Article on art forgery

An article appearing in The New York Times today describes an exhibit at the National Gallery in New York focusing on the tools used to ensure various works of art are authentic. One of my favorite quotes from the article is

"People love fakes because fakes play into the populist suspicion that much art is really just a scam, a suspicion encouraged by the fancy names wrongly attached to and insane prices often paid for the stuff."

Sometimes, this can be an accurate assessment when discussing high-profile works of art. Another quote might just edge out the previous one for its insight about another artwork of dubious origin:

"Its role in the evolving narratives of art history changes. Its price can go up or down. But cost is not value."

 This quote reminds me of the book, Life Inc. by Douglas Rushkoff wherein he states,

"We look to the Dow Jones average as if it were the one true vital sign of our society's health, and the exchange rate of our currency as a measure of our wealth as a nation or worth as a people."

Does a work of art have less artistic value if it's determined that the artist isn't famous? It's an interesting dilemma and one that should make us all pause when admiring art and evaluate it on its own merits. This, of course, is different from setting a price in an auction based on the artist's name -- different market (literally) and the "value" of the artwork is its market price, not necessarily its artistic value.


The article concluded with this reminder:

"But look, never mind what the label says, and you may notice something else about the picture, too, some other truth.

It’s beautiful."