Over the fifty years there has been a substantial shift in regard to how museums

respond to the exhibition of fakes and forgeries. For whilst there were just twelve
exhibitions on this topic between 1900 and 1990, there have been around thirty
exhibitions of this kind staged within the last twenty-five years alone. This rapid increase
can be seen as demonstrative of museums and galleries becoming more transparent in the
disclosure of the authenticity of their collections; a decision that can be seen as even
more substantial when one considers the high-profile institutions that have staged
exhibitions of this focus, such as the British Museums 1990 exhibition Fake: The Art of
Deception and the National Gallery in Londons 2010 exhibition titled Close Examination:
Fakes, Mistakes and Discoveries. These exhibitions demonstrate that museum institutions
are trying to be more open with the public, thus arguably making them appear more
accessible and less elitist in the mind of the typical visitor.
However, this acceptance of the presence of fakes by museums and galleries has recently
gone one step further. Museums are now commissioning forgeries to hang alongside
genuine work. Consequently, if the practise is to continue then there are many questions
that need to be addressed, such as whether or not the commissioning of fake artwork can
help or hinder museums in their task to educate and entertain its visitors and make the
most accessible venue. These issues will be explored within this essay.

Authenticity in Museum Collections

If an object is described as authentic then it means that it is genuine and of
undisputed origin and not a copy.1 However, this definition can become problematic
when applied to the visual arts since some mediums are directly related to the production
of copies, such as some forms of sculpture and printing whereby multiple copies of the
same object/image can be made from a single original source (e.g. plaster mould,
woodblock, or plate). In addition to this, the concept of originality is also problematic
when discussing authenticity in the visual arts. In Edward Banfields 1982 article Art
1

www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/authentic

Versus Collectibles: Why museums should be filled with fakes, he stated that the very
concept of originality has been stretched within the art world (for financial gain) to the
extent that, in regard to some mediums, the word original now has no definitive
meaning.2 An example that Banfield uses to demonstrate this issue is that there are
around seventy bronze sculptures that are considered to be authentic works by Edgar
Degas (1834-1917) and yet all were cast after the artists death, with only three of them
from plaster models that he made [Figure 1].3
However, despite this difficulty, many consider the role of authenticity to be very
important to the discussion of an artworks value, with some claiming that authenticity is
the most important quality in the assessment of art:

When authenticating art, experts not only accredit the aura associated to
an artwork, but also eventually decide what is of cultural significance and
what is not. Authenticity has concrete repercussions on the market, in the
form of its influence on an artworks economic value, and in law, given the
liability of experts and sellers for misattributions and the sale of forgeries.
The implications of an artworks authenticity have seen the authentication
process come to be of paramount importance.4

However, this appreciation of authenticity is demanded by the business of the art world
in which an artworks aura of originality is a commercial commodity that can contribute to
a higher selling price. In the setting of the museum, particularly in the UK where many
institutions receive government funding and many art collections are the property of the
nation, the role of authenticity is consequently very different. Within the public art
establishment, success is judged upon visitor numbers and therefore the role of physical
E.C. Banfield, Art Versus Collectibles: Why museums should be filled with fakes; Harpers,
Volume 265, Issue 1587 (August 1982), p. 31
2

Ibid.

A.L. Bandle, Fakes, Fears, and Findings - Disputes over the Authenticity of Artworks; The New
Frontiers of Cultural Law: Intangible Heritage Disputes, Volume 11, Issue 2 (March 2014), p. 1
4

and social accessibility is of chief importance. This consideration of accessibility has

dominated the discussion of museums since the nature of the institution transformed to
become open to the general public in the early nineteenth century.

The shift in emphasis from the private to the public domain is only recent
and in museums the private still dominates. The fundamental barrier to
access in museums is psychological access, where certain sectors of the
population or a number of the public feel disenfranchised, because of a
sense of alienation from the dominating societal discourse of the
museum.5

Consequently, the value of authenticity must be viewed within the context of

accessibility to the museum establishment. There is an inherent expectation that the work
exhibited within these institutions will be genuine, to the extent that these objects are
imbued with a greater sense of awe and legitimacy upon the announcement that they are
simply within the care of the museum.6 However, it has often been argued that
authenticity is not simply derived from the unique and genuine nature of the objects
themselves, but from how the objects are presented within the museum. This is discussed
within McLeans Marketing the Museum:

Traditionally, museums were based on a sense of aura premised on

authenticity of the historical artefact, which was supposedly scarse or
unique this reverential attitude towards the objects in museums merely
because they were authentic created problems for museums. The object
may be authentic but the authentic may be distorted by the mere
arrangement of the objects.

