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"

[Speare]

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.

Heh, I have a lot of Ikea furniture I would sell as antiques, then.

For no-name talent, perhaps that's true. What you're suggesting is a bit like visiting the television studio mockup of a well-known landmark, vs visiting the actual landmark. The intangible connection comes from knowing that it WAS Davinci or Picasso or Monet who applied their skills personally, it WAS on this hallowed ground that a truce was signed, it WAS this flag that stood upon the hill, it WAS this laboratory in which the first light bulb burned brightly through nothing more than harnessed lightning. The image itself is only half the appeal, and for the other half, they accept the degradation of the media. Today, if we saw the Mona Lisa with all her eyebrows and eye lashes that have faded to obscurity in the intervening centuries, it would just seem wrong and out of place.

Re:I don't understand "fake art"

[vadim_t]

So what's the big deal with it being original? There's no actual original anyway, since each painting is an imperfect execution of what the artist had in mind in the first place.

Furthermore, where is the value of a painting? Is it in that say, Louis Wain might have sneezed on it and embedded a bit of his bodily fluids and bacteria into the picture? Or is it that the picture is actually nice to look at?

If the value of a picture is in the image, then we should reproduce it as widely as possible, not get obsessed about the "original".

The way I see it, the value of an "original" is like the value of things like some famous singer's underwear, tulips, and diamonds: irrational, and way above the actual value they would have if evaluated based on the actual usefulness.

Re:I don't understand "fake art"

[entrigant]

It's the difference between owning a piece of history or just wanting something to look at. If you do not understand why someone may want to own a piece of history; why it matters so much that the one you have is the one the artist himself made with his own hands, then there's probably not much point trying to explain it.

Re:I don't understand "fake art"

[Timothy Brownawell]

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.

I think a lot of the "value" of these art pieces is in their scarcity; people don't want them because they're nice to look at, people want them because nobody else has them. Or in other cases, people (most likely, people with an interest in history) want them because of the "story" that comes with them, and of course the story is only any good if the item that it came with really was a witness to the events it tells about.

Re:I don't understand "fake art"

[stormguard2099]

ok, so if I built a scale model of the Egyptian pyramids in Kansas you would find it more valuable than the existing ruins of the originals in Egypt? All this regardless of the feat of engineering it took for them to accomplish all of this without cad programs, lasers(they had to use just sharks) etc?

Re:I don't understand "fake art"

[SEWilco]

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

Maybe it's time for you to read about the several repairs of the Parthenon.

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"

[aussie_a]

How much of history would be lost because we tore down and incorrectly rebuilt some of it?

Re:I don't understand "fake art"

[Peganthyrus]

The surface of the painting can tell you a lot about how a piece was made: you can look at the shapes of the strokes, the trails left by the brush's bristles, and tell something about how the artist's hand moved. You can learn technique from this. I have looked at original art and been able to see things i could never see in a reproduction, and taken something back to my own artwork.

Would you rather pick up technique from Michaelangelo's marks - or from someone who did a copy of them? The copyist may be miming the original's technique, but he's not going to show the same thought processes on the canvas, as he has a finished piece to work from. You'll never be able to look at layered paint and get an idea of where the original artist had to struggle.

Looking at a copy, even a good one, is like looking at source code with all the comments stripped out and all the variable names obscured.

Plus, of course, issues of scarcity: there is only one of these. It is thus very rare, and potentially worth a hell of a lot if it's been deemed Fine Art.

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"

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Once you tear something down and replace it with a copy, you've permanently lost all information about the original that you didn't manage to get in the copy.

Re:I don't understand "fake art"

[nelsonal]

Granted pocket watch chains wear out slowly but, shall we say that you replace a few links in the chain over time. Would the pocketwatch chain still not be your grandfathers? What if, over a period of centuries your progeny continue to care for the pocket watch chain and over that time continue to replace links, would the chain not continue to be your grandfathers pocketwatch chain? How about after every single link were to have been replaced each individually, perhaps without the knowledge that all the other links had previously been changed?

The watch chain remains authentic, even though with wear, it has been slowly renewed. Most of the cells in your body are imperfect copies of the originals, but the whole remains the same whole. Authenticity is a funny thing.

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!

So what?

[denzacar]

Forgers will just switch to doing more Jackson Pollock.

No one can tell the fakes from the real thing anyway.

Re:So what?

[Dun Malg]

Are you an art critic?

You sure sound like one. You know... a stuck-up snob.

You don't have to be an art critic to know that Jackson Pollock's true art form was not painting, but rather convincing people that he was an artist. Polock's "art" was typical of the stupid abstract expressionist movement--- intentionally devoid of representational content. This is the sort of bullcrap that proves that wealthy New York morons will buy anything if you tell them it's cool. Art with all the representational elements removed can be interesting, but Pollock's crap doesn't even have that. As one artist/critic commented, "[I am] astonished that decorative 'wallpaper', essentially brainless, could gain such a position in art history alongside Giotto, Titian, and VelÃzquez."

Seriously, look at an example. I think even "wallpaper" is a bit generous. I worked at a hardware store once, and the drop cloth by the paint mixing station was more interesting than that.

Re:So what?

[moosesocks]

Think you can do better?

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.

Re:So what?

[dblake]

Like many modern artists, Pollock's work is not something you can really appreciate from a photo. I used to see pictures of works by Mondrian, Pollock, even some by Miro and Picaso, and wonder at how they could be so famous, so influential. But once I *saw* a Mondrian, in person, saw Dali's canvasas, saw Pollock's, I got it. Pollock's works are NOT simple drop cloths with spatterings. Mondira's work has depth and subtlty to it, the technique and brushwork are part of the experience of viewing one of these. I won't convince anyone with my poor writting skills, and so I simply say: Go SEE this stuff, as photos do not convey the size, depth, material or techniques.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to be an art critic to know that Jackson Pollock's true art form was not painting, but rather convincing people that he was an artist.

What separates stuck-up snobs from intelligent people is that the latter group understands there's no such thing as a work that doesn't qualify as art. The latest hollywood dick and fart movie is an artform, in that it tells you quite a lot about what (some) people find funny in today's society. Such things change more often than people realize. For example, the average person this generation isn't likely to laugh even once during an entire charlie chaplin movie. The example picture in the link you gave is quite impressive for a manual painting (with computers, it's easier to do something like it, but manually, that takes a lot of skill).

In addition, thanks to our great pattern-matching brains, nothing is devoid of meaning. Even if the artist was somehow capable of creating something with no intended meaning, people will derive meaning from it. And unlike what your high school teachers might have told you (because you certainly wouldn't have heard that type of bullshit in an university), what the artist meant when he created his work is nowhere near as important as what people interpret when they witness the result. If the artist is trying to make a statement, these two events will likely match, but sometimes there's much more value in the unintended interpretations of a work.

Re:So what?

[westlake]

Seriously, look at an example

The Wikipedia distorts the colors and shrinks a 4x8 foot painting to postage stamp size and this is how you make a judgment?

A Pollock Is Sold, Possibly for a Record Price [2006]

For a better example: Lavender Mist No. 1 1950 Oil on canvas, Oil, enamel, and aluminum on canvas. 7x10 feet. National Gallery of Art. Washington, DC.

The depth of a Pollack is not easily captured on screen. You need to visit a gallery.

The element of chance in Pollack's "drip paintings" is no less an illusion than the effects of a representational artist. The colors and materials used in Lavender Mist were consciously chosen and layered to achieve a particular effect.

You don't have to be an art critic to know that Jackson Pollock's true art form was not painting, but rather convincing people that he was an artist. Polock's "art" was typical of the stupid abstract expressionist movement--- intentionally devoid of representational content.

Of course Pollack's drip paintings are devoid of representational content.

There are entire cultures whose art is a mastery of abstraction. There are also perfectly intelligible reasons why a Titian can set a modern audience off into gales of laughter.

... couldn't be disputed?

[martyb]

These isotopes, Caesium-137 and Strontium-90, permeated the earth's oil and plant life and ended up in works of art made in the post-war era because natural oils, usually flax/linseed, were used as binding agents for paints.

