 |
|
- Case 3: Auxiliary Discussion Questions
- Van Meegeren’s forgeries were accepted as genuine Vermeer paintings until his confession had been proven in court. At that point, many art historians reversed their earlier judgements about the high quality of the paintings and denounced them as crude imitations. What does this say about how our aesthetic experience of a work of art is impacted by what we know about its history and creator, versus our “pure” visual experience of the work?
When van Meegeren confessed, many art historians refused to believe his confession. Even after he described his methods in detail, reproduced a painting from his jail cell, and much scientific data was advanced to support his confession, the Vermeer attribution was still supported by many until much later scientific data appeared. What implications might this story hold for current museum and private art collections?
Paul Coremans conducted scientific tests based upon van Meegeren’s confession and description of his materials and working methods. Without such a confession in hand, what might be a reasonable scientific approach to the examination of potential museum acquisitions? How might one design a standard protocol that would help avoid purchasing fakes while also maintaining reasonable analytical costs?
|
