Debunking TV: Fake or Fortune? – Real Art, Real Value, or Just a Game for the Rich?

 Fake or Fortune? is one of those TV shows I keep coming back to, despite the fact that it often drives me up the wall.

On paper, it’s compelling: someone finds a dusty old painting in the attic or at a car boot sale and thinks (or desperately hopes) that it might be by a master – Monet, Turner, Freud, maybe even a Da Vinci. Enter the show’s art sleuths, led by Fiona Bruce and art dealer Philip Mould, who embark on a thrilling journey through archives, X-ray scans, pigment analysis, and expert panels to try to authenticate the work. Sometimes, they win the lottery; sometimes, they walk away disappointed. It’s Antiques Roadshow meets CSI: The Louvre.

But here's the rub: it often feels a bit… fake.

The central conceit of the show hinges on the idea that an artwork only becomes valuable (and therefore important) if someone in a position of academic or institutional power says so. Art, we are reminded again and again, is not necessarily about beauty, creativity, emotion, or cultural resonance. It’s about attribution. Provenance. Signature. The right expert saying yes. One panel’s polite dismissal can tank a painting’s hypothetical worth by millions.

But what does that really mean?

---

🖌️ Good Art vs Important Art

Let’s be honest: there are plenty of “important” paintings out there that are — by most people’s standards — not particularly good. And there are countless unknown works hanging in obscure halls or living rooms that stir the heart more than a dozen academic studies of drapery or biblical scenes. A sketch by Da Vinci might be fascinating, yes — historically and intellectually — but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a great piece of art. It’s interesting because of who made it, not because it blows your mind when you see it.

That’s what’s frustrating about Fake or Fortune? It claims to explore the value of art, but the value it really cares about is monetary. The art is rarely judged on emotional weight or creative resonance. It’s judged on whether it can survive a series of hurdles erected by curators, catalogues raisonnés, and often deeply subjective gatekeepers. We’re not validating the artwork – we’re validating the artist's name attached to it.

It begs the question: if art is subjective, why do a handful of individuals get to objectively decide whether something matters?

---

🖼️ The Taste of the People

Here’s an experiment I’d love to see: take 100 paintings — some famous, some obscure, some attributed, some unknown — and ask people from all walks of life, cultures, ages, and backgrounds to rank them. No names. No dates. No backstories. Just feeling and instinct. What would bubble to the top?

And then try it again, but this time use lesser-known works by famous artists and better works by unknowns. Do people actually prefer that Rembrandt? Or do they just think they’re supposed to?

We do this all the time with music. Strip away the branding and people still know when something sounds good. An unknown street performer can give you chills just as easily as a superstar. We don’t need a musicologist to tell us whether a song is good or not — we feel it. Shouldn’t visual art be judged with the same honesty?

---

💸 A Game for the Rich

There’s also the awkward truth that Fake or Fortune? is, at its core, a game show for the well-off. It’s very rarely a bus driver from Bolton with a found canvas; more often it’s a middle-class couple with inherited taste, fine furniture, and a longing for a windfall. There’s nothing wrong with that — but let’s not pretend it’s a noble artistic quest. It’s a hunt for validation, prestige, and profit.

And while I enjoy the show — especially the paper trails, the forensics, the “aha!” moments — I do roll my eyes every time someone says something like “The brushwork is truly lyrical” or “It speaks with a whisper of genius.” At times, the show falls into the trap of its own myth-making, leaning into the mystique of art rather than questioning it.

---

🎶 Final Thought

If we treated music like we treat visual art on this show, imagine the absurdity: you hear a beautiful song but it’s dismissed because no one can prove it was written by someone famous. Or it was — but only as a throwaway early demo. Would that change the way it moves you?

Art matters because it moves us. Whether it was painted by a master, a student, or a complete unknown, its worth lies in the way it hits your gut, not your wallet.

So yes — Fake or Fortune? is good telly. But don’t let it trick you into believing that “authenticity” is the same as value. Sometimes, the fake is more powerful than the fortune.

—
Debunking TV: Because not everything glittering on screen is gold… or oil on canvas.