Thursday, May 28, 2009

Han van Meegeren

I'd like to direct your attention to another piece in the New York Times by Errol Morris. This is on art forgery, and promises to be the first in a seven-part series.

From the article: "what makes a work of art great? Is it the signature of (or attribution to) an acknowledged master? Is it just a name? Or is it a name implying a provenance? With a photograph we may be interested in the photographer but also in what the photograph is of. With a painting this is often turned around, we may be interested in what the painting is of, but we are primarily interested in the question: who made it? Who held a brush to canvas and painted it?"


jc said...

I haven't looked at the art-icle yet, but those are some interesting points.

And what about a mass produced item by a designer and then made in the hundreds...or a sculpture cast in bronze, over and over.

And with photography, it's a machine that makes the art. How weird is that?

Alright, enough, now to the art-icle

D. Sky Onosson said...

Part Two is now online.