Emily:
Are you ready to work on the assignment?
Josh:
Now, we need to describe how modern scientific techniques are being used in the field of art history.
Emily:
And Dr. Abbott suggested that we choose some famous cases to illustrate the argument.
Josh:
Okay, so what have you found?
Emily:
Well, there's a Canadian forensic scientist called Biro.
Josh:
Yes, I think I've heard of him.
Emily:
What do you know about him?
Josh:
Well, I'm a big fan of Jackson Pollock.
Emily:
The modern American artist?
Emily:
Didn't he paint those really huge abstract paintings?
Emily:
I guess it would be pretty easy to fake one of those paintings.
Josh:
I know a lot of people think that even a child could paint one.
Josh:
To the untrained eye, they might look simple, but they're incredibly intricate works of art.
Emily:
Well, sorry, but I really can't agree with you.
Emily:
Anyway, what did Biro find out?
Josh:
Well, Biro worked on a case where a client asked him to prove that a painting she bought for only $5 was an authentic Jackson Pollock.
Josh:
Well, Biro found evidence to show it was a genuine Pollock, but the art world didn't accept his findings.
Josh:
Well, one critic said that compared to other Pollocks, the white and yellow lines on the painting were too straight.
Emily:
That doesn't seem that convincing.
Josh:
But the strongest argument was that there were no records of previous owners.
Josh:
For the painting to be authentic, you really should be able to trace the painting all the way back to the artist's studio.
Emily:
Well, that's true, I suppose.
Emily:
Did they consult with anyone else?
Josh:
The International Foundation for Art Research got involved.
Emily:
And what was their verdict?
Josh:
Well, they saw a definite similarity in the painting techniques used.
Emily:
You mean the way Pollock dripped the oils on the canvas?
Josh:
And they noted the dirt and paint marks on the back, which all of Pollock's paintings have.
Josh:
He used to lie his canvases down on the ground when he painted them.
Josh:
But the Foundation were worried about the acrylic paint that was used on the painting.
Josh:
It's quite common now, but it was very unusual back in Pollock's day.
Emily:
So it was probably painted much later?
Emily:
So whose side are we on in this argument?
Josh:
When it comes to art, you can see the art critic's point.
Josh:
If their knowledge and expertise tells them that it definitely isn't a Pollock painting, shouldn't we believe them?
Josh:
I mean, that is usually how it works in the art world, isn't it?
Emily:
Art historians have always judged paintings, but things are changing now.
Emily:
If we have modern scientific techniques like fingerprint analysis, why not use them?
Josh:
Well, maybe we need a combination.
Emily:
I think you're right.
Emily:
So did you find out anything else, Josh?
Josh:
Well, have you ever heard of a painting called The Battle of Anghiari?
Emily:
It's The Lost Masterpiece by Leonardo Da Vinci, the famous Italian artist.
Josh:
Well, an Italian art analyst called Seracini thinks he knows where it is, and he's using scientific techniques to help locate it.
Josh:
Well, art historians knew where the painting was last seen.
Emily:
That's right, in the Hall of the 500 in Florence.
Josh:
So, Seracini had a theory that the painting was still there, and he set out to prove it.
Josh:
He used a lot of different technology, like radar and thermographic cameras, but initially he scanned every inch of the hall with a laser in order to make a really accurate 3D model of the building's design.
Emily:
Did he think the painting was hidden in the building somewhere?
Josh:
Then, to find out what the hall looked like in Leonardo's time, he took pictures of it with a thermographic camera.
Emily:
Couldn't he have used ultrasound to do that?
Josh:
Actually, different types of building materials produce different amounts of radiation, and you can really see those differences in a thermal image.
Emily:
So, brick would look different from wood or glass, for example?
Josh:
Seracini worked out what the building looked like when it was first built, and what renovations took place after that.
Josh:
He found that two large glass windows on the east wall had been removed and filled in by the time da Vinci started work on his painting, leaving a space big enough for it.
Emily:
But why hasn't the painting been seen for 400 years?
Josh:
To answer that question, Seracini needed to study that wall even more closely.
Emily:
Did he use the thermographic camera again?
Josh:
This time he used another kind of technology, radar.
Emily:
And what did that show?
Josh:
It showed there were in fact two walls there, an older one and a newer one built in front of it.
Emily:
So does Seracini believe that da Vinci's painting is on the concealed wall?
Josh:
Yes, on a stone wall concealed by the newer brick wall.
Emily:
So, what's the next stage in the investigation?
Josh:
Well, he isn't allowed to remove any plaster or bricks, so he's now experimenting with a gamma ray camera to try and verify his theory.
Emily:
Well, I think we've got some really strong examples there of how science can help art.
Emily:
Let's see if we can type up an outline.