"I wanted to find something ironclad - that couldn't be disputed, and this led me to approach scientists for ideas," said Basner.

Off the top of my head, here are some ideas:

1. Use paints made before atomic testing began (if you'd ever seen my dad's garage, you'd KNOW there's old stuff out there)
2. Grow your own flax in a controlled environment (i.e. hydroponics; filled with pure Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc. in proper proportions; start with a vacuum if necessary) extract your oils from that.
3. Create false positives by "tagging" genuine works in museums with controlled radiation sources.
4. Other? Please reply with your ideas.

Yes, these are not terribly practical, but if someone could get millions of dollars for a few high-quality fakes, this would just be the cost of doing business.

So, in summary, her assertion "ironclad - that couldn't be disputed" seems overstated. I'll grant that it IS an additional hurdle to overcome, but sufficiently motivated people WILL find a way.

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:... couldn't be disputed?

[Teancum]

The problem with growing your own flax in a fashion as you have suggested is that the radio-isotopic proportions for the elements have changed over the years, and it is nearly impossible to create such a pure laboratory environment as you are suggesting here.

I supposed if you are filthy rich and have a great pile of money to burn, that you could build isotopic centrifuges and extract out the basic isotopes of the essential elements necessary to grow plants... but I can't begin to express how expensive of a process that would be. Going through normal chemical processes, you simply can't isolate isotopes on the scale that you are suggesting.

I suppose that if you wanted to try something really unique and interesting, you could try to head to an asteroid and extract materials and components necessary to grow plants in an environment that avoids contamination from Earth-based sources like atomic weapons. Still, I think even with that sort of expense (IMHO a similar scale to the isotopic separation suggested above) you would be able to identify that the material was created in an extra-terrestrial environment through other measures.

Simply put, growing your own flax isn't going to work on a practical basis.

Something I have heard of is where an art forger would take a painting from a lesser-known artist of the same era and literally scrape the old pigments from the fabric or even "wash" it through some sort of chemical process to remove the paint. Subsequently you need to dig up the paint that comes from roughly the era when the painting supposedly came from. While not quite "your dad's garage", you can obtain paint samples that do date back hundreds of years... provided you have the money.

Even so, most forgery is caught because the forger makes some silly mistake along the way that betrays the origin of the item, such as using paint that is actually older by a century than the fabric that is used, or something else that is a dead giveaway. Making a "good" forgery is something that is quite difficult to accomplish.

All this article suggests is that the isotopic proportions in fabric and pigments is but one more tool to use to help identify fakes from the genuine article.

BTW, your "false positive" notion is also going to be way off. I have no idea what sort of material you are suggesting to "tag" art works in museums that would impact carbon atoms (or other elements) that are bound to the physical structure of the work of art. This isn't like you would have a bottle of Strontium (one of the elements released by the nuclear bomb tests) that could be applied on the surface of the object and not be identified for exactly what it is: Some idiot who is vandalizing art works in some weird fashion.

Re:... couldn't be disputed?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Why would it be destructive?

Strontium 90 decays by beta emission, Cesium 137 by beta and gamma. Both will go right through the paint to the detector you're holding near the painting.

Does this actually work?

[RockMFR]

The article doesn't explicitly say that there is a working method based on this concept, nor does it give any concrete statistics regarding how reliable it is, how many fakes have been found, etc. Consider it vaporware until somebody proves that they've done it.

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:Oh, THANKS, Elena Basner....

[Anonymous Coward]

You got it backwards. The fraudsters have to use paint that is *less* radioactive than everyday paint. Try to understand the idea before you try to be funny.

already done with wine

[Protonk]

Not to diminish the idea, but this is already done with wine. I suspect it is much EASIER to do it with wine rather than with paintings, as you are relying on deposition rather than absorption through soil, but the technique has been around for a bit.

Re:Great Works Are A Fraud

[aussie_a]

You might want to use a well make replica instead of a well made fake. A fake is typically thought of as passing itself off as the original. So regardless of where you stand on original artwork, fraud is almost always considered bad.

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.