Narrator: Listen to part of a lecture in an art history class.
Professor: Today we’re going to talk about evaluating works of art in a special way—we’re going to discuss art forgery. Art forgery is a special kind of crime… it’s not like, um… murder, and not even that much like robbery—that is, if it goes undetected, there isn’t really a monetary loss. And if it is detected, it often damages only reputations, not people or property. And forgery itself is not a crime—the crime is usually fraud. Furthermore, convicted forgers get off relatively lightly, usually serving only a few years in prison. This is partly because they are not viewed with the same contempt as other criminals. In fact, the general public often admires them because they fooled members of the cultural and financial elite. Almost like… like a “cultural Robin Hood.” Not only that, many find fame and fortune after their… again, short sentence… they either live off their exploits or even find an audience for their own work.
I can see that some of you are finding this an attractive proposition. Well, there’s some truth to that. Aside from the points I just mentioned, the reality of the art world is that it is very vulnerable to such schemes. To understand that, we have to discuss aesthetics and art evaluation on the business side of the art world. Art has been copied and forged since ancient times, starting with classic Greek vases in Roman days, continuing through fake religious relics in medieval times… and, yes, there’s the forgery of paintings, which I’m sure was your first thought.
But even though the value of a work of art is tied to its genuineness, the art world isn’t very good at establishing authenticity. Although, in all fairness, there are big problems. One method of determining whether a piece is authentic is through evaluating provenance—that is, the paper trail of ownership. But paper is fragile—a lot of it is destroyed by fires, wars, and other catastrophes. Sometimes it disintegrates or disappears over the course of a few hundred years. And, of course, paper itself is easier to forge than artwork. On top of that, it has been suggested that at least half the works of masters before, say, um, 1800, have been lost. We know they existed from diaries, contracts, and such like… so maybe some of them will turn up. But, of course, they will be without provenance.
OK. So, expert appraisal is another theoretical safeguard. But that has problems, too. Lately, experts in a variety of fields have been denounced or had their expertise called into question. Well, in the art world, there’s some justification for that. Until very recently—a few decades ago, really—there were no objective criteria for certifying experts in art appraisal. Scientific methods such as laser and x-ray examinations of artwork are an even more recent development. So, in some ways, expert appraisal was a confidence game. And even legitimate and honest practitioners partly based their opinion on feelings as much as on brush strokes, pigments, and so forth. But, keep in mind that many painters, notably during the Renaissance, had studios where assistants and apprentices also contributed to the master’s work. So often it was practically a guessing game.
In the 1930s, there was a famous forgery case in Berlin involving Van Gogh paintings. Not only did different experts hold different positions, but some of them changed their views diametrically back and forth during the course of the investigation and trial. Typically enough, the eventually convicted forger, a fellow named Otto Wacker… I kid you not… received a sentence of less than two years. This trial, though, was one of the first cases where scientific evidence—a chemical analysis of the pigment—was employed.
Ok, so you might think that since then, employing scientific methods has pretty much solved this uncertainty… right? Yes and no. Without a doubt, advancement and utilization of science has improved the accuracy of authentication. But there’s a problem there too. Over time, wood panels and canvases age, and the paint itself can crack. So, many verifiable masterpieces have been subjected to undocumented restorations—of varying quality—hundreds of years ago, but also hundreds of years after the originals were created. In these cases, scientific analysis of the composition, age, and origin of the materials can be confusing—even deceptive. As recently as 1993, some works purchased by the Getty Museum in Los Angeles were found to almost certainly have been forgeries, despite appropriate scrutiny. Modern art museums are powerful institutions and, thus, they vigorously protect their reputations. Consequently, the Getty on that occasion—and the Metropolitan in New York on another—stonewalled the authentication process and sued to prevent the unmasking of expensive purchases as dubious. So, to this day, the Latin cliché certainly still applies to art purchases—caveat emptor… you know, “buyer beware.”
