That's the first you've said about what you think of them. Will you expand on it?

It's good Degas' heirs had these copies made, since it resulted in the original works being preserved (and on display at the NGA in DC), and it allows more people (outside of DC) to get a fair idea of Degas output as a sculptor, even if these copies arguably went against his living intentions. Nobody can say what Degas would think of this all now, just as, in the literary-article I posted, it is up to the artists' heirs to decide what happens to left-over work.

And yes, breaches of ethical constraints happen frequently in the real world, including museums. It is lamentable.

These non-disclosed forgeries, falsely attributed as sculptures by Edgar Degas, are beautiful.

Unfortunately, you wouldn't normally find objects of this stature even in a museum gift shop.

On page 31 of the 2001 Association of Art Museum Director’s Professional Practices in Art Museums{17} booklet, it is written that the: “misleading marketing of reproductions, has created such widespread confusion as to require clarification in order to maintain professional standards. – When producing and/or selling reproductions, museums must clearly indicate, through the use of integral markings on the objects, as well as signs, labels, and advertising, that these items are reproductions.”

The AAMD requires of their members that: 1. “When producing and/or selling reproductions – signatures, edition numbers, and/or foundry marks on sculpture must not appear on the reproduction.,” 2.“ …the fact that they are reproductions should be clearly indicated on the object.” and 3. “When advertising reproductions, museums should not use language implying that there is any identity of quality between the copy and the original or lead the potential buyer to believe that by purchasing any such reproductions, he or she is acquiring an original work of art.”

In other words, even if these forgeries were actually reproductions of Degas mixed-media models, the posthumous application of foundry marks, edition lettering and counterfeit "Degas" signatures precludes their display and sale in any AAMD member's gift shop.

What is the public to think when a museum gift shop has a higher ethical standard than the Art Gallery of Alberta?

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs & scholar
Fernandina Beach, Florida

"bronze sculptures with a provenance whose relation can be traced to Edgar Degas"

WHAT IS PROVENANCE?
On the auction house Sotheby's http://www.sothebys.com website, it defines -provenance- as: "The history ownership of the property being sold. This can be an important part of the authentication process as it establishes the chain for ownership back (if possible) to the time the piece was made.”

Since -all- bronzes, attributed to Edgar Degas (d 1917) were forged posthumously (after 1919), how can they be truly "traced" back to someone who, at the time, was at least two years dead?

"You'll have to be a mite more explicit for me to allow "The same considerations of justice and social order that make deliberate fraud of others kinds criminal apply equally to fraud through the medium of counterfeit art…" to stand as a given."

That's a double standard.

Respectfully, you might want to rethink such an untenable position.

To humbly assist you, link to: http://garyarseneau.blogspot.com/2008/01/thirteen-fakes-in-art-institute-of.html

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs & scholar
Fernandina Beach, Florida

The thousands, and tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on bringing bronze sculptures with a provenance whose relation can be traced to Edgar Degas would exempt the AGA from part B of your comment, Gary. These bronze sculptures have been favoured at some considerable expense indeed!

You'll have to be a mite more explicit for me to allow "The same considerations of justice and social order that make deliberate fraud of others kinds criminal apply equally to fraud through the medium of counterfeit art…" to stand as a given.

On page 816-817 of Kluwer Law International’s published 1998 Law, Ethics and the Visual Arts, Third Edition by John Henry Merryman and Albert E. Elsen wrote about “Counterfeit Art.”

TRUTH
Under the subtitle “Truth,” the authors wrote: “The most serious harm that good counterfeits do is to confuse and misdirect the search for valid learning. The counterfeit objects falsifies history and misdirects inquiry.”

RESOURCE ALLOCATION
Additionally, under the subtitle “Resource Allocation,” the authors wrote: “Museum and art historical resources are always limited. What gets acquired, displayed, conserved and studied is the result of a continuous process of triage, in which some objects can be favoured only at the expenses of others. Counterfeit objects distort the process.”

FRAUD
Finally, under the subtitle “Fraud,” the authors wrote: “There remains the most obvious harm of all: counterfeit cultural objects are instruments of fraud. Most are created in order to deceive and defraud, but even “innocent” counterfeits can, and often will, be so used. The same considerations of justice and social order that make deliberate fraud of others kinds criminal apply equally to fraud through the medium of counterfeit art…”

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs & scholar
Fernandina Beach, Florida

I own the catalogue, and there are a number of essays on this topic. Which I have not yet read.

But still, I find it odd that somebody'd be willing to disallow us from enjoying the things AS THEY STAND.