Member-only story
Is forged art still art?
Some people might say that art forgery is a lost art. After all, in today’s age of digital media and photography, it’s much easier to simply copy and paste an image than it is to painstakingly recreate a work of art by hand. However, there are still those who argue that art forgery is very much alive and well.
Forgeries can take many different forms. Some are incredibly elaborate, involving the creation of entirely new works that are designed to fool even the most knowledgeable experts. Others are much simpler, such as copies or prints of existing works that are passed off as originals. In some cases, forgers will even alter genuine works of art, adding their own signature or changing the date to make it more valuable.
To embark on the quest of figuring out whether or not we should entertain the idea of innocence around art forgery, let’s take a look at the blurred lines.
Let us consider: is appropriation also forgery? Is Duchamp’s L.A.H.O.O.Q. a forgery? Or how about Sherrie Levine’s photo of Walter Evans’ photo of Allie Mae Burroughs?
Whether you consider it to be art or not, there’s no doubt that art forgery is a fascinating phenomenon. It raises questions about the value of art, the role of authenticity, and our own perception of what is ‘real’.
Can style be appropriated?
Can identity be appropriated?
And if so, is it still lying?
Well, I suspect that the person who entirely steals another’s style is being somewhat dishonest with themselves.
And whoever steals another person’s identity… well… that’s just downright mean.
But what about the person who simply borrows another’s style or identity for their own purposes? I would say that this is a bit more ambiguous. On the one hand, you could argue that they are being deceitful by not giving credit where it is due. On the other hand, you could say that they are simply…
