity for “artistic invention” (Korey, 2004, p.31).

Korey defines a copy as “a direct rendering, by manual or mechanical means, of a text or image, made to look exactly the same (insofar as possible) and to transmit the same information as the original.” (Korey, 2004, p.33) She then explains that “the reproductive printmaker can choose which elements to retain, which to suppress, and which to alter.” (Korey, 2004, p.32) Like Walter Benjamin writing on literary translations (“Tasks of the Translator”), to Korey, a reproductive print is more along the lines of an adaption that a technical copy.

48

While plaster casts, sculptural copies, reproductive engravings and photography are still viable methods of reproduction today, another even more popular and accessible method now being employed is through the use of virtual reproductions. Through the growing advancement of technology most all museums now contain online images, databases, and galleries. What is being advocated here is the inclusion and use of all of these models in the classroom as alternativess for students otherwise unable to physically visit museums and galleries. The experience obtained with first hand encounters of original works is extremely worthwhile; it is vital to realize that not everyone will have this opportunity. The case of plaster cast collecting has provided a model for the value of a reproduction, and this model can easily be transferred to that of the virtual reality.

While the average American art class is not able to visit the Louvre to see the Nike of

Samothrace or the Venus de Milo, most will be able to visit these sculptures virtually via the Louvre’s website. The essential value of authentic experiences with real works of art within the walls of the museum should not be discounted, but utilizing the resources current technologies provide should also be fully recognized. It is important to understand what value copies and reproductions have, and what they are able to offer to pedagogy today. As physical copies of paintings and sculpture still have an enormous value to learning, so too can the use of digitally reproduced art (i.e. online museums and gallery experiences accessible to students and schools) in helping to widen the area of accessibility. As the technology available for reproductions continues to advance we might consider the value of reproductions not only in the physical world, but in the virtual world as well.

49

Chapter 4: Fakes and Forgeries

“Holography could only prosper in America, a country obsessed with realism, where, if a reconstruction is to be credible, it must be absolutely iconic, a perfect likeness, a “real” copy of the reality being represented.”

Umberto Ecco Travels in Hyperreality

This chapter examines the topic of artistic reproductions, but narrows the focus of discussion down to the classification of reproductions as fakes or forgeries. Before moving forward I would like to take a moment to reflect back upon the initial working definition of a fake discussed in the introduction to this thesis. As described by Hilde

Hein,

A fake resembles another object in appearance and may be mistaken for that

object. Its primary value derives from that resemblance, but fakes can also

come to be appreciated on their own account for other reasons – economy,

efficiency, moral independence, or even, of late, for their ostensive

flamboyance. Ontologically, a fake is a real object, as real as anything it

might resemble, but it lacks reality on the Platonic value scale chiefly

because of its derivative character. (Hein, 2000, p.73)

Here, Hilde Hein is looking at the concept of a fake and describing what it is, and at the same time commenting on the fact that it is not only an object created to resemble 50 another, but an actual object in its own right. In writing the chapter “What is a fake?” for the 1990 catalogue, Fake? The Art of Deception , Mark Jones speaks on fakes as follows:

Around this group are classes of objects which are sometimes associated with

fakes: copies, imitations and replicas. Fakes are sometimes thought of as

copies made to deceive and copying itself has come to be regarded as an

inherently second-rate and potentially shady activity. Here the assumption is

challenged by showing that in many cultures copying has often been the

dominate mode of artistic activity, motivated by a desire to maintain or renew

traditional forms and skills, by nostalgia for the past and admiration for its

achievements. (1990, p. 29)

Turning to Mark Jones again, in his essay, “Do fakes matter?” Jones looks broadly at the concept of authenticity and fakes, and goes on to lay out how the idea of “the authentic” and “the fake” have evolved over time. Jones writes,

The twentieth century is more uncertain and anxious about its relationship to

history than any previous age….Concern for authenticity has grown

simultaneously with this passion for revivalism, leading to the emergence of

an unlikely market for things which are at one and the same time completely

derivative and authentically original. (Jones, 1992, p.7)

Jones gives an example of how in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries collectors preferred to collect portraits derived from life, but when these were not available they were happy to also accept images made from general accepted likenesses. He then goes on to point out that in the nineteenth century the focus of importance shifted more to

51 when, where, and by whom the image was made, “The key test became not whether it was an authentic representation but whether it was an original work” (Jones, 1992, p.8)

Another interesting perspective to consider in relation Jones’ discussion on

“original work” would be appropriation art. If one looks at the “Readymade” work of

Marcel Duchamps in such works as L.H.O.O.Q. (figure 6) or one of his sculpture, such as

Fountain (figure 7). Duchamps, working in the early half of the 1900’s created these

“new and original” works out by incorporating images from the past or sculptures comprised of found objects. These works were not created as fakes or forgeries they still raise important points on what one considers “authentic.” For Duchamp and the

“Readymades” the intent would be for the original thought to take precedent over the incorporated image or the functionality of the reappropriated object.

52

Figure 6 Marcel Duchamps, L.H.O.O.Q., 1919.

53

Figure 7 Marcel Duchamps, Fountain , 1917.

