Fake or Fortune? BBC1

[youngsyr]

TEKNOPUG said:

They gave away far too much of the show in the introduction, totally unnecessary.

I'm always surprised how much people pay for cast sculptures; it's not actually made by the artist. No different to a print of a painting.

The original foundry may have been commissioned to make 10 but could have made 12, as the owner and the wife liked them. Those 2 additional statues are effectively worthless even though they are identical to the other 10.

It's a bizarre concept, isn't it? Essentially a statue could be a version of an "original", made in the same way, by the same people, from the same material, but because it's unauthorised, it's worth a fraction of an "original". That would indicate that it's not the form of the art that is valuable, but the artist's recognition of it as their own.

I guess the key difference would be the signature - only the authorised versions would have a genuine signature, which the artist typically puts in the most unobtrusive place possible on the statue!

Edited by youngsyr on Wednesday 27th September 10:21

[youngsyr]

MesoForm said:

skeeterm5 said:

I thought it was interesting because it showed something different to “is there any paint pigment not around at the time” type stuff from all of the paintings.

That rhino sculpture when the foundry doors open was amazing too.

Yeah, I thought it was great the way it was different from their normal approach of pigments and 'is it in the style of?', having the artist's friend's opinion on the signature was a nice touch too.
It would've been a much simpler process if the artist actually numbered her works though!
As to Truckosaurus' question in the spoiler -
I'm guessing the current owner has to make a reasonable effort to see if the one she has is the same one that the college lost before she can sell it?

The editions were numbered at the exhibition and sale, just not on the actual statue.

The whole college thing was very strange and a bit glossed over IMO - the exhibition sale records showed that 1 had been sold to "JCR Oxford" and there was a pencil marked "Magdalen", elsewhere on the exhibition list of sales, but it didn't say a Small Warrior was sold to Magdalen or to Nuffield?

And then Magdalen apparently lost one statue and one turns up at Nuffield College? Seems to me that the Magdalen one could well have been the same as the Nuffield one?

[TEKNOPUG]

youngsyr said:

It's a bizarre concept, isn't it? Essentially a statue could be a version of an "original", made in the same way, by the same people, from the same material, but because it's unauthorised, it's worth a fraction of an "original". That would indicate that it's not the form of the art that is valuable, but the artist's recognition of it as their own.

I guess the key difference would be the signature - only the authorised versions would have a genuine signature, which the artist typically puts in the most unobtrusive place possible on the statue!

Edited by youngsyr on Wednesday 27th September 10:21

It seemed to suggest that the artist was present during the casting process and signed each wax version. Which would mean every version has a slightly different signature - although I think "Frink" scratched in wax would be quite easy to copy.

Maybe artists are always present during the whole process and ensure that the moulds are destroyed at the end of the commissioned run?

[youngsyr]

TEKNOPUG said:

youngsyr said:

It's a bizarre concept, isn't it? Essentially a statue could be a version of an "original", made in the same way, by the same people, from the same material, but because it's unauthorised, it's worth a fraction of an "original". That would indicate that it's not the form of the art that is valuable, but the artist's recognition of it as their own.

I guess the key difference would be the signature - only the authorised versions would have a genuine signature, which the artist typically puts in the most unobtrusive place possible on the statue!

Edited by youngsyr on Wednesday 27th September 10:21

It seemed to suggest that the artist was present during the casting process and signed each wax version. Which would mean every version has a slightly different signature - although I think "Frink" scratched in wax would be quite easy to copy.

Maybe artists are always present during the whole process and ensure that the moulds are destroyed at the end of the commissioned run?

Indeed, but the only difference in the actual piece of unauthorised art would be the signature - which the artist tends to try to hideaway as much as possible anyway!

[MesoForm]

TEKNOPUG said:

They gave away far too much of the show in the introduction, totally unnecessary.

I'm always surprised how much people pay for cast sculptures; it's not actually made by the artist. No different to a print of a painting.

The original foundry may have been commissioned to make 10 but could have made 12, as the owner and the wife liked them. Those 2 additional statues are effectively worthless even though they are identical to the other 10.

It's all a bit odd, Damien Hirst just has a factory churning out his art and is quite open about it
https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/exhibitions/ins...

[youngsyr]

MesoForm said:

It's all a bit odd, Damien Hirst just has a factory churning out his art and is quite open about it
https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/exhibitions/ins...

So did Andy Warhol, IIRC.

[Baron Greenback]

skeeterm5 said:

I thought it was interesting because it showed something different to “is there any paint pigment not around at the time” type stuff from all of the paintings.

That rhino sculpture when the foundry doors open was amazing too.

