Proof that art experts are not always right
Dramatic Irony Award In Blogging:
It should go without saying that scientists aren’t always right. Neither are art experts. In 1978, chemist Walter C. McCrone, a leading expert on art forgeries McCrone performed radiocarbon tests on the shroud and concluded that the burial cloth wasn’t old enough to be the real thing. But other scientists disagreed. Raymond Rogers, Science Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, dated the shroud to the 1st century, saying that the material that McCrone carbon dated was not the original fabric, but rather a part of the shroud that had been rewoven after a fire in the Middle Ages.
Of course, Walter McCrone never “performed radiocarbon tests on the shroud.” Nor did Rogers date the shroud to the 1st century. So it turns out, neither are art experts always write while righting blogs posts about writing wrongs.
Pictured, Walter McCrone looking right.
Is the Shroud real? Probably.
The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.
My name is Dan Porter. Please email me at DanielRobertPorter@gmail.com
She can be forgiven for linking McCrone to the C-14 tests, he did call for the tests to be done. But as an art critic, the most important part of the article is the last half. She skillfully counters McCrone’s attribution of two paintings now in Florida, one to DaVinci and the other to Raphael. She challenges his assessment based on her intricate knowledge of both artist’s style and technique. She is not the only one to question McCrone’s judgement in the realm of art. This is important because in the world of chemistry he carries high credentials yet where he inserted himself into art authentication, many seriously question his methodology and expertise. This article is just one example.
I think Russ is quite right. Walter McCrone was a skilled microscopist, and his microscopical observations should be taken seriously, even if he is later proved mistaken. If his attributions of the disputed paintings were based on particle analysis, then they mean something, even if the style of the paintings is untypical. I think Joan Altabe misrepresents what McCrone deduced about the paintings he was given to study (and incidentally, the gist of this article first appeared in the Sarasota Herald Tribune of 12 Feb 2001, so it must be a slow news week). The reader is directed to the Sarasota Herald Tribune of 24 October 1992, where a more balanced article may be found. They can also try http://www.deringconsultants.com/portfolio/leonardos-christ-among-doctors/ which considers McCrone’s findings correct – although the site is the owner’s, so not necessarily balanced.
Altabe does not give the title of the disputed Raphael, so it is difficult to research, but a similar dispute also arose about The Three Ages of Man by (perhaps) Giorgione, which is easier to find. Try https://archive.org/stream/stormypetrel199369113ogle/stormypetrel199369113ogle_djvu.txt
There is no doubt that Walter McCrone was his own worst enemy in his field. He was often overconfident and abrasive, and excited strong feelings, both favourable and unfavourable, depending on whether he supported a view or not. None of this should overwhelm his genuine, detailed, accurate, microscopy, which must be taken on its own merits, even if the conclusions one draws from it are not the same as his.
Is this a shocking revelation? Forgive my incredulity, but scientists are merely human.
“Of course, Walter McCrone never “performed radiocarbon tests on the shroud.” Nor did Rogers date the shroud to the 1st century. So it turns out, neither are art experts always write while righting blogs posts about writing wrongs”.
Guilds archive strongly differs from that conclusion. At first, what was believed C14 tested was the The Sudarium of Oviedo in Mons. Ricci’s possession during the infamous journey with McCrone to Dr. Raes. However, Further archives concluded that in fact in all probability, McCrone was successful obtaining The Shrouds threads and tested it in Germany.
Either case, it’s hear say. But on the other hand, no one here can definitely claim that McCrone didn’t conduct a C14 test.
May be…
Then, perhaps, Art experts are not always right
(but this can be a worrying idea…).
But …
Here a simple question:
Has Mc Crone never worked for such an
institution as the Metropolitan Museum of Art of New York?
At least, we have to see what Marco Leona
director of scientific research of
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
(and … do you remember the past message
about SERS?) can do with non-destructive
and microanalytical techniques…
Here the past international conference,
the meeting: “TECHNART 2015”
(Catania, April 27 – 30, 2015)
= Non-destructive and microanalytical techniques in art and cultural heritage
>The aim of TECHNART 2015 is to provide a scientific
forum to present and promote the use of analytical
spectroscopy techniques in the field of cultural heritage.
>The conference builds on the momentum of
TECHNART 2013 offering an outstanding and
unique opportunity for exchanging knowledge
on leading edge developments.
>Cultural heritage studies are interpreted in
a broad sense, including pigments, stones,
metals, glass, ceramics, chemometrics on
artwork studies, resins, fibers, forensic applications
in art history, archaeology and conservation science.
Conference topics:
>X-ray microanalysis (XRF, PIXE, XRD, SEM-EDX)
>Confocal X-ray microscopy (3D Micro-XRF, 3D Micro-PIXE)
>Synchrotron, ion beam and neutron based techniques/instrumentation
>FT-IR and Raman microscopy
>UV-Vis and NIR absorption/reflectance and fluorescence
>Laser-based analytical techniques
>Magnetic resonance techniques
>Chromatography (GC, HPLC) and mass spectrometry
>Optical imaging and coherence techniques
>Mobile spectrometry and remote sensing
Link:
https://www.prospecthere.com/event/technart-2015
…Unfortunately no mention of the SERS technique!
Only a generic “Raman microscopy”…