Like Marcel Duchamps, appropriation artist, Sherrie Levine is also working from this same perspective. Levine, a contemporary artist, working in the mode of appropriation as early as the 1970’s, is best known for her work “After Walker Evans.” In this series

Levine re-photographs Walker Evans’ photographs (figure 8) from his documentary work in the book “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men” (1941). Levine photographs Walker’s work straight from the book, then displays the series in her 1981 exhibition “After 54

Walker Evans” (figure 9) . These works were lifted straight from the images created by

Evans, but here Levine is challenging not only the reproductive nature of photography, but also ideas about creativity. To push this one step further, in his website

“AfterSherrieLevine.com,” Michael Mandiberg creates and displays digital reproductions of Levine’s work after Evans’ work. From Mandiberg’s website one may even download and print off one of his digital works complete with Certificate of Authenticity.

Figure 8 Walker Evans, Alabama Tenant Farmer Wife , 1936, Gelatin Silver Print.

55

Figure 9 Sherrie Levine, After Walker Evans , 1981.

Figure 10 Michael Mandiberg, Untitled (AfterWalkerEvans.com/2.jpg) , 2001.

56

One last piece worth noting here is Sherrie Levine’s 1991 bronze sculpture, Fountain

(After Marcel Duchamp). Here Levine is reevaluation the concept of authenticity by appropriating the work of Duchamp, who initially appropriated a standard store bought urinal as his own work. Are these objects authentic? Fake? Does it matter?

Figure 11 Sherrie Levine, Fountain (After Marcel Duchamp), 1991, bronze.

Jones also goes on to ask the important question, why? Why study fakes? He gives these reasons: 1. “exposure of fraud” and to aid collectors by not being cheated, 2.

“faking is itself an index of the value of the objects faked”, and 3. “fakes represent what purchasers most wanted in the class of object concerned”. (Jones, 1992, p.9) In the end of his essay Jones sums up his argument about the value to be found in the study of fakes 57 as follows, “A recognition that concepts of truth and falsehood change, or that they can be internally contradictory and confused, is not incompatible with the belief that the truth is worth pursuing, the pursuit being perhaps as important as the end.” (Jones, 1992, p.10)

What both Hein and Jones set up is understandings that the concept of a fake is a

cultural construct, and differs from culture to culture and also across time .

French scholar and specialist in medieval history, Michael Pastoreau, who, like

Hein and Jones, considers fake a cultural construction, discusses the idea in his 1988 essay, “Le Faux n’Existe Pas”. He writes,

“Le concept de faux est un concept étroitement culturel. Il a ses raisons, ses

enjeux, en histoire. Il se définit par rapport à des systèmes de valeurs qui

s'articulent dans le temps et dans l'espace, qui se transformant au fil des

siècles, qui se positionnent et se repositionnent diversement selon les

époques, les régions et les civilisations. Par là même, ce qui est faux pour

l'homme du XXe siècle ne l'était peut-être pas pour celui du XVIIe,

probablement pas pour celui du XIIIe et ne le sera sans doute pas pour celui

du XXVe ou du XXXe siècle. Non parce que le vrai et le faux glissent l'un

vers l'autre dans d'incessants allers et retours mais, plus simplement et plus

profondément, parce que les problèmens se posent de manière totalement

différente.” (Pastoreau, 1988, p.23)

(The concept of forgery is a narrowly cultural concept. It has its reasons, its

stakes, in history. It is defined in relation to value systems that are

structured in time and space, which is transformed over the centuries, who

58

position and reposition themselves differently at different times, regions and

civilizations. Thus, what is wrong for man of the twentieth century was

perhaps not the seventeenth, probably not for that of the thirteenth and will

probably not one for the XXV century or XXX. Not because the true and false

glide towards each other in incessant back and forth but, more simply and

more profoundly, because the problems are composed in a completely

different way).

Here Pastoreau implies that the concept of fake is defined by values which are determined by a specific time and space. These values transform over time and what today may be considered fake was not for those in centuries past. (Pastoreau, 1988, p.23)

Touching now on forgeries I would again like to again look back to the definition of a forgery provided earlier by Hilde Hein. Hein, explains that a forgery, like a fake, involves resemblance to another object, but its intention is to deceive a viewer in regards to the history of the forged object. She goes on to elaborate further that a forgery may be an exact copy of an original work, or it may be a stylistic imitation to fit within a body of work. Hein explains:

Forgeries, like fakes, involve resemblance to something else with the

invariant additional condition of intention to deceive as to the history of the

forged object’s origin. A forged work may be an exact copy of an original, or

it could instead be imitative only stylistically, thereby distorting the concept

of the body of works of which it pretends to belong. Like a fake, a forgery is

59

a real object existentially, but false with respect to its historical claims. (Hein,

2000, p.74).

Writing in 1968 for the Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, then director

Thomas P.F. Hoving writes an opinionated piece against forgeries in the introduction to the issue entitled, “The Game of Duplicity.” This issue of the Bulletin was devoted entirely to aspects of art fakes and forgeries, and resulted from a series of seminars held at the museum in 1967. As a rationale for the seminars he writes,

We think that such discussions – the types of fakes and their detection –

are a vital part of the Museum’s educational obligation to the public: this

is part of the daily life of people who work in museums; it’s something we

worry about, often after the fact. (Hoving, 1968, p.241)

Before going further into his essay he first makes it clear that there are certain categories of forgeries, some that are direct forgeries set out with the intent to deceive, but also some that are artistic interpretations of past styles. Hovering writes,

Forgery is not a modern phenomenon. Just after the first true artist began to

do his work of art, you can be sure that the first forger began to do his.

During the roman Empire, for instance, there was an extraordinary amount of

copying: some of it straight forgery, I’m sure, although it’s not easy to prove;

a great deal, however, was not forging, but an artistic harking back to earlier

styles, sometimes for political reasons, sometimes for family or traditional

reasons. (Hoving, 1968, p.242)

60

Hoving believes there to be three types of forgeries: 1. A direct copy, 2. A pastiche, a piecing together of multiple style elements of the time, and 3.

