Is there even "fake art" at all? What is real art, if then?
Sure, you looked at a picture that looks like the real Mona Lisa. Everyone cheers and nobody notices that it is a replica. Is it fake? NO! It is as visually pleasing as the "real" Mona Lisa painting. This picture is basically a replica, and thus would lose in originality for so and thus may be valued less socially(even if we exclude the credits of the artist, in which Da Vinci took years to finish this one), but nevertheless, it is real art. You can look at it, you can appreciate it. It satisfies anything and everything a regular piece of art does. A "replica" of Mona Lisa is nearly as aesthetically pleasing as the real one on its own, and to call it fake art would be disrespecting the artwork's beauty in of itself.
Do we, perhaps, call any book other than the final draft written by the author "fake"? Do we, perhaps, call cars that are produced and assembled in factories systematically instead of handcrafted by car designers as a concept in the ball room exhibited "fake"? Do we, perhaps, call that everything on Art magazines "fake" because they cannot afford to resurrect Van Gogh or Da Vinci to paint one for every copy of it?
Nope. Art can be replicated and replication, if done in the same quality, does not make it fake. If a drawing is of the exact same configuration and quality as "THE Mona Lisa", then what is fake about it, consider no one can tell it apart? Even if one considers it a "fake Mona Lisa", it is still as non-fake art as Mona Lisa itself, aesthetically.
Then, comes modern art, which is still not "fake art". Sure, art people can just splash paint upon crusty canvas and call that a piece of art. Someone could just take a piece of canvas and chop it in half, dip it in oil, and call that art. Yes. That is art. Due to the little effort it takes to create those, it may be less "art" than Mona Lisa, but it can never be non-art, since one can find it expressive and beautiful in of itself, as well as that it is intended to be "art". No matter what, it was meant to be expressive and that is what art is all about, and you don't call a 5-year-old's stick figure drawing non-art just because it is easy to replicate. Those replicas, on the other hands, are as much as "Is art" as the original one, even though it may be lacking in originality, thus being less "arty" than the original.
Unless originality and effort are both extensively required for any given piece of art to be even considered art, there is no "fake art" as we know it here.
