Fakes: Science Versus Connoisseurship and Provenance

Between 2014 and 2015, an important art exhibit toured the United States entitled “Intent to Deceive: Fakes and Forgeries in the Art World.” It was curated by Colette Loll, Ph.D., founder and director of Art Fraud Insights, a consultancy dedicated to art fraud–related prevention. In that capacity, Loll is the lead researcher in art verification investigations for collectors and institutions.

In her exhibition, Loll examined five artists who made their careers by selling paintings that imitated others. Among the artists they copied were Charles Courtney Curran, Honoré Daumier, Philip de László, Henri Matisse, Amedeo Modigliani, Pablo Picasso, Paul Signac, and Maurice de Vlaminck. Many of these imitations hang in private collections today or even in museums undetected by their owners or experts. Those included in the exhibit were exposed by Loll and others using scientific techniques such as Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. This method facilitates looking at the chemistry of pigments in paint, binders, fillers, drying agents, and other additives. By comparing a known to a suspected copy, a secure judgment can be made.

Why Is Scientific Analysis Needed?

This art deception exhibit begs the question, Can people tell the difference between authentic artwork compared to that which is produced to look like it by looking at it only?

Research suggests, No, it cannot. In one study (2011), investigators examined 14 subjects placed in a functional magnetic resonance imaging system (fMRI). They were shown images of work by "Rembrandt," some of which were by Rembrandt; others were imitations by other artists. The results indicated the participants could not distinguish between the two when asked, and the fMRI analysis showed no differences as well.

However, when the research participants were given information indicating one Rembrandt was genuine and another was not, the fMRI results did show differences. The frontopolar cortex (FPC) and the right precuneus demonstrated activity when a Rembrandt indicated as a reproduction was flashed on the screen. The FPC is important in higher cognitive functions such as problem-solving, a function almost certainly utilized to analyze authenticity from a copy. The precuneus is involved in many brain functions, which include the integration of information relating to the perception of the environment. This function was likely called upon when the test subjects were determining whether it was authentic or not.

Also, in this second part of the same study, the FPC and the lateral occipital area showed an interaction. This suggests that the FPC may temper the visual areas in the lateral occipital area. The authors interpreted it in this way: “activation of brain networks rather than a single cortical area in this paradigm supports the art scholars’ view that esthetic judgments are multi-faceted and multi-dimensional in nature.”

Summary

All of this indicates that Dr. Loll’s work is extremely important in reliably identifying a copy from an authentic piece. This is because research suggests we humans cannot visually delineate the difference on our own. Additionally, the provenance of a piece can be faked (2019). Thus, we need science to determine what is fake and what is not.