The debate over the authenticity of a purported Cezanne painting involves multiple experts employing various scientific methods. Art historians affirm its authenticity, noting its stylistic consistency with Cezanne'
Dr. Simpkins
(Using long and short UV excitation wave)
- The fluorescence of certain areas resemble the ones found in another painting of Cezanne called "Gardanne"
- Pigments were used in the same studio by the same artist
Real
Dr. Montoya
(Using X-ray fluorescence)
- The pigments tested were used in Cezanne's life span
- The absence of some elements contained in certain pigments reinforces its originality as they were still unknown in Cezanne's period of time
Dr. Anderson
(Using IR spectroscopy)
- Although the brushwork applied was charactiristic of Cezanne's early period, the pigments used in the painting weren't widely known known at the time
- The binder is based on animal glue which was used widely until the 1940s
- There's an underdrawing of a male figure. Cezanne wasn't known for making underdrawings
Dr. Pruschy
(Using UV spectrum)
- Each layer of the painting was analysed by UV spectrography and produced nearly identical absorption spectra
- The painting shows an absorbance of 0.6 which suggests that it's not likely to go all the way back to a 100 years old
Fake
Art Historians
- The painting is unsigned like most of Cezanne's work.
- The painting has many of the same visual elements.
- Very characteristic of his contructivist phase in the late 1880s
- The brush work is indistinguishable from other pintings of his in that period
