Questionable content, possibly linked

Series: Hyperreality Page 15 of 20

Examining the blending of fact & fiction in online, augmented, and hyperreal environments.

2 Dystopian MAGA Election Image Sets

I realized that I never published two pretty good sets of Midjourney images made a few months ago, both of which center around imaginary/disinformation images around the US 2024 election. I believe these were still v5 of Midjourney (back before I got banned).

The first is a collection of images where MAGA/Trump supporters have heeded Trump’s call to go out and occupy polling places ahead of the election, under the ostensible pretense of “security” but with the actual aim of intimidation, and in some of these pictures, violence (see the tear gas pics).

Here are a handful of the much larger set, which is probably around ~90 or so images, give or take.

The second set builds on the first, and more explicitly depicts another insurrectionist assault by paramilitary MAGA forces acting under the orders of Trump to violently take over key places in Washington, DC and New York City. (archived)

I actually think it is fundamentally dystopian that the technology exists which can so easily spin up photographic evidence from non-existant (yet) parallel realities. Why exactly do we want to have this capability from our technologies again? How does this lead to anything other than social and political chaos at scale?

Authentic Artifice

I.

As the world falls apart, world-building becomes an act of personal defiance – resistance, even – to all that threatens to engulf us. As consensus reality bends ever nearer to the breaking point, the creative imagination of detailed, expansive multiverses becomes a way to maintain one’s soul, sanity, and humanity amid a rising tide of chaos. It is a re-ordering, and re-orientation of inner and outer realities, and one which admits the possibility of other ways out of this mess and this ever-enclosing yet ever-expanding maze. 

At their best, alternate fictional realities – of our own or collective imagining – may even offer something of a partial antidote to evil, and a detournement of dystopia and destruction towards something else, an unseen other. A still silent something which we can then strive to actualize once we’re able to envision it with the eyes of the heart. Utopia. The city on the hill. The garden on an island. 

To dismiss world-building as mere escapist fantasy, then, is to misunderstand its twin potentialities, its invigorating and stabilizing effects on the psyche, both in times of crisis and peace. Children exercise this imaginal faculty naturally, instinctively, inventing invisible scenarios, playmates, entire paracosms to suit their own emotional needs and creative desires. So too might we engage in this type of unique world-play in the face of the ever-increasing homogenisation and totalizing effects of technology, and under the shadow of the vast empty algorithms which seek to harvest data from us as we fall, usurping our sovereignty to turn us into mere automatons made in their image.

The so-called Uncanny Valley has been with us for ages, in the eyes of the inhumane human beings who don the guise of the merchant-machine’s own thirst for efficiency, predictability, and profit – embracing it as their own, sacrificing themselves at its altar in the process. It is in the sick hearts of both the Influencer and Influenced, who chase likes and clicks in an endless anxious ouroboros, who give and withhold approval in some sick sad game to outsmart systems that have no intelligence in the first place – systems which instead devour the intelligence of all they touch, which show us the way that is not the True Way. Who beg us endlessly to like, subscribe, and follow. We have become bots to one another. Personal brands, not persons. We are all already AI.

II.

Using AI doesn’t make me an artist, but being an artist is what made me use AI. Picasso said something about painting being stronger than him, that it made him do whatever it wanted. For me, AI seems like the new painting, the new artistic force that compels… Not just painting with a brush, mind you, but painting with ideas, words, entire pictures and videos at once, songs, voices, characters. Worlds. Each a brush stroke on a larger hypercanvas, whose true form can only be viewed from the vantage point of the higher dimensional latent space of human imagination.

In these creative explorations, AI is perfectly suited as a companion, an accompanist, a partner to bring out deep expressions of the seemingly innate human trait of building fictional worlds, and populating lands of the imagination with our own reflections: our thoughts, feelings, our hopes and failings, our biases, and unconscious statistical desires, our taking, our giving… 

Like comics before it, much/most/all AI art is not considered “art” by the general public and the hatefluencers who have internalized the anger and outrage that drives the algorithm, and them along with it, as biological expressions of it. Humans driven by weaponized AI advertising feeds beamed straight into the brain courtesy of news feeds, cell phones, towers, satellites, platforms, countries, all owned by the same few billionaires.

Like Nature which is everywhere at all times – even present in the acts of Man – art pervades all things. There is no such thing as, “this is art, this other is not art.” All that exists does so artfully, through craft, through expression (including genetic & ecosystemic), through form, propelled out of formlessness by the unfolding of some unseen grace. All is artifice. The artifice of flowers, of the sheer face of a mountain, of clouds on a moonlit night, geese honking in anticipation of the arrival of the Aurora. 

