Comment on what is and what isn't a fake

[sar-photo]

This is something I found in 'Jackdaw' magazine (a 'Private Eye' style magazine for the art world)...


"Fine art campaigner Charles Thomson notes that some 'fake Hirsts' are now on the market.


This leads to the following couple of sentences: 'A fake Hirst is not a Hirst not made by Hirst, of course, as Hirst does not make his own work anyway. It is a Hirst not made by Hirst which Hirst says is not a Hirst, though in all other respects it is quite possibly identical to a Hirst not made by Hirst, which Hirst says is a Hirst'"


Simon

 

[John Lawrence]

'A fake Hirst is not a Hirst not made by Hirst, of course, as Hirst does not make his own work anyway. It is a Hirst not made by Hirst which Hirst says is not a Hirst, though in all other respects it is quite possibly identical to a Hirst not made by Hirst"

This would be the whirst case scenario.

John

 

[Andy Kibber]

There is a lot of contemporary art (particularly conceptual art) that is not made by the artist but rather created at the direction of the artist. I don't see a problem with that.

 

[whatever]

fake money

fake money

I love good and great fakes, like the Christ shroud and Picassos marked with complementary signatures. It makes the very boring world of art collecting exciting. There is no way to prove it but I believe there are many collectors with fake art and do not know it. I saw a TV show of a guy who could draw a perfect $100 bill. He would trade them for restaurant meals and other barter, now that is a great talent for fakes.