What’s Wrong with an Art Fake? Cognitive and Emotional Variables Influenced by Authenticity Status of Artworks

Abstract

See <www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/leon/47/5> for supplemental files associated with this issue.A short time ago, the biggest German post-war art forgery scandal was revealed. Wolfgang Beltracchi placed more than 55 fakes on the market (particularly works "by" Max Pechstein and Max Ernst) and cheated art collectors out of more than 16 million Euros. The fakes passed through expert hands for many years before being detected recently [1].Examples like these show that forgeries are not necessarily of low quality, and although art fakers and their lives (e.g. Konrad Kujau or Elmyr de Hory) often elicit fascination and interest, their works never seem to be appreciated in the same way as the originals. This indicates that, besides mere physical factors such as actual craftsmanship, other factors such as symbolic value [2] are also pertinent to appreciation. In the context of artworks, for instance, the symbolic value is increased by a famous artist's name and the artist's association with the concept of "the great genius" [3].Recent approaches in aesthetics have mostly investigated stimuli-centered attributes (e.g. style vs. content dimensions 2. E.H. Creusen and J.P.L. Schoormans, "The different roles of

Art Perception in the Museum: How We Spend Time and Space in Art Exhibitions

“…In a very real sense, the museum context can provide a situation of great sociality (Tröndle et al., 2012); third, the viewing distances from paintings is very different, typically larger (Locher et al., 2001), and is, not to forget, self-chosen; fourth, the viewing duration is also self-chosen and fundamentally (much) longer than in typical lab settings (Smith & Smith, 2001) providing more possibilities and ways of elaborating on the artworks; fifth, the size and quality of paintings are mostly very different, with artworks in museums being displayed in their original size (Locher & Dolese, 2004; Locher et al., 2001) and where a more holistic view of the artwork is enabled (Carbon, 2016) which has a fundamental impact on the further processing and on the viewing behaviour and elaboration of the artworks (Locher et al., 2001); and sixth and probably not least, artworks in museums refer to (mostly or at least supposedly) originals, whereas participants in a lab inspect standardized depictions of artworks, so both settings differ in influential effect caused by authenticity (Wolz & Carbon, 2014). …”

SeIns: Semantic Instability in Art

“…Within the scope of Predictive Coding the perceiver's previous experiences are fundamental determinants: it is the previous experience that determines whether a prediction error is encountered in the first place and whether hypothesis testing leads to alternative interpretations. The state of the perceiver as well as his or her expectations are of course also greatly determined by context (e.g., semantic context [Wolz and Carbon, 2014] or physical/socio-cultural context [Brieber et al, 2014]), which might influence, for example, the selection of an arousal-avoiding or an arousal-seeking mode (see Reversal Theory; Apter, 1989). Armstrong and Detweiler-Bedell (2008) provided an elaborate account on how beauty and interest are linked to so called 'promotion goals'.…”

Is This a “Fettecke” or Just a “Greasy Corner”? About the Capability of Laypersons to Differentiate between Art and Non-Art via Object's Originality

“…more pleasantness, more interestingness) to the targeted entity ( Locher, Smith, & Smith, 2001 ). Additionally, context factors have been revealed by means of putative authenticity ( Wolz & Carbon, 2014 ) or the specific entitling of artworks ( Leder, Carbon, & Ripsas, 2006 ; Millis, 2001 ). The aforementioned shortlist of possible influences and the complex interplay between such aspects and further factors such as personality traits, expertise or interest show the meaningfulness of this topic.…”