The science of art

Nursing a horrible cold today I felt able to do little more than watch TV, when I wasn’t sleeping.  My wife drew my attention to a series of programmes about the authentication of art works, and it turned out to be fascinating.  The problem before the researchers concerned three almost identical self-portraits attributed to Rembrandt.  Were any of them actually by him?  If not all, then which?  Having had the opportunity in Italy recently to catch a glimpse of an art conservator at work I soon became engaged with this broadcast.

The hypothesis advanced by the researchers, after some preliminary investigation, was that all three might be authentic, but consist of a series in which Rembrandt (as a very young artist) gradually homed in on the most effective composition and lighting of the image.  I was convinced, although the head honcho of the Rembrandt Committee remained sceptical.

The really amazing thing about the broadcast was the science involved. The scientists were able to say that the wooden boards on which two of the images had been painted were not only from the same tree, but it had been felled in 1621!  Other specialists were able to confirm that two of the images were painted on canvas cut from the same bolt of cloth.  It was possible to examine a cross-section through several layers of paint, determining the chemical composition of each.  I find that kind of thing to be quite staggering, and I had no idea that the process of critically evaluating the provenance of pictures could be carried on at such a refined level.

I’m sure that these procedures must be extremely costly to conduct, but when you consider the financial implications of demonstrating that a picture either is or is not by somebody of Rembrandt’s stature, then the expenditure becomes understandable.