DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14483/21450706.21414

Publicado:

2024-11-01

Número:

Vol. 20 Núm. 37 (2025): Enero-junio 2025

Sección:

Sección Central

Historical Revisionism and Economic Impact on Forgeries. An initial proposal.

Revisionismo histórico e impacto económico en las falsificaciones. Una propuesta inicial.

Revisionismo histórico e impacto económico nas falsificações. Uma proposta inicial.

Autores/as

Palabras clave:

artefactos culturales, cultura material, falsificaciones de arte, mercado del arte, revisionismo histórico (es).

Palabras clave:

art forgeries, art market, cultural artifacts, historical revisionism, material culture (en).

Palabras clave:

artefatos culturais, cultura material, falsificações de arte, mercado de arte, revisionismo histórico (pt).

Referencias

Amineddoleh, L. A. (2016). Are You Faux Real: An Examination of Art Forgery and the Legal Tools Protecting Art Collectors. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 34(1), 59–111.

Angelini, F., & Castellani, M. (2019). Cultural and economic value: A critical review. Journal of Cultural Economics, 43(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-018-9334-4

Angelini, F., & Castellani, M. (2022). Price and information disclosure in the private art market: A signalling game. Research in Economics, 76(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rie.2022.01.002

Angelini, F., Castellani, M., & Pattitoni, P. (2023). Artist Names as Human Brands: Brand Determinants, Creation and co-Creation Mechanisms. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 41(1), 80–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374211072964

Angelini, F., Castellani, M., & Zirulia, L. (2022). Overconfidence in the art market: A bargaining pricing model with asymmetric disinformation. Economia Politica, 39(3), 961–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-022-00273-9

Artnet News. (2014, October 13). Over 50 Percent of Art is Fake. Artnet News. https://news.artnet.com/market/ over-50-percent-of-art-is-fake-130821

Ashley, K. M., & Plesch, V. (2002). The Cultural Processes of ‘Appropriation’. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 32(1), 1–15.

Barboza, D., Bowley, G., & Cox, A. (2013, October 28). A Culture of Bidding: Forging an Art Market in China. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/china-artfraud/index.html

Becker, H. S. (2008). Art Worlds, 25th Anniversary Edition (1st ed.). University of California Press.

Bjørnskov, C. (2021). Civic honesty and cultures of trust. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 92, 101693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2021.101693

Cambridge University. (2023). Society. In Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/society

Cork, T. (2018, June 18). Historic moment as Colston portrait is removed from Lord Mayor’s office. BristolLive. https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/ historic-moment-portrait-edward-colston-1687814

Danto, A. C. (1964). The Artworld. The Journal of Philosophy, 61(19), 571–584. https://doi.org/10.2307/2022937

Day, G. (2014). Explaining the Art Market’s Thefts, Frauds, and Forgeries (And Why the Art Market Does Not Seem to Care). Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 16(3), 457.

Dickie, G. (1974). Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis. Cornell University Press.

Dickie, G. (1984). The Art Circle: A Theory of Art. Haven.

Ferino, S. (1979). A Master-painter and his Pupils: Pietro Perugino and his Umbrian Workshop. Oxford Art Journal, 2(3), 9–14.

Fisher, M. (2013, June 5). A revealing map of the countries that are most and least tolerant of homosexuality. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ news/worldviews/wp/2013/06/05/a-revealing-map-of-the- countries-that-are-most-and-least-tolerant-of-homosexuality/

Frey, B. S., & Pommerehne, W. W. (1989). Muses and Markets: Explorations in the Economics of the Arts. Blackwell.

Friedländer, M. J. (1941a). Artistic Quality: Original and Copy. The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, 78(458), 143–151.

Friedländer, M. J. (1941b). On Forgeries. The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, 78(459), 192–197.

García Vega, M. Á. (2023, February 7). La buena mano de los copistas del Prado. El País. https://elpais.com/ cultura/2023-0207/labuena-mano-de-los-copistas-del- prado.html

Ginsburgh, V., Radermecker, A.-S., & Tommasi, D. (2019). The effect of experts’ opinion on prices of art works: The case of Peter Brueghel the Younger. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 159, 36–50. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.09.002

Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights. (2020). The Impact of Gender Discrimination in Nationality Laws on Gender-Based Violence. Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights. https://equalnationalityrights.org/reports/ document/1299-the-impactofgender-discrimination-in- nationality-laws-on-gender-based-violence

Goetzmann, W. N. (1995). The Informational Efficiency of the Art Market. Managerial Finance, 21(6), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb018522

Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of Worldmaking. Hackett Publishing.

Grassby, R. (2005). Material Culture and Cultural History. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 35(4), 591–603. https://doi.org/10.1162/0022195043327426

House of Commons. (2017, June 19). An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. Parliament of Canada. https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/c-16/royal-assent

Hyman, R. (1989). The Psychology of Deception. Annual Review of Psychology, 40(1), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.001025

ICC. (2021). Policy on Cultural Heritage. International Criminal Court.

Jones, M., Craddock, P. T., & Barker, N. (Eds.). (1990). Fake? The Art of Deception. University of California Press.

