FILE PHOTO: A documentary titled "Van Meegeren: The Forger Who Fooled the Nazis"

---

Art forgeries are generally regarded as deceitful creations, often associated with economics, ethics, and law rather than aesthetics. However, since the 20th century, the art world has witnessed several significant art forgery incidents, such as the “Van Meegeren Scandal” in the 1940s. Art forgeries not only disrupt the art market but also challenge conventional notions in aesthetics and art history, compelling scholars to confront and address the issues these forgeries raise. 

Definition of art forgery

What constitutes an “art forgery”? While answers vary among art theorists and philosophers, “deception” is typically emphasized. British scholar Ian Heywood argues that “deliberate deception” is central to art forgery. The American philosopher Nelson Goodman’s definition is perhaps the most influential: “a forgery of a work of art is an object falsely purporting to have the history of production requisite for the (or an) original of the work.”

In fact, while “deception” pertains to the creator’s intent, “false attribution” should also be taken into consideration. Many forgeries are not the product of deliberate deception by their creators, but rather mistakes made by appraisers. In this sense, Monroe Beardsley’s emphasis on “resemblance” is more to the point: “The more successful a forgery, the more closely it resembles the original work of the times or the artist it imitates.” Without resemblance, there would be neither false attribution nor deception.

However, this resemblance poses interpretive challenges to aesthetics and art theory. The modern conceptual system of art and aesthetics, centered on visual arts, has an explicit tradition of viewing. As the resemblance between forgeries and originals primarily pertains to visual and superficial likenesses, questions arise: Why are originals and their forgeries treated so differently even though they appear identical? Do they differ in aesthetic value?

Han van Meegeren turned to forgery as a means of retaliation against art critics who had dismissed his own work. While his forgeries were widely praised when they were believed to be masterpieces of Vermeer and other renowned painters, they were removed from museum walls once identified as forgeries. For art critics, acknowledging and praising van Meegeren’s exquisite forgery techniques was tantamount to negating previous criticisms of his works.

Aesthetic vs. artistic value

Two schools of thought stand out in the debate over whether originals and forgeries differ in aesthetic value. The first, known as “formalism,” adheres to the Kantian concept of “autonomy of art,” arguing that the aesthetic qualities of artwork lie solely in the perceptual features it presents, such as color, lines, and composition, independent of the creator’s intent, the forger’s deceit, or other external factors. Therefore, if a forgery is indistinguishable from the original to the naked eye, they possess equal aesthetic value. Prominent formalists include Clive Bell, Monroe Beardsley, and Arthur Koestler.

The second school, “contextualism,” advocates for understanding works of art in relation to external contexts, particularly their origins. Leading figures of this school, such as Nelson Goodman, Arthur Danto, and Meyer Schapiro, despite their differing interpretations of “context,” integrate external factors into aesthetic value, rather than adopting the formalist approach of attaching aesthetic value solely to the appearance of artworks.

Both formalists and contextualists acknowledge that art forgeries possess aesthetic value. Yet, if forgeries and originals are of equal aesthetic value, as formalists believe, why are forgeries excluded from museums? While contextualists can answer this question, their perspective conflicts with the viewing-centric tradition of modern art.

Aesthetician Tomas Kulka suggests that this theoretical dilemma results from conflating the artistic value and aesthetic value of artworks. Take Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon as an example. While many were initially disappointed with the painting, it is now hailed as a groundbreaking work. Its significance, in Kulka’s opinion, lies not in its aesthetic value but in its implications for art history—it broke with tradition and heralded a new era. Kulka therefore proposes separating aesthetic value from artistic value. While art forgeries may possess considerable aesthetic value, their artistic value is essentially zero. This distinction also explains why many individuals knowingly purchase forgeries—they are drawn to the forgery’s aesthetic appeal.

Zhang Bing is a professor from the Institute of Art at the Chinese National Academy of Arts.

Edited by WANG YOURAN