"The Great Art Fraud"
Discussion
TLDR: Nothing new, another Anna Delvey type documentary; However, the level of hypocrisy, naivety and bull, add to which, the scale of the fraud involved in the world of high end art, make this worth watching.
Enjoyable, not outstanding.
I have a lot of difficulty understanding the world of art; I’m just not an artistic person. Last night I watched a programme about art fraud. Normally these types of documentaries involve the production of fakes, for which I have little sympathy for those duped.
This however, was different; it involved straight forward financial deception. The level of naivety displayed by people who are large players in the art world was staggering. It screamed squandered opportunity, what could have been.
There were some rather large gaping holes in the story, what he did be for embarking (education, etc.) on his foray into stiffing everyone, although there was mention of his father (and art) this was never elaborated on. It paints him as a sole actor, when actually the finance guy was probably a major driver in the fraud.
In the programme, there was lots of talk about, the art community, trust, integrity the lack of nepotism, relationships built through knowledge all laudable characteristics, I’m sure we agree; then one of the dealers stated.
“Mr. X didn’t react to the market, when everyone else was moving away from white male artists, into black and women artists”
Oh sod, its all fashion, virtue signaling, you don’t give two hoots about the piece, its all about how you want people to perceive you and those around you, all this talk about a piece of arts meaning is just a load of Jackson Pollocks.
No sympathy, they deserved to get ……….!
Enjoyable, not outstanding.
I have a lot of difficulty understanding the world of art; I’m just not an artistic person. Last night I watched a programme about art fraud. Normally these types of documentaries involve the production of fakes, for which I have little sympathy for those duped.
This however, was different; it involved straight forward financial deception. The level of naivety displayed by people who are large players in the art world was staggering. It screamed squandered opportunity, what could have been.
There were some rather large gaping holes in the story, what he did be for embarking (education, etc.) on his foray into stiffing everyone, although there was mention of his father (and art) this was never elaborated on. It paints him as a sole actor, when actually the finance guy was probably a major driver in the fraud.
In the programme, there was lots of talk about, the art community, trust, integrity the lack of nepotism, relationships built through knowledge all laudable characteristics, I’m sure we agree; then one of the dealers stated.
“Mr. X didn’t react to the market, when everyone else was moving away from white male artists, into black and women artists”
Oh sod, its all fashion, virtue signaling, you don’t give two hoots about the piece, its all about how you want people to perceive you and those around you, all this talk about a piece of arts meaning is just a load of Jackson Pollocks.
No sympathy, they deserved to get ……….!
Yes it was very educational into the naivety and ridiculousness of the value of art, for me it really brought home the loss in value of actual cash , versus real tangible assets , in other words , for a lot of wealthy people in the world ,Millions are almost of notional value , to be transferred at the click of an iPhone . God be with the days when we had to dig up anything over 1/2 a million hidden out of the back garden or the attic and then transport it with a few minders/bouncers physically to acquire something nice , ‘twas easier to appreciate the nice things then .
Well worth a look for a realistic peak into a ridiculous world .
Well worth a look for a realistic peak into a ridiculous world .
Bigus said:
Yes it was very educational into the naivety and ridiculousness of the value of art, for me it really brought home the loss in value of actual cash , versus real tangible assets , in other words , for a lot of wealthy people in the world ,Millions are almost of notional value , to be transferred at the click of an iPhone . God be with the days when we had to dig up anything over 1/2 a million hidden out of the back garden or the attic and then transport it with a few minders/bouncers physically to acquire something nice , ‘twas easier to appreciate the nice things then .
Well worth a look for a realistic peak into a ridiculous world .
A murky opaque world, where liberals, neocons, dealers and charlatans, rub shoulders to wax lyrical and conflate a narrative for their own benefit.Well worth a look for a realistic peak into a ridiculous world .
Where people use a commodity to assuage their own guilt, where nothing is as it seems and everyone’s surprised, when they find out its not.
All fertile ground for a young kid with an encyclopedic knowledge of art (Inigo Philbrick) introduce him to the richest, most gullible art collectors in the world and you have all the main ingredients for "The Great Art Fraud." Just add greed, hubris and chutzpah. Industrial amounts of chutzpah.
BBC 2 available on i-player.
the way to look at the Art market is this, Princess Diana's old ford escort sold at auction for 650k. If the buyer found out the seller had got any old escort and sold it as hers, they would be pissed right....
Both are escorts, both function as cars.... only one had Lady Di sat in it at some point....
Same with Elvis's hair clippings sold for 60k.... bag of any old hair sold as the real thing, is fraud.....
Now the question is, is it just a car, is it just hair?
Art is no different and in fact a more extreme version of the above, A famous person literally painting something with their own hand...
Both are escorts, both function as cars.... only one had Lady Di sat in it at some point....
Same with Elvis's hair clippings sold for 60k.... bag of any old hair sold as the real thing, is fraud.....
Now the question is, is it just a car, is it just hair?
Art is no different and in fact a more extreme version of the above, A famous person literally painting something with their own hand...
Kamov said:
the way to look at the Art market is this, Princess Diana's old ford escort sold at auction for 650k. If the buyer found out the seller had got any old escort and sold it as hers, they would be pissed right....
Both are escorts, both function as cars.... only one had Lady Di sat in it at some point....
Same with Elvis's hair clippings sold for 60k.... bag of any old hair sold as the real thing, is fraud.....
Now the question is, is it just a car, is it just hair?
Art is no different and in fact a more extreme version of the above, A famous person literally painting something with their own hand...
Sadly for me, too much is simply about investment. The answer to "Is this worth X? is often "Will it be worth more than X in a year's time?". That goes for all of the examples above but of those, the Lady Di Escort stands out. I can sort of see why part of Elvis (albeit just hair) is worth loads, and (provided it's genuine), Picasso having actually painted something with his own hand seems like a big deal for me. But a production line Ford Escort being worth £650k? That's nuts. Both are escorts, both function as cars.... only one had Lady Di sat in it at some point....
Same with Elvis's hair clippings sold for 60k.... bag of any old hair sold as the real thing, is fraud.....
Now the question is, is it just a car, is it just hair?
Art is no different and in fact a more extreme version of the above, A famous person literally painting something with their own hand...
Randy Winkman said:
Sadly for me, too much is simply about investment. The answer to "Is this worth X? is often "Will it be worth more than X in a year's time?". That goes for all of the examples above but of those, the Lady Di Escort stands out. I can sort of see why part of Elvis (albeit just hair) is worth loads, and (provided it's genuine), Picasso having actually painted something with his own hand seems like a big deal for me. But a production line Ford Escort being worth £650k? That's nuts.
It is, nuts. Someone somewhere has the wrecked Merc, think what that is worth? Art market is funny, Saatchi took graduates purchased Art for 50k, made them famous and its worth millions now and Hirst being the stand out. The Art market also works in a way that if someone buys Art for 1 million, its then worth 1 million, it doesn't matter how many laymen say its not Art its worthless (in fact that helps), the banana stuck to the wall shows that and Duchamp's urinal 100 years before...(which he made as a joke and a big FU to the Art establishment at the time, which went on to become the conceptualist movement of which Hirst made his 300 million net worth from).
Warhol was right on just about everything, and certainly right about fame being the most important part of Art, and looking around, pretty much anything.
One dirty sparco racing glove with rips in it....................................................... do you want it? No?.............. OK well it was some bloke called Nigel Mansell who worn it in Adelaide once....
The art world is like the classic car world.
Welding 18 inches of Lotus tubing with a chassis number to a recently knocked together space frame and bingo, you've got a genuine kenner Lotus 25. Throw in some unprovable b
ks about it being sneezed on by a certain Scottish farmer and it's of to Pebble Beach we go. Hirst is the same - he nicked the shark idea amongst others and in any event, it's been replaced once already - still yours for £15m or whatever.
I appreciate there is the Egg of Columbus element to art, but it really is quite a self serving and egregious industry.
Castrol for a knave said:
The art world is like the classic car world.
Welding 18 inches of Lotus tubing with a chassis number to a recently knocked together space frame and bingo, you've got a genuine kenner Lotus 25. Throw in some unprovable bks about it being sneezed on by a certain Scottish farmer and it's of to Pebble Beach we go.
Hirst is the same - he nicked the shark idea amongst others and in any event, it's been replaced once already - still yours for £15m or whatever.
I appreciate there is the Egg of Columbus element to art, but it really is quite a self serving and egregious industry.
It is, but much like motorsport and in particular F1, it has an incredible history, think about how short the F1 history is and think about those first cave paintings of animals and all in between. Art and its history is insane and where its been pushed in insane, I love what i do and i love Art and i love being an Artist, but its fWelding 18 inches of Lotus tubing with a chassis number to a recently knocked together space frame and bingo, you've got a genuine kenner Lotus 25. Throw in some unprovable b
ks about it being sneezed on by a certain Scottish farmer and it's of to Pebble Beach we go. Hirst is the same - he nicked the shark idea amongst others and in any event, it's been replaced once already - still yours for £15m or whatever.
I appreciate there is the Egg of Columbus element to art, but it really is quite a self serving and egregious industry.
king stupid as is driving around a racing track...... its all dumb but its what we do and we attach this gravitas to it because we make the rules... it would be silly and trite of me to feel guilt about selling Art for money when there are people starving or whatever, to question why Art is kept in galleries whilst people sleep outside etc..... it just is...animals don't paint pictures or race cars, but every single last one including insects is far far more impressive than we will ever hope to be...
For us to be like animals we have to invent stuff and act like we are great, breath under water? yes we can, with apparatus, fly, why yes we can, with apparatus....
I'm not a fan of human species of which of course i am one.....which is a bit weird i guess...
Edited by Kamov on Wednesday 3rd September 13:20
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff