によって zeinab kamal 13年前.
290
New Map
A painting attributed to Paul Cezanne is under scrutiny for its authenticity, involving a team of experts analyzing various pieces of evidence. Dr. Simpkins and Dr. Montoya provide supporting evidence, citing fluorescence data, pigment compositions, and brushwork similarities to known Cezanne works.
開く
Paul Cezanne's painting under scrutiny Conclusion: there is no clear conclusion Dr. Andersen (scientist) counter evidence there is underdrawing and Cezanne never did underdrawings pigment mix of yellow areas wasn't used until 1927 after Cezanne's death used infrared spectroscopy Dr. Pruschy (scientist) counter evidence polyene absorbtion 0.6 instead 0.15 --> not 100 years old used ultraviolet spectrum of a paint chip Dr. Simpkins (scientist) pro evidence the fluorescence data support attribution to Cézanne trees and rooftop similiar to Cezanna painting Gardanne Dr. Montoya (scientist) pro evidence however, can be faked by a material scientist compositions of pigments available during Cézanne's time used x-ray fluorescence Dr. Marden (historian) pro evidence characteristic of his constructivist phase late 1880s same brushwork similiar to a Cezanne at the Barnes foundation 4 scientists from spectrotech, Edgar, Dr. Marden and Mr. Wandless investigated Is fake or not?
