Here's something well worth looking at: The Disciples at Emmaus.
For a couple of decades, it was considered Vermeer's greatest, most important work, and therefore, in the eyes of some, the most important painting in history.
It is a forgery. It is a not terribly convincing forgery to even untrained eyes. And yet, it is perhaps the greatest forgery ever. Edward Dolnick has written an excellent account of how Han van Meegeren managed to produce a work which was taken as one of the greatest accomplishments ever in art.
Oddly, when van Meegeren was arrested - it wasn't for committing forgereries. It was because it had been discovered that a Vermeer had been sold by him to none other than Hermann Goring (forgive the lack of umlaut) - the Reichsmarschall himself.
Goring and Hitler spent enormous amounts of time and sometimes incredible amounts of money collecting Old Masters masterpieces. They considered themselves experts. Most of it was stolen. Goring always defered to Hitler, when Hitler became interested in a work, but Goring literally had employees scouring Europe to beat out Hitler in finding new items.
After the war, a "Vermeer" was discovered in Goring's collection. It was believed to be a genuine Vermeer. The Nazis - Goring was no exception - kept meticulous records of every acquisition - the practice is actually common in art acquiring circles. It was discovered, then, that van Meegeren had sold the painting - what should have been a national treasure - to Goring. This was collaboration with the enemy against the state and the penalty would be severe!
To avoid the penalty at his trial, van Meegeren had but one defence - to prove that he in fact had painted the work. He literally had to prove he painted it even though art experts testified against him that the work was a genuine Vermeer! He was discovered not by good art detective work - but by his own admission to save himself!
(Van Meegeren went on to be convicted of producing forgeries, which had associated with it a very minor sentence - one he would not actually live through to serve though. Throughout his career as a forger, van Meegeren earned many millions of dollars.)
Now back to the story: Nothing helps a forgerer more than there being a heated competition where time was a factor. The Nazis were out to gobble up Old Masters. The Dutch very much wanted to keep Dutch Masters in Holland and also found the need to grab anything that became available, very quickly.
Dolnick provides not just an interesting account of the mechanics of how to produce a forgery, but also gives us the crucial social context which is absolutely essential in understanding how such a forgery could be so particularly successful.
Van Meegeren literally spent years in quiet study of how to produce an oil based paint that would convince experts that it was some 250 years old. He had to do this on his own, without being able to consult other experts.
An the paint in an oil painting literally takes decades upon decades to harden - eventually it reaches a point where a wet rag would be unable to rub any paint off (unless you literally cracked it off). Before it fully hardens, though, the paint will smudge. Van Meegeren successfully figured out how to produce oil paints using very old methods (experts could tell if the oil paints used were modern, based on analysis of their ingredients). He needed to mix the paints using ingredients that artists in Vermeer's time would use - and he needed to add something to the mix that would allow the finished work to be "baked" in an oven to produce the hardening that would otherwise take centuries to accomplish.
The baking process was quite the remarkable technical innovation. But if you've seen any old painting, you'll notice a fine pattern of tiny cracks in the paint, called craquelure. An art expert has to have expertise in craquelure. Because of differences in ingredients, 17th century art displays different craquelure than 19th century.
Having spent years experimenting with paints, having spent months discovering how to "bake", and now having spent months painting this painting, van Meegeren now had before him a painting without any cracks. And he had to crack it in such a way that it would look like the bottom of a dry river bed. Can you imagine the anxiety the moment before he took his knee to the back of the canvass? Remarkably, the cracks cracked right.
Still - one final thing needed to be done - and here, van Meegeren was both bold and reckless - he knew that a 17th century painting would not only display craquelure, but further, the cracks will have collected dirt over the centuries, and his cracks were squeaky clean - he would have to find a way to add grime to the myriad of cracks he had created, without damaging the painting itself.
There was no paint brush thin enough to apply grime to these tiny, thin cracks. And one mistake would ruin everything. Again, van Meegeren found a remarkable solution.
He applied a thin coat of finishing varnish on the painting, and to his great luck, the cracks remained as is. He then used ink to blacken the cracks and found he could easily wipe away the excess. It was bold because it produced an effect that gave the appearance of aged craquelure. It was reckless because it would be possible for experts to do analysis on the cracks and if they did so, they'd quickly discover the work was a forgery.
This whole process took tremendous dedication - the dedication of someone willing to actually make sacrifices in order to achieve an end he/she held valuable. Early in his career, van Meegeren had acheived modest success as an artist. But criticism from art critics galvanized his determination to prove them and the rest of the world wrong.
Sure, money was a motivation for van Meegeren. But revenge was by far the bigger motivation. He would make a fool of the critics and experts. It was only out of the desire for revenge that van Meegeren found the determination to soldier on the many months it took to find a methodology for producing a work that would withstand some scientific testing.
Choosing Vermeer was a complicated, but very wise decision. First, unlike Rembrandt, there are very very few Vermeers. You paint a Rembrandt and the default assumption will be it's from the school of Rembrandt, rather than from Rembrandt himself. Rembrandt and his pupils are well known. But Vermeer didn't have a "school". His life is far less well known.
It was an age where new old paintings were regularly being discovered (or rediscovered). Genuine Vermeers were being found occasionally, often by the very experts who would go on to proclaim van Meegeren's forgeries were authentic.
There were so few Vermeer's that it would surprise no one that there were more out there to be found. Not much information exists (or existed 80 years ago) about Vermeer's life - much of what is thought is via extrapolation of the little that we know.
There were two important issues with Vermeer. The first, was the view, which has never been substantiated, that he was familiar with the works of Caravaggio - and had perhaps taken a study trip to Italy. The photographic style of capturing the moment suggests this. The second issue dealt with what seemed to be a startling development in Vermeer's works. His known early works are mostly religious based works. His later works are exclusively non-religious. There are tremendous differences in style between these two periods. Still, there are strong similarities which conclusively convince experts that these paintings are by the same person.
The one thing you don't do, of course, is paint an exact copy of an existing painting. You have to paint something else, and put enough Vermeer like characteristics in it, to make an expert think this could be a Vermeer. You really need to pay attention to detail. For instance, you should be aware that Vermeer often has light coming through a window on the left side of the room. You need to recognize that Vermeer often reuses certain objects like this pitcher from his work A Lady and Two Gentlemen. It appears again in A Lady at the Virginals with a Gentleman and again in A Woman Asleep at a Table.
As van Meegeren's success at forgery grew, he in turn grew lazy. His forgeries appear less and less convincing. At his trial, he actually laughed at this and admitted to laziness, pointing out the lazy paintings sold for the equivalent of millions today anyway, so what did it matter? But early on, he put as much effort into thinking about what to paint as he did into how to paint it.
One of his first attempts was to take two well-known Vermeers and mix them into one. So - when you combine Woman in Blue Reading a Letter with something like Girl Interrupted at her Music you'll get van Meegeren's Woman Reading Music.
But the Disciples at Emmaus was different; very different.
Imagine what it would be like to have succeeded with dogged research and investigation resulting in the discovery of a new Vermeer. Experts had expressed hope (in writings) that further Vermeers would be found which offered conclusive evidence of the influence of Caravaggio.
Imagine, then, how much excitment there would be to find a Vermeer wich a) showed a clear and decisive influence of Caravaggio; and b) was a work which connected Vermeer's early religious works with his later works.
In stating their hopes that such a painting would exist, experts were in fact displaying their willingness to accept a painting, should it come forward, that fit this bill. This was exactly the same kind of phenomenon we saw with the Piltdown Man Hoax. Scientists predicted such fossils would be found, and they were only all to ready to believe it when somebody said he had found them. Supper at Emmaus was Vermeer's missing link.
Van Meegeren's choice then was absolutely inspired. Caravaggio had painted Supper at Emmaus not just once, but twice. The scene is of the moment Christ reveals himself to a couple of disciples that he's risen. More correctly, the early Caravaggio is a scene of the moment after he reveals himself - the guy in the front is in the process of jumping out of his chair in disbelief. The later Caravaggio is a scene of the moment just as the big reveal is happening. The expressions on the others' faces is much more subdued - the full shock hasn't set in yet.
Van Meegeren chose the later Caravaggio. Vermeer simply didn't do shock and awe stuff.
So - we have Vermeer paying homage to Caravaggio. We have Vermeer's trademark use of that peculiar blue, and his equally famous use of that yellow. We have the window on the left. We have the milk jug (which really looks amateurish, if you pay attention to it). We have the subdued, subtle expressions - another Vermeer trademark.
It is only in this context that this work could have been accepted as a Vermeer. And it is only in this context that it could have been hailed as the greatest Vermeer. Once it had passed a few obective tests, there wasn't a sceptic to be found. No one checked that dirt in the craquelure.
Recommend the book.
