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

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.