Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-07-2008, 12:48 PM

NY Museum admits that a third of its Coptic Art is fake

Quote:

Dr Edna Russmann, a curator at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, said she began to have suspicions about its collection of Coptic art – the second largest in North America – about four years ago. She said she has no qualms about going public with her findings now. "It's about time," she said.

Although some chemical testing on the works has yet to be completed, Dr Russmann considers that 10 of the 30 examples of Coptic art – Christian imagery in limestone from Egypt dating between the late fourth century and AD641 – held by the museum are phoney. Moreover, about half the other pieces have probably been extensively recarved and retouched.

...

But this leaves 2/3 still considered genuine. . .

Keith&Co. · 07-07-2008, 12:59 PM

...for a given value of 'genuine.'

nogods4me · 07-07-2008, 12:59 PM

If 1/3 is fake and 1/2 of the remaining 2/3 has been recarved/retouched, that leaves only 1/3 as completely genuine.. right?

elevator · 07-07-2008, 01:23 PM

I wonder if its common museum practice to put on display pieces that have not gone through a reasonable process to verify their authenticity?

I can see how it may be necessary to display pieces that have been retouched/recarved, but extensively so? And 2/3 of all pieces either fake or extensively recarved/retouched... it would certainly, in my mind, hurt the credibility of the rest of the collection and the curator responsible for it.

Roger Pearse · 07-08-2008, 01:22 AM

The joys of purchasing on the art market.

gstafleu · 07-08-2008, 09:32 AM

What does "fake" mean in this context? I assume something like that the statues were produced recently with the intention of selling them as if they were ancient. That would be like faking a brand new gospel by creating it from scratch, I suppose.

But how about those "re-carved" statues. That is like an interpolation, isn't it? So they are fake in the sense in which the TF can be considered fake. But just like an MS with the TF is not itself a fake (even though the TF in a sense is, depending on the intentions of the scribe, of course), are these re-carved statues then not-fake also? And what do they not-fakely represent? Not just the original art, nor just the re-carving.

And have the gospels, even in their oldest forms, been re-carved? In another thread GD said "Sanders believes that the Gospels started out this way: people remembered isolated teachings or events ("pericopes") which became stripped of their historical context; these pericopes were gradually strung together to form proto-gospels; these were reshaped by the authors of the Gospels to something like the form we know them." That certainly sounds like re-carving. Given that the gospels are still "displayed" I would think that we can give equal rights to the statues.

Gerard Stafleu

mountainman · 07-08-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

What does "fake" mean in this context?

F O R G E D

Money changes hands.

The question is what is the relationship between the art market and the market of ancient documents? The answer IMO is nothing. When we are dealing with the issues of the authenticity of new testament documents and documents related to the historicity of christianity we are dealing with forged literature and forged documents.

And who is sorting these out?
And who is turning a blind eye?

Best wishes,

Pete

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-07-2008, 12:59 PM	#2
Keith&Co. Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Pittsfield, Mass Posts: 24,500	...for a given value of 'genuine.'

07-07-2008, 12:59 PM	#3
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	If 1/3 is fake and 1/2 of the remaining 2/3 has been recarved/retouched, that leaves only 1/3 as completely genuine.. right?

07-07-2008, 01:23 PM	#4
elevator Regular Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: California, United States Posts: 382	I wonder if its common museum practice to put on display pieces that have not gone through a reasonable process to verify their authenticity? I can see how it may be necessary to display pieces that have been retouched/recarved, but extensively so? And 2/3 of all pieces either fake or extensively recarved/retouched... it would certainly, in my mind, hurt the credibility of the rest of the collection and the curator responsible for it.

07-08-2008, 01:22 AM	#5
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	The joys of purchasing on the art market.

07-08-2008, 09:32 AM	#6
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	What does "fake" mean in this context? I assume something like that the statues were produced recently with the intention of selling them as if they were ancient. That would be like faking a brand new gospel by creating it from scratch, I suppose. But how about those "re-carved" statues. That is like an interpolation, isn't it? So they are fake in the sense in which the TF can be considered fake. But just like an MS with the TF is not itself a fake (even though the TF in a sense is, depending on the intentions of the scribe, of course), are these re-carved statues then not-fake also? And what do they not-fakely represent? Not just the original art, nor just the re-carving. And have the gospels, even in their oldest forms, been re-carved? In another thread GD said "Sanders believes that the Gospels started out this way: people remembered isolated teachings or events ("pericopes") which became stripped of their historical context; these pericopes were gradually strung together to form proto-gospels; these were reshaped by the authors of the Gospels to something like the form we know them." That certainly sounds like re-carving. Given that the gospels are still "displayed" I would think that we can give equal rights to the statues. Gerard Stafleu

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.