I don’t know much about art, but…

This story in The Age raises interesting questions: One of these paintings is by a 17th-century Dutch master, the other has won a $25,000 Australian landscape prize .

Be your own judge: is this a copy or what? I know that if a student handed in a paper to me that looked as much like the work of another author as this painting does of the original, I would see it as plagiarism. But then, what do I know of art?

Credit to The Age

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to “I don’t know much about art, but…

  1. Tom

    The latest news is that they’ve taken back the prize, following the public concern expressed.

  2. Well, didn’t Picasso say ‘good artists copy, great artists steal’? Whether this particular artist is good or great or merely average, I think he’s certainly cheeky for pulling this one off and embarrassing the cognoscenti who gave him the prize. Good luck to him, I say, as long as he doesn’t take himself too seriously!

  3. That’s a first: Art critics listen to public!

  4. Tom

    As distinct from that other fake “Tom” above, welcome back Schutz!

  5. Paul

    I don’t think this is such a big deal, the Wynne and expecially Archibald prizes are a sort of “World Championship of Wrestling” type of show, good for a bit of publicity to bring the punters through the door.
    It also appeals to Australians’ love (almost adoration) of sport. Even if they think the paintings are rubbish, its fun to pick a winner, place your bets and complain about the ref.

    Personally, I think the plastic arts are mostly a fraud, and an exercise in finding “meaning” after the fact when none is there. Make a copy of a painting of an Italian lake, originally done by a Dutchman. Give it an elaborately meaningless title like “Proposal for Landscaped Cosmos” and hey presto, you have a comment on our post-modern world.

    Then again what do I know about art? Nothing, and I intend to keep it that way.