艺术大师也造假，教你如何分辨真品和赝品

如果你以為艺术大师的每一件作品都是大师的亲手之作，那你就错了。有些作品确实是大师亲手制作，有些是大师和学生共同完成，有些则是复制品。下面，我们来揭开艺术作品背后不为人知的故事，教你如何分辨作品的真伪。

Fakes， Forgeries， and Mysteries—How Experts Figure Out if Artworks Are Authentic

Dave Davies （Host）： If you had the artistic talent to create impressive paintings or sculpture， could you imagine devoting that skill to copying the work of past artists and trying to pass your creations off as authentic？ Our guest， art scholar Noah Charney， says youd be surprised how many people have done just that over the years， some successfully selling hundreds of fakes as the real thing. Youd also be surprised， he says， at how many art forgers want to get caught， so they can embarrass the art world that wasnt interested in their original work but was too dim to tell forgeries from true masterpieces.

Noah Charney， I learned from your book that it was really only around the Renaissance that art collecting in the modern sense developed， and that before that， people cared about works of art more for what they were than for their origin. And one of the best stories of forgery involves the famous Michelangelo， who was not copied—he was the forger. Tell us what happened.

Noah Charney： Its an amazing true story cause most people dont realize that Michelangelo began his career before he was the Michelangelo， as a forger of ancient Roman sculptures. And that was at a time in the Renaissance when an ancient Roman sculpture was far more valuable than a work made a few weeks ago by this character， Michelangelo Buonarroti， who no one had ever heard of. And so he， in cahoots with an art dealer， contrived to make a marble sculpture called “Sleeping Eros”， and it was buried in a garden and dug up， broken， repaired and sold as an antiquity to a cardinal who was an expert in antiquities and should probably have known better. But the cardinal， after a few years， started to get suspicious and tried to return the sculpture to the dealer. But by this time， Michelangelo was the most famous sculptor in Rome， so the dealer was very happy to take the sculpture back. And he sold it very easily on as now a Michelangelo original.

Davies： So essentially， the forgery was discovered. Did it damage his reputation？

Charney： To the contrary， it actually embellished it. And Michelangelo was the first to admit this story because in order to demonstrate his capability as a great artist， artists have always copied the art of past periods. And artists studying with a master in their studio， their job would be to replicate the masters style as closely as possible so that you really couldnt tell the difference. And it only becomes a problem if you try to pass off the work you create as the work of someone else， and you could commit the crime of fraud. But even to this day， theres no crime called forgery. Forgers commit crime of economic fraud， but thats no problem to copy， or to imitate another artists style.

Davies： You know， today， there are a lot of scientific tests that can help you determine at least the age of a painting and some other relevant information. But in the past， people relied on experts—art connoisseurs—to help authenticate works of art. What kind of expertise did they bring， and how reliable was it？

Charney： One of the odd things about the art world is that there has never been any objective determination of expertise in a specific period or artist. You could have a Ph.D.， or even two， in Rembrandt and that doesnt necessarily mean that you can identify a Rembrandt from a copy after Rembrandt， or something done by someone in his studio. In the world of wine， you need to go through elaborate steps to become a master of wine over many years and fulfill these objective tests. The art world doesnt have that. So expertise has always been a matter of personal opinion， and its been quite subjective. Its very unscientific. And yet for centuries， expertise has been the primary way to authenticate something. The secondary way is provenance research—looking into the documented history of the object. But knowing this， criminals can insert themselves into the history of the object and passoff forgeries with remarkable ease because the art world， unfortunately， is often inadvertently complicit in authenticating forgeries.

Davies： What are some of the physical things， apart from the quality of the art itself， that would you look for in a painting to help determine its authenticity？

Charney： Well， it depends on the type of painting. But if were talking about an oil painting， one of the things that has to be replicated in order for it to appear old is called craquelure. And craquelure is the web of cracks that appears naturally in oil paint over time as it expands and contracts， and it literally looks like little webbing on the surface. And you can study that and you can determine whether it was artificially induced to make it look old quickly or whether it appeared naturally. And therere various tricks to try to make it appear that it was old when it was artificially induced， but thats usually a good clue for oil paintings.

