Artworks: understand how copies are identified

As long as the world has been a world, there have always been those who love to copy the work of others and take credit for their copying. This horrible practice is more prevalent in the art world, where fake paintings and works are marketed as if they were originals. Fortunately, science is a powerful ally to identify copies when not even the greatest art specialists can make this distinction with the naked eye.

fake artwork

To demonstrate five ways experts use to identify copies of artworks, Wired put together a video in which the forensic scientist Thiago Piwowarczyk and the art historian and PhD Jeffrey Taylor explain the methods of analysis.

As an example, the researchers analyze a supposed screen of Jackson Pollock, North American painter, reference in the style of abstract expressionism. You've certainly seen one of the painter's famous "ink blot" canvases out there. Next, let's check out the methods used by the duo to identify that this work of art was fake.

1 - Provenance search

First you need to find out where the painting came from. That is, from which auction, art gallery or even personal collection it was sold. This process needs to go back to the process of making the canvas by the hands of the painter himself.

In the case of this alleged Pollock painting, researchers were provided with a faxed document proving its authenticity. However, due to errors in the dates and lack of information on the paper, it is very likely that this document is a fake, which makes it impossible to prove the origin of the work of art.

2 - Visual analysis

It is much easier to prove something is a lie than it is for something to be true. For this reason, visual analysis assumes that the analyzed work is fake and looks for patterns and features that would not be appropriate for a Pollock painting.

For example, in this painting analyzed in the video, there are layers of paint that are not typical of Pollock's style. Furthermore, the work is not signed, a characteristic that multiplies in the fake painting market, as forgers try to use this tactic to mislead experts. (https://ctlsites.uga.edu/)

In the fake work, it is still possible to identify that liquids were spilled to cause an aging effect. In fact, when you smell canvas, you can smell tea, as one of the tactics for aging documents and paintings is to beat them with tea bags.

3 - Ultra-violet photography and analysis

This step consists of using the camera to identify different layers of the screen. With this it is possible to tell if the painting was made over another drawing or if it has more than one layer, which may indicate that it is a fake work.

In the case of the painting analyzed by the pair, they found that the canvas had already been used in another painting with geometric shapes – something not at all typical of Pollock. The ultra-violet filter is used to identify restoration marks.

The researchers were able to discover that there are patches on the fabric and that it has already been ripped and stitched together. This clearly indicates that any restoration of the work was done in an amateur fashion, which would not prove its origin from an art auction.

4 - Analysis by X-ray fluorescence

With very modern small equipment, researchers can emit moderate amounts of X-rays onto the paint, causing the paint's electrons to become excited, allowing the machine to identify the chemical elements present in the stains.

For example, when analyzing Pollock's "paint", the researchers found a high concentration of titanium. Usually, this finding is a determining factor to confirm that a painting is fake, since this chemical element only started to be used in paints from 1930 onwards.

If it were a painting by Leonardo Da Vinci or another painter before the XNUMXth century, it could be said right away that it is a fake work of art. However, in Pollock's case, inks containing titanium were very common in his day, so it is not possible to conclude anything from this step.

5 - Microscopy

The last step to determine the authenticity of the work is to carry out a microscopic study of the piece. For this, small fragments of the painting are removed and analyzed under an electron microscope so that the paints that make up the painting can be identified.

In the analyzed painting, it was discovered that acrylic paints were used. However, even if this type of paint already existed at the time of Pollock, the chemical binder of the acrylic paint found in the fake work would only begin to be manufactured from 1960 onwards.

In addition, there are already several studies that cataloged all types of materials that Pollock used in his paintings, including dirt dust on the finished canvas. In the case of this fake painting, what the researchers found was wall cement dust thrown onto the canvas, something inconsistent with Pollock's style.

Conclusion

Although some initial analyzes already confirmed that the canvas analyzed was a fake piece, thanks to the more detailed analysis of photography, X-rays and microscopy, it was possible to conclude that this painting is not an original work by Jackson Pollock. With the art world so saturated with counterfeiters, one has to be very careful when appreciating works of art.