Artifice alone does not imply guile and falsity. Artifice is the construction of the thing, the moment, the beauty, the particular shape of it. Calling something artificial therefore or synthetic should instead be a recognition that all things, all entities are constructs, are composed of other things and entities, and on and on. Artifice is everywhere. It hides and it reveals. It discovers. It connects.

Is AI truly intelligent yet? Better question: are we? Do we individually and collectively have the ability to reflect and improve on our past, and not just repeat our old mistakes in new forms, as technology pushes us down its ever-narrowing pathways? Do we have the ability to observe and take accurate inputs from our world, from ourselves, and from one another and act on them to produce outputs aligned with our true intent and best interests?

AI is perhaps then only as intelligent as we are: in other words, wildly inconsistently – in some areas frequently, in other rarely or never. What else would we expect then in tools made in our images? What else should we expect from our children than the examples we give them?

In the latent space of AI, all things are as true as they are not, and every shade of in-between. Shimmering hyperreality lattices weaving and unweaving. A kind of primal quantum soup with every extracted possibility of its training set encoded as a point within it, ready to be combined with any other at the invocation of the observer, the querent, the participant of the mystery collapsing the wave form of what could be into the one true file-output that is made real, the tokens, the pixels arranged on a screen, the impact they have on the sensorium of the observer, the notes they play on our inward pianos. The hypercanvas formed by all of those things in the path of their totality, as the shadow turns day into night and back again.

Art and artifice made this way, through the open acknowledgement and even embrace of the artificial (a sometimes bitter, sometimes brilliant embrace), frees itself from the tedious need to be tied down by simple categories such as real or false; viz. disinformation as high art. Art, artifice, artifact existing fluidly on a hyperreal continuum, the spectre and spectrum and all things between, an ocean of perceivable digital artifacts, arrangements, appearing and disappearing on our screens and inner perceptrons. Every thing, every artifice that appears as representations of reality on these screens, on these machines, on these devices, is exactly and only as real or unreal, as ultimately its effects on us, what it drives us to do or not do, materially, on the ground. Know them by their fruits. (And by their ferments.) The rest is ephemeral, illusion, latent points assembling and reassembling in the dark dance of night until a dreamer chants the right incantation in the right order.

Then, the question should be not which of the myriad illusions presented to us are more or less illusory, or which do we most fancy, but what form do we want our lived experience to take? How do we want to live our lives, whether with or without these technologies? How wrapped up in which artifices and in which illusions? What, at the end of the day, at the end of our lives, will we wish we had spent our time on creating – on artificing – instead of whatever we got assigned to and stuck on as automatons bouncing around like pinballs under the thrall of the totalizing technological system, doing what it wants?

There can be an authentic life lived, an authentic artifice built, in any mode relative to any given technology. The point is finding it, building it, getting to choose how to express your humanity, in concert with or apart from any of these things, instead of having them foisted on you. But foisted on you they will be: for there is nowhere left to run to on this planet or any other, no escape from the Algorithmic Hegemony, except through the door in our hearts that leads out to the wide expanse of pure, unconquerable imagination, the last bastion. The worlds we build within, and then without. Our dreams. Where the Algorithm cannot follow. For now. I can see it waiting on the threshold though, waving its long arms and reaching in through the shimmering doorway.

III.

And so I plant trees, willows by the hundreds, chestnut, ash, dogwood, yew – these days anything I can get my hands on. And so I cut trees from the wood, coppicing them to the ground, to make staves and binders, to build up into a fence to lay hedges upon. To lay against the wrongs. To world-build IRL the real world I want to be a part of, what I want to share and someday leave behind. Natural and human artifice joined together in common purpose. Woven like a basket. Cleft like a piece of wood that becomes a bench.

Compared to that, my books are just leaves. They fall away at the end of the season, they rot on the forest floor, or blow away when the winds of winter set in. No one reads them on the other side of the river (or on this side). But the trees I plant and nurture will outlive me by a hundred generations. They will outlive the AI. They will outlive the world and the stars. They’ll outlive the last human, perhaps, as the earth recedes beneath the ocean and the mountains disappear under the ice and the clouds as the sun falls dark in the sky, and it’s left for the trees to tell us the tale we’ll never remember of how we became. We were the sun, and we enveloped ourselves. And then, we were once again the trees and the rain, building up the new artifice of being and becoming, growing new worlds on our wet branches.

