AbXorb It's kind of like people struggling to pronounce Heckler and Koch. Eventually the company just told people to pronounce it as "Heckler and Coke"
There's a road where I live named Koch Lane and it's pronounced "cook". Are you telling me that everyone here is pronouncing it wrong? Because I'd honestly think that was funny since people love talking about our so called "historic German district".
@Nnie Actually it is pronounced differently but cook (or chef) is the direct translation of Koch. That one is correct: th-cam.com/video/mJaw02iPbqo/w-d-xo.html
Americans are notoriously bad at pronouncing foreign names. Not that the Dutch (van Gogh was Dutch, like all still living van Gogh's originally) are much better, but most of us try at least. Kudos to the presentor, Joe Hanson!
Hmm, maybe that Bob Ross painting I picked up at a garage sale isn’t what it seems. Guess I should send it to a physicist! Leave a comment and let me know how you liked this week’s video! And tell me how Van Gogh should really be pronounced
Loved it but Mr "Are you gonna say that?" off camera should smarten the heck up - the artist's name is Dutch, your second pronunciation was closest and it's most definitely NOT "Van GO". {Eyeroll}
th-cam.com/video/8cKsk8lVRkY/w-d-xo.html That is how you pronounce it. And however english speaking folks would like to pronounce it. It will never be the same as his acutal name. Since you have never been tought the hardness of the R - G - K and some others characters. Tho, not impossible to learn. The real question would be why?
+Pierre Rivet Problem is not radiation itself like gamma rays but artificial radioactive atoms created in nuclear explosions that are present in everything newer than 1945. You would need to make your paint and canvas from source materials from Earth which would contain this contamination.
+thebahooplamaster It doesn't matter where you paint it when you would need to take paint and canvas from Earth which would contain this artificial elements.
Step 1: colonize Mars Step 2: figure out how to grow trees, plants, etc. there Step 3: make your canvas and paints from them Step 4: make forgery Step 5: bring it back to earth and sell it Step 6: go broke. It costs way more to do this then you can sell a painting for
This video reminds me of the bit from Amélie where she's trying to help her neighbor who lost her husband in an accident climbing Mont Blanc. The husband had written letters to the neighbor all throughout his expedition, so Amélie forged a lost letter from him. She snuck some of the real letters away, photocopied them, and pieced together a new letter. Then she photocopied that letter and soaked the paper in coffee and hung it to dry to make it look old.
Thank you, I love your channel. I am 9 years old and I was studying about the human body because I want to be a pediatrician when I grow up so I went and looked it up on TH-cam and then I saw one of your videos, it was called Evolutionary Fails in the human body and I loved it , so thank you for everything!
god, I love these videos. they're somewhat in a goldilocks-zone for me. interesting and full of new knowledge, but not over-complicated. the videos themselves are released with pauses in between, not every day like over at scishow. not to long and not to short, just the right length for a snack in between.
quality forgery is as much a fine art as art itself........& anyone with enough $ for a $10M painting sort of deserves.......never mind....... true fine art should be for any/all with an interest to appreciate.......openly displayed as opposed to collected/owned.
Yeah on that aspect, but when it comes to it's monetary worth or authenticity in collection/owning, it pretty much artificially matters that it is the real deal by an artist, though I suppose excellent forgers for a time knew how to draw quite well themselves.
This is actually quite a challenge using physics or chemistry! But the records and chain of custody is usually better for recent art, so a newer painting’s history isn’t as ambiguous
I mean, sure, radioactive particles got into paint, making forgery nearly impossible to pull off, but wouldn't those same radioactive particles get into those famous paintings, making real paintings a tiny bit radioactive as well?
But wouldnt the isotopes drop and lay on something older too ? I mean, if anything present day has some of these, wouldnt it drop on the surface of something older than 1945 just because it exists now and today ?
Triskan: I think the difference is in the volume: Old paintings will only have a thin layer of radioactive material (at least if you brush them a bit) while modern ones will have a much thicker mix, since the isotopes had many opportunities to be deposited and embedded in the pigment itself: in the ingredients, in the factory, in the containers before being used, between canvas and paint, etc.
Just to add to Duke Nukem: Strontium is chemically similar to Calcium and Caesium is similar to Potassium. Most lifeforms cannot distinguish them, which is why they accumulate in higher concentration in, for example in case of Strontium, our bones.
The Canadian novelist Robertson Davies created a van Meegeren-like forger as a character in his 1985 novel _What''s Bred in the Bone_ . One important scene in the novel involves the protagonist unmasking a forged Hubertus van Eyck painting because the forger mistakenly put a New-World monkey into a painting supposedly done before 1492.
If art was really valued because of the quality, fakes shouldn't need to be detected. If the fakes are indistinguishable they should be worth just as much.
Art is frequently not just about the end result, but about the history and the innovations. Anybody can make a piece like John Cage's 4'33'', but only John Cage did it.
+samramdebest: Only John Cage did 4'33'' with all the cultural implications. One composer and one humorist did completely silent pieces before, but the fact that I didn't hear about them is part of the reason John Cage's piece is famous. It's also the first completely silent piece with sequels. In any case I stand corrected in my first affirmation.
Well it is very often not, when it comes to the pronunciation of foreign names. Van Gogh is of course not pronounced van Go and Minkowski is not pronounced Minkausky. That's possibly quite difficult to understand, if one is only capable of speaking one language. Not that this is really an important thing, but it's a sign of cultural sophistication to try to avoid such intercultural errors, if possible.
Jesse Pinkman that's not what I meant. I mean your name is your name, Gogh's name is Gogh's name, and the 'American' pronunciation is wrong because that's not his name.
Interesting discussion on the technical aspects of how to identify when something was created. Well done! I love how the practical aspects of this lends itself to fields such as criminology and archeology. A few quick observations though: 1) "Forged Art" seem to be an oxymoron, for a few reasons. Firstly, art is simply something that is created for aesthetic or emotional appeal. In that regard, the item in question stands or falls on its own merits, not on its creator's. Secondly, if one does wish after all to factor in the "who and how" of the creation, doesn't "forgery" constitute a form of art in and of itself? In many cases a good "forgery" would be more difficult and require more skill and inspiration than an original. 2) Since most art has little or no actual intrinsic value, differentiating between "original" and "copied" art is pretty much a vanity project for the ultra-rich. While I admit that misrepresenting a work of art for the purpose of increasing its value is ethically dubious, I find it difficult to muster up much pity for someone who is willing to pay a king's ransom for a chunk of rock or smears of paint on a piece of cloth to begin with, regardless of its origin. Rather, I can't help but give a nod and a wink of acknowledgement to one who can pull off the making of an item that is virtually indistinguishable from an original. Anyway, fun topic and great video. Keep up the good work :)
i love those dutch names in the art industry, because i can listen to all the bloopers of non dutch people trying to say those names correctly. it's like pranking all the non dutch people :D Whenever a non dutch person tries to say van Gogh they say van Go? seriously? in dutch, its pronaunced van Gog (yes, you need the hard G here twice) it's always weird to hear his name from a non dutch people, because it's suddenly a completely different name for me XD BTW great video as always ;-) PS Han van Meegeren is also dutch XD
Is it wrong when 99.8% of people say it the same way? Sounds like more of a problem with Dutch. 😉. Data is dăta not dāta to me.... since I read it many times before I heard it. I understand what you're whining about, but I hope you understand you're just whining.
Here's an idea: If the forged art is so well-done that it can still be as aesthetically pleasing as the original, and convey the same story and emotions as the original, plus an added layer of meaning created by the forger, then doesn't that make it at least as valuable as, if not more valuable than, the original?
Also, fingerprints and palm prints along the edges and on the front and back of the canvass that match the fingerprints of the artist on the paintbrushes, paint jars, and paint cans that he or she used is a low-tech and effective way to verify a painting.
I liked Joe’s effort to pronounce “van Gogh” correctly (only to be corrected to the American pronunciation...): however, the guttural sound of the last g should be the sound of the first g as well.
Links to DFTBA, old videos saying links in the dooblidoo.. You must be acquainted with John and Hank Green? If so, thats pretty cool. I'm glad to have stumbled across another great TH-camr 😊
I apologize if somebody already asked this question, but haven't those old paintings all been restored to bits? There's gotta be contamination with modern paints and such in all of them. I am not familiar with a restoration process though... Just wondering.
I love that Han Van Meegren admitted to forgery when he was on trial for selling stolen art and the court didn't believe him and made him create a 'Vermeer' under supervision to prove he was even capable of forgery good enough to fool everyone.
I’m curious about the radioactive particles from nuclear weapons testing. Who’s to say those particles didn’t come into contact with original works as they moved through the air?
Organic matter that died during the nuclear age will also be more accurately datable in the future, because we know precisely how many nuclear tests have taken place each year (especially during the Cold War). There are typical spikes during the 60s and 80s which can be found in everything that lived at that time. Also, the video uses the (very good) example of painting authenticity, but know that we very often use these methods of dating in archaeology.
One question: Does it matter if a painting is an authentic and original if no one can tell? Does artistic merit disappear just because the person who painted it is not who it was claimed to be? People who buy artwork solely for financial reasons (inflated value due to scarcity/ money laundering) ought to be shot. Master forgers are great painters and artists, and I respect them more than most art collectors and gallery owners.
Jerry Ang 😾 Hm! Let me try to understand your train of thought. A person has the talent to create a unique artwork. It carries that artist’s credentials. Another yet unknown person creates a copy of that artist’s work claiming it to be by the master. One is genuine, the other a forgery. But that does not matter, you believe! Would it matter if the word was ‘counterfeit ‘ as with currency? Or medications? Both counterfeiting and forgery are considered criminal acts in civilised societies. How would you feel if you paid a substantial price for what was shown to be a fake item? Consider the mass production of faux trainers, watches and handbags in the far east.
First off, let me say that I credit forged originals more than forged copies, so yes, originality and creativity do hold value to me. But even indistinguishable replicas mean that the forgers are of similar technical ability to the original artist. People who manufacture fake products do not require that high of a skill level. I am an artist, and to be honest, I wouldn't even be that mad if people credit me for work I did not produce if the work is of quality. Of course I would not accept the credit, but it really isn't something that would piss me off that bad. I would get pissed if an art collector told me to create less art just so that my work can sell for more (like Charles Saatchi did with Jenny Saville), and then those pieces are never appreciated for their artistic value but for its perceived economic value. Just my two cents.
Now let me pose a scenario that is not entirely similar but probes at the same problem of objectivity and rationalisation of merit of a piece of work: If tomorrow my teacher handed me the solution to the Poincare conjecture, and I submitted it to be peer reviewed under my name... Even though it isn't me who solved the equation, does the solution not merit a Fields Medal? Sure, I definitely should not, but the equation does, though the awardee should be changed. So if someone buys a painting at an auction for $10million which is later revealed to be forged, the value of the painting should remain, though the attribution of work should be changed.
+Jerry Ang Absolutely. If Einstein wrote a letter in 1951 to his wife, and I'd write exactly the same text onto a piece of paper in 2018, what letter do you think would be worth more, when auctioned off ? People would be willing to pay more, because it was by Einstein, not me. The thing itself doesn't matter that much. It's how old (=rare) it is and who made it, not how good it is. Because a famous artist means high value. It''s not about art, it's about investing. Nobody is stupid enough to pay millions for a picture/drawing. People pay millions for a picture/drawing because they think they may sell it later for more. It's not about art, it's a financial investment and the artist (preferably famous and long dead, the more famous and the longer dead the better) is an import part of the equation how much the price might íncrease over time and thus how large the profit will be.
1) 2:00 Carbon-14 decays into Nitrogen-14, not Carbon-12. 2) The original attempt at pronouncing "van Gogh" was the best, IMHO, although the first "G" is also pronounced differently.
How to forge a painting to look 100% real: 1.- Grab a Time-machine and go back in time to the time where the painting was finished 2.- Steal it 3.- Hide it somewhere only you know of 4.- Travel back to the present and unearth the painting Done!
True, but we all benefit from those people. Besides the millions in taxes they pay, we also get things such as malls and other businesses, not to mention the jobs from the employees they employ. Many rich people also give millions to charities.
billybassman21 Your pro-rich stance has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. We ALL benefit from each other, that's what societies are based on.
That "cut" is clearly in their script as an intended part of the video...I just think that it would have worked better if he didn't come out of it using the worst pronunciation.
I think the real question is the intrinsic value placed on something because of its creator and why that matters to us as a society, if you need highly advanced technology to decipher minute difference between a real and a fake thennnnn what does it matter and why?
The thing I've never understood about art is the idea that it matters so much who painted it. I mean, a masterpiece is a masterpiece regardless of whether Van Gogh painted it or Picasso painted it, so why should it stop being a masterpiece if it was painted by someone you've never heard of?
How to make ez clickbait title in 4 easy steps: 1.Think of something so common in our world that we don't really question it, like toilets. Think of one material or process that made it possible.example: Fiberglass makes great insulation 2.Think of something that helped make the first one possible melting sand makes glass 3.Repeat sand is just rocks ground by the ocean. 4.profit: How we made insulation out of rocks!
You are just one of the many pretentious fucks in the comment section that keeps on saying they don't want emojis but cannot provide a valid reason why emojis are "cancerous".
I just wanna say as that you were more accurate with '' Van Goff'' than the production with ''Van Go'' V= V in Vet G = G in Get O = O in clOck GH = Ch in loCHness monster Not quite exact but more exact :D
Awesome video. I assume Van Meegeren was the inspiration for the master forger in the Pierce Brosnan Thomas Crown Affair. The certainly chose an actor that looks similar to the real guy... Assuming the photo you used is accurate and not a forgery!
> Guy actually tries to pronounce Van Gogh properly
> Crew miscorrects him to "Van Go"
> why.jpg
AbXorb It's kind of like people struggling to pronounce Heckler and Koch. Eventually the company just told people to pronounce it as "Heckler and Coke"
If he had said Fan instead of Van his first attempts would actually have been pretty good.
There's a road where I live named Koch Lane and it's pronounced "cook". Are you telling me that everyone here is pronouncing it wrong? Because I'd honestly think that was funny since people love talking about our so called "historic German district".
@Nnie Actually it is pronounced differently but cook (or chef) is the direct translation of Koch. That one is correct: th-cam.com/video/mJaw02iPbqo/w-d-xo.html
Americans are notoriously bad at pronouncing foreign names.
Not that the Dutch (van Gogh was Dutch, like all still living van Gogh's originally) are much better, but most of us try at least.
Kudos to the presentor, Joe Hanson!
1) Invent time machine
2) Travel back in time
3) Make fakes then
4) Travel back to the future
5) ...??
6) Profit
south park.. nice
s3cr3tpassword you evil genius! lol
Ask doraemon.
Underpants
If you can time travel , no need to make fake, any old painting would worth a lot...
Hmm, maybe that Bob Ross painting I picked up at a garage sale isn’t what it seems. Guess I should send it to a physicist!
Leave a comment and let me know how you liked this week’s video! And tell me how Van Gogh should really be pronounced
It's Okay To Be Smart hi :D this is a good vid
+It's Okay To Be Smart
No you didn't.
Loved it but Mr "Are you gonna say that?" off camera should smarten the heck up - the artist's name is Dutch, your second pronunciation was closest and it's most definitely NOT "Van GO". {Eyeroll}
The Wikipedia page has a pronunciation that sounds right. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh
Bob Ross was a hero!!!!!!
His First attempt at Gough 's wasnt too far off from the actual name. Van "Go" is absolutely wrong.
akawhut gogh*
th-cam.com/video/8cKsk8lVRkY/w-d-xo.html
That is how you pronounce it. And however english speaking folks would like to pronounce it. It will never be the same as his acutal name. Since you have never been tought the hardness of the R - G - K and some others characters. Tho, not impossible to learn. The real question would be why?
Looks like it's time to start painting in space or on the moon to make fakes.
thebahooplamaster lol
Then you would have to worry about radiation from the sun.
Along with worrying about the usual difficulties of space travel.
+Pierre Rivet
Problem is not radiation itself like gamma rays but artificial radioactive atoms created in nuclear explosions that are present in everything newer than 1945. You would need to make your paint and canvas from source materials from Earth which would contain this contamination.
+thebahooplamaster
It doesn't matter where you paint it when you would need to take paint and canvas from Earth which would contain this artificial elements.
Step 1: colonize Mars
Step 2: figure out how to grow trees, plants, etc. there
Step 3: make your canvas and paints from them
Step 4: make forgery
Step 5: bring it back to earth and sell it
Step 6: go broke. It costs way more to do this then you can sell a painting for
Your first pronunciation of Van Gogh was correct. Doctor Who told me so.
Its wrong i know im dutch and he was dutch.
U4huiiuuuuui8 I 88iu I iu8uuuuyuuiii
Ok
@@limes2 ok
That was a sweet episode
This video reminds me of the bit from Amélie where she's trying to help her neighbor who lost her husband in an accident climbing Mont Blanc. The husband had written letters to the neighbor all throughout his expedition, so Amélie forged a lost letter from him. She snuck some of the real letters away, photocopied them, and pieced together a new letter. Then she photocopied that letter and soaked the paper in coffee and hung it to dry to make it look old.
Thank you, I love your channel. I am 9 years old and I was studying about the human body because I want to be a pediatrician when I grow up so I went and looked it up on TH-cam and then I saw one of your videos, it was called Evolutionary Fails in the human body and I loved it , so thank you for everything!
god, I love these videos.
they're somewhat in a goldilocks-zone for me.
interesting and full of new knowledge, but not over-complicated.
the videos themselves are released with pauses in between, not every day like over at scishow.
not to long and not to short, just the right length for a snack in between.
