Nuclear Explosions Key To Spotting Fake Art

Socguy writes "A Russian art curator, Elena Basner, is claiming to have a foolproof method for determining whether or not particular paintings have been created since 1945. She claims that isotopes released into the environment by man-made nuclear explosions have found their way into types of the natural oils used to make paints."

Comments

I don't understand "fake art"

[vadim_t]

As far as I'm concerned, if the copy is good enough that it can't be told from the original without doing a detailed analysis with fancy equipment, it's just as good as the real thing. Maybe even better if it's in a better shape.

The only exception I can see is for the people actually interested in doing chemical analysis of the painting. But that shouldn't really be a concern for people looking for something to hang in their room/mansion/compound.

Re:I don't understand "fake art"

[CodyRazor]

I think its more sort of the historical value, than the painting's contents being any more valuable. Just like original copies of on the origin of species are worth a lot of money. The reason i use that example is my grandfather who has dementia mentioned today in passing he had one... I couldn't get any more details out of him but i must track it down.

Re:I don't understand "fake art"

[vadim_t]

I appreciate the value of history fine, but I don't assign value to the originality of what it's made of.

For instance, I would rebuild the Colosseum, even at the cost of tearing down parts or all of what's still standing, though keeping the materials as accurate as possible. For me it's a testament to the Roman Engineering, and it's be a pity to see it crumble into dust one day and stay that way because "the dust is historical", like what happened with greek temples.

Re:I don't understand "fake art"

[Firethorn]

I'm somewhat the same as you, it seems. I can appreciate looking at the weapons that are hundreds of years old - such as revolutionary war muskets, swords from the medieval period, and such.

In most cases they're heavily used, but still intact, examples of the time. They're in museums, and available if anybody wants to do a meteorological analysis. Same with the Constitution of the USA, articles of confederation, declaration of independence, magna carta, etc...

Still, I personally don't feel the need to own an original. Personally, I'd rather own a copy of the revolutionary war musket - in all it's operational, get it out and play with it(because it's replaceable), glory.

To be honest - when I visited Venice, I was disappointed. I saw a city past it's time, degrading. Most of the first floors are unusable any more, you travel by footpath rather than boat. Much of the amazing architecture is under water, a lot of it destroyed.

I'd advocate a massive restoration project - the lifting of Venice, and the restoration of it's former glory.

Maybe we shouldn't rebuild the Colosseum at this point - but build a new one next to it.

Re:I don't understand "fake art"

[Devout_IPUite]

I've always thought it's be cool to have a graveyard where you got brought as a pile of ash, buried, and then had a tree planted on top of you.

Re:I don't understand "fake art"

[Half-pint HAL]

This brings to mind the paper temples: temples that cannot last and must be rebuilt every few years. Yet each one is authentic as it is a faithful reproduction of the last -- certainly more authentic than any renovated buildings.

They were designed to make us question notions of permanence and possession -- and it worked.

HAL.

Re:I don't understand "fake art"

[vadim_t]

First of all what you're talking about isn't the same thing I am talking about. Second, what you're talking about is common in some types of works and very well accepted.

First, there are duplicates, such as scanned PDFs on filesharing networks and photocopies. Those are perfect or nearly perfect copies, and merely instances of the original creation. A copy or LOTR is still LOTR. LOTR's value isn't diminished by them. This is by the way the specific case I'm discussing here: Copies that are good enough that they can't be told from the "original" without looking really, really hard at them. A book version of this would have the same text.

Then there are imitations of the style, such as Nik Perumov's work, and countless Harry Potter fanfics. Those are separate works in their own right and IMO don't diminish that which they came from. In fact that somebody bothered to write a fanfic or an immitation is IMO an indicator of the quality of the source.

What you're talking about is a retelling of a story. This is actually common and perfectly well accepted. By your logic, the Brothers Grimm did something bad by publishing tales they didn't write. The original and often unknown authors of those tales deserve credit for making them, and the Brothers Grimm deserve credit for publishing and keeping them alive. Christopher Tolkien deserves some credit for cleaning up his father's works.

Id this old?

[CodyRazor]

I'm sure I saw this on an episode of Law & Order CI a while ago... like season 1 episode 2 I think... 7 years ago...

Man that guy is so smart!

Re:... couldn't be disputed?

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

Since these are atmospheric releases, they're almost certainly are items already 'tagged'. Presumably this would be a destructive test in that they need to check areas that are -in- the paint. \

Re:Great Works Are A Fraud

[Teancum]

I think you miss what makes great art something of note and substance.

In a way, art does work like science. Philosophies and concepts have an origin and place to start from, and from there survive in the most Darwinian fashion against competing concepts.

What makes something "classical" such as van Gogh or Shakespeare is that their works have been shamelessly copied and improved upon by succeeding generations. Current artists... if they are deserving of the term... have studied the older masters and have come to understand the principles of their craft to know what can be improved upon and enhanced.

BTW, I'd say the same thing about scientists, where in fact they do study the works of the older philosophers. In fact, if you have an original edition of Principia Mathematica I'm sure you would have several physicists drooling in terms of wanting to have that book in their private collection... and certainly would treasure it as a gift.

In addition, to use your example of Newton, it is far more than a mere historical purpose that you have to go back and study what he wrote. The historical context of where we've been is important to understand in order to advance knowledge in any direction. I will guarantee that any reasonable physicist worthy of that title has read and applied Newton's ideas into their work at some level nearly every day. Ditto for Einstein and others.

Going back to the artifact that is the 1st edition of Principia Mathematica, even that has use in terms of providing a scientific baseline to note what has changed and what hasn't over the years. It is for this reason that the original U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence are so heavily guarded and protected in spite of being in public display. What was written and has it been altered over the years? Are you certain?

Furthermore, sometimes people apply the conclusions to the theories and don't understand the thinking that went into forming the theories in the first place. Again, this is the same in art as it is in science where going back to the "source" you can find out what was done, how it was done, and then do a "what if" to try and take things in a different direction.

This isn't ancestor worship as you are implying, but avoiding the need to "reinvent the wheel". As such, these artifacts that are called classical paintings and other such things have value because it provides that important context to fall back upon and not rely upon subsequent interpretation.

I will admit there is a certain amount of ancestor worship going on as well, which is why there is a kernel of truth to what you are saying here. But I think you are also missing out on other aspects of what is going on well beyond just the pure idolizing of things that are old just because they are old.

What made John Lennon and Paul McCartney so incredible wasn't just that they made great music.... it was because they studied the classical masters like Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart and were able to put some of that music into a much more modern context. You may love or hate their music, but it certainly will have an impact on you. __**THAT**__ is what defines great art, and not somebody who copies the work of somebody else and not understanding the context, like the host of Elvis impersonators.

Re:Does this actually work?

[Teancum]

It is a sound concept on a scientific basis, and I could imagine several methods of being able to measure the isotopic proportions of the works of art being studied.

Carbon-14 dating has been used for decades, and all that is being suggested here is to use other radioactive elements and isotopes beyond the Carbon-14 ratios. I don't have the concrete stats to note what Carbon-14 dating has been in terms of identifying fakes, but I know it has been used successfully.

So no, I don't consider this vaporware although the actual equipment to perform the tests and do so in (hopefully) a non-destructive fashion may not have been created yet as applied to classic works of art.

Re:So what?

[amRadioHed]

Yeah, I remember reading a long time ago that mathematicians found fractal characteristics in the works of Pollock. Apparently this characteristic of his art is not so easy to replicate.