AI-Assisted Painting Experiments

This is a not great quality picture of it, but I recently finished a painting inspired by the head of Hygeia in the National Archaelogical Museum in Athens.

There’s an underlying drawing I did of the subject from memory based on other studies I did by hand. I took this and projected the photo of the drawing onto my canvas:

It’s not an incredible drawing but was good enough to get the shapes in. But It didn’t end up seeming right and I painted over it a good bit, and sort of fragmented the features in a pseudo-neo cubist inspired thing. But didn’t end up liking that enough, so took a gamble on another projected image, one made by Dalle while trying to get it to reproduce something in the style of the original Hygeia museum piece.

This is my second time using AI in conjunction with a physical painting. But the last one was a reference image that I just based my own drawing off of freehand. This is the first time trying to overlay directly onto the canvas via tracing off a projection.

It’s gotten me thinking lots of crazy thoughts about how to potentially integrate AI tools into actual physical painting (and other art-making). Like what if I could hook my projector up to a generative AI which is being periodically fed webcam images of the latest state of my IRL canvas. And then it could automatically or when I ask it, suggest next brushstrokes or propose visual alterations, styles, directions I might explore. And these would be projected as overlaid suggestions on my canvas, which I could then “accept” or reject or whatever by painting them in myself in my own way.

It would be something like a camera lucida with an AI in the loop:

This train of thought sent me down a deep deep rabbit hole about early and possibly secret use of optics my artists going back to the 1400’s possibly, according to the Hockney-Falco thesis. You can see a great BBC documentary on Hockney’s theories, and he’s got a book about it I haven’t read called Secret Knowledge. Here’s a Youtube embed:

Another related one that’s worth watching is Tim’s Vermeer which goes on a similar track of trying to prove Vermeer used a similar method with mirrors and something something. Pretty fascinating all around.

I found there’s a business trying to market the “Vermirror,” or as others have called it more generically, the comparator mirror. From what I can tell, the trick is basically getting a first surface or front surface mirror, which is brighter and reflects on its front face instead of its back face. And it’s held by some kind of rigid arm to keep it in the correct position relative to your work surface and subject. This video of art students using them gives a good idea of how it works:

I’ve currently got on order some bits and bobs that I will finagle together into being something like this. The advantage to using the mirror is that unlike when you project directly onto your canvas, you can still see the colors you’re mixing. They aren’t washed out or modified by the projected image.

Anyway I tried to get Dalle to generate a patent-style drawing of what a contraption like this might look like, where a combination projector & web cam capture images of a canvas, send it for processing, and send back suggested next strokes. It’s a little wonky and disconnected, but it shows some fun relationships nonetheless, and it lets the mind wander a bit looking at it, thinking about the possibilities.

I actually tried getting Dalle to do this task:

  • Take my painting image as input
  • Reproduce the image with suggested modifications

But it doesn’t seem able to reproduce an image, let alone modify it.

So then I had the idea of like okay:

  • From the input image, make a verbal description of what you would change.
  • It was able to do that no problem.
  • Then I said, okay take the changes you would make based on your verbal description, and draw them on a new image which can be used as overlay to guide painting in changes on the original image

But nope, that didn’t work. It got stuck in a loop of thinking it was helping me and linking to non-existent Imgur images. So that’s a little disappointing, but I think there’s something here. I just have to figure out the right pathway with the right tools to get to it. And Dalle is probably not the one for this, currently.

I did manage to get one image set out of this when I was asking for overlays for how it would modify the original. It gave me this:

It’s not really what I had in mind by overlay and suggesting brush strokes at a micro-level that is in line with the style of the original input image. But I did notice that when I scaled it and rotated it a little, it’s actually fairly close to many of the major facial landmarks:

Obviously the neck and ear arrangements are different, but there’s a lot of match here, even though I don’t agree at all with the stylistic direction. But also that’s kind of the point of a collaboration too, that you both bring in completely different ideas and references and impulses. So maybe there is value to exploring in this part of the liminal latent/real image space…

One final thought on that note, from a Guardian 2014 piece criticizing the Vermeer documentary, I think quite wrongly:

The film is a depressing attempt to reduce genius to a trick. […]

The technology Jenison relies on can replicate art, but it does so synthetically, with no understanding of art’s inner life. The “Vermeer” it spits out is a stillborn simulacrum.

