by In art, the truth is in the eyes of the beholder. Except, of course, that’s not the case.
For centuries, the only method of knowing whether a work of art was real or fake was the curator’s judgment. This encounter – a person, in front of a canvas, forming an opinion – was all we had to go on. X-rays, forensic pigment analysis, catalog histories and provenance queries can now be used.
To a large extent, however, the question of authenticity is still largely decided by that old-fashioned method: an expert carefully examining a painting, then straightening up and clearing his throat. And trying to change the history of art.
An example of this is the recent exhibition of a “second” Mona Lisa. The “Isleworth Mona Lisa”, named after the place where it was purchased by a dealer in 1913, shows a woman similar in appearance to Leonardo da Vinci’s iconic 1518 portrait of Lisa del Giocondo, now in the Louvre. However, the Isleworth Mona Lisa features a different pillared background and its subject is noticeably younger.
No matter, says the Zurich-based Mona Lisa Foundation, which promotes the artwork on behalf of its Swiss owners. His Mona Lisa is by the same woman, but done approximately a decade before the Louvre painting. In fact, they claim, Isleworth is the true work of art painted from life: the Louvre version is an imagined projection showing her ten years older. The Mona Lisa Foundation has defended its right by exhibiting the painting in Turin.
The Italian Art Ministry is not very enthusiastic. “It’s nonsense, a string, it lacks Leonardo’s soul and I don’t know why anyone believes it,” raged Vittorio Sgarbi, his undersecretary of Art.
However, as would do Is there an attempt to authenticate the Mona Lisa of Isleworth? These are the elements that an art historian would look for.
Origin
Ideally, says Philip Mould, art dealer and expert on Fake or Fortune?, the hit BBC series that authenticates works of art (or uncovers them as frauds), “the ideal would be to trace the history of a work of art.” until the moment it left the artist’s easel.” In Britain, this analysis of a painting’s movements and its owners is known as its provenance and can often make a compelling argument for its authenticity.
“It’s the kind of evidence that a jury understands,” Mold explains. “If you can determine where that piece of art has been since the paint got wet, it’s a very powerful way to show if it’s legitimate.”
But he warns: “Fake artists sometimes take advantage of an artist’s provenance, such as claiming that it was made in their studio at the same time as other notable works. Something similar happened when Leonardo’s Salvator Mundi was first exhibited. It was supposed to belong to the collection of Charles I, but this was later denied. That doesn’t mean it was fake, but it shows the difficulty with provenance. “Written statements about the history of a work of art must be questioned as much as the physical artifact.”
stylistic analysis
The next stage in authentication is to examine the artwork in light of other authenticated pieces by the same artist. How much do you replicate his stylistic tics? Could it be possible that it was from the same hand?
In the case of an artist like Leonardo Da Vinci – of whom only 15 authenticated works of art survive – this process is particularly crucial and fraught. “For artists who are highly technically accomplished, there is often an almost codified way of painting,” Mold says. “Of course, it varies between earlier and more mature works. But an artist’s style is analogous to handwriting: to know it is to know it.”
Telltale marks include modulation of shadows and colors; the movement of the brush strokes on the canvas; and the way they shape their subjects. Leonardo Da Vinci, for example, is famous for his exquisite use of sfumato: the delicate, luminous way in which colors and edges blend together. “His boundaries almost dissolve before your eyes,” Mold notes. “They come out of the ether.”
Historians will also consider the characterization of a work of art: does it reflect the intangible way in which an artist generally consider a theme? Mold says: “From the cradle to the grave, we are taught to read faces. So when we consider portraiture, appreciation goes beyond technical style: it’s about familiarity with the way the artist paints people. He does this Do the works of art seem to contain the particular response to humanity that you associate with the artist?
Finally, they consider the pentienti of the work of art. This Italian term roughly translates to “regrets” and is a record of the artist’s mistakes, changes of mind, and paths not taken. These usually manifest themselves, especially in Old Masters, in raised, clumpy smears of paint where an artist has gone over and over again a particular problem: the creative act, fixed in pigment, centuries after the artist’s death. The Salvator Mundi, for example, shows Leonardo Da Vinci worrying about the clenched hands of Jesus, trying to capture the exact, beatific stillness of him.
Scientific analysis
However, an art historian’s toolbox does not depend solely on subjective response. In contrast, any important work of art in dispute is subjected to a rigorous series of tests that, while not infallible, can bolster a case for authenticity.
Often, a small sample of paint is taken and its components are analyzed. This process determines whether the artist used similar paints in his other authenticated compositions. But it also reveals something equally significant: whether the painter could have used those materials. absolutely.
Forgers sometimes fall short because they use a color that was invented after the artist’s death; This was the case of a ‘Constable’ who, it turned out, had been painted by his son. The giveaway was a signature in the corner indicating the date “184-“. Therefore, Constable, who died in 1837, would have found it difficult to finish it.
X-ray and infrared scanning also helps determine authenticity. Similar to pentimenti, this analysis can reveal an artist’s works, whether he changed his mind mid-composition or even started a completely new painting over an old, abandoned one. For some artists, like Holbein, these techniques are especially useful, Mold says. “We can see the underlying drawing lines, which is very useful since we have other existing examples of [Holbein’s] sketches to compare them. It is another graphic manifestation of the artist’s signature.”
Who is the messenger?
Despite the high-tech tools available, historians rely more on hunches than anyone else, Mold maintains. “It’s ridiculously subjective, but the next stage is where human intuition comes into play: who is making these authenticity claims? Do they have any interest in lying?
“I don’t want to make any claims about the two Mona Lisa paintings, but sometimes I find it useful to have an idea of who is presenting the image and what motivates them.” Like Poirot, a successful art authenticator learns to trust his guts.
Topic in question
“In my experience, counterfeiters take two paths,” Mold notes. “Either they go for the cliché or they are a little more subtle and produce something that could be a minor and less well-known work. Clearly there are more incentives to produce something that everyone wants… and in the case of the Mona Lisa, you can draw your own conclusions.
“But they could try the opposite and produce something that requires a bit of a leap of faith, like a work ofyouth. For example, I have found fakes among the works of well-known 20th century artists by looking closely at photographs of their studios and you will see a work from 20 years earlier. And the forger clearly saw the same photo and tried to replicate that earlier, less notable painting.”
Age matters in other ways, too. Some forgers even go so far as to buy canvases from the same period, sometimes even painting over other works of art, to make the art look old enough. The most successful ones try to disguise their fraud by also using period-appropriate paints.
But Mold warns: “Making a painting look convincingly old is one of the most difficult jobs for a forger. It may seem very clumsy, but even if done more effectively, an experienced curator would be able to spot it. “It’s not one particular thing, but rather a general feeling that the work of art can’t be that old.”
Scholarship
In the art world, reputation is everything. To a large extent, the authenticity of a work of art depends on scholarly endorsement; Sometimes, even in the case of the most famous, there will only be a handful of these trusted Brahmins.
“These people establish their status in various ways,” Mold explains. “Perhaps most powerful is if they have written the catalog raisonné, which details all the works of art the artist is known to have made and is effectively the Bible for a particular artist. They may also be people involved in the museum sector or the commercial art market. And most artists have a committee in place whose judgment is respected. Again, it’s like a court case: think of these academics as expert witnesses. And, in general, the art world listens to them.”
As things stand, the Mona Lisa of Isleworth has not yet been publicly subjected to these tests. Still, Mold is a final note of caution for those who claim it as authentic (or not). After all, judging authenticity is a devilishly complicated and all-too-fallible task.
“Ultimately, authentication is a human emotional response and, like all human responses, there is an element of subjectivity. It is never as simple as you would expect,” she concludes with a smile.
Philip Mold owns the gallery. Philip Mold & Company and is a presenter on Fake or Fortune?available to watch on BBC iPlayer
