Thinking Art III - Exercise for Assessment

I have to confess that I had never heard of Miro before and had to look him up. My first thought is that it wouldn't matter if it was original or not because it is the style which I like and I would be happy collecting any works in that particular style. But after I looked him up, Miro appears to be such an important artist that owning an original piece of his work is like owning a piece of history. So for such a historically important art work, I would say, yes, my relation with the piece would change.

However, i think the question, though interesting, is rather hypothetical. My understanding (I am obviously no expert) is that these days a lot of documentation goes into major art works, so that a fake would be very, very unusual.

Yes.
Definitely yes.
No, more! I would have joy to know there was someone just as good as Miro - and would have additional fun to muck around with art connoisseurs. And the piece would still "speak directly to me"!

But I am eager to hear what others are saying, too!

@ David, I thought that everybody would know Miro. Glad that you know now.

The fact is that there are pieces attributed to artists whose authorship is questioned, like some of the latest Dali's, just to mention an artist that you certainly know. Moreover, at present, there are painters doing legal reproductions of master painters for public sale that reach a degree of perfection that only experts (not you or me) would notice. They even made them with an aged patina. So, my question is not that hypothetical after all... is about thinking.

So, my question again, in which way would your personal relation change with regards to the piece, specifically?

@ Siegfried, you are a joker! I can see you inviting your friends to see the painting, and then taking photos of their confused faces after spreading the news! :D

Yes, I agree that if somebody is able to make a reproduction as good as the original, he/she is at least a brilliant painter, that is for sure. But, would you call him/her an Artist and why? Would you call the painting on your wall Art or just art and why?

I hope more people give their opinion, too.

@ Thanks a lot to you both for taking the time. I'm waiting for your replies. Thanks!

Well, good joking is an art, too! :)

>But, would you call him/her an Artist and why?
If God is an Artist, which could be argued no problem, would we then call Man Artists?
Would it change something if we would or would not?
Who is "we" in my former sentence?
What's the difference between a Creator and an Artist?

>Would you call the painting on your wall Art or just art and why?
Hmm, that one makes me think. I never made a difference between art and Art until now.
By the way, I strongly believe that "objectivity" is a social construct. If enough people say "Art", it IS Art!

Well, I won't discuss that God is an Artist, because I'm deeply agnostic and I don't believe in this sort of affirmations. Sorry.

Would it change something if it the painting on the wall is Art or not? Well, the world won't collapse, that's for sure. But you have decided to keep the painting, remember?, so YOU cerntainly have your OWN opinion on my question?

What's the difference between creator and Artist is the whole point of this exercise. This is called exercise of assessment. So, I would like YOUR ASSESSMENT, pleaseeeeeeeeeeee..

Yes, I agree, objectivity is a social construct. Of course,there are factors that somebody is using to auction pieces, price pieces, hung paintings in a Museum, for example. The experts decide. But I'm not asking to the experts an I'm not interested in the group of people saying that is Art and therefore taking that for granted. Mass and groups' opinions are easily manipulable. So, I want to know YOUR OPINION, on how YOU SIEGFRIED VOGEL think what I'm asking to you.

I distinguish art and Art in the same way you distinguish creator from Artist. Not every person painting is an Artist. So there is a difference that I, the Mermaid, call art and Art.

Of course, I have an opinion on these things. This matters to me. Otherwise, this entry wouldn't exist and I wouldn't be asking you. TO ME, delegating your ability to think in others... it is disheartening... it is an excuse not to think on your own. I think many people don't want to think, just because of laziness, about things, or just are shy or insecure to discuss their own views on things.

Come back after some thinking OOkee? Many thanks Sigf.

Sorry, Oniric Mermaid, if you could not recognize me thinking. :) In my counterquestions I tried to back up your case, you know!

Let me first tell you I'm agnostic too. My reference to God as a metaphor to the ultimate creator / artist is there to widen the context for this discussion a bit. Is Art a God-given property? I don't think so; it is Men that decide to call something Art.

