We all like a good forgery story. A good mix of skill, cunning, getting on over on “the experts”, it seems like a kind of crime committed by someone with the eye of a connoisseur but with a subversive sense of humour. It almost feels like a victimless crime; if we like the fake, we like it.
The latest story is one which I think is going to grow over the coming months. It started with a painting supposedly by Lucas Cranach, in the collection of the Prince of Liechtenstein, being seized by French authorities as part of an investigation which brought its authenticity into question.
The latest story is one which I think is going to grow over the coming months. It started with a painting supposedly by Lucas Cranach, in the collection of the Prince of Liechtenstein, being seized by French authorities as part of an investigation which brought its authenticity into question.
Not Cranach
And now Sotheby’s has confirmed that tests on a supposed newly discovered Frans Hals portrait have shown it to be a fake. They reimbursed a client and will be looking to recoup that money from the Weiss Gallery who sold it.
Not Hals
And the Weiss Gallery also sold another probable fake. This picture painted on a piece of lapis lazuli, attributed to Orazio Gentileschi, was sold by them a few years ago.
Not Gentileschi
The forger remains unknown, and I for one am in awe of their brilliance. These three pictures are totally different in style and technique, and all very convincing. They’re not copies of existing works either, they’re originals. The approach of each artist has been absorbed and new works created, some time within the last decade or so.
I would love to say, "Yes, I thought they didn't look right" but the unsettling truth is I had really admired both the “Hals” and the “Gentileschi” when I saw them. I even spent an hour or so sketching the picture of David with the head of Goliath when it was on display temporarily in the National Gallery. Usually I pride myself on having a good eye for what’s legitimate and what’s a copy/imitation/fake, but I admit I was completely taken in. I’m not intimately acquainted with Gentileschi’s work but Hals is someone I’ve spent hours looking at. I wasn't just fooled in to thinking it was legitimate, I thought it was a brilliant bit of painting. That hair. That bony hand. That spark of life that comes from the brilliant dashes of highlights and accents.
I would love to say, "Yes, I thought they didn't look right" but the unsettling truth is I had really admired both the “Hals” and the “Gentileschi” when I saw them. I even spent an hour or so sketching the picture of David with the head of Goliath when it was on display temporarily in the National Gallery. Usually I pride myself on having a good eye for what’s legitimate and what’s a copy/imitation/fake, but I admit I was completely taken in. I’m not intimately acquainted with Gentileschi’s work but Hals is someone I’ve spent hours looking at. I wasn't just fooled in to thinking it was legitimate, I thought it was a brilliant bit of painting. That hair. That bony hand. That spark of life that comes from the brilliant dashes of highlights and accents.
Have my eyes failed me, am I a less discerning viewer than I thought? I’m not alone in being tricked however. The National Gallery proudly displayed “Gentileschi” and the Louvre tried but failed to buy the “Hals”.
I have to wonder whether the “Hals” in particular appeals not just because it looks like the master’s work, but maybe because in some way it appeals to our 21st century eyes. One of the most famous forger stories is that of Han Van Meegeren, who faked Vermeer to great acclaim. He had to confess (and prove his abilities in court) in order to avoid being accused of Nazi collaboration having sold one “Vermeer” to Goering. Incidentally, he actually faked a Hals too. His story is fascinating, but what I’ve always found incredible is how bad his “Vermeers” were. Really bad. It’s a wonder anyone was fooled. To me they look more emphatically like 1930’s people than 1660s. The only possible explanation is that they appealed to 1930s eyes. A kind of old master for modern tastes. There's no avoiding the fact that each generation views the art of former times through the lens of their own cultural and aesthetic milieu
I have to wonder whether the “Hals” in particular appeals not just because it looks like the master’s work, but maybe because in some way it appeals to our 21st century eyes. One of the most famous forger stories is that of Han Van Meegeren, who faked Vermeer to great acclaim. He had to confess (and prove his abilities in court) in order to avoid being accused of Nazi collaboration having sold one “Vermeer” to Goering. Incidentally, he actually faked a Hals too. His story is fascinating, but what I’ve always found incredible is how bad his “Vermeers” were. Really bad. It’s a wonder anyone was fooled. To me they look more emphatically like 1930’s people than 1660s. The only possible explanation is that they appealed to 1930s eyes. A kind of old master for modern tastes. There's no avoiding the fact that each generation views the art of former times through the lens of their own cultural and aesthetic milieu
Van Meegeren in court, showing how he created the paintings hanging around the room.
Doesn't Christ look like a 1930s hollywood actress?
Is it possible that in a few decades I’ll look back at this fake Hals and think, “how on earth was I taken in?? It looks so obviously like a man of c. 2010 not 1610”? Maybe. Or maybe this forger is just someone who loves Hals like I do, and has taken that admiration for the master to impressive but criminal levels.
Whatever the facts are, my guess is there are many more fakes to be revealed, and some will be in prestigious collections. And some won't be revealed at all but will continue to delight and deceive.
p.s. For what it's worth I don't think fakery and forgery are victimless crimes. Not just the buyer is conned, but critical understanding of artists and art history is distorted.
Whatever the facts are, my guess is there are many more fakes to be revealed, and some will be in prestigious collections. And some won't be revealed at all but will continue to delight and deceive.
p.s. For what it's worth I don't think fakery and forgery are victimless crimes. Not just the buyer is conned, but critical understanding of artists and art history is distorted.