By Jon Huer
Korea Times Columnist
Two types of fakery issues can be seen in the Korean media: One pops up periodically and the other has begun to appear only recently. The first has to do with the reports of Korean food merchants faking Chinese imports as Korean products, the second with the controversy concerning the authenticity of certain artworks.
Korean food shops faking Chinese food imports that are much cheaper than those produced in Korea are a perennial issue, so predictable and so common.
The art controversy is somewhat new, as Koreans start collecting artworks for investment, and, not infrequently, for bribery and tax evasion.
This phenomenon of art collection and its incidental authenticity disputes, long in existence in the United States and Europe, has just started in Korea in earnest.
Korea is somewhat late in this trend, but as in all things, this art-as-investment will increase in Korea, and so will its ``art controversy.''
An art controversy occurs when a particular artwork, generally esteemed to be valuable, is challenged as to its authenticity ― that is, whether or not the reputed painter is actually the one who painted it as claimed by the signature.
Most of the time, of course, the painter himself is dead by the time the dispute arises and thus cannot help solve the issue.
Why do the Korean merchants fake Chinese imports as Korean native products, in spite of the official crackdowns, public condemnations and legal punishments when such fakery is discovered?
The technical answer is rather simple: It is easy to do and the benefit is high. Beyond the technical, obviously there is something deeper and more fundamentally challenging going on: Why do the merchants persist in this switcheroo?
This has to do with the fact that China- and Korea-produced garlic, to use a commonly switched item, are essentially identical.
Contrary to public myth and official insistence that sternly distinguish Chinese produce from Korean produce, in essence there is no difference either in their appearance or in their taste-quality.
A fish caught in China and the same fish caught in Korea are the same fish. Victims of this switching act and many honest merchants tell you that there is really no difference between the two types of products. Then why do they, the merchants and governments, insist that there is a difference? The distinction is insisted on only because it pleases the economic factor: Korean products are priced higher.
So the question as to why shopkeepers continue to label Chinese garlic as if it is Korean can now be answered clearly and simply: Because they are the same thing, the difference being just the marketing ploy to increase the price of one kind at the marketplace.
Now we can turn to art controversies.
Recently, several artworks have become the topic of controversy as to their true provenance. Experts have been called in to testify as the cases went to court and became potential criminal issues.
Why did the controversy about the genuineness of the artworks rise in the first place? The main reason is because it involves money ― a lot of money in fact ― as the price of the artworks under consideration would become either very expensive or virtually worthless, all depending on their authenticity.
This controversy, now destined to rise with time and increased art investment, is quite reminiscent of the garlic example.
The garlic imported from China is bought and consumed by customers who were satisfied with the quality of Chinese garlic, as it is indistinguishable from Korean garlic.
This satisfaction in the material fact is now challenged because somebody from the government, or the market, says Chinese garlic was not Korean and the difference in price must be reckoned with.
In other words, once the Chinese garlic is recognized as made in China, the price difference must also be recognized, although the customers are convinced there is really no difference between Chinese and Korean garlic. Both products taste indistinguishable from each other.
The very fact that the art controversies arise means that the artworks in question are very much believed to be indistinguishable from the supposedly authentic version.
If a Hyundai is claimed to be a Lincoln Continental, no controversy will arise because the difference is obvious and final.
If a fake surgeon operates on a heart patient, he is likely to kill the patient. If a bogus pilot flies a jet plane, it is very likely to crash. If a restaurant offered a plastic sandwich, the customer would instantly recognize it and spit it out.
It would be absolutely absurd to think that a controversy would arise over the Hyundai car and Lincoln Continental or over a plastic sandwich and a real sandwich, much less experts would be called in to distinguish the two from each other. The difference would be too obvious.
Now, the art controversy challenges our commonsense. Why do we have a controversy of authenticity when even an expert cannot distinguish the authenticity of the artwork in question?
People who view a painting by Van Gogh cannot tell if they are viewing a fake Van Gogh. The experts are arguing over whether it is a fake artwork or a genuine one. And by all visual and physical inspections, the two are wholly and completely indistinguishable from each other. Why are they arguing over the issue?
Just like the Chinese-Korean garlic issue, the focus is really somewhere else regarding the art controversy. Since Artwork X is so much like the work of Painter Y ― with even an expert unable to tell them apart ― the issue is not the artwork itself. Whether Collector Z collects or Museum Z displays the work in question, there would not be a single problem with Work X. Art is after all what we believe to be art, nothing else, and we display Work X and enjoy it as a work of art. That is all that is needed ― end of issue.
The peculiar nature of art, especially collectible art like paintings and sculptures, is that any artwork can be copied quite easily by a skillful forger. The copies can be so well done that experts, even with all their scientific equipment, cannot tell which is which.
The general consensus among experts is that well over 60 percent of artworks, many of them famously known, hanging at museums the world over at any given moment, are fake artworks.
No heart patient has died; no jet plane crashed; no plastic sandwich has been mistakenly swallowed up.
Unlike these real things and events, but like the garlic switch, art fakery has no known side effects. Owning, displaying and enjoying one (fake) artwork would be just like owning, displaying, and enjoying another (real) artwork. The very fact that all art museums are likely hanging fake Van Goghs, Rembrandts, or Renoirs is proof positive of this.
Why? Because, just like the garlic from China, the fake artworks are just as wonderful to look at as their originals. (At the time of his death, Van Gogh left 30 paintings; today there are well over 200 known Van Gogh paintings all over the world, most of them hanging at art museums).
Can we really detect fake art as we can detect counterfeit paper money? The answer is, of course, no. We design paper money to discourage copies. Artworks are intended to encourage copy making, as styles and works are constantly imitated by others. The controversy, over both Chinese garlic and artworks, is just protectionism at its very basic, to protect Korea's food industry and the art dealers, collectors and ``flexible" experts, respectively.
Let the art dealers and gallery owners argue over the authenticity of artworks, for their argument has to do with money, not art.
For us, we just stroll to the local art museum and enjoy the Great Artworks of History on display there, not caring whether they are real or not. In all probability, the Picasso we just enjoyed at the museum last week is likely to have been a fake Picasso as it is reported that Picasso himself could not tell whether or not he had painted a particular artwork when shown it later.
This is the nature of art and art trading where the real and the unreal coexist side by side with no trouble until money becomes the issue. Then suddenly, the artwork we love is declared a fake work and we are told we should no longer love it since it is not real. Perhaps there is something very peculiar in the art world!
Jon Huer is the author of THE GREAT ART HOAX (University of Wisconsin Press 1990), a book about art forgery. He can be reached at jonhuer@hotmail.com.