Forensics

Old ideas tend to persist long after new evidence dictates otherwise. Forensics has done more to change conventional wisdom perhaps than any other endeavor. One definition of the word ‘forensic’ is the use of science and technology to investigate and establish facts.

Problems surrounding the correct attribution of a work of art have a very long history and this situation persists to this day. Misattributions continue to proliferate, as do forgeries. We often see this as the subject of sensationalized articles and news items.  The majority of works of art today are still judged on subjective visual examination alone – frequently on nothing more than a photograph.

The scientific examination of paintings had a slow start in the early 19th century. “In 1800 a London doctor, John Haslam, carried out the first recorded analysis on samples from mid-fourteenth century wall paintings discovered in St Stephen's Chapel, Westminster. His work is examined and compared with that of Sir Humphry Davy, who in 1814 analysed pigment samples from excavations in Rome and Pompeii.”(1.)

It was only in the 20th century that we saw the beginnings of what today is the mainstream approach to pigment and technical analyses of paintings employing a wide range of ever-improving and evolving scientific instruments. At the beginning of the 21st century we are seeing the miniaturization of hitherto bulky and often room filling instruments. With such miniaturization the analytical instrument can literally be taken to the object as opposed to having to remove material from the artwork to be prepared and placed in an instrument’s specimen chamber.

Technical and scientific analyses of the materials that make up an artwork is now generally accepted and required in the authentication process. The history of paint-making is fairly well documented and is constantly expanding. The introduction of myriad new synthetics during the 20th century literally fuelled the works of many modern artists. “Siqueiros was passionately committed to technical innovation. He believed that revolutionary art called for revolutionary techniques and materials.”(2.) Alkyds, acrylics and other plastic based media saw their beginnings in the early part of the last century and new paint formulations continue to be introduced to this day.

Forensics has also seen a similar if not parallel evolution. The techniques and methods employed by forensic practitioners that often lead to crime-solving have crossed over to the art authentication process. Fingerprints left in paint are often seen on paintings and artists like Leonardo, Raphael and Turner intentionally used the ridges and furrows on their fingers and hands for artistic purposes. And, we also find such marks left behind as a matter of handling or accidental touching of the art object.

Fingerprints, as a means of identifying an individual has been in generally accepted practice since the beginning of the last century. At its outset there were no databases available, but over a century huge collections were amassed by various organizations such as INTERPOL. Adding to the datasets of criminals’ and suspects’ fingerprints there also exist vast numbers of fingerprints stored in various databases for entirely civilian or commercial use, such as in securely identifying employees or newborn babies. Clearly, the systematic collection of fingerprints on artworks has a huge potential to demonstrate connections.

Today, we have an amazing arsenal of methods and equipment available to solve the quintessential question of ‘who done it’.  But the failure to exhaust these avenues can lead to disastrous and materially damaging results.

Unawareness or willful ignorance of publically available data as well as of oral history combined with overreliance on ‘conventional wisdom’ can lead to unjustifiable arguments and misguided conclusions. One example would be: “Jackson Pollock didn’t paint with acrylic, acrylics came later, so if the painting is in acrylic it can’t be by Pollock”.

A sweeping statement, often heard, but let us pause for a moment. In 1950, at the height of Pollock’s famous ‘drip painting’ period an American photographer took this picture in Jackson Pollock’s studio. (3.)

On the photo of Pollock’s work table are tubes of acrylic Magna paint manufactured by Leonard Bocour.

We also know of Pollock’s interest in modern synthetic paints. An inventory of publications read by Pollock records an article by Doroty Lee Seckler in Art News (Summer 1952 Vol. 51 No.4)  that discusses just such modern materials. Pollock also attended a workshop organized by the painter Siquieros in 1936 dealing with the use of new synthetic paints. (4.)

A reading of Pollock’s widow’s financial records shows numerous examples of her attempts to conserve and restore Pollock’s paintings soon after his death in 1956. Synthetics, such as acrylics were used by conservators on many of them and varnished with acrylic resin. This brings into question later chemical analyses and possibly incorrect conclusions about works that have left Pollock’s hands. (More on this on the Capabilities page.) Some of these remained outside the inventory prepared by his wife Lee Krasner and the art dealers Eugene Thaw and Francis O’Connor, authors of Pollock’s Catalogue Raisonné. (5.) Bearing the “stigma” of having been excluded, some of these works have remained questionable to this day.
The efforts to analyze and resolve questions of attribution surrounding works purported to be by Jackson Pollock is only one illustration of the relevance and usefulness of  the forensic approach.