Keats, J. (2013). Forged: Why Fakes are the Great Art of Our Age. Oxford University Press.

Kimball, E. L. (1987). The Artist and the Forger: Han van Meegeren and Mark Hofmann. Brigham Young University Studies, 27(4), 5–14.

Klamer, A. (2003). Social, cultural and economic values of cultural goods. Cultural Economics, 3(3), 17–39. https://doi.org/10.11195/jace1998.3.3_17

Klamer, A. (2016). The value-based approach to cultural economics. Journal of Cultural Economics, 40(4), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-016-9283-8

Krasner, B. (2019). Historical Revisionism. Greenhaven Publishing LLC.

Lenain, T. (2012). Art Forgery: The History of a Modern Obsession. Reaktion Books.

Levine, J. A. (2008). The Importance of Provenance Documentations in the Market for Ancient Art and Artifacts: The Future of the Market May Depend on Documenting the Past, The. DePaul Journal of Art, Technology and Intellectual Property Law, 19(2). https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ dael19&id=223&div=&collection=

Lowenthal, D. (1992). Counterfeit Art: Authentic Fakes? International Journal of Cultural Property, 1(1), 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739192000067

Marchenko, M., Radermecker, A.-S. V., & Angelini, F. (2021). How to Deal with Fakes in the Art Market? A Theoretical Model Exploring Labeling and Price-Setting Strategies at Auction (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 3986228). https://doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.3986228

Merryman, J. H. (1992). Counterfeit Art. International Journal of Cultural Property, 1(1), 27–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739192000055

Nastasijevic, A. (2014, May 12). Transparency in the Art Market. Widewalls. https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/ information-asymmetry-buyers-sellers-art-market

Oosterlinck, K., & Radermecker, A.-S. (2019). “The Master of

…”: Creating names for art history and the art market. Journal of Cultural Economics, 43(1), 57–95.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-0189329-1

Quinn, B. (2022, April 3). National Gallery renames Degas’ Russian Dancers as Ukrainian Dancers. The Guardian. https:// www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/apr/03/national- gallery-renames-degas-russian-dancers-as-ukrainian-dancers

Radermecker, A.-S. V. (2020). Buy one painting, get two names. On the valuation of artist collaborations in the art market. Arts and the Market, 10(2), 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAM-10-2019-0030

Radermecker, A.-S. V. E. (2019). Artworks without names: An insight into the market for anonymous paintings. Journal of Cultural Economics, 43(3), 443–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10824-019-09344-5

Saner, E. (2013, July 30). Gay rights around the world: The best and worst countries for equality. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/30/gay-rights-world-best-worst-countries

Schneider, A. (2003). On‘appropriation’. A critical reappraisal of the concept and its application in global art practices*. Social Anthropology, 11(2), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2003.tb00169.x

Şerbănoiu, G. (2012). Aspects of Criminality, Intellectual Property, Forgery and Counterfeiting. Journal of Criminal Investigations, 5(2), 67–72.

Shiner, L. (2001). The Invention of Art: A Cultural History. University of Chicago Press.

Thomas, H. (2015). World Without End: Spain, Philip II, and the First Global Empire. Random House Publishing Group.

Tietze, H. (1939). Master and Workshop in the Venetian Renaissance. Parnassus, 11(8), 34–45.

https://doi.org/10.108 0/15436314.1939.11666590

Trope, Y. (1986). Self-enhancement and self-assessment in achievement behavior. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 350–378). Guilford Press.

Van Lente, H. (2012). Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(8), 769–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.715478

Van Lente, H. (2021). Imaginaries of innovation. In B. Godin,

G. Gaglio, & D. Vinck (Eds.), Handbook on Alternative Theories of Innovation (pp. 23–36). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789902303.00010

Velthuis, O. (2005). Talking Prices: Symbolic Meanings of Prices on the Market for Contemporary Art. Princeton University Press.

Wall, T. (2020, June 14). The day Bristol dumped its hated slave trader in the docks and a nation began to search its soul. The Guardian. https:// www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/14/the-day-bristol-dumped-its-hated-slave-trader-in-the-docks- and-a-nation-began-to-search-its-soul

Wang, C. S., & Leung, A. K. -y. (2010). The Cultural Dynamics of Rewarding Honesty and Punishing Deception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1529–1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210385921

Welchman, J. C. (2003). Art After Appropriation: Essays on Art in the 1990s. Routledge.

Woodward, I. (2007). Understanding Material Culture. SAGE.

