what have you found?
Josh: Well, there’s a Canadian forensic scientist called Biro.
Emily: Yes, I think I’ve heard of him. What do you know about him?
Josh: Well, I’m a big fan of Jackson Pollock.
Emily: The modern American artist, didn’t he paint those really huge abstract paintings?
Josh: That’s him.
Emily: I guess it would be pretty easy to fake one of those paintings.
Josh: No way, Emily! I know a lot of people think that even a child could paint one. 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. 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 five dollars was an authentic Jackson Pollock.
Emily: So was it a fake?
Josh: Well, Biro found evidence to show it was a genuine Pollock, but the art world didn’t accept his findings.
Emily: Why?
Josh: Well, one critic said that compared to other Pollocks, the white and yellow lines on the painting were too straight.
Emily: Come on, Josh. That doesn’t seem that convincing.
Josh: No, you’re right, it is a bit weak, but the strongest argument was that there were no records of previous owners. 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. Did they consult with anyone else?
Josh: Mmm, 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: Yeah, and they noted the dirt and paint marks on the back, which all of Pollock’s paintings have.
Emily: Why’s that?
Josh: He used to lay his canvases down on the ground when he painted them. But the foundation were worried about the acrylic paint that was used on the painting. It’s quite common now, but it was very unusual back in Pollock’s day.
Emily: So it was probably painted much later.
Josh: Exactly.
Emily: So, whose side are we on in this argument?
Josh: When it comes to art, you can see the art critic’s point. If their knowledge and expertise tells them that it definitely isn’t a Pollock painting, shouldn’t we believe them? 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. If we have modern scientific techniques like fingerprint analysis, why not use them?
Josh: Mmm, that’s true.
Emily: Well, maybe we need a combination.
Josh: 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: I have actually. It’s the lost masterpiece by Leonardo da Vinci, the famous Italian artist. What about it?
Josh: Well, an Italian art analyst called Seracini thinks he knows where it is, and he’s using scientific techniques to help locate it.
Emily: How?
Josh: Well, art historians knew where the painting was last seen.
Emily: That’s right, in the Hall of the Five Hundred in Florence.
Josh: Right. So, Seracini had a theory that the painting was still there, and he set out to prove it. 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: Exactly. 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: Not really. 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: Yes. Seracini worked out what the building looked like when it was first built and what renovations took place after that. 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: No, 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.
Josh: Let’s see if we can type up an outline.
