Fake or Fortune? BBC1
Discussion
The self appointed expert who is the sole source of what is or isn't 'real' seems to be a common thread in this show. The art world is notoriously bent and it looks like some people found a nice tidy scam to get their cut.
No evidence, just opinion, which in this particular episode they went out of their way to defend based on nothing.
I'd be looking for an excuse to sue the idiot over their claims which I'm sure generate a healthy income for the right people.
On the upside at least it didn't have the 'let us look at it to decide, and we'll burn it if we don't like it' bit of the scam.
No evidence, just opinion, which in this particular episode they went out of their way to defend based on nothing.
I'd be looking for an excuse to sue the idiot over their claims which I'm sure generate a healthy income for the right people.
On the upside at least it didn't have the 'let us look at it to decide, and we'll burn it if we don't like it' bit of the scam.
PhilboSE said:
There's been a couple of episodes where the sole arbiter of authenticity has refused to accept apparently overwhelming evidence, in order to avoid having to admit their mistake.
Seems like pure hubris. But the art world is a very self-serving one, and full of charlatans.
Seems like pure hubris. But the art world is a very self-serving one, and full of charlatans.
I'm staggered that such a decision falls on the whim of one person.
I would have thought such decisions would be made by some kind of expert panel with a majority vote.
Reflecting on this, the possibility of it being an actual fake seems to have been dismissed, and Patricia Reed's contention is that there's no proof that it wasn't done by someone using the artist's materials.
So, based on the evidence, either:
- it's an original by Nicholson himself, or:
- Nicholson allowed a student to use one of his old boards, and his paints, he stored the work in progress in his own painting box, Nicholson himself named the painting on the reverse, and then let the student copy his idiosyncratic paint/thumbprint/initial motif. And the actual artist allowed no evidence of their contribution to remain on the painting.
Unless Nicholson was in the habit of taking credit for his student works, the second scenario seems extraordinarily unlikely.
The only reason for the weaselly acceptance of her position at the end was because Mould needs to protect his professional relationships with the art establishment. As I said, a bunch of charlatans.
So, based on the evidence, either:
- it's an original by Nicholson himself, or:
- Nicholson allowed a student to use one of his old boards, and his paints, he stored the work in progress in his own painting box, Nicholson himself named the painting on the reverse, and then let the student copy his idiosyncratic paint/thumbprint/initial motif. And the actual artist allowed no evidence of their contribution to remain on the painting.
Unless Nicholson was in the habit of taking credit for his student works, the second scenario seems extraordinarily unlikely.
The only reason for the weaselly acceptance of her position at the end was because Mould needs to protect his professional relationships with the art establishment. As I said, a bunch of charlatans.
g3org3y said:
PhilboSE said:
There's been a couple of episodes where the sole arbiter of authenticity has refused to accept apparently overwhelming evidence, in order to avoid having to admit their mistake.
Seems like pure hubris. But the art world is a very self-serving one, and full of charlatans.
Seems like pure hubris. But the art world is a very self-serving one, and full of charlatans.
I'm staggered that such a decision falls on the whim of one person.
I would have thought such decisions would be made by some kind of expert panel with a majority vote.
What I find bemusing is that the Gallery seller actually knew the artist - did Ms Reed ?
Ms Reed needs to consider that after she has gone, the next 'expert' could easily assign her 'Catalogue of accepted works' to the rubbish bin!
TBH, the decision didn't surprise me - people just don't like accepting they're wrong !
Fascinating program none-the-less
fantastic series - again, im one who can appreciate art but know naff all about it yet i find this programme absolutely fascinating.
i cant believe that the catalogue resonne can be curated by a single person and they then have the authority to make such monumental decisions with only their general non- scientific knowledge to rely on.
confronted with so much (i feel) overwhelming scientific data to support the claim it was real just goes to show that without a fully traceable i.e right back to the painter selling it and onwards, provenance - nothing is 100%
i cant believe that the catalogue resonne can be curated by a single person and they then have the authority to make such monumental decisions with only their general non- scientific knowledge to rely on.
confronted with so much (i feel) overwhelming scientific data to support the claim it was real just goes to show that without a fully traceable i.e right back to the painter selling it and onwards, provenance - nothing is 100%
cuprabob said:
Another fascinating episode to start the new series, although I did miss Dr Bendor Grosvenor and hope he appears in the forthcoming episodes.
You can catch Bendor on BBC4's Britain's Lost Masterpieces. Its a similar sort of programme but they feature paintings held by museums instead that are generally unattributed or wrongly attributed. They then set out to prove if it is instead by a major artist:https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b096mhvs
The last episode from season 6 of Fake or Fortune has never been aired. It was to feature a painting by Alberto Giacometti but was postponed "pending further investigations". That was back in September 2017. I wonder what went wrong...
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff