|
SUBJECTIVE METHODOLOGIES |
Veritus AG |
|
SUBJECTIVE METHODOLOGIES |
| "...technology eliminates unwarranted bias, human errors and other problems that have plagued art attributions over the centuries." | Old Master attribution has been anything but science. It has
historically been a similar to reading tea leaves. For the most part, it has consisted of
nothing more than educated guesses. Often the expert making the guess had a vested
interest in the outcome. Attributions were often biased to the positive. If nothing
prevented a painting from being a Rembrandt, a Rubens, or other important artist, the
expert would call it so. Decisions on attribution were often based upon very dubious
circumstantial evidence. Often the opinion was based upon a certain irreproducible
"feeling" that the painting gave the expert. Clearly there was a challenge to find a better method of attribution. The most controversial choice made by the committees was the application of technologies that would involve the use of computers to make all initial attribution decisions. This approach dispassionately and reliably eliminates the most common of human errors. The technology bases conclusions upon technical analysis that do not require human opinions. This has created quite a stir among art historians and certain self-appointed experts. No human wants to entertain the thought that a machine could replace him or her. However, Garry Kasparov has had to rethink his position as the grandmaster chess champion. |
Signature Evaluations |
|
| "...means very little in establishing the true attribution of a painting." | Most successful, important Northern European Masters painted for
several decades. Rembrandt, for example, painted for approximately forty years. During the
careers of these masters, they all maintained studios where a large number of students
painted and learned the masters techniques. Often, a commission was painted for a client
by one or more of students and then signed or monogrammed by the master before it left his
studio. This procedure was a common and a very well documented practice during the Baroque
era in Northern Europe. Rubens sent a group of paintings to Spain accompanied by a letter
that stated the paintings were by his best students but that he had signed the paintings.
The letter stating the true authorship still exists however the paintings were attributed
to Rubens by several "experts." Many paintings attributed to the master were signed with the master’s signature years after they were painted, and some long after his death. These factors have historically created significant problems when considering the proper attribution a work. The philosophy of many experts has been to provide attribution to the hand of the master if the signature looks convincing. Unfortunately, this conclusion is very far from the truth. The reality is that a signature, even if it proven genuine, means very little in establishing the true attribution of a painting. The majority of misattributions discovered by Veritus were signed with "convincing" signatures. |
Panel and Canvas Dating |
|
| "...very scientifically interesting but have no value..." | There has been a growing trend in examining panels to determine
their date and origins. Similar research into canvas fibre examination and thread count
was also popular. However, since the master and his students generally purchased from the
same sources, this has little meaning. Paintings sometimes appear on panels that are of
strange or unexpected woods as artists or craftsmen from other areas travelled widely. Famous forgers of the last century purchased old paintings of low value and then repainted over the surface. Paintings were sometimes transferred to canvas or onto a panel long after their original execution. Studies involving panels and canvas are very scientifically interesting and have exposed a few recent forgeries, but they have no value in determining painting authorship. |
X-Ray Technologies |
|
| "...we are again left with a subjective analysis..." | These technologies have proven quite interesting and most
variations with application toward art scholarship were pioneered by the Metropolitan
Museum in New York. They allow for the viewing of some features that appear below the
surface of the paint. The use of these technologies has been of great value in eliminating works that were later forgeries. It has also been of some use with artists that used predictable types of layout, drawings or signatures in the undercoat. Unfortunately, most of the important masters did not sign their work in the under coating, so we are again left with a subjective analysis of x-ray results. Although these technologies have taught us a great deal about work habits and artist endeavour in past times, they have always proven inconclusive in determining the authorship of all but a very few artists. |
Paint Chemical Analysis |
|
| This technology has proven quite important in the determination of
later forgeries. Some pigments were just not available until much later, so when a later
pigment appears, it can indicate the painting is from a later date. This technology also allows for a more accurate reading of x-ray technologies. However, since most of the artists in an area purchased their paint from the same sources, the analysis does not provide any definitive information about authorship. |
|
Colour Palette Analysis |
|
| "By the time experts gain the training and experience to make scholarly evaluation, they often no longer have the physical ability to do so with great accuracy." | This
technology has proven quite promising as a supportive technology in the determination of
authorship. It is a well established fact that each person perceives colours in a slightly
different fashion. That is why one person will say that a colour is greenish blue while
another will argue that the colour is bluish green. Colour palettes are often strong
indicators in authorship. As an example, El Greco during his Italian period painted
several very fine copies of art works that he studied. These art works are often
recognised by their palette colours. Colour usage has long been an important tool of the
expert in determining the attribution. An exceptionally gifted expert can identify several thousand different colours. Unfortunately, human perception and abilities diminish with age. This truism has historically created a difficult problem when it comes to attributing works of art. By the time experts gain the training and experience to make scholarly evaluation, they often no longer have the physical ability to do so with great accuracy. The weakness of this methodology is that it is always inconclusive when used alone. Therefore, it becomes a useful tool for the confirmation of other evidence and at best subjective. |
| Results and Implications | |
| "...the top experts of the last hundred years had a success ratio of less than 20 percent." | Thus, if we analyse the subjective methods that have been used for
generation, it is not difficult to see how so many mistakes in attributions could be made.
Some of the top experts of the last hundred years had a success ratio of less than 20
percent in determining correct attributions. What is surprising is that with the methods
the experts had available, the expert was able to make 20 percent correct guesses. Although it is clear that the day of subjective analysis is over, no one should judge the success or failure of these experts by the standards of today. We do live in a different world today that was occupied by the experts of yesterday. |
The Future |
|
| "The Internet, as we know it today, did not yet exist." | The
difficulty for many is to understand both the limitations and
possibilities of twenty-first century technology. Certainly, this technology
provides much accurate information, but this technology is not an end in itself. It is
still, impossible for a computer to evaluate artistic genius. It is possible, even
probable, that the day will come when a computer will be developed to act as a human and
evaluate the realm of the aesthetic. However, this day has not yet come to pass nor will
it be realised in the near future. Therefore, Veritus asserts that the role of art
historians, experts and critics, both of yesterday and today, remains vital in determining
which Old Master paintings are the most inspired and the greatest of masterpieces. The
research and conclusions of these individuals are essential to the continuing growth of
knowledge about artists of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. With the conception of this project, there was no intent on the part of Veritus to produce its committee findings on the Internet. The Internet, as we know it today, did not yet exist. Yet, as the Internet has developed, Veritus and its committees, have grown and changed with the technology of the day. With this growth and change have come the awareness that this Catalogue Raisonné must reflect the unlimited ability to record information that twenty-first century technology provides. Therefore, inclusions in these Catalogue Raisonnés will be regularly updated as each Committees’ research and findings are broadened and enhanced. Veritus looks forward to the changes and the contributions that the new technologies of the forthcoming century will make to historical art scholarship. The various committees are committed to providing an ongoing analysis of the paintings attributed to the masters they study, supported by technology rather than human opinion. Veritus is challenged to be on the cutting-edge of this technology and is committed to providing information that is both accurate and current. |
 |
© 1995-2008, All rights reserved |
 |
If you have any technical problems with this site, please contact the This site is being constantly updated and expanded, |
