
What if every artwork you've ever seen is a fake?
I was shocked and challenged him. It surely could not be the case that millions of annual visitors to the British Museum were encountering and experiencing not tangible, concrete treasures of human history, but the shallow simulacra of replicas. I may have even used the term 'fraud'.
Yet on my way home that night, I began to question my own experiences at the British Museum. I wondered what it meant if the Greek water jar I had been so moved by, depicting a woman who may have been Sappho bent over a scroll, had in fact been a worthless copy. Did that make the experience any less real?
Later, Googling, I discovered that none of what the man had told me was true. The artefacts in the British Museum are original, unless otherwise explicitly stated. It was the man who claimed to work there who was a fake.
So began my years-long fascination with the question of fakes, and the way we feel in their presence. If that Greek water jar had been a fake, I could never have known just by looking with an inexpert but appreciative eye. Would it devalue my overwhelming sense of connection to the past in the moment I saw it? This is one of the questions that led me to write my new novel, The Original, about fakes and the people who fall for them. Following a female art forger at the end of the 19th century, the book is about making and believing in fake art, fake stories, and fake people. I wanted to think, in the story, about the experience of being duped, because we live in a world that feels, at times, increasingly fake.
Thomas Hoving, the former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, has suggested that about 40% of artworks for sale are fake. Yan Walther, chief of the Fine Arts Expert Institute, puts the figure at 50%.
Last month, debate over the authenticity of Rubens' Samson and Delilah, bought by the National Gallery for £2.5m in 1980, reignited. The painting, dating from 1609 or 1610, was lost for centuries, and since arriving at the National Gallery has been subject to repeated controversies surrounding its authenticity. Are the brushstrokes too rough, the colours too unusual? Is the composition too different to copies of the original that were made at the time it was painted? Speaking to the Guardian, the former National Gallery curator Christopher Brown, who oversaw its original acquisition, appeared to suggest that the gallery itself had been responsible for replacing the painting's backing board, so destroying evidence about the painting's real age and provenance (he later went back on this statement) which sparked suspicion the Gallery may have covered up a fake for decades. The National Gallery responded by saying: 'Samson and Delilah has long been accepted as a masterpiece by Peter Paul Rubens. Not one single Rubens specialist has doubted that the picture is by Rubens. A full discussion of the panel was published by Joyce Plesters and David Bomford in the Gallery's Technical Bulletin in 1983, when Christopher Brown was the Gallery's curator responsible for the picture. Their findings remain valid, including their unequivocal statement that the panel was attached to a support before the picture was acquired by the National Gallery.'
This latest controversy follows a study conducted a few years earlier, during which an AI analysis of its brushstroke patterns found there was a 90% probability the painting was fake. I visited the painting after that story broke, having by then developed a slight obsession with questions of authenticity. It was the autumn of 2021 and we were all still adjusting to existing in the world beyond lockdowns. Seeing a painting in the flesh felt novel; the colours vivid: Delilah's illuminated neck, Samson's gleaming muscles, the shadowed scissors at the moment his hair is cut. The texture of those questionable brushstrokes was exhilarating. I stood in front of the painting and I wanted it to be real because I liked it so much.
A 2014 study published in the journal Leonardo tested how the belief in authenticity of art shapes our perception of it. Participants were shown paintings labelled either originals or, erroneously, copies, then asked to rate their experience. Paintings that were labelled as copies were consistently rated as less moving, less well-made, less well-composed and the work of less talented artists. It's a stark example of the extent to which our experience of art is moulded by the story we are told about it: the value we place on authenticity trumps reason, perception, our own eyes. A copy is automatically worse, even when it's not really a copy.
This same quirk of human impulse comes up in all sorts of other contexts. There are those expert sommeliers who are unable, under study conditions, to tell the difference between cheap and expensive wine. So-called 'dupes' of high-end fashion items are a part of the clothing industry's ecosystem; the internet is full of videos of vox pops in which people fail to identify, when faced with two near-identical outfits, which one cost tens and which thousands of pounds. Human beings are pretty inept at understanding our world without context, without story.
As you wander through the Museum of Art Fakes in Vienna, an institution dedicated to showcasing the art of forgery, what strikes you most is how unconvincing it all is, how hazy and dilapidated the fakes look. The colours look wrong. The materials look cheap. The brushstrokes look lazy and the way the paint adheres to the canvases seems insubstantial. But then, how could these pieces look otherwise, housed as they are in the Museum of Art Fakes? Removed from this cheapening context, Han van Meegeren's Vermeers, once pronounced 'the finest gems of the master's oeuvre', appear lovely, almost otherworldly. To emerge from the Museum of Art Fakes and head straight into Vienna's Kunsthistorisches Museum to view works by Vermeer and Rubens is an upending experience: you feel so certain, looking at those paintings, that you're in the presence of originals. Then you think about how they might appear if they were displayed in the unassuming basement gallery of the Museum of Art Fakes, and that certainty begins to fade.
It's striking that we have turned to AI to help us solve our authenticity questions (where humans err, artificial intelligence can distil brushstroke patterns to mere data points) when AI is simultaneously creating fakes at a rate previously unimaginable. Our online world is littered with photographs of people who don't exist, articles recommending books that have never been written, videos of imaginary places. Even as we learn to spot the tell-tale glitches of an AI-generated image (too many fingers, those terrifying misaligned teeth, an Escher-like impossible quality to the structure of buildings, furniture, bodies), AI improves and outpaces us again. It's embarrassing to admit to having felt a rush of interest or pleasure at a video of, say, a lamp-lit hillside village in the rain, only to realise it's a nonsense, empty fantasy, and worse: twee. To realise you have fallen for an AI-generated image, song or essay, untouched by a human mind, is to feel at once less human and horribly, vulnerably human: foolish and naive.
Human fakes, when contrasted with the emptiness of AI, start to seem quite affecting: the mischief of them, the skill and the audacity of the endeavour. Even the art market, on occasion, agrees: the works of prolific forger Tom Keating, who produced thousands of fakes in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, are now collector's items in their own right, to the extent that fakes of Tom Keating fakes began to appear too. Perhaps it's no wonder that such forgeries can move us, designed as they are to do just that, to be paintings of paintings and at the same time, blank canvases upon which we project all the things we want to care about and experience when we look at art.
When I think back to my conversation with the man in the pub years ago, it strikes me that there is something wonderful in having believed him. Perhaps there is beauty in embracing the lessons taught by fakes, that what we bring to art is our human selves: subjective, easily bamboozled, ready to be moved. The man who entertained himself one winter's night by telling a silly lie to a credulous stranger, inadvertently led me instead to something true.
The Original by Nell Stevens is published by Scribner (£16.99). To support the Guardian, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
MAFS UK star welcomes her first child with her fiancé via IVF after three miscarriages and failed adoption bid - as she reveals baby girl's sweet name
Married At First Sight UK star Jess O'Connor, known as Jess Potter, has welcomed her first child with her fiancé TJ O'Reilly. The dental hygienist, who shot to fame on the E4 show in 2022, underwent four gruelling rounds of IVF before revealing earlier this year that she was expecting a baby. Jess had previously suffered three miscarriages and a failed adoption and has been open about her battle with infertility. Taking to Instagram on Wednesday, Jess shared the happy news that she and TJ has welcomed a baby girl called Mia Jane O'Reilly after 12 hours of labour and five days in hospital. She shared an adorable picture of baby Mia along with snaps from her hospital bed after giving birth. 'After 5 days at hospital, 4 days in early Labour, 12 hours of active labour... a lot of screaming. I had the birth I've always wanted...,' she wrote. 'Mia Jane OReilly 6lbs 6oz born 4:51am 23rd July. You're perfect in every kind of way.' Almost 24 hours before, Jess had shared a picture of herself in her hospital gown before going into active labour. She captioned it: 'Waters went 8am, on hormone drip, had epidural, only progressed 2cm in 12 hours, waiting for the doctor.' Announcing her pregnancy in January, Jess shared a sweet video and wrote: 'After almost 3 years, 3 failed IVF cycles, 4 losses, and hundreds of injections… Our journey has been filled with heartache, hope, and resilience. But today, we're overwhelmed with gratitude to share with you: 'Our miracle baby O'Reilly arriving July 2025! This little heartbeat is proof that dreams do come true, no matter how long the road may be. 'Thank you to everyone who has supported us along the way. For anyone still waiting, we see you, and we're holding space for your story. With love, Jess & Tom ❤️.' Jess set up a GoFundMe page to raise £10k for the successful IVF round in February of last year. She took to social media at the time to reveal she was planning to ask members of the public for help in funding her treatment after three failed rounds of IVF. Days after revealing her attempt at adopting with her fiancé TJ O'Reilly had been rejected, she took to Instagram and TikTok to confirm they were seeking public funding after spending £15k on three rounds and losing three babies. In a heartbreaking turn of events, Jess revealed she was receiving abuse from followers in the wake of her announcement, with some cruel critics branding her 'a scrounger' and claiming she should 'save her own money'. Despite criticism, she did however garner a whopping £1,825 of her £10k goal from 164 patrons, within 17 hours of going live, and continues to ask for cash from fans. Jess, who became engaged to TJ in October, has been candid about her fertility journey, with her social media documenting her failed IVF bids. Earlier this week, she revealed their attempts at adoption had failed as they have not been a couple long enough - leading to her GoFundMe attempt. Taking to Instagram, she shared a selfie with her boyfriend and added a caption reading: 'Right…we're doing it!! GO FUND ME!! I know it's A LOT to ask and of course we're not expecting anything but we really do want one more shot at IVF... 'We need further tests which (one test alone) costs £2000. Our embryos would need to be moved to another clinic which again is very costly. Then a new IVF protocol and hopefully [fingers crossed] a 4th (and final) transfer… 'Praying that we get our happy ever after. All I've ever wanted is to be a mum and I just really want another shot at this!... 'So if anyone can help in anyway I will be SO grateful!!!! - will keep everyone updated with everything as we go along of course ! Link is in bio if u are able to donate at all'. On the GoFundMe page, Jess penned: 'Hi, my names Jess and for the past 2 years me and my partner Tom have been trying for a baby. We have been unsuccessful... 'We have had IVF three times resulting in 3 pregnancy losses. We would love to have another go at having a family, as being parents is all we have ever wanted but, we have spent over £15K and have no more savings... 'IVF costs a ridiculous amount and after 3 losses we would have to do further investigations to try and find out why we cannot have a successful pregnancy which cost thousands alone... 'Once we have discovered what could be causing all this heartache we would love to have another round of IVF... 'We would need to move our embryos to another clinic that specialises in reoccurring pregnancy loss which again is very costly... 'If anyone can help us in anyway to get near our goal of possibly having a child to love and complete us then we would be eternally grateful. x... 'All i've ever wanted is to be a mum and this has been the hardest 2 years of my life. It's drained the life out of me and the fact the money is causing another strain is heartbreaking. If anyone could help we would really appreciate it #IVFWARRIOR...


The Sun
6 minutes ago
- The Sun
Who is back on Love Island tonight? All about the shock comeback as Megan and Blu return to the villa
JUST like all good exes, they always come crawling back, as two dumped islanders are about to cause some chaos in the villa. In yet another shock twist in this years mouthwateringly dramatic Love Island, viewers were left stunned when two old islanders appeared in Tuesday night's teaser. 4 Who is back on Love Island tonight? Irish stunner Megan and Spanish lad Blu are the returning islanders set to have a second chance at love. The Sun understands that the two troublemakers entered the villa on Tuesday night and will feature on our screens on Wednesday night. Blu was the second islander to be eliminated from Love Island, while Megan was dramatically dumped shortly after. But after being dumped from the island before the summer of love had even fully begun, the pair (and producers) believed they had unfinished business. And yet the villa obviously had to make room for the two returners. And so the savage twist came only moments after Maya Jama revealed that Boris and Emma would be leaving the villa. 4 After receiving the least votes from the public to save their favourite islanders, the newly formed couple were sent packing. But they will not be the only islanders who will have their summer in Mallorca ended prematurely, as the two remaining bottom three couples have been put forward for another public vote to save their favourite contestants. Their fellow islanders will then have to choose who will leave the island out of the bottom two. The return of Blu and Megan promotes a tragic sense of irony, after Blu was booted after having a heated argument with former islander Shea about who should leave. Megan was also dumped from the island after being voted out by the public, after they turned on her. Love Island star rushed to hospital with 'worst pain in her entire life' On returning, Blu said: "There's a bit of open space now and people know the game a little bit more, so hopefully the couple of girls I've got my eyes on are willing to explore. "I told you all from the get go I'm not leaving and I'm not f***ing leaving!" Who is Blu? 4 Blu Chegini is a construction manager based in London and was one of the original cast members on this year's Love Island. He graduated from Oxford Brookes University in 2023 with a Bsc Hons in construction project management. Before joining Love Island, he worked in London, where he managed construction projects. Never one to hold back, the cheeky singleton revealed his mum runs a well-known adult store in Spain, and reckoned his upbringing prepared him for whatever Love Island might throw his way, though his time in the villa was shortlived. Who is Megan Megan Forte Clarke is an up-and-coming actress and social media personality from Dublin, Ireland. She is also one of the original islanders. 4 While her acting roles have been limited, she did not stay away from the drama while she was in the villa. She had the public turn on her after she dumped Tommy for Conor in her final few days on the show. With this shock twist, maybe she will be getting the encore the Irish bombshell deserves. She's also pals with Love Island legend Harriett Blackmore, who rose to fame on the show in 2024, before starring in All Stars at the beginning of 2025 (no wonder Megan fancied a return).


Telegraph
6 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The BBC has finally got something right in broadcasting unseen MasterChef
The BBC has made a right dog's dinner of the MasterChef saga, but its decision to broadcast the culinary contest's latest series after all is the right one. In the 'scrap it or screen it?' debate, screening it won out. It's the only wise move that the BBC has made during the whole sorry fiasco. A spiralling crisis in recent months has seen both the hit programme's judges-cum-presenters, Gregg Wallace and John Torode, exit through the studio kitchen's swing doors, following upheld complaints of inappropriate sexualised language and actions, and use of an offensive racial term respectively. Multiple victims came forward. Inquiries were launched. Self-pitying social media responses were posted. It seemed like every day, there was another twist in this tawdry tale. Throughout, the BBC has hardly covered itself in glory. It took far too long – years, in fact – to tackle Wallace's misconduct, so keen was it to keep the lucrative show on the road. It ignored duty of care concerns and brushed problems under the carpet, despite his unsavoury antics being an open secret. When scandal finally engulfed the franchise, executives prevaricated, panicked and hung Torode out to dry for what was – at least compared to the litany of charges against his co-host – a relatively minor misdemeanour. Now, though, the right conclusion has been reached. Despite controversy continuing to swirl around the disgraced duo, the BBC has announced that it will air the series filmed last autumn, before the allegations became public and the pair were sacked. This is only fair. Canning the entire run would have been an injustice. An over-correction which punished the wrong people. Many TV contests bill themselves as 'life-changing' but MasterChef genuinely is. Many of its amateur alumni go on to work in Michelin-starred kitchens, write recipe books or open their own restaurants. Winning the competition just about guarantees that gifted cooks can quit their day jobs and forge a new career in food. The latest cohort gave up months of their lives but have been left in limbo. It would have been a huge shame if their hard work had been squandered and their hopes dashed through no fault of their own. Beneath the slick editing and flashy trimmings, the show is about the contestants – watching their skills improve, their confidence blossom, their creativity come to the fore. The word 'journey' is flogged to within an inch of its life on such series but MasterChef traced that trajectory more than most. The show has always been bigger than its bellowing blokey figureheads who, it turns out, didn't even like each other very much. It's about the compellingly addictive, all-conquering format, which has been rolled out across 60 countries and watched by 300m viewers worldwide. Most of all, it's about the contestants. Not the ghastly greengrocer and the gaffe-prone Aussie but the talented amateurs whose stories viewers love to follow. Their series was completed and delivered to the BBC by production company Banijay months ago. It has been gathering dust on a shelf ever since, due to the bad behaviour of two individuals. At least it will soon see the light of day. The publicity alone of appearing on the show is priceless to those trying to succeed in the unforgiving hospitality business. Now that a launch date has been confirmed, Banijay ought to re-edit the 24-part series judiciously, to keep Torode and especially Wallace's contributions to a minimum. Any of the latter's clumsy attempts at 'banter' are now cast in a depressing new light and should be consigned to the cutting-room floor. It will be instructive to see if any disclaimers or trigger warnings are aired at the beginning and end of each episode. News of the long-awaited decision has also given the BBC and Banijay some breathing space until autumn. Producers now need to get busy. They must smartly set about the task of wiping the slate clean, recruiting new judges and giving the programme a reset. In the meantime, viewers should pop a TV dinner on Wednesday 6 August in their diaries. Six months after it was originally due to air, MasterChef will return to BBC One and iPlayer. It promises to hold a sort of grim fascination. At least for the contestants, their moment in the spotlight will come at last.