Evocation- where the forger attempts to recreate the “spirit of the time” by interrupting what the artist would have done. Hoving does points out a clear distinction to be made in regards to forgeries. One must realize there are works produced with intent to deceive versus those misattributed as matter of opinion or stylistic analysis. Hoving makes it very clear in his writing that he believes there to be no value in fakes and forgeries. He comments, “Don’t hesitate to use derogatory adjectives in describing forgeries. They should not be given any sort of adulation, despite the fact that at certain times in art history people have collected forgeries for their own sake.” (Hoving, 1968, p.243)

Hoving referred to the point of (mis)attribution, and how this should be accounted for in regards to authenticity and forgeries. Should works, once attributed to a particular artist, and later found to be by someone else entirely, be thought any less of once their true authenticity has been discovered? Would the experiences and encounters with these once (mis)attributed works be any less authentic based upon their origin? I contend that it is possible to have completely authentic experiences regardless of the authenticity of the object. A painting, once thought to be a Caravaggio, and later determined to be “From the School of

Caravaggio” is not a forged work, or even a fake, it is all a matter of stylistic misinterpretation. Not in intent by the maker to represent something with the intent of deception.

61

Writing prior to Hoving, in 1954, but speaking in the same manner, W.G.

Constable, in his book Forgers and Forgeries , describes a forgery simply as something fabricated to be something it is not. He then takes this definition down a negative moral trajectory by going on to describe forgeries as “illegitimate” and “conceived in sin”

(Constable, 1954, p.5). Constable then elaborates on this definition by stating that the true element of a forgery is not what inspired its making, but instead the intention of its presentation. Here Constable is saying, it is not the imagery itself that creates the forgery, but instead the intent of the forger to profit or deceive the buyer and public as to the works true origin.

The problem here is that an object may be produced without the intent to deceive, but then later used as such by a third party. If comparing fakes to forgeries, the primary difference between the two appears to be the intention of the artist to deceive as a forger/producer. By these definitions a fake would not necessarily be produced with deception in mind, but forgeries are the product of that intent for deception .

Constable contradicts himself by negatively describing forgeries as “conceived in sin”, and then going back to explain the primary characteristic of a forgery is how the object is presented, not the purpose for which it was made. Like Constable, Max Friedlander, writing in his essay, “On Forgeries” in 1942, negatively describes the forger’s inability to original thought (i.e. vision) as, “a child of his time, who disowns the method of vision which is natural to him” (Spencer, 2004, p.40). When one considers the fact that throughout history, the primary method of teaching and learning art was through copying masters, then it is plausible that work produced innocently for educational purposes could

62 conceivably be taken out of context by a third party and passed off as an original. This third party, the seller or dealer, thereby plays an important role in the value attributed to objects. A faked object may not have originally been produced as such, but a middle- man, stepping between producer and collector acts with intention of deception.

After describing what he believes is the essence of a forgery, W.G. Constable elaborates further on the types of forgeries. He describes two categories of forgery, those which imitate a style and those which imitate a specific object. He talks about the process forgers go through as they construct items from genuine pieces or damaged goods. This may call into question the nature of artistic restoration and the history behind restorative techniques. (Constable, 1954)

Writing in 1948, in his book, Genuine and False: Copies, Imitations, and

Forgeries , Hans Tietze investigates forgers and forgeries by first defining an art forgery.

He then offers a brief history of counterfeits, moving on to counterfeiter’s techniques,

techniques of the experts, cunningness of a forger, and finally the eventual unmaking of

the forger. Like Constable, Tietze opens his argument by providing a definition of

forgery. For Tietze, “A painting, sculpture, or any product of artistic character may be

called a forgery if it has been made with the intention of passing it off as the work of a

different hand or of a different period.” (Tietze, 1948, p.9). Unlike Constable though,

Tietze does take into account that many copies were not made with the intention to

deceive, but were in fact honorable and educational in purpose. Like Hilde Hein, writing

on the nature of fakes, Tietze enforces the idea that art is based upon aesthetic taste of the

time, and once something is desired, that is when forgeries may be produced.

63

Samuel A Goudsmit, formerly Editor-in-Chief of the American Physical Society, writes the forward to Stuart Fleming book, Authenticity in Art: The Scientific Detection of

Forgery , in sharp contrast to the views expressed by Hoving and Constable. Goudsmit begins his forward by first telling the reader that he has always had an admiration for the art forger. Expanding on this he goes on to say,

Forgeries have unmasked some of the false pretenses in the evaluation of art

objects. It is not true that the value of a painting depends upon its artistic

quality or upon the skill of the master who painted it. Today the value is

primarily determined by its authenticity and not by its aesthetic merits. The

forger, van Meegeren, created original paintings which the art critics

accepted as true Vermeers. Only detailed laboratory tests, described in this

book, revealed differences which cannot be detected by the eye of the most

experiences connoisseur. If the artistic value of some of van Meegeren’s

products is equal to that of Vermeer’s, why is there such an enormous

difference in monetary value? (Fleming, 1975, forward)

Here, Goudsmit is pointing out the aspect of aesthetics, and giving some recognition to the skill of the forger. He is pointing to the value society places upon objects of art based upon the nature of their authenticity, and not necessarily taking into account the rest of the story.

64

Figure 12 Han van Meegeren, The Supper at Emmaus , 1937

Mark Jones, in the exhibition catalogue, Fake? The Art of Deception (1990) also makes the same point, “

If Fake? poses questions about authenticity, and the problems posed by the

application of different concepts of authenticity by different groups of people

to different types of objects, it also, and most painfully, challenges the

authenticity of our responses to them. Why, if what we value from a work of

art is the aesthetic pleasure to be gained from it, is a successfully deceptive

fake inferior to the real thing? (Jones, 1990, p.15)

Here, both Goudsmit and Jones are considering fakes as objects to be appreciated, or at least considered, for their aesthetic value, and not just for their authentic worth.

65

Mark Jones also discussed the value in fakes in regards to the social commentary they are able to provide. If one understands that a society will “fake” the things they collect, then this will begin to tell us what was important in the past and what is important today. (Jones, 1990) He writes,

Now a new concept of authenticity is emerging which encourages us to

accept that objects have a continuing history, that they are damaged and

repaired, cleaned and restored, and that their present state records not only

the moment of creation but also a whole subsequent sequence of events.”

(Jones, 1990, p.14)

As was previously noted in the introduction of this thesis, Sandor Radnoti,

in the book, The Fake: Forgery and its Place in Art, discusses the concepts of fakes and

forgeries, and their effect on the history of art. He contends,

the history of forgeries is largely about fake designer objects or works of

applied art…Museums all over the world are full of works with dubious

pedigrees on the one hand, and of undetected forgeries on the other, not so

much of deliberate deceit, but largely because of dealers’ errors or from false

attributions. (Radnoti, 1999, p.14)

Radnoti, like others discussed in this chapter, is discussing the historical rational

behind fakes and forgeries, how they come to be, and some of the more complex

problems involved with their existence.

This chapter has attempted to bring the focus down upon the classification

of objects considered fakes and forgeries. As has been discussed within, these

66 terms come forward with more negative connotations than their counterparts, copies and reproductions. The authors and essays chosen for inclusion here have been selected in order to provide not only a definition and explanation for fakes and forgeries, but also to aid in further describing their inherent value, not only as objects themselves, but also as tools to teach us more about their context in history.

Fakes and forgeries can provide commentary on what was popular in a specific period of time as well and to provide documentation for (now lost) works predating their existence. My primary goal for this chapter was not to defend the act of the forger in their quest to deceive, but to open up the discussion by providing other, non-negative or moralistic value-laden terms and modes of thinking. Moving forward, the next chapter will attempt to synthesize the previous discussions on authenticity, originality, copies, reproductions, fakes and forgeries, and provide commentary as regards possible understandings of them and their use in museums and education today.

67

Chapter 5: Conclusion

“This is the reason for this journey into hyperreality, in search of instances where the American imagination demands the real thing and, to attain it, must fabricate the absolute fake...” Umberto Ecco Travels in Hyperreality

I initially began this research to gain a better understanding of, and uses for, the artistic reproductions and how this might this affect the concept of authenticity. I have always been drawn to juxtapositions between “acceptable” reproductions and objects valued as second rate because they were not “original.” Throughout history we have seen reproductions employed for a variety of purposes, for collecting, as teaching aids, and as celebrated objects in their own right. As one examines the nature of authenticity it is necessary to look back to methods of reproduction in the past, Roman marble copies of

Greek bronze sculpture, reproductive prints and later photography have been used to duplicate paintings and drawings. Today, with the use of digital imagery and virtual reality, it may be hard to not consider how these too might impact notions of authenticity.

As I progressed through this research, and grappled with various thoughts on the subject,

I kept returning to the same set of general questions:

What is valued as art? And why?

Are experiences with objects more valuable than the objects themselves?

Is the authenticity of an object of preeminent important in pedagogy? 68

What constitutes authenticity, and is authenticity a static concept?

Initially I had hoped to be able to provide suitable answer these questions, or at least answers that would satisfy my curiosity. Instead, I found myself facing an inexhaustible complex of ideas and now know that is it seemingly impossible to attempt prescriptions of any simple definitive answer to those questions posed above. I instead have turned these questions into the basis for my thesis research, the starting point for my journey forward, in examining the concept of authenticity and determining how it might be possible for objects and experiences to coexist in varying relations and concepts of authenticity.

Throughout this research and review of literature, I have examined the terminology surrounding the concepts of authenticity (authenticity, original(ity), reproduction, cast, copy, fake, and forgery) while attempting to reflect back upon the writings of Walter Benjamin. I started this thesis with a quote from Benjamin,

In the same way a translation, instead of resembling the meaning of the

original, must lovingly and in detail incorporate the original’s mode of

significance, thus making both the original and the translation

recognizable as fragments of a greater language, just as fragments are

parts of a vessel. (Benjamin, 1968b, 78)

This quote has resonated with me as I have sought to explore the relationship between “original” artworks, copies, and reproductions. My interpretation of what Benjamin is getting at here is the understanding that there can never be a completely exact reproduction. Copies and reproductions, while based upon on

69 original models, will always incorporate elements unique to themselves, and in essence be able to stand on their own as valued objects. I contend these copies and reproductions hold significant historical and educational value and given limited resources in schools and museums should not be ignored or dismissed.

Looking again at Walter Benjamin, this time in his “Theses on the Philosophy of

History,” we note, “History is the subject of a structure whose site is not homogeneous, empty time, but time filled by the presence of the now.” (Benjamin,1968c, p.261).

