ABSTRACT

Today, standing in situ or displayed in museums, are several classical and post-classical copies of works of art. In contrast, fakes are usually locked away in museum stores. This dichotomy sparks a reflection on the authenticity attached to fakes and to copies of classical artworks. Building upon Denis Dutton’s work and drawing on a series of examples, this article contends that, although neither fakes nor copies are (the) original, copies are ‘nominally authentic’ regarding their authorship, origin, findspot, and/or provenance, whereas fakes are not. Also, copies are ‘expressively authentic’ in so far as they honestly fulfil the function for which they were created, are situated in the context of the original, or somehow speak of continuity with artistic and art historical traditions. On the contrary, once spotted, fakes lose their purpose and their intended audience, proving expressively inauthentic. Therefore, what fakes and copies have in common is their non-originality, explored here as both creativity and exemplarity or fecundity, that is, the capacity to originate an artistic or figurative tradition. The article concludes by asking what we are to do with fakes and contends that, as historical documents, they warrant exhibition since they can contribute to unlocking the multiple narratives surrounding originals.

摘要

今天，站在原地或在博物馆展出的，是几件古典和后古典艺术作品的复制品。相比之下，赝品通常被锁在博物馆商店里。这种二分法引发了对假货和古典艺术品复制品的真实性的反思。本文以 Denis Dutton 的工作为基础并借鉴了一系列示例，认为尽管赝品和复制品都不是（该）原件，但就其作者身份、来源、发现地点和/或出处而言，复制品“名义上是真实的”，而赝品不是。此外，复制品是“表达真实的”，因为它们诚实地履行了它们被创建的功能，位于原件的背景中，或者以某种方式讲述了与艺术和艺术历史传统的连续性。相反，一旦被发现，假货就会失去其目的和目标受众，证明是不真实的。因此，赝品和复制品的共同点是它们的非原创性，在这里探索为创造力和示范性或繁殖力，即创造艺术或形象传统的能力。文章最后询问我们如何处理赝品，并认为，作为历史文献，它们值得展示，因为它们有助于解开围绕原件的多重叙述。