The Forger's Art. Forgery and the Philosophy of Art.

by Denis Dutton Review by: Gregory Currie The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 141, Special Issue: Philosophy and the Law (Oct., 1985), pp. 435-437 Published by: Wiley for The Philosophical Quarterly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2219478 . Accessed: 13/01/2014 09:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and The Philosophical Quarterly are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Philosophical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 84.88.142.134 on Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:19:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

435

thatwhile Kant and Rousseau deservea chapter How odd, one mightthink, both"instrumental" and apiece,Marx and Mill mustshareone! But their analyses, ofsocialism. is illuminatin favour The comparison "self-developmental", converge Mill's advocacyof an increasing measureof workers controlis ing throughout; discussion a sympathetic ofMarx's analysis alongside sharpened byitspresentation of property, of all men undercapitalism. labourand the alienation His answer, AreThere So Few Socialists?". In thefinal chapter Ryanasks,"Why were offthanthey classes are muchbetter is thattheworking whichI caricature, to lifeand the activities whichleisurepermits and too occupiedby family formerly wouldhavebeen a good deal overthemeansoflabour.His account strive forcontrol thegoods(and someof does notdeliver tenyearsago. If capitalism morepersuasive workersinterviewed the affluent by Goldthorpeet al may now be suffering but The complacent it is morally defunct. capitalist maybe a happy unemployment) fool. short-sighted It thisbook is throughout. and enjoyable how interesting Let me finish by saying and profit, can be recommended justabouteverybody. to, and shouldinterest University ofGlasgow
DUDLEY KNOWLES

and thePhilosophy Art. Forgery The Forger's ofArt. EDITED BY DENIS DUTTON of Los and Press,1983. Pp.x + 276. Angeles:University California (Berkeley Price?19.00.) ofartis a work that characterised is partly in aesthetics byan insistence Empiricism in a valuable whatis aesthetically that This givesrisetothethesis surface". a "sensory an while it is certainly is a function solelyof how it looks. So forgery, painting crime.To is not an aesthetic and maybe an art-historical economiccrime, crime, value. And itsaesthetic to misrepresent is notthereby a work'sorigin misrepresent thatit at Emmaus of The their critics who withdrew discovering upon Supper praise of Alfred Such is theargument are at best confused. was notbyVermeer Lessing, in in 1965,is reprinted withForgery?", whose "Whatis Wrong published originally thisvolumeof twelve essays. aretwofamous thosepreviously Sevenoftheessaysarenew,and among published of and theAnthropology Leonard Meyer's"Forgery of anti-empiricism: statements his three of Art"and Nelson Goodman's"Artand Authenticity" Languages (chapter outofproportion seemto me to havehad an influence Goodman'sarguments ofArt). worth. But since I have discussedthemin detailelsewhere to their intrinsic ("The American Authentic and the Aesthetic", 1985) I shall not Philosophical Quarterly, can be here.Meyer'sargument, stated, impressionistically though pursuethematter case againstempiricism. intoa powerful developed thatare threequestions to specify it is important BeforeI come to the argument one another: from butnotat anypoint ofin theseessays treated distinguished clearly our to revise can iteverbe reasonable to be a forgery, (1) If a workis discovered it? of aesthetic judgment value? havethe same aesthetic alikemustthey look exactly (2) If twopaintings value? the same aesthetic of it have a and Must a copy perfect (3) painting

This content downloaded from 84.88.142.134 on Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:19:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

