Forgery and fashion knockoffs



A replica  of the Venus of Milo at Central St Martin's, UAL,  reception

I recently read a very interesting book, an account of the life of Van Meegeren, the Dutch artist known for his forgery of Vermeer and for conning the Nazis into buying his own work passing it off as original Vermeer.  He did not copy any existing work, he created new pieces in perfect Vermeer style, as if they were genuine 17th century pieces, responding to the hopes of art critics that more Vermeer work should be discovered, especially the canvases depicting religious subjects, something Vermeer did only for a relatively brief spell at the start of his career. Until Van Meegeren put Vermeer's signature on the works he would have not been guilty of any forgery as such. Anyone can paint anything 'in the style of' and not break any law, but signing off with another artist's name, for lucrative gains, is against the law, no more than signing off a contract using someone else's identity.
Forgery is the bane of the art world because it involves obscene quantities of money. There is a fine line to be drawn between forgery and restoration, as the methods of the restorers are often used by the skilled forger, to perfection. Forgery takes restoration to a completely different level.
The crime of the forger is  linked to the quest for authenticity,  the driving force of the art market, the reason why old masters can fetch such high fees. It also follows that an art historian's reputation as validator of authenticity can be rendered quite fragile by the well made forgery. Despite all the scientific advances which can reveal the age of a canvas and the way it has been treated, the final authentication still rests on the knowledge of the art historian.
A recent case involving Leonardo's Salvator Mundi, which resurfaced in 2005 and was sold to the Abu Dhabi Louvre in October 2017 for a staggering $450 million has seen world experts on Leonardo vouching for its authenticity.  But not quite unanimously. Walter Isaacson, for example, is not convinced the work is by Leonardo, nor are a few other dissenting voices. Only time will unravel the mystery surrounding this painting, which could after all be an excellent forgery, like the Emmaus Supper painted by Van Meegeren, which for years took pride of place at the Boijmans  in Rotterdam.

Salvator Mundi. Source: Wikipedia

Author Thierry Lenain wrote in his 2011 book Art Forgery that "the fake is a mirror image of an expectation or, more exactly, a device made to trigger a recognition process by appealing to this expectation" (Art Forgery, page 314). It is a very apt definition and one that resonates in areas other than art.
I am particularly intrigued by the meaning of 'forgery' in the context of fashion. Within the fashion industry a forgery is better known as a knockoff or a replica. It would seem that the law is somewhat ambiguous over this matter. A counterfeit replica is technically illegal - but counterfeit fashion is a  very lucrative industry in itself -  whereas a knockoff is fine. Only recently, various papers reported that PrimarkUK sells copycat Valentino's shoes  at £14 - whereas the original Valentino is £650.  Clearly the quality of the material is quite different but the shoes look like Valentino's, minus a couple of details, thus getting away with a  'Valentino inspired' label. The  'Valentino inspired' is in itself a way to entice consumers, though the Primark site does not mention Valentino at all.
It has long been the business of fashion magazines to show original designer items side by side their mass produced, more affordable (but of lower standard) versions, which in order to be perfectly legal must present some minor variants on the original design and obviously not bear a fake signature.
Primark Valentino's copycat
Julie Zerbo, editor in chief of The Fashion Law has discussed various cases of fashion designers and copyright law and the lack of protection afforded to them. The point of contention is the selling of counterfeit copies, which, as mentioned, is extremely profitable as a business.
Gone are the days when fashion houses would sell licensed patterns to enable women to make their clothes at home, drawing on their sewing skills. This is hardly an option these days unless you search for such patterns and recreate 1950s fashion yourself. I am not sure this would count as copyright infringement as such, unless done on an industrial scale.
When you have online sites advertising their wares as 'buy without the $$$tag' , one realises the legal ambiguity of the knockoff. If I am sold a Louis Vuitton bag bearing a Louis Vuitton label on eBay or elsewhere and I know it is not the genuine item, then we are clearly talking about  a 'fashion forgery'. If I go to Primark and buy the Valentino replicas no one is ostensibly committing any crime. But...
The problem is to do with greed and fashion consumerism and that 'expectation' discussed by  Lenain.

An example of sustainable, ethically sourced, made to measure high fashion designed by the talented Central St Martin's students for the Swarovski/20th Century Fox/ GraziaUK competition. Model: me

If we really were to embrace a fashion that we make ourselves, for ourselves, devising every time a unique, individual  look through a combination of vintage, recycling, ethically sourced material  and using our own creativity we would stop keeping this mammoth copycat industry alive.
We do not need to push consumerism to the limit in order to be happy.

Comments