Dear all, from another list. found it very interesting, and couldnt stop forwarding.
Aryan On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:47 AM, indersalim <[email protected]> wrote: > on Fake and Art > > From introduction to The Piracy of Art by Sylvere Lotringer: > > "In The Conspiracy of Art, Baudrillard questions the privilege > attached to art by its practitioners. Art has lost all desire for > illusion: feeding back endlessly into itself, it has turned its own > vanishment into an art unto itself. Far from lamenting the "end of > art," Baudrillard celebrates art's new function within the process of > insider-trading. Spiraling from aesthetic nullity to commercial > frenzy, art has become transaesthetic, like society as a whole". > > With the backdrop of the above thought piece on Art, I believe, we can > seriously enter the debate on Faking, and its age old practice in Art. > I guess we all would like to know different opinions on the subject, > since a couple of days back, S.H Raza a noted Paris based Artist was > invited to inaugurate his own show where he discovered Fakes, not one > but many. As we know, this happened at one of the oldest gallery, > Doomimal Art Gallery in New Delhi. Reports say that he is initiating > legal action against those who are responsible for faking his art. > > Tintorrito, a Renaissance Master in Venice was notorious for lifting > other's compositions, and yet J.P. Satre wrote highly about his > genius, and not for nothing we have his paintings hung in Museums next > to those who labelled him unethical once. Even if this does not fall > under the category of faking, we have MonaLisa which was faked many > times during Leonardo's time itself, and there is doubt if the piece > hung in Louvre is the a real one or a fake . You may press the link to > read and see more on it. > http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/forgery/history/index.html. > > Since ancient times, faking art is a practice, so Raza is not the > first one to suffer. We have Bimal Roy fakes , Hussain fakes, Anjoli > Menon fakes, Bawa faks, Arpana fakes and even Subodh Gupta fakes. The > list is long and I heard there is some industry like thing near > Bhopal, and ' faking art ' is thriving trade in India. The debate here > is what is Fake in the first place? Is painting a currency note which > can not be forged unless you act illegally? But is there any > significance of word 'legal/illegal' in art? > > The above artists and their like-minded brethren are anguished, but > are they really? Or if yes, then do we need to join their anguish too, > and if yes, what way it benefits society, art and life ? And if it is > just about their market, why then we need to join the protest? Or is > it high time to declare that Art is neither original nor duplicate; > art is art, as long as its space-time is existentially breathing in > 'the present'? And the present is all about quantum we signs we are > dealing with on day to day basis. Who cares, if the Mao Zedong by > Andy Warhol sells for 17 million or whatever, and if its other silk > screen versions don't even sell for a shilling. To disseminate is the > conceptual urgency... > > Still, they have a point, and for that reason a senior artists Anjoli > Menon found a way out by marking her paintings with her thumb > impression which can be verified by a forensic expert if need arises. > So why don't other artists imitate her. Ah, these artists, as we know > are too egoistic. They will trace a photograph on their canvas and > fill it with their own colours of fantasy without declaring it > publicly, or lift anything from any forgotten composition or from any > popular form, but they wont lift anything what is well known in the > art domain. In the present case of faking their originals, they feel > helpless. I am personally amused. > > Now, imagine, if a painting which depicts Indira Gandhi or Gandhi by > MF Hussain is recommended by Govt. of India to be incorporated into a > Currency Note, and after some time it is discovered that the said work > of art was fake, would that currency be also declared as Fake? > Obviously no, because the value of the currency note is not measured > by nuances of the line work or some details important in aesthetic > world, but by the signature of the Reserve Bank Governer, who > represents the State. Please note that how artist's signature on the > canvas has often posited as the part of composition in the frame, and > not merely as a sign to verify the rest around it. Here, the moment we > attach a price tag to a painting it functions like a commercial > object. It was perhaps inevitable. One can understand the compulsions, > but what people in general have to say on the subject is quite > important. > > I quote : "The real is not threatened by its double today, ( Clement > Rosset ), it is threatened by its very idiocy". > > If the present is all about 'idiocy', then we need to grapple the > meaning of it rather than what is happening between Artists and > her/his collector. Any intensification of the debate on that account > would eventually not rob the concerns of those artists who feel ' > threatened by the double'. I am somehow interested by 'the idiocy of > art in life' and its long term effects in society. Obviously, the > collectors would offset such leanings in any art discourse and the > artists who want to appease the collectors are likely to join the > chorus. And if it becomes so black and white, I have no option but to > be content with whatever 'idiocy' grants me. > > I quote Jean Baudrillard, from his book 'The System of Objects' : " > The collector is never an utterly hopeless fanatic, precisely because > he collects objects that in some way always prevent him from > regressing into the ultimate abstraction of a delusional state, but at > the same time the discourse he thus creates can never for the very > same reason- get beyond a certain poverty and infantilism. Collecting > is always a limited, a repetitive process, and the very material > objects with which it is concerned are too concrete and too > discontinuous ever to be articulated as a true dialectical structure. > So if no-collectors are indeed ' nothing but morons,' collectors, for > the part, invariably have something impoverished and inhuman about > them".# > > Those who have seen the film 'The Moderns' ( 1988 ) know the story of > a failed painter down on his luck in Paris in the 1920's who accepts a > commission to forge a famous impressionist paintings. The film > questions what is real versus what is perceived or subjective. The > plot twists include a millionaire art collector publicly slashing > priceless paintings, thinking it as forged, while the fake paintings > are sent to hang in a New York museum. By the account, what we see as > best of impressionist works are in fact ' fakes'. > > Ah, what a relief. > > And for this reason alone, perhaps, we need to see Photography bereft > of those faking fears. > > ( to be continued … ) > > > > > -- > > http://indersalim.livejournal.com > _________________________________________ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