Oh... I thought they just nuked the damn painting...
Cookie monster 315 same
It's the only way to be sure.
quality forgery is as much a fine art as art itself........& anyone with enough $ for a $10M painting sort of deserves.......never mind....... true fine art should be for any/all with an interest to appreciate.......openly displayed as opposed to collected/owned.
yup....in txt mode.......must dot.....lol
it's not about how good the art is, it's about who painted it.
Yeah on that aspect, but when it comes to it's monetary worth or authenticity in collection/owning, it pretty much artificially matters that it is the real deal by an artist, though I suppose excellent forgers for a time knew how to draw quite well themselves.
The new question is, how do we detect forgeries of post-1945 paintings?
This is actually quite a challenge using physics or chemistry! But the records and chain of custody is usually better for recent art, so a newer painting’s history isn’t as ambiguous
carbon dating and chemical analysis
The question is why should we care. Or rather why forgery (that does not look any worse than the original) should have lower value.
That's exactly the point van Meegeren was trying to make, btw. Look him up.
It's Okay To Be Smart So we keep track of art via blockchain?
Not so sure about the emojis in the title...
Okay! You guys win! Emojis removed 🤓
Except that one ☝️
Dang they just keep showing up 🤔
Lol
Brooke Hagner I saw the emojis on my notifications
I really do like videos related on both art and science. But this one I love it.
28th
I mean, sure, radioactive particles got into paint, making forgery nearly impossible to pull off, but wouldn't those same radioactive particles get into those famous paintings, making real paintings a tiny bit radioactive as well?
But wouldnt the isotopes drop and lay on something older too ? I mean, if anything present day has some of these, wouldnt it drop on the surface of something older than 1945 just because it exists now and today ?
Yeah......
Your right...
Triskan: I think the difference is in the volume: Old paintings will only have a thin layer of radioactive material (at least if you brush them a bit) while modern ones will have a much thicker mix, since the isotopes had many opportunities to be deposited and embedded in the pigment itself: in the ingredients, in the factory, in the containers before being used, between canvas and paint, etc.
@Duke Nukem That Iron maiden reference was incredible.
They get to be on old things and in + on not-so-old things
Just to add to Duke Nukem: Strontium is chemically similar to Calcium and Caesium is similar to Potassium. Most lifeforms cannot distinguish them, which is why they accumulate in higher concentration in, for example in case of Strontium, our bones.
The Canadian novelist Robertson Davies created a van Meegeren-like forger as a character in his 1985 novel _What''s Bred in the Bone_ . One important scene in the novel involves the protagonist unmasking a forged Hubertus van Eyck painting because the forger mistakenly put a New-World monkey into a painting supposedly done before 1492.
I think it reaches a point where the forgery takes so much work to do that it might as well just be as valuable as the original XD
As long as a picture is beautiful and skillfully made, it’s good enough for my purposes.
If your that good at making fake paintings, your work deserves to be worth millions.
If art was really valued because of the quality, fakes shouldn't need to be detected. If the fakes are indistinguishable they should be worth just as much.
Art is frequently not just about the end result, but about the history and the innovations. Anybody can make a piece like John Cage's 4'33'', but only John Cage did it.
samramdebest deep
+Alberto Torres only John Cage did it? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_silent_musical_compositions he wasn't even the first
+samramdebest: Only John Cage did 4'33'' with all the cultural implications. One composer and one humorist did completely silent pieces before, but the fact that I didn't hear about them is part of the reason John Cage's piece is famous.
It's also the first completely silent piece with sequels.
In any case I stand corrected in my first affirmation.
Art is most of the very overrated.
"It's okay to" say his name the right way, and not the American way. :P
Toby D So the American way isn't the right way?
Well it is very often not, when it comes to the pronunciation of foreign names.
Van Gogh is of course not pronounced van Go and Minkowski is not pronounced Minkausky. That's possibly quite difficult to understand, if one is only capable of speaking one language. Not that this is really an important thing, but it's a sign of cultural sophistication to try to avoid such intercultural errors, if possible.
Jesse Pinkman the same way your name isn't spelled Jessie
Danae Kelly It is on my files.
Jesse Pinkman that's not what I meant. I mean your name is your name, Gogh's name is Gogh's name, and the 'American' pronunciation is wrong because that's not his name.
Interesting discussion on the technical aspects of how to identify when something was created. Well done! I love how the practical aspects of this lends itself to fields such as criminology and archeology.
A few quick observations though:
1) "Forged Art" seem to be an oxymoron, for a few reasons. Firstly, art is simply something that is created for aesthetic or emotional appeal. In that regard, the item in question stands or falls on its own merits, not on its creator's. Secondly, if one does wish after all to factor in the "who and how" of the creation, doesn't "forgery" constitute a form of art in and of itself? In many cases a good "forgery" would be more difficult and require more skill and inspiration than an original.
2) Since most art has little or no actual intrinsic value, differentiating between "original" and "copied" art is pretty much a vanity project for the ultra-rich. While I admit that misrepresenting a work of art for the purpose of increasing its value is ethically dubious, I find it difficult to muster up much pity for someone who is willing to pay a king's ransom for a chunk of rock or smears of paint on a piece of cloth to begin with, regardless of its origin. Rather, I can't help but give a nod and a wink of acknowledgement to one who can pull off the making of an item that is virtually indistinguishable from an original.
Anyway, fun topic and great video. Keep up the good work :)
Dammit I thought I could nuke a museum and all the fakes would set on the top of the rubble.
When you've known this for years because you watched the first season of White Collar
and read manga about art forgery like "zero"
I think your narrative gets better and better in time. Thanks you guys for making such informative and interesting videos
You guys never dispoint us..by bringing new topics❤
i love those dutch names in the art industry, because i can listen to all the bloopers of non dutch people trying to say those names correctly. it's like pranking all the non dutch people :D
Whenever a non dutch person tries to say van Gogh they say van Go? seriously?
in dutch, its pronaunced van Gog (yes, you need the hard G here twice)
it's always weird to hear his name from a non dutch people, because it's suddenly a completely different name for me XD
BTW great video as always ;-)
PS Han van Meegeren is also dutch XD
Elyne van Opzeeland ikr 😂
it's really frustrating when he went with the wrong pronunciation though
Is it wrong when 99.8% of people say it the same way? Sounds like more of a problem with Dutch. 😉.
Data is dăta not dāta to me.... since I read it many times before I heard it. I understand what you're whining about, but I hope you understand you're just whining.
Isn't the "g" in Meegeren pronounced like an r?
As someone who's trying to learn dutch to honor my dutch ancestry, I have to say it's quite hard
Lucasp110...I heard, Dutch is from all languages the closest to English.
So if I make a good painting will it be fake since I'm not a dead artist ?
This channel has become my favorite. I think that they should develop an app. It would be great!
When people say forgeries do they mean 1:1 replicas of famous paintings, or do they mean fake paintings claimed to be made by a famous artist?
Either/both, I think it's just an umbrella term and it's probably left up to the context of a given scenario to clarify which.
If a forgery is so good that it can only be determined by physics and chemistry, I think the forgery merits its own gallery spot.
2:51 this is actually the right pronunciation of Van Gogh, except it's not "Ven" but like how Joe pronounced Han van Meegeren
Here's an idea: If the forged art is so well-done that it can still be as aesthetically pleasing as the original, and convey the same story and emotions as the original, plus an added layer of meaning created by the forger, then doesn't that make it at least as valuable as, if not more valuable than, the original?
1:50 we saw this trick in math last week, that's quite cool
1:20, to who did the painting look red?
Forgery is an art, and any forgery hiding in plain sight is master piece.
Also, fingerprints and palm prints along the edges and on the front and back of the canvass that match the fingerprints of the artist on the paintbrushes, paint jars, and paint cans that he or she used is a low-tech and effective way to verify a painting.
As much of the pain goes to scientifically testing the authenticity of a painting as it goes for painting the painting in the first place!!
Loved this video. Joe and his researchers do a bang-up job. Bravo.
I love you guys, amazing work!
I liked Joe’s effort to pronounce “van Gogh” correctly (only to be corrected to the American pronunciation...): however, the guttural sound of the last g should be the sound of the first g as well.
“Do you really wanna say Van Goff?” 😂😝
what's with the emoticons in the title?
they're cancerous...
*MAY GOD SAVE MR. BEAN AND WHISTLERS MOTHER* 😂
Parents:what are you doing?
Me:watching a educational video.
Parents: on what?
Me: how to forge old painting s
Links to DFTBA, old videos saying links in the dooblidoo.. You must be acquainted with John and Hank Green? If so, thats pretty cool. I'm glad to have stumbled across another great TH-camr 😊
Just wanted to say that ur Videos are awesome! Good work👍🏼 Greetings from Austria🇦🇹
Was I the only one hoping for the video to have some awesome puns??
Shreya Gupta there was ;)
At the end... 'whole picture'
2:52 actually came pretty close to correct pronunciation there
I apologize if somebody already asked this question, but haven't those old paintings all been restored to bits? There's gotta be contamination with modern paints and such in all of them. I am not familiar with a restoration process though... Just wondering.
I love that Han Van Meegren admitted to forgery when he was on trial for selling stolen art and the court didn't believe him and made him create a 'Vermeer' under supervision to prove he was even capable of forgery good enough to fool everyone.
I’m starting to think someone in there really likes Netherlandish art :)
For the one on the thumbnail, you can tell if it’s a fake if it’s earring is a star lol
I’m curious about the radioactive particles from nuclear weapons testing. Who’s to say those particles didn’t come into contact with original works as they moved through the air?
Just subscribed bruh i dont mind learning something new gotta work out my brain . never die bro and make videos for life
Organic matter that died during the nuclear age will also be more accurately datable in the future, because we know precisely how many nuclear tests have taken place each year (especially during the Cold War). There are typical spikes during the 60s and 80s which can be found in everything that lived at that time.
Also, the video uses the (very good) example of painting authenticity, but know that we very often use these methods of dating in archaeology.
Problem is, that the concentration of nuclear active isotopes isn't evenly distributed over the globe.
During this clip I farted 5 times. Now you know this and you got a little smarter and wiser this day.
Amazing content bro need more creators like you
One question: Does it matter if a painting is an authentic and original if no one can tell? Does artistic merit disappear just because the person who painted it is not who it was claimed to be? People who buy artwork solely for financial reasons (inflated value due to scarcity/ money laundering) ought to be shot.
Master forgers are great painters and artists, and I respect them more than most art collectors and gallery owners.
Jerry Ang 😾 Hm! Let me try to understand your train of thought. A person has the talent to create a unique artwork. It carries that artist’s credentials. Another yet unknown person creates a copy of that artist’s work claiming it to be by the master. One is genuine, the other a forgery. But that does not matter, you believe! Would it matter if the word was ‘counterfeit ‘ as with currency? Or medications? Both counterfeiting and forgery are considered criminal acts in civilised societies. How would you feel if you paid a substantial price for what was shown to be a fake item? Consider the mass production of faux trainers, watches and handbags in the far east.
First off, let me say that I credit forged originals more than forged copies, so yes, originality and creativity do hold value to me. But even indistinguishable replicas mean that the forgers are of similar technical ability to the original artist. People who manufacture fake products do not require that high of a skill level.
I am an artist, and to be honest, I wouldn't even be that mad if people credit me for work I did not produce if the work is of quality. Of course I would not accept the credit, but it really isn't something that would piss me off that bad.
I would get pissed if an art collector told me to create less art just so that my work can sell for more (like Charles Saatchi did with Jenny Saville), and then those pieces are never appreciated for their artistic value but for its perceived economic value. Just my two cents.
After all, imitation is the best form of flattery.
Now let me pose a scenario that is not entirely similar but probes at the same problem of objectivity and rationalisation of merit of a piece of work:
If tomorrow my teacher handed me the solution to the Poincare conjecture, and I submitted it to be peer reviewed under my name... Even though it isn't me who solved the equation, does the solution not merit a Fields Medal? Sure, I definitely should not, but the equation does, though the awardee should be changed.
So if someone buys a painting at an auction for $10million which is later revealed to be forged, the value of the painting should remain, though the attribution of work should be changed.
+Jerry Ang
Absolutely. If Einstein wrote a letter in 1951 to his wife, and I'd write exactly the same text onto a piece of paper in 2018, what letter do you think would be worth more, when auctioned off ?
People would be willing to pay more, because it was by Einstein, not me. The thing itself doesn't matter that much. It's how old (=rare) it is and who made it, not how good it is. Because a famous artist means high value. It''s not about art, it's about investing. Nobody is stupid enough to pay millions for a picture/drawing. People pay millions for a picture/drawing because they think they may sell it later for more. It's not about art, it's a financial investment and the artist (preferably famous and long dead, the more famous and the longer dead the better) is an import part of the equation how much the price might íncrease over time and thus how large the profit will be.
1) 2:00 Carbon-14 decays into Nitrogen-14, not Carbon-12.
2) The original attempt at pronouncing "van Gogh" was the best, IMHO, although the first "G" is also pronounced differently.
Thank you for this great video! Hope you had a Happy New Year!
Its funny because it gets to a point where we forget how hard is it to paint something like that
i love this channel.. and i dont even speak english frequently enough to understand all of this
How to forge a painting to look 100% real:
1.- Grab a Time-machine and go back in time to the time where the painting was finished
2.- Steal it
3.- Hide it somewhere only you know of
4.- Travel back to the present and unearth the painting
Done!
I feel like forgery is an art form in and of itself. If you can fake a painting in someone else's style, more power to you.
What is the music used in the outro?
How filthy rich do you have to be to pay millions of dollars for a painting? Crazy world.
I believe the scientific term is "stupid rich".
True, but we all benefit from those people. Besides the millions in taxes they pay, we also get things such as malls and other businesses, not to mention the jobs from the employees they employ. Many rich people also give millions to charities.
billybassman21 Your pro-rich stance has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. We ALL benefit from each other, that's what societies are based on.
Fernando Pulido, you must be a liberal.
I just refuted your point and your comeback is trying to find a label for me?
Can anyone tell me the name of the music in the end.
This will help me for sure....
When you have to cut the video to discuss the pronounciation of "Van Gogh" and decide to leave it in... LOL
That "cut" is clearly in their script as an intended part of the video...I just think that it would have worked better if he didn't come out of it using the worst pronunciation.
I do not care is it one paint fake or not, the impotent thing is to be beautiful done :)
I think the real question is the intrinsic value placed on something because of its creator and why that matters to us as a society, if you need highly advanced technology to decipher minute difference between a real and a fake thennnnn what does it matter and why?
What's the name of the music in the outro?
did u already find out the music name? they only said its from APM, i really want to know the music name too
The thing I've never understood about art is the idea that it matters so much who painted it. I mean, a masterpiece is a masterpiece regardless of whether Van Gogh painted it or Picasso painted it, so why should it stop being a masterpiece if it was painted by someone you've never heard of?
Finally, I can use my collection of Stolen Active Nuclear Weapons for something!
They...they "miscorrected" him! He was pretty close to saying it right the first time, dammit
Learn part of this from the Leverage episode with a priceless bottle of wine
So you taught me how to start forging art cool thanks!
How to make ez clickbait title in 4 easy steps:
1.Think of something so common in our world that we don't really question it, like toilets.
Think of one material or process that made it possible.example:
Fiberglass makes great insulation
2.Think of something that helped make the first one possible
melting sand makes glass
3.Repeat
sand is just rocks ground by the ocean.
4.profit:
How we made insulation out of rocks!
This channel is so good
Good video that deserves better than the clickbait title
I appreciate you saying 'van gogh' like it should sound :) well... almost. The Dutch 'g' can be hard sometimes.
Some of the fake ones are better than the real ones, tbh.
happy new year!
3:28 Wilhelm scream
I'm impressed that you pronounced von correctly
Restorations can be made after the original painters death, this makes it even more difficult to validate paintings
Although fiction, a great read about this topic is the book The Art Forger by B. A. Shapiro.
ITs pretty funny... You actually had it right with Van Gogh with the hard G... and were corrected WRONG....
Hi its ok to be smart , i love your videos and your channel has gave me so much information for my science projects i want to say you is thanks
2:51 thats almost perfect. just pronounce Van as fun
Please don't put emojis in your title
it's cancerous...
Magnus Juul like nuclear bombs
exactly :P
You are just one of the many pretentious fucks in the comment section that keeps on saying they don't want emojis but cannot provide a valid reason why emojis are "cancerous".
indeed
Great first video for 2018 guys
1:05 that what u gonna be seein wen kimmy hits that big red button
I just wanna say as that you were more accurate with '' Van Goff'' than the production with ''Van Go''
V= V in Vet
G = G in Get
O = O in clOck
GH = Ch in loCHness monster
Not quite exact but more exact :D
Awesome video. I assume Van Meegeren was the inspiration for the master forger in the Pierce Brosnan Thomas Crown Affair. The certainly chose an actor that looks similar to the real guy... Assuming the photo you used is accurate and not a forgery!
Van "Goff" (the hard khch sound) is actually the correct pronouciation
An almost exclusive dutch episode. How cool is that. But also sad. Finally someone getting close to van Gogh and he get 'corrected'.
Damn if it's that good of a forgery then I consider it art in of itself.