You have to distinguish the creation of something, and the labelling as Art. Everyone can be a creator. On the other hand, even the (later) most regarded Art pieces start as creations. There are no objectivity/subjectivity problems with creations: If you can look at it, touch it, show it to someone else, everyone will agree that it is a creation.

What makes a creation Art is social interaction. If a creation means "something special" to many people, "stands out" for them, a creation may be labelled Art.

It has nothing to do with the creator: Not every creation of Kandinsky is regarded Art. Sometimes only a single piece of some creator is Art. Sometimes the creator of an Art piece is unknown even.

Moreover, the labelling of a creation as Art may change over time. What is Art today may be not tomorrow. And vice versa. Art is a social construct, and that means it needs human communication acts.

Is some creation Art because I regard it as such? Yes, but only for me! I'm the only one, if I don't find another one sharing my feelings of "specialty" with the piece.

Can a copy of something be Art? Well, it's a creation, no doubt. Wether it is Art, is not defined beforehand. It does not suffice if I regard it as Art. But if enough people do, it has become Art.

What if the original Miro in your opening example was destroyed by fire? Would then be the perfect copy Art for our society? I think yes, it may become Art.

Hope that showed you my thinkings to your question, dear Mermaid! ;)

Let's suppose that the artist is W. Kandinsky, a painter who actually is my favorite. I never knew him (nor am I related to anyone who knew him), so there really is no "bond" to the Kandinsky the person. Also, suppose I am wealthy enough to unknowing bought a fake Kandinski piece for several million dollars, only to learn later it was fake. Is is essentially your hypothesis? Then, how precisely would my personal relation change with regards to the piece, specifically? I imagine I'd have mixed feelings. On one hand, I'd lose trust in the seller and probably would not want to deal with them again. I'd also be disappointed that I "lost" a piece of art history. But these would be really minor compared to my enjoyment of the piece, since I really like his abstract style and just wish there was more of it. So, overall, I'd regard the entire transaction in a positive light but not an entirely positive one. Maybe if I knew more about art, the creative process involved, and Kandinsky in particular, my opinion would change. For example, I think it takes a special talent and dedication to develop and pursue a uniquely individual style all your own. (Presumably, Kandinsky had his critics which he had to deal with his entire life, for example.) It takes a different talent to copy someone else's already established style. Thus the fake would be much less valuable from that perspective. Also, there is a ethical dilemma which I'm not sure how to resolve. Presumably the works of Kandinsky are still copyrighted and this fake is clearly a violation of law. Therefore, possession of a fake is owning a piece of art which was created illegally. Not just illegally but possibly harming the children of Kandinsky indirectly somehow. In some sense, their intellectual property was "stolen". Should one own "stolen" property? I think not, but let us assume as part of the hypothesis of the question, the heirs are fine with the fake (say, they are compensated somehow). Then I imagine I would enjoy the piece from a conceptual perspective the same as a real Kandinsky.

GOOD MORNING! love both your points and how you have put it. I have been thinking on this, myself, for a while, too, and I'm in a sort of dilemma myself.

@ Siegfried, yes, for a second I thought you were a hyper-Christian. I don't have anything against Religion and believers, but some people say those sort of things very seriously, you know, and I don't know you enough to know if you were serious or not :S.

Yes, you are very "thinkifull" No doubt! I didn't intend to say the contrary :D

Yes, I agree that we call Art is something that has been decided sometimes much a-posteriori while in other occasions (like Picasso) this happened very soon. To this to happen it must be obvious to everybody that you are genius, but sometimes "everybody" don't see a thing. So you are right, it is up to us individuals to consider everything from our own point of view and decide. This is especially true -and that was of the premises of my example, where I wanted to get- is that we have to do so every day when we see or purchase a painting from an unknown artist. No expert will be there to say, oh well, I've seen this sort of thing gazillion times, or this is truly interesting and new. You have to do so, and you don't do so on account of the famousness of the painter/painting but on what the painting is telling you. Before continuing with your question I have to move on to say something about David's comment. Don't run! Deep reading.

@ David, thanks for putting yourself in the mood. It makes wonders :D I love Kandinsky too. I left the monetary question out of the example on purpose, just to focus on the painting itself. I agree with you in the fact that Kandinski or Miro or Picasso or Van Gogh and many other Artists -just to continue with Painting- have a especial style, a especial form of seeing the world, a way of reflecting on their social environment, the self; they went beyond the establishment, created new aesthetics, and some of them suffered immensely from being ignored or rejected. They had their own ideas and visions and they put them into practice just to be themselves. So, from that point of view the Miro/Kandisky/VangGoh/Dali on the wall is not Art, despite the fake-painter being a brilliant painter. The painter didn't reflect on anything, didn't even create a specific style, didn't break any mould, he/she just perfectly mimiqued the style developed by another person, like a skilful worker putting together the parts of a car engine designed by an engineer. Therefore,not every single brilliant painter is an Artist on that regard. This brings me to Siegfried again. Not finished replying to you yet. Keep reading.

@ Siegfried. But, said what I have said to David, I have always have had a dilema myself on this point because, as you say, many artists didn't reflect on anything, just they were themselves and different, and they became famous because somebody else thought that they were talented or whatever. The Artist started creating, he didn't decide if what they were doing was art, Art or creation; some artists would certainly be aware of that, but some others wouldn't, some of them would suffer from being ignored, but others wouldn't care less. So, as you say, the artist just created ant the rest happened afterwards. So, from this point of view, those circumstances are irrelevant when I'm looking to a painting, because if the painting is able to move me deeply, to make me reflect on things that I hadn't reflected before, or transcribes in images a special state of my soul, that must be Art too - even if the painter is not a famous one, hasn't exhibited in a museum or being auctioned. I repeat, we are faced with this when seeing the work of an artist that nobody knows, or one who is exhibited first and on whom you don't have any reference. And this brings me back to David.

By the way, I love the example of the original being destroyed by the fire, which will turn into Art something that perhaps it wasn't before. Probably. I'm thinking of those old monuments destroyed in the WW bombings that were reconstructed accurately using detailed photos, and that now are being visited as old monuments.

@ David. If a fake piece can move us because what it provokes in me - the same should happen with a legal reproduction of the painting, say, a poster. No? So, why should anybody want to buy an original if your soul can be fed just by watching a reproduction? Of course the textures of a painting are not the textures of a poster, but people who buy paintings don't touch them continuously, actually they frame them and put the right lights not to damage the painting. So, why would I need to have an original, if the image can move me the same on a copy on paper or a legal downloaded file in my computer? Would this legal copy of the original Art?

Re the copyrights problem you mention, I have a mix of feelings. Of course if a painting belonged to the artist's family and was stolen from their house, yes, it would worry me. But a fake.. If the artist was alive, yes, it would matter a lot to me, but if he was dead, not so much. Don't take me wrong, I don't want to steal anything from anybody. But, to me, if you are the artist producing and earning your living from painting is one thing, but if you are the son/nephew/gran-granddaughter of the artist, a parasite who lives on the royalties of the painter's work just by using "the name" without producing anything... then, I wouldn't care less.

@ To Siegfried and David, thanks for taking the time. I find these exercises very useful, since I try to reply to my own questions, too! I wanted to ask you something else, related to assessment, but I need to have breakfast and I want you to reply. I will come back later. Many thanks.

The question now seems to come down to: copy vs original? Well, the copy would be much cheaper, and so probably the only choice for a lot of people. I own nothing but copies and feel fine about them. If I bought an original it probably would be in the context of being an art collector, where originals are the "currency" and one competes with other collectors for who has the best collection. (Of course, this assumes I have a great deal more money that I can ever imagine having.) I wouldn't feel differently about the art asthetically, but from the business and collectors perspective, it would be much different.

Yes,of course collectors are business oriented people who might or might not enjoy the piece or even understand anything. The Baron Thyssen built a huge fantastic collection (now a permanent private Museum in Madrid) in this way. This sort of people buy paintings as actions from a Oil multinational. I'm not interested in that, since the value of a piece, to me, is not always related to the price in the market.

Well, I feel the same about copies, and I don't buy Art. Perhaps if I had I would buy some originals just to my own daily enjoyment, like Aboriginal paintings, which I love and are not that much painter oriented, but painting oriented, so to speak. So the author is not a star, the painting is.

As I mentioned to Siegfried, what about modern Art, those artists who are not famous, who are starting, on which you don't have any reference, those you might find in their first exhibition in a local arts centre. Which criteria do YOU use to consider his/her work artistic or Art? I mean, you might consider it Art because you like the visual aesthetics, it might explore feelings/ ideas that are familiar to you, or perhaps others that are not and -because of that- make you interested, or you might like certain hues and not others, or it must be "well painted" (as my father would say), or whatever. What makes you David Joyner think and say to yourself "what a piece of Art!" of a piece that is not from a famous renowned painter on which you don't have any reference? Yes, I know I make many questions, it is just to make you spill all the beans :D

The same questions for Siegfried, OOkee? Thanks for replying.

I'd wonder if "Herbert & co." were lying to try to get the Miro back. I would definitely have the painting accesed by a third party expert if I couldn't tell that it was faked. It's a nice guesture for "Herbert &Co" To refund the money, but they can expect a long drawn out suit for misrepresentation of goods. I'd be furious. My time is worth way more than that stupid fake peice of junk. I've spent two million on fakes before, but that is because they are actually worth more than the originals. In one instance, I have a fake Miro that Miro used for reference in subsequent painting. The great Miro worked closely with forgers to replicate his work, in some cases because he didn't like his own work. Many if not the entire collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, are fakes sanctioned by Miro. "Herbert&Co" would never knowingly admit to selling me a fake let alone refund the money letting me keep the original fraud unless the painting was easy to see as a fraud.
Funny, I remeber years ago I used to carry small samples of my work around with me and this girl took a look at them and thought they were faked. She said a lot of people go around with art work that isn't their own to try to pass themselves off as something they are not. I suppose a lot of people live in a television or Hollywood movie fantasy were if they act like rock stars, people treat them like rock stars. I didn't fake the art work but my relationship to it has changed. I want a real Miro. I can tell if it's real or not. I do like some of the forgeries for different reasons. If you loved a song on the album by your favorite band and found out that it was made entirely by sessions musicians, would you return the disc?

I just put the example of Herbert of Co to led you to assess your own and left the monetary thing out on purpose.

My example leaves the buyer just with the fake piece without any expense, just disappointment. As I mentioned to David, there have been controversy with pieces of modern artists like Dali's latest pieces, but nothing "official" has been done. I mean a proper investigation carried out by experts in his paintings.

This is an exercise of assessment, Joel. The point of this whole exercise is to see the criteria that you JOEL, and SIEGFRIED, AND DAVID AND ME AND OTHER PEOPLE have when assessing 1/ what is art and what is Art? What is art and what is not? What the is not monetary value of piece or art? What are the criteria you personally use to value any piece of art? And, more importantly, when you don't have anybody telling what this or that is.

So, read the previous comments if you haven't done so already, and then tell me what makes you JOEL think and say to yourself "what a piece of Art!" of a piece that is not from a famous renowned painter on which you don't have any reference?

Re the comment on the girl on your artwork re people showing pieces aren't theirs,just look at any sharing place, especially Fliky. There are people stealing photos/images just to pump their egos and put them as theirs,or just to steal them or publish them themselves. I've read so many things that it is scary. There are people in Ipernity making photos of photos in fashion magazines and making sets without even saying so. Obviously some people don't know the photos, the models or actresses (very famous!) and vote for the image and say what a photo!

COME GUYS and I'm NOT assessing your assessments, I just want just to share them. I'm doing so too. :)

I'm confused now, I can't go back and read every comment here even my own with out losing it. But as to what art is, a copy of a Miro is still a Miro. So I'd artribute the artist with the work of art. Now if someone said it was theirs and it was just a Miro Copy then I'd say that it stinks. It's funny when some one goes into a museum and re photographs an Edward Weston and sign their name to it. I "get" the post modernist drivel about why conceptually the new work although a copy is a separate creation.
I'm probably continuing to utter opinions on entirely different subjects than you suggest I ponder. I apologize, I'm just lazy tonight, it's 3:45am here, blah,...
I have been reworking some twenty year old negatives and found one that, hopefully I can print, it is a graphitti under a now demolished viaduct in spray paint that says "Is it Art?" I liked it. But it is probably vandalism. I liked what Karl heinz Stockhousen said about planes crashing into the world trade center. He said it was a beautiful work of art. I agree on a purely visual level this is true, and I do not know whole made that image, but it's a pretty tough to eclipse 21st century icon. What is art? Painting Dead? photography suspect? I do not expect any answers, I am questioning the concept myself.

You were asking:
"What is art and what is Art? What is art and what is not? What the is not monetary value of piece or art? What are the criteria you personally use to value any piece of art? And, more importantly, when you don't have anybody telling what this or that is."

Art is one of the lesser defined words in our language, as there is no objective bundle of criteria for something to be Art. It's a fuzzy term, and I handle it so for myself too. It is like "good taste": You can't convince anybody there.

So what? Life's too short to brood about something undefined like that. I have no stable definitions for my own, dear Mermaid.

What I would like to know is yet another question: Why do people seem to love to surround themselves with the creations of others? What's the magic in that ritual? Where does it come from in the history of mankind? Isn't it strange to invest so much time and money into something completely functionless? What drives us to do so?

Maybe a theme for another assessment?

A lot to comment. Coming with time at the end of the week. Can you wait? Thanks!
Today in the news, a couple detained in Spain with hundred of pieces from pre-colombine art from Peru, Colombia and Ecuador who were trafficking with them and selling them to several legal auction galleries in France, which were selling them!!! You cannot trust the auction houses!

wow sounds good, exciting. Look forward to the weekend.

@ Sorry Joel, it cannot follow most of what you were saying. However, in your tiredness, you brought up a subject that I like a LOT. That of graffiti as Art of Vandalism. Another exercise of assessment. Here, in the news graffiti is always portrait as vandalism, no matter what sort of graffiti is. I always remember the Roman graffiti, which are considered Art, and I have a laugh. If somebody paints badly the metro carriages, some public furniture, your door, the glass of a public building it is disgusting, but if somebody leaves a great drawing on an ugly wall in the railway station, that is another thing, to me. Like the graffiti you found. I think the graffiter was actually thinking. :D Most graffiters, the real ones, are great drawers. Not only that, they capture the pulse of urban life, their generation's worries, they express feelings and thoughts, they provoke and enchant, they have an individuality. It can be art.

It would be great if those people were giving more free walls, those really boring and dull in our cities, instead of fining/stigmatising them. Some people in my neighbourhood paid some graffiters to paint an empty ugly wall that is part of a restaurant, the side one that is part of the parking. And it is really imaginative and it looks great.

I don't think painting is dead. It is just transformed. Painting has walked a long way since the origins of Humanity. Photography was born yesterday, so to speak! Digital creations 2D or 3D are new ways of expression and I love many of the things that I'm seeing on the digital world and Digital painting. There are still great painters alive, traditional ones, not that old, making interesting things and exhibiting. I think there is space for every way of expression without need of any to die. To me, photos can be art or Art, as with Painting, as architecture, as Music, as Literature. It depends.

