Since The New York Times did not publish this, here it is:
November 5, 2013
To the Editor:
Blake Gopnik’s defense of art
forgeries “as the art lover’s friend” is an impressive piece of sustained sophistry.
All seven arguments he offers fail miserably.
First, if a forgery can fool an
expert, it can give the rest of us pleasure. This is good. But pleasure does
not justify deceit, nor does pleasure define the meaning of art. Second, the
forger may reveal what the copied artist might have himself done; he may even
reveal the artists inner essence. Lying imitations have nothing to do with
artistic continuity or revelations. Third, forgeries are justified because artists
often use assistants. This is a false analogy, since the artists authorized
these assistants, unlike forgers. Fourth, art forgeries can “tame our absurd
art market” by bringing down prices. This comment—if true—has no force, and it
purely utilitarian. Two wrongs do not make a right. Fifth, forgeries endorsed
by art experts teach us that “connoisseurship is not to be trusted.” This is
illogical. Everyone already knows that connoisseurs are fallible. But they may
be fallible and generally reliable, like all merely human judges. Sixth, because
some ancient cultures endorsed the copying and augmenting of valued artworks,
this justifies forgeries today. On the contrary, these copies were culturally-authorized
and well-accepted—and not forgeries. Seventh, much of 20 Century art, such as
Duchamp’s, “set out to undermine idea of unique authentic, hand-touched works
of art.” This is true, but irrelevant. Duchamp’s ready-mades were not
forgeries, because he did not claim to make them.
This ambitious essay fails to
marshal any good arguments. We await a better apologist for artistic deception.
Douglas Groothuis,
Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary
No comments:
Post a Comment