imageRuss Breault writes:

. . . I purchased the controversial book called, "The Sign" by Thomas de Wesselow.  I am only looking for items of relevant interest to Shroud research from the standpoint of an art historian.  I am not interested in his theology.  Here is one gleaning:

Page 22:

One might have expected study of the Shroud to take on a new complexion after 1988.  Accepting the carbon dating, art historians should have leaped on the Shroud as one of the most fascinating visual creations of the medieval period, a true masterpiece of devotional imagery.  Strangely, though, they have remained almost entirely silent.  The reason is simple: the negative photo of the cloth is an unmistakable sign that the Shroud’s famous image could not have been created by a medieval artist. Technically, conceptually, and stylistically the Shroud makes no sense as a medieval artwork. The discipline of art history has had over a century to study the Shroud since it was first photographed, and in all that time no art historian has ever ventured to attribute it to a medieval artist.

Well said and I couldn’t agree more.