|
What is the lecture mainly about? |
Gist-content. The lecture is about art forgery and the difficulty of authenticating artwork. |
|
| ✗ | A The immorality inherent in art forgery |
The lecture does not discuss the morality of art forgery. |
| ✗ | B Methods of creating a forged painting |
The lecture does not get into specifics on how to create a forgery. |
| ✗ | C Ways to determine the purpose of an artwork |
The lecture covers how art forgery occurs, not the purpose of the artwork. |
| ✓ | D Aspects of art authentication and forgery |
Correct. The lecture covers exactly these points. |
|
According to the professor, what is one problem with provenance? |
Detail. The professor says that provenance paperwork can be destroyed, lost, or easily forged. |
|
| ✓ | A The fragility of paper |
Correct. The professor says that provenance paperwork can be destroyed, lost, and easily forged. |
| ✗ | B The translation of ancient languages |
This idea is not mentioned in the lecture. |
| ✗ | C The costliness of evaluating the accuracy of provenance |
This idea is not mentioned in the lecture. |
| ✗ | D Reliance on feelings in evaluating provenance |
Reliance on feelings was discussed as a problem with expert opinion, not with provenance. |
|
Why does the professor talk about the 1930s Van Gogh forgery case in Berlin? |
Organization. This case exemplifies the problems with expert opinions. |
|
| ✗ | A To suggest that the conviction was unjust |
The professor’s point is that experts can be unreliable, but there is no opinion given about the conviction. |
| ✓ | B To illustrate a problem with expert authentication |
Correct. It is an example of the lack of accuracy of experts. |
| ✗ | C To lament the short prison sentence associated with the case |
The mention of the length of the sentence is merely a digression, not the main point. |
| ✗ | D To demonstrate that provenance is superior to expert opinion |
The professor does not rank these two aspects of authentication. |
|
Why does the professor mention undocumented restorations? |
Purpose. The professor says that undocumented restorations make scientific analysis less useful. |
|
| ✗ | A To claim that these restorations make forgery impossible to detect |
Undocumented restoration makes scientific analysis less useful in detecting forgery, but not useless. |
| ✗ | B To warn against the restoration of aging artwork |
This idea is not mentioned in the lecture. |
| ✓ | C To point out a problem with scientific analysis |
Correct. The professor says, “In these cases, scientific analysis of the composition, age, and origin of the materials can be confusing—even deceptive.” |
| ✗ | D To argue for verification using provenance rather than scientific analysis |
The professor does not rank different authentication methods. |
|
The professor mentions four aspects of art authentication. Indicate the order in which they are presented in the lecture: first, second, third, or fourth. |
Connecting Content. The professor discusses paper provenance, expert opinion, certification of experts, and scientific analysis, in that order. |
|
| a Scientific methods for analyzing artwork ____ |
Fourth. The professor says, “Scientific methods such as laser and x-ray examinations of artwork are an even more recent development.” This mention comes last. |
|
| b Paper provenance ____ |
First. The professor discusses provenance before any of the other aspects of art authentication. |
|
| c Expert opinion ____ |
Second. The professor discusses expert opinion before certification or the use of science. |
|
| d Objective criteria for the certification of art experts ____ |
Third. The professor says, “Until very recently—a few decades ago, really—there were no objective criteria for certifying experts in art appraisal.” Scientific methods are mentioned afterwards. |
Narrator: What does the professor imply when he says this:
Professor: Modern art museums are powerful institutions and, thus, they vigorously protect their reputations.
|
Inference. The professor says this before describing museum efforts to block such investigations. |
||
| ✗ | A Art museums use their power to collect as many masterpieces as they can. |
The use of power to collect masterpieces was not discussed. |
| ✗ | B Top art museums exert every effort to avoid exhibiting forgeries, with little regard for cost. |
If anything, the professor implies the opposite. |
| ✓ | C Art museums do not always make determining the authenticity of artwork their top priority. |
Correct. The professor says this before describing museum efforts to block such investigations. |
| ✗ | D Top art museums, such as the Getty and Metropolitan, cooperate to suppress scandals. |
This may be possible in the real world. But the professor mentions them as two separate examples and does not imply any cooperation between these two museums or any others. |