F. McLean, Marketing the Museum; Routledge (London, 1997), p. 75

Ibid., p. 83

Ibid., pp. 19-20

Whilst this opens up another realm of discussion regarding how the institution of the
museum can present the most authentic experience of the past for its visitors, McLean can
be seen to demonstrate the important role that an authentic collection plays within the
context of the successful museum.

Fakes and Education

The use of purposefully-made replicas within museums for the purpose of
education has long been accepted. Examples of these copies include replicated armour
and fake figurines from old civilisations. This use of fakery allows visitors particularly
younger audiences to physically engage with objects of the past. Through the
engagement of touch, visitors to museums can find it easier to comprehend the
information they have been presented with. Without the use of replicas, this tactile
approach to learning would not be possible due to conservation and security issues.
However, when one handles a helmet or a sword at the National Museum of Scotland
[Figure 2], for example, visitors are highly unlikely to be under the impression that the
object they hold is genuine object from history. Consequently, it can be surmised that
replicas do indeed have a place within museum exhibitions so long as there is an honest
dialogue between the visitor and the institution regarding the authenticity of the objects.
However, when one removes the element of tactile learning from the discussion
of authenticity within museum collections, the morality of museums commissioning fakes
becomes questionable. For example, for a public gallery to exhibit a commissioned fake
painting, the educational benefit of such a work becomes significantly more limited than
the educational value that could be derived from a three-dimensional and tactile object.
However, that is not to say that educational benefits cannot be found in this visual
production. Arguably the most significant educational advantage is one of increased
accessibility. This was demonstrated in a touring exhibition titled The Complete Frida
Kahlo: Her Paintings. Her Life. Her Story. The Exhibition. that travelled around the
United States of America between 2013 and 2015, that was comprised in its entirety of
4

commissioned fakes [Figure 3]. Unfortunately, the inauthentic nature of the work on
display was not made clear; as was explained in a review of the show at its first location,
the Naval Training Centre at Liberty Station in San Diego:

There is an 8.5-by-11-inch sheet of paper taped to the ticket counter and

the door of the exhibit. In two sentences it explains that the paintings are
replicas. People walked by without reading it.8

Further to this, nowhere in the initial promotional material or catalogue does it mention
that any of the paintings are replicas [Figure 4]. This lack of transparency is heightened by
the high entrance fee to the exhibition of $16.50; a price typically reserved for high-end
exhibitions and thus a further contributor to the confusion. For when one enters a museum
establishment, there is an assumption that the work on display will be genuine. Indeed, it
is this emphasis that we place on authenticity that often provides us with a great deal of
pleasure upon physically connecting with the past within these institutions. Kenneth Clark
gave the following example regarding the issue of authenticity in his 1928 text Gothic
Revival:

We might well be stirred by the sudden prospect of ruins, but once we

knew them to be artificial our pleasure would evaporate.9

By this, Clark indicates that our pleasure in engaging with objects of the past is
dependent upon the objects authenticity. Consequently, in order for museums and
galleries to be successful as venues for public entertainment and education, they must
keep the publics trust through the exhibition of genuine artwork and antiquities.
However, there are some who criticise this stance, stating that our emphasis upon

www.kpbs.org/news/2013/nov/25/frida-kahlo-exhibit-raises-questions-about-mislead/

The art of the fake: The Economist, Volume 314, Issue 7647 (24 March 1990), p. 98.

originality within visual art can be seen as fetishistic.10 This sceptical view of the
relationship between art and truth is supported by Constantine Sandis, who has also
stated that:

While we may receive a wonderous thrill via the thought of physically

connecting with the actual past and not a mere recreation of it, we must
here question both our motivation and the cost at which we are willing to
act upon it It is simply an empirical falsehood that replicas fail to excite
or inspire us. If the effect is there, we should not worry about the nature
of the cause. As one journalist has put it, if it inspires, it inspires.

11

In regard to the Frida Kahlo exhibition, the public appeared to align themselves far
closer with the opinions of Sandis than with Clark. Upon discovering that the paintings
were replicas, many visitors to the exhibition were unfazed and stated that it didnt affect
their enjoyment of the images; a stance that arguably proves Sandis point that
authenticity isnt required in order to enjoy an artefact/artwork.12 Further, authenticity
was never the chief objective of the exhibition. Instead, it was the aim of the curators to
share with the public their passion for Mexican art and culture and the work of Frida
Kahlo. To have used her genuine paintings would have been incredibly expensive to insure
and thus limited the size of the tour.
It should also be noted that the use of replicas allowed for Frida Kahlos work to be seen
in a variety of locations around the United States; many of which would never have been
able to afford the security and insurance required in order to host an exhibition of genuine
work. Consequently, the use of commissioned fakes allowed for a greater level of social
accessibility to the exhibition through the use of community-driven, non-intimidating

C. Sandis (eds. V. Harrison, G. Kemp, A. Bergqvist), An Honest Display of Fakery: Replicas and
the Role of Museums; Philosophy and Museums: Ethics, Aesthetics and Ontology, Cambridge
University Press (Cambridge, 2013), p. 1
10

11Ibid.,
12

p. 10

www.kpbs.org/news/2013/nov/25/frida-kahlo-exhibit-raises-questions-about-mislead/

venue locations (such as the Naval Training Centre in San Diego). The accessible nature of
the exhibition can also be seen as having tremendous educational value to its public, as it
likely attracted visitors who had not encountered the work of Frida Kahlo previously due
to the view of many museums and galleries as elitist. Whilst this is a view that the
Museums Association has tried to tackle describing the role of museums as a place to
help shape community identity and bring different community groups together it is a
stigma that nonetheless still exists today in modern society.13 However, it can be argued
that through the use of replicas, the exhibition was able to engage with a large audience
from diverse backgrounds, interests, and prior knowledge of the artist. Therefore, by
commissioning fakes, the curators were able to produce a successful and enjoyable
exhibition.

Fakes and Entertainment

As previously discussed in the case of the Frida Kahlo exhibition, the use of
commissioned fake paintings can allow for socially diverse audiences to engage with art in
non-elitist locations. An emphasis upon accessibility is compulsory in order for a museum
to be an entertaining environment. Consequently, the select few museums and galleries (a
number that appears to be on the rise) that are engaging with the notion of commissioning
fake artwork are searching for ways in which to exhibit work of this nature whilst engaging
with the largest possible audience and keeping the trust of the public.
For many modern art institutions, an engagement with social media appears to be an
essential component of building a strong and recurring visitor base. Thus, museums
exhibiting fakes can be seen to capitalise on this source of advertisement and social
engagement. An example of this is the Made in China: A Doug Fishbone Project at the
Dulwich Picture Gallery (10 February 26 July 2015) in which the gallery has removed one
of the paintings from their collection and replaced it with a fake that they have
commissioned for just $120 from Dafen (a village in Southern China that specialises in the
production of replicas of famous paintings from Western art). This exhibition has been met
13

http://www.museumsassociation.org/campaigns/love-museums/facts-and-figures

with a great deal of controversy amongst critics, with some labelling the show as fun and a
success, whilst others have described the exhibition as a moronic celebration of fakes.14
Much of the criticism surrounding the project revolves around the staging of the hang as
a game in which the public is challenged to guess which of the paintings is the fake;
declaring their answer through the social media platforms of Facebook and Twitter.
Through the use of these universal social platforms, the Dulwich Picture Gallery can be
seen to begin to resolve the issue that faces many museums in that:

Numerous surveys have discovered that people find museums

uncomfortable places to visit. Museums therefore need to encourage
socialising, since this creates a personal comfort zone that enables visitors
to learn.15

Without the use of a special event or exhibition such as the one in Made in China, the
social media engagement would likely not be as effective. Consequently, it is perhaps fair
that some people might view the exhibition as simply a gimmick or an uncultured publicity
stunt. To some critics though, this is a positive example of an alternative way in which to
encourage the public to look closer at its collections of Old Master art. However, to
others, the challenge presents a greater problem in that it trivialises the issue of fakes
and forgeries in the art world. As described by Jonathon Jones:

It will confuse the public, undermine the pleasure of looking at the great
paintings on its walls, and replace the joy of learning about art with a glib
postmodern game that is pretentious and destructive.16

www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-reviews/11400176/Made-in-China-A-Doug-FishboneProject-Dulwich-Picture-Gallery-review.html
www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/jan/14/dulwich-picture-gallery-fakemoronic-original-art
14

15

F. McLean, Marketing the Museum; Routledge (London, 1997), p. 83

www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/jan/14/dulwich-picture-galleryfake-moronic-original-art
16

Jones description of this project as destructive is whilst theatrical arguably not

altogether incorrect. By placing a fake painting alongside genuine art and challenging the
visitors to spot the imposter, the viewer can be argued to do two things. The first is that,
in their evaluation of the paintings, they reduce the value of an artwork to its visual
properties, thus disregarding the significance of the works original social/political/
historical context and provenance. The second is that when the viewer notices how
difficult it is to tell the difference between what is genuine and what is false, they then
might begin to question whether authenticity matters at all. Judging by the way in which
the fake has been hidden amongst the genuine work, it is not the intention of the
exhibition to highlight the difficulty of correct authentication that faces experts. Instead,
the nature of the exhibition and the way in which social media has been applied to stage
the project as a public challenge of spot-the-difference, Made in China appears to have
been constructed for the purpose of demonstrating that notions of authenticity are no
longer required. As previously discussed, Sandis would support this notion that the
authentic has become fetishized within the public consciousness. However, if we are to
disregard the importance of the genuine artwork, then we must also bid farewell to the
museum since the institution relies upon authenticity as their unique selling point to
attract visitors to see their collections.17

Conclusion
There are both positive and negative implications of allowing the commissioning of
fake art and artefacts by museums to become commonplace. On the one hand, the
acceptance of this practise could allow for more people to have the opportunity to engage
with artwork through the use of touring exhibitions to local venues (that otherwise would

R. Gordon, E. Hermens, F. Lennard, Authenticity and Replication The Real Thing in Art and
Conservation; Archetype Publications (London, 2014), p. 5
17

be unable to afford the hosting of an exhibition of genuine high-profile work). This

practise would also allow for a greater range of learning opportunities whereby visitors
could touch the artwork or, at the very least, get closer to the work in order to inspect the
image in greater depth. However, through the production of replicas, we must accept that
we are producing work that lacks the aura of originality. In some settings, such as
community learning centres, for example, this aura is not necessarily required in order to
create an entertaining and educational environment. However, there are many who
consider the setting of the museum and public art gallery to be dependent upon this sense
of authenticity in order to connect with its audience.
I believe that, in regard to connecting with new audiences in less established venues, the
use of commissioned fakes is highly beneficial in order to make art and objects of the past
more accessible to a greater number of people. However, the commissioning of fakes by a
well-established museum (i.e. Dulwich Picture Gallery) simply for the purpose of
generating greater social media coverage does not appear to warrant the complications
that it generates in regard to the complicity of museums towards issues of illegal forgery
and other art crime. Consequently, it should be noted that the practise of museums
commissioning fake work is certainly problematic but not without benefit. Thus, cases
must be evaluated on an individual basis in regard to whether or not such a practise is
appropriate and useful in order to bring us closer to a fully accessible museum.

10

Illustrations

Figure 1
The Little FourteenYearOld Dancer by Edgar Degas (1834-1917)
Cast in 1922 from a mixedmedia sculpture modelled ca. 187980
Bronze, partly tinted, with cotton skirt and satin hair ribbon, on a wooden
base; H. 41 1/4 in. (104.8 cm)
Accessed via: www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/29.100.370

Figure 2
Boy dressed up as a Roman soldier
2010
Photograph by National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh
Accessed via: http://blog.nms.ac.uk/2010/10/11/romans-and-gladiatorslive-on/

Figure 3
Self-Portrait with Monkey by unnamed artist from the Chinese art colony
in Song Zhuang (circa 2013)
Copy of Self-Portrait with Monkey by Frida Kahlo from 1938
Oil on canvas
Accessed via: http://thecompletefrida.com/

11

Figure 4
Billboard advertisement for The Complete Frida
Kahlo: Her Paintings. Her Life. Her Story. The
Exhibition. at the Naval Training Centre at Liberty
Station in Point Loma, San Diego (2013)
Photograph by exhibition curators, Dr. Mariella
Remund and Hans-Jrgen Gehrke

Accessed via: https://fridakahloexhibition.wordpress.com/

12

Bibliography

D. Phillips, Exhibiting Authenticity; Manchester University Press (Manchester, 1997)

T. Lenain, Art Forgery; Reaktion Books Ltd (London, 2011)
R. Gordon, E. Hermens, F. Lennard, Authenticity and Replication The Real Thing in Art
and Conservation; Archetype Publications (London, 2014)
S.J. Knell, Museums and the Future of Collecting; Ashgate (Hampshire, 2004)
S.S. Jandl, M.S. Gold, A Handbook for Academic Museums: Exhibitions and Education;
MuseumsEtc Ltd (Edinburgh, 2012)
F. McLean, Marketing the Museum; Routledge (London, 1997)
C. Lang, J. Reeve, V. Woolland, The Responsive Museum: Working with Audiences in the
Twenty-First Century; Ashgate (Hampshire, 2006)
W. Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction; CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform (2010)
C. Sandis (eds. V. Harrison, G. Kemp, A. Bergqvist), An Honest Display of Fakery: Replicas
and the Role of Museums; Philosophy and Museums: Ethics, Aesthetics and Ontology,
Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, 2013)

Articles
The art of the fake; The Economist, Volume 314, Issue 7647 (24 March 1990)
J.D. Cooney, Assorted Errors in Art Collecting; Expedition, Volume 6, Number 1 (Fall
1963)
E.C. Banfield, Art Versus Collectibles: Why museums should be filled with fakes;
Harpers, Volume 265, Issue 1587 (August 1982)
A.L. Bandle, Fakes, Fears, and Findings - Disputes over the Authenticity of Artworks; The
New Frontiers of Cultural Law: Intangible Heritage Disputes, Volume 11, Issue 2 (March
2014)

13