21st October 2005 at 01:00
Fakes in art can be an interesting topic for critical studies discussion.

Consider how painting pigments and methods have changed since the Renaissance and why faking these works is now so difficult. Will modern acrylic pigments and materials be as difficult to reproduce convincingly for forgers in the future? Does a fake of an old master that goes undetected have the same artistic merit as a work by the original artist? If it is then detected as a fake does it then have less merit? It would certainly be worth far less than before even though it had deceived so many - is this logical? Is there a connection between the monetary value of a work, and aesthetic merit? Which works of art would be easiest to fake, given that modern technology makes it so difficult to copy old masters without detection? Carl Andre's pile of bricks perhaps? Or some minimal art? How difficult would it be to fake a Jackson Pollock?

Log-in as an existing print or digital subscriber

Forgotten your subscriber ID?


To access this content and the full TES archive, subscribe now.

View subscriber offers


Get TES online and delivered to your door – for less than the price of a coffee

Save 33% off the cover price with this great subscription offer. Every copy delivered to your door by first-class post, plus full access to TES online and the TES app for just £1.90 per week.
Subscribers also enjoy a range of fantastic offers and benefits worth over £270:

  • Discounts off TES Institute courses
  • Access over 200,000 articles in the TES online archive
  • Free Tastecard membership worth £79.99
  • Discounts with Zipcar,, Virgin Wines and other partners
Order your low-cost subscription today