De gustibus...

It can be funny when people say things without actually saying them. For instance, there is the recent statement of a member of Italy's “art police” regarding the frequency of forgeries of the classics vs. of works of more recent vintage. It turns out that most of the falsifications circulating these days are of modern art “probably because the art of today is easier to falsify with fewer technicalities.” Which is a very kind way of saying “probably because the art of today is, by and large, trash, done by hacks, charlatans, and poseurs with little or no technical skill.” And if you turn to the high-end art market during these troubled times, it turns out that, yes, the classics are “in” again, and many of the more, um, exotic creations of the postwar era are in much less demand. And this, in turn, is because people who purchase high-end art are divided, basically, into two categories – those who purchase art they like, and those who purchase art they think they _ought_ to like – or (and this is key) art that they know is ridiculous but that constitutes a good investment. You see, the art world is, basically, a house of cards held together by the opinions of “critics” and museum curators who seem to have entered into a conspiracy to not only elevate that which has no lasting value on high, but to denigrate and trivialize all that went before – especially before that date upon which they were born, with all of their exquisite and sophisticated (not to say decadent) taste. So – their efforts create demand, which causes prices to rise, just as in any market. But the price system is based not only on alleged “taste” but also on investment value – in fact, one suspects, it's based more on investment value than on taste. The problem is, when times are tough (even for the rich) people tend to focus more on things that have intrinsic value – which classical art is thought to have, whereas “modern” art... well, maybe and maybe not. In other words, financial challenges tend to make people get back to basics – even in the rarefied art world. So all of a sudden, that “investment” in a work by a still-living Londoner starts to look a bit ill-advised, compared to something by a, let's say, long-dead Italian. Plus – as the art police know – the modern stuff is much more easily forged. (And, BTW, since most of Warhol's stuff was done in his “factory” by a large staff, and mass-produced in a way (since it was prints and not paintings), how does one define the “genuine” Warhol material vs. forgeries or copies? Just wondering... ) In any case, it's good to see another positive "unanticipated consequence" of the recession -- namely a revival of good taste as a factor in art acquisitions. Now if only we could throw the rascals out for good... but I guess they have to make a living somehow.