Benjamin’s statement may be interpreted as meaning history is not in and of itself, but varies and changes in relation to the time in which it is being seen. So, looking back at the history of Greece in 500 BCE, from the perspective of 2012, is vastly different from looking back and interpreting the same time period of 500 BCE in 23AD. The time and culture in which we live shapes our views of the past. Thus, what one might believe today to be authentic may not necessarily have been in that way in the periods before us.

Authenticity does not have hard, defined boundaries, but is as malleable as history itself.

This thought is further reinforced by Benjamin when he writes, “The true picture of the past flits by. The past can be seized only as an image which flashed up at the instant when it can be recognized and is never seen again.” (Benjamin, 1968c, p.255) Again, what Benjamin is saying is that the only true moment lies in that moment itself. Any moment outside of itself can only be viewed from with the perspective of the present.

“True” authentic nature lies only within the moment of creation. After this moment has past, the concept of authenticity will vary according to individual, time, culture, and location.

70

In his essay, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Walter

Benjamin writes about concepts of authenticity and reproductions. In this piece

Benjamin is looking at the reproducibility of art and the differences between manual reproduction (i.e. the rise of lithography) and other forms of technical reproduction. He explains that through time art has always been reproducible,

In principle a work of art had always been reproducible. Manmade

artifacts could always be imitated by man. Replicas were made by pupils

in practice of their craft, by masters for diffusing their works, and, finally

by third parties in pursuit of gain. Mechanical reproductions of a work of

art, however, represents something new. (Benjamin, 1968a, p.218)

To Benjamin, the mechanical reproduction is “something new” because it removes the object from the maker’s direct hand, and takes the reproduction to the level of a mechanical process. While Benjamin contends that this removes the

“aura” from the work, “the techniques of [mechanical] reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition” (Benjamin, 1968a, p.221),

Benjamin comments on how mechanical reproductions make the image more widely available, “technical reproductions can put the copy of the original into situations which would be out of reach for the original itself” (Benjamin, 1968a, p.220). From an educational perspective, this reproducibility and range of distribution would be a positive characteristic as the imagery would, and could, be made available to those otherwise unable to access art. Our society has now moved beyond the invention of lithography and photography as written about by

71

Benjamin, but this argument may still hold true for those technologies we use today, such as the internet, digital imagery, and virtual reality.

In looking at these three works from Walter Benjamin, “Take of the Translator” and “Theses on the Philosophy of History,” and “The Work of Art in the Age of

Mechanical Reproduction” I consider the credibility and value of both original art and copies and reproductions. By looking and thinking about his writings one begins to understand that copied objects, and the copies themselves, hold both educational and historical value. Benjamin considers authenticity as a fluid concept which varies over time and place, and suggests that in order to gain a true understanding of the nature of authenticity one must be open to the ebbs and flows of circumstance.

I have worked through the selected literature for this thesis in terms of

Authenticity and Original(ity), Reproductions: casts and copies, and Fakes and Forgeries.

It has been my aim to discuss relevant literature surrounding these general topic headings in order to first, gain an understanding of what it means be authentic and original in terms of creations and experience, second, to shift the discussion on authenticity to examine reproductions, and lastly to then consider the subject of reproductions with the focus narrowed down to fakes and forgeries. By looking at the literature and how it relates to these general categories I have attempted to open up the conversation and have made an attempt to define authenticity in terms of objects and experiences, and examine these against visions of the reproduction. By looking finally at the concepts of fakes and forgeries I have argued that while these terms may have negative connotations they still

72 are able to provide a positive benefit to a viewer’s understanding of history and education.

The chapter on authenticity sought to examine the concept of authenticity as an

ever changing concept that can morph and change based upon the goals and perspective

of the individual (or institutions) involved. Throughout this thesis I have considered

authenticity as truthfulness, both in the artistic creation of an object or the experience one

has with that object. In this chapter I began by looking at Walter Benjamin’s essay, “The

Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” and his writing on technical

reproductions and the idea of “aura” in art. Next, in discussing David Lowenthal’s essay,

“Authenticity? the dogma of self-delusion” Lowenthal argues that objects within a

museum and one’s experiences with them can never be fully authentic because we will

never see the object as it was produced by the maker. Lowenthal makes the argument

that being authentic is not always better and that “fakes advance our understanding no

less than the truths that expose them.” (Lowenthal, 1992, p.190).

Another essay considered in my chapter on authenticity was Mark Jones’ essay,

“Why Fakes?” The point Jones makes, as did Walter Benjamin in “Thesis on the

Philosophy of History,” is that objects have a “continuing history.” Objects seen at one

point in time as authentic can later be viewed as fake. This idea becomes apparent as one

thinks about it in terms of sculptural reproductions and restorations. For example,

antiquities were at one point viewed as less authentic in their unrestored, fragmented

state, because they were not being seen as they would have been at the moment of

73 creation; as time passes these same objects can only now be considered authentic once stripped of any restoration or repair.

My chapter on authenticity attempted to open up the concept of authenticity to an understanding that it is fluid and not easily definable. While I do consider authenticity to refer to truthfulness in objects and experiences, it is also true, as discussed above, that this can mean different things, to different people across (cultures) and at different times.

In thinking about authenticity one must be open to considering it not as a static concept, but one with variations in meaning (or understandings) that may encompass multiple perspectives.

The third chapter in this thesis looked at the topic of artistic reproductions in

terms of casts and copies. Here I noted that a reproduction is a duplicate made in the

likeness of an original, and that an original can exist independently and adding that a

reproduction is always dependent on the model of the original. For the purpose of this

chapter I explained that I would consider a copy to be equivalent to a reproduction, as in,

an object made out of the likeness of another. A cast is also similar, but specifically

referencing three dimensional sculptural objects. This chapter dealt with the topics that

initially spurred my interest in furthering the research.

I have always been fascinated with the notion that a sculptural reproduction made

today would be dismissed as a copy, and be assumed to hold no value in association with

the original, unlike a Roman marble copy of an original Greek Bronze, which today

might be seen as a priceless treasure not held to the same set of criterion. I approached

this chapter by giving a history of the concepts of casts and copies while working through

74 the associated literature. I began this inquiry first by looking at James McNutt’s article,

“Plaster Casts After Antique Sculpture: Their Role in the Elevation of Public Taste and in

American Art Institutions.” In this article, McNutt discusses how plaster casts, originating in Europe, and collected in America helped not only to spread aesthetic state for classical art, but also to aid in instruction for students and function as museum pieces for everyone. McNutt’s article demonstrated how “inauthentic” works were used not only for instruction, but also were considered useful in elevating America’s taste for

European art. In this chapter I have also provided examples of plaster cast collections being deaccessioned from museums and acquired by colleges and universities to use in current teaching practices. As an example, I looked at the collection formerly owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art and now gifted to George Mason University in Fairfax,

Virginia and Fairfield University in Fairfield, Connecticut. These casts are now being used as the centerpiece for class seminar’s, teaching students about the history of collecting as specimens for exercises in technical restoration techniques, as well as serving as subjects for drawing students. These examples show how the use of plaster casts have provided significant opportunities to students who might otherwise not have had access to such learning. A point I made in this chapter that I reiterate here, is that while I am not advocating for the dismissal of original works of art, I do assert that one can be open to valuing copies, casts and other reproductions for what they can contribute to the learning process.

In this chapter on reproductions, after discussing casts and sculptural reproductions, I turned my focus to historical examples of prints and engravings as

75 vehicles for replicating two-dimensional art. Here I discussed the term “reproductive print” and how this manner of production is considered to have begun in the early 1500’s by Marcantonio Ramondi. It is during this time that engravers and printmakers worked would with other artists to help distribute copies of paintings for export to just about any country or region. Prints had a way of going places paintings could not. These methods of reproduction were highly celebrated and collected during the renaissance, and these prints and engravings were seen as valued works in their own right. The historical examples provided here for casts and copies are provided to help demonstrate the value that reproduction can have for education, sharing of knowledge, taste, and accessibility.

As technology advances and we move forward into digital imagery and virtual technology these same benefits and values previously gained form casts and copies still apply. The technology may have changed, but the outcomes remain the same.

In the preceding chapter I looked more closely at reproductions, but this time paying closer attention to the class of objects labeled fakes and forgeries. Here I referenced a definition of a fake as provided by Hilde Hein, “A fake resembles another object in appearance and may be mistaken for that object. Its primary value derives form that resemblance…” (Hein, 2000, p.73) Hein does not assign any negative value to the fake, but simply states that it resembles another object. By contrast I reexamined her definition of a forgery, “Forgeries, like fakes, involve resemblance to something else with the invariant additional condition to deceive as to the history of forged object’s origin”

(Hein, 2000, p.74). These definitions clearly point to the predetermined intention of a

76 third party to deceive. To make this clear, a fake would not necessarily be produced with deception in mind, but forgeries are the product of an intent to decieve.

While the history and uses of objects immediately dismissed as “non authentic”, i.e. “fake” may be discounted, I still hold that that the experiences coming out of interactions with these traditionally, non-authentic objects may still be valid and valuable to the user. To qualify this assumption, I referenced Mark Jones’ writing in the exhibition catalogue, Fake? The Art of Deception, in which he asks, “Why, if what we value for a work of art is the aesthetic pleasure to be gained from it, is a successfully deceptive fake inferior to the real thing” (Jones, 1990, p.15)? Here Jones considers fakes as objects that may be appreciated, or considered, for its aesthetic value, and based only on the original’s authentic worth. In thinking about fakes and forgeries, one must be able to look beyond the initial determination of authentic worth and realize that these objects hold value for how they may provide aesthetic, educational, and informational contexts and shed some light on the history of art collecting.

So where do we go from here? Looking forward how should the authenticity of

objects be considered when weighing all of the values (historical, educational, physical,

aesthetic, etc..) one can attribute to objects and experiences? Before commenting any

further I would first like to look at some recent activity in the news. A 2008 article by

Dina Modianot-Fox for Smithsonian Magazine, “Showcasing Shams: At the Museum of

Fakes, what’s not real is still art,” features a discussion with the director of the Museo del

Falso, established in 1991 as part of the University of Salerno in Southern Italy. The

director, Salvatore Casillo, describes his museum as one whose mission is “to analyze the

77 evolution of forgery, from technique to organization, and to give visitors the opportunity to see firsthand how counterfeiters carry out their deception” (Modianot-Fox, 2008) A

2003 agreement between the university and the Italian military police’s Department for the Protection of Cultural Heritage, makes the museum the repository for all the forged artworks confiscated in Italy. Modianot-Fox writes that “in an ironic twist of fate, some master forgers are now getting respect from the art establishment they challenged and, in some cases, convulsed.” (Modianot-Fox, 2008) According to Casillo the forgers are often so talented the best ones would never be discovered if they had not given themselves away. Again Dina Modianot-Fox writes, “So, are fakes real? Mazzoni [art historian at the University of Siena] says that master counterfeiters like Dossena and Eric

Hebborn (1934-1996), whose book, The Art Forger’s Handbook, gives detailed instructions on creating “old masters,” talent trumps forgery, making their pieces true

“works of art.” (Modianot-Fox, 2008)

When Secrets of the Silk Road exhibit was set to open at the University of

Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, after having already been viewed in Santa Ana and Houston, no one at the time realized that the artifacts would be unable to be seen. In a February 7, 2004 piece, “With China Treasures Under Wraps, Pa.

Museum Takes ‘Dummy Mummy’ Route” on NPR for the show Monkey See , this exhibition and the problem faces is explored. In this piece by Zoe Chance the problem facing, and solution discovered by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of

Archaeology and Anthropology was described. Chance writes,

78

The exhibition opened in time. The mummies are still in Houston, though.

And the artifacts that were supposed to go on display with them? They’re

in Philadelphia- in giant wooden crates, unopened. It’s a show on artifacts

that’s lacking any artifacts from China’s Silk Road. (Chance, 2011)

According to Tidin Xhang, secretary of the cultural office at the Chinese Embassy, the maximum amount of time Chinese archaeological artifacts can remain on display is eight months, but the time the exhibit reached Philadelphia, the eight month window had expired. So, in order to keep the exhibition open while a solution was being negotiated, the exhibition designer at the University of Philadelphia Museum and her staff began building “dummy mummies” out of papier- mache. Zoe Chance describes the scene,

They set up worktables right across from the crated up objects, printed out

images from the catalog, and from people’s Flickr accounts, and cut them

out with X-Acto knives. Then they mounted them on sticks or put them

plat in a glass care. It’s a little Surreal. But it’s set up so gorgeously, as

many visitors pointed out to me on opening day, that it’s still a great

exhibit. (Chance, 2011)

79

Figure 5.1

Figure 5.2

Papier-mache stand in mummies for missing objects at the Secrets of the Silk Road exhibit at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

These cases, both in Italy and Philadelphia are not exclusive events, but examples selected to showcase what is happening today in the use of “non-authentic” or faked art.

They highlight the fact that works initially thought of as inauthentic can still provide authentic experiences and encounters.

Moving forward as technology advances, it is my belief that the example of the re-appropriated Walker Evans works discussed earlier can be pushed further and further.

In the example of Walker Evans and Sherrie Levine we see the documentary photography

80 published by Walker Evans, re-photographed and displayed by Sherrie Levine. The subject of Evans’ work was the individuals effected by the Great Depression, the subject of Levine’s work was Evans’ photograph. While the image looks similar the “spark of creation” and the message being portrayed is very different. The notion of authenticity being displayed here is pushed even one step further with the Levine works now appearing online in “authentic” JPEG images, for which, even a “certificate of authenticity” is available. As time marched on this example may be pushed further and further removed from the original Walker Evans creation, but as the medium and message change so too does the concept of “original.” As time and technology continue to change, so too could the ending of my thesis. This research could be extended and rewritten, pushed further, as new technologies and needs are created.

It is impossible to comment on the advances in technology that will be present in the future, but one thing will remain the same, education. As I have demonstrated throughout this thesis, both original objects and well as their copies, reproductions or forgeries, all play an invaluable role in education. Accessibility to objects and images used in teaching and learning may be vastly improved through the use of plaster casts, slide images, photographic reproductions, digital imagery and virtual reality technologies among others. Although interactions may not always be taking place with the original object, original learning and original experiences are happening out of student interaction with these reproductions. This is invaluable. Studying the trends in production and collection of reproductions, fakes and forgeries has also shed light on the history of public taste and connoisseurship. Forgers “fake” works most typically created to deceive

81 and for purposes of monetary gain, “fake” things most popular for the greatest possible monetary outcome. By looking at these trends one can gain a better understanding of their role within the history of collecting.

Objects and experiences mean different things to different people at different

times. There can never be inauthentic experiences. Object authenticity should therefore

not be considered the only desired quality in an object. The value of the experience, the

educational value and the historical nature must also be considered when discussing the

“worth” of an object, remembering that “fake” may not always be a bad “four letter

word,” but that is also “good”.

82

References

Abate, Frank R. Ed. (1999). The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English. NY:

Oxford University Press.

Authenticity. (n.d.). Retreived 23 May, 2012 from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity

Bellows, H.W. (1869). Seven sittings with Powers, the sculptor. Appletons’ Journal of

Popular Literature, Science, and Art , I, 470-472.

Benjamin, W. (1968a). Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. In H. Arendt (Ed),

H. Zohn (trans) Illuminations (pp217-251). NY: Schocken Books.

Benjamin, W. (1968b). The Task of the Translator. In H. Arendt (Ed), H. Zohn (trans)

Illuminations (pp. 69-82). NY: Schocken Books.

Benjamin, W. (1968c). Theses on the Philosophy of History. In H. Arendt (Ed), H.

Zohn (trans) Illuminations (pp. 253-264). NY: Schocken Books. 83

Chace, Zoe. (2004, February, 7). With China Treasures Under Wraps, Pa. Museum

Takes ‘Dummy Mummy’ Route. NPR.com Monkey See . Retrieved 4/22/2011

from, http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/02/08/133570520/with-china-

treasures-under-wraps-pa-museum-takes-dummy-mummy-route

Constable, W.G. (1954). Forgers and Forgeries . New York and Toronto: Harry N.

Abrams, Inc.