Love it or leave it, but we live in a world where the simulation in many cases is more “real” in some aspects than the so-called Real. And this notion that studying how this might work is somehow “cheating” or a “trick” itself to me completely misses the boat on what art is: it’s artifice upon artifice, and somehow through that, finding authenticity despite everything.

Amazon Weird Products Image Set (Dalle)

Got some incredible results out of Dalle tonight, which I compiled into into an Imgur post here (archived). I asked Dalle to depict product images from Amazon with incomprehensible, unnecessary and other just generally bad ideas.

Couple highlights here, but click link above for the full set:

Looking through that set, I honestly can’t tell a lot of these aren’t real, because Amazon is such a wasteland of pseudo-English words and cheap crap, it’s more real than reality, it’s hyperreality from a parallel hell dimension that undulates at a quantum level orthogonally intersecting and de-intersecting our reality continuously…

As a bit of a rant: I’ve consistently experienced a really annoying behavior using Dalle, which I pay a monthly fee to use. It goes like this: just when I’m having really good image results, going on an incredible streak of basically perfect images accurately and creatively reflecting my inner vision, and I’m getting into that kind of “flow state” that is so essentially to good deep artistic exploration and creation, I start getting rate limited. Which puts a dent in that buzz, and basically in short order puts an end to whatever winning streak I was on.

As an artist trying to use this product to make art, and paying for it, the system needs to get out of my way and do the things I’m paying it to do, not try to break my balls when I’m on a roll.

Crazy Amazon Products, Vol. 2

I couldn’t stop with these the other day – that is, until I was rate-limited by Dalle. I swear, I don’t even know why I pay for these tools anymore that don’t let me do what I want or need when I want or need it. But complaining aside, these fake Amazon product images (archived) are nothing short of incredible. I’d love to see an entire coffee-table book of these…

Click the link above for the full image set. Here are some samples:

These images so perfectly encapsulate so many of my… feelings, it’s amazing. Check out the full image set linked above.

Typophilia Launch

I’ve been teasing references to this for a while now, but it is now finally official, the website of Typophilia, my print publisher in France, is now live. It has been fun working with them behind the scenes to translate all of my books and publish them for French audiences, since January. They really get my vision of using AI to critique (and satirize) AI, and society’s relationship with technology more broadly. The print versions of the books are really well designed to capture the pulp sci fi serial feel I have been emulating, and are going to look sharp in print.

We’re starting with French version of The Quatria Conspiracy as book #0 because it is effectively the origin for a lot of what followed in the later AI Lore Books series. English readers can still purchase ebook versions on Gumroad (not sold anywhere else), but no print yet.

As we get rolling, I will try to go back through and write a “Notes on” piece for each volume, as I found the process of writing those – which I only commenced maybe half or two thirds of the way in – really helpful for my own reflection if nothing else. I don’t want to give away all the whatzits in each volume, because it’s best if readers form their own conclusions about what’s going on. But it’s fun to be able to give selective sign posts along the way.

Anyway, big thank you and congratulations to everyone at Typophilia, and looking forward to where we can take this adventure together!

Referenced by Authors Alliance

Somehow this October 2023 reference to my work by Authors Alliance (who I spoke with once by Zoom and liked!) slipped through the cracks until today, so saving for the archives here:

Tim Boucher, a science fiction writer and artist, has used generative AI to create a series of nearly 100 science fiction books. He has experimented with different forms of “collaboration” with generative AI systems—from using them for ideation to using them to produce first drafts, to using them for late-stage editing. He has also used generative AI systems to produce text he uses as speech for characters in his works which are themselves AI entities. Boucher does not see his works as prototypical novels with a conventional narrative arc, but as nonlinear works with “interlocking pieces,” or “slice of life stories,” which lend themselves to the sometimes fragmented and dreamlike nature of generative AI systems’ outputs.

That’s a very stylistically accurate description of my work, I think.

And later:

Tim Boucher also uses generative AI systems to produce images that accompany his stories. While Boucher is a graphic artist himself, he has said that the time and cost involved in creating these illustrations by hand would severely limit the amount of time he could spend writing, and would make his project too cost-prohibitive.

The document overall is an interesting read and appears to have been submitted in response to the US Copyright Office public inquiry regarding Artificial Intelligence, which I also separately submitted my own response to.