@ Siegfried. That is another thinkyful comment, my friend! If I didn't think that Art is subjective I would not be asking you, by your name, what are your criteria, nor making these entries on thinking Art. If Art was a science I would go to the book, learn the formula, and apply it to every painting to see if it is art or not. Of course Art is subjective, since one of the essential qualities of Art is connexion with your feelings, your brain or your eyes, or with them all. And taste is very personal (although, of course, different generations and historical eras share some aesthetics, too). So, if you don't feel that connexion, it is difficult to say that such thing is Art. In fact, most people cannot differentiate the "I like this" from the "this is good".

Can you see what has happened when I asked you three to give me your PERSONAL criteria? None of you did. And I'm sure you have your criteria. Pretty sure! The fact is like you are like most people when asked this sort of question. That is so, because people delegate their thinking on Art in others - the experts, the valuators, the reviewers, the critics. The fact that there is a market of art, prices, auctions, and people selling and buying makes everything more confusing. People go the cinema after watching the review, instead of watching the movie, making their own review and them comparing with the critics'. It is the same with Art. Of course, as we have already discussed in this entry, some pieces have a historical importance that makes them above the others because of their innovation and turning point in the "craft" and a farmer could not be aware of that or not have the preparation for that. But the farmer, too has his own criteria.I'm sure!

My father has always said that Abstract painting is not art because 1/ everybody can do so (even an elephant or a donkey, which is true) 2/ It doesn't tell him anything. 3/ If the painting has a meaning he wants the artist to explicitly tell the viewer, because, otherwise, the artist might be fooling you. My father is a normal person, basic education, and has an idea of what Art must be TO HIM. Everybody has criteria, but we are all humans and we don't want to sound wrong, or be mistaken, or being accused of ignorance. So they would never say what they truly think in places like this.

Re "life's too short to brood about something undefined"... I mean... Philosophy should not exist?! :D

Going to your great question, another exercise of evaluation.This sort of questions helps to define what is art or not. I think that art -except in societies or cultures where art has a true meaning and functionality: religious, magical, tribal identification, for ex.- art is an expression 1/ that our basic needs are covered and we can think about accumulating. 2/ that we have a financial status that allows us to have things that are not necessary to survive. 3/ That we are not able to make ourselves that piece of artwork. 4/ That we are humans who need to connect with other humans, even indirectly, not personally, but with our "souls" and minds.

However the core of your question is what interest me the most. The question of the superfluousness. I think that the superfluousness of art and its lack of practical functionality is what appeals to us the most. When you have a piece of art, you have 1/ a piece that gives you social status, it tells other humans that you can afford that, that you have certain interests, that you have certain taste, that you belong to a certain social class, etc. 2/ That you have something that makes you "happy" in itself, because it speaks to you, makes you think, feel, dream ... it has meaning despite the fact that has no practical use. It has material and non-material value at the same time. In short, it can describe you and portrait you in so many ways without you having to say a word.

graffiti or art? Just because some people feel that graffiti is beneath their standards doesn't mean that it isn't a new kind of folk art. How about reframe what art is? Art is vandalism. Art vandalizes the status quo. It is always revolutionary. Painting is Dead, in 1850 photography introduced a method of rendering life that is far superior to that or painters and draftsmen. Abstract Expressionism is where painting went for a while. With out photography Painting would be stuck in a rut. Somehow the Academy would rather us stick in a rut and appreciate art as something other than vandalism. Some art work is upsetting because it is so banal. Kitch can drive me around the bend. I can not say it is not art. I call it vandalism. Visual crimes against humanity.