Davies： How do you recreate craquelure？

Charney： Well， we actually have some accounts voluntarily presented by famous forgers for their own recipes for how to make forgeries. And a handful of the forgers in the book volunteered themselves—they were never caught because they wanted the notoriety. And one of them is Eric Hebborn—and if Im allowed to have a favorite forger， it would be him. And he published a book called The Art Forgers Handbook， which was literally—it was like a cookbook of recipes for how to create forgeries and artificially age them. And one of the techniques is to take an oil paint and cover it in a shortening， like Crisco or Bakelite， and you literally bake it in an oven at a certain temperature for a certain amount of time， and it artificially induces something that looks like craquelure. He also explained how you could paint on craquelure， which is very painstaking， but he was able to successfully pull it off.

Davies： What else—labels， inscriptions on frames， or on the material that its painted on？

Charney： Well， its very important to look at the back of objects， particularly paintings and prints. And theres a lot of information on the back that people tend not to look at， things like old auction stamps. There might be stamps by previous owners. There might be information on the support itself—where the canvas was purchased. These sort of details are very important， but people tend to look at the front of a painting but not turn it over. Theyre particularly loath to take something out of its frame if its nicely matted and framed. And this you really need to do， especially if youre buying， for instance， 20th-century lithographs. Those are the most frequently forged objects in all of art. And unfortunately， laser printers and Photoshop—you can forge these without any artistic skill， thanks to computers. And if its matted-up and framed， you cant tell a lot about it. And its very difficult to distinguish a lithograph from something that was printed out a few weeks ago， so its important to take things out of the frame and look at the back and see if there are any markings that suggest age and suggest the origin of the object.

Davies： And when a forger actually paints a work of art intended to look like that of a master， can you tell a difference in brush-strokes？

Charney： Yes， you usually can. And brush-stroke analysis is one of the tools that experts will use and that scientists can use， too， although science is rather late in coming to the analysis and authentication of works of art. It tends to be more mystical than that. The great scholar， Walter Benjamin， wrote a famous article that said， we dont understand why great art is great， but it has some sort of aura that people respond to. And the shorthand is that， if we could scientifically explain away what we found beautiful or moving about it then it would sort of detract from the mysticism of it. And in terms of authenticating things， its a lot down to personal opinion of experts. Theyll look at brush-strokes， but， you know， within any one artists oeuvre， their style might change. They mightve had a funny day. They arent always exactly the same when they paint， and so finding brush-strokes that look a bit different isnt a specific determination that its a forgery. There are lots of works that are copies after original works. There are works that were made by people in the studio of the master with the masters supervision that are almost certainly sanctioned by the master， but theyre not originals. And it wasnt long ago that at Museo del Prado in Madrid， they found a “Mona Lisa”that looked just like the original. And they wouldve said its a copy after the “Mona Lisa”， except that it had under-drawings that matched the original， which suggests that the concept of it was developed alongside the original， and it was almost certainly painted by one of Leonardos pupils alongside the original while he was painting it.

Davies： So in a case like that， where theres a studio system—the master supervises students who are copying a work， that work gets out into the art world—how different is that from a work by the master？

Charney： Its a great question because we tend to think of artists as individuals creating the work of art in their entirety， and that is not the way it has been for many centuries. Thats a very romantic notion of how art is created. And in fact， centuries-long process is the studio system， and all of the great， old masters ran art studios. And depending on how much you paid them， they would create themselves a relevant proportion of the work of art. So if you want a Rubens， for example， you pay him the maximum amount then he paints everything himself， and he designs it too. You pay him the minimum， its still called a Rubens， but he supervises and designs the object， but it might be entirely painted by his pupils. And in practice， its usually a mixture. Faces， eyes and hands are almost always done by the master cause theyre considered the more difficult， if youre talking about portraits. But backgrounds， architectural elements， still lifes， those were almost never painted by the master， and yet anything coming out of the masters studio is considered the work of Rubens. So when people get upset about artists like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst， who design works and supervise it but they have a team of people in a factory making it for them， thats actually in keeping with a centuries-old artistic tradition.

戴夫·戴維斯（主持人）：假如你拥有创作让人印象深刻的绘画或者雕塑的艺术天赋，你能想象将这种手艺致力于复制过往艺术家的作品，并试图拿你的制成品冒充真品吗？我们的嘉宾，艺术学者诺亚·查尼说，你会惊讶于多少人多年以来一直从事此项工作，有些人成功售卖了数百件赝品，以假乱真。他说，你还会惊讶于多少艺术伪造者想被揭发，这样他们就能让艺术界蒙羞，因为艺术界对他们的原创作品不感兴趣，却又太迟钝而无法分辨真正的杰作与赝品。

诺亚·查尼，我从你的书中了解到，原来确实大约在文艺复兴时期，现代概念的艺术收藏才发展起来，而在此之前，人们更关注艺术作品本身，而不是它们的来源。有关伪造的最佳故事之一，则是关于著名的米开朗基罗，他不是被模仿者——而是伪造者。我们来聊聊这事。

诺亚·查尼：这是个奇妙而真实的故事，因为大多数人都没有意识到米开朗基罗在成名之前就开始了其职业生涯：伪造古罗马的雕塑。那是在文艺复兴的某一段时期，一尊古罗马雕塑远比几周前由这位不为人知、名为米开朗基罗·邦纳罗蒂的人所创作的作品更值钱。于是他与一位艺术商人合谋，设法造出一尊大理石雕塑，名为“睡着的厄洛斯”。他们把这尊雕塑埋在花园里，接着把它挖出、修复破损，并将其作为一件古董卖给了身为古董专家的一位红衣主教——按理说他应该知道真伪——但这位红衣主教几年之后才开始怀疑，并试图将这尊雕塑退还给那位艺术商人。但那时，米开朗基罗已经成为罗马最著名的雕塑家，所以那位商人十分乐意收回这尊雕塑。他将其作为米开朗基罗的原创作品轻松转手卖掉。

戴维斯：所以从本质上说，这次伪造被发现了。他的名誉是否因此受损呢？

查尼：恰恰相反，这事反倒给他的名誉锦上添花。米开朗基罗本人第一个承认了这个故事，因为艺术家总是要模仿过去时期的艺术品，来展示他作为一名伟大艺术家的才能。当艺术家们在大师的工作室里跟随其学习时，他们的任务就是尽量逼真地模仿大师的风格，直到你不能区分两者的差异。如果你试图用自己的成品冒充其他人的作品，这才会变成问题，而且你可能会犯诈骗罪。但即使到了今天，也没有一项罪名叫做伪造。伪造者犯的是经济诈骗罪，但复制或者模仿其他艺术家的风格并没有问题。

戴维斯：你知道，现今有很多科学测试至少能够帮助你断定一幅油画的年代和其他相关信息。但在过去，人们依赖于专家——艺术鉴赏家——来帮他们鉴定艺术作品。这些专家带来的是哪方面的专业知识呢？这些知识又有多可靠呢？

查尼：艺术界的其中一件怪事是，对于某一特定时期或者艺术家的专业技能，从来没有任何客观的断定。你可以在研究伦勃朗的领域拥有一个甚至两个博士学位，但那并不意味着你就能辨别出是他本人的作品还是复制品，或是某人在他的工作室完成的作品。对于鉴赏葡萄酒，你需要经历复杂的步骤，经过很多年成为品酒大师，并完成这些客观的测试。但艺术界并非如此。所以专业技能一直都是个人看法的问题，是相当主观的，这十分不科学。然而数百年来，专业技能一直是鉴定事物的主要方式。次要的方式是起源研究——追溯这件物品记录在案的历史。但因为对此了然于心，犯罪分子就可以把自己置入到该件物品的历史中，轻而易举地将赝品鱼目混珠，因为很可惜的是，藝术界经常在鉴定赝品时不知不觉地串通一气。

戴维斯：除了艺术品本身的品质，你会在一幅绘画中寻找哪些物质因素以协助断定其真实性？

查尼：这取决于绘画的种类。就拿油画来说，为了让它显得老旧，其中一样必须要仿制的东西就是龟裂缝。龟裂缝就是油画颜料随着时间的流逝不断扩张和收缩中自然呈现的裂缝网，看起来确确实实就像表面的微细边带。你可以研究一下，就能断定它是否人为诱发而迅速显得老旧的，还是看起来很自然的。当它是人为诱发时，人们有各种各样的花招使其显得老旧，不过这对鉴定油画来说通常是很好的线索。

