Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Nuclear Explosions Key To Spotting Fake Art 173

Posted by Soulskill from the all-the-more-reason-to-launch-nukes dept.
Socguy writes "A Russian art curator, Elena Basner, is claiming to have a foolproof method for determining whether or not particular paintings have been created since 1945. She claims that isotopes released into the environment by man-made nuclear explosions have found their way into types of the natural oils used to make paints."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nuclear Explosions Key To Spotting Fake Art More

Nuclear Explosions Key To Spotting Fake Art

Comments Filter:

  • As far as I'm concerned, if the copy is good enough that it can't be told from the original without doing a detailed analysis with fancy equipment, it's just as good as the real thing. Maybe even better if it's in a better shape.

    The only exception I can see is for the people actually interested in doing chemical analysis of the painting. But that shouldn't really be a concern for people looking for something to hang in their room/mansion/compound.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by CodyRazor ( 1108681 )

      I think its more sort of the historical value, than the painting's contents being any more valuable. Just like original copies of on the origin of species are worth a lot of money. The reason i use that example is my grandfather who has dementia mentioned today in passing he had one... I couldn't get any more details out of him but i must track it down.

    • Re:I don't understand "fake art" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Speare ( 84249 ) on Sunday June 29, 2008 @09:45AM (#23990249) Homepage Journal

      As far as I'm concerned, if the copy is good enough that it can't be told from the original without doing a detailed analysis with fancy equipment, it's just as good as the real thing. Maybe even better if it's in a better shape.

      Heh, I have a lot of Ikea furniture I would sell as antiques, then.

      For no-name talent, perhaps that's true. What you're suggesting is a bit like visiting the television studio mockup of a well-known landmark, vs visiting the actual landmark. The intangible connection comes from knowing that it WAS Davinci or Picasso or Monet who applied their skills personally, it WAS on this hallowed ground that a truce was signed, it WAS this flag that stood upon the hill, it WAS this laboratory in which the first light bulb burned brightly through nothing more than harnessed lightning. The image itself is only half the appeal, and for the other half, they accept the degradation of the media. Today, if we saw the Mona Lisa with all her eyebrows and eye lashes that have faded to obscurity in the intervening centuries, it would just seem wrong and out of place.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by vadim_t ( 324782 )

        Heh, I have a lot of Ikea furniture I would sell as antiques, then.


        You're misunderstanding my point. I wouldn't value the original antiques over the copies. I wouldn't shell out millions or even thousands for your copy of some 18th century chair. No, I would be willing to pay maybe $100 for your copy, and maybe $10 for the original due to it being too old to actually sit on.

        • Re:I don't understand "fake art" (Score:5, Insightful)

          by stormguard2099 ( 1177733 ) on Sunday June 29, 2008 @10:03AM (#23990425)

          ok, so if I built a scale model of the Egyptian pyramids in Kansas you would find it more valuable than the existing ruins of the originals in Egypt? All this regardless of the feat of engineering it took for them to accomplish all of this without cad programs, lasers(they had to use just sharks) etc?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by vadim_t ( 324782 )

            So long you built a copy as exact as possible, yes. By that I mean built from the same materials. You can use modern construction equipment if you want to, not like there's much of a difference if a block was put in place by manual labor or a crane, though I do see the value of trying to reenact ancient building methods to test in practice how things worked. Just don't make it out of concrete, because obviously that wouldn't be the same thing.

            And yes, I would find it more valuable. With an accurate reproduc

            • Please find hereby enclosed my cotation for :
              - 400 000 slaves,
              - whips, manacles, paraphernallia
              - 100 000 000 tons of stone

              Delivery by UPS or USPO overnight at your charge. I accept Paypal.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by vadim_t ( 324782 )

                Not on that scale :-P

                I mean the experiments such as whether it's possible to carry a 20 ton rock from point A to B, or trying to figure out how to build Stonehenge with the equipment and materials available back then. Once the basic technique is tested though, there's no need to do it at full scale though. Once you figure out how to make a brick, you know you can make 10000, it's just an exercise in scaling the operation.

              • Put down your bible and pick up a history book. The pyramids weren't built by slaves.

            • Let's say you got a twin, and a really good looking wife. (Suspend your disbelief for a moment, imagine a plain looking wife if must be)

              No, it's OK for your wife to bang your twin, cause he's the exact same as you. Right?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by vadim_t ( 324782 )

                Doesn't work, because even twins aren't the same person, or exactly the same. IIRC twins still have different fingerprints. Even assuming we both were identical to the atom, behavior would still diverge over time as obviously two people can't be at once in exactly the same place.

                If somehow there were two parallel universes that were exact copies of each other then I guess it wouldn't matter if some person got swapped around, though.

            • Wanted: slave labour. Where? Central Kansas. Skills? Must be experienced with moving 100-tonne blocks of granite hundreds of feet of incline using nothing more than hemp ropes and simple levers. Should be willing to work in summer heat without shelter, food or water (e.g. 'till death mercifully takes you) Pay? none. Benefits? none. Extra consideration given if you can provide your own mummies...

          • If it was at 1:1 I would seriously find it an amazing feat. What we have gained in technology is easily set of by the lack of funding you would receive. Unless you can explain to the DoD the big offensive capabilities of a very large pointy stone building, of course. It's airplane-safe at least, so that's a start.

        • I don't think it matters what you think about this if you don't care. You're not the market in question anyway.

          It almost sounds to me that you are calling pox on anyone that wants an original rather than a copy. Not everyone has the same priorities as you. I do think that the amount of money in question gets out of hand, but to get a work that a master actually touched and with their own hand rather than just some copy has value.

          • Correct, he is not the market. He is questioning what it is the "market" gets by having an original over a "fake" that is so hard to tell the difference of that it takes advanced chemical and/or atomic testing to determine the authenticity.

            What is the driver for the value that this market places on the original over the almost-identical-but-newer copy? What is the essence of the value?

            I think his analogy is spot on as well: why values a pair of underwear worn by Artist-Of-The-Month so much greater than

            • It's not "copies" they're talking about, it's "forgeries" that look as if they were painted by a great artist, but weren't. A "copy" would have almost no value, because that would mean there's another-- the original. A forgery, on the other hand, looks like it could have been painted by a master, but wasn't. Given what a work of art reveals about the artist's world view, the original has a far greater value than a forgery which attempts only to look as if it were created by a different-- and more in demand-

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by vadim_t ( 324782 )

                See, that's where I disagree.

                First, I disagree with the notion that there is one true instance of say, "Woman in a Garden". For me there isn't one, what exists is an abstract concept of what "Woman in a Garden, painted by Monet" looks like, and then a number of worse or better instances of it. It's even possible to create a copy that's better than the "original". For example, webcomic artists sometimes go back and redraw their old strips. There's first what the author intended to draw, and then what they co

                • If you found a manuscript for a terrible play but could conclusively prove it was written by Shakespeare at the age of 11 (and was in his handwriting), there would be huge historical value in that. It might not be a good play, but it would be words from a specific historical context, from a specific historical person who is of great interest to us today.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by jamesh ( 87723 )

                  Second, I disagree with the notion of what it's worth $50M.

                  You also don't understand 'worth' then. An item is worth precisely what someone is willing to pay for it, and unless you are the buyer, a bidder, or a highly influentual art critic, your input and understanding (or lack of) don't affect that in any way at all.

                  If an item, having been purchased for $50M, is suddenly discovered to be a fake - painted 3 weeks ago by a scan artist in a basement, it is probably going to now be worth a whole lot less for t

        • Your point is pointless. Many people appreciate the value of having an original piece of artwork. You're not one of them. What else is there to discuss?

    • Some people enjoy having the real thing. They want a painting made by the person they thought made it. If you buy a Monet, and you pay the money for it, then you damn well better have a painting by Monet, not a painting that looks just like one from Monet. Fraud is fraud. This is true of people looking to own a piece of art created by a certain person, or a specific physical object because it has sentimental or other types of special value to them.

      People out to own a pretty work of art really shouldn't care

    • As far as I'm concerned, if the copy is good enough that it can't be told from the original without doing a detailed analysis with fancy equipment, it's just as good as the real thing. Maybe even better if it's in a better shape.

      The only exception I can see is for the people actually interested in doing chemical analysis of the painting. But that shouldn't really be a concern for people looking for something to hang in their room/mansion/compound.

      I think a lot of the "value" of these art pieces is in their scarcity; people don't want them because they're nice to look at, people want them because nobody else has them. Or in other cases, people (most likely, people with an interest in history) want them because of the "story" that comes with them, and of course the story is only any good if the item that it came with really was a witness to the events it tells about.

    • Yes! I'm glad other people feel this way as well. It's always seemed kinda stupid to me to go out of your way to see (or worse purchase) the 'real' painting when you don't have the skill to tell it apart from a well made fake. I mean if you just want social status or the chance to brag to your friends then fine but most people take themselves to be valuing these works of art because of their artistic value. But if you can't tell if it's the real thing by visual inspection then the fake has just as much

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aussie_a ( 778472 )

        You might want to use a well make replica instead of a well made fake. A fake is typically thought of as passing itself off as the original. So regardless of where you stand on original artwork, fraud is almost always considered bad.

      • I don't know where to start, so let's work on this:

        It's absurd that we argue over whether certain works were written by shakespeare as if it would make them better plays if they had been and take some undiscovered painting by a classical master to be a great work but dismiss it if we discover it was truly modern.

        and

        We don't go back and read Newton and neither does it make sense to look at the originals for anything but historical purpose.

        Clearly you're not a scientist, or at least not a very goo

      • I think you miss what makes great art something of note and substance.

        In a way, art does work like science. Philosophies and concepts have an origin and place to start from, and from there survive in the most Darwinian fashion against competing concepts.

        What makes something "classical" such as van Gogh or Shakespeare is that their works have been shamelessly copied and improved upon by succeeding generations. Current artists... if they are deserving of the term... have studied the older masters and have come to understand the principles of their craft to know what can be improved upon and enhanced.

        BTW, I'd say the same thing about scientists, where in fact they do study the works of the older philosophers. In fact, if you have an original edition of Principia Mathematica I'm sure you would have several physicists drooling in terms of wanting to have that book in their private collection... and certainly would treasure it as a gift.

        In addition, to use your example of Newton, it is far more than a mere historical purpose that you have to go back and study what he wrote. The historical context of where we've been is important to understand in order to advance knowledge in any direction. I will guarantee that any reasonable physicist worthy of that title has read and applied Newton's ideas into their work at some level nearly every day. Ditto for Einstein and others.

        Going back to the artifact that is the 1st edition of Principia Mathematica, even that has use in terms of providing a scientific baseline to note what has changed and what hasn't over the years. It is for this reason that the original U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence are so heavily guarded and protected in spite of being in public display. What was written and has it been altered over the years? Are you certain?

        Furthermore, sometimes people apply the conclusions to the theories and don't understand the thinking that went into forming the theories in the first place. Again, this is the same in art as it is in science where going back to the "source" you can find out what was done, how it was done, and then do a "what if" to try and take things in a different direction.

        This isn't ancestor worship as you are implying, but avoiding the need to "reinvent the wheel". As such, these artifacts that are called classical paintings and other such things have value because it provides that important context to fall back upon and not rely upon subsequent interpretation.

        I will admit there is a certain amount of ancestor worship going on as well, which is why there is a kernel of truth to what you are saying here. But I think you are also missing out on other aspects of what is going on well beyond just the pure idolizing of things that are old just because they are old.

        What made John Lennon and Paul McCartney so incredible wasn't just that they made great music.... it was because they studied the classical masters like Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart and were able to put some of that music into a much more modern context. You may love or hate their music, but it certainly will have an impact on you. __**THAT**__ is what defines great art, and not somebody who copies the work of somebody else and not understanding the context, like the host of Elvis impersonators.

      • A work of art made in a different time period may still be inferior to the original in a way that affects the impression it makes on its viewer. This has nothing to do with "originality" but with consistency of author's expression -- say, if I was painting Sistine Chapel, I would include a full set of lolcats, a person pretending to use a celphone, God writing a letter to Flying Spaghetti Monster discussing piracy, and other things that make perfect sense for me in the context of modern culture but would be

    • Wow! You really reeled them in! I'd have to say you have done the finest trolling I have ever seen! How do I get so good?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Teancum ( 67324 )

      The only problem with this line of thinking is mainly a sort of fraud that results when you claim one things but in fact it is something different.

      If you claim to have a painting by Da Vinci but it was in fact created last year by Guido Da Vinci... yeah, I guess it is sort of truthful. But the problem is if you are trying to suggest that the painting was by the much more famous 15th Century inventor/artisan and not some "starving artist" who is likely just copying the master.

      It really boils down to honesty

      • Ahh, but there's the rub.

        "asserting something that isn't true" is only economically rational to the crooks because of the irrational value people place on "originals."

        If a forger is so good that his work is indistinguishable from the original without isotopic analysis, I think that has quite a bit of value in and of itself. That the art world would so disproportionately value the "original" over the "forgery" is the motivating factor behind the fraud part of the forgery.

        The problem is twofold. The "origin

    • It wasn't held by the same hands, in the same places, or were created by the same person. It's a historical thing, not a utilitarian one.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mangu ( 126918 )

      if the copy is good enough that it can't be told from the original without doing a detailed analysis with fancy equipment, it's just as good as the real thing ... that shouldn't really be a concern for people looking for something to hang in their room/mansion/compound

      For most people that's exactly what they want. That's why most people buy printed copies and not originals of famous paintings.

      But if you have a real serious interest in art, nothing but the original will do. Yes, a chemical analysis of the pa

    • I know I made fun of you earlier but think about this. When one copies a piece of art, you say it is just as good as the original but you are missing something. The person making the copy isn't inspired, they didn't come up with the painting. They didn't do the hard part. Creating copies of art is easy, creating art is not. That is part of the value of a painting.

    • So you won't care that the George Lucas-autographed Boba Fett do^H^Haction figure you paid $20,000 for and keep on display above your bed is a fake made (and signed) in China?

  • Id this old? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by CodyRazor ( 1108681 )

    I'm sure I saw this on an episode of Law & Order CI a while ago... like season 1 episode 2 I think... 7 years ago...

    Man that guy is so smart!

  • So what? (Score:3, Funny)

    by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Sunday June 29, 2008 @09:50AM (#23990293) Journal

    Forgers will just switch to doing more Jackson Pollock.

    No one can tell the fakes from the real thing anyway.

    • There was a Science Friday program on just that, interviewing someone that was able to deduce the real ones using mathematical techniques.

      • Too bad it doesn't use "soul technique" like Thomas Hoving.

        Math and forensics is all fine if you want to convince the unwashed masses of general public and for TV, but if it lacks "soul" - it ain't real. [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by amRadioHed ( 463061 )

        Yeah, I remember reading a long time ago that mathematicians found fractal characteristics in the works of Pollock. Apparently this characteristic of his art is not so easy to replicate.

        • That'll change when we can get computers to do fractals. I hear some people are already working on it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bsDaemon ( 87307 )

      Except for the part where this story is clearly about "art," not Jackson Pollock; He's left out by definition.

      • Are you an art critic?

        You sure sound like one.
        You know... a stuck-up snob.

        • Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Sunday June 29, 2008 @11:07AM (#23991057) Homepage

          Are you an art critic?

          You sure sound like one. You know... a stuck-up snob.

          You don't have to be an art critic to know that Jackson Pollock's true art form was not painting, but rather convincing people that he was an artist. Polock's "art" was typical of the stupid abstract expressionist movement--- intentionally devoid of representational content. This is the sort of bullcrap that proves that wealthy New York morons will buy anything if you tell them it's cool. Art with all the representational elements removed can be interesting, but Pollock's crap doesn't even have that. As one artist/critic commented, "[I am] astonished that decorative 'wallpaper', essentially brainless, could gain such a position in art history alongside Giotto, Titian, and VelÃzquez."

          Seriously, look at an example [wikipedia.org]. I think even "wallpaper" is a bit generous. I worked at a hardware store once, and the drop cloth by the paint mixing station was more interesting than that.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by moosesocks ( 264553 )

            Think you can do better? [jacksonpollock.org]

          • Jackson Pollock's true art form was not painting, but rather convincing people that he was an artist.

            That is what separates Pollocks from Van Goghs of this world.
            That, and the number of ears present and size of the bank account at the time of death.

            Every single work of art is an exercise in vainness.
            If you like the painting or sculpture or a song you should feel the same about the original as you do about a very good copy - as long as you can't tell the difference without close examination.
            All beyond that is just vanity.
            Yes, Mona Lisa is rare - but so are thousands of paintings and drawings on deviantart.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by dblake ( 909505 )
            Like many modern artists, Pollock's work is not something you can really appreciate from a photo. I used to see pictures of works by Mondrian, Pollock, even some by Miro and Picaso, and wonder at how they could be so famous, so influential. But once I *saw* a Mondrian, in person, saw Dali's canvasas, saw Pollock's, I got it. Pollock's works are NOT simple drop cloths with spatterings. Mondira's work has depth and subtlty to it, the technique and brushwork are part of the experience of viewing one of these.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            You don't have to be an art critic to know that Jackson Pollock's true art form was not painting, but rather convincing people that he was an artist.

            What separates stuck-up snobs from intelligent people is that the latter group understands there's no such thing as a work that doesn't qualify as art. The latest hollywood dick and fart movie is an artform, in that it tells you quite a lot about what (some) people find funny in today's society. Such things change more often than people realize. For example, the average person this generation isn't likely to laugh even once during an entire charlie chaplin movie. The example picture in the link you gave

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by westlake ( 615356 )
            Seriously, look at an example

            The Wikipedia distorts the colors and shrinks a 4x8 foot painting to postage stamp size and this is how you make a judgment?

            A Pollock Is Sold, Possibly for a Record Price [nytimes.com] [2006]

            For a better example: Lavender Mist No. 1 1950 [ibiblio.org] Oil on canvas, Oil, enamel, and aluminum on canvas. 7x10 feet. National Gallery of Art. Washington, DC.

            The depth of a Pollack is not easily captured on screen. You need to visit a gallery.

            The element of chance in Pollack's "drip paintings" is no less

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Alomex ( 148003 )

            I was curious about this a while back, so I showed a Pollock to some friends who had no idea who he was and (as you can infer from that) are totally not into the art scene. Result? They loved the piece. "It has rhythm", "look at the color combination", "it is far from random", "it's soothing", were some of their comments.

            When people tried to copy his style one of the first surprises is how much effort it took to match it (although it has been done, there are plenty of Pollock fakes out there, as with any ot

          • It never ceases to amaze me the amount of energy some people will expend decrying the works of others instead of making their own.

            Jackson Pollock wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. Whether or not people like it--you, or art critics, or anyone--is completely irrelevant. He made something with conviction. Maybe you might try the same one day?

          • Ever seen one in person, rather than looking at a pathetically small JPG of one? You can't seriously expect anyone to judge his art by such a small photo. And quoting other artists/critics doesn't mean much, as art is an extremely subjective field. I do know one thing, though, those that are overly critical of others are generally missing something.

  • ... couldn't be disputed? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by martyb ( 196687 ) on Sunday June 29, 2008 @10:03AM (#23990427)

    These isotopes, Caesium-137 and Strontium-90, permeated the earth's oil and plant life and ended up in works of art made in the post-war era because natural oils, usually flax/linseed, were used as binding agents for paints.

    "I wanted to find something ironclad - that couldn't be disputed, and this led me to approach scientists for ideas," said Basner.

    Off the top of my head, here are some ideas:

    1. Use paints made before atomic testing began (if you'd ever seen my dad's garage, you'd KNOW there's old stuff out there)
    2. Grow your own flax in a controlled environment (i.e. hydroponics; filled with pure Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc. in proper proportions; start with a vacuum if necessary) extract your oils from that.
    3. Create false positives by "tagging" genuine works in museums with controlled radiation sources.
    4. Other? Please reply with your ideas.

    Yes, these are not terribly practical, but if someone could get millions of dollars for a few high-quality fakes, this would just be the cost of doing business.

    So, in summary, her assertion "ironclad - that couldn't be disputed" seems overstated. I'll grant that it IS an additional hurdle to overcome, but sufficiently motivated people WILL find a way.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by going_the_2Rpi_way ( 818355 )
      Since these are atmospheric releases, they're almost certainly are items already 'tagged'. Presumably this would be a destructive test in that they need to check areas that are -in- the paint. \
      • they're? Really? Sheesh. I need a coffee.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 )

        Why would it be destructive?

        Strontium 90 decays by beta emission, Cesium 137 by beta and gamma. Both will go right through the paint to the detector you're holding near the painting.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Teancum ( 67324 )

          A destructive test would be one that takes a small sample of the work of art and sends it through an isotopic centrifuge. This is what is commonly done for Carbon-14 dating, and a similar technique could also be applied for Strontium-90 and Cesium-137, just to give some examples.

          Measuring beta and gamma emissions directly via a Geiger Counter might be one more passive method of at least checking for these elements, but it wouldn't be nearly so accurate. Legitimate radioactive sources from earlier material

          • Exactly. It's called spectroscopy, and really you need to check for both decays and their peaks. I worked on the 'detectors' a few years back.

    • The problem with growing your own flax in a fashion as you have suggested is that the radio-isotopic proportions for the elements have changed over the years, and it is nearly impossible to create such a pure laboratory environment as you are suggesting here.

      I supposed if you are filthy rich and have a great pile of money to burn, that you could build isotopic centrifuges and extract out the basic isotopes of the essential elements necessary to grow plants... but I can't begin to express how expensive of a process that would be. Going through normal chemical processes, you simply can't isolate isotopes on the scale that you are suggesting.

      I suppose that if you wanted to try something really unique and interesting, you could try to head to an asteroid and extract materials and components necessary to grow plants in an environment that avoids contamination from Earth-based sources like atomic weapons. Still, I think even with that sort of expense (IMHO a similar scale to the isotopic separation suggested above) you would be able to identify that the material was created in an extra-terrestrial environment through other measures.

      Simply put, growing your own flax isn't going to work on a practical basis.

      Something I have heard of is where an art forger would take a painting from a lesser-known artist of the same era and literally scrape the old pigments from the fabric or even "wash" it through some sort of chemical process to remove the paint. Subsequently you need to dig up the paint that comes from roughly the era when the painting supposedly came from. While not quite "your dad's garage", you can obtain paint samples that do date back hundreds of years... provided you have the money.

      Even so, most forgery is caught because the forger makes some silly mistake along the way that betrays the origin of the item, such as using paint that is actually older by a century than the fabric that is used, or something else that is a dead giveaway. Making a "good" forgery is something that is quite difficult to accomplish.

      All this article suggests is that the isotopic proportions in fabric and pigments is but one more tool to use to help identify fakes from the genuine article.

      BTW, your "false positive" notion is also going to be way off. I have no idea what sort of material you are suggesting to "tag" art works in museums that would impact carbon atoms (or other elements) that are bound to the physical structure of the work of art. This isn't like you would have a bottle of Strontium (one of the elements released by the nuclear bomb tests) that could be applied on the surface of the object and not be identified for exactly what it is: Some idiot who is vandalizing art works in some weird fashion.

    • Whoa. The idea of "tagging" museum artworks with radioactive material sounds EXACTLY like a really good contemporary art piece! Thanks, YOINK!

  • It's not like there wasn't any fission before we tested nuclear weapons. After all it's what uranium does naturally and people in europe were experiment with radioactive isotopes for some time before we got to nuclear weapons.

    However, an accurate comparison of the ratios of these radioactive isotopes would probably be sufficent to eliminate other types of contamination (using paints that came from near a natural deposit of radioactive minerals). Likely the ratios from nuclear explosions would be different

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Teancum ( 67324 )

      Not quite. Prior to 1900, there wasn't any fission or even really atomic research going on at all. In fact, prior to the 1940's, there really wasn't any fission research at all.

      The atmospheric nuclear bomb testing program did put a whole bunch of crazy elements into the atmosphere that previously simply weren't there. The elements that are being used for identification purposes here are relatively short-lived (in terms of our lifetime as a species) but do last for thousands or millions of years.

      Please, w

      • proton and neutron irradiation perhaps? Just a thought; I haven't put any thought into whether or not this would have any reasonable possibility of creating a false positive.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Teancum ( 67324 )

          Keep in mind that the elements that we are talking about were forged in the heat of a nuclear blast.... where the temperatures (even temporarily) were far hotter than even the center of the Sun. Indeed, they were approaching temperatures normally found in Supernovas. This is particularly true for the "Hydrogen Bomb" tests that resulted in the discovery of Einsteinium and some other fun trans-uranium elements

          Irradiation of the sort you are suggesting isn't going to forge these sort of elements. It may cre

        • Art forgery plan:

          Step one: Buy or build my own synchrotron
          Step two...

  • Does this actually work? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RockMFR ( 1022315 ) on Sunday June 29, 2008 @10:17AM (#23990571)
    The article doesn't explicitly say that there is a working method based on this concept, nor does it give any concrete statistics regarding how reliable it is, how many fakes have been found, etc. Consider it vaporware until somebody proves that they've done it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Teancum ( 67324 )

      It is a sound concept on a scientific basis, and I could imagine several methods of being able to measure the isotopic proportions of the works of art being studied.

      Carbon-14 dating has been used for decades, and all that is being suggested here is to use other radioactive elements and isotopes beyond the Carbon-14 ratios. I don't have the concrete stats to note what Carbon-14 dating has been in terms of identifying fakes, but I know it has been used successfully.

      So no, I don't consider this vaporware alth

  • already done with wine (Score:4, Informative)

    by Protonk ( 599901 ) on Sunday June 29, 2008 @10:41AM (#23990831) Homepage
    Not to diminish the idea, but this is already done with wine [newyorker.com]. I suspect it is much EASIER to do it with wine rather than with paintings, as you are relying on deposition rather than absorption through soil, but the technique has been around for a bit.

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close