Fake Money and The Duomo

A one hundred dollar bill is worth one hundred dollars. No one would question that. It is worth one hundred dollars until the instant that someone discovers that it is a counterfeit one hundred dollar bill. At that moment it does not begin to depreciate in value, and drop say to a value of fifty dollars, but it just plummets right down to zero. Since a counterfeit bill may involve its owner in some difficulties, you might say that as a counterfeit bill it is worth considerably less than nothing.

The fall from grace of some one hundred dollar bill, however does not call into question the monetary system because all of the so-called “real” hundreds retain their status.

But if a piece of artwork is found to be fraudulent, or a forgery, does it call into question the value of all the other works by the same artist, thought or known to be authentic? Does it even necessarily render the object valueless?

If it was discovered that the dome of the Duomo was not designed and built by Brunelleschi, but, through some bookkeeping error was attributed to him, when actually it was designed and built by someone named Brunelleschky, an itinerant Russian architect, would the dome suddenly have no value in our eyes as a work of art? No, the dome would retain its grandeur and the Russian Brunelleschky would be added to the history books as a great architect; and Brunelleschi’s fame would be diminished. The dome supports Brunelleschi’s fame, and not the name the fame of the dome.

I was visiting an art dealer’s home one time, and in his collection he had a painting by De Chirico. It was a very good painting and I asked him how much it was worth. He named a figure which I thought was modest, but he explained, “Unfortunately it is unsigned. If it had a signature it would be worth a lot more.” So, in that instance, the work supported a certain value, and the dealer was not tempted to give it to "good will” just because it had no signature.

In the news there was a piece about a Pollock painting which was unsigned. The owners of this painting wanted to prove that a fingerprint in the paint was Pollack’s fingerprint, therefore authenticating the work. Here was a situation like the hundred dollar bill. If the painting could be proved to be by Pollock it was going to be worth millions. But if not, it would be worth nothing. Because unlike Brunolescki’s dome, the name supports the value of the work, and not the work, the value of the name.

In ancient Roman times, fires would sometimes burn down entire large neighboorhoods. During these fires, real estate agents would roam around the threatened houses and offer the owners small sums for the purchase of the threatened buildings. Then, if by chance the wind changed, the new owner would possess a building for a pittance. But if it was engulfed in the fire, then not too much was lost, at least by the agent.

It is interesting to wonder how people would bid on an object which was about to be analyzed, to establish if it is a fraud. If the Pollock was offered up for sale before the thumb print was analyzed, then we might expect that people would not bid in the millions, but perhaps only ten thousand.

Now, let's imagine that there is some old friend of Jackson Pollock’s who was present in his studio when that exact painting was painted. The friend knows for a fact that it is authentic but unsigned, because he engaged in a discussion about the piece, and even knows that the stretchers used in this painting were different in some way. So with certainty of the painting’s authenticity, he bids ten thousand dollars, buys the painting, and the fingerprint turns out not to be Pollock's, but someone else's.

The fact that the fingerprint is not Pollock's, does not prove in any way that he didn’t paint the work. It could still be authentic.

Some unknown work claiming to be by the hand of some master is like some person, before the age of DNA testing, claiming to be related to some wealthy person. “I am actually the bastard son of John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe.”