What does Kantian Disinterest mean to you?
How does such a theory influence the appropriation of a forgery?
I think that Kantian Disinterestedness is a sort of pure form of aesthetic pleasure. That is, the aesthetic is touching one directly, without conscious realization of what any piece of art may mean outside of itself. To distance oneself from this Disinterest, one must take into consideration the artist and the historical context, among many other considerations (dare I even propose para-aesthetic traits?).
Through the lens of Disinterest, I propose that a forgery par excellence may be, from a disinterested point of view, entirely the same as the original. However, I must also include my belief that no art experience is purely disinterested.
At gallery 51 (or 53, I don't remember...) there is currently a display of many strange objects. If I viewed these objects from a disinterested point of view, they may not carry much pleasure in viewing; they are seemingly random, yet, ordinary things. The pleasure comes into play when one realizes that all of the objects are 'found art', and that the location of possession is included (yard sales, flea markets, etc.). When realized that all of these objects are from random towns across the country, demonstrating a point of cultural significance, the value of the exhibit becomes clear.
So yes, in a Disinterested sense, forgeries may actually be just as the originals, but context does come into play. A serious student of the philosophy of art may consider the forgeries more potent and pleasing than the originals, for their own historic context.
Background helps. That's why they hand you those pages when you go into those galleries downtown.