Faking is an act through which an object is provided with an identity not belonging to it, in order to deceive and to benefit from somebody’s detriment. Faking concerned archaeological finds, contemporary art sculptures, documents, furniture, paintings, relics and so on. Musical instruments were not spared by this phenomenon, which in contrast was a standard feature in the history of those artifacts. From the most ancient known cases in the middle of the 16th century until the most recent ones at the beginning of the new millennium, musical instruments’ forgery has never ceased and counterfeited, plagiarized and altered products were spread nearly in every continent. This kind of falsification flourished as it eased the availability of very sought-after works, which otherwise were scarcely achievable because of economic reasons or shortage of specimens. Namely it was able to exploit the widespread demand for high performing musical instruments, for evidences of early musical cultures and for goods to invest in. Therefore its actions were focused on the most important parameters of an instrument: age, place of origin and maker’s identity. When the first detailed research into the Florentine antique dealer Leopoldo Franciolini was published forty years ago, organology began to link his name with musical instruments’ forgery as automatically as excessively. Indeed several other forgers operated before, at the same time and after Franciolini. Some of them may be mentioned, for instance Isaac Ehe, the Voller brothers or Yuko Kanda. Yet most of the fakers remained anonymous. Finally, on the one hand faking musical instruments was undoubtedly a common practice, but on the other hand detecting the nature of the fake must not be forced. If the purposeful intention of deceiving cannot be observed, then an unauthentic instrument – for example a replica – cannot be consequently judged to be false. In the same way, if the building of a musical instrument cannot be associated with one individual maker, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is not genuine.
Falsificare significa attribuire a un manufatto un’identità che non gli appartiene con lo scopo di ottenere un beneficio a proprio vantaggio o a danno di altri soggetti. Nel corso dei secoli la falsificazione ha interessato reperti paletnologici, sculture d’arte contemporanea, ritrovamenti archeologici, documenti, arredi, dipinti, reliquie e altro ancora. Gli strumenti musicali certamente non sono stati risparmiati dal fenomeno, che, anzi, si è dimostrato una vera e propria costante nella storia di questi prodotti. Dai casi più antichi conosciuti risalenti alla metà del Cinquecento, fino a quelli più recenti al principio del nuovo millennio, non si sono registrate pause nella realizzazione di esemplari fasulli e la presenza di contraffazioni, plagi o alterazioni ha interessato pressoché tutti i continenti. La falsificazione ha potuto prosperare perché ha sempre svolto la funzione essenziale di facilitare la reperibilità di opere molto ricercate ma, per motivi economici o per scarsità di modelli esistenti, difficilmente raggiungibili. In particolare è stata in grado di sfruttare la domanda diffusa di strumenti dalle elevate qualità tecnico-sonore, di reperti antichi provenienti dalle passate civiltà musicali e di beni in cui investire ingenti capitali, concentrando gli interventi sui parametri fondamentali di uno strumento, ossia la sua età, il suo luogo d’origine e l’identità del suo autore. Dalla comparsa quarant’anni fa del primo studio sistematico sulla figura di Leopoldo Franciolini, l’organologia ha associato la creazione di falsi strumenti musicali a questo antiquario fiorentino in maniera tanto automatica quanto eccessiva. Molti infatti sono stati i responsabili delle pratiche fraudolente in questo settore oltre a Franciolini, attivi prima di lui, dopo di lui e contemporaneamente a lui. Alcuni nomi possono essere citati, come Isaac Ehe, i fratelli Voller, Herny Werro, o Yuko Kanda, ma la verità è che la maggior parte dei falsari è rimasta nell’anonimato. Infine, se da un lato la falsificazione di strumenti musicali ha conosciuto storicamente un’indubbia espansione, dall’altro però l’interpretazione della natura di falso non può né deve essere forzata. L’inautenticità di uno strumento, difatti, non è garanzia di falsità senza che sia accompagnata dal riconoscimento dell’intento programmatico d’ingannare. Così come la mancata paternità individuale riscontrata per uno strumento non rappresenta un criterio valido per ravvisarne e stabilirne la sofisticazione.
LA FALSIFICAZIONE DI STRUMENTI MUSICALI. UN'INDAGINE STORICO-CRITICA.
RESTELLI, ALESSANDRO
2014
Abstract
Faking is an act through which an object is provided with an identity not belonging to it, in order to deceive and to benefit from somebody’s detriment. Faking concerned archaeological finds, contemporary art sculptures, documents, furniture, paintings, relics and so on. Musical instruments were not spared by this phenomenon, which in contrast was a standard feature in the history of those artifacts. From the most ancient known cases in the middle of the 16th century until the most recent ones at the beginning of the new millennium, musical instruments’ forgery has never ceased and counterfeited, plagiarized and altered products were spread nearly in every continent. This kind of falsification flourished as it eased the availability of very sought-after works, which otherwise were scarcely achievable because of economic reasons or shortage of specimens. Namely it was able to exploit the widespread demand for high performing musical instruments, for evidences of early musical cultures and for goods to invest in. Therefore its actions were focused on the most important parameters of an instrument: age, place of origin and maker’s identity. When the first detailed research into the Florentine antique dealer Leopoldo Franciolini was published forty years ago, organology began to link his name with musical instruments’ forgery as automatically as excessively. Indeed several other forgers operated before, at the same time and after Franciolini. Some of them may be mentioned, for instance Isaac Ehe, the Voller brothers or Yuko Kanda. Yet most of the fakers remained anonymous. Finally, on the one hand faking musical instruments was undoubtedly a common practice, but on the other hand detecting the nature of the fake must not be forced. If the purposeful intention of deceiving cannot be observed, then an unauthentic instrument – for example a replica – cannot be consequently judged to be false. In the same way, if the building of a musical instrument cannot be associated with one individual maker, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is not genuine.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
phd_unimi_R09337.pdf
accesso aperto
Dimensione
1.03 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.03 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in UNITESI sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14242/76132
URN:NBN:IT:UNIMI-76132