Department of History and Art History. (n.d.). George Mason University History and

Art History Department: The Casts. Retreived 11/30/2007 from,

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/mattusch/plaster/index.htm

Dornsife, Robert S. (2006). Coming to (Digital) Terms: The Work of Art in the Age of

Non-Mechanical Reproduction. Radical Pedagogy . Retrieved 6/17/08 from,

http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue8_1/dornsife.html.

Ecco, Umberto. (1990). Travels in Hyperreality . New York: Harcourt Brace and

Company.

Field, Les. (2009). Four Kinds of Authenticity?. American Ethnographer , 36(3), 507-

520.

84

Friedlander, Max J. (2004). On Forgeries. In R. Spencer (Ed) The Expert versus the

Object: Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the Visual Arts (39-43). NY:

Oxford University Press.

Goudsmit, Smauel A. (1975). Forward. In Stuart Flemming, Authenticity in Art: The

Scientific Detection of Forgery. New York: Crane, Russak and Company, Inc.

Haskell, Francis and Nicholas Penny. (1981). Taste and the Antique . New Haven: Yale

University Press.

Heidegger, Martin. (2000). The Origin of the Work of Art. Ed. Clive Cazeaux. The

Continental Aesthetics Reader. London: Routledge, 80-101.

Hein, Hilde S. (2000). Museum experience and the Real Thing. The Museum in

Transition: A Philosophical Perspective . Washington, DC: Smithsonian

Institution, 69-87.

Hoving, Thomas P. (1968). The Game of Duplicity. The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Bulletin, 26(6), 241-246.

85

Jones, Mark. (1990). Why Fakes? In Mark Jones, Paul Craddock and Nicholas Barker,

eds. Fake? The Arts of Deception . Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Jones, Mark. (1992). Do Fakes Matter? In Mark Jones, ed. Why Fakes Matter: Essays

on Problems of Authenticity . London: British Museum Press.

Korey, Alexandra A. (2005). Creativity, Authenticity, and the Copy in Early Print

Culture. In

R. Zorach and E. Rodini (Eds) Paper Museums: The Reproductive Print in Europe, 1500-

1800. (pp 31-49). Chicago: The David and Alfred smart Museum of Art.

Landau, David and Peter Parshall. (1994). The Renaissance Print, 1470-1550 . New

Haven: Yale University Press.

Levenson, Jay A. (1974). Reproductive Engravings: ‘Some of the Finest Italian Prints of

the Early Renaissance’. ArtNews 73(3), 68-70.

Lowenthal, David. (1992). Authenticity? The dogma of self-delusion. In M. Jones (Ed)

Why Fakes Matter: Essays on Problems of Authenticity (184-192). London:

British Museum Press

86

Lowenthal, David. (2008). Authenticies Past and Present. CRM Journal , 5(1), 6-17.

McNutt, James K. (1990). Plaster Casts After Antique Sculpture: Their Role in the

Elevation of Public Taste and in American Art Instruction. Studies in Art

Education: A Journal of Issues and Research , 31(3), 158-167.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (9 th Edition). (1988). Springfield, MA:

Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10 th Edition). (2002). Springfield, MA:

Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

Modianot-Fox, Dina. (2008, May 8). Showcasing Shams: At the Museum of Fakes,

what’s not real is still art. Smithsonian.com . Retrieved 5/13/2011 from,

www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/art-crimes-shams.html

Musacchio, Jacqueline Marie. (2006). Casts, Copies, and Pedagogy: The Early

Teaching of Art and Art History at Vassar College, exhibition brochure .

Poughkeepsie, NY: Frances Lehman Loeb Art Center.

Nelson, Robert S. (2000). The Slide Lecture, or the Work of Art “History” in the Age of

Mechanical Reproduction. Critical Inquiry , 26(3), 414-434.

87

Pastoreau, Michael. (1988). Le Faux n’existe Pas. In Vrai or Faux? Paris: Bibliotheque

Nationale.

Phelan, Peggy. (1993). Unmarked: The Politics of Performance . London and New

York: Routledge.

Pine, B. Joseph and Gilmore, James H. (2007). Authenticity: What Consumers Really

Want. Boston, Mass. : Harvard Business School Press.

Pine, B. Joseph and Gilmore, James H. (2007). Museums and Authenticity. Museum

News , 86(3), 76-80, 92-93.

Pon, Lisa. (2004). Raphael, Durer, and Marcantonio Ramondi: Copying and the Italian

Renaissance Print . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Radnoti, Sandor. (1999). The Fake: forgery and Its Place in Art . Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Radnoti, Sandor. (1999). The Fake: forgery and Its Place in Art . Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

88

Rich, Colleen Kearney. (2005, November 7). Forgotten Works Provide Rich Learning

experience. The Mason Gazette . Retreived 11/30/2007 from,

http://gazette.gmu.edu/articles/7423/.

Robinson, D.M. (1917). On Reproductions for the college Museum and Art Gallery. Art

Bulletin , 1(3), 15-21.

Schwab, Katherine A. (n.d.). Fairfield University Plaster Cast Collection. Retreived

11/30/2007 from, http://www.fairfield.edu/x17557.html.

Tietze, Hans. (1948). Genuine and False: Copies, Imitations, Forgeries . New York:

Chanticleer Press, Inc.

Van Camp, Julie C. (2007). “Originality in Postmodern Appropriation Art”. The

Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society , 36(4), 247-258.

Zorach, Rebecca and Elizabeth Rodini. (2005). On Imitation and Invention: An

Introduction to the Reproductive Print. In R. Zorach and E. Rodini (Eds) Paper

Museums: The Reproductive Print in Europe, 1500-1800. (pp 1-25). Chicago:

The David and Alfred smart Museum of Art.

89