Holy Smokes, you people have been posting all weekend? (ahem) whatever...
To address the question of "art authentication" (or authentification, as it's usually described), one should visit one of the many art museums to be found around the world. In places like The Louvre, The Hermitage, and the Nation Gallery in Washington many of the early European Paintings are unsigned, and are identified (and their authenticity corroborated) by various methods by experts trained in such matters: connoisseurship, pigment analysis, infra red spectography, dendro-chronology, thermo luminecence, and other good stuff. To suggest one is "skeptical" of this and citing a few charletains who got some press as proof is akin to saying one is "skeptical" of medicine and offering Dr. Kavorkian as an example. Art authentification extends to virtually all 2 and 3 dimensional artistic fields, including Modern art, Eastern art, Early art, Ethnographic art, Antiquities and much more. It has been practiced for hundreds of years, basically as long as humans have been collecting art. Still skeptical? You're certainly allowed to be as ill-informed as you wish. Generally people don't brag about it.
The author of this article says few people have seen the Salvator Mundi (both irrelevant, and wrong) and questions why the owners would want to keep the image under control, essentially impuning the work's authenticity with lots of "quotation marks". To that I would suggest reading yesterday's Sunday London Times magazine, where the cover story puts forth a completely differing view point, one borne of investigative journalism, not armchair-blog bullshitting.
I don't know about copyright and wouldn't dream of venturing an opinion. But judging how this author generally just writes whatever he thinks sounds good, he's probably wrong about that, too.
Well, being taken seriously by squirrel brains isn't a high priority.
As mentioned, there are too many errors to be bothered with. But I suspect if you worked at it, Brains, even you could find one or two. Try.Using.Your.Brains.
But here's one. Brains, art authentication exists, people practice it all over the world, and many have actually studied it in college!!! That Mike is "skeptical" of it (and you too, presumably), well, I guess one can find flat-earth advocates in every nook and cranny. I suspect it's one of many topics experts like Mike and you know a lot about.
And as as for your comments regarding "critical thought", go f**k yourself. Ditto your comments regarding my swearing, genius.
This article is so riddled with half truths and mistakes it doesn't warrant rebuttal. However, your one line "I'm still really skeptical concerning the whole art "authentication" business" does at least show what a complete f**king pea-brain you are.
A
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Alex.
(untitled comment)
To address the question of "art authentication" (or authentification, as it's usually described), one should visit one of the many art museums to be found around the world. In places like The Louvre, The Hermitage, and the Nation Gallery in Washington many of the early European Paintings are unsigned, and are identified (and their authenticity corroborated) by various methods by experts trained in such matters: connoisseurship, pigment analysis, infra red spectography, dendro-chronology, thermo luminecence, and other good stuff. To suggest one is "skeptical" of this and citing a few charletains who got some press as proof is akin to saying one is "skeptical" of medicine and offering Dr. Kavorkian as an example. Art authentification extends to virtually all 2 and 3 dimensional artistic fields, including Modern art, Eastern art, Early art, Ethnographic art, Antiquities and much more. It has been practiced for hundreds of years, basically as long as humans have been collecting art. Still skeptical? You're certainly allowed to be as ill-informed as you wish. Generally people don't brag about it.
The author of this article says few people have seen the Salvator Mundi (both irrelevant, and wrong) and questions why the owners would want to keep the image under control, essentially impuning the work's authenticity with lots of "quotation marks". To that I would suggest reading yesterday's Sunday London Times magazine, where the cover story puts forth a completely differing view point, one borne of investigative journalism, not armchair-blog bullshitting.
I don't know about copyright and wouldn't dream of venturing an opinion. But judging how this author generally just writes whatever he thinks sounds good, he's probably wrong about that, too.
cheers
Re: Re:
As mentioned, there are too many errors to be bothered with. But I suspect if you worked at it, Brains, even you could find one or two. Try.Using.Your.Brains.
But here's one. Brains, art authentication exists, people practice it all over the world, and many have actually studied it in college!!! That Mike is "skeptical" of it (and you too, presumably), well, I guess one can find flat-earth advocates in every nook and cranny. I suspect it's one of many topics experts like Mike and you know a lot about.
And as as for your comments regarding "critical thought", go f**k yourself. Ditto your comments regarding my swearing, genius.
Good bye.
(untitled comment)
This article is so riddled with half truths and mistakes it doesn't warrant rebuttal. However, your one line "I'm still really skeptical concerning the whole art "authentication" business" does at least show what a complete f**king pea-brain you are.
A
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Alex.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt