Vice: The question of fake art

The last half of tonight's HBO half hour news magazine Vice discussed the question of modern art (mostly Andy Warhol) whose original works were produced by employees from masters only to some degree the individual work of the artist. They showed the same man who had been the silk screen printer for Warhol back in the day making another print using the same paint (bottles now reduced price on the label), same screens and same equipment that he had used for the first one. The difference was that Warhol was not present for the first one because he turned such things over to staff and went home back then. Now he was not there because he has died but all the other parts of the process were present.

Not long ago I saw an exhibit on similar activities with the works of the sculptor Rodin. He did not work in bronze and marble but his staff produced such things according to his designs including some after his death.

This is the $millions art market and is becoming more a problem as more modern works are selling in 7 digits. How does this apply to our coins? That is a question we might want to address before we find ourselves facing new technologies that replace the fakes of today. I'm glad I collect coins. We have discussed how much restoration is allowed/expected on paintings such as Van Gogh but now paintings are taking another step in a dangerous direction. I'm really glad I collect coins.

The West feed for HBO has not yet played tonight as I type this in case anyone would like to watch the program.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks for posting. I'll check it out, if I don't forget by then.

 

Was busy cooking dinner when it was on. I'll try and catch it later. Off topic a little, but do you like HBOs the leftovers?

 

An interesting episode. I wonder how much someone would pay for a coin made today, with authentic ancient dies and blanks and used the same method.

 

I watch it nightly.

As for the topic on the show

The modern art market can best be described by the line that Michael Douglas spat out during the original Wall Street "THIS painting here, I bought it 10 years ago for $60,000. I could sell it today for $600,000. The illusion has become real, and the more real it becomes, the more desperately they want it."

That is how graffiti sells for $110 Million

 

I think the question of fake art is fascinating. Say you buy a Rauschenberg or a Frankenthaler for millions of dollars. Then some expert says that it's a fake, and suddenly it's about worth $20 or so. It's still the exact same painting. In theory, we buy a work of art because of aesthetics, because of how it looks or the emotions that it evokes in us. Yet the painting or sculpture or whatever in question looks exactly the same as it did before that expert spoke. Maybe it's the emotions associated with the object that has change, but that doesn't speak particularly well of those emotions that inspired us to pay those initial millions.

With ancient coins it's a little different. My scratched and worn old Mark Anthony denarius

is not particularly aesthetically pleasing, but it was minted by someone traveling with Mark Anthony during his lifetime. My he even held it at one time. Maybe Cleopatra said "Hey Markie Snoogums, you dropped this." If this coin were shown to be a fake, all that history would evaporate, and I would have about $4 worth of silver.

 

I guess the drop in price for a fake disproves that theory. It seems that in the high-end art world, it's about the artist and the prestige of ownership as much as (or more than) the art itself.

 

The reality is that it's not about aesthetics at all. It's all about return of investment. Unfortunately, the same can often be said about ultra high-end coins, too.

 

Our works of art are cheaper, easier to maintain, and take up MUCH less space.

 

This, especially in the US coin market.

 

In all honesty, I have to admit to a mercantile element in my own collecting. I've spent a lot of time and labor slowly putting together my Roman Emperor and my Constantine the Great collections, and I take some pride in the fact that they are probably worth a few thousand dollars or so today. I spent years building up these collections with the money I earned by buying uncleaned coins, cleaning, IDing and then selling them on eBay and, even though my main motivation has always been just the joy of discovering nice coins under all the dirt and encrustation and solving the puzzle of where the coin is from, when was it made, who's depicted on it, etc., when it finally comes time to sell these collections--probably when I retire, assuming that none of my children or hypothetical grandchildren show a great interest in them--I hope to get a good return on my investment of time and labor.

So, yeah, in my own modest way, I'm not above the same profit-driven motives of the high-end collector/investors whom I like to snark about. It's just easier for me to pretend otherwise because I'm at such a smaller scale.

 

Retirement is not what it's made out to be. I try to stay busy doing things I enjoy, but I also have a lot of time on my hands. That down time is the time I spend on this hobby and it's associated studies. If it wasn't for these coins, I would go nuts. I hope your retirement turns out as you envision, but I wouldn't be planning on selling your collection unless you need the the money to live.

 

Good point about selling the collection.

 

I am reminded, reading this thread, of perusing Harlan Berk's 100 Greatest Ancient Coins for the first time. I loved the history and images, but was disappointed at the obsession with the monetary value of each entry. The stated dollar amounts would, I knew, date the book very quickly (given the way the coin market is). We all have wondered, I'm sure, what our collections may sell for some day, perhaps after we are gone. But I think relatively few of us here are in the game for the returns on our investments.

A quick word about contemporary art: It is easy to be cynical and dismissive if one is looking for authenticity and commitment to aesthetics in the high end art market. There is a lot of work that is outrageous and is produced with market trends in mind, especially in the big markets (NY, LA). Unfortunately, some folks extend their cynicism to all contemporary art, feeling like it's all a crock. Of course that's very unfair and inaccurate. I've exhibited my work a lot over the years, sold pieces here and there, but have never been inclined to shoot for the big markets. I labor long hours over each and every image, experimenting with materials and methods, struggling for the right solutions to the visual problems I present myself. It's a painful, difficult, challenging - but rewarding process. "Rewarding" as in artistic maturation and inspiration and meaning - the intangibles.

 

I work as much in retirement than I did before. The difference is I don't get paid for it in money. A major difference is I set my hours and where I work. If I want a nap, I take a nap. There are plenty of volunteer opportunities but you have to find the ones you like. If you don't feel rewarded or appreciated, go somewhere else.

 

Millions in art? Too rich for my blood. Most of the paintings in my house were purchased in Cuba by family members for something like $30-40 USD or less, and shipped to me.

Here is an example. This one cost me $25 with shipping included. Nothing fake here, just traditional hand painted Cuban folk art. Not worth much to you as it's from unknown artists, but to me it's worth a lot for the style of the art and it's beauty, and it's connection to where I was born.

 

One has to stay busy for sure. If one plans to just sit on their derriere and read the books they've put off, I think one will find retirement a disappointment. Like Doug said, plan to stay busy when you want to be busy (I like my naps as well).

 

Very nice work! I have no artistic bone in my body, but I appreciate what I like in art.

 

That painting is just plain COOL! I would enjoy having similar paintings!

 

I like to think it's fake news. Or maybe it's in Zimbabwe $.

Extrapolating. How do you guys feel about reconstructed ancient sites? Same stones, perfect restoration. The moment I find out i am looking at a former pile of rocks, it loses a lot of its appeal/sentimental value. It's worse for fake art. It loses all its value