Once a fraud, now a masterpiece

The tech age in which we live enables experts to determine more quickly when a newly found painting is indeed the long-lost work of a master.

Peter Dejong/AP
'Sunset at Montmajour' by Van Gogh.

In a footnote in an art journal, experts describe pinning down the type of oak depicted in a 19th-century painting “on the basis of acorns gathered from the same spot.”

The note in the October issue of The Burlington Magazine, a monthly publication devoted to the fine and decorative arts published in London, hints at how far experts will go to confirm a painting is the work of a master. The acorn clue was just one of many that allowed Amsterdam’s Van Gogh Museum to announce in September that “Sunset at Montmajour,” owned by anonymous private collectors and once dismissed as a fake, was indeed a Van Gogh.

We live in an age of data and the means to share it instantly and widely. For the art world, experts don’t even need to be in the same room to apply new technology and compare findings about who painted what. This has led to a spate of recent discoveries that, in addition to the Van Gogh, includes a Leonardo da Vinci, a Titian, even a Brueghel the Younger unearthed in a Kenyan home. While the world’s store of masterpieces is limited, more discoveries are likely as private collections come to light and connoisseurs probe the validity of their artwork. The sea of information could also make life more difficult for forgers because it is easier to check their claims.

In the case of “Sunset at Montmajour,” researchers tracked down gallery catalogs and sales records, and subjected the canvas and paint to painstaking scientific analysis. Descriptions from Van Gogh’s letters also helped. The Van Gogh Museum constantly updates www.vangoghletters.org, a digital trove accessible anywhere.

“They just had more data to come up with a solid attribution,” says Timothy Standring, the Denver Art Museum’s head of painting and sculpture.

Don Johnson, an electrical engineer at Rice University who consulted with the Van Gogh Museum on “Sunset at Montmajour,” has become known in the art world as “the guy who counts threads.” Mr. Johnson has amassed a database of thread count analyses of the canvases of more than 400 Van Goghs. By making comparisons, curators can determine whether materials in any given painting were likely to have been used by the Dutch Post-Impressionist.

Johnson’s entire database includes 750 paintings, the earliest dating to the 15th century. He recently began working with the Art Institute of Chicago to build a database of its Impressionist collection.

Mr. Standring says that technological advances aside, the aesthetic element remains important. The right questions don’t get asked, he says, “without that intuitive sense of the human eye that, with the mind, puts it all together.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.