Good episode, loved some of the bronzes in the foundry, dread to think how long the rhino will take to cool even if hollow.

[Nethybridge]

One of the best episodes, that the statue was an acquired taste matters not. Most enjoyable,

[youngsyr]

Nethybridge said:

One of the best episodes, that the statue was an acquired taste matters not. Most enjoyable,

Odd, wasn't it?

Not sure I could describe it, or even found it beautiful, but it would undoubtedly draw attention if it was just sat in a room.

[Puzzles]

I thought it was a good episode. Something a little different and makes interesting tv even if they do stretch it out a little.

[Riley Blue]

youngsyr said:

Odd, wasn't it?

Not sure I could describe it, or even found it beautiful, but it would undoubtedly draw attention if it was just sat in a room.

Frink is one of two sculpturers whose work I've admired since the 1960s (the other being Giacometti.) I would love to have a small piece by either.

[youngsyr]

Here's a slight twist that I haven't seen discussed: do we believe the owner that she really bought it at a car boot sale for £90?

Very convenient excuse for the break in provenance, yet the statute was quite clearly signed. Do we honestly believe that the previous owner (a) wasn't aware of its provenance and (b) hadn't bothered to google it?

They clearly thought it was worth something to price it at £100, if they didn't know what it was and thought it was insignificant (as suggested by it being covered in dust and crud), that's seems punchy at a car boot sale, where more often items are priced in single digits?

And the new owner, suspecting that it was genuine, didn't bother to query the seller where it had come from?

[Truckosaurus]

Indeed. Although perhaps 'car boot sale' was code for 'antiques fair' and they didn't want to identify a specific location when there's the possibility of it being a fake or stolen.

That would be a better fit for somewhere £100 random sculpture would be for sale.

[TEKNOPUG]

Money has to be on it being a missing college piece, that someone has held onto and then forgotten about or it's importance not being communicated to relatives and then picked up in a house clearance.

But yes, £100 seems punchy for £10 scrap if you don't know what it is.

Maybe the owner knew it exactly what it was and where it came from and the car boot sale is a cover?

Edited by TEKNOPUG on Thursday 28th September 14:20

[PinkTornado]

A decent episode, albeit about an object I didn't like in the slightest. Too much was given away by the introduction though and once the materials analysis was in, that was it- case closed. Mould and particularly Bruce repeating things that have just been said is getting worse, too.

[youngsyr]

TEKNOPUG said:

Money has to be on it being a missing college piece, that someone has held onto and then forgotten about or it's importance not being communicated to relatives and then picked up in a house clearance.

But yes, £100 seems punchy for £10 scrap if you don't know what it is.

Maybe the owner knew it exactly what it was and where it came from and the car boot sale is a cover?

Edited by TEKNOPUG on Thursday 28th September 14:20

The most telling point for me is that the current owner bought it for £90 suspecting it to be genuine, but no mention was made of her trying to discover its provenance. The first step would be to query the seller where they got it from, this wasn't mentioned in the show.

Then again, would be pretty ballsy to use the programme to try to whitewash the statue's past if it were even slightly murky?

[TEKNOPUG]

I think she said she did try to find the seller but to no avail.

I'm not sure how the conversation would have gone if she did find them though..... Remember that statue I bought for £90, do you have any paperwork for it? Why? Oh no reason....

[Promised Land]

PinkTornado said:

A decent episode, albeit about an object I didn't like in the slightest. Too much was given away by the introduction though and once the materials analysis was in, that was it- case closed. Mould and particularly Bruce repeating things that have just been said is getting worse, too.

The repeating sentences is annoying and from someone who has what looks like a quite high end gallery I’m sure he already knew what was being said to him, I put it down to taking up more time on film, so they pack it out with these few seconds here and there.

Like when Bruce went on google and said oh hang on, as if they hadn’t already searched before the filming version.

A lot of tv jeopardy in this, they seem to have dropped the other chap who used to appear on it with them.

Car boot for £100 sounds dubious as well.

[youngsyr]

TEKNOPUG said:

I think she said she did try to find the seller but to no avail.

I'm not sure how the conversation would have gone if she did find them though..... Remember that statue I bought for £90, do you have any paperwork for it? Why? Oh no reason....

I'm not talking about paperwork, a simple "how did you come to own it?" would have been a lot better than what we got and why wouldn't you ask upon/immediately after buying?

[PinkTornado]

Promised Land said:

they seem to have dropped the other chap who used to appear on it with them.

The brilliant Dr Bendor Grosvenor- he used to work for Philip Mould but went off on his own and presented the similar (but much more personable) 'Britain's Lost Masterpieces'. This caused a falling out with Mould.