436

BOOK REVIEWS

on the othertwoquestions, because copies need notbe (1) bears onlyindirectly are notcopies of existing and many are paintings in works; forgeries, forgeries they thestyle ofanother The answer to (1), indicated artist. is Yes: works ofart byMeyer, and technical are essentially solutions to stylistic andtheseproblems occur problems, withina given historicalcontext.The discovery of a forgery may require a historical andthusa reassessment ofthework's ofitsproblemreassessment context, are presented solvingsuccess. Versionsof this argument by Mark Sagoff("The Status of Forgeries", see especially Aesthetic p.146) and Denis Dutton "Artistic Crimes",see especially p.176). MichaelWreen("Is Madam?Nay,It Seems!") holdsthatthisargument does not is an aestheticcrimebecause it would be do enough to establishthat forgery who workedwithin the same artistic powerlessto condemnthe workof a forger and subjectto thesame technical as limitations, group, usingthe same conventions one might whosework he fakes theartist (p. 216). There aretwoanswers givetothis. - that an aesthetic One is to saythat is notalways crime is,themisattribution forgery in an incorrect inducedbytheact offorgery result assessment ofthe maynotalways a given is always tobe assessed work's aesthetic value.Or one mayarguethat painting within theoverall In that case forgery problem-solving strategy adoptedbytheartist. in an incorrect willbe misleading because itwillresult accountofwhatthatstrategy is. because twopaintings look (2) and (3) are distinct questions, might, conceivably, In thiscase I think thesamewithout one beinga copyoftheother. we havedistinct, whichmayhave different identical aesthetic value. (So the works, though visually I referthe readerto Kendall Walton's answerto (2) is No.) For an argument this Review,89, pp. 334-67). Unfortunately "Categoriesof Art" (Philosophical in thepresent workis notincludedor evenmentioned volume. important havetendedto answer (2) and (3), anti-empiricists (3) in the Failingto distinguish I takethe correct answerto be Yes: theperfect negative. copysharesthe aesthetic value of the original, thatpartof the aesthetic value determined including by the work'shistory, just as my20thcentury copyof Warand Peacesharesthe aesthetic value of Tolstoy'sMS. (That is, beingcorrectly just as much spelled,it provides of Goodman,but access to the workas Tolstoy'sMS.) Adopting the terminology his substantial we maysay thatpainting is allographic rather than thesis, rejecting itis no morepossibleto forge a particular thanitis to autographic; existing painting MS ofKing theoriginal forge KingLear. (No moreand no less: itis possibleto forge thisposition in "Originals, Lear.)JackMeilandcomesclose to adopting Copies and Aesthetic his arguments Value" (see especially as p.123). Now Meiland presents counterto the positionof Meyer,but thisis misleading because whileMeyer is reconquestion (1), Meiland is answering answering question (3). "Rationally theirpositionsare consistent (and, I believe,correct).But Meiland's structed", forhisposition are notalways on target. oftheaesthetic arguments Speaking impact of originality he says "No one cares about an original workof art thatis a[n] bad work. Itsoriginality matters whenitis very good"(p.123). [aesthetically] very only on thispoint, Now critical is notunanimous butI think we havethemakings opinion of a counterexample. Picasso's Les Demoiselles was and is regarded as a dJAvignon confused and hasty obviousinconsistencies of style. Yet it is composition, betraying in the sense of beingthe concrete outcomeof an said to be "of, primeimportance, vision"(see T. Kulka, 'The Artistic and Aesthetic Value of Art',British original 21, pp. 336-50). Journal ofAesthetics, To defenda positiveanswerto (3) requiresa different and more systematic I have triedto provide one elsewhere argument. (op.cit.,1985).

This content downloaded from 84.88.142.134 on Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:19:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

437

The volumebeginswithan accountofthat of episodein thehistory extraordinary whoputa seriesofincreasingly art,thecase ofvan Meegeren, ineptfakesof forged acrossthe Dutch artmarket Vermeer (Hope Weress, "Han van Meegerenfecit"). to constantly and referred in the analytic An The case is fascinating, literature. information not accountofithereis useful, themoreso as Wernessgivesimportant in Lord Kilbracken's Master VanMeegeren: contained Forger. is out of fashionnow. Monroe Beardsley's"Notes on Aestheticempiricism ofit,buta weakerone thanLessing's:"I rejecttheidea defends a version Forgery" in value and very different thattherecan be two indistinguishable paintings very in meaning" different (p. 229, myitalics). and theissuesraisedbyforgery, Whiletheseessaysdo notentirely clarify copying to sayon thesubject. all ofthemhavesomething visualsameness, interesting nearly to have the essaysby Lessing,Goodman and And it is certainly veryconvenient of the subjectcan afford to ignore- available Meyer- essayswhichno student The editor, Denis Dutton,has recently movedfrom Michiganto theArt together. and Literature. withhim the journalPhilosophy School in Christchurch, bringing to welcome him to the New Zealand Perhaps I may take this opportunity philosophical community.
ofOtago University GREGORYCURRIE

Moralityand the Bomb. BY DAVID FISHER. (London: Croom Helm, 1985. Pp.136. Price?15.95.) ofphilosophical studiesofthissubject, thisbook number theincreasing Amongst ofDefence; intheMinistry is a civil servant that itsauthor is distinguished bythefact ofmindsbetween academicsapplying a very welcomemeeting as such it represents on theethics ofthepolicies topublicaffairs, andpublicservants themselves reflecting in. are involved they In myviewhe has shown conciseand clearly written. Fisher'sbook is admirably work as he academic inconsidering justaboutas muchoftherelevant goodjudgment On thistopic, itis easyon theone handto hispractical moralargument. needsto for or weapons allow discussionof intentionality, doctrine, strategic games theory, sense of the as to be academicin the pejorative to become so esoteric technology whether word,or on the otherhand to fallintouncritical 'againstthe sloganizing, bothon the Fisheradmirably bomb' or 'defending keepshis eyesfixed democracy'. ofourworldin which and on theunpleasant realities moralquestions, very pressing policyoptionhas its own dangers. every in embodied theprinciples that thejustwartradition He reviews briskly, deciding and applied are interpreted it have strong moralappeal,and all themoreso ifthey of doubleeffect, or the debatable to thecontentious doctrine without appeal either absolute He thenrejectsanystrictly betweenacts and omissions. moraldistinction the consequencesof not whatever rule thatit is always wrongto killthe innocent consequentialism", doing so, and espouses insteadwhat he calls a "principled of an actionmay sometimes to whichthe resultsof non-performance according in suchbreach, it."Moralharm" willbe involved themoralruleprohibiting override be thelesserof twoevils. but thismayin thecircumstances

This content downloaded from 84.88.142.134 on Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:19:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions