Welcome!

Blogger's Disclosure: This blog has been set up for week 11's presentation group at the Art Institute of Portand, ICOR 490 class, Fall 2009. The use of the content on this page is only for educational purposes.

This presentation is based off the following article:

Denis Dutton, “Artistic Crimes: the Problem of Forgery in the Arts, “ British Journal of Aesthitics 19:4 (1979): 302-14

The Author's Thesis:

"Since the aesthetic object as perceived is no different after the revelation that it is forged, the inference to be drawn is that it had previously been critically valued not for its intrinsic aesthetic properties, but because it was believed to be the work of an esteemed artist." (Paragraph 1)

Dutton's Supporting Arguements

1) Hans van Meegeren’s forgeries- why reject it? There is no aesthetic difference. (Dutton, D, paragraph 5)

2) It can make no aesthetic difference whether the work is forged or not. (paragraph 5)

3) Arthur Koestler – The object’s status as an original or forged is extraneous information, incidental to its intrinsic aesthetic properties. Any one that pays an enormous amount of money for an original and has no interest of a reproduction which he/she can’t tell the difference from the original, or worse, who chooses an aesthetically inferior original in preference to an excellent or superior forgery is said to be at best confused and at worst a snob. (Koestler,A, paragraph 5)

4) Alfred Lessing- forgery only exists in the” creative” but not the performing arts. (Lessing, A, paragraph 6)

5) Lessing- Smith and Jones example- The pianist’s recorded his tracks at a practice tempo, and the engineers speeded it up. Smith loves the new recordings but doesn’t know of the technical changes. Jones does know. When the secret is revealed Smith is disappointed. Extra –aesthetic conditions of the engineer.

6) Lessing’s distinction between creative and performing arts: don’t confuse the actor with the playwright, the conductor with the composer and the dancer with the choreographer.

7) The distinction can lose sight of the fact that in that certain respects all arts are creative, and correlatively, all arts are performing.

Dutton's Conclusion:

The significant opposition of “forged” and “original” needs to be correctly represented. The predictable challenges to this involves the insistence that while I (Dutton) have been directing attention to human performances, what is really in question in appreciating works of art is the aesthetic experience. (Paragraph 20) Against those who insist that an object’s status as forged is irrelevant to its artistic merit.

Works Cited

Denis Dutton, “Artistic Crimes: the Problem of Forgery in the Arts, “ British Journal of Aesthitics 19:4 (1979): 302-14