Art and Craft

Art and Craft

Art and Craft

This is a brilliant documentary and a fascinating study of a man who may be no more real than the forgeries he creates and gives away. The movie cleverly begins as an investigative movie, leading us to believe it could be about the greatest art forger in modern history. While it remains about that person, it turns into something else as well: a keen observation of an individual building his identity from pieces of others. The film explores his "artistic" process, but equally explores the psychological underpinnings of his behavior. By the end, you'll question if he is a brilliant and deceptive manipulator, or an emotionally stunted man-child who doesn't even fully understand the ramifications of his actions. It is powerful to realize that it could credibly be either (or both).

One of my favorite types of documentaries is definitely the "eccentric character study," and this entry is no slouch. I don't know whether to applaud or despise Landis. I recommend it.

The oh-so-smug people who threw the reception at the end have to get a life. What were you hoping for? This odd man, with clear and known social/mental health issues, falling down to his knees in front of everyone and asking for forgiveness for donating his work to institutions? It's art. It's all art. His actions, efforts and ideas are all art. If it got in the way of people profiting from art, so be it. If it embarrassed curators and researchers, well, perhaps you could curate and research a little better. If he apologized for fooling museums at the end, it would have ruined the movie for me. I see this man as the means by which art will thrive moving forward. More people are looking at art because of what he's done. You don't have to take Van Gogh's work and make a laser show out if it to get people to value art. You just have to have people like this man to make everyone want to look harder, longer and more often at art in general.

Everybody loves art, it doesn't matter what form of art, it's something we enjoy looking at. So to have somebody like Mark A. Landis copying some of the greatest artists' works is worth debating. It's clear Landis needs some help, he's clearly on the spectrum. Should he be in prison? I don't think so. Should he been instutitionalized? Probably, or certainly if he continues plagerizing, because that's what he basically does, and that's still punishable by the law. It doesn't matter if he donates his copies, he still does it with the intention to fool everybody, so yes he perfectly knows what he's doing. Everybody can have his opinion about the matter but to me he's definitely a criminal. If he would copy all those art pieces and hang them in his house, that's a whole other thing. That would be his hobby and personal collection. But that's not what he's doing, he signs his works with the signature of the original artist and that's a crime. Landis is a weird person, he reminded me of Norman Bates from Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, talking about his 'mother' in an almost obsessive way. That man needs help, that's for sure. I will never get why he's just not painting his own stuff, he's clearly talented. Matthew Leininger on the other hand reminds me of Bookman from Seinfeld. He's a bit too obsessed by the whole case, it was almost sad to see his daughter being dragged into this, but without him those falsified works would probably still hang in all those museums. So a big thanks to him for his persistance. The documentary is well made, it's awkward but informative. I have no clue why Landis hasn't been on trial yet because he should. I guess they have bigger things on their mind than preserving the integrity of the artwork.

What a bizarre tale, offering an interesting contrast to the case of Wolfgang Beltracchi and other mercenary, opportunistic falsificateurs such as Guy Ribes. (Note that none of these men attempt to create exact forgeries of existent works by an artist X but instead create new works ¨in the manner of X¨). But as Mark Landis himself sagely observes, ¨Everyone is the same but everyone is different." I must say that Landis bears an eerie resemblance to Norman Bates, with his strange persona and evident obsession with his mother. Fortunately, he is not a murderer, just an artist who found an odd way to achieve affirmation by the art world. In the end, this film actually reveals more about the institution of art than the artist, just as in the case of films about Beltracchi, GIbes, Banksy, et al. Raises some interesting questions about psychiatry as well, given that Landis was hospitalized and heavily medicated at the age of seventeen, right after his father died, which was very traumatic to him. One has to wonder whether all the drugs he was continuously plied with did not have something to do with what he eventually became. He seems to have lived off of both an inheritance and public disability aid, obviating the need to work or derive money from his fakes, at least as far as I can gather from the film. I am pretty sure that if Landis had tried to donate his fake paintings to larger, more famous institutions with more sophisticated staff persons, he would have been discovered much sooner. I imagine that the curators who were duped are thoroughly humiliated, especially given that some of his techniques were so brash. Xeroxing a picture and using it as a physical layer of the final art work? Really?

highly recommended for person who is interested in art and psychology. this documentary is very original and almost unbelievable. it captures the life of an introverted artistic genius with OCD and mother issues. his madness played a part in his seclusive attitude. it takes a person with some kind of obsessive personality to copy artwork with precision and fool dozens of major museums and universities. This guy was no joke and he did all his amazing work while watching TV with a TV dinner. no kidding. I am an artist and I appreciated his genius. the other guy trying to bring him out as a "fake" is also insane for following a topic that not even major universities and museums wanted continue investigating. most importantly I don't believe that he is a bad person because he followed what he loved and only donated his hobby.

For film that mainly focuses on documenting an odd, old man with very strange behavior, it's very well put together and is fascinating to watch. As for the critique on here about not exploring the "Why?" surround his behavior, I think the film let's you answer that yourself. It presents all the information in a neutral way and doesn't form an opinion or spoon feed the viewer. Perhaps there is are no answers to - Does he know what he's doing? Is he a bad person? Is he malicious or does he think he's helping in some way? It's a tribute to the film that you aren't left with answers. You'll be talking about this film long afterwards.