What Is Wrong with a Forgery?

Author(s): Alfred Lessing

Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Summer, 1965), pp.
461-471
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/427668
Accessed: 11-09-2019 22:28 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The American Society for Aesthetics, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

This content downloaded from 190.84.231.153 on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:28:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ALFRED LESSING

What is Wrong with a Forgery?

THIS PAPER ATTEMPTS to answer the sim- him. At most one can try to show that in
the area of aesthetics and criticism we are
ple question: What is wrong with a forgery?
easily confused and that his view, if car-
It assumes, then, that something is wrong
ried through, leads to absurd or improb-
with a forgery. This is not an unreasonable
assumption when one considers that able the conclusions. It is important that we do
this because it is impossible to understand
term forgery can be defined only in refer-
ence to a contrasting phenomenon which what is wrong with a forgery unless it be
must somehow include the notion of genu-
first made quite clear that the answer will
ineness or authenticity. When thus not
de-be in terms of its aesthetic worth.
fined there can be little doubt that the con- Somehow critics have never understood
cept of forgery is a normative one. Itthis
is and have again and again allowed
themselves to be forced into an embarrass-
clear, moreover, that it is a negative con-
cept implying the absence or negationing of position upon the discovery of some
value. The problem arises when we ask forgery or other. Perhaps the classic, cer-
what kind of value we are speaking of.tainly
It the most celebrated, case in point
appears to be generally assumed thatwas
in that of Han van Meegeren who in
the case of artistic forgeries we are dealing
1945 disturbed the complacent tranquillity
with the absence or negation of aesthetic of the world of art and art critics by con-
value. If this were so, a forgery would befessing that he was the artist responsible for
an aesthetically inferior work of art. This,
eight paintings of which six had been sold
as legitimate Vermeers and two as De
as I will try to show, is not the case. Pure
aesthetics cannot explain forgery. Con- Hooghs. It is not hard to imagine the dis-
sidering a work of art aesthetically superior
comfort felt by critics at that time, espe-
because it is genuine, or inferior becausecially
it when we recall how thoroughly suc-
is forged, has little or nothing to do with
cessful Van Meegeren was in perpetrating
his fraud. Here, for example, are some of
aesthetic judgment or criticism. It is rather
a piece of snobbery.' the words with which the discovery of Van
It is difficult to make this position con-
Meegeren's Christ and the Disciples at Em-
vincing to the person who is himself con- maus was announced to the world by Abra-
ham Bredius, at that time probably the
vinced that forgery is a matter of aesthetics.
world's expert on Vermeer:
If a person insists that it is a fact that for
him the aesthetic value (i.e., the beauty) of... we have here a-I am inclined to say-the
a work of art is affected by the knowledge masterpiece of Johannes Vermeer of Delft...
that it is or is not genuine, there is littlequite different from all his other paintings and
one can say to make that fact unreal for yet every inch a Vermeer. The subject is Christ
and the Disciples at Emmaus and the colors
are magnificent-and characteristic....
ALFRED LESSING is assistant professor of philosophy In no other picture by the great Master of
at Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan. Delft do we find such sentiment, such a pro-

This content downloaded from 190.84.231.153 on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:28:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 462 ALFRED LESSING

