作者：Farah Anwar 10 年以前
285
更多类似内容
Much easier to de-authenticate a painting than to authenticate it !
Dr. Andersen (IR spectroscopy): - yellow areas cadmium-based -> pigment mix 20 years after Cézanne's death - underdrawing -> Cézanne didn't have underdrawings
Dr. Andersen (IR spectroscopy): - another technique must confirm cadmium
Dr. Pruschy (UV spectrum of incident light): - polyenes oxidized over time: absorption decreases - century old paintings -> absorbance at 300nm is 0.15 - this painting -> absorbance is 0.6
DR. Philip Marden: - Dr. Pruschy focusing on isolated region - Cézanne constantly redoing paintings
Dr. Pruschy (UV spectrum of incident light): - different regions age at different rates - some part exposed to light
Dr. Simpkins (fluorescence using short-wave & long-wave UV excitation from mercury lamp): - no evidence for polyene - possible that other compound quenching polyene fluorescence
Dr. Wandless, curator of Metropolitan Museum: - polyenes could be contaminants
Dr. Pruschy (UV spectrum of incident light): - no way to know conservation of painting
Dr. Simpkins (fluorescence using short-wave & long-wave UV excitation from mercury lamp): - variability in hand-ground pigments -> made in same studio & by same artist
Dr. Montoya (XRF): - no pigment anachronisms
Dr. Montoya (XRF): - cannot exlude that it is painted by 20th century genius
Dr. Philip Marden & Art Historians: - painting unsigned, not unusual - similar to another Cézanne - same visual elements - composition characteristic of 1880s constructivist phase - brushwork indistinguishable from Cézanne's
Dr. Andersen (IR spectroscopy): - presence of Cézanne's heavy strokes
