Authencity
Copies and the Art Market

Throughout history, art has been copied by both artists (in training) and forgerers. It is the negative connotation of the latter that gave the copy its bad name. However, a 'copy' covers many loads and has become an interesting field of study for many art historians. This paper will therefore discuss the differences between certain type of copies and will give insight into the reception of copies by contemporary critics. The discussion inevitably leads to the meaning of authencity as a concept and the impact op copies on the art market. The main artist discussed in this text is the baroque painter Pieter-Paul Rubens (1577-1640) who lived and worked in Antwerp, but travelled to Italy to make copies of the big masters in art history.
 A copy of a painting take many shapes; it includes printed reproductions of original paintings on canvas or paper, copies in the same techniques and scale as the original and compositions in the style of a well-known artist. It is important to understand that the style and approach of artists towards copying changed throughout the twentieth century. Before the First World War, the composition of the original paintings remained, but the colour scheme altered into more luminous shades. Artists like Matthew Smith, for example, translated the blue and ivory 'Madame Rivière' of the French painter Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres (1780-1867) into a red coloured work of art. After the War, copies became more and more remeniscent of the art of the past, but it nevertheless got detached from the original by ignoring the style of the artist. In the years 1920 and 1930, artists got inspired by more traditional genres. They studied old techniques and took over the brown and grey colours of the discoloured varnish. The influence of the rise of the dadaists and surrealists was nevertheless irreversable, which for example was visible in the work of Marcel Duchamp. In the sixties, surrealism became a vast component.  
 The chief reason for making copies in the past as well as now is the opportunity for the artist to make himself familiar with and to fully apprehend an artist's style. Through copying, they could learn how to work with all sorts of painting and drawing materials, and then they could apply them later in their own art-works. A museum that had a great history of encouriging the making of copies is the Louvre in Paris. Story tells that foreign artists like Marc Chagall (1887-1985) went straight to the museum after his arrival, without first leaving his suitcases at the hotel. This enthousiasm stemmed from the special arrangements and previlege the Louvre had installed; they could copy paintings five days a week, while visitors could only behold the paintings during the weekend. Moreover, the rooms of the museum were heated during the winter. Another very important motivation for the practise of making copies is the absence of photography before 1839. People were compelled to visit the museums in order to see a work of art, unless they could see a well made copy in their own home town. The visitors could also buy copies in the museum. Even in the present, artists continue copy art-works for their own education and pleasure.
 Pieter Paul Rubens, an Antwerp painter, travelled (on request of the duke of Mantua) to Italy in 1601 to copy the great masters of his time. In this period, he copied the work of Titian, Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci, amongst other painters, and used these paintings and drawings for personal study. In this way, he created a library of images for himself and for his students, which was kept together for his offspring in case they would become artists themselves. However, this never happened. The copying of the work of great artists goes back to the idea of 'emulatio', which states that when a beginning artist mimics good (and preferably antique) works of art they could also surpass these works. By contrast, some contemporary and later art critics criticised the practice of copying, because Rubens sometimes used whole figures from the Italian artists and claimed them as his own invention. In the early eighteenth century, however, this negative vision changed when the prevailing view that copies were subordinate to original works of art altered. In 1724, for example, critic Antonio Palomino wrote that when a copy was good enough to mislead connoisseurs, it should be admired as least as much as the original. He stated that Rubens' copies of the work of Titian were even better executed than the originals. On the other hand, Jonathan Richardson, a contemporary critic, said that 'copies are by definition inferior to originals'. It was only in the late eighteenth century that critics discussed the differences between the style of Rubens and his Italian sources. This lead Conrad Martin Metz to state that 'Rubens found pleasure in reworking old drawings in his collection'. It was in Metz opinion that these drawings were highly-collectable.
 In conclusion, it can be stated that copies are of all times and stake many forms, as they ar an important learning method for young artists especially. The practice of copying was even supported by major museums like the Louvre, which in turn generated a great body of artworks. An important example of an artist copying great masters for personal usage is Pieter-Paul Rubens. On the request of the duke of Mantua, he travelled to Italy and copied so many works that ended up with a true image database avant la lettre. aquired a library to hold on to. These copies were and still are a starting point for discussion by art critics since their creation.