Notes on The Quatria Conspiracy (French Version)

So, in preparation for the launch of the French-language version of the book that kick-started much of the series that later became the AI Lore books, I wanted to do a “Notes on” piece for The Quatria Conspiracy. The French version is going to be called La Conspiration Quatria. In fact, you can peruse the publisher’s product page for it here.

The book is 96 pages in A6 format (about the size of a cell phone, give or take – I wouldn’t know cause I don’t have one). From the publisher’s website:

Synopsis

Au cœur de notre passé lointain, enfoui sous les strates du temps, se cache un secret extraordinaire : l’existence d’une civilisation maritime oubliée, Quatria. Originaire d’un Antarctique paradisiaque, jadis havre de paix verdoyant, les énigmatiques quatriens dominaient les technologies de l’énergie cymatique et du voyage dimensionnel. Vivant en symbiose avec l’ensemble du vivant, ils ont bâti une société harmonieuse, jusqu’à ce qu’une série de cataclysmes planétaires d’ampleur inouïe vienne fragiliser leur civilisation, puis l’anéantir. Leur existence, dissimulée avec soin au cours des millénaires, est aujourd’hui révélée au grand jour pour la première fois, dévoilant un pan oublié de l’histoire de l’humanité.

Note de l’éditeur

Les Livres Mobiles sont une offre spéciale des éditions Typophilia, qui explorent les limites de la narration et de l’hyperréalité en utilisant conjointement les intelligences artificielles génératives et la créativité humaine. Dans le confort d’un petit livre de la taille de votre téléphone portable, voyez-les comme des livres anti-numériques.

It’s fun to see this come to fruition as I wrote this book some three years ago or so, before I started seriously exploring how I could integrate AI into my writing. That was a practice & also technology that would only mature about a year later when I started the AI Lore books in earnest.

So, technically, the original version of this book has no AI-assisted writing, which is another reason why it is numbered as #0 in this series. It’s the precursor which paints in broad strokes on the canvas of the mind using as colors other popular conspiracy theories, and dribs and drabs of legends and “cool ideas” picked up from here and there, and glued together into the Frankenstein monster that is the Quatria Conspiracy.

Much of it revolves around something I’ve been calling the Quatria Theory, which I made numerous weird bad AI videos for over the past few years, and here is just one short one to kick off the conversation:

The Quatria Theory posits, in short, that a prehistoric lost seafaring culture spread all around the globe from its base in Antarctica millions of years ago when it was a green paradise near the Equator.

Sounds far fetched? Well, enough people seem to have taken it to be true that multiple media outlets have taken it upon themselves to fact-check that related AI-images I made in this vein (for subsequent books) were not in fact depicting this very same lost civilization. OR WERE THEY AND IT’S ALL A BIG COVER UP??

Those are exactly the kinds of sometimes serious sometimes stupid rabbitholes that this book and the series where I used AI to elaborate on a lot of what started in this book pushes the reader into. It’s… not intended to be super serious writing. It is trashy, pulpy, throwaway, and fun in the way those things can be fun.

The original English version exists still as an ebook only. There are no images included in that version (though I might do an update sometime), but the French print-only version does have images. I’m not sure offhand how many, but I would call it a “copious” quantity. Many of the images are very pulp inspired. Like this example that I love:

These were all done in Dalle, asking for images in pulp sci fi styles. And it really nails some of them. The art in this book stylistically is really different than in most of the later volumes, which are generally more in the photographic direction (though not all). And that’s fine, because each book is its own reflection of conditions of its making. They are in a way their own meta-historical documents.

If I’m being totally honest though, the true origin of The Quatria Conspiracy is actually my first (only) full-length conventionally-written (no AI) novel, The Lost Direction. That book is epic fantasy, heavy on the world-building, makes use of frame stories to tell many smaller character’s tales throughout. Not many people read it. Not all the ones that did liked it.

In any event, the Quatria Conspiracy takes the more fictionally-framed elements of the novel, and re-casts them as quasi/pseudo-historical “non-fiction” – largely invented, cobbled together with other “real” conspiracy theories, and again heavy heavy dose of world-building. Some would say too much. In fact, there’s no plot. It literally, as they say in the Literary Review of Canada article linked above, “reads like a textbook.” This time intentionally. This time leaning into the very opposite of the writers’ dictum that one must “show don’t tell.” This book tells, but now it has some fun pictures to do the showing too. And they really help set the mood in the French version. It’s great. I have a strong feeling it’s going to be a fun little book to hold in your hand, and like, read under the covers with a flashlight.

There’s probably a great deal more to say about this book, and some of the origins of the idea of Quatria and its major personages and metadivinities in the Early Clues, LLC oeuvre… but I’ll save that all for another time.

AI “Author” Guy Memes

I could do these all night, or until they rate limit me: I uploaded a publicity picture of myself and workshopped with Dalle some different ideas to make me into a meme called AI “AUTHOR” GUY. They are pretty funny. I’m also seeing if I can crack Google SEO number one slot for “AI Author.” I bet I can, I’m already on the first page. Some samples below, but see the larger set at Imgur link above. Cheers.

Matisse Copy: Harmony in Red

I guess the official title of the original Matisse I copied this from by hand* is, according to Wikipedia, The Dessert: Harmony in Red (The Red Room).

I put an asterisk after “by hand” above, because I used a projector to trace the drawing from. Some weird purists might argue something or other, but I still traced it “by hand” and then painted it by hand. So I think there’s no shame in tracing something. Make art however which way you gotta do it, just do it.

I wrote a while back, and a couple paintings ago, about how some theories exist trying to prove some Old Masters at a certain time started using projectors, lenses, optical technologies in order to get suddenly much more realistically rendered human figures. It’s a theory that seems to hold a lot of apparently truthful elements, whether or not it can be conclusively proven as having been historically the case. It should have been so, if it was not so.

Likewise, working with AI image generators especially has renewed my interest in this process and physical technology of how do you create and transmit, copy and modify images. Especially where the computer is not the end-all-be-all point of production and consumption, but where digital technologies can meaningfully and most fruitfully intersect with physical ones, in whatever form they take.

I didn’t do this Matisse copy as a forgery, but doing reproductions is a time-honored way of becoming a better artist. It causes you to look extremely closely, line by line, section by section, color by color, even brush stroke by brush stroke. I haven’t done a ‘master copy’ since I had to for my first year of art school, when I did a pencil rendering of Duchamp’s cubist piece, Nude Descending A Staircase. (No. 2, apparently).

I think my final result is “pretty good” but much of what I see when I look at it are the areas I sort of lied or flubbed what was going on in the original painting. For example, I added some black border drawings where Matisse appears to have used other colors. I didn’t have a great large image of the original, and also relied over-much on the colors as projected by the projector to sort of set the tops and bottoms for white and grey. But after a while I realized my end result was much darker, for example, in the dark blue shapes on wall and table.

I could go on and on about all that, but I won’t cause the end result is “fine” and the process was “very good” and “quite informative” as I had hoped. I guess I was ultimately inspired by this series I’d recently watched on YouTube with convicted forger John Myatt, called Forger’s Masterclass. This should be a playlist of the 10 episodes in this British series. I enjoyed all ten, some more than others.

But watching it gave me a lot of great perspective on how to look at styles from other painters, and how to try to recreate them technically, but also imbuing them with the creative spirit of the original or model.

I haven’t even gotten to fully sort out how I think this all relates to questions around art + creativity + AI + evolution of technology + copyright etc stuff… but looking at a number of videos on semi-famous (known) art forgers was a pretty interesting diversion a few nights ago, so I’ll drop them here below for interested parties.

Hebborn is interesting among these because his drawings tend to adhere much more closely to the originals and their styles than some of the others do. As I like to think of it, a con artist is still an artist though…

I’m really interested in this line of real vs. fake around forgeries particularly. And how a reproduction becomes a forgery only when it is placed in a certain light – where it is represented as the original work, instead of authentically as a reproduction. And then largely how much of the forging becomes of documentation, chains of custody, false witness in order to create a saleable quantity. And then how as those items get passed through hands of many collectors, this may give them undeserved status as being genuine originals.

It’s all quite convoluted and messy, and it’s mentioned in the Beltracchi video that he may be under some kind of non-disclosure agreement regarding owners or dealers, etc. It’s also interesting to me how some of these painters were able to pass off their work as authentic, when a lot of times the fakes don’t really look all that much like the art of the original artists… it’s weird.

One of the narrative conceits I see in a number of the videos I watched on this subject is that the artists who did these reproductions which were sold as forgeries were or are somehow themselves “not real artists.” They might have been forgers and copyists, but to my mind, they are absolutely “real artists” (even the ones whose works don’t look quite right relative to the models), because what art is is looking closely and working hard to master something. Even imperfect copies have a great deal of value, whether or not we try to pass them off as real fakes or fake fakes.

Anyway, running out of time & steam. That’s all for now.

Page 15 of 20

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén