Is This Rembrandt a Real One? 155
Roland Piquepaille writes "About a year ago, I told you about how computer scientists from Dartmouth college were investigating digital images. But they're also interested in old paintings authentication, as reports Wired Magazine in The Rembrandt Code. Mathematicians are using high-resolution digital cameras and computers to examine old paintings and evaluate their authenticity. Even the New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art is asking them to discover which of the 42 paintings it owns and that were once believed to be Rembrandts are really authentic. The Wired article is pretty entertaining, but this overview contains more details, pictures and references about this authentication process."
What gives? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What gives? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:What gives? (Score:2, Interesting)
I haven't had Mod points in more than a year in spite of Excellent karma, and frequent meta-modding doesn't seem to help. I'm blacklisted for reasons that escape me.
Re:What gives? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:What gives? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:What gives? (Score:5, Interesting)
I recently had a long email conversation about this with Taco. He basically isn't interested in feedback, which seems very not in the spirit of open source to me. He also said that
Re:What gives? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about a committee of ombudsmen then, if meta-discussion is offtopic in the article pages but it still takes place, there's a clear demand for a place for people to air issues that come up with editorial conduct.
Yeah, yeah, it's their site, but there's a large community here and this little concept of "don't be evil" that everyone seems to advocate.
Re:What gives? (Score:1)
Re:What gives? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What gives? (Score:2)
I doubt any major media will be interested in covering this, but at least it can be aired in the wikipedia and in blogs, and elsewhere.
A modest proposal (Score:2, Offtopic)
You have at your disposal, at your beck and call, a community of geeks with lots of expertise in every technical discipline, who can debunk false claims by industry pundits, help to educate their peers, and share valuable information with the larger community. This is an incredibly valuable and useful resource that can contribute to improvements on the Internet and the technological revolution in which we are all participating.
If you're going to put us to use to make some money with ad
Re:What gives? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Well, someone as Slashdot cares, given that three of my posts in this thread and many others were all simultaneously modded down to -1.
Re:What gives? (Score:2)
Wow... and now it's making me wait several minutes to post this...
Re:What gives? (Score:2)
Re:What gives? (Score:2)
Re:What gives? (Score:4, Interesting)
That, I think is exactly what the concern is. Is there indeed abuse taking place that lines the pockets of Roland and perhaps Zonk by using the traffic that Slashdot can provide though links?
Re:What gives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing the slashdot editors do not also control the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Re:What gives? (Score:5, Interesting)
So much for freedom of speach and anti-censorship, for which Slashdot tries to stand.
Re:What gives? (Score:1)
It also tends to show if that person is *really* wanting freed
Re:What gives? (Score:1)
Get real, people (Score:2)
While there may be someone at the top who downmods this discussion off-topic, let's try to look at this unbiased. Which possibility is more realistic:
A) 'someone with unlimited mod points' continuously scans articles for Roland's and possibly other stuff he wants to cover up (with limited succes, considering their God-mode).
B) some people consider this Roland rant off-topic in a discussion about AI in paint
Re:Get real, people (Score:2)
Those aren't the only possibilities. For instance it's likely several people sent complaints directly to the editors, and he then checked the posts and he smote the thread. But you must admit it looks like a God-mod, rather than a community judgement, as the downmods seem very consistent and simultaneous; and similar critical posts since have not been modded down en masse (yet).
Re:What gives? (Score:2)
Not all of them. Yours is +5, for example. But one post of mine went offtopic, but it contained a link that I wished to get seen. It's the link to Roland's Slashdot account [slashdot.org] - which lists submissions.
I'm not going to make an opinion about it (for fear of censorship) but I'll just mention that the page links to a bunch of his recent submissions, and you can decide for yourself whether he's being fair or not.
(And
Re:What gives? Figging More Important than Roland (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What gives? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Some submitters link to their email address only, or do not link at all. PageRank == $$$$. Slashdot editors seem to be preferentially giving free PageRank to certain submitters (including Roland and BeatlesBeatles).
Does anyone dispute these facts?
Wrong (Score:1, Interesting)
Sorry, but you are wrong. Look at this and previous stories submitted by him: they all end in the sentence "... article is pretty entertaining, but this overview contains more details, pictures and references.", which is a link to his blog on zdnet.
Sorry Roland Piquepaille (Score:3, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=Roland+Piquepa ille+writes&sort=1&op=stories&threshold=1 [slashdot.org]
I skipped back through the history and he's been submitting stories since 2002. I randomly spot checked untill i got to 270 articles. The vast vast vast majority of those articles the
It seems like slashbots (me included) occasionaly go into fits of hysterics over a
Re:What gives? (Score:1, Flamebait)
"My guess would be that it has something to do with blowjobs, a tried-and-true, traditional method of gaining favor throughout the world. Either that or Zonk and Roland are one and the same person."
Go ahead, shit another brick little boy. Provide us with some more entertainment.
Max
And what if they're not real? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, the pictures are good enough for the museum for all of these years. And if no one (even art scholars) can tell the difference, who cares if they are "real rembrandts" or not? Just because some guy happened to have painted them (or not) the paintings are no worse than they always have been. Will the museum keep them on display, and credit them to an unknown artist? Or is the controversy more in the fact that they paintings may be "copyright infringements"?
If it is a real painting (ie not a copy but a true hand painting) why does it matter who painted it? They obviously had talent.
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:2)
As i see it, the people thay shell those amounts for a painting aren't buying the painting itself, but the social currency - the fact
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:4, Insightful)
People value art for all sorts of reasons: they like the piece, or they collect the artist, or they're interested in history, or they want a status symbol, or they're so rich they don't know what to do with their money, etc..
A painting - especially old painting - is different from other products in that it cannot be reproduced. It can be photographed, or made into prints, but there is only one original. It's the scarcity that drives up the price. Imagine how much a wealthy person would pay for the original Mona Lisa... and then compare that to to what they would pay for a copy - even an almost perfect one.
Now Rembrandt is dead, so he cannot create any more paintings. The number of his artworks is finite. This is partly why the price of an artist's work goes up after he dies--the supply is set and can't be increased.
So even if, theoretically, an identical copy could be made - people would not pay as much for it because it is not the original, and it is not connected to the artist. Imagine if you had something signed by your favorite celebrity. You would value it because that person actually signed it. You would not value a forgery by Joe from accounting, even if was perfect. And if you found out it was a fake, you would probably want your money back if you paid for it.
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, though... like it or not, the way that art appraisal work has little (nothing?) to do with talent of the artist, and everything to do with perceived value and context. After all, a sufficiently awesome printer could produce (in principle) copies of Rembrandts that most people would not be able to differentiate, but ultimately they would have little value. Similarly, artificial diamonds are just as good (or better) in terms of purity, hardness and optical properties as natural diamonds, but the natural diamonds are valued higher "just because."
Even if no one can tell that it's a fake for many years, art critics want to know if it's real or not. Such knowledge can change the perceived value of the item, even if it doesn't change its physical appearance. Again, art value is NOT about how "nice" or "well done" a work is, but rather based on "how much are people willing to pay for it."
And in a strange way, having some Rembrandts shown to be fake would actually INCREASE the value of all the other Rembrandts, since they would suddenly be perceived to be a more rare commodity than before. So in fact a Rembrandt collection could stand to have its calculated worth INCREASED if some of them were found to be fakes. (Obviously other Rembrandt collections would also increase in value, especially if it were found that they contained no fakes.)
Lastly, let me mention that above and beyond the determination of the value of art, it's worthwhile from the perspective of art history to determine which ones are real and which are not. If a given conclusion about a time period is based upon a painting that turns out to be fake, well then we have to update the (art) history books.
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:4, Insightful)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Natural_oc
Personally, I am very much a materialist (not to be confused with a hedonist) and I could care less if my diamond supplies come from a factory or the ground (actually, I do care, considering the human suffering associated with natural diamonds and the ecological damage done by any mining activity, but you get the point). At current prices, the only use I could see for diamond is specialized cutting equipment. Quite a shame too, because I can think of plenty of uses for cheap diamond because of it's scratch-resistanct properties such as the cover of LCD screens, windows, glass furniture, mirrors, etc. It's extreme rigitity could find use in precision analogue instruments. Diamond semiconductors have promise too if DeBeers could ever be eradicated.
The aluminum industry went the opposite way of the diamond industry, and it is now the second most important metal in the world behind steel. Aluminum has done a lot to help society by providing a cheap, light, and corrosion resistant metal used in everything from planes and cars to consumer goods and wiring. Diamonds have had a miniscule impact by slightly reducing drilling and cutting costs.
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:4, Interesting)
After the theft of some valuable Munch paintings here in Oslo not long ago, I had this very discussion with my gf. I argued that they should get some exceptionally good forgeries and display them to the public instead of the real deal. My argument was that since you'll need microscopes and UV light, not to mention expertise, to tell the fake from the original, the viewers would have the same experience. My gf refused to accept this, simply stating "but I'll know it's not the real deal!". Apparently "the real deal" has some intrinsic properties that I fail to sense
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:1)
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:1)
The point is it is easy(ier) to create something after studying the subject than it is to create the ideas yourself. Those artists (and I think not authentical Rembrandts that fooled art specialists are works of art) don't have the same tallent that Rembrandt had to create his pictures. The style, the perspective of the world, the original ideas... All that was copied, only the subject was changed (and some are really copies of existing
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:1)
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:4, Interesting)
After talking about it I found out they didn't even like the painting but bought it because Dali was famous and old, and they expected the value to go up after he died. So Dali could put nearly zero effort into his paintings and get big bucks from collectors who only cared about it being a genuine Dali that they could sell for even more bucks after he died.
The name is often the only thing that matters to people.
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:2, Interesting)
Dali was in fact one of the greatest technical painters of all time but his adored wife Gala turned him into a media circus - little of his later work is worth more than the material it is painted on (and the magical signature of course!).
Gala was originally married to the French poet Paul Eluard (very fine poet BTW) but divorced him when her rapacious instricts told her that Dali was a better bet financially.
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:2)
Not just the name but what one could call (critically) artificial scarcity or (more supportively) some sense of connection with a time, place, or person. I mean, there's no reason that you couldn't make more baseball cards just like the 1952 Mickie Mantle rookie card. But even with the same name, printed by the same company, it's not "the real deal". You could say that a bubble-gum card has any real tie-in with the baseball player other than his pho
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:2)
You're lucky. My family has some original Dali work, and rather than being 'typical' some of it is actually disturbing and disgusting. You should be glad you walked away unimpressed rather than wishing you could
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:2)
Ah! (Score:2)
Re:Ah! (Score:2)
If ever a reference needed a link this is it.
Dr. Who: City of Death [bbc.co.uk]
(Also, check out the Modern Art video clip [bbc.co.uk] with John Cleese on that same page.)
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:2, Insightful)
Two issues (Score:5, Insightful)
A fake Rembrandt is a picture Rembrandt never painted but which was done in his style and with his techniques. A copied Rembrandt is a reproduction of a picture he did paint, where the original was lost before the advent of photography. There's no evidence to show that the copy isn't the original.
It may not be terribly important to find out whether a given painting is an original or a copy. Either way, Rembrandt created the ideas in it. It's a reflection of his worldview, and its his statement as an artist. The value would probably plummet for emotional and romantic reasons. This is the issue of Legitimacy and you can feel however you like about that.
A fake Rembrandt is a very different deal. Suppose that, five hundred years from now, film historians thought the movie Grease was actually made during the Fifties. Grease embodies the way that people felt about the Fifties and remebered it decades later. It is a depiction of the era, not a product of the era. Similarly, a fake Rembrandt is a depiction of Rembrandtness, not a production of Rembrandt.
Determining the authenticity of a piece affects the interpretation both of all other pieces by that artist and our understanding of the time in which the faker lived.
Alternately, suppose it was discovered that almost all of Hamlet was written by Shakespeare, but the famous To Be soliloquy was not. That speech would still be beautiful and much studied, but our understanding of the meaning of it would undoubtedly change.
Fundamentally, geeks find it very difficult to understand that a given painting is not important. It is that paintings contribution to the world of artistic ideas which is important. When you go to see the Mona Lisa you won't melt or suddenly smell the sea air of Renaissance Italy. There's no magic there. If you don't understand Renaissance art or plan to study it, there's probably no point in seeing the painting. It's just a chick with a funny look on her face. There are paintings from the modern era, illustrations or comic book pages or whatever, which will genuinely speak much more directly to you. They're painted in the language of your time.
The place where the two issues intersect is that an artist may well have put Meaning in some very tiny aspect of a painting which a copy cannot reproduce. Geeks are used to thinking that any data can be transcoded between forms. Music can be digitized to "beyond the range of human hearing," text can be typed, pictures can be scanned. The difference with a painting is that it is not actually a flat image on a piece of paper. A painting is a three dimensional sculpture, though a shallow one. The colour is only part of the visual information in a painting. Gloss, texture, thickness, translucency and a dozen other factors are also important.
Again, the geek cry tends to be "but the human perceptual system just merges these together." That's sort of true, but if the viewer moves his head, everything changes.
Because of this detail, it does matter whether a painting is the original or a copy. If it's a copy, we know some of the meaning has probably been lost. It may look like something Rembrandt could have painted, but it will only be what someone thought Rembrandt was saying, not what he actually said. It's a paraphrase.
Conclusion: Authenticity matters if you care about art for reasons beyond the monetary.
Re:And what if they're not real? (Score:2)
Paintings aren't valuable simply because of their technical excellence. Their historical, cultural as well as technical signifigance all play into their value. There have been millions of talented artists, but only a relative handful stand out.
Am I the only one who thought of Norby first? (Score:1)
Re:Am I the only one who thought of Norby first? (Score:2)
Re:Am I the only one who thought of Norby first? (Score:2)
Mathematics Holding The Art World Hostage (Score:1)
Re:Mathematics Holding The Art World Hostage (Score:1)
hmmmm... that's not exactly what the article says. It says Mathematics can (possibly) say what is or is not an authentic Rembrandt. It does not metnion being able to determine Art from non-Art.
That sad thing about this is... (Score:2, Interesting)
'fakes' in order that they can be weeded out and derided
as "not good". But if an artist can paint as well as one
of the Masters, shouldn't we be excited to find a 'fake'
because it means that there is another great painter out
there who we know nothing about - and who paints so well
that even an art expert can't point out why that person
is a worse painter than Rembrandt?
We should be looking for other masterpieces by the same
guy and hanging those up next to
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:2)
Real artists start from scratch, or at least reinterpret reality using existing images in new ways. See Warhol [wikipedia.org].
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:2)
While the copist might be skilled, he has only learned to copy a technique. Millimeter by millimeter. However, to create original work? OK. Good? Maybe. Masterful? Most likely not.
As an example: Some of the most technically skilled metal/whatever guitarists out there wouldn't know _real_ music if it bit them in the ass and couldn't come up with an emotionally stirring chord progression to save their lives.
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:1)
of the Masters, shouldn't we be excited to find a 'fake'
because it means that there is another great painter out
there
It may be in the museum because it is believed to be from Master X, not necessarily because it is Master X's best work. A bunch of fakes that look like X's style but are not that great drag down the reputation of Master X. Even masters create a few yawners, and the counterfitter may be just increasing the population of (apparent) yawners, copying the
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:2)
I remember visiting an exhibit on Davinci at
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:2)
The owners of the artist's authentic paintings would be rather pleased if the others were proved to be false and their's authentic. The authentic paintings would be immediately worth quite a bit more.
This is also a great extortion opportunity for an authentication service. "Pay us to prove your painting's authenticity. If you don't, well
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:2)
'fakes' in order that they can be weeded out and derided
as "not good". But if an artist can paint as well as one
of the Masters, shouldn't we be excited to find a 'fake'
because it means that there is another great painter out
there who we know nothing about.
Not necessarily. A huge amount of art is tied up in personalities, and feelings of connection. It's a massively psychological field, not a rational one at all. A lot of the time, the artist's life, t
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:2)
But there's a boatload of psychology that goes along with being "great art"
Don't you mean bullshitting? Many people lead shitty lives, but no one values the crap they produce just because they led a shitty life. If you have to inject a lot of backstory into a work of art to make it great.. well it must not be really that great to begin with.
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:2)
I don't know what you mean by bullshitting, but it's the same stuff that causes people to value a family heirloom more than a brand new object that's exactly the same bu
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:2)
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:2)
I disagree, strongly. In the real world, people's perception of the artist greatly alters how the art affects them.
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:2)
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:2)
No. Art is about beauty. It's not about the "values", it's about making something that looks good.
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:4, Insightful)
of the Masters, shouldn't we be excited to find a 'fake'
because it means that there is another great painter out
there who we know nothing about - and who paints so well
that even an art expert can't point out why that person
is a worse painter than Rembrandt?
If I wanted a copyist, we have excellent reproductions to choose from. Columbus went to America 500 years ago. I went there 10 years ago. He was breaking new ground, I was just following a well-travelled path. That's also why it's not interesting if I could paint a picture like Rembrandt, even if I mimiced his style to the point where it could have been a Rembrandt. If I want to be the "next Rembrandt" I would have to find something of my own, and if it hit big there'd be copyists, but they would also be nothing more than that.
Re:That sad thing about this is... (Score:1)
The conceptualisation of a piece of art is worth far more credit than the talent involved in putting it on canvas. Its exactly the same principle that renders, say, Lynyrd Skynyrd more universally recognized than the dozens of cover bands who reproduce their compositions across the South.
Imitation Adds Nothing (Score:2)
'fakes' in order that they can be weeded out and derided
as "not good". But if an artist can paint as well as one
of the Masters, shouldn't we be excited to find a 'fake'
because it means that there is another great painter out
there who we know nothing about - and who paints so well
that even an art expert can't point out why that person
is a worse painter than Rembrandt?
We should be looking for other masterpieces by the same
guy and hanging those up next to t
The Pressure, Oh The Pressure (Score:2)
Re:The Pressure, Oh The Pressure (Score:1)
They made a fuss over how pollock wasn't using randomly chosen paint paths, as everyone thought, but was choosing careful fractal patterns. This was then used to determine if another of Pollock's paintings was authentic or not.
My call of complete bullshit
Re:The Pressure, Oh The Pressure (Score:2)
Will the real primate please stand up (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Will the real primate please stand up (Score:2, Interesting)
The point is, it's all about speculators and untalented people and their drive to make money. And the 'marks
Re:Will the real primate please stand up (Score:2)
Re:Will the real primate please stand up (Score:2)
BUT, as an observer if I'm looking at something I think he painted, it helps me evoke those emotions because I "feel" connected. It does
J Bollocks (Score:2)
If you're in front of one of his actual exhibits the actual sensations, sight, sound, touch and last but not least _smell_ help to evoke significant emotions and connect you to the work.
J Bollocks is one of the founding members of The Emperor's New Clothes Inc.
Re:J Bollocks (Score:1)
Unlike Picasso, who was a real genius because he created something unique and different from everything that came before, that no one else would have done--Pollock spilled paint onto a canvas and called it a day. Like no one was gonna think of that!
His real genius was convincing people to buy (literally and figuratively) his bullshit.
Rembrandt was a master (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just Rembrandt's personal technique. Rembrandt worked with multiple layers, allowing light to permeate the background and to reflect off of his subjects in the painting. This sensuous interest in the physical attributes of the body and its many colors, tonalities, and reflections created an impression of richness and fullness of form. The fact that his lines were more often suggested than revealed, as evidenced by his self-portrait in 1669, suggests the the bodies he paints are more naturalistic and complex than they let on.
To feel for a Rembrandt painting is to watch the subjects evoke emotion and a secular pathos that is thick with a somewhat ungraceful suggestion of form, in which paintings would sometimes look unfinished, perhaps, or rather, lacking a rigid definition of form.
You cannot just recreate this technique. It takes the painter who originally defined a style and technique to illustrate why the technique is being so revered. Many copied Warhol, but none are genuine Warhols. And Warhol merely did silk screens!
Notice that it's the artist who is creative and unique that is revered, not the imposer or forgery.
I would concur (Score:2)
Provided ALL the texture and effect is in place, that is. If it's just a cheap imitation - ie: none of the qualities that demonstrate mast
What If (Score:2)
What If (2) (Score:1)
Let's admit it, it's all about the name...
Once somebody does something different, all his stuff is suddenly worth gob$.
Re:Rembrandt was a master (Score:2)
Re:Rembrandt was a master (Score:2)
Then why are they not sure whether these are fake or not?
Re:Rembrandt was a master (Score:1)
Re:Rembrandt was a master (Score:2)
stand on its own. One always imagines western civilization
failing or being overrun by some modern equivalent of barbarians
with the net result being that a few thousand or tens of
thousand years from now most works of art will be stripped of
their context and will have to stand on their own. Imagine knowing
the date of Rembrandts's paintings to the nearest thousand years.
Now with this in mind, it makes sense to evaluate art as standalone
pieces without
Re:Rembrandt was a master (Score:2)
I could say the same thing too, but I'd write it more like:
Why? Yes... EEEEEAAAAAHHHH!!!! ART HISTORIAN!!!!
(runs off screaming)
More to it than copying. (Score:2, Informative)
Remember in grade school when your art teacher told you to copy a picture? First, you put a grid over the source picture and draw a grid scaled up or down over the destination picture. You then try to replicate each box as well as you can.
It usually turns out quite well.
Now, try doing that without a picture to copy. You know how all of the techniques work, how and when to use them, but you still won't be able to draw a "masterpiece".
Silly games analogy (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand if you happened to choose chess and go [xmp.net], then you would reach a completely different conclusion. Since they're both two player strategy games with fairly simple rules, but while computers ar
If you can't tell the difference (Score:1, Offtopic)
obSeinfeld paraphrase (Score:1)
The Rembrandt Code (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot Censorship (Score:2, Insightful)
Ironic how the /. editors bitch and moan so much over censorship when they abuse their mod powers like this. Clearly, they couldn't give a damn abo
Re:Slashdot Censorship (Score:1, Offtopic)
Slashdot Editors: give the community a place to criticize you. This will make you "not evil". Especially if you respond to constructive criticism. This isn't trolling.