Monday, September 22, 2008

Reconsidering Connoisseurship

Superdealer and secondary-market legend, Richard Feigen, penned a passionate defense of connoisseurship for The Art Newspaper recently, mourning its "death" and calling for guidelines to help determine what's fake from what's genuine among the "factory"-produced art created by many of today's best-known contemporary artists:
So what constitutes a fake? With old masters, connoisseurs devote themselves to distinguishing the master’s hand from the assistants’, and this can be done, even with objects from the pre-humanist period, when the patronage was religious and strictly formulaic. [...]

Of course there are contemporary artists whose hands are much more present in their work. It would be easy to tell a fake Jasper Johns or Anselm Kiefer even if the artists weren’t around to nail the fakers. Nor have I ever seen a fake Max Beckmann.

But since out of Duchamp’s box have sprung legions of art-makers, some with active factories, guidelines are clearly needed to tell the fake from the genuine. If the artist is alive, his word must prevail. Unless he has gone gaga or been coerced and the decision-making delegated. Or his widow or designee been corrupted. There was even an instance, related to me first-hand, when out of pity for the impoverished Dominguez, de Chirico actually signed a Dominguez fake “de Chirico”.
As much as I appreciate his position, I was a bit disheartened that Mr. Feigen's ultimate argument for authenticity seemed to reside in how much more money one could charge for work whose author had been verified:
In January 2000, a painting attributed to the rare painter, Arcimboldo, was sold at Sotheby’s, New York, for $1.5m. It has never been accepted as by Arcimboldo himself, and it has never been resold. In December 2005, two panels attributed to Bernardo Daddi, estimated at £50,000-£70,000, were sold at Sotheby’s, London for £400,000. One of the pair has now been identified as by Orcagna, an even greater and rarer master.

In December 2006, a painting catalogued as by a Rubens follower was sold in Sweden for $2.4m, then subsequently established as an autograph Rubens and resold privately for four times that amount. In October 2007, a painting estimated at $3,000 was sold in a provincial British sale as a Rembrandt copy for $5m, then fully accepted by the Rembrandt authority and valued at four times the cost. In July 2008, a painting catalogued as by Van Dyck was sold at Christie’s, London, for £3m, but the jury is still out as to whether Van Dyck painted it; there were many who thought not. All of this falls under the canopy of connoisseurship, the “dead” discipline.
Indeed, these anecdotes serve to highlight just how subjective a science connoisseurship tends to be. Furthermore, as incidents from the life of Bernard Berenson (perhaps the most illustrious connoisseur within the past 100 years) demonstrate, even opinions a connoisseur may be willing to swear to in court can change over time.

None of which is to suggest that connoisseurship isn't important, but that the application of such an inexact science will probably always involve suspiscion and that perhaps a new line of thinking about authenticity is needed more than guidelines for establishing "examples where the artist would have approved." Especially as more and more important artists push beyond the object.

Our current project space exhibition by Shane Hope (which got a nice review on Rhizome the other day, btw) imagines a future in which an artwork's media may include materials as unverifyably authentic perhaps (it's hard to tell, most of the materials don't yet exist) as a "Non-rival routing hyper-spatial wormhole in floating sheet of veiny tissue culture" or an "airborne recreational disease." I'm on the record as saying I entirely disagree with the notion that anyone else can declare what an artist presents as his or her work is "not art" and indeed feel that such limited thinking stymies the imagination, so if we could, I'd like to move past that discussion for just this once...especially as there's simply no telling whether a "non-rival routing hyper-spatial wormhole in floating sheet of veiny tissue culture" wouldn't be the single most beautiful thing mankind ever saw...in order to ponder what connoisseurship might mean in such a future.

In addition to "distinguishing the master’s hand from the assistants’," I have always felt connoisseurship included distinguishing a major work from an important artist's minor works. Furthermore, in a larger sense, it involves distinguishing quality between works by different artists. With all that in mind, then, say the wormhole floating in a culture piece Shane imagines is unquestionably an aesthetically excellent work. Like Michaelangelo's David, only the obstinate would argue it's not beautiful. But the damn piece just won't sit still. What does determining authenticity for such a work even mean? (If you really want to give yourself a headache, consider what it might mean if the future artist were an artificial intelligence.)

I realize I'm jumping way ahead of the game here (what with the debate as to whether a readymade is art still playing itself out), but perhaps the current milieu of connoisseurship needs to jump out ahead of things as well. At this point, running to catch up as it is, it's not really serving artists (not that it ever did, but it seems to be acting as a speed bump if you ask me) and increasingly barely serving collectors. Indeed, much of the criteria for contemporary connoisseurship stems from Johann Joachim Winckelmann's tome History of Ancient Art, and as much as I'm proud of my long distant relative's contribution to the field, he did publish the thing in 1764. Perhaps its time for a bold new lunge forward in how we think about such matters.

Labels: , , ,

39 Comments:

Blogger Pretty Lady said...

I grant you that the wormhole piece is beautiful; I can see it now. But who, then, is the artist?

9/22/2008 10:18:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

But who, then, is the artist?

Wintermute, I would suspect. :-)

9/22/2008 10:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

Perhaps its time for a bold new lunge forward in how we think about such matters.

Okay - I'd like to suggest that certain works are inauthentic upon creation. Heh.

9/22/2008 10:24:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Okay - I'd like to suggest that certain works are inauthentic upon creation. Heh.

Heh.

but who gets to declare them as such and why would that person's opinion be beyond suspicion?

9/22/2008 10:31:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

Keith Tyson's new algorithm for Fractal Dice produced successful artworks. In theory there is no reason why, the same algorithm couldn't be used to produce more works that are just as successful, would they be fakes?

9/22/2008 10:31:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

Wintermute... :-)

9/22/2008 12:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

but who gets to declare them as such and why would that person's opinion be beyond suspicion?

I know how I would do it, but I'm on the record as saying that any viewer can disqualify an object from the category of art, as a natural consequence of artist's ability to qualify any object as art, and you very nicely asked not to have that discussion again...

I think you can only consider the authenticity of an object to the extent that you have an individual maker to associate it with, or failing that, and individual workshop. We regard objects as authentic, not ideas. To the extent that some creative project is based in ideas rather than objects you necessarily have something that is inauthentic, and not necessarily pejoratively so. Maybe nonauthentic would be a better way to put it - a null value for considerations of authenticity.

9/22/2008 02:38:00 PM  
Blogger William said...

I love this argument, round and round it goes. Connoisseurship still revolves around metaphysical ideas like Benjamin's 'aura'.

That's why I still love Tom Friedman's Untitled (Cursed Space), where he hired a professional witch to curse a sphere of air above a pedestal. Authenticate that. It's like trying to win a court case on the aura of an object, or its soul.

So much of how we understand art is antiquity. I'm with you Ed. I hope Jen is reading this thread!

9/22/2008 02:48:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

We regard objects as authentic, not ideas.

I'm not so sure (then again, this is more your territory than mine). But if we call something Socratic or Platonic or Descartean or Lockean or even Sartrean, we can use what we know or have studied by those thinkers to determine whether we believe the authorship of an idea to be theirs, can't we?

That's why I still love Tom Friedman's Untitled (Cursed Space),

One of my all time favorites.

I hope Jen is reading this thread!

are we all gonna have to enter the witness relocation program ???

9/22/2008 02:57:00 PM  
Blogger Pretty Lady said...

I was All At Sea until I Googled 'Wintermute'; I have never been a big Gibson fan.

But the point I was attempting to make is that if it is my imagination which is integral to the completion of a work of art, I should at least get credit for being a collaborator in its creation.

Of course, I could very well be BSing you when I say that what I see is beautiful; then we would have a classic case of naked emperor syndrome. The only way to obviate this is to divest me once again of any collaborational credit, and let my perceptions of the inner gorgeousness of this work of art be my only reward.

Thus we see that even in the most esoteric of conceptual conceits, the question of authorship is inextricably intertwined with perceived market values, tangible or intangible. In the absence of financial incentives, we still have 'coolness quotients' to debate.

9/22/2008 03:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Here is a popular quote by Damien Hirst:


"The best spot painting you can have by me is one painted by Rachel." He also describes another painting assistant who was leaving and asked for one of the paintings. Hirst told her to, "'make one of your own.' And she said, 'No, I want one of yours.' But the only difference, between one painted by her and one of mine, is the money."


This is where I totally agree with Damien. I can make my own spot painting. Keith Tyson made a big mistake: he sent his algorithms to his gallerists. Why ?? Why ?? Why not just tell the world how to make them? (Haven't seen the show)


"The only difference, is the money".


I have been interested since a while in this problematic. I think it was Sol Lewitt's original idea that he thought people could do his drawings themselves, but that might have changed fast once he reached the market.


I am suspicious of anything that gets its value from the fact that there is a signature attached to it. Each time I look at an artwork I'm thinking of what is needed in order to have it being redone. I'm not interested in forgery. I'm interested in the fact that most people in the world have seen the most popular painting in the world, that is the Mona Lisa, through magazine, book and TV reproductions. I know that we have a complete CT scan of the darn thing, and scientist are able to tell how layers were spread out on its surface. I'm interested in how we could achieve giving every humans a chance to own a perfect replica of the most popular painting in the world, and in debating how much of it would still be the original Da vinci from how much wouldn't.


Hirst once said that the notion of an artist making hiw own works by hand is "dépassé". But I think the notion of an artist selling his objects with the pretext that they have is signature will one day become "dépassé".

Cheers,

Cedric Caspesyan

9/22/2008 03:06:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

George, please rephrase your comment without the insult.

Thank you.

Ed

9/22/2008 03:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric C said...

I don't like Friedman that much because I think much of his art functions as puns about art theory, but don't bring me much elsewhere. I see their value as educational, demonstrative, like watching an apple fall from a tree.

A retro of his art would probably be fun, though, because a lot of it is humourous. But I'm not moved by it. It's too blunt, like walking on a surface.


Cedric Caspesyan

9/22/2008 03:12:00 PM  
Blogger Pretty Lady said...

And as an author with a highly idiosyncratic style, I vociferously protest the notion that conceptual content is the only deciding factor for genuine authorship. Very few of my ideas are original; it is the manner in which they are expressed which is uniquely my own. Except for those pesky Georgette Heyer, Judith Martin, Cynthia Heimel, and Moss Hart influences, of course.

9/22/2008 03:13:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

But the point I was attempting to make is that if it is my imagination which is integral to the completion of a work of art, I should at least get credit for being a collaborator in its creation.

My assumption is that the wormhole piece would exist...that it would look the same to everyone looking at it simultaneously and thereby be collectively seen as "beautiful" (or not) and no one's imagination would be taxed in anyway. Was that not clear?

9/22/2008 03:14:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

... but I'm on the record as saying that any viewer can disqualify an object from the category of art ...

Afraid not.

Art's just like music the culture decides what it likes and plays it. Tastes change over time and the music gets played less.

9/22/2008 03:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

But if we call something Socratic or Platonic or Descartean or Lockean or even Sartrean, we can use what we know or have studied by those thinkers to determine whether we believe the authorship of an idea to be theirs, can't we?

Authorship is a different problem, though, that involves use of language as well as ideas. An idea could certainly be Cartesian without sounding like Descartes penned it. We wouldn't call such a thing authentic to Descartes, but conformant to or consistent with Descartes.

Art's just like music the culture decides what it likes and plays it.

The culture is made up of individuals who qualify and disqualify art objects in various ways.

9/22/2008 03:24:00 PM  
Blogger Pretty Lady said...

Oops, it wasn't clear! Given your predisposition toward conceptual works of art, Edward, I assumed that the wormhole piece was another 'shoeshops in Amsterdam' affair. It certainly is at the moment, anyhow. Speculation is just that.

And see, Franklin's comment contained exactly the same ideas as mine did, in a completely different style. QED.

9/22/2008 03:27:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

The "the authorship of an idea" goes to the one who can make it clear.

Take Tyson's "Fractal Dice" All the works were produced from an algorithm he provided by assistants, he had no hand in them at all. It's conceptual.

The resulting works are interesting, obvious and better than a lot of other art in the galleries right now. Look ma no hands.

9/22/2008 03:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Art is in the head of the beholder. I always mention the inuit troat chants, that
explorers were perceiving as art, but that the inuits were not considering as such (at the times, at least), because for them it was a game, like a tag game but done
with voices.

All arts made by artists are art because evidently, someone thought of them as being artworks. But everything in the world can become art temporarely, if you
decide it to be. Art is a human will to perceive the world, or at least a fragment of it,
in a certain way. Then again, if the artist never finds a soul who accepts his artistic
product as art, he dies with it, and his (her) product becomes non-art for not reaching
any consensus. It can only becomes art again if a perceptual mind ready to acknowledge such a reality as art, finds the object (and accepts it as art,
or at least accepts the idea that the original maker intended it to be art).


So yes, I abid to the viewer's right to refuse something as art
(as I believe to the viewer's power in becoming an artist).
But it just doesn't make much sense to call something not art if
there is a community of at least 2000 persons calling it art.
Art was always a product of society (at least since the terminology and concept of art exist).


Cedric Caspesyan

9/22/2008 03:46:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Given your predisposition toward conceptual works of art, Edward, I assumed that the wormhole piece was another 'shoeshops in Amsterdam' affair. It certainly is at the moment, anyhow. Speculation is just that.

Come now, you misread it and are trying to cover. The idea as stated was "I'd like to move past that discussion ...to ponder what connoisseurship might mean in such a future." The piece in question would clearly be physical (a "floating sheet of veiny tissue culture" would be real and visible).

The exercise is to use speculative artwork to imagine what connoisseurship might look like.

9/22/2008 03:51:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

The big difference today about the attribution of contemporary artworks, regardless of style is the widespread use of 'documentation'. Van Dyck's 'slide sheet' was built after the fact by connoisseurs of his work. While I'm sure there will be problems in the future with artworks made in this historical era, the widespread use of documentation, both purposefully and accidentally will reduce them.

9/22/2008 04:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Fractal computer chance-art exist since the 1960's. I have a series of websites here somewhere where auto-generative computer arts are endlessly occuring. Some great artist (a woman, forgot her name) even designed a Cd-Rom where the viewer decide with his own numbers how the art will take shape. So in my opinion, Keith is not adding that much to the discussion, but I really like the idea of art that you can make following a recipe.

The Sol Lewitt Stalagmites were also conceived by following algoritms. Donald Judd also worked with limited sequences. Keith is following this line of work, but really, what is the most interesting aspect of the work: that the art is endless (haven't seen so don't know the amount of probabilities), or that the work can be made by other people?

Cedric Caspesyan

9/22/2008 04:14:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Cedric, you are making my point for me.

An algorithm is a programmatic thought process. The conceptual process is available to anyone an might be said to mimic the human thought process in a more mechanical way. An you are right that others have played with the ideas manifested in Tyson's piece, it is what I meant by obvious. When I first saw the works at his opening, I thought, sure why not, why hasn't anyone made these before?

For the thousands of people who have "had that idea" there is the one who does something with it. We judge that, not all the other stillborn similar ideas.

9/22/2008 04:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

That still doesn't answer my question, George. Is the art interesting because it is endless, or because it can be
made by the gallerists?

I don't think the problem is "stillborn ideas" more than the fact that Pace Wildenstein offers a lot of exposure.
My first encounter with self-generated art (apart from the save-screen typical fractal designs of my youth's Rave era)
I think was at Isea 95, where there was this man printing automatic art for free. I have a few of these photocopies somewhere. Each artwork was unique and computer-generated. There was a small character in the corner of the page (or in the back?) that served as a tag, saying he was the "automatic painter". Something that rendered the whole a bit cheesy, but, nevertheless: the main art was very referencing the Constructivists. Should we ignore our testimonies as art viewers because some people are probably now unknown and Keith Tyson has gained popularity with his marvellous Large-Field Array? I love Keith's art but I was disappointed by the PR because it presents Keith's art as new and original, and I think it's the fault of Keith if he's not even googling 2 minutes about the legacy of artists who have dealt with fractals and chance before him (starting with Tristan Tzara or Schoenberg). To me that is an insult to my intelligence (of the very little of what some of you may think I have). You see what I mean?

Connoissorship should not be about defining signature. It should be about debating the critical value of an artist's proposal. And knowing a little about the history of art and who did what first.

Cedric Caspesyan

9/22/2008 05:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Las Vegas Man said...

Slapper

9/22/2008 05:23:00 PM  
Blogger Pretty Lady said...

Of course I misread it! I admit it freely. I misread your statement. I wholly misinterpreted it. I made a mistake. I was wrong. Shall we move on?

The "the authorship of an idea" goes to the one who can make it clear.

What about ideas that are so ludicrously clear that they have moved to the realm of platitude and cliché, and are thus despised and ignored? Should not some credit for 'authorship' go to the person who can communicate them in such a way as to make them interesting and relevant again, and point out their wisdom so that it is used pragmatically?

9/22/2008 05:23:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Sure, why not?

Things become cliches because their truth becomes ubiquitous and they fall into disuse.

9/22/2008 05:35:00 PM  
Blogger the reader said...

Picking up on the thread of using "speculative artwork to imagine what connoisseurship might look like".

I would like to think that connoisseurship could be defined in terms of the depth of engagement that the viewer brings to the works and their broader context. This definition would mean that becoming a connoisseur would largely be determined by how much you are willing to immerse yourself in the intellectual or aesthetic space of the work.

In the case of speculative artworks this would surely involve an engagement with ideas and concepts, particularly if we think of the verb to speculate as "To engage in thought or reflection, esp. of a conjectural or theoretical nature, on or upon a subject."

So in the case of speculative artworks the connoisseur would enter the intellectual space of the work by continuing with the process of speculating. This conception hinges on the idea of the connoisseur as someone who contributes to the discourse of a given area of inquiry through the depth of their engagement with the work.

Or to put it slightly differently in the area of speculative artworks the connoisseur would become a participant in the process of thinking through some of the conceptual implications of the work.

9/22/2008 10:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

I decided the Lego was a gigantic artwork because its inventor decided from the start that whatever the alterations of pieces through times, the newest pieces should always fit with the oldest.

I can take dices and propose you a thousand configurations for Lego, but the real artist was Lego.

Cedric Caspesyan

9/22/2008 10:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

• All thought is spurious, and as such any action that follows such thought, sensibly, would have to be spurious too!
• Any art that is not spurious is inauthentic.
• Any form that slavishly follows an idea is not spurious thus inauthentic.
• Any thing that weighs more than the idea that informed it [located] is not spurious thus inauthentic.
• Any thing whose idea cannot be clearly located in 1000 words is indeed spurious, thus authentic.

There are dozens more, all part of Faith in a Time of the Spuriously Authentic

c.p.

9/23/2008 12:12:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

Cedric. @5:15

Too much thinking. I looked at the work first, before reading anything, I just looked. The works were just interesting to look at. I think one doesn't need to know anything in advance about how they were made. In the 80 or so years after the russian Constructivists, their ideas have been kicking around, mostly ignored, until now. These pieces were an idea waiting to happen, but Tyson did it.

Tyson's work challenges the assumption of the artist's hand in the realm of the object. His craftsmen are quite skilled effectively eliminating craft from the discussion. There is nothing in the fabrication of these pieces that Tyson couldn't have done himself. Just looking at the individual works, the arrangement of the forms and the applied colors, this could have easily been the result of the decisions and handiwork of the artist.

It seems like you are bringing a lot of preconceptions to Tyson's works and I think this interferes with the experience. If one is predisposed to this form of work, or open minded, then I think it's fairly clear that Tyson took a 80 old idea and revitalized it. Maybe it took a quirky conceptual approach to manifest the idea, but the results are very interesting.

9/23/2008 01:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

George, I feel like I should shut up because I always try to remind myself to never critique art until I have seen it in person. But the sample I saw made me cringe, and it's been enough disappointments this season that I've seriously considered bypassing my September visit to New York entirely (I'll
catch the Louise Bourgeois in another city). Can you believe it's Keith Tyson's fault? I love this artist. I love his mannerism, his ambitition, and the
extravagancies of his projects. I even compared Large Field-Array to a contemporary Garden Of Earthly Delights. But this? I don't know. The method rings of Ellsworth Kelly (it sounds more sequential than infinite, after all). The
mathematical value don't seem to beat a more intriguing David Rabinovitch. I mean, what? Just a bunch of dices and simplistic set values like "6 = red"?
Now I'm worried that if people like this, than Tyson will go the Damien Hirst way, and keep repeating popular tricks for over a decade. I mean, any artist could make a fantastic career out of well-carried mathematical models, but Tyson promissed more than that. There is this tendency from artists of my generation to return
to modern canons and I don't think the outcome is always imaginative.


As I said above, this doesn't tell me much that Lego didn't already told me. At least he should have
asked the public to bring in the gallery their Lego models following his instructions, that
would have been IMHO way more fun.



Cedric Caspesyan

9/23/2008 06:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Anyway, George, you're into economy, so that could explain a fascination with orderliness and logical forms.

This is a good website on algorithm art:

http://www.generatorx.no/


I once met Roman Verostko who's again someone nobody heard about but is one of the early "algorist" artist (or so he was presented to me as such).

http://www.verostko.com/algorithm.html


This is not bad:


http://www.xs4all.nl/~notnot/breed/Breed.html


Hmm...but maybe the game Spore is more fun.


Cedric Caspesyan

9/23/2008 06:33:00 AM  
Blogger Brandon Juhasz said...

I think it's interesting that photography hides a bit behind ownership as well, it's just not as obvious or thought about. You take a machine out, you envision what it should look like and, especially with contemporary equipment, push a button(I realize this is a distilled version of photography and that there is more involved with photographic genres i.e. staging, lighting, etc...). I know a lot of artists who then have a qualified lab drum scan the large format negative and have them printed. Not a whole lot going on there by the artist other than vision and idea. Oh, and not to mention the post-mortem printing of editions by Atget, Weston and others that always seem to sell for less than original early printings from the artist.

I don't know, just some thoughts...

9/23/2008 07:49:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

Cedric, I think it's fair to assume that individual viewers may not be favorably predisposed towards one particular type of work or another, they know what they like. Fair enough.

I would suggest that the use of an "algorithm" as generative method for making art is similar to using a pencil for drawing, it's generic, just a medium. What one puts in the program becomes an interactive process, evolving through trial and error. It's ultimately a bit more than "6 = red"

Consider this, what are the chances that using some 'computer algorithm' could reveal the artist's personality and therefore his world view to the viewer?

If we think the chances are this is true, then we would expect to see differences between the works of various artists using this approach, something we could discern using connoisseurship. Looking at the examples you provided makes a good case for this.

Suppose, Tyson's was broke like us, and made all the works in Fractal Dice himself say (using say, enameled MDF) If he followed his own algorithm, acting as his own "fabricator", would that change anything? Would our connoisseurship be addressing how well the parts fitted together, or the smoothness of the finish?

The fact that Tyson has his works fabricated creates a problem for connoisseurship which is restricting itself to idea of differentiating the artists hand. Tyson's work is about manifesting an idea or concept physically. His body of work is about the ideas, and the objects he had generated from them. Connoisseurship of his work will require the historians to examine his conceptual premises.

9/23/2008 08:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

George:
====I would suggest that the use ====of an "algorithm" as ====generative method for making ====art is similar to using a pencil for drawing, it's generic, ====just a medium.


You are absolutely right. I think I was just upset that the PR didn't mention a legacy of algorithm art before this, but it will pass. This is actually an opportunity for an institution to curate a show of this legacy, which hopefully would include tyson.


Cedric Caspesyan

9/23/2008 04:27:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Cedric, I understood your position.

Tyson is an interesting case, his work is very conceptually based but it's executed very professionally with a high degree of object finish.

9/23/2008 04:57:00 PM  
Blogger artmarketblog.com said...

Authentication by connoisseurship is in reality an archaic method of analysis but that doesn't mean that it isn't important and doesn't have it's place. What needs to change is the current opinion of many scholars, experts and historians that connoisseurship is the only valid form of authentication and that science doesn't have a place in the authentication of art. It is time that the prejudices and traditions of the past are let go and the role of technology and science accepted.

9/23/2008 10:15:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home