page 3 of 6

Repros have a long history in the study of Native American cultural material.  Expert craftsman and noted authority on Sioux culture, Larry Belitz, also cites the changing philosophy of museums:  “As public fascination grew, more exhibits with Native American craftwork appeared.  To make exhibits more inviting, museums also began to display items outside traditional glass cases.  Some museums even allowed hands-on exhibits.  Since original Indian pieces were too valuable and fragile for open viewing, museums ordered historically authentic pieces made by… replicates.”

Presently, the demand for original pre-1900 artifacts is increasing, but the available supply of these items is fixed.  Consequently, prices for originals have soared.  There is an open market for the skilled craftsman who can make a repro that is much less expensive than an original.  However, professionals have gotten quite adept at using old materials and techniques.  Repro artisans are making and selling very exacting copies of objects in museum collections, and consequently it is more and more difficult to tell the originals from the repros!

As we have already noted, there is a valuable scientific and educational place for excellent repros, but along with it must come a moral obligation for those who produce these facsimiles to clearly identify their works.  A repro is a repro as long as it is identified as such, but when misrepresented it becomes a fake.  In short, there has been a significant increase in artifact forgery.  Central to the concepts of fakes and forgeries is the intention to deceive.

Fortunately there has been some significant research published in the area of artifact forgeries, or “artifakes,” as they are called.  The majority of this research is the result of a 1984 seminar at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center (Cody, WY) aptly titled “Artifacts/Artifakes.”  The symposium dealt with a wide spectrum of issues relating to artifakes, and much of the proceedings have been published by the Museum.  According to symposium presenter Toby Herbst, forgers/reproducers have three options in producing a piece:  a copy, a pastiche, or an evocation.  Because of the traditional nature of American Indian art, exact copies (or ones with minor alterations) are difficult to detect.  A pastiche is created by merging non-related parts to create a new whole.  The third option, the evocation, is a difficult method that entails working in the style or manner of a tribal group or historic period.  To do this well involves great understanding of artistic traditions… and synthesizing them as a Native artist would.  Are any of these methods encountered in the Indian-style arts and crafts sold at living history events?  How are these crafts affected by legislation like Public Law 101-644?

Another artifact/artifake consideration bearing mention here is deliberate aging.  Deliberate aging of a work of art is generally understood to be a deceptive practice.  Several well known businesses create modern Indian art and give these items an old look or “aged patina.”  As long as it is easy to tell that the object was recently constructed (by use of modern paints, commercial leathers, nylon thread, etc.) the aging is not usually considered unlawful (though one might ask why the aging needs to be done in the first place).  But what about meticulous reproductions that are artificially aged?  A Federal Trade Commission Act (US CODE title 15, sea 41) “can reach cases where objects are deliberately made to look old and, as a result, deceive potential buyers.”  Aging just adds another carrot to the stewpot of Indian arts and crafts legislation!

Though high-tech artifact reproduction is a relatively recent development, the production and unfortunately, fakery of Indian-style arts and crafts has a long history.  In fact, Bill Holm makes quite a scholarly case pointing to our old friend George Catlin as perhaps having been one of the first persons to make extensive use of artifakes!  In his thought-provoking article, “Four Bear’s Shirt:  Some Problems With The Smithsonian Catlin Collection,” Mr. Holm wonders if Catlin had supplemented his collection of pieces with “objects of his own manufacture.”  He goes on to say, “Clearly the Four Bears shirt and many other pieces in the Catlin collection are artifakes, most of them combining pieces of fine, original Indian objects with newly and crudely made parts (Pastiche?).  I also believe that George Catlin himself was the maker.”

 

<<

Home

>>

page 3 of 6