Art history is a matter of provenance; art collecting an affair of prestige.

Com merce in art is the ineluctable confluence of provenance and prestige. Han van M eegeren (1889 1947), a talented painter who despised the work of modernists such as Picasso, understood that he could only succeed as an artist by obliterating hims elf and becoming his 17th-century avatar, Vermeer. To Han, as Frank Wynne calls him throughout this lively biography, "I Was Vermee r: The Rise and Fall of the Twentieth Century's Greatest Forger." Vermeer's rad iant realism was the very embodiment of the highest art. Ironically, Vermeer's o wn reputation rose most rapidly in the early 20th century largely through the effo rts of a Dutch critic, Abraham Bredius even as artists were abandoning the kinds o f verisimilitude Vermeer perfected. While Han's own work languished for lack of critical attention, critics hungered for more Vermeers, a slight body of work now reckoned to include no more than 3 5 or so paintings. Bredius speculated that because Vermeer's reputation had only recently risen, there might well be other Vermeers that a discerning critic mig ht discover. So it was that Han set out to create a veritable Vermeer. Possessed of extraordi nary skill, Han also was fired by a desire to humiliate critics who had shunned his own work. To prove them fools, however, he had to do more than paint like a genius. He had to re-create the paints Vermeer employed, find just the right 17t h-century canvas he could strip of its paint, reproduce in depth the crackling ( fine lines) that grace the work of Old Masters, and harden the painting's surfac e so that it could withstand various tests designed to ascertain whether a canva s had indeed aged over time. Finally, Han had to choose just the right subject matter. Here he was at his cun ning best, choosing "The Supper at Emmaus," which he would pass off as a rare ex ample of Vermeer's middle period, a work that would fill the gap between the art ist's early and late periods. The trick was to get Bredius to authenticate the painting. Shrewdly Han worked t hrough intermediaries, friends he coached to tell the tale of how this painting belonged to a Dutch family that preferred to remain anonymous because they had b een forced to smuggle it out of Italy, fearing the Fascists would confiscate it. Better that the Dutch government buy this masterpiece in hope it would remain i n Holland. Han's initial plan was to disclose the forgery as soon as the painting sold, in 1937. But he was a reckless and extravagant man who quickly went through the for tune he acquired for the forgery. Living the good life meant more forgeries and millions of dollars for Han. Even Herman Goering was swindled, a ruse which, unf ortunately for Han, ended the forger's career. Right after the war the Dutch were eager to punish collaborators, and Han found himself in prison because of his dealings with Goering. It took Han some time to tell the truth. So convinced were certain critics that they stuck by their attr ibutions. What nonsense, they cried, the idea that an inferior artist could prod uce a Vermeer! But Han set about creating another Vermeer while serving a sort o f house arrest, thus proving his bona fides an odd word, to be sure, to use in con nection with a forger. Han never served his sentence, dying in 1947 shortly after his trial. In the end , he hardly seemed a criminal at all to the Dutch. One journalist wrote, "It is not the Vermeers, but the experts who authenticated them that are fakes." The jo urnalist even proposed erecting a statue to Han van Meegeren, collecting funds f or a work that was never built.

Mr. Wynne misses certain opportunities that a student of art history might have explored. What about Han's scorn for the critics? Although he was able to dupe t he greatest Vermeer expert in the world, Han got lucky, since Bredius, then in h is 80s with failing eyesight, was perhaps not in top form. At the same time, the re were always critics who saw through Han's Vermeers. Like other forms of criti cism, art criticism is only as good as the critic. Han's success, however, raises other significant questions about art and art cri ticism. Do we, for example, stand in awe of the Mona Lisa because we know we are supposed to stand in awe of the Mona Lisa, because generations of admirers have done so? Walter Pater suggested that such works of art derive their value not m erely from what is actually on the canvas but from what the beholder brings to t he painting. Similarly, Oscar Wilde, Pater's student, suggested in "The Critic a s Artist" that art's value is a matter of projection that in order for the critic to say something valuable about the work of art he has to re-create it, so that, in effect, he is an artist. Han may have in one sense conned the critics, but in another way (according to W ilde) he affirmed art. Had Han not confessed, countless people would still be ad miring his Vermeers as one critic whom Mr. Wynne invokes suggests. The biographer also notes that other forgeries remain on museum walls, while still others are a ttributed to the wrong artists. Frank Wynne tells Han's story well, although how well it is hard to say. He clea rly relies on other biographies, including several in Dutch, a language that the biographer apparently knows well. He includes a bibliography but no source note s. Especially troubling are the long dialogues between Han and others. Do these conversations come from other biographies? And if so, how accurate are they? And how strange that a biography of a forger should provoke troubling questions abo ut its own provenance!