Investigating Paul Cezanne Painting

More like this

unit 9

by melvin cardona

P.E

by raul garcia

Paul Cézanne's Artwork

by Reem Bassem

Protection Against Rust

by Lauren Hutton

Investigating Paul Cezanne Painting

Conclusion

- There was no clear conclusion , Dr. Wandless had to make a quick descion since she might lose her job.

Art Historians Assumptions

- Historians assumed that Cezanne's painting was painted in 1880s.

- Cezanne did from nature, he skteched them sepratley.

- This painting was simillar to another one in Barnes Foundation in Merion, Pennsylvania but smaller.

- Cezanne did not sign all his paintings.

Scientists Assumptions

Dr. Simpkins

- He examined fluorescence from the surface of the painting using both short-wave and long-wave UV excitation from a mercury lamp. - Some areas in Cezanne's painting were brighter than the rest, he added that it matched another painting by Cezanne in Brooklyn. - He Concluded that the painting isn't fake.

Dr. Montoya

- Used x-ray fluorescence (XRF). - She discovered that all the pigments that were used matches the time when Cezanne lived. -She concluded that Cezanne might have drawn this painting.

Dr.Andersen

- Used infrared spectroscopy (IR) to detect anomalies beneath the paint. - she assumed it might not be Cezanne's work at all. - IR refractography detected that there is another painting with Charcoal underneath Cezanne's painting. - There were singals of an animal glue used in this painting whereas Cezanne was not famous of doing any underdrawings.

Dr. Pruschy

- Pruschy used Ultraviolet (UV) spectrum to know whether Cezanne drew this painting or not. - He assumed that Cezanne's painting was supposed to be older.