Forgeries, Luxury Goods and Value

Blake Gopnik pointed out that when it comes to art forgeries, most people can “marvel at the forgers’ skill and lament their misdeeds”. Besides, he says:

“If a fake is good enough to fool experts, then it’s good enough to give the rest of us pleasure, even insight.”

And:

“In some ways, they (forgeries) are by him (the famous artist), in the profound sense that they almost perfectly capture his unique contribution to art. If they didn’t, no one would imagine he’d made them.”

And isn’t the only difference between a forgery and the standard practice of earlier times that one was authorized by the master and the other wasn’t?

“Many wonderful works of art by figures such as Titian, Rembrandt and Rubens were executed partly or even mostly by their studio assistants, which doesn’t make them any less expressive of Titian or Rembrandt’s innovations.”

Then Gopnik uses the art-should-be-for-all argument:

“Our current market, geared toward the ultra-wealthy, is helping few and hurting many…It’s also hurting all the art lovers, current and future, who deserve work that’s conceived to address artistic issues, not to sell well to robber barons.”

Forgeries also prick the snob bubble:

“Every time an expert is fooled by a fake, the faker has once again taught us that connoisseurship is not to be trusted.”

So why does “original” art command such ridiculous prices? Seth Godin feels it has to do with the concept of luxury goods:

“When a good like this (and it might be a service as well) comes to market, it sometimes transcends the value equation and enters a new realm, one of scarcity and social proof. The value, ironically, comes from its lack of value.”

You’d think the Internet would tame the luxury goods beast, at least to some extent. Godin certainly thinks so:

“Because the net makes pricing transparent, which inevitably makes some people feel stupid for paying full price (and stupidity doesn't work with the other pillars of luxury).”

What about digital works of art? They should have zero value, because “digital art is shared, liked, retweeted and embedded free-of-charge all over the web”, right? Wrong! Phillips, a prestigious art auction house, combined with Tumblr  to auction digital works of art. The pieces went between $800 to $16,000 each!

Just goes to show that the Internet doesn’t just destroy old systems: sometimes, it transforms them.