found understanding
has been accepted and admired as a genu-
sentiment so I will
ine Vermeer, nobly h
confess publicly to the
the medium of the hig
The forgery and thus force the critics either
reproduction [acto
article] retract their
can onlyearlier judgments of praise,
give
the thereby acknowledging
splendid luminous their fallibility, or
nation of tocolors
recognize that I am asof thi
great an artist as
one of theVermeer.
greatest artis
The dilemma as stated contains
a difficulty to which we shall come back
The picture referre
later. What is important historically is that
mans Museum in Rotterdam for seven
the critics accepted Van Meegeren's di-
years. During that time thousands uponas a genuine one (thereby becoming
lemma
thousands admired and praised the the
paint-
dupes of a logical forgery as well as an
ing. There was no doubt in anyone's mind one), although in the public out-
artistic
that this was one of the greatest of Ver-
burst of indignation, condemnation, praise,
meer's paintings and, indeed, oneblame,of the analysis, investigation, and discus-
most beautiful works of art in the world. It
sion which followed Van Meegeren's con-
was undoubtedly this universal judgment
fession, it is difficult to determine which
of aesthetic excellence which accounts
horn of this dilemma the critics actually
largely for the sensational effectschose
of Vanto be impaled on.
Meegeren's confession in 1945. There exists, in fact, a small group of
It is of course embarrassing and irritating
critics who have never for a moment ac-
for an expert to make a mistake in his field.Van Meegeren's claim to have
cepted
And it was, as it turned out, a mistake to
painted The Disciples at Emmaus. They
identify the painting as a Vermeer. But
have it
argued vehemently that whereas all
should be obvious from the words of
the other paintings in question are easily
Bredius just quoted that there is more
shown in-
to be forgeries, no convincing evi-
volved here than a mere matter of mis-
dence has been produced to prove that
identification. "The colors are magnifi-
The Disciples (as well as one other paint-
cent," he writes. "The highest art... ing
thisentitled The Last Supper) is not by
magnificent painting... the masterpiece of
Vermeer and that, in fact, all evidence
Vermeer": this is more than identification.
points to the conclusion that it is a genu-
This clearly is aesthetic praise. And itineisVermeer. Now, even if it were to our
just the fact that the critics heaped suchpurpose, we could not here attempt to settle
lavish praise on a picture which turned out
this issue. Both the case for and against
to have been painted by a second-rate con-depend on the analysis of a great deal of
temporary artist that made the Van scientific data gathered from laboratory
Meegeren case such a painful affair for tests performed on the paintings during
them. To their way of thinking, which theI official investigation in 1945-1947. An
am trying to show was not very logical, they
adequate reappraisal would certainly be an
were now apparently faced with the extremely
di- lengthy and technical (as well
lemma of either admitting that they had as tedious) affair.
praised a worthless picture or continuing What should concern us, however, is the
to do so.
fact that aesthetically it would seem to
This was of course precisely the trap that make no difference whatever whether The
Van Meegeren had laid for the critics. It Disciples is a Vermeer or a Van Meegeren.
was, in fact, the whole raison d'etre of his
Needless to say, this is not the view of the
perpetrating the fraud. He deliberately critics. To them apparently it makes all
chose this extreme, perhaps pathological, the difference in the world. Consider, for
way of exposing what he considered to be example, the words of J. Decoen who is one
false aesthetic standards of art critics. In
of that aforementioned group of critics that
this respect his thinking was no moreholds
logi- that The Disciples is a genuine Ver-
cal than that of the critics. His reasoning,
meer:

at least about his first forgery The Disciples,

was in effect as follows: Once my painting
I must recall that the moment of greate

This content downloaded from 190.84.231.153 on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:28:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
What is Wrong with a Forgery? 463
guish for me was when the verdict [of Van suits of such scientific investigations of any
Meegeren] was being considered. The Court
help in answering our question since they
might, according to an ancient Dutch Law, have
ordered the destruction of all the pictures. One deal exclusively with non-aesthetic elements
shudders at the thought that one could, officially,of the picture such as its chemical composi-
have destroyed two of the most moving workstion, its hardness, its crackle, and so on. The
which Vermeer has created. During the trial, at truth is that the difference between a for-
the moment of his indictment, the Public Prose-
cutor stated that there was in Court a man who gery and a genuine work of art is by no
means as obvious as critics sometimes make
claimed that a number of the paintings were
out. In the case of The Disciples, at least,
not by Van Meegeren. He made this statement
because, ever since 1945, he must have realized it is certainly not a matter of but needing
that my perserverance had not faltered, that
to look in order to see. The actual history
my conviction was deep, and that I had never
changed my original statements in any respect The Disciples turns all such attempted
of
whatsoever. These words may possibly have in- post facto explanations into a kind of aca-
fluenced the decision of the Court with regard demic sour grapes.
to the application of the Law. If this be so, The plain fact is that aesthetically it
I should consider myself amply repaid for my makes no difference whether a work of art
efforts and pains, for my tenacity may possibly
have ultimately rescued two capital works of the is authentic or a forgery, and instead of be-
Dutch school of the seventeenth century.3 ing embarrassed at having praised a forgery,
critics should have the courage of their
But what if Decoen is wrong? What if convictions and take pride in having
these paintings are forgeries by Van praised a work of beauty. Perhaps if crit-
Meegeren after all? Would Decoen's effort ics did respond in this way we should be
for their preservation become misguided? less inclined to think that so often their
Could he no longer take pride in having judgments are historical, biographical, eco-
prevented the destruction of these "capi-nomical, or sociological instead of aesthetic.
tal" paintings even though they are prod- For in a sense, of course, Van Meegeren
ucts of the twentieth instead of the seven-
proved his point. Perhaps it is a point for
teenth century? The answers, it seems to which such radical proof was not even
me, are almost self-evident. What, after all,
necessary. We all know very well that it is
makes these paintings "capital works"?just the preponderance in the art world of
Surely it is their purely aesthetic qualities,non-aesthetic criteria such as fame of the
such as the ones mentioned by Bredius in artist and the age or cost of the canvas
his description of The Disciples. But if thiswhich is largely responsible for the ex-
is so, then why, even if this painting is aistence of artistic forgeries in the first place.
forgery, should Decoen not be justified We all know that a few authentic pen and
in his actions, since he has preserved aink scratches by Picasso are far more valu-
painting which is aesthetically important
able than a fine landscape by an unknown
for the only reason that a painting can beartist. If we were offered a choice between
aesthetically important, namely, its beauty?
an inferior (but genuine) Degas sketch and
Are we any more justified in destroying a beautiful Jones or Smith or X, how many
capital paintings of the twentieth centuryof us would choose the latter? In a museum
than those of the seventeenth? To this ques-
that did not label its paintings, how many
tion we are usually given the answer that of us would not feel uneasy lest we con-
the one is after all a forgery while the other demn one of the greats or praise an un-
is genuine. But our question is precisely: known? But, it may be argued, all this we
What is the difference between a genuineknow. It is simply a fact and, moreover,
Vermeer and a Van Meegeren forgery? It isprobably an unavoidable, understandable
of no use to maintain that one need but -even a necessary-fact. Is this so serious
look to see the difference. The fact that or regrettable? The answer of course is that
The Disciples is a forgery (if indeed it is)it is indeed serious and regrettable that the
cannot, so to speak, be read off from its sur- realm of art should be so infested with non-
face, but can finally be proved or disprovedaesthetic standards of judgment that it is
only by means of extensive scientific ex- often impossible to distinguish artistic from
periments and analyses. Nor are the re-economic value, taste or fashion from true

