Detecting art forgeries

APR 01, 1980

Physical methods available for identifying spurious works include ultraviolet, infrared and x‐ray imaging, neutron activation analysis and the measurement of isotopic ratios in pigments.

DOI: 10.1063/1.2914018

Stuart Fleming

Art forgery is a complex subject; it has as much to do with the personality of the faker or the salesman who markets the spurious work as it has to do with the recapturing of some past technique or mood. And it is a subject that is still highly active today, despite the unquestionably improved art historical scholarship of recent decades: the controversy over the gold from Ziwiye, the stir caused by the forgery of Fragonard and Samuel Palmer, and the impact of the Beirut school’s pressure‐cast counterfeits of early English coinage—all headline‐makers over the past five years—affirm that clearly enough.

References

1. S. J. Fleming, Authenticity in Art, Crane Russak, New York (1975).
2. S. J. Fleming, in Authentication in the Visual Arts, H. L. C. Jaffe, L. H. van der Tweel, eds; B. M. Israel B. V., Amsterdam (1979).
3. J. Folie, Bulletin de l’Institut Royal du Patrimonie Artistique 12, 195 (1963).
4. A. Gilardoni, R. A. Orsini, S. Taccani, X‐Rays in Art, Girlandoni S.p.A., Como (1977).
5. R. D. Harley, Artists’ Pigments, c. 1600–1835, Butterworth’s, London (1970).
6. J. P. W. Hartman, J. Turkstra, Radiochemical Methods of Analysis, Volume 85, IAEA, Vienna (1965).
7. J. Plesters, Studies in Conservation 2, 110 (1956).
8. S. Rees‐Jones, Bull. Inst. Phys. 12, 157 (1960).
9. E. V. Sayre, H. N. Lechtman, Studies in Conservation 13, 161 (1968).
10. J. R. J. Van Asperen de Boer, Studies in Conservation 19, 97 (1974).

More about the Authors

Stuart Fleming. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.