Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang

time had come, van Meegeren felt, to
“The
himself on his critics. He devised a
revenge
to paint a perfect Vermeer—neither a
plan
nor a pastiche, but an original work—
copy,
when it had been authenticated by
and,
art experts, acquired by a major
leading
exhibited and acclaimed, he would
museum,
his hoax to the world.
announce
first step was concocting an ingenious
His
of pigments that ‘would pass the
mixture
tests which any genuine 17th-century
five
must pass’. Now he had only to
painting
Supper at Emmaus was unlike any
The
Vermeer painting. Van
acknowledged
true to his perversely moral
Meegeren,
painted it in his own style, adding
scheme,
subtle allusions to works by the Dutch
only
before signing it with the requisite
master,
He had it submitted to Abraham
flourish.
the most eminent authority on
Bredius,
consider how objectivity complicates
Let’s
story and the field of art more generally.
this
What does it mean to say that a piece of
1.
is objectively good or objectively bad?
art
2. On what basis can objectivity be:
(a) claimed
less than six years, van Meegeren would
“In
a further six ‘Vermeers’, earning the
paint
of $60 million. With money, came
equivalent
… . vice
van Meegeren’s addictions to alcohol and
As
took hold, and the standard of his
morphine
plummeted, still experts accepted
forgeries
as genuine. He discovered that, regardless
them
how incompetent his painting, how crude
of
anatomy, how uncertain the provenance,
his
baroque art of his day, and the critic
Dutch
the bait … .
took
the world was at van Meegeren’s
Suddenly
The Supper at Emmaus was bought by the
feet.
Boijmans Gallery in Rotterdam for
prestigious
equivalent of $6 million. More importantly
the
van Meegeren, it was advertised as
for
centrepiece, the crowning glory of the
the
exhibition, 400 Years of European
gallery’s
Art.
the exhibition, van Meegeren would
During
proclaim the painting a forgery,
loudly
crude pastiche, and listen as the finest
a
of his generation persuaded him that
minds
painting was a genuine Vermeer. His
his
was now complete. He had only to
triumph
what he had promised himself: to stand
do
and claim the work for himself, thereby
up
fools of his critics. Instead, within a
making
he was working on a new forgery.”
month,
(b) disputed?
Are there certain claims in art—about an
3.
origin, meaning, quality, value
artwork’s
so on—that can be objective, and
and
that cannot?
others
What are the implications of claiming
4.
objectivity is impossible in art?
that
most erudite Vermeer critics were prepared
the
sanctify his work. His one mistake had been
to
allow one of his paintings to fall into enemy
to
Germany) hands.
(Nazi
expert eye discovered van Meegeren’s
No
He was unmasked only because,
forgery.
six weeks in prison, he cracked: ‘Fools!’
after
roared at his jailers. ‘You think I sold a
he
Vermeer to Göring? There was no
priceless
painted it myself.’
Vermeer—I
II. Perspectives
II. Perspectives
paint a masterpiece.
(Wynne 2006)
For discussion
Objectivity
289