
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


BBC News
3 minutes ago
- BBC News
Welcome to your new Huddersfield Town page
You may have already noticed a different layout and feel to your Huddersfield Town club this page, BBC Sport will serve up a bespoke club service, complete with the latest news and analysis on everything you are on the app, don't miss a beat by tapping the bell icon and signing up for news if you are on a browser, tap 'Follow' at the top to ensure the best content is always at your fingertips.


The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Admissions jump at Everyman cinema chain despite ‘challenging' backdrop
Cinema chain Everyman has revealed that sales surged by more than a fifth over the past year following a jump in admissions and higher ticket prices. Boss Alex Scrimgeour hailed the performance over the first half of 2025, saying it reflected the 'successful execution' of Everyman's growth strategy. Shares in the company rose in early trading on Monday morning as a result. The company said it is trading in line with its forecasts for the full year, despite a 'challenging economic environment'. It told shareholders on Monday that group revenues rose by 21% to £56.5 million for the half-year to July 3, compared with a year earlier. This was supported by a 15% jump in admissions to 2.2 million for the half-year. It was among cinema groups to have been boosted by major new releases over the period including Thunderbolts, A Minecraft Movie and Mission Impossible: Final Reckoning. The chain said the average price paid for a ticket rose 6% to £12.46, while there was also a 5.9% increase on the amount spent by customers on food and drinks. Everyman currently runs 48 cinemas across the UK, after growing further with the opening of its latest venue in Brentford in March. It plans one further opening this year at The Whiteley in Bayswater next month. The UK's fourth biggest cinema operator said it will open two more venues next year and highlighted a 'strong pipeline' of future developments as it continues with expansion efforts. Mr Scrimgeour, the former Cote restaurant boss, said: 'Our performance in the first half reflects the successful execution of our strategy, with growth across all key metrics and ongoing delivery of our measured expansion programme. 'This is driven by Everyman's unique brand of high-quality, experience-led cinema. 'We look forward to building on this momentum in the second half of the year.' Shares in the company were 6.6% higher in early trading.


Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Emmerdale celebrates Lionesses' triumphant Euros victory with surprise episode shake-up - amid claims soap will be hit by 'huge cast cull'
Monday's episode of Emmerdale kicks off with a riotous pub celebration for the Lionesses' victory over Spain - in a last-minute addition from producers. Even the ITV bosses behind the beloved soap cannot hide their pride for England's women's national football team, who emerged as the triumphant winners in Sunday's UEFA Euro finals. The opening of the episode, which is already available on ITVX, will see Bob Hope, played by Tony Audenshaw, chatting with Mary Goskirk, played by Louise Jameson, about last night's incredible match. Viewers will also get a glimpse of a lively celebration at the Woolpack pub, with villagers having piled excitedly in to watch the Lionesses make history. The scene was a last-minute addition, filmed with the hopeful anticipation of an England win. And it allowed Emmerdale to capture the national excitement surrounding the Lionesses' triumph. 'With the nation getting behind the Lionesses, we knew the fictional characters in Emmerdale would've been doing just the same,' said producer Laura Shaw. 'So, it felt right and proper that we should reflect this result on the show.' The move follows news that ITV bosses are thought to be planning a dramatic shake-up of their flagship soaps Coronation Street and Emmerdale, with proposals to 'cut one in ten cast members' as part of sweeping cost-cutting measures. The broadcaster has announced plans to slash £15million from its budget, after revealing profits have plunged by 44 per cent to £99million for the first half of the year. Now, both soaps are reportedly being targeted in a bid to bring spiralling production costs under control. It has been reported that around 10 per cent of the current cast lists - which include 84 regulars on Corrie and 70 on Emmerdale - are expected to be dropped. Scripts and episode structures are also under review, with producers being told to reduce the number of scenes per episode and tighten shooting schedules. A source told The Sun: 'It's brutal. We've known it was on the cards for a while, but they're really cranking it up now and it's across the soaps. 'They're looking to save millions and Corrie and Emmerdale are the obvious places. They're very expensive shows.' Most actors are contracted per episode and guaranteed a set number annually - a system which is thought to have become unsustainable. Some long-serving cast members are reportedly concerned about their job security, particularly those who rely on a steady income from the soaps. The source added: 'Many who have been there for a long time are reliant on their income staying as it is. 'The amount of cast has spiralled out of control and focusing on dialogue, not action, could also save money.' The proposed cuts come as ITV undergoes a wider restructuring across its daytime programming, with major job losses already hitting shows including Good Morning Britain, Lorraine, This Morning and Loose Women. MailOnline has contacted ITV for comment. In a series of changes, the broadcast channel has already started undergoing changes to its daytime format. As previously reported by MailOnline, the fourth series of The 1% Club, which is normally shown on Saturday nights, ended in May - but will now be back in Autumn, in a brand new form. Instead of airing just one night per week, ITV announced the programme will be transformed to create a five-day special event renamed The 1% Club Rollover. The basic gameplay will remain the same - but if the prize pot is not won on one episode, it will roll over to the next. Also in May, ITV announced there would be dramatic changes to Lorraine Kelly's show slashed from an hour to 30 minutes and, like Loose Women, will only air 30 weeks of the year. The new regime, set to come into effect in January, will cost a potential 300 staff members their jobs as a consultation period begins, thought to last until September, before employees are finally let go in December. A source told The Sun: 'The tension is unbearable. There's a lot of rage towards This Morning, which everyone feels is constantly favoured despite it being the lame duck of the daytime flock. 'There's a feeling that Loose Women and Lorraine are delivering resilient, solid ratings while This Morning is always in the Press for its tumbling viewing figures. Loose Women is even winning awards.'