“My triumph as a counterfeiter was my defeat as a creative artist.”
– Han van Meergeren, artist and forger
Frozen Raindrop
Han van Meergeren was a Dutch painter who became a famous forger during the early 1900s and especially during World War II. He refined his technical painting skill so thoroughly, that he became quite wealthy by forging works of well known Dutch painters at the time. He paid attention to every minute detail, from buying authentic 17th century canvas, to mixing his own paints from the formulas of the masters, to studying their lives and catalogs of work, to further define his commitment to “authenticity.”
His life story becomes even more interesting when he gets entangled in dealing art with the Nazis.
Because he was increasingly scorned by art critics, van Meergeren set out to show he had every bit of genius as the masters he forged. His ultimate masterpiece was planned to be a forgery of a famous painter called Vermeer, but his plan ultimately backfired.
This painting ended up being sold to a Nazi banker / art dealer, which was then resold as an original Vermeer for the equivalent of $7 Million dollars. At the end of the war, the painting ended up in the hands of Allied forces who traced the work and accused van Meergeren of aiding and abetting the enemy in these art deals. Mr. van Meergeren eventually confessed that he was not dealing in stolen works of Vermeer, but he had painted it himself! He was ultimately sentenced to a light prison term for forgery and fraud, but died of a heart attack before he was able to serve it.
I came across the story of van Meergeren in a current exhibit at the Detroit Institute of Arts called “Fakes and Forgeries.” It is a fascinating look at the historical triumphs and failures in the art world to recognize fakes versus original pieces of work. They do make key distinctions in the definitions of the terms. A Forgery is created with the intent to deceive. A Fake is defined as merely a copy, or created “in the spirit of” another artist, and perhaps mistaken as an original. Of course it made me think about these terms in relation to the world of photography and our own pursuits of originality.
Leaf on Ice pattern
I am not so tuned into the fine art selling of photography where I know of examples of forgeries (I supposed the recent “discovered” Ansel Adams photographs might qualify!), but the concept of a “Fake” rattled my brain a bit. In art history, despite some of the difficulties at times in identifying originals, there usually is a “first” that embarks on a certain style or era. For photography, I think it is much harder to pinpoint. Especially today, with so many photographs being generated at every moment, the definition of originality is a bit more grey in many cases.
I keep thinking about Han van Meergeren’s quote at the top of this post. Although he was an admitted forger, he still considered himself to be every bit of an accomplished artist. He went through painstaking efforts to replicate every step of the work he was forging. They were recognized as masterpieces. But he did recognize the loss of something else in his successful mastery of copying others. His recognition that originality is built into the spirit of a work of art at its conception. That originality is something he was never able to take away from the Masters he copied and perhaps envied.
As photographers, we may never know whether something we created is truly original. I believe that two independent photographers can come up with the same idea without ever having seen each others’ work. In such cases, the same emotion and personality of each photographer could be applied independently to each piece and end up remarkably similar. Yet if we only set out to copy what already exists, we will loose the creative spirit that Han van Meergeren so profoundly recognized.
Interesting angle on the ongoing discussion of “copying.” I like the historical background and context. I had a mentor who once said about people who were teaching his methods, “They can steal my material but they can’t steal the magic.”
Love that quote David.
A fascinating and thought provoking post. I think Meergeren was an artist in his own right, an artist of exceptional skill, although not of original idea. As photographers it takes skill to capture the world around us well, but it takes an artist’s eye to see and capture things in a way that evokes thought or feeling. Your images here definitly evoke thought and feeling for me.
When I think about it, creating fakes is how I started. I wanted to mimic what I liked until I moved into a place of my own vision or that of my muse. I wonder if he ever had his own creativity. The camera offers me whole new view of the world, one that only I can see. And, yes it may be similar to others but still mine. Another good post and I love that raindrop image.
A good post. Unfortunately even the recognized catalogs of the art world have been tainted with forgeries by this point & there’s really no going back. Then again, what is “art?” Good luck answering that one. I gave up long ago!
Very interesting post and fodd for mind as some might say. I especialy like the last paragraph.
In my opinion many people attempting to create art start with creating “copies” from well known artists or at least those that they like. It seems to be natural to me as they try to copy their work process to understand all its parts and details. I did it as well in photography. The milestone here might be the point where the artist (maybe only applying, not recognized, yet) decides to try something on his/her own. Apply what (s)he has learned to her/hes ideas and visions to create something original.
Mark, a very interesting and thought provoking post. So much so I read it yesterday but wanted to mull it over before commenting on it today. Often times teachers pursue training by teaching a student the techniques of the masters. I’ve even seen examples where students are asked to replicate a work of the master in order to learn basic techniques and processes. There’s been moments in my photography journey where I’ve explored a style or technique I’ve admired from others. However, I’ve probably never gotten close enough to the style and feel of those I’ve imitated to even be considered a fake. 😉
There’s a fine line. We all build and learn from others initially before diverging into your own styles. Or as you alluded to, two separate individuals can arrive independently at nearly the same point. Originality and perhaps even creativity seems to keep coming back to that moment of conception.
Great post, Mark! I love this kind of topic, which tries to get below the surface and start to understand what makes something a work of art. As you say, it’s very hard, especially in photography, to understand when something is more derivative than not and I think most would agree with you that there is a line that, once crossed, diminishes the quality of the artwork. You rightly point out that we might not know we’re crossing that line. On occasion I’ve discovered someone else doing work similar to a project I’m working on and there is a sudden deflation of interest in it on my part. It’s a real conundrum…
Thanks Bob. Re: your last statement – it is a real conundrum isn’t it! I do wonder why the passion exits so easily – as I have experienced it. Is the desire for originality overpowering of the desire of creating the work?
What a touching and profound story. The act of creating—just like any other aspect of life—is so filled with gray areas and thin lines that are painfully easy to drift across.
The accompanying photographs are outstanding and “Frozen Raindrop” is particularly stunning. It goes on my list of favorite Graf photos.
I imagine most drift back and forth across those lines Anita. Thank you for your comments.
Re: the Frozen Raindrop – I have been waiting for the same weather conditions to occur around here to produce these for years. With each year that passes, the frozen raindrop images I have become more cherished of a very rare incident.