Investigating Paul Cezanne Painting

Mer av detta

Matheus Freitas

av Matheus Freitas

Culture and heritage

av camila negrette

Maria Candelaria Zapater Nature

av cande zapater

Jaskit

av Kaur Jaskit

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.