The debate on fakes, like the debate on whether art is a commodity or not, is really meaningful only if one understands art as investment. No one would fake work of art if it did not pay to do so. Also, if art did not sell and was only to be gifted away, then we could ignore its role as investment.

Since neither is the case, we have to live with the fact that art does sell in the market. If both artists and galleries respond to the market, then why should the collector not profit from it? Secondly, if there are fakes in the art market and they pay, then why should galleries and dealers, who make a profit out of sales, not be held responsible for fakes?

Also, if certain dealers or galleries persist in purveying fakes, then why should they not be prosecuted? So far, everything is ?delightfully vague? in art dealings, allowing all sorts of aberrations to enter into what should be professional relations by now.

The speed with which our art market is developing requires professionalism to become absolutely essential if the level of confidence in it is to be maintained. This, of course, did not happen accidentally. Many of our leading artists have been extremely professional, notable among them being MF Husain. Similarly, gallery owners like EA Alkazi and the Kumars have a meticulous system of recording sales, maintaining a proper record of stocks and promoting the best artists.

This good beginning ought to be preserved. But it is the success of this good beginning, however, that has resulted in the problem of fakes and frauds as the demand for our contemporary art has far outstripped supply on the one hand, and prices of contemporary art have not only risen globally, but have done so far more sharply for India. But the failure or refusal to stop the wholesale production of fakes, flexibility in sale prices of over 50 per cent between private sales and gallery sales and an almost total absence of documentation by gallery owners, in general, can bring the market down considerably if people lose confidence in the works offered for sale.

Mohan Singh: One of our more promising younger artists

So, the debate on fakes may go on happily, but artists, galleries and buyers must take certain steps to protect their investments which are good beyond a doubt where contemporary Indian art at least is concerned. The artists can, and have taken steps to authenticate their works with thumb-impressions, secure markings and letters of authentication.

But they still have to be able to prevent being seduced into under-the-counter sales of work on the cheap. This is what gives purveyors of fakes credibility in being able to sell their wares as bargains.

The gallery owners, however, have been less forthcoming than the artists in this respect. Few maintain proper records, if at all. And they are very averse to telling one the full price for which a work of art has sold, for tax reasons, perhaps. But they do not realise that under-invoicing gives one a false impression that works sell cheaper than they do. This is a godsend for those dealing in fakes. Also, my experience shows me that most gallery owners are not averse to buying works in the secondary market cheaply or even at throw-away prices.

This practice should be avoided. What one must realise is that in the art market, there are far fewer bargains than there are frauds. So one is better off without falling for bargains in the first place. Then, once dealers from whom galleries access works or galleries passing them off as genuine, are exposed, they ought to be blacklisted or be even sued in court. Pussy-footing with purveyors of fakes is definitely disastrous for the market and galleries.

The buyer, for his part, can avoid bargains “and buy works of younger artists”. Secondly, if he does discover that he has bought a fake, it is worthwhile circulating the information on the internet or among friends stating the provenance and supply chain the fake has traveled along. The buyer should never be satisfied with just having the money returned. The purveyors of fakes must be brought to book. Finally, an expert to help the buyer buy work or a reliable gallery one deals with regularly would also help. But one should not rely on any single source in the present situation.

These tips will not end the production of fakes, they will only restore confidence in the market. Mere complaining will merely add to the present confusion.

That has to be ended by restoring confidence in a broad-based transparent and competitive market and not through monopolies or oligopolies that are notorious for institutionalising corruption, for the success of the frauds in art cannot be sustained without the collusion of those who want to reach the top quickly and are prepared to do anything to reach there fast. This can and must be prevented fast if our investments in contemporary art are not to suffer.