Cómo citar

APA

Harillo Pla, A. (2024). Historical Revisionism and Economic Impact on Forgeries. An initial proposal. Calle 14 revista de investigación en el campo del arte, 20(37), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.14483/21450706.21414

ACM

[1]
Harillo Pla, A. 2024. Historical Revisionism and Economic Impact on Forgeries. An initial proposal. Calle 14 revista de investigación en el campo del arte. 20, 37 (nov. 2024), 35–46. DOI:https://doi.org/10.14483/21450706.21414.

ACS

(1)
Harillo Pla, A. Historical Revisionism and Economic Impact on Forgeries. An initial proposal. calle 14 rev. investig. campo arte 2024, 20, 35-46.

ABNT

HARILLO PLA, Adrià. Historical Revisionism and Economic Impact on Forgeries. An initial proposal. Calle 14 revista de investigación en el campo del arte, [S. l.], v. 20, n. 37, p. 35–46, 2024. DOI: 10.14483/21450706.21414. Disponível em: https://revistas.udistrital.edu.co/index.php/c14/article/view/21414. Acesso em: 17 ene. 2025.

Chicago

Harillo Pla, Adrià. 2024. «Historical Revisionism and Economic Impact on Forgeries. An initial proposal». Calle 14 revista de investigación en el campo del arte 20 (37):35-46. https://doi.org/10.14483/21450706.21414.

Harvard

Harillo Pla, A. (2024) «Historical Revisionism and Economic Impact on Forgeries. An initial proposal»., Calle 14 revista de investigación en el campo del arte, 20(37), pp. 35–46. doi: 10.14483/21450706.21414.

IEEE

[1]
A. Harillo Pla, «Historical Revisionism and Economic Impact on Forgeries. An initial proposal»., calle 14 rev. investig. campo arte, vol. 20, n.º 37, pp. 35–46, nov. 2024.

MLA

Harillo Pla, Adrià. «Historical Revisionism and Economic Impact on Forgeries. An initial proposal». Calle 14 revista de investigación en el campo del arte, vol. 20, n.º 37, noviembre de 2024, pp. 35-46, doi:10.14483/21450706.21414.

Turabian

Harillo Pla, Adrià. «Historical Revisionism and Economic Impact on Forgeries. An initial proposal». Calle 14 revista de investigación en el campo del arte 20, no. 37 (noviembre 1, 2024): 35–46. Accedido enero 17, 2025. https://revistas.udistrital.edu.co/index.php/c14/article/view/21414.

Vancouver

1.
Harillo Pla A. Historical Revisionism and Economic Impact on Forgeries. An initial proposal. calle 14 rev. investig. campo arte [Internet]. 1 de noviembre de 2024 [citado 17 de enero de 2025];20(37):35-46. Disponible en: https://revistas.udistrital.edu.co/index.php/c14/article/view/21414

Descargar cita

Visitas

69

Dimensions


PlumX


Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Recibido: 29 de enero de 2024; Aceptado: 2 de mayo de 2024

Resumen

Este artículo teórico plantea como hipótesis inicial la existencia de correlaciones entre el revisionismo histórico y el impacto económico sobre las falsificaciones de arte. Luego de afirmar que las falsificaciones tienen la intención de engañar y que su propia existencia se debe a los valores positivos asociados a ellas, aclaramos que el revisionismo histórico tiene un impacto en la cultura material, su exhibición e intercambio. Sostenemos que esto parte de la asunción de que el arte y las falsificaciones de arte son un ejemplo de cultura material. Sin embargo, describimos el mercado del arte como un mercado con problemas de información, el cual carece de incentivos para categorizar públicamente una obra como falsificada. Por lo tanto, concluimos que el revisionismo histórico puede tener un impacto en la producción de falsificaciones, pero su intercambio y exhibición sigue una dinámica igual a la de la obra original.

Palabras clave

artefactos culturales, cultura material, falsificaciones de arte, mercado del arte, revisionismo histórico.

Abstract

The initial hypothesis of this theoretical article is that correlations exist between historical revisionism and economic impact on art forgeries. After stating that forgeries have the intention to deceive and their existence is due to the positive values associated with them, we clarify that historical revisionism has an impact on material culture, its display, and its exchange. We state that artworks and art forgeries are examples of material culture.

Nevertheless, we describe the art market as one with problems of information and a lack of incentives to publicly categorize something as a forgery. Therefore, we conclude that historical revisionism can have an impact on the production of forgeries, but its exchange and display follow an equal dynamic to its original.

Keywords

art forgeries, art market, cultural artifacts, historical revisionism, material cultureResumen.

Research Design

This article examines the existing correlations, if any, between historical revisionism and its economic impact on art forgeries. Our initial hypothesis is that the correlation exists, and the method used to support or reject this initial hypothesis is systematic bibliographical research, valid argumentation, and a logically sound conclusion.

However, some limitations must be considered. One of them is the limited amount of public data regarding forgeries. The data available is not fully representative of the total number of forgeries worldwide. Aware of this fact, we will use case studies that are already categorized as forgeries or the estimations provided by authorities on the subject as our framework when discussing forgeries.

