There was an interesting BBC programme, last year, on fakes and
copies, "Originals/fakes/reconstructions, Copies and Pastiches, from
the world of art to architecture". Although it was addressed to the
general public, certain questions raised seem relevant to the issue,
here; that is, if we widen it a little.
Warsaw a reconstruction of what?
When it was decided, after the war, to reconstruct Warsaw, the
question that was immediately raised, and not entirely resolved, was
what Warsaw to reconstruct (18th century, 19th century, or 20th
century)? The controversial decision was 1) to "reconstruct" Warsaw
as it was just before the war, but with important exceptions. The
Cathedral in the main square, in the middle the 19th century, had
been altered to English Gothic, and it was decided to reconstruct the
earlier facade.
2) for reasons of practicality, the interiors and floor plans are
mostly modern, and
3) much of the reconstruction was not only based on old photographs,
but on drawings, and more interestingly, on 18th century paintings by
Canaletto, but who we are told, often embellished the original in
order to create things that were aesthetically more pleasurable.
http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/web/arts_culture/painting/painters/
Bellotto/link.shtml
However, in spite of these 18 century interpretations, it seems
unlikely that an 18th century citizen of Warsaw, entering this
square would actually recognize it, as most houses now have 19th
century type Dorma windows, the Canaletto embellishments, and most of
the decoration is described as "pastiche". Indeed the whole
reconstruction could be described as a successful pastiche, according
to the program authors, perhaps, in some ways better than the
original, at least for its modern purpose.
lute restoration
This struck me as similar, if not identical, to the dilemma
confronting a lute-maker (and even a lute restorer): which
evolutionary state in the life of a much transformed lute should you
reconstruct it to? What was the original state? To what degree can
iconography, which may embellish or abstract, help this
reconstruction process, and how reliable is this sort of data? To
what extent should you use original tools and methods? How do you get
round the problem that the type of historic wood used then, may no
longer be available now, or belong to a seriously endangered species?
Thus, the "historic" lutes made by most lute makers (and even perhaps
those completely restored in museums like the Warwick) could better
be called "pastiches" (according to the definitions of the BBC
program) rather than copies or originals.
I agree with Alexander Batov, no modern "copy" can be called an
"exact copy". Even if you had access to the stock of wood used by the
historic lutemaker, and discovered his original tools, each piece of
wood would vary, as would the thickness of its cut, and more
important, each lute table is tuned by ear, so the lutemaker
necessarily colours his own creation.
Conscious of this most makers speak of "their interpretation". Each
making their own decision about how closely they stick to historic
models and methods, or bend to modern tastes and practices.
About copies, the program commented that they could occasionaly be
more true to the original than the original, which may have lost its
eclat and even gained or lost something. (to a point, this could be
true of the 6c Renaissance "copy" of an 11c Baroqued Bologna lute);
while, in the fake, ageing and degradation may of course be an
important part of the faker's art.
To return to the BBC discussion, and the Warsaw "pastiche", this
reminded me of a visit I made to Talinn (in the USSR at that time) in
1987 at the time of Perestroika. It was for an IPA Phonetic
Congress, after which we made a tour of art galleries and museums in
St Petersburg (Leningrad.at the time).
Having just visited the Peterhof Palace and Garden (Petrodvorets), an
American psycholinguist turned to me and commented, "there is nothing
in the Soviet Union of any worth that wasn't actually built by the
Tzars. Just look at these palaces!".
He was shocked tp learn that all the buildings he had just seen were
in fact post-war "pastiches" made by the Soviet state (partly
restored by the same Polish specialists, in fact); as St Petersburg
had been almost totally destroyed. So to say they were made (or
rather "ordered") by the Tzars was at least a question of
interpretation.
Completely perplexed, he asked why on earth would they have wanted to
recreate a symbol of the state that they had not so long before
overthrown, the answer to this is of course beyond the scope of our
list.
Nevertheless, I was struck that this well known psycholinguist (and
psychoanalyst) had let his preconceptions get in the way of
perceiving historic reality, let alone being able to interpret it. I
hope he was a little more careful in interpreting his patients symptoms.
When making lutes, lute strings, and even reconstructing historic
music practices, overgeneralizations and errors of interpretation,
frequently do occur (see RH position). Fortunately, these do not
usually lead to dangerous consequences.
Anthony
Le 5 févr. 09 à 16:20, howard posner a écrit :
On Feb 5, 2009, at 2:24 AM, David Tayler wrote:
I'm talking about the fakes that no one knows are fakes--the thirty
percent that we know must be fakes, but we don't know which ones
they are.
If no one knows they're fakes, how do we know they must be fakes?
Here's Mark Twain writing about "Old St. Paul's" in London:
The iron railings cannot be too much admired. They were designed and
constructed by Ralph Benson, of No. 9 Grace Church Street, Fen Church
Street, Upper Terrace, Tottenham Court Road, Felter Lane, London, C.
E., by special appointment blacksmith to His Royal Majesty, George
III, of gracious memory, and were done at his own shop, by his own
hands, and under his own personal supervision. Relics of this great
artists inspiration are exceedingly rare, and are valued at enormous
sums; however, two shovels and a horseshoe made by him are on file at
the British Museum, and no stranger should go away from London
without seeing them. One of the shovels is undoubtedly genuine, but
all authorities agree that the other one is spurious. It is not known
which is the spurious one, and this is unfortunate, for nothing
connected with this great man can be deemed of trifling importance.
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
