By Adriano
New appointment with “Art Meeting“, this time focused on fakes in ancient art.
We can say without a shadow of a doubt that making fakes in art… is an art! And like every art, it has had its Masters.
Among others, we remember Icilio Federico Joni (1866-1946), the patriarch of forgers specializing in Tuscan art; producer of countless “fourteenth-century” panels, very well made, so much so that they ended up in important collections and museums, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
He is also remembered for a curious quirk, which links him to many daring outlaws from Hollywood lore. Almost as a challenge, he “signed” several of his works with a mysterious acronym PAICAP, written in ancient characters; it seems to have meant “To Go To Hell With The Next One”….
Like every art, the art of forgery cannot avoid constant and ongoing research.
Throughout the 20th century, both critical and stylistic studies of ancient authors and schools, as well as the ability to scientifically investigate the materials that make up every work of art, have evolved significantly. These are two areas of research that forgers must constantly consider.
Art historians and critics investigate paintings or works from a stylistic point of view, analyzing characteristic elements of a particular author or period, with the ability to spot any internal inconsistencies; restorers, on the other hand, can detect technical or material inconsistencies in the work: colors not used in the period, late wooden supports, non-contemporary canvases.
The forgers’ skill has therefore had to evolve in an attempt to bypass new investigative techniques.
The spread of fakes is certainly more widespread than we can imagine.
But if, obviously, the fakes that make the news are those related to important, museum-quality works, today we examine an example of a less sensational fake.
However, more interesting to us, because it suggests how widespread fakes are, even and especially in lower-level works.
Works that may be found in private collectors’ collections.
A strong boost to the fake art market in Italy occurred in the 1980s and 1990s; the exponential increase in demand for ancient works compared to their actual availability on the market was an opportunity for many forgers to produce and sell counterfeit works.
The two paintings we are examining come from an important collection in the Marche region.
They were purchased in the 1980s by the previous owner, who proudly displayed them in his private collection. The oval paintings exhibit artistic and stylistic traits that unmistakably refer to the works of Antonio Francesco Peruzzini (1643-1724). A well-known painter from the Marche region, he became one of Italy’s most sought-after and renowned landscape artists. His ability to incorporate characters into fantasy landscapes with a free and innovative brushstroke was highly appreciated (for example, the numerous versions of “penitent friars in a landscape”).
The same speed and freedom of brushstroke were later adopted and further expanded by Magnasco, with whom Peruzzini collaborated. He was also known for subjects related to shipwrecks, inspired by Northern models, or stormy seas, as seen in the painting we are examining here.
Thus, without a doubt, the pair of paintings would have been celebrated as “excellent works by the renowned painter” and sold as such.
However, upon examining the back of the painting, a novice would immediately notice that the frame on which the canvas is mounted is new, very recent, made of light wood. But here, the collector, owner of the works, would step in to correct the naive friend, explaining that “the painting was restored by the previous owner, and therefore it was re-canvas-mounted, meaning the old canvas was stretched onto a new, more robust canvas, with a new frame.”
This is where the forger’s trick lies: presenting a counterfeit work by stretching it over an old, low-value canvas.
The collector, proud of his expertise, will explain to his friend how, when the painting is removed from its frame, the new canvas is clearly visible on the edge, with the old canvas border and a different weave, showing signs of an ancient preparatory layer.
When examining the canvas today, it is possible to subject it to both a stylistic analysis and a more in-depth technical analysis.
In particular, in the paintings in question, a simple visual examination with a thread-counting magnifying glass reveals a painting surface that is certainly consistent in brushstrokes and marks but completely devoid of… “wrinkles”.
This is one of the simplest and most effective visual tests to perform.
The varnish ages and small cracks form on it (the so-called “craquelure”); with experience, these can help determine roughly if they are consistent with the period suggested by the stylistic analysis.
In fact, there are relatively simple methods to artificially create a craquelure, using ovens with temperatures ranging from 100 to 200 degrees, which in a few hours create a thermal shock that forces cracks, just as the back of the painting can be visually aged by rubbing slightly burned oil on the canvas.
But even the fake craquelure can be revealed through a visual analysis that studies the craquelure’s distribution across different colors. The colors in old paintings are derived from natural elements that react differently over time. This means that a natural craquelure should show cracks with varying intensity and pattern depending on the color.
In short, to seriously analyze an ancient artwork, we must consider a range of factors, from the style of the depiction, to the type of wooden support and canvas, to the type of varnish used and its aging.
To do this effectively, expertise and long practice are obviously necessary, allowing one to “notice” those inconsistencies that suggest a deeper examination.
When visual examination, including the analysis of the craquelure, the supports, and the reaction to fluorescence with a Wood’s lamp, still leaves doubts, there are now many more specialized tests available.
These include X-ray examination, chemical analysis of the painting, dendrochronology for dating wooden supports, and more powerful UV fluorescence lamps, all of which can be performed in specialized laboratories.
For those wishing to explore the topic further, I recommend reading the “Manuale illustrato del collezionista d’arte” by G. Matthaes, an interesting, comprehensive, and easy-to-read text. The author was the founder of the “Museum of Art and Science” in Milan, with attached laboratories for the scientific analysis of art objects.
See you next time with a new art-related deep dive.
See you soon!
