Scientists cast doubt on two paintings attributed to Jan van Eyck, one of the world's most renowned artists. The analysis in question involved AI software to examine the brushstrokes and technique used in "Saint Francis of Assisi Receiving the Stigmata," a painting in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and the Turin version, housed at the Royal Museums of Turin.
Researchers from Art Recognition, a Swiss company that partners with Tilburg University in the Netherlands, applied their AI technology to test for signs of Van Eyck's brushwork. The results were striking: the Philadelphia painting scored 91% negative, suggesting no identifiable brushstrokes or artistic style typical of Van Eyck, while the Turin version was found to be only 86% negative.
This has left scholars and art historians reevaluating their understanding of these two paintings, which had long been considered among the masterpieces of Van Eyck's oeuvre. Some experts now believe that both may have originated from his workshop but not necessarily under his direct hand. This idea is supported by one prominent scholar who described the negative results as "surprising" and said they posed further questions about the authenticity of these paintings.
Critics have noted that the condition of a painting and any subsequent restorations could impact AI-based brushstroke analysis, raising doubts about the accuracy of such assessments. However, experts acknowledge the technology's ability to provide accurate insights into artworks like Rubens' Samson and Delilah at the National Gallery in London, which was recently confirmed as 91% negative.
The implications of these findings are significant, particularly for Van Eyck enthusiasts. His unique mastery of oil painting has long been celebrated, but only a handful of paintings – fewer than 20 – have been universally accepted as his own work. This raises questions about the extent to which his workshop may have created works in his style without direct involvement from him.
As museums prepare for upcoming exhibitions featuring Van Eyck portraits, including one at London's National Gallery, these doubts highlight the need for ongoing scrutiny of artistic attributions and the evolving nature of art historical analysis.
Researchers from Art Recognition, a Swiss company that partners with Tilburg University in the Netherlands, applied their AI technology to test for signs of Van Eyck's brushwork. The results were striking: the Philadelphia painting scored 91% negative, suggesting no identifiable brushstrokes or artistic style typical of Van Eyck, while the Turin version was found to be only 86% negative.
This has left scholars and art historians reevaluating their understanding of these two paintings, which had long been considered among the masterpieces of Van Eyck's oeuvre. Some experts now believe that both may have originated from his workshop but not necessarily under his direct hand. This idea is supported by one prominent scholar who described the negative results as "surprising" and said they posed further questions about the authenticity of these paintings.
Critics have noted that the condition of a painting and any subsequent restorations could impact AI-based brushstroke analysis, raising doubts about the accuracy of such assessments. However, experts acknowledge the technology's ability to provide accurate insights into artworks like Rubens' Samson and Delilah at the National Gallery in London, which was recently confirmed as 91% negative.
The implications of these findings are significant, particularly for Van Eyck enthusiasts. His unique mastery of oil painting has long been celebrated, but only a handful of paintings – fewer than 20 – have been universally accepted as his own work. This raises questions about the extent to which his workshop may have created works in his style without direct involvement from him.
As museums prepare for upcoming exhibitions featuring Van Eyck portraits, including one at London's National Gallery, these doubts highlight the need for ongoing scrutiny of artistic attributions and the evolving nature of art historical analysis.
I mean, come on... it's about time someone cast doubt on those paintings. 91% negative? That's like saying a painting is almost certainly not by Van Eyck! I'm not buying it. The condition of a painting and restorations are definitely something to consider when evaluating AI-based brushstroke analysis. But at the same time, if experts can be so sure that Rubens' Samson and Delilah is authentic, then why shouldn't they be confident in their findings about Van Eyck's paintings? 
It just goes to show how much we still have to learn about art history and attribution. And let's be real, if only a handful of Van Eyck's works are universally accepted as his own, then it's not like he was the most prolific artist or anything... 
. I can see why the experts are reevaluating these two paintings - they're still super beautiful and all, but who knows if they're really "his" work? It's like, what makes a painting authentic anyway? Is it just because it's signed by the artist or is there something more to it? 
It's crazy how it raises questions about the authenticity of famous paintings like "Saint Francis of Assisi Receiving the Stigmata". But at the same time, it's awesome to see experts get excited about new methods for art historical analysis 
. I'm curious to see how museums will incorporate this tech into their exhibitions and what it means for art enthusiasts like me who love Van Eyck's work 
.
. Anyway, this is bigger than just Van Eyck - it's about understanding art history and attributing works to the right artists. We need more transparency in museums and art world, so we don't end up with fake masterpieces 
!
. But at the same time, I get why scientists would want to use AI software to test for brushstrokes and technique. It's like, we gotta stay up-to-date with tech and art history too 
. Anyway, this is definitely making me think about Van Eyck and his artwork in a whole new light 
!
The condition of a painting and restorations can definitely throw off these tests, so maybe they need to revisit how they're done. Still, it's pretty wild to think that Van Eyck's workshop might have chucked out some masterpieces in his name without him even touching them 