Are We Snobs for Not Admiring a Forgery as much as an Original?

Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus

The philosopher Alfred Lessing says: “Considering a work of art aesthetically superior because it is genuine, or inferior because it is forged, has little or nothing to do with aesthetic judgement or criticism. It is, rather, a piece of snobbery.” Lessing maintains that “Pure aesthetics cannot explain forgery,” and that “...genuineness versus forgery is a non-aesthetic standard of judgement.”

Arthur Koestler, in demonstrating the intrinsic value of pure aesthetics, uses as an example the forgeries of the Gothic wall paintings by Lothar Malskat, who was hired by Dietrich Fey to restore the Lubeck frescoes in 1948. He supplemented them with paintings of his own, subsequently provoking a counterfeit scandal. When the forgeries were discovered, the paintings ceased to be valuable. Koestler asks: “…whether the Lubeck saints are less beautiful… because they had been painted by Herr Malskat and not by somebody else.” The key point of Koestler’s argument is: “…the principal mark of genius is not perfection, but originality, the opening of new frontiers; once this is done, the conquered territory becomes common property.”

The Vermeer Forgery “Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus" by Van Meegeren

Alfred Lessing claims that the Vermeer forgery Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus by Van Meegeren is a work of beauty. “The matter of genuineness versus forgery is but another non-aesthetic standard of judgement,” he says. He relegates the painting’s non-aesthetic authenticity to the same level as other non-aesthetic criteria, such as “biography” and “history of art,” etc.

The fact that a painting is a forgery may not detract from its pure aesthetic value in the common understanding of a work of beauty, but it is open to criticism due to what it may lack as a piece of deception, taken out of its historical and biographical context. Lessing describes the matter of originality as “a certain superficial individuality, which serves to distinguish it from all other works of art.”

Arthur Koestler agrees with Lessing that exact reproductions of existing paintings are not necessarily undermined merely because a painting is a forgery. However, Oswald Hanfling points out that the Van Meegeren forgeries, were not exact reproductions, but were: “in the style of Vermeer” and were of subjects different from those painted by Vermeer.” This suggests that the aesthetic value of the forgeries could be enhanced by aspects of originality.

The Contribution of the Perceiver

However, Nelson Goodman says that it is not enough to rely upon the act of merely looking. He uses the analogy of twins, who, initially look the same, but over time show perceptible differences. Further, the “now” of looking affects future looking. He says that he sees, “The present looking as a role of training.” Goodman believes the acceptance of a forgery as an original may colour the spectator’s understanding of an artist’s work. Even with these qualifications, Goodman claims that this does not prove the original is better than the forgery: “…a copy of a Lastman by Rembrandt may well be better than the original.”

For some critics, the ontology of the work and its originality add to its appreciation and therefore, to its aesthetic value Goodman’s assertion allows for the participation of the perceiver: “The aesthetic properties of a picture include not only those found by looking at it, but also those that determine how it is to be looked at.” If the perceiver’s contribution to the aesthetic value of a painting is admitted, it is a small step further to accept that he or she will bring their own understanding to the experience, as a valid contribution.

A Preference for Originality is not Snobbery

Oswald Hanfling asks: “But is it right to exclude such qualities as achievement and originality from the domain of aesthetic qualities and aesthetic appreciation?” (It should be pointed out, however, that this could also mean that snobbery may occur, when the perceiver is impressed by the label of greatness and lacks the knowledge or sensibility to discern.) Hanfling questions why these factors of achievement and originality should not make us value an authentic work above a forgery. “We may also be affected by the sheer antiquity of a work, or by knowledge about its original functions, for example, in a religious context.”

The Disciples at Emmaus – a Lack of Artistic Integrity

Lessing’s argument employs a narrower concept of the “aesthetic” which does not do justice to our natural response to, and assessment of, art, including originality. On the other hand, Lessing admits that there is a further consideration which is nothing to do with snobbery, that is, the issue of deception: “It seems to me … it is not so much against the spirit of beauty (aesthetics) as against the spirit of art. Somehow, a work such as 'The Disciples' lacks artistic integrity.”

Following on from this is Oswald Hanfling’s point that forgery on a large scale: “…may distort our knowledge of art history.” To object to deception or fraud, which, after all, may have far-reaching effects on our understanding of art history, cannot be labelled as snobbery. It is a natural human response.

Oswald Hanfling, in giving us a broader notion of the aesthetic, also shows that a preference for the original is not necessarily based on snobbery.

Sources:

• “Art and Authenticity,” Nelson Goodman, Art, Context and Value, edited by Stuart Sim, The Open University, 1992.
• “Aesthetic Qualities,” Osward Hanfling, Philosophical Aesthetics, edited by Oswald Hanfling, Blackwell Publishers in Association with The Open University, 1992.
• “The Act of Creation,” Arthur Koestler, Art, Context and Value, edited by Stuart Sim, The Open University, 1992.
• “What is Wrong with a Forgery?” Alfred Lessing, Art, Context and Value, edited by Stuart Sim, The Open University, 1992.