戴维斯：龟裂缝是如何再造的？

查尼：事实上我们有一些说法，由著名的伪造者自愿展示他们对于如何制作赝品的独门配方。有几个伪造者在书中毛遂自荐——他们从未被揭发——因为他们想要这样的恶名。其中一位是艾瑞克·贺伯恩——如果允许我推荐一位心仪的伪造者——这位就是。他出版了一本书，叫做《艺术伪造者手册》，名副其实就像一本满是食谱的烹饪书一样，介绍如何制作赝品，人为使其古老化。其中一个技巧就是拿一幅油画，用酥油盖着它，像科瑞牌或贝克莱牌的，你真的用烤箱以某个温度烘烤一段特定的时间，就可以人为地诱发出看起来像龟裂缝的效果。他还解释了如何在龟裂缝上绘画的方法，那真是煞费苦心，但他能够成功地做出来。

戴维斯：还有哪些东西（可以协助断定其真实性）——在画框或创作油画的物料上的标签、铭文？

查尼：看看物品的背后是非常重要的，特别对于绘画作品和印刷品。背后有大量信息人们一般不会看，例如旧的拍卖印记。还可能有以往主人的印章。支架本身也会有信息——如购买油画布的地方。这些细节都非常重要，但人们一般看画作的正面，却没有翻过来看。如果物品已经衬好边或者装裱好，他们特别不愿意将其从画框中取出。这件事你真的有必要做，尤其是如果你要购买，比如说，20世纪的平版印刷画。那些东西是所有艺术品中最常被仿冒的物品。很不幸，由于电脑的原因，凭着激光打印机和图像处理，你就能伪造出来，不需要任何艺术技巧。如果已经衬好边或装裱好，你很难看出端倪。要辨别一幅平版印刷画是否是数周前才打印出来的是相当困难的，所以将东西从框中取出，瞧瞧背后，看有没有一些记号显示年份和物品的起源，这是很重要的。

戴维斯：假如伪造者确实画了一幅艺术作品，存心仿冒大师作品，你能从笔触中看出区别吗？

查尼：是的，通常都可以。笔触分析是专家也是科学家会采用的其中一种手段，虽然在分析和鉴定艺术作品方面，科学发展相当迟缓。它趋向于神秘化，而非科学化。伟大的学者沃尔特·本杰明写了一篇著名的文章说，我们不明白伟大的艺术品之所以伟大的原因，但它有一种人们会去追随的光环。简单来说，如果我们能够科学地解释作品的美妙之处或者感人之处，其神秘之处就会减少。而就鉴定物品而言，大部分原因则归结为专家的个人意见。他们会看一下笔触，但你知道，任何一位艺术家的所有作品中，他们的风格会有所变化。他们可能某天过得很开心。他们画画的时候并非总是一样，所以发现笔触有些不同并不能明确断定其为赝品。有大量作品是原作的复制品。有些作品是由其他人在这位大师的工作室中在大师的监督下创作的，几乎是由这位大师许可的，但它们却不是原作。马德里的普拉多博物馆不久前发现了一幅与原作几乎一模一样的《蒙娜·丽莎》。他们会说这是《蒙娜·丽莎》的复制品，但是它有与原作吻合的底稿，说明此作品的概念是和原作一起发展开来的，几乎可以肯定这是达芬奇其中一位学生在他绘画原作时和他一起创作的。

戴维斯：所以在这种情况下，在一个工作室系统里——大师监督学生临摹作品，这幅作品流入到艺术世界——这和大师本人的作品有多大不同？

查尼：问得很好。因为我们倾向于认为艺术家作为独立的个体完整地创作艺术作品，然而很多世纪以来并不是这样的。对于艺术是如何产生的，这是一种浪漫的说法。事实上，长达几百年来，艺术作品是在工作室系统产生的，所有伟大、古老的绘画大师都经营艺术工作室。根据你支付金额的不同，他们会自己创作艺术作品的相应比例。例如，你想要一幅鲁本斯的作品，如果你支付最大金额，他会全部亲力亲为，还包括设计。如果你支付最低金额，这仍然称为鲁本斯的作品，但他监控并设计该物品，但可能全部由他的学生来画。在实践中，作品通常是采用混合的方式。比如说人像，面容、眼睛和手几乎总是由大师完成，因为这些都被认为是难度较大的。但对于背景、建筑元素、静物，大师几乎从不沾手，然而任何大师工作室的出品都被认为是鲁本斯的作品。所以当人们对诸如杰夫·昆斯和戴米恩·赫斯特等艺术家有所不满，因为他们设计并监控作品，但却有一个团队在工厂里为他们制作，那事实上他们是在保持一种有着数百年历史的艺术传统。