At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the differences between cultures and subcultures. This plays a role in art practices and their market institutionalization, depending on the economic context or cultural values (Bjørnskov, 2021; Wang & Leung, 2010).

Historical revisionism can also vary depending on moral values or political context, and certain contexts can have fewer technical or general resources than others to identify a forgery. Consequently, the hypothesis of this article can be understood as a generalization, but its applicability may differ among specific contexts. This bibliographic article is an initialcontribution to this topic and might be further developed in the future using disciplines such as, but not limited to, statistics, or empirical case studies.

To proceed, the structure and logic of this article will be presented using a pyramid principle, where our hypothesis is expected to be supported by three arguments, each bolstered by its respective premises and data. However, to avoid semantic disputes originating from the complexity of the terms or multidisciplinary frameworks, it is beneficial to clarify the key terms used.

Figure 1 Argumentative pyramid principle for this study.

Argumentative pyramid principle for this study.

Figure 1: Argumentative pyramid principle for this study.

Terminology

To research the correlations between historical revisionism and its economic impact on art forgeries, we use a sociological definition of art rather than an essentialist one. Thus, we consider art to be an institution-dependent entity; that is to say, it is not a natural or intrinsic category, but a socially constructed one shaped by the art world (Becker, 2008; Dickie, 1974, 1984). We view art world as a social system with agents, mechanisms, and motivations that collectively determine what constitutes art (Goodman, 1978). In this social system, creating entities with traditional aesthetic categories such as beauty, ugly, or grotesque is not necessarily the main motivation or the mechanism to define its hierarchical position (Danto, 1964).

Within this context, we consider the art market as a permeable subgroup within the art world, in which its agents, mechanisms, and motivations are related to the monetization of art. By art copies, we will refer to artworks that have been made to be exactly like an original one, while by art forgeries we will understand an art copy with the intention to deceive (Friedländer, 1941b, 1941a).

When using the term “society”, we understand it as a large group of people who live together in an organized way, making decisions about how to do things and sharing the work that needs to be done (Cambridge University, 2023). It is our understanding that within society culture can be found, not in its elitist way, but as an aggregation of attitudes, behaviors, and opinions of a particular group of people, which can be materialized on some occasions. This materialization of culture can take the form of art, among others (Grassby, 2005; Woodward, 2007).

Another key term in this article is “expectations”. Sociologically understood, expectations are used as a socially constructed belief or anticipation regarding future events, outcomes, or behaviors. They represent shared beliefs within a particular social context about what is likely to happen or what is considered desirable or appropriate. As such, they are performative (Van Lente, 2012, 2021).

To conclude, two more concepts must be clarified: “historical revisionism” and “values”. By historical revisionism, we mean historical reinterpretation or reevaluation, challenging established narratives or traditional interpretations (Krasner, 2019). This is made from present viewpoints or perspectives, and it is not positive, nor negative by itself. On the other hand, we understand that values are a set of normative principles and evaluative criteria that guide individual and collective behavior. They reflect the moral values, beliefs, and norms of a given society or community and are shaped by historical, cultural, and institutional factors.

Table 1

Table 1

Art forgeries and positive values[argument 1.1] There are different ways to approach the topic of forgeries. Nevertheless, a forgery seems to be clearly linked to the intention of deceiving another party. It is, therefore, a matter of intellectual property and has potential legal implications. (Şerbănoiu, 2012)At the same time, this one seems to be its main difference from a copy.

Forgeries are as old as time, but the difference between a forgery and a copy can be seen not only in the legal distinction among them but also in current institutionalized practices. (Jones et al., 1990) One example is appropriationism, such as the one of Andy Warhol with the Brillo Box, just to put a well-known example. (Ashley & Plesch, 2002; Danto, 1964; Schneider, 2003; Welchman, 2003) In fact, some museums also authorize individuals to create copies or replicas of artworks within the museum’s collection for educational or conservation purposes, among others. While replication and practice is one well-known way of learning and improving, the called “copistas” from the Spanish Prado Museum are also an example of the second type, since the museum registers the copies. (García Vega, 2023) It is also worth noting that, in the past, the main painters had, as well, a team of people working for them in their workshops. There, their category depended on their skill to copy its master. (Ferino, 1979; Shiner, 2001; Tietze, 1939).

A forgeryand, nevertheless, is different since it attempts to violate intellectual property and is based on deception. By deceiving, there should be “an agent [who] acts or speaks to induce a false belief in a target or victim”. (Hyman, 1989, p. 133) Unfortunately, many distinctions between a copy and a forgery end here. Nevertheless, going one step further and asking “why?” brings at least one answer: because those forged artworks are associated with positive values.

[argument 1.2] There are different reasons for producing a forgery. One of them is to obtain a financial gain from it. To obtain a financial gain, the original must have a demand, and therefore must be associated with certain positive characteristics that make it valuable. In the art market, one of these categories is, for example, authorship. (Angelini et al., 2023; Oosterlinck & Radermecker, 2019; A.-S. V. Radermecker, 2020; A.-S. V. E. Radermecker, 2019) Precisely because of this, authorship is often categorized in a hierarchy of author, attributed to [Artist's Name], school of [Artist's Name], circle of [Artist's Name], after [Artist's Name], studio of [Artist's Name], attributed to [Artist's Name], manner of [Artist's Name], and not categorized. The same applies to the topic displayed or the format used.

While atheist motives were not seen as positive in medieval Europe, photography was not considered a reputed method. (Klamer, 2003, 2016; Merryman, 1992) Therefore, no forgery was worth it to be produced, since the risks, in comparison with the potential financial gain, if any, was not incentive enough.

Another reason to create a forgery is reputation. If a forger can successfully pass off its forgeries as original artworks within the art world, without being detected, this could lead to a feeling of self-enhancement. (Trope, 1986) In this case, the positive values associated with the original are also necessary, since the reputation and self-enhancement derived from it needs the approval of the institutionalized art world or the positively valued skills of the author. Eric Herborn, Han van Meeren, and Wolfgang Beltracchi are some examples of this category. (Keats, 2013; Kimball, 1987) We include in this category those forgers who also produce their forgeries to challenge the establishment. (Lowenthal, 1992). [argument 1.3] The combination of positive values associated with the originals and the intention to deceive of the forgeries are two conditions of necessity that lead to a situation where a significant amount of institutionalized art is a forgery. (Lenain, 2012) Obviously, this is a complex statement with problems of information. Nevertheless, this is the conclusion of certain reports provided by authorized parties. One example is Switzerland’s Fine Art Expert Institute (FAEI), which stated that over 50% of art is fake. (Artnet News, 2014) Xiao Ping, the former authentication adviser to the Nanjing Museum, elevated this estimation to 80% in certain situations. (Barboza et al., 2013) This is, in part, a consequence of the high costs of hiring an expert, accessing certain documentation, or using techniques such as x-rays, infrared scans, or radiocarbon dating. Due to this fact, the most considerable number of forgeries can be found not at the high end of the market.

Historical revisionism and its impact on art forgeries

[argument 2.1] To approach the impact of historical revisionism in art forgeries, we must initially admit the existence of such revisionism. At the same time, it is important to admit that historical revisionism is not present in all contexts with the same strength or in the same direction. Nevertheless, it seems that in western cultures, historical revisionism is occurring toward colonialism, the societal role of women, and sexual and gender topics. Some examples can help to represent this reality. While the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code currently prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression, in countries such as Iran, imprisonment, fines, and even the death penalty are common, (Fisher, 2013; House of Commons, 2017; Saner, 2013). While the United Kingdom removed images of the slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol, other countries celebrated their national day by matching it with the discovery of their new empire. (Cork, 2018; Thomas, 2015; Wall, 2020). Also, while in some countries, nowadays, the role of women is legally equal to that of men, in other countries, they cannot drive a car alone. (REF) (Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights, 2020) This revisionism has an impact in art as well, being one of the most current examples, the modification of Degas popular Russian dancers, for Ukrainians. (Quinn, 2022)

[argument 2.2] The examples of Edward Colston representations, or the Russian dancers from Degas, are examples of how physical artifacts, objects, and structures that are created, used, or preserved by a culture can be affected by historical revisionism. Impacting how material culture is represented, displayed, or preserved. This can occur via the reevaluation of statues, monuments, and memorials erected to honor historical figures. If a revisionist interpretation challenges the traditional narrative associated with a particular figure, there may be debates and discussions about the appropriateness of honoring them through public monuments. This can lead to calls for the removal, relocation, or recontextualization of such statues to align with the revised understanding of history. The process of revisiting and altering material representations of historical figures reflects the changing values and perspectives within a society.

At the same time, museums play a vital role in preserving and presenting material culture. Historical revisionism can influence the content and narratives of museum exhibits. As new historical perspectives emerge, museums may rethink their displays to incorporate alternative viewpoints and challenge existing narratives. This involves, as well, changes in conservation and preservation practices, both within and outside museums. (ICC, 2021).

Almost axiomatically, it can be stated that art is a type of material culture, and therefore, the forgeries derived from it are also. If we accept the fact that historical revisionism influences material culture, including art, it seems reasonable, using a reasoning by analogy, that art forgeries are also impacted by historical revisionism. The reasoning by analogy is based on the fact that the modification in the values associated with the original can affect the production, display, and exchange of the fake ones, since they are a copy of the first with the intent to deceive.

Art forgeries are often not uncovered as forgeries

Although it seems reasonable to claim that historical revisionism has an impact on art forgeries, this topic deserves deeper attention. This is because, in general, art forgeries are covered as forgeries.

[argument 3.1] A cause is that the art market is a market with problems of information. Like any other market, the art market operates on the exchange of information between buyers and sellers. However, it is plagued by significant information asymmetry. (Frey & Pommerehne, 1989; Goetzmann, 1995; Velthuis, 2005) The seller commonly holds higher knowledge about factors such as origin, demand, or conservation than potential buyers, reliant on the seller’s assertions and expertise as a guarantee. (Nastasijevic, 2014; Velthuis, 2005) In fact, in the art market, there exists a primary market and a secondary market. The primary art market refers to the initial sale of artworks directly from the artist or their representative gallery or dealer to a collector or buyer. It involves the sale of artworks that have not been previously owned or sold by another party, which maximizes the problems of information regarding price assignation. The secondary art market, on the other hand, involves the resale of artworks that have already been purchased in the primary market. Transactions where artworks change ownership between collectors, dealers, auction houses, or other intermediaries. In this case, often, the problems of information affect mainly its authenticity, conservation, and origin. (Levine, 2008). These asymmetries can be maximized depending on the public or private nature of the sale and the legal responsibility of the agents involved in the production, display, or exchange. (Amineddoleh, 2016; Angelini & Castellani, 2022).

[argument 3.2] Another important factor to be considered is that, often, aside from the initial asymmetry of information, the art market does not often see art forgeries recognized as such. This is due to the fact that an art forgery being discovered is only positive for the expert who categorizes it as such. (Ginsburgh et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the categorization of an art forgery as such usually has a negative impact, both financial and cultural (Angelini & Castellani, 2019; Day, 2014).

Public identification of an artwork as a forgery, for example, can significantly damage the reputation and credibility of art dealers, auction houses, and galleries involved in selling or exhibiting the counterfeit piece. Buyers may become hesitant to purchase art, leading to a decline in sales and potential financial losses for the art market. At the same time, art forgeries often diminish the value of genuine artworks attributed to the same artist or period. The revelation of a forgery can cast doubt on the authenticity of other works, causing prices to drop and affecting the overall market value of an artist’s work.

Investor confidence is another of the factors involved, which has a cultural and financial impact. Forgeries can erode confidence among art investors and collectors, deterring them from making substantial investments in the art market. This can limit capital inflow and negatively impact the market’s growth and stability.

Taking this into consideration, if the institution holing a forgery and its sellers have no interest incentive in publicly categorizing something as an art forgery, this leads us to the question of who has mainly interest in it.

[argument 3.3] As already indicated, buyers, sellers, and agents implied in the art market often do not have enough incentives to categorize something as a forgery. From the seller’s perspective, recognizing something as a forgery could reduce the value of the owned piece, and a cultural negative impact, for not having noticed it in advance, or for trying to introduce a forgery in the market being aware of it. (Marchenko et al., 2021) For the middle- man, such as the deal, gallery, or auction house, recognizing something as a forgery might involve less volume of works to be sold. For the buyer, buying a forgery could be less stimulating and socially rewarding. Precisely due to this lack of incentives, a significant number of forgeries are still uncovered. (Angelini et al., 2022; Day, 2014) Therefore, it seems reasonable that art forgeries are only partially affected by historical revisionism. A logical approach tends to show that the main impact is generated in its creation, since the forgers tend to produce pieces that align with the values considered as positive nowadays.

This is in contraposition to producing forgeries from pieces that are not associated with

positive values, and therefore, could be less financially rewarding. Nevertheless, regarding its display, or exchange of older uncovered forgeries, the impact appears to be equal to the one from the original artworks, precisely due to that lack of incentives.

Conclusion The initial hypothesis of this article has been that there exist correlations between historical revisionism and the economic impact on art forgeries. After stating that forgeries have the intention to deceive and exist due to the positive values associated with it, we clarified that historical revisionism has an impact on material culture, its display, and its exchange. We stated that art and art forgeries are examples of material culture. Nevertheless, we described the art market as one with problems of information and a lack of incentives to publicly categorize something as a forgery. Therefore, we concluded that historical revisionism can have an impact on the production of forgeries, but its exchange and display follow an equal dynamic to its original.

As previously stated, this article is a theoretical one, and empirical and statistical studies are needed to confirm if this initial statement is confirmed and replicated via data. Nevertheless, even for those performing data fabrication, the particular informational nature of forgeries and its financial and cultural implications might be a limiting point.

Acknowledging this fact, empirical and statistical studies seem to be the natural next step of this article. Nevertheless, further theoretical discussions can also be of high value to improve the conceptual base for this topic.

References

Amineddoleh, L. A. (2016). Are You Faux Real: An Examination of Art Forgery and the Legal Tools Protecting Art Collectors. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 34(1), 59–111.

Angelini, F., & Castellani, M. (2019). Cultural and economic value: A critical review.Journal of Cultural Economics, 43(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-018- 9334-4[Link]

Angelini, F., & Castellani, M. (2022). Price and information disclosure in the private art market: A signalling game. Research in Economics, 76(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rie.2022.01.002

Angelini, F., Castellani, M., & Zirulia, L. (2022). Overconfidence in the art market: A bargaining pricing model with asymmetric disinformation. Economia Politica, 39(3), 961–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-022-00273-9 [Link]

Artnet News. (2014, October 13). Over 50 Percent of Art is Fake. Artnet News. https://news.artnet.com/market/over-50-percent-of-art-is-fake-130821 [Link]

Ashley, K. M., & Plesch, V. (2002). The Cultural Processes of ‘Appropriation’. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 32(1), 1–15.

Barboza, D., Bowley, G., & Cox, A. (2013, October 28). A Culture of Bidding: Forging an Art Market in China. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/china-art-fraud/index.html [Link]

Becker, H. S. (2008). Art Worlds, 25th Anniversary Edition (1st ed.). University of California Press.

Bjørnskov, C. (2021). Civic honesty and cultures of trust. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 92, 101693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2021.101693 [Link]

Cambridge University. (2023). Society. In Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/society [Link]

Cork, T. (2018, June 18). Historic moment as Colston portrait is removed from Lord Mayor’s office. BristolLive. https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/historic-moment- portrait-edward-colston-1687814[Link]

Danto, A. C. (1964). The Artworld. The Journal of Philosophy, 61(19), 571–584. https://doi.org/10.2307/2022937 [Link]

Day, G. (2014). Explaining the Art Market’s Thefts, Frauds, and Forgeries (And Why the Art Market Does Not Seem to Care). Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 16(3), 457.

Dickie, G. (1974). Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis. Cornell University Press. Dickie, G. (1984). The Art Circle: A Theory of Art. Haven.

Ferino, S. (1979). A Master-painter and his Pupils: Pietro Perugino and his Umbrian Workshop. Oxford Art Journal, 2(3), 9–14.

Fisher, M. (2013, June 5). A revealing map of the countries that are most and least tolerant of homosexuality. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/06/05/a-revealing-map- of-the-countries-that-are-most-and-least-tolerant-of-homosexuality/[Link]

Frey, B. S., & Pommerehne, W. W. (1989). Muses and Markets: Explorations in the Economics of the Arts. Blackwell.

Friedländer, M. J. (1941a). Artistic Quality: Original and Copy. The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, 78(458), 143–151.

Friedländer, M. J. (1941b). On Forgeries. The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, 78(459), 192–197.

García Vega, M. Á. (2023, February 7). La buena mano de los copistas del Prado. El País. https://elpais.com/cultura/2023-02-07/la-buena-mano-de-los-copistas-del-prado.html [Link]

Ginsburgh, V., Radermecker, A.-S., & Tommasi, D. (2019). The effect of experts’ opinion on prices of art works: The case of Peter Brueghel the Younger. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 159, 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.09.002 [Link]

Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights. (2020). The Impact of Gender Discrimination in Nationality Laws on Gender-Based Violence. Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights. https://equalnationalityrights.org/reports/document/1299-the- impact-of-gender-discrimination-in-nationality-laws-on-gender-based-violence[Link]

Goetzmann, W. N. (1995). The Informational Efficiency of the Art Market. Managerial Finance, 21(6), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb018522 [Link]

Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of Worldmaking. Hackett Publishing.

Grassby, R. (2005). Material Culture and Cultural History. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 35(4), 591–603. https://doi.org/10.1162/0022195043327426 [Link]

House of Commons. (2017, June 19). An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. Parliament of Canada. https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/c-16/royal-assent [Link]

Hyman, R. (1989). The Psychology of Deception. Annual Review of Psychology, 40(1), 133– 154. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.001025 [Link]

ICC. (2021). Policy on Cultural Heritage. International Criminal Court.

Jones, M., Craddock, P. T., & Barker, N. (Eds.). (1990). Fake? The Art of Deception.University of California Press.

Keats, J. (2013). Forged: Why Fakes are the Great Art of Our Age. Oxford University Press. Kimball, E. L. (1987). The Artist and the Forger: Han van Meegeren and Mark Hofmann. Brigham Young University Studies, 27(4), 5–14. Klamer, A. (2003). Social, cultural and economic values of cultural goods. Cultural Economics, 3(3), 17–39. https://doi.org/10.11195/jace1998.3.3_17 [Link]

Klamer, A. (2016). The value-based approach to cultural economics. Journal of Cultural Economics, 40(4), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-016-9283-8 [Link]

Lenain, T. (2012). Art Forgery: The History of a Modern Obsession. Reaktion Books. Levine, J. A. (2008). The Importance of Provenance Documentations in the Market forAncient Art and Artifacts: The Future of the Market May Depend on Documenting the Past, The. DePaul Journal of Art, Technology and Intellectual Property Law, 19(2).https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/dael19&id=223&div=&collec tion=[Link]

Marchenko, M., Radermecker, A.-S. V., & Angelini, F. (2021). How to Deal with Fakes in the Art Market? A Theoretical Model Exploring Labeling and Price-Setting Strategies at Auction (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 3986228). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3986228 [Link]

Merryman, J. H. (1992). Counterfeit Art. International Journal of Cultural Property, 1(1), 27–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739192000055 [Link]

Nastasijevic, A. (2014, May 12). Transparency in the Art Market. Widewalls. https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/information-asymmetry-buyers-sellers-art- market[Link]

Oosterlinck, K., & Radermecker, A.-S. (2019). “The Master of …”: Creating names for art history and the art market. Journal of Cultural Economics, 43(1), 57–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-018-9329-1 [Link]

Quinn, B. (2022, April 3). National Gallery renames Degas’ Russian Dancers as Ukrainian Dancers. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/apr/03/national-gallery-renames- degas-russian-dancers-as-ukrainian-dancers[Link]

Radermecker, A.-S. V. (2020). Buy one painting, get two names. On the valuation of artist collaborations in the art market. Arts and the Market, 10(2), 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAM-10-2019-0030 [Link]

Radermecker, A.-S. V. E. (2019). Artworks without names: An insight into the market for anonymous paintings. Journal of Cultural Economics, 43(3), 443–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-019-09344-5 [Link]

Saner, E. (2013, July 30). Gay rights around the world: The best and worst countries forequality. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/30/gay-rights- world-best-worst-countries

Schneider, A. (2003). On‘appropriation’. A critical reappraisal of the concept and its application in global art practices*. Social Anthropology, 11(2), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2003.tb00169.x [Link]

Şerbănoiu, G. (2012). Aspects of Criminality, Intellectual Property, Forgery and Counterfeiting. Journal of Criminal Investigations, 5(2), 67–72.

Shiner, L. (2001). The Invention of Art: A Cultural History. University of Chicago Press.

Tietze, H. (1939). Master and Workshop in the Venetian Renaissance. Parnassus, 11(8), 34– 45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15436314.1939.11666590 [Link]

Trope, Y. (1986). Self-enhancement and self-assessment in achievement behavior. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 350–378). Guilford Press.

Van Lente, H. (2012). Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(8), 769– 782. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.715478 [Link]

Van Lente, H. (2021). Imaginaries of innovation. In B. Godin, G. Gaglio, & D. Vinck (Eds.), Handbook on Alternative Theories of Innovation (pp. 23–36). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789902303.00010 [Link]

Velthuis, O. (2005). Talking Prices: Symbolic Meanings of Prices on the Market for Contemporary Art. Princeton University Press. Wall, T. (2020, June 14). The day Bristol dumped its hated slave trader in the docks and a nation began to search its soul. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk- news/2020/jun/14/the-day-bristol-dumped-its-hated-slave-trader-in-the-docks-and-a- nation-began-to-search-its-soul Wang, C. S., & Leung, A. K. -y. (2010). The Cultural Dynamics of Rewarding Honesty and Punishing Deception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1529– 1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210385921[Link]

Welchman, J. C. (2003). Art After Appropriation: Essays on Art in the 1990s. Routledge. Woodward, I. (2007). Understanding Material Culture. SAGE.

Woodward, I. (2007). Understanding Material Culture. SAGE.

##plugins.generic.pfl.publicationFactsTitle##

Metric
##plugins.generic.pfl.thisArticle##
##plugins.generic.pfl.otherArticles##
##plugins.generic.pfl.peerReviewers## 
2.4 promedio

##plugins.generic.pfl.reviewerProfiles##  N/D

##plugins.generic.pfl.authorStatements##

##plugins.generic.pfl.authorStatements##
##plugins.generic.pfl.thisArticle##
##plugins.generic.pfl.otherArticles##
##plugins.generic.pfl.dataAvailability## 
##plugins.generic.pfl.dataAvailability.unsupported##
##plugins.generic.pfl.averagePercentYes##
##plugins.generic.pfl.funders## 
##plugins.generic.pfl.funders.no##
32% con financiadores
##plugins.generic.pfl.competingInterests## 
Conflicto de intereses: No
##plugins.generic.pfl.averagePercentYes##
Metric
Para esta revista
##plugins.generic.pfl.otherJournals##
##plugins.generic.pfl.articlesAccepted## 
Artículos aceptados: 0%
33% aceptado
##plugins.generic.pfl.daysToPublication## 
##plugins.generic.pfl.numDaysToPublication##
145

Indexado: {$indexList}

    ##plugins.generic.pfl.indexedList##
##plugins.generic.pfl.editorAndBoard##
##plugins.generic.pfl.profiles##
##plugins.generic.pfl.academicSociety## 
Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas
Loading...