F for fake

[amonseuldesir]

The idea of the "fake" has for some years been fashionable in
classical archaeology. What's the difference between a "copy" of a
sculpture (made by a enthusiastic eighteenth century sculptor) and a
"forgery" (made by

Comments

[larvatus]

According to the OED entry for enthusiasm 3.a, the principal current sense of the term is “Rapturous intensity of feeling in favour of a person, principle, cause, etc.; passionate eagerness in any pursuit, proceeding from an intense conviction of the worthiness of the object.” Under this definition, it certainly would be possible for a “copy” of a sculpture to be made by a enthusiastic sculptor proceeding from an intense conviction of its worthiness. By contrast, it would be impossible for its “forgery” to be made by an equally enthusiastic and skilled sculptor who is intending to pass it off as “real”, inasmuch as his pursuit would proceed from an economic calculation of the market value of his work provisionally sustained by his deception, trumping his candid estimation of its intrinsic worth.

[amonseuldesir]

I would not mind at all having a (very) good copy/fake of a (really) nice Roman/Hellenistic sculpture in my living room. I would in fact be quite really enthusiastic about it.

[panobjecticon]

how does a calculation of value affect the intrinsic worth (whatever that means) of an object? seems to me that art forgers have to be exceptionally good at what they do, unless they sell to the uninitiated, well beyond the level a copyist may aspire to. that requires a great deal of study, skill and enthusiasm, no?

[amonseuldesir]

Some forgers are quite gifted, not less gifted than the artists themselves. And sometimes one finds ancient fakes: those cases are hard to detect. They raise fascinating theoretical questions.