* * * * *
Masterpiece, copy, forgery—where is the line drawn?
> Felice Ficherelli wanted a Vermeer.
>
> Well, maybe.
>
> Felice was a contemporary of Vermeer, an obscure painter whom he might have
> known, or might not have known—we really have no idea. This is all we know
> for sure:
>
> * Around 1640, Felice Ficherelli painted “Saint Praxedis.”
> * Around 1655, a near-exact replica of that painting appeared.
>
> …
>
> Could this second painting—the copy, the duplicate—have sprung from the
> hand of Vermeer? Could it be the magical #37? Yes, if you believe
> Christie’s Auction House, which auctioned that very painting yesterday for
> $10.2 million. (You just missed your chance to have your own Vermeer!)
>
> Why would Vermeer have copied an obscure Italian painting? Copying was
> quite common then, not only as an act of training, but also for financial
> gain. So perhaps Tim’s theory was right—Vermeer was a copier.
>
> But why would a painting—a painting that absolutely no one disputes is a
> copy of someone else’s painting!—fetch $10 million?
>
> That’s a good question.
>
Via Jason Kottke [1], “This Is Not a Vermeer ™ — The Message — Medium [2]”
So far (part two (Uber for Art Forgeries — The Message — Medium) [3]) it's an
interesting article about authenticity, duplicity and duplication. What,
exactly, makes a copy of painting worth $10,000,000, and where you too, can
get your own copy of a painting for way less then $10,000,000.
[1]
http://kottke.org/14/07/vermeer
[2]
https://medium.com/message/this-is-not-a-vermeer-67b752b150c0
[3]
https://medium.com/message/uber-for-art-forgeries-
Email author at
[email protected]
