The Gentle Art of Faking: A history of the methods of producing imitations & spurious works of art from the earliest times up to the present dayNobili, Riccardo
History
The Gentle Art of Faking: A history of the methods of producing imitations & spurious works of art from the earliest times up to the present day
Nobili, Riccardo
Art -- Forgeries; Collectors and collecting; Forgery of antiquities
While France appears to have been the first country to follow Italy
in the artistic movement, about this time, as we have said, all
European nations had more or less perfected their taste and acquired
the love for art collecting. The English invasion of France is perhaps
responsible for the awakening of this passion in England. Warton
(_Hist. of Poetry_, II, 254) is of the opinion that after the battle
of Cressy (1346) the victorious army brought home such treasures that
there was not a family in England, modest though it might be, that did
not own some part of the precious booty, furniture, furs, silk stuffs,
tapestries, silver and gold works, etc., the pillage of the French
cities.
More than two centuries later, part of this artistic booty may have
come back to France. Gilles Corrozet tells us that on the Mégisserie,
the quay constructed by Francis I, where artistic sales usually took
place, “in the year one thousand five hundred and fifty, in the month
of August, there were publicly sold in the Mégisserie several images,
altar-pieces, paintings and other church ornaments, which had been
brought and saved from the churches of England.”
Imitation and faking do not seem to find suitable patrons at this time.
Collectors are cold and methodical, and a well-established commerce
in antiques, an abundance of objects offered for sale, seem to have
precluded a demand for other fakes than those of the past, and a few
clumsy imitations. The imitations of this period are hardly convincing.
Restorers of the antique were without skill, which fact plainly tells
that their patrons were not excessively particular. They were satisfied
with a Roman bust, repaired by a sculptor who does not give himself the
trouble to disguise his own art.
About the time of which we are speaking, that is to say when the merits
and demerits of the sixteenth century had delineated themselves and had
reached the summit of the curve that anticipates decline, the work of
Michelangelo, Raphael and a few others--if there were any others of
that calibre--produced their natural effect. To be a sculptor meant
to copy all the defects of Michelangelo, to indulge in over-ripe forms,
turgid muscles and exuberance in general; to be a painter did not
mean so much servility because Raphael’s influence was less extended,
but very few escaped imitating or recalling the painting of the fine
master of Urbino, more especially as the public was naturally attached
to Raphaelite traditions. This was so much the case that not only was
Giulio Romano accepted, and a legion of other painters who aimed more
or less successfully to imitate Raphael, but later the honour that
should have belonged to Raphael was given to Sogliani simply because he
had deceived the public by his craft and virtuosity, winning the name
of Raphael reincarnated. In our opinion, part of the energy that was
keenly given in olden times to the imitation of the antique was now
bestowed on “faking.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account