|
New York Times objavio je seriju od sedam zanimljivih članaka Erola Morisa pod naslovom "Bamboozling Ourselves", posvećenih holandskom falsifikatoru Hanu van Megerenu. On je autor nekoliko falsifikata, među njima i slike Večera u Emausu koja je pred izbijanje Drugog svetskog rata smatrana originalnim Vermerovim delom, zapravo jednim od njegovih najboljih radova. Nakon kapitulacije Trećeg rajha, Van Megeren je optužen jer je prodavao slike, za koje se verovalo da su deo holandske baštine, Nemcima (među njima i Geringu). Tada on priznaje da su slike koje je prodavao zapravo bile falsifikati, ne bi li od kolaboracioniste postao neko ko je naciste prevario, gotovo heroj. Kako bi dokazao da je autor spornih slika, naloženo mu je da uradi još jedan falsifikat, zapravo sliku koja bi dokazala njegovo umeće.
Van Megeren nije kopirao već poznata Vermerova dela, on je naslikao čitavu seriju slika, (i to religiozne tematike) koju je stručnoj javnosti uspeo da predstavi kao originalna Vermerova dela, iako nas ona, danas, ne podsećaju na Vermera. Šta više, izazivaju veoma negativne reakcije. No, dok se smatralo da je Vermer njihov autor, slavljena su kao remek dela. Postavlja se pitanje, ne samo kako je Van Megerenu pošlo za rukom da obmane eksperte, već i šta je to što jedno umetničko delo čini velikim i značajnim.
Citat:To be sure, the Van Meegeren story raises many, many questions. Among them: what makes a work of art great? Is it the signature of (or attribution to) an acknowledged master? Is it just a name? Or is it a name implying a provenance? http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/bamboozling-ourselves-part-1/
Citat:The fakes that Van Meegeren did in the 1920s, we can look at those and say, “Yeah, they look kind of like 1920s society paintings, and they’re very sweet, and they’re pleasant enough artworks.” But the ones from the late 1930s and 1940s belong to a world, to a strain of visual culture that no longer exists – that nobody wants to look at, that nobody wants to pay any attention to because it was stamped out. It was erased for very good reasons. Because it was fundamentally pernicious. http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/bamboozling-ourselves-part-3/
 
Van Megeren ispred platna Hrist u hramu i Večera u emausu Van Megerena, smatrana Vermerovim delom
Citat:These pictures were, in some ways, more seductive than real old masters, because they incorporated the taste of their own times. “The Supper at Emmaus” pushed that principle to an extreme totally unprecedented in the prior annals of forgery. It was basically — it was a contentious argument about history itself. It was an attempt by Van Meegeren to project the Nazi aesthetic into the past, to create a historical precedent for it. http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/bamboozling-ourselves-part-3/
Bamboozling Ourselves
Fotografije sa suđenja
|