This content downloaded from 190.84.231.153 on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:28:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 464 ALFRED LESSING

artistic excellence, an
it is the complexity of the aesthetic expe-
clever businessmen. rience which accounts for the difference
This brings us to the point of our discus-
made by the knowledge that a work of art
sion so far. The matter of genuineness ver-
is a forgery. That the aesthetic experience
sus forgery is but yet another non-aesthetic
is complex I do not deny. But it is not so
standard of judgment. The fact that a work
complex that such items of information as
of art is a forgery is an item of informa-
the place and date of creation or the name
tion about it on a level with such informa- of the creator of a work of art have to be
tion as how old the artist was when he considered. The fact that The Disciples is
a forgery
created it, the political situation in the time is just that, a fact. It is a fact
and place of its creation, the price itabout
origi-the painting which stands entirely
nally fetched, the kind of materials apart
used infrom it as an object for aesthetic con-
it, the stylistic influences discernible in it,
templation. The knowledge of this fact can
neither
the psychological state of the artist, his pur- add anything to nor subtract any-
pose in painting it, and so on. All thing
suchfrom the aesthetic experience (as
information belongs to areas of interest
aesthetic), except insofar as preoccupation
peripheral at best to the work of artwith it or disappointment on its account
as aes-
thetic object, areas such as biography,
mayhis-
in some degree prevent us from having
an aesthetic
tory of art, sociology, and psychology. It experience at all. Whatever
is not denied here that such areas of interest the reasons for the removal of The Dis-
ciples from the walls of the Boymans Mu-
may be important and that their study may
even help us to become better art appreci-
seum in Rotterdam, they were assuredly not
ators. But it is denied that the information aesthetic.
with which they deal is of the essence of the And yet, we can all sympathize, or at
least understand, why The Disciples was
work of art or of the aesthetic experience
which it engenders. removed. It was, after all, a forgery and
It would be merely foolish to assert that
even if we grant that it is not a matter of
it is of no interest whatsoever to know that aesthetics, it still seems self-evident that
The Disciples is a forgery. But to the man
forgery remains a normative term implying
who has never heard of either Vermeer or a defect or absence in its object. In short,
Van Meegeren and who stands in front we still need to answer our question: What
of The Disciples admiring it, it can makeis wrong with a forgery?
no difference whether he is told that it is a The most obvious answer to this ques-
seventeenth century Vermeer or a twentieth
tion, after the aesthetic one, is that forgery
century Van Meegeren in the style of Ver- is a moral or legal normative concept, and
meer. And when some deny this and argue that thus it refers to an object which, if not
vehemently that indeed it does makenecessarily a aesthetically inferior, is always
great deal of difference, they are only ad- morally offensive. Specifically, the reason
mitting that they do know something about forgery is a moral offense, according to this
Vermeer and Van Meegeren and the his- view, is of course that it involves deception.
tory of art and the value and reputation Reasonable
of and commonsensical as this
certain masters. They are only admitting view seems at first, it does not, as I will try
that they do not judge a work of art to on show, answer our question adequately.
purely aesthetic grounds, but also take intoNow it cannot be denied, I think, that we
account when it was created, by whom, and do in fact often intend little more than this
how great a reputation it or its creator has.moral connotation when we speak of for-
And instead of seeking justification in the gery. Just because forgery is a normative
fact that in truth it is difficult to make a concept we implicitly condemn any instance
pure, aesthetic judgment, unbiased of byitallbecause we generally assume that it
our knowledge of the history and criticism involves the breaking of a legal or moral
of art, they generally confuse matters code.
of This assumption is, however, only
aesthetics even more by rationalizingsometimesthat correct. It is important to note

This content downloaded from 190.84.231.153 on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:28:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 What is Wrong with a Forgery? 465
this because historically by far
definition themore
of forgery majority
accurate is the
of artistic fakes or forgeries haveoff
specification "passing not been
the inferior as the
legal forgeries. Most often
superior." they have
But it is just at thisbeen
point that
this common-sense definition
the result of simple mistakes, misunder- of artistic
standings, and lack of information
forgery about
in moral terms breaks down. For
given works of art. Wewe arecan, as with
now faced a point of
the question of what
terminology, excludeis all
meant such instances
by superior and inferior in art.
from the category of The
forgery andofrestrict
moral definition forgery says in ef-
the term to only those cases
fect involving
that a forgery is an inferiorde-
work passed
liberate deception. There is, after
off as a superior one. Butall,
what a is meant
whole class of forgeries, including
here by simple
inferior? We have already seen that
copies, misattributions, composites,
the forgery and
is not necessarily aesthetically
works "in the manner inferior.
of" some What, then, does it mean? Once
reputable
artist, which representagain,
deliberate
what is wrong frauds. In
with a forgery?
these cases of forgery, which
The attempt areforgery
to define un- in moral
doubtedly the most notorious and
terms fails because it discon-
inevitably already as-
certing, someone, e.g.,sumes that there
artist orexists
art a difference
dealer, between
has passed off a work of art
genuine as of
works being
art and some-
forgeries which
thing which it is not. The motive
makes passing for
off the latterdoing
as the former
so is almost always economic,
an offense against but occa-
a moral or legal law.
sionally, as with VanFor
Meegeren, there
only if such a difference is
does in fact ex-
involved also a psychological motive
ist can there of per-
be any rationale for the law.
sonal prestige or revenge. In precisely
It is of course any case, it real
this assumed
seems clear that-if we leave out of consid- difference which we are trying to discover
eration the factor of financial loss, which in this paper.
can of course be considerable, as again the It seems to me that the offense felt to be
Van Meegeren case proved-such delib-
involved in forgery is not so much against
erate forgeries are condemned by usthe
onspirit of beauty (aesthetics) or the spirit
moral grounds, that is, because they involve
of the law (morality) as against the spirit
conscious deception. of art. Somehow, a work such as The Dis-
Yet, as a final answer to our questionciples
as lacks artistic integrity. Even if it is
beautiful and even if Van Meegeren had
to what is wrong with a forgery, this defini-
tion fails. The reason is the following: not
Al- forged Vermeer's signature, there would
still be something wrong with The Dis-
though to some extent it is true that pass-
ing anything off as anything that it is ciples.
not What? is still our question.
constitutes deception and is thus an unde- We may approach this problem by con-
sirable or morally repugnant act, the case
sidering the following interesting point.
of deception we have in mind when weThe de- concept of forgery seems to be pe-
culiarly inapplicable to the performing
fine forgery in terms of it is that of passing
off the inferior as the superior. Although,
arts. It would be quite nonsensical to say,
strictly speaking, passing off a genuinefor De example, that the man who played the
Hoogh as a Vermeer is also an immoral Bach act suites for unaccompanied cello and
of deception, it is hard to think of it aswhom
a at the time we took to be Pablo
forgery at all, let alone a forgery in Casals
the was in fact a forger. Similarly, we
same sense as passing off a Van Meegeren should want to argue that the term for-
as a Vermeer is. The reason is obviously gery was misused if we should read in the
that in the case of the De Hoogh a superior
newspaper that Margot Fonteyn's perform-
work is being passed off as a superior work
ance in Swan Lake last night was a forgery
(by another artist), while in the Van because as a matter of fact it was not
Meegeren case an inferior work is passed Margot Fonteyn who danced last night but
off as a superior work. rather some unknown person whom every-
What is needed, then, to make our moral one mistook for Margot Fonteyn. Again, it

This content downloaded from 190.84.231.153 on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:28:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 466 A LFRED LT. SS T
is difficult to see
yet even in
I would not what
deny that it might be sen
ance of, say,original.
Oedipus
On the other hand, a Rex
really skill- or
be termed a forgery.
ful copy of, for example, a Rembrandt
Here, however, weperfect
drawing may be technically must
and yet i
clarify our point,
lack all originality.for it is
These two examples es- ea
stood. There tablish
is, of
the two course,
extreme cases of a kind of a
a performance
continuum.of
The copyHamlet
of Rembrandt is of o
or the Bach suites
course the forgery could
par excellence. Mybe in- ca
If, for example, someone
competent portrait is as far removed from gav
ance of Hamlet in
being a forgery as any which
work can be. Some- ev
every movement,
where in between every vocal
lies the whole body of
had been copied or imitated
legitimate performances and works of art.
formance of The Hamlet
implications of this by Laur
long and
we could, I devious
suppose, argument are as follows.call
Forgery th
forgery of the latter.
is a concept that can be madeBut noti
meaningful
case we are interpreting the
only by reference to the concept of original-
not as a performing ity, and hence only to art viewed
art but as a as
For what is meant is that Olivier's inter- creative, not as a reproductive or technical
pretation and performance of Hamletactivity.
is The element of performance or
itself an original and creative work of art
technique in art cannot be an object for
which can be forged. Similar comments forgery because technique is not the kind of
would apply to Margot Fonteyn's Swan thing that can be forged. Technique is, as
Lake and Casal's Bach suites and, in fact,
it were, public. One does or does not possess
to every performance. it or one acquires it or learns it. One may
My point is then that the concept even
of pretend to have it. But one cannot
forgery applies only to the creative and not forge it because in order to forge it one
to the performing arts. It can be denied must of already possess it, in which case there
course that there is any such ultimate dis- is no need to forge it. It is not Vermeer's
tinction between creative and performing technique in painting light which Van
arts. But we shall still have to admit, I Meegeren forged. That technique is pub-
think, that the duality on which it is basedlic and may be had by anyone who is able
-the duality of creativity or originality, onand willing to learn it. It is rather Ver-
the one hand, and reproduction or tech-meer's discovery of this technique and his
nique, on the other-is real. We shall haveuse of it, that is, Vermeer's originality,
to admit that originality and techniquewhich is forged. The light, as well as the
are two elements of all art; for not onlycomposition, the color, and many other
can it be argued that a performance re-features, of course, were original with Ver-
quires more than technique, namely origi-meer. They are not original with Van
nality, but also that the creation of a workMeegeren. They are forged.
of art requires more than originality, At this point our argument could con-
namely technique. clude were it not for the fact that the case
The truth of the matter is probably thatwhich we have used throughout as our
both performances and works of art vary chief example, Christ and the Disciples at
greatly and significantly in the degree to Emmaus, is not in fact a skillful copy of a
which they possess these elements. TheirVermeer but a novel painting in the style of
relative presence in works of art and per-Vermeer. This threatens our definition of
formances makes, in fact, an interesting way forgery since this particular forgery (al-
of categorizing the latter. But it would beways assuming it is a forgery) obviously
wrong to assert that these two elements possesses originality in some sense of the
are inseparable. I can assure the reader that word.
a portrait painted by myself would be tech- The problem of forgery, in other words,
nically almost totally incompetent, and is a good deal more complex than might at

This content downloaded from 190.84.231.153 on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:28:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 What is Wrong with a Forgery? 467
first be supposed, and before
dividuality, we
is not a quality whichcan rest
exists in
content with our definition the work of artof as such. It is a fact about
forgery as
works of art lacking originality, the work of art which it canmust
be knownbe only
shown that the concept by placing
of the originality
latter in the context can of the
indeed account for the meaning
history of forgery
of art and observing whether any
as an untrue or objectionable identical work predates thing it. in all
instances, including even As we such
said above,ait bizarre
is not this kindcaseof
as that of Van Meegeren's originality which is lacking
Disciples at in Em-The Dis-
maus. It thus becomes ciples.4 important to ex-
amine the various possible meanings
3) By originality in art we may mean the that
the term originality kind may have
of imaginative inor the
novelty con-
spontaneity
text of art in order to determine in what which is a mark of every good work of art.
sense The Disciples does and does not It is the kind of originality which attaches
possess it, and hence in what sense it canto individual works of art and which can be
meaningfully and justifiably be termed aspecified in formal or technical terms such
forgery. as composition, balance, color intensity,
1) A work of art may be said to be origi- perspective, harmony, rhythm, tempo, tex-
nal in the sense of being a particular object ture, rhyme, alliteration, suspense, char-
not identical with any other object. But acter, plot, structure, choice of subject mat-
this originality is trivial since it is a quality ter, and so on. Here again, however, in
possessed by all things. Particularity or self- order for this quality to be meaningfully
identity would be better names for it. called originality, a reference must be made
2) By originality in a work of art we to a historical context in terms of which
may mean that it possesses a certain super- we are considering the particular work of
ficial individuality which serves to dis- art in question, e.g., this work of art is origi-
tinguish it from other works of art. Thus, nal because the artist has done something
for example, a certain subject matter in a with the subject and its treatment which
particular arrangement painted in certain has never been done before, or this work
colors may serve to identify a painting and is not original because many others just
mark it as an original work of art in the like it predate it.
sense that its subject matter is unique. In any case, The Disciples does, by com-
Probably the term individuality specifies mon consent, possess this kind of originality
this quality more adequately than origi- and is therefore in this sense at least not a
nality. forgery.
It seems safe to assert that this quality of 4) The term originality is sometimes
individuality is a necessary condition for used to refer to the great artistic achieve-
any work of art to be called original in any ment of a specific work of art. Thus we
significant sense. It is, however, not a neces- might say that whereas nearly all of Mil-
sary condition for a work to be called ton's works are good and original in the
beautiful or to be the object of an aesthetic sense of (3) above, Paradise Lost has a par-
experience. A good reproduction or copy of ticularly profound originality possessed
a painting may be the object of aesthetic only by really superlative works of art. It
contemplation and yet it lacks all original- is hard to state precisely what is meant by
ity in the sense which we are here con- this use of the term originality. In justify-
sidering. Historically many forgeries are of ing it we should probably point to the
this kind, i.e., more or less skillful copies scope, profundity, daring, and novelty of
of existing works of art. They may be de- the conception of the work of art in ques-
scribed as being forgeries just because they tion as well as to the excellence of its ex-
lack this kind of originality and hence any ecution. No doubt this kind of originality
other kind of originality as well. It is to differs from that discussed under (3) above
be noticed that the quality which makes only in degree.
such a copy a forgery, i.e., its lack of in- It is to be noted that it cannot be the

This content downloaded from 190.84.231.153 on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:28:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 468 ALFRED LESSING

lack of this kind

or style of works of
of art, it can be considered o
fines a forgery since,
to exist in one particular work of art in the
it is a quality
sense that that work lacking
of art is a typical ex-
majority ample ofof-legitim
the style or movement to which it
Moreover, belongsjudging
and therefore embodies the origi-fr
mentary nality
with of that style orwhich
movement. Thus we
ceived atmay
the time
say that Vermeer's o
A Painter in His
mentary Studio
unbiased is original because in this by painting
was a forgery-it
(as well as in several others, of seem course) we
that the kind of
recognize those characteristics orig
mentioned
in fact one which
earlier (light, design, color, etc.) which Th are
possesses. so typical of Vermeer's work as a whole and
5) Finally,which, whenit we consider the whole of Ver-
would s
nality in meer's
art work in the we can
context of the history of a
artistic novelty
art, allow us to ascribe originalityand
to it. a
particularTurning work our attention once more of to The ar
of artisticDisciples,production
we are at last in a position to pro-
one school. Thus
vide an adequate we
answer to our question as m
nality of to theVermeer
meaning of the term forgery when o
or Dante applied
or to a workImpress
of art such as The Dis-
physical ciples.
Poets We shall find, I think,
or that the ev
Renaissance, always
fraudulent character of this painting is ade- r
to the quately defined by stating accom
artistic that it lacks
and embodied in
originality in the fifth and final sensethe
which
ing to we have here
the considered. Whatever kinds
particular
period. of originality
In the it can claim-and
case we have o
speak of the originalit
seen that it possesses all the kinds previously
of design discussed-it in is not originalgenr
the in the sense
ity of hisof being use the productof of a style, period, or
brigh
of the technique which, when considered
originality of in its
cution of appropriate historical context, can be said
light.
It is to be noticed first of all that this to represent a significant achievement. It
meaning of originality, too, depends is en-
just this fact which differentiates this
painting from a genuine Vermeer! The
tirely on a historical context in which
we are placing and considering thelatter,
ac- when considered in its historical
complishment of one man or one period.context,
It i.e., the seventeenth century, pos-
sesses the qualities of artistic or creative
would be meaningless to call Impressionism
original, in the sense here considered,novelty
ex- which justify us in calling it origi-
nal. The Disciples, on the other hand, in
cept in reference to the history of art which
preceded it. Again, it is just becauseitsVer-
historical context, i.e., the twentieth
meer's sense of pictorial design, his use of
century, is not original, since it presents
bright colors, and his mastery of the nothing
tech- new or creative to the history of
artthe
nique of painting light are not found in even though, as we have emphasized
history of art before him that we callearlier,
these it may well be as beautiful as the
things original in Vermeer's work. Origi-
genuine Vermeer pictures.
nality, even in this more profound sense,It is
orto be noted that in this definition
rather especially in this more profoundof forgery the phrase "appropriate histori-
sense, is a quality definable only in terms
cal context" refers to the date of production
of the history of art. of the particular work of art in question,
A second point of importance is not thatthe date which in the history of art is
while originality as here considered is a
appropriate to its style or subject matter.5
quality which attaches to a whole corpus
In other words, what makes The Disciples

This content downloaded from 190.84.231.153 on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:28:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 What is Wrong with a Forgery? 469
ity and
a forgery is precisely the technique in
disparity orthegapcreative con-
between its stylisticallytinuum
appropriate andupon
which we came its earlier. A
totally
actual date of production. It original work is this
is simply that which lacks
disparity which we have all in mind
technique. A when
forgery we
par excellence
say that forgeries such represents
as The the Disciples
perfection lack
of technique with
integrity. the absence of all originality. True works
It is interesting at this point to recall Van of art are somewhere in between. Perhaps
Meegeren's reasoning in perpetrating the the really great works of art, such as
Vermeer forgeries. "Either," he reasoned, Vermeer's, are those which embody a maxi-
"the critics must admit their fallibility or mum of both originality and technique:
else acknowledge that I am as great an Van Meegeren's forgeries can never be in
artist as Vermeer." We can see now that this this last category, for, as we have seen, they
reasoning is not sound. For the notion lack
of the most important kind of originality.
greatness involved in it depends on theFinally, the only question that remains
same concept of historical originality which
is why originality is such a significant as-
we have been considering. The only differ-pect of art. Now we need to note, of course,
ence is that we are now thinking of it as that
an the concern with originality is not a
attribute of the artist rather than of the universal characteristic of art or artists.
works of art. Van Meegeren's mistakeYet, was the fact that the search for originality
in thinking that Vermeer's reputationisasperhaps
a typical only of modern Western
great artist depended on his ability to art
painttends only to strengthen the presump-
beautiful pictures. If this were so, thetion
di-of its fundamental relation to the con-
lemma which Van Meegeren posed to theof forgery. For it is also just in the
cept
critics would have been a real one, for modern
his Western tradition that the prob-
picture is undeniably beautiful. But,
leminof forgery has taken on the kind of
fact, Vermeer is not a great artist only be-
economic and aesthetic significance which
cause he could paint beautiful pictures.
warrants our concern with it here. But why,
He is great for that reason plus something even in modern Western art, should the
else. And that something else is precisely importance of originality be such that the
the fact of his originality, i.e., the factconcepts
that of greatness and forgery in art are
he painted certain pictures in a certain ultimately definable only by reference to
manner at a certain time in the history it?and
The answer is, I believe, not hard to
development of art. Vermeer's art repre- find. It rests on the fact that art has and
sents a genuine creative achievement in the have a history. If it did not, if artists
must
history of art. It is the work not merely wereofconcerned only with making beautiful
a master craftsman or technician, but of a
pictures, poems, symphonies, etc., the pos-
creative genius as well. And it is for the
sibilities for the creation of aesthetically
latter rather than for the former reason pleasing works of art would soon be ex-
that we call Vermeer great. hausted. We would (perhaps) have a
Van Meegeren, on the other hand, pos-
number of lovely paintings, but we should
sessed only craftsmanship or technique. soon
His grow tired of them for they would all
be more or less alike. But artists do not
works lack the historical originality of Ver-
meer's and it is for this reason that we seek merely to produce works of beauty.
should not want to call him great as we They
call seek to produce original works of
Vermeer great.6 At the same time it must be
beauty. And when they succeed in achiev-
recalled that Van Meegeren's forgeriesingarethis originality we call their works
not forgeries par excellence. The Disciples,
great because they are not only beautiful
but because they have also unlocked, both
though not original in the most important
sense, possesses, as we have seen, degrees
to artists and to appreciators, unknown and
unexplored realms of beauty. Men like
of originality generally lacking in forgeries.
In this connection it is interesting to
Leonardo, Rembrandt, Haydn, Goethe,
speculate on the relations between original-
and Vermeer are great not merely because

This content downloaded from 190.84.231.153 on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:28:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 470 ALFRED LESSING

of the excellence of their works but also

lowing paradoxical result. We have seen in
what sense Vermeer is considered to be a
because of their creative originality which
goes on to inspire other artists and great
leads artist. We have also seen that despite
through them to new and aesthetically the fact that The Disciples is indistinguish-
valuable developments in the history offrom a genuine Vermeer, Van Mee-
able
art. It is, in fact, this search for creative
geren cannot be thus called great. And yet
originality which insures the continuation we would suppose that Vermeer's greatness
and significance of such a history in is the
somehow embodied in his work, that his
first place. paintings are proof of and monuments to
It is for this reason that the concept hisof
artistic genius. What are we to say, then,
originality has become inseparable from of this Van Meegeren forgery which hung
that of art. It is for this reason too that in a museum for seven years as an embodi-
aesthetics has traditionally concerned ment itself and proof of Vermeer's genius? Are
with topics such as the inspiration ofwe the
to say that it now no longer embodies
artist, the mystery of the creative act, anything
the at all except Van Meegeren's
intense and impassioned search of skillful
the forging technique? Or are we to
grant after all that this painting proves
artist, the artist as the prophet of his times,
the artistic struggle after expression, Van Meegeren's greatness as Vermeer's
art as
the chronicle of the emotional life of a
paintings do his? The answer is, I think,
period in history, art as a productsurprising
of its but wholly appropriate.
Paradoxically, The Disciples at Emmaus
time, and so on. All such topics are relevant
not to art as the production of works is as much
of a monument to the artistic
beauty, but to art as the production geniusof of Vermeer as are Vermeer's ow
original works of beauty, or, more accu-
paintings. Even though it was painted b
rately, Works of original beauty. AsVan such
Meegeren in the twentieth century, i
they are perfectly legitimate topics embodies
of dis- and bears witness to the greatnes
cussion. But it must not be forgotten of that
the seventeenth-century art of Vermeer.
the search for originality is, or ought to be,
but the means to an end. That end is, pre-
sumably, the production of aesthetically
valuable or beautiful works of art; that is, 1Cf. Arthur Koestler, "The Anatomy of Snob-
bery," The Anchor Review, No. 1 (Garden City,
works which are to become the object of anDoubleday Anchor Books, 1955), pp. 1-25.
aesthetic experience. That experience is a 2 The Burlington Magazine (Nov., 1937).
wholly autonomous one. It does not and 8J. Decoen, Vermeer-Van Meegeren, Back to the
cannot take account of any entity or fact Truth (Rotterdam, 1951), p. 60.
which is not aesthetically perceivable in 4A slightly more complex case is offered by
forgeries (including probably some of Van Meeg
the work of art itself. The historical context
eren's less carefully executed Vermeer forgeries
in which that work of art stands is just suchwhich are not simple copies of other paintings bu
a fact; It is wholly irrelevant to the purewhich are composites of other paintings. While such
aesthetic appreciation and judgment of the forgeries clearly have a measure of individualit
work of art. And because the fact of for- totally lacking in the simple copy, I should wan
to maintain that it is only superficially that they
gery-together with originality and great-
lack the kind of originality here discussed.
ness-can be ultimately defined only in
To avoid all ambiguity in my definition of
terms of this historical context, it too is forgery, I need to specify whether "actual date of
production" refers to the completion of the finished,
irrelevant to the aesthetic appreciation and
concrete work of art or only of the productive
judgment of The Disciples at Emmaus or
means of such works. This question bears on the
any other work of art. The fact of forgery
legitimacy of certain works in art forms where the
is important historically, biographically,
means of production and the finished product are
perhaps legally, or, as the Van Meegerenseparable. Such works include lithographs, etchings,
woodcuts, cast sculptures, etc. What, for example,
case proved, financially; but not, strictlyare we to say of a modern bronze cast made from a
speaking, aesthetically. mold taken directly from an ancient bronze cast or
In conclusion, let us consider the fol- a modem print made from an eighteenth-century

This content downloaded from 190.84.231.153 on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:28:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 What is Wrong with a Forgery? 471
eries of a peculiar
block? Are such art objects forgeries? Theamoral,
answer, non-offensive
it sort. In
other arts,
seems to me, is largely a matter of such as music, there is and
convenience little or no am-
biguity is
terminology. Assuming that there on this
no point.
moral Clearly, no one would want
fraud,
i.e., deception, involved, whether
to labelor
thenot
first performance
to call such of a newly discovered
Beethoven
cases instances of forgery becomes ansymphony
academic a forgery. In still other, e.g.,
ques-
tion. It depends entirely onthe what
literary,we take
arts, due to theto be inseparability
absolute
"the work of art." In the case of theof lithography
concrete work of art and theor
means of its
etching there may be some ambiguity about cannot
production, this problem this.arise at all.
I myself would define "the work of art" as the 6 Unless it be argued that Van Meegeren derives
finished concrete product and hence I would indeed his greatness from the originality of his works
call modern prints from old litho stones forgeries, when considered in the context not of the history
though, assuming no deception is involved, forg- of art but of the history of forgeryl

This content downloaded from 190.84.231.153 on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:28:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms