http://en.posztukiwania.pl/wp-content/themes/special-theme
Navigation Menu
  • Blog
  • News
  • About me
  • Media
  • Lectures
Home » Blog » Copy, imitation or forgery?
Sat30

Copy, imitation or forgery?

Magdalena Łanuszka :: in Apr 30, 2022 :: in Blog :: 0 comments

Recently I had a pleasure to visit (last-minute visit, just before it closed) exhibition “Falza? Falza!” (“Forgery? Forgery!”) at the National Gallery in Prague. Among artworks on loan there were some famous forgeries by Han van Meegeren (I wrote about those earlier, HERE).

https://www.ngprague.cz/udalost/3185/ngp-on-air-vystavy-falza-falza-pohled-ze-zakulisi/5125

The exhibition presented various – however somehow related – aspects of copies, imitations and forgeries. We often tend to assume that the artwork is either “original”, or not; meanwhile, it is not so simple. The painters often produced copies of their own best-sellers; it was also quite common for rich donors to commission copies of some famous pieces (and no-one assumed that violated some copyrights, nor did they consider such a copy less valuable). An excellent example (not from the Prague exhibition, though) is Miraflores Altarpiece by Rogier van der Weyden (in Staatlichen Museen in Berlin), the copy of which, completed several decades later (divided between Capilla Real in Granada and Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York), differs from the original seemingly pretty much only in size and shades of colours. For many years scholars assumed that the paintings in Granada and New York are originals, while in Berlin there is a copy; it turned out it is actually the other way round, which was finally proved by the technological examination (such as dendrochronological exams, dating age of wooden boards on which the paintings were painted)! (for more on this subject check out an article by Katrin Dyballa and Stephan Kemperdick, available HERE).

Rogier van der Weyden, Miraflores Altarpiece, before 1445, Gemäldegalerie der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin

Juan de Flandes or Michel Sittow (?), copy of Miraflores Altarpiece, ca. 1500, Granada, Capilla Real / New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art

Miraflores Carthusian monastery near Burgos was funded by king John II of Castille in 1441; surviving sources confirm that the king donated the altar in 1445. Meanwhile, the copy was commissioned by John II of Castille’s daughter, Isabella I of Castille, ca. 1500. After her death in 1504 the altarpiece ended up in Capilla Real in Granada.

https://jhna.org/articles/a-look-back-johannes-taubert-and-the-investigation-of-the-miraflores-altarpiece/

Such a case does not count as forgery; in fact centuries ago author’s rights were not understood as they are today. Making copies after famous artworks was considered a praise. However, there were some exceptions of that rule; one of the first artists concerned about his copyrights was Albrecht Dürer. He signed his works with characteristic monogram (a letter “D” inside a letter “A”), and he was so famous, that this monogram increased value of any print on the market… Italian draughtsman Marcantonio Raimondi (ca. 1480-before 1534) made quite a lot of money on selling copies after Dürer’s prints (he also created some erotic prints, about which I wrote HERE, but that’s a different story). No wonder that Dürer got irritated: not only he had no profit of those sold copies of his works, but also he was aware that some of those works, believed to be his, are not meeting his artistic standards. Prints by Dürer and by Raimondi were also present at the exhibition in Prague.

Albrecht Dürer, Annunciation, ca. 1503, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/387879

Marcantonio Raimondi after Albrechta Dürera https://sbirky.ngprague.cz/dielo/CZE:NG.R_116182

In 1511 Dürer achieved a special privilege from the Emperor Maximilian I, which forbade copying artist’s works and selling them. Unfortunately there were no legal instruments to execute this law. Dürer remained the most copied (and forged) artist – not only during his lifetime, but also after death. At the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries there was even so called “Dürer-Renaissance”, as many copies and forgeries of Dürer’s works were created back then. It was related to the fact that the Emperor Rudolph II (1552-1612) as well as Bavarian dukes William V (1548-1626) and Maximilian I (1573-1651) engaged themselves in a kind of contest: who would collect more works by Dürer. Hence the immense popularity of Dürer’s artworks at the courts in Prague and in Munich; of course in those circumstances some people started to sell forgeries. This is the case of one of the paintings from the National Gallery in Prague: „Mocking of Christ”, most likely by Hans Hoffmann (d. 1591/92), signed with Dürer’s monogram and the date 1520, which makes it a forgery.

https://sbirky.ngprague.cz/en/dielo/CZE:NG.DO_4185

Demand on imitations (and forgeries) of Old Masters’ artworks significantly increased in the 19th century, due to popularity of historicism, especially Gothic Revival. Many aristocrats, fascinated with the culture of the Middle Ages, wanted to have medieval-like castles, and of course they also insisted on decorating them with Gothic pictures: imitations, originals, and sometimes – “originals”. A part of the exhibition in Prague was dedicated to artworks created for Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria (killed in 1914 – his assassination started WWI). He was especially fond of depictions of St George, patron of knights, as he liked to consider himself a knight. It is difficult to say in how many cases the Archduke was aware that his purchases were not genuinely medieval; probably at least in some cases he was deceived by forgers.

Fragment of the exhibition in Prague (dedicated to copies), https://www.facebook.com/NGPrague/photos/10159259311525225

In the past the decision whether certain piece was an original or not was based almost solely on the opinion of an expert and his “eye”. Nowadays we have advanced technological instruments: we can e.g. run chemical examinations of pigments, or determine age of the wooden boards of the painting, which often reveals forgery invisible to an eye of any expert.

In the collections of most of museums there are many copies and imitations, and sometimes also forgeries, but usually those pieces are kept out of the exposition. Meanwhile, an exhibition of such artworks may be really interesting, as they represent quite a significant aspect of visual culture of past epochs (after all, artworks copied or faked are usually the ones that were considered the most desirable at certain times).

And so, I hope that the other museums would one day stop hiding those artworks in their magazines – after all, sometimes creating a good forgery requires even more artistic skills than producing an original. So why do we still assume that copies, imitations and forgeries are worthless?



Post a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • Crypto-dildo?
  • Copy, imitation or forgery?
  • Talk in Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague
  • Us and the War
  • On-line conference on Saints in art (in Polish)

Recent Comments

  • Magdalena Łanuszka on Lascivious “Lascivie”
  • Michael Guest on Lascivious “Lascivie”
  • Mark on Transsexualism?
  • Magdalena Łanuszka on Us and the War
  • Alan Scarfe on Us and the War

Archives

  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014

Categories

  • Blog
  • Lectures
  • Media
  • News

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Tags

19th century 20th century animals Antiquity architecture art market Bible carnival Central Europe Christ customs death devil Early-modern fresco history Holy Spirit legend literature manuscripts Middle Ages mosaics Muse mythology Old Masters painting photography portrait prints relics Religious art Saints sculpture sex sexuality still life Virgin Mary wine

Designed by Fragrance Design © 2013 | Powered by WordPress

×

By using this website you allow us to place cookies on your computer for analytics.

However, if you would like to, you can change your cookie settings at any time.