The article seems to indicate a shift in trying to produce high end fakes to more middle range priced fakes due to perceived lack of scrutiny at lower prices.
I wonder is that accurate? It seems logical that anyone trying to produce a fake would have seen the benefit of avoiding too much scrutiny at the high end, and a fake around say 6 to 10k would be easier to pull off.
If the fake is good enough and not too expensive I might be interested in knowingly buying a fake. Have a Mona Lisa in my living room would be cool, even though I know it isn't the real one only the best experts could tell the difference (and possibly only via destructive testing...): that is good enough for me.
There was an episode of American greed about a woman using a high end printer to make fakes, they would sell them on a home shopping network style tv show. Literally selling well known artists work. Everyone would win the auction for the "one of a kind authentic" piece.
Fun fact, she spelled chagel wrong and the buyer asked about it.
Cruise ships basically sell the same thing-although a lot of their paintings sound licensed-and some paintings are embellished slightly with a few dashes of paint to make them 'unique'/'one-of-a-kind'.
Interesting article about how Peter Max's name was taken advantage of & how people on cruise ships were carefully misled into thinking they were buying special art
She lied to living artists about authorized prints and basically just was brazen in not caring. The target price range made it easier. No one was authenticating the work at the time. So not much of an explanation from her other than bad lies. It was basically like copying 1 or 5 dollar bills, no one checks those
A museum of frauds with background as to how they came to be and who was hurt by them: the motive, the method, the tragedy. I highly recommend it. http://www.faelschermuseum.com/Seite1_englisch.htm
The article seems to indicate a shift in trying to produce high end fakes to more middle range priced fakes due to perceived lack of scrutiny at lower prices.
I wonder is that accurate? It seems logical that anyone trying to produce a fake would have seen the benefit of avoiding too much scrutiny at the high end, and a fake around say 6 to 10k would be easier to pull off.
If the fake is good enough and not too expensive I might be interested in knowingly buying a fake. Have a Mona Lisa in my living room would be cool, even though I know it isn't the real one only the best experts could tell the difference (and possibly only via destructive testing...): that is good enough for me.
You are describing a replica, not a counterfeit.
There was an episode of American greed about a woman using a high end printer to make fakes, they would sell them on a home shopping network style tv show. Literally selling well known artists work. Everyone would win the auction for the "one of a kind authentic" piece.
Fun fact, she spelled chagel wrong and the buyer asked about it.
Cruise ships basically sell the same thing-although a lot of their paintings sound licensed-and some paintings are embellished slightly with a few dashes of paint to make them 'unique'/'one-of-a-kind'.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/business/peter-max-dement...
Interesting article about how Peter Max's name was taken advantage of & how people on cruise ships were carefully misled into thinking they were buying special art
A cruise line was included in that particular episode for exactly that. But in this case it was outright fraud.
What was her explanation?
She lied to living artists about authorized prints and basically just was brazen in not caring. The target price range made it easier. No one was authenticating the work at the time. So not much of an explanation from her other than bad lies. It was basically like copying 1 or 5 dollar bills, no one checks those
Like counterfeiting $20 bills instead of $100s.
Related from last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16950823
art world seems prone to emperor's new clothes