Mark Landis - gotta love this guy

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

One of my pet hates are Art Museums, more specifically the snobbery and arrogance of the people who 'sponsor' the Fine Art Museums.

The sort of people that can look at an empty Campbell Soup box and say "Oh just look at that it's absolutely fabulous darling"
or pay multi millions for Munch's "Scream" or Picasso's, Dali's and recently Lucien Freud. To me it's obscene.

Mark Landis for 25/30 years (in America) has been fooling the art world by donating forgeries to various Art Institutes under various guises, even dressed as a priest.  They were constantly hung on display by pseudo-Directors and admired by millions
of unsuspecting 'aficionados'  purely because it was the in thing to do in certain social circles.
He can't get done because he donated them and the onus is on the museums to verify if they are genuine, but no one questioned him. He only got caught because he was donating 2/3 of the same painting to different museums.

Got to love him, I remember there was a Londoner many years back (can't remember his name) who was doing the same thing but on a grander scale as his fakes were 'by' more prominent artists.

Mark Landis - my new hero - I think the BBC have just done a documentary on him

[YankeeJim]

Those same people will swoon over a bottle of Two Buck Chuck if you put a French label on it.


:plus one:

[Craven Mad]

What's wrong with Art galleries?? You may think it's obscene to pay millions for an unmade bed or a picture of some soup, but I'm sure many others would think it's more obscene to pay millions for a football player's contract - to each their own...

[RaySmith]

Most of the art in galleries goes back centuries, and is traditional paintings,and they are free in this country to anyone.

I think it's very important that all people have access to the Arts, and are encouraged to participate themselves, otherwise they will just become for the powerful few.

There are already Government plans in progress in this country, to have education for most people based around science and business, with education in the Arts only for the privileged few, and I think this is very sad, because a knowledge of The Arts and interest in them, is enriching for most people, as well as equipping them for careers, with insights that a narrowly focussed 'business' education does not have.

The Upper Classes know this, and that is why arts education is still widely available for their own kids.

Even chart pop musicians in this country now come from private education to an increasingly dominant percent, whereas  this was previously something open to people from all backgrounds, and like sport, was an area where a working -class person could make good. This is also true of the acting profession where are the Michael Caine's, Albert Finneys, Tom Courtneys, Terence Stamps, Julie Walters, Glenda Jacksons etc. of today?

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

What's wrong with Art galleries?? You may think it's obscene to pay millions for an unmade bed or a picture of some soup, but I'm sure many others would think it's more obscene to pay millions for a football player's contract - to each their own...

I agree that the huge amounts of money paid for players is ridiculous and so are their wages.
But someone like Messi, Ronaldo, Bale etc do entertain millions of people around the world, and so with PS football.
I also agree that everyone should have access to the arts however that is not what I'm having a dig at.
Most working class people who see a Warhol box would see it for what it is, it's the snobs who go to the fund-raising cocktail parties who I don't like.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) Art Museums, Opera and Ballet etc do not have mass appeal, football does,  and consequently it is generally the upper classes who support the arts although some things are leaning towards the working classes, an example is how The Last Night of the Proms now appeals to and is watched by huge crowds and TV audiences (I play clips from it once a year over here) from all walks of life.
A large % of people who visit Paris would go to La Louvre to see the Mona Lisa purely out of interest.
I did and stood there thinking "what's all the fuss about" ?

If anyone can justify someone paying $120 million for "Scream" to maybe put in their basement just because they can,  I'm amazed with that mentality

[Nero]

I always liked what Shaun Greenhalgh did, there was a programme i think it was on channel 4 it just showed what a bunch of pompous twits they are in the  Art world a bit of a good story and they couldnt wait to hand over the money

[Holders]

One man's fish is another man's poisson.

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

One man's fish is another man's poisson.

Non, one man's egg is another mans l'ouef   (or something like that)

[Burt]

Tracey Emin's bed... Art... Really?

[b+w geezer]

I love football, art (some of it) and the opera, so heaven knows what stereotype of yours I fit into.  The first and third don't come cheap, so no grumbles from me that museums are free. As the National Gallery etc. are major tourist attractions of London, it is more than possible that they pay off indirectly. If not, sorry.

What art dealers and billionaire buyers get up to has no relevance to people's appreciation of being able to see Rembrandts up close. That's an experience worth having and repeating. Same goes for seeing top  footballers play live. You might not be a fan of the amount they get paid and how they spend it, but that's a different matter entirely.

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

I love football, art (some of it) and the opera, so heaven knows what stereotype of yours I fit into.  The first and third don't come cheap, so no grumbles from me that museums are free. As the National Gallery etc. are major tourist attractions of London, it is more than possible that they pay off indirectly. If not, sorry.

What art dealers and billionaire buyers get up to has no relevance to people's appreciation of being able to see Rembrandts up close. That's an experience worth having and repeating. Same goes for seeing top  footballers play live. You might not be a fan of the amount they get paid and how they spend it, but that's a different matter entirely.

You've also missed my point.
Why be sorry, I didn't comment and am certainly a huge fan of the National gallery, Science Museum, Natural History Museum etc  as I am of the Smithsonian Museums in DC.
My main points are: the snobs who consider crap............................oh why bother.

Are you suggesting that the money in football is acceptable or that ludicrous BS paintings that a 4 year old could do sell for $millions.
I just tend to think that that money could be spent elsewhere such as cheaper tickets to matches and $120 million perhaps given to cancer research or the like.

Oh well

[Holders]

It's free-market snobbery in the king's new clothes. Someone with an upper-class accent proclaims that a pile of bricks or an unmade bed is art, puts a ridiculous price on it and others pretend to see value in it so as not to be thought plebs. That's a far cry from forms of art that demonstrate outstanding skill and technique.

But art isn't the only area where the free market puts obscene unmerited value on the trivial, skill-less or unproductive. Where people are prepared to pay, someone will take advantage. I wonder what future generations will make of some of some of what goes on today - Formula 1 or professional golf for example.

[b+w geezer]

Roger of Virginia, I was responding to what I took to be an association between art and vacuous snobbery, so if that wasn't your point, apologies. I confirm agreement that vacuous snobs exist, that the money now swilling around in football is off-putting and that daft prices exist in the art market. Those who peddle those prices are most likely cynical about that, but it's their living. Those who pay the money are most likely in general investing, as they would in a bar of gold. (Attributed famous name equals rarity and hence value in a market of investors such as themselves. The picture itself may even stay in a vault, never on show.)

If they gave their money to charity, that would be better, just as it would be better if I gave my season-ticket money to charity. The world is full of vanities. If you agree that public art galleries aren't one of them, then you are making an unimpeachable point.

[cmg]

I think Tom Keating is the Londoner to whom you refer, Roger.
An interesting bloke (now dead) who produced reasonably expert 'Sexton Blakes', as he called them, with subtle clues to indicate that they were fakes, in order to expose the kind of pretentious flummery that you mention. He fooled loads of 'experts' and annoyed the establishment so much that he was eventually prosecuted, although I think it was called off due to his ill-health.

Sturgeon had it right when he said that 90% of everything is crap (although I think the percentage has increased in this Age of Bullsh!t) - but that doesn't mean we should overlook the 10%.

[nose]

we stayed in Hannover for a couple of days prior to the wolfsburg game.... pause for the memories.... and whilst there took the chance to visit the museum of modern art, or whatever it is called..... 

I am no great fan of the genre but as i understand it is the thing with modern are is not that it is necesarilly beautiful but it challenges perceptions and makes you think...

It may be that it makes you look harder at the things around you, such as tracey emin's bed, or challenges other ideas about light and dark and the way we see things.

I think it a valid artistic statement when done really well and a con when not, just like classical art.

what i do think regarding landis is that it shows the aires and graces and snobbish pretentiousness of the experts should be exploded as often as possible......   

[Southcoastffc]

So, to look at and enjoy Munch, Picasso, Freud etc is ok but to buy a piece by one of them is not ok if it costs a lot of money?   Not sure I follow that line.

[Holders]

I'm reminded of that excellent play "a question of attribution".

I wonder if people who invested in Rolf Harris works (he is/was a very skilled artist) have lost or made money recently.

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

I didn't say I enjoyed them, I think I referred to them as pictures that a 4 year old could paint.

And as if one Scream was not enough, there are 4 version of it.
Those mentioned (IMO) + the likes of Van Gogh are not talented.
I've been to La Louvre and El Prado and admired some of the paintings.
Michael and Angelo, Turner, Hopper, Rembrandt etc are fantastic.

Once again, my main point is highlighted by the fact art directors and the 'elite' have been conned
Compare the 2 paintings in this article
One by Signac, the other by Mark Landis.
Should any aficionado be fooled by such an obvious fake

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31818367

PST: Anyone want to buy a "I'm a clever faker" T- shirt. Signed by M/Landis. (number 73 of 500)
The bidding starts at $27,000

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

I'm reminded of that excellent play "a question of attribution".

I wonder if people who invested in Rolf Harris works (he is/was a very skilled artist) have lost or made money recently.

His painting of "My view from Cell 27 Block B at Stafford Jail" is up for auction at  Billingsgate Fish Market (Colins Cod stall) next Tuesday

[Craven Mad]

I didn't say I enjoyed them, I think I referred to them as pictures that a 4 year old could paint.

And as if one Scream was not enough, there are 4 version of it.
Those mentioned (IMO) + the likes of Van Gogh are not talented.
I've been to La Louvre and El Prado and admired some of the paintings.
Michael and Angelo, Turner, Hopper, Rembrandt etc are fantastic.

Michael and Angelo??? Van Gogh not talented???

April fool?