History of Counterfeiting Grigorieva

[Ninon]

Try to answer the following questions:

1. First for Maroussi :
I am a lawyer , and in the arts - the purest consumer.
Interpretation of the Civil Code - that's what I'm doing
every day. Comments to the GC - it too , but for a variety of articles
I went on a lot.
To business Basner and others like it , I have nothing to do , but the legal aspects of art experts
( and the attendant problems of buyers and sellers )
interested me for a long time .


2 . About the size of copies - all documents Hermitage Museum, the State Tretyakov Gallery , etc.
mandatory only for employees of these institutions ( or for those
who concluded with these agencies any contracts for copying) . The Civil Code does not impose any requirements for copies of works of art.
Moreover, any reduction in leaf is , in my opinion ,
copyright infringement because distorts the author's intent .
If someone from the " tiger forum " is a document regulating
making copies , I'm ready to see it and give their assessment -
for whom and under what circumstances this document is mandatory.

3 . Copy of author's legitimacy .
Explanatory dictionary Ozhegova defines the word " copy" as " an exact reproduction of anything ."
" Correct " is defined there as " completely false."
Therefore, a copy of the picture must accurately reproduce all that the artist saw fit to portray on canvas. If he painted his " squiggle " copyist shall repeat it.

4 . As for the " automatic " conversion of copies in a fake , then
this I wrote in a previous post . No automatic conversion is not here.
But with " remakes " - is. As soon as it appears imitation signature of the artist who wrote the picture , the picture turns into a fake.
But the fact of the creation of such a forgery does not give grounds for accusations of fraud - it needs at least an attempt to sell a picture . And while this picture hanging in the studio of "creator" - it's only copyright infringement.

[Питер-С]

Сообщение от acetate

... and has completely rewritten " Danae " and " Terrible" Repin , and all responsible places .
Interesting story Repin himself tried to rewrite the face , but it was
thirty years from the date of the painting and the result did not satisfy all . restorers
headed by Grabar politely said no thank you washed that wrote Ilya Efimovich and rebuilt themselves , the result is known to all .

I want to clarify a little . Grabar on Repin's painting washed his correspondence on the same day , and not in thirty years ... http://ilya-repin.ru /ivan-grozny3.php

But so, just by the way ...

Added after 13 minutes

Сообщение от Ninon

The validity of author's copy .
Explanatory dictionary Ozhegova defines the word " copy" as " an exact reproduction of anything ."
" Correct " is defined there as " completely false."
Therefore, a copy of the picture must accurately reproduce all that the artist saw fit to portray on canvas. If he painted his " squiggle " copyist obliged to repeat it ...

Here let still disagree with you . All the same, in our issue is not the real source of " Dictionary Ozhegova ." In my opinion the author's signature can not copy all the same . As well as artificially old copy , paint crazing , etc. Although agree copyist could easily make it " faithfully reproducing the " Preview " completely untrue ."
Do you agree?

[тата]

Signature on the copy do not copy and write a copy of this work that the artist (eg Repin ) carried out such that the artist (eg Belokopytov ) . Written on the face or turnover .
 Frequently may increase or decrease the format e.g.
interior of reasons . Incidentally considered changing the size of the copy we
guaranteed against further opportunity to pass copies of the original.
If the signature is intentionally removed ... washed , smeared , etc.
For example picture Shurpin "Morning of our homeland," repeated several times , and each shows the artist copyist . With each copy deducted weighty " copyrights " artist , as many believe it do a disservice to the author of the work it took to drink and degraded as an artist , although according to
Drevin - Shurpin was one of the most talented of his pupils .

[Маруся]

That's where only is my message to meet that ( quote) now shall insert if possible :

We can even imagine that cows fly. Yes and distort the words of others should not
Union catalog of museum collections is not meant , in addition to the small picture and description of the work , " the full range of technological research " , but had to include the date and source of income in the museum collection .
And it seemed to me that Rybakov Yu meant just reducing the burden on expertise - most collectors simply would not have contact work "based on" works from the museum's collections ( such as the story of Sapunov ) Ask Vasilyeva, he bought his " Grigoriev ," knowing that almost the same belt is in funds ?
A museum, in turn, would have rechecked their funds and find out if what they have stored , documents . And pereatributsiyu work has not been canceled ...
And now we have "to spite accomplices a " blind will have a number from the registry But whether it is for the benefit of everyone else ?

Ninon,
You famously Code " eat ." It is time to write comments ...

[тата]

Yes, like I wrote that 30 years Repin tried, but did not work

"Not satisfied with the result of" the way and Repin too.
<! - ~ 1 ~ -> Re-read it right.
No?
 
But it's like, "..... on someone who was? Kindly express clearly ..."
<! - ~ 1 ~ ->

[Питер-С]

Сообщение от acetate

Yes, like I wrote that Repin , 30 years after the creation of the painting tried , but did not work

Sorry, I was not attentive ...

Added after 2 minutes

Сообщение от Maroussia

... Unified catalog of museum collections is not meant , in addition to small image and job description , " the full range of technological research " ......

Totally agree! !
*****************************************

More interesting information for our topic :
Andrey Vasilyev on his page on Facebook-ehttps://www.facebook.com/andrei.vassiliev.58 tells the story of a comparative analysis ( " optoelectronic komparatsii " ) of two images - reproductions from burtsevskogo magazine in 1914 and reproductions of Russian - muzeyskoy pictures. Outcome of this study ( if I understood correctly ) - is the same image (!)
( in their language , in scientific , it sounds like this : " ... analysis gives grounds to say that there were no indications that the playback data were obtained with different paintings. All the observed differences can be explained by the specificity of the spectral sensitivity of photographic materials beginning of XX century . retouched or small ... )

I do not know about you, but I found the 1100 differences in the drawing. If this did retoucher , his name I know - Boris Grigoriev

( Pictures can be found here : http://art1.ru/art/vokrug-parizhskogo-kafe/)

[Маруся]

Сообщение от Peter C.

I totally agree!!

*****************************************

Agree or not - it's like you please But once again I ask you: do not distort the words of others, and especially not edit other people's quotes in your message

[khmelev]

Vasilyev same as the results of comparative studies are not fake and museum thing . A photo of the museum items and photographs published Bourtzev . Obviously were made black and white photos in the same resolution and using any of tomographic techniques , a comparative study .
However, something tells me that this story can be surprises it with expert opinions. This does not apply is the first independent examination of Grabar and subsequent forensic examinations

[Ninon]

Peter C, unfortunately , I can not agree with you .
The dictionary defines the value of the presentation of the words.
Statutory acts may well use a word in a completely different meaning than it does the " Explanatory Dictionary " .
But if such a regulation is not, there is no reason to not accept that the meaning of words , which is in the dictionary .
If I see a regulation that will somehow differently determine
that such copying pictures, I will use the term "copy"
in another sense .

Craquelure (or crackles ) does not apply to the image. And I talked about the exact reproduction of what is shown in the picture . Age is also not an image
applies .
Therefore , in my opinion , the analogy can not hold here .


TATA writes about how usually made copies (or made ​​before) .
With this course, I do not argue - let it do those who know this world from the inside .
But even if we admit the existence of such undercover customs ( and you can always find those who would argue the opposite ) , it is not grounds for accusing someone of forgery .

Once again - the civil law it is possible to justify
mandatory transfer to canvas images in full
(including the author's signature ) and the inadmissibility of arbitrary resizing
image.

In this case, the difficulty lies in the fact that the doctrine of our civil rights , many important questions developed bad - just because they did not exist before the development needs. And today there is a need ,
but not doctrine . Therefore, law enforcement agencies to prosecute and the courts decide , guided by " revolutionary sense of justice ."
It is possible that after a wave of scandals involving some of fakes
civilists take up deep on the subject.
Wait and see .

[Питер-С]

Сообщение от Maroussia

Agree or not - it's like you please But once again I ask you: do not distort the words of others , and especially not edit other people's quotes in your posts

God, is it was me ! ? <! - ~ 1 ~ ->

Once again in the ---- and n and m to about !

**************************************


To Ninon:

Then I have a question for you . What do you think , can it be called forgery ( as a material object ) Vasilyeva picture or you can call it a copy ?

( Just warning you that my question without mockery ... )