Since this

Tuesday, April 11th 2006

2:15 PM

is a very popular post of vanrijngo, I'll be moving it forward,.... kinda like paying it forward.

The team of artfakes is often confronted with this question, and for good reason. For a non-connoisseur it can be extremely difficult to judge for instance whether a particular painting is a fake or not. Some more than others as is the case with one of the most (if not the most) misused artist, namely Pablo Ruiz Picasso. However here are some guidelines, which you can use for yourself:

A team of this magnitude and of such supposed knowledge should be confronted with many questions,... and this is all that they have to come up with,... it baffles me to no end!  It isn't like they are dealing in and about the artist of funny papers,.. but wouldn't you agree.,  They claim to be making absolute important determination concerning the fine arts of assumed master pieces as to being authentic or not.  In their second breath they want to give you their absolute guidelines which they use and you can use for yourself.  This is the most laughable statement coming out of these supposed experts minds and mouths, that it almost brought tears to my eyes while laughing.

Start by studying some genuine works of the painter, you want to learn more about. See if you can catch a common denominator in his works. It’s like a fingerprint. Every artist has got his own fingerprints. That goes for a writer, a composer and for a painter, which is the main issue for our little chat here.

Yes,.. this is absolutely true and known facts that every individual has his or her own known idiosyncrasies what most call fingerprint of a common denominator in every aspects of everything that one wishes to do in their lives.  It boils down to that few are way better at what they do,.. and are recognized for that fact.

Take for example the famous composer Ludwig van Beethoven! Having heard his music over and over again, as I actually have for 40 years now, you are able to distinguish him from his contemporaries during the Vienna classical period: Mozart and Haydn. For a person who knows nothing or very little about classical music, he will indeed have extreme difficulty to distinguish between Mozart and Beethoven the most comparable of the three.

What an example here of using these composers too the less knowledgeable!  It would be like comparing all the rap artist to one another to distinguish voice recognition over the ways of other artist's are found to be beating on a piano keyboard.  This qualifies them to be able to distinguish who a painter over another one is?  Get F-N real!

What makes the whole issue so difficult to explain is the fact that art is not understood with your common sense but rather with your intuition, which lies in the right, holistic part of your brain, the one with which you understand a situation as a unified whole. The other part, the left part of your brain you do calculation with, you spilt things up into small elements, analyses them and put them together again.

Yes,.. I can understand their own difficulties too explain common sense when they have none, but to solely expect people to rely on their own intuitive conclusions supposedly coming from lies from the right side of their brain and systematically anal-eyeing them, it is like putting Humpty dumb-tee-he together again. 

Two dogs broke away from the trio.

You can do no such thing with art, and that’s why you must use a lifetime learning to understand it. We, artfakes, have through hard work and intensive study learned to distinguish between fake art and genuine art, we can see the artist’s fingerprints in his work, and we can also see the fakers fingerprints, because no matter how well a falsification is done, having our skills, he cannot fool an art expert except from some very rare cases.