Hi again. Sorry not to reply earlier Joel, but I'm extremely busy.
I did not pose the question as you pose it. I mean to me there is not such an opposition. I'm thinking about Banksy, who is a graffiter and whom I consider an artist. He dares. He provokes. He has a social conscience. He is a romantic in a way. He is funny. He has an style of his own. He is not snobbish. He is not fake or has any pose. He is not in the market of Art. Visit his website and you'll see. To me Banksy is the quintessence of what Art should be, without the pose that most Artists or wannabe artists have. Obviously not every graffiter is an Artist
By the way, I consider Graffiti a form of PAINTING, and it is far from dead
Photography and layering and photographic collages are just a replication of painting
Hype-Realism in painting is like a photography
Painting and Photography, in the 21st century, are nor dead or opposed. At least in my eyes.

LOL about your definition of Kitch :D Yes, it can be a vandalic form of hypercute-tastelessness thingy most times! Visual crimes against humanity is a sentence to frame my friend!

I will come back without another entry on thinking Art soonish, in a week or two. So, start oiling the wheels or your brains :D
Thanks for your comments

Would your relation with the piece change? Oh yes
Would you keep the piece on your wall? Perhaps.
Would you like it less? Could be.

First I must confess that I do not like to write an answer. It takes me a lot of efforts to try and gather some thoughs in English. I already done this twice on your blog and deleted it twice afterwards, hope that this will stay a little bit longer.

My answers do not consider a Miro, I´ll never buy a Miro but a Monet or a Klee or a Nolde.
Since this picture would be my all time favourite, I would know its history, how and when it was made. So this can be a copy but not a fake. My relation to the piece would definitively be changed: it is not an object that the master had in its hand that I consider, my whole vantage point would be changed. Newertheless I should or should not keep it (and beg for a bargain price) the same way that I now keep a 4x5" postcard or a Matisse poster. This reproduction makes me remember the deep impression let by an original once sawn. What does it mean "I like it less". What do I like? The art piece, the objects that it represents, the souvernir of this impression once printed in my brain by the original image? What is the original, the image or the object? There is nothing like the first impression of the rising sun. There is nothing like the first impression let by the painting of the rising sun. Is it even worse to own the painting? Ok, I found what I´ll do, I´ll buy it and give it to the museum next door, fake or not.

Thanks a million Ron for your contribution. I understand what you mean, English is neither my mother tongue, and I edit my own posts at least 10 times until everything I want to say is more or less clear for the reader. I find your comment very articulate, so please don´t erase it!

I especially love your explanation on the reason why you'd keep the postcard/poster/copy of the original painting you love. I completely adhere to your view on the postcard, poster or another reproduction of any masterpiece or not, and why they can be a substitutive of the original and make us happy, too.

I also agree with you regarding the fact that the reasons why I would want to buy the original would go beyond the name. I mean, even if a were a millionaire, I would never buy Art as an investment. The painting has to speak to me, and that "language" is made of many things - the hues, the sort of stroke used, the image or story represented, the painter himself, the period when it was painted, the point of the painting, if it is a turning point in Art history or not. Many things that, obviously, change from person to person. Personally, I would keep the painting on the wall, but I would be dissapointed, not just because of the money spent or because I had been fooled by the Auction House, but because those elements that form the language that speak to me, are missing from the fake. Which is the same you say. And because, although the artist would be a great painter, he would not be a great artist, therefore not worthwhile of the effort of paying a fortune for it. This, in my personal case, doesn't mean that, I would not want to have a cheap original by some new artist, because, if speaks to me, I would also want to have it even if he wasn't Klee, which I really love too.

In some occasions, as you say I see a piece of art and is like watching the rising sun for the first time. However, some others, I need more than that to get in love with a piece, and most times I haven't even seen the original. To use an example easy to understand, like having a friend whom you don't love, until something changes or clicks in you, and you find loving him/her. This is my case with some many painters and pieces.

After reading your contribution another question comes to my mind. Since the market of art seems to be inevitable at present, would you prefer the market of Art to be restricted to galleries of Art and not to the general public? Do you think it would be worse or better for Art itself?