lermArte

monografie
27
SALVATORE LORUSSO ANDREA NATALI

A second Mona Lisa ?

Challenges of attribution and authentication
and various possibilities for evaluating a work of art

With papers by

JEAN-PIERRE ISBOUTS JOHN ASMUS

VADIM PARFENOV

«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER
Roma-Bristol
 Salvatore Lorusso and Andrea Natali
A second Mona Lisa?
Challenges of attribution and authentication
and various possibilities for evaluating a work of art

With papers by
Jean-Pierre Isbouts, John Asmus and Vadim Parfenov

© Copyright 2021 «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

Via Marianna Dionigi, 57 - 00193 Roma 70 Enterprise Drive, Suite 2

http://www.lerma.it Bristol, 06010 - USA
[email protected] [email protected]

Progetto grafico:
«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

Impaginazione:
Dario Scianetti

Sistemi di garanzia della qualità

UNI EN ISO 9001:2015

Sistemi di gestione ambientale

ISO 14001:2015

Tutti i diritti riservati. Testi ed illustrazioni vietati alla riproduzione

senza autorizzazione scritta dell’editore.

On front cover
Louvre Mona Lisa (on left)
Isleworth Mona Lisa (on right)
Expressing different degrees of certainty in art attribution (below)

Salvatore Lorusso and Andrea Natali

A second Mona Lisa. Challenges of attribution and authentication and various
possibilities for evaluating a work of art / Roma: «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER,
2021. - 148 p.: ill.; 28,5 cm. - (LermArte; 27)

ISSN: 2612-4718
ISBN rilegato: 978-88-913-2154-1
ISBN PDF: 978-88-913-2157-2

CDD 750.17

1. Mona Lisa

Stampato nel rispetto dell’ambiente su carta proveniente

da zone a deforestazione controllata.
I would like to express my thanks to Angela Mari Braida, who has accom-
panied me with great professionalism and preparedness on different occa-
sions which, at times, have been arduous, and on others, propitious.
Her figure and activity as Linguistic Advisor, appreciated by numerous
authors, in relation not only to the Journal “Conservation Science in Cultural
Heritage”, but also to other writings and volumes, are not limited to merely
translating the various texts from Italian to English, but are also expressed
by advising, proposing and indicating how to intervene and improve them.
This has been her role in the volume, A Second Mona Lisa? Challenges of
attribution and authentication and various possibilies for evaluating works of
art, as well as in other works on the same subject.

With profound gratitude

Salvatore Lorusso
In expressing his point of view on the Socratic method, based on the thesis
that everything we need is within us and that, ultimately, we have no need
for others, the French philosopher, Emmanuel Lévinas, believes that other
people are a problem and that discussion is always difficult.
Continuing along this line of observation, he added that the pressure of
conformity often risks compromising our authenticity and freedom.
But one may ask: “What is the value of a life, and in the field of science, what
is the value of research that is unable to open up to others, to communicate,
by offering and acquiring what may constitute a conclusive common point
of view that can be reached together?”.
A decision cannot be based on a single conviction or an individual judgment,
thereby excluding the plurality of opinions which is required for fairness and
thoroughness.
Each of us, as an individual is fully realized, only by being open with others;
this allows me to affirm that the truth about the authentication of the second
Mona Lisa must be the result of a combination of the potential of different
scientific skills.

I prefer to be grateful for what I have,

rather than be worried about what I don’t yet have,
and what I will have with others.
And this holds true for study, for research, for life.

Salvatore Lorusso
 Table of Contents

PREFACE ......................................................................................................................................... p. 9

PART ONE
Attribution and authentication of art works

1. ART FORGERY .............................................................................................................................. » 13

1.1 Forgery in the art market .................................................................................................. » 13
1.2 Legislation ......................................................................................................................... » 17
1.3 How to recognize a forgery .............................................................................................. » 18
2. ATTRIBUTION AND AUTHENTICATION ............................................................................................ » 21
2.1 The challenges of art attribution ...................................................................................... » 21
2.2 Different degrees of certainty in the attribution of art works ......................................... » 24
2.3 Some case studies relating to artefacts of historical-artistic, sculptural and manuscript
interest .......................................................................................................................................... » 26
2.3.1 Madonna with child and devotee (painting) ........................................................... » 26
2.3.2 Madonna with child (sculpture) ............................................................................ » 31
2.3.3 Dante Codex (manuscript) ..................................................................................... » 36

PART TWO
Copies and versions of the Mona Lisa (Gioconda)

3. ANALYTICAL-DIAGNOSTIC STUDY OF THE PAINTING MONA LISA WITH COLUMNS ............................. » 49

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... » 49
3.2 Macroscopic examination ................................................................................................ » 51
3.3 Evaluation of the conservation state and identification of previous conservation
interventions ..................................................................................................................... » 53
3.4 Scientific investigations .................................................................................................... » 55
3.4.1 Textile support ........................................................................................................ » 55
3.4.2 Preparatory layer (ground) ..................................................................................... » 59
3.4.3 Imprimatura ............................................................................................................ » 62
3.4.4 Paint layer ............................................................................................................... » 64
3.5 Considerations .................................................................................................................. » 69
4. A COMPARISON OF THE COPIES AND VERSIONS ............................................................................. » 73
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... » 73
8 Table of Contents

4.2 Selected Mona Lisas: Prado, Reynolds, Isleworth (or Earlier Mona Lisa) ..................... p. 73
A. The Prado Mona Lisa .................................................................................................. » 75
B. The Reynolds Mona Lisa .............................................................................................. » 81
C. The Isleworth Mona Lisa (or Earlier Mona Lisa) ....................................................... » 84
4.3 Comparative analyses of the Isleworth and Louvre versions .......................................... » 89
4.3.1 Findings .................................................................................................................. » 90
4.3.2 A comparison of the columns and the embroidery of the dresses ........................ » 91
4.3.3 Considerations ........................................................................................................ » 96
4.4 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... » 97
References ................................................................................................................................ » 101

PAPERS
by Jean-Pierre Isbouts
and
John Asmus and Vadim Parfenov

5. WHY DID LEONARDO PAINT THE MONA LISA? ............................................................................. » 107

by Jean-Pierre Isbouts
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. » 107
2. Leonardo Returns to Florence ..................................................................................... » 111
3. Leonardo in Florence .................................................................................................. » 112
4. Francesco del Giocondo .............................................................................................. » 115
5. The Mystery of the Mona Lisa Commission ................................................................ » 116
6. Vasari Sees the Mona Lisa ............................................................................................ » 120
7. Who Commissioned the Louvre Mona Lisa? ............................................................. » 120
8. The Giuliano Commission Theory .............................................................................. » 121
9. Leonardo’s Anatomical Studies .................................................................................... » 123
References ................................................................................................................................ » 125

6. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MONA LISA PORTRAITS BY MEANS OF IMAGE PROCESSING ..................... » 127
by John Asmus and Vadim Parfenov
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. » 127
2. Method .......................................................................................................................... » 128
3. Comparative analysis of Mona Lisa portraits .............................................................. » 129
4. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... » 134
References ................................................................................................................................ » 135

APPENDIX

WHY AND WHETHER A REPRODUCED WORK OF ART SHOULD BE VETTED RATHER THAN VETOED .......... » 139
by Salvatore Lorusso
1. Cultural identity ............................................................................................................ » 139
2. Authentic and reproduced, discoverer and modern inventor .................................... » 140
3. On the possibility of judging a reproduced work of art as being legitimate .............. » 140

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ..................................................................................................................... » 143

 PREFACE

René Descartes – considered as ‘the founder of modern philosophy’ and deeply influenced by science – in his
work Discourse on Method, writes: “Intelligence is a characteristic of all men: some have plenty, others have
less. However it is not the amount of intelligence that ensures the achievement of truth, but the way in which it
is used, and, therefore, the method that is followed”. The method, therefore, is the starting point for appropri-
ately conducting the search for truth, in philosophy, art and science.
This openness, compared with what one is habitually, repeatedly and currently ‘subjected to’ when reading
journals, even specialized ones, refers to what is reported below.
Expressions such as “the very high quality, the finesse of the execution, the technique, the liveliness, the
psychological intensity” and so on, have often characterized and supported the opinions given by important his-
torians and art critics to validate the attribution of a work of art. The cases in question, in general, refer to the
great masters of flourishing artistic periods from the past, but does not exclude contemporary authors.
Besides, attributions do not always reflect reality. The percentage of non-authentic artefacts on the market
is very high according to data provided by the Italian Carabinieri Headquarters for the Protection of Cultural
Heritage (CCTPC).
Art history is full of false or mistaken attributions. The world of art criticism, and correspondingly, of art
attribution, is strongly influenced by several important personalities who Federico Zeri, an Italian art historian,
has called “the well-known clique”. They work in an authoritarian manner and are not always willing to
openly dialogue with other personalities from the academic and scientific world.
Nonetheless, pervaded by a decidedly unpleasant sentiment and involvement, one feels the need to point
out how the lack of humility and/or more broadly speaking, gratitude, in the field of science – and possibly the
excessive and unilateral accreditation of their own competences, however valid and unquestionable they may
be – can determine incorrect results and invalidate the truth.
The term “humility” must be emphasised. Humility is a balanced way of being which derives from the full
awareness that nothing has a truly objective value because it is connected to a personal evaluation. It is however
true that humility, unlike modesty, which is a way of being that has its essence in not wanting to be superior to
others and in not competing, does not lead to indifference, but leaves room for everything that is virtuous,
provided it is not intrusive, pompous or arrogant.
Hence, a subjective evaluation of the work of art, expressed unilaterally as: “Let us present this attribution
anew to scholars without fearing the outcome of their evaluation”, needs to be accompanied by an equally im-
portant objective evaluation, which should be carried out using “instrumental eyes”, i.e. diagnostic-analytical
technologies to either comfirm or confute the former.
The expression “objective findings” in the present context is to be understood as an attribution supported by
a considerable amount of mutually independent evidence that is concordant with the final result.
10 Preface

It should be kept in mind that the above, seen from a broader and culturally synergistic perspective, con-
verges into the uniqueness of science as the integration of the human and experimental sciences; it highlights
the fundamental importance of the very different skills, backgrounds and experiences, from equally different
areas and worlds, that are needed to address the multiple and complex problems in the field of cultural and
environmental heritage. And it is the holistic value of the art work, characterized by a set of values involving dif-
ferent areas of research – historical, aesthetic, symbolic, spiritual, social, managerial, economic, financial, market, as
well as technical-diagnostic-material-conservative ones – on which the meaning of interdisciplinarity is based [1].
The aim of this volume is to highlight the importance of several key aspects in the art world, considered to
be essential in arriving at a correct judgment regarding the work of art to be evaluated [2-11].
They are:
• respect for the “life history” of the art object;
• use of the correct terminology, which implies concepts and meanings to be observed and followed;
• the methodological path to follow, aimed at providing the answer to the specific questions, and neces-
sarily involving the various synergistic scientific skills needed to respect the holistic value of all heritage.
Bearing in mind these intents and, in reference to the currently much debated issue of attribution and au-
thentication of art works, the volume addresses the following topics:
• the different possibilities of evaluating a work of art by distinguishing the different degrees of certainty
in its attribution;
• the correct and complete methodological path for an accurate evaluation;
• a number of case studies relating to the attribution of artefacts of historical, artistic, sculptural and
manuscript interest;
• a case study relating to one of the most well-known works by Leonardo da Vinci, the Mona Lisa – also
known as La Gioconda in Italian - a unicum in the world of art;
• as an emblematic example of what was stated earlier, a discussion is presented of the historical and ana-
lytical-diagnostic investigation of the oil painting on canvas, Mona Lisa with Columns (St. Petersburg),
conducted to establish the correct attribution;
• research into the numerous Mona Lisas through consultation of archival-bibliographic sources and dis-
cussion of the most significant ones, distinguishing between which are versions and which are copies of
Leonardo’s famous painting.
Some of these topics are dealt with in the historical-technical Journal Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage
in reference to the fundamental importance of interdisciplinarity [9,11-12].
Before tackling the problems relating to the various possibilities for evaluating works of art and the correct
methodological path to follow, it is worth taking into consideration some aspects regarding forgery in the art
market and the challenge of attribution.
 PART ONE
ATTRIBUTION AND AUTHENTICATION OF ART WORKS
 1. ART FORGERY

1.1. FORGERY IN THE ART MARKET

Art forgery manifests itself in three different cases characterized from the beginning by an intent to de-
ceive:
• in the first case, an object is made which imitates the style of the creator of a specific artefact;
• in the second case, famous works are reproduced whose non-authenticity is declared by the “copyist”;
• finally, there is the forceful will to introduce into the art market circuit a work that leads one to believe
it is authentic, because it is the work of a great artist.
The latter represents the quintessential case of “fake art”.
A fake, therefore, consists of a scam. There have always been forgeries: great writers such as Martial, Cicero
and Pliny testify how, since the time of the ancient Romans, the exchange of forgeries was a widespread prac-
tice. At that time however, reproduction was nothing more than a tribute to the greatness of the artist. It was
only during the Age of Enlightenment that reproduction began to take on a negative connotation and when, in
the nineteenth century, art work began to take on an economic value, authenticity became a fundamental aspect
and the improper use of signatures became rampant.
The counterfeit market is rife and corresponding economic returns can be significant: according to experts,
a very large percentage of art works on the market are probably forgeries.
Below is a list, which is certainly not exhaustive, of some of the cases that have attracted the attention of
the public and the media:
• A longing for classical antiquity led to the famous forgery of a fresco by the German painter Anton
Raphael Mengs, depicting Jupiter embracing Ganymede, which was greatly admired by the German art
historian and archaeologist Johann Joachim Winckelmann, who considered it a magnificent master-
piece. However, the numerous iconographic and stylistic details subsequently exposed it as a synthesis
of ancient and Renaissance traditions realized through the typical language of eighteenth-century classi-
cism: a forgery, moreover, can only be recognized when the point of view of the observer no longer co-
incides with that of the forger.
• A reproduction of the Madonna by Sandro Botticelli, purchased by Lord Lee in 1930, deceived experts
and connoisseurs for years. Only later did restoration work allow a thorough investigation of the work.
During its examination, photographs revealed that cracks and abrasions had been caused mechanically,
and a study of the pigments highlighted it was a late eighteenth-century work.
• In 1932, the trial against the merchant Otto Wacker was held in Berlin. He had sold as many as 33 fake
paintings by Van Gogh, after receiving written recognition from experts of the Dutch painter. In reality,
the alleged experts, all in good faith, had been deceived by some false family correspondence which,
during the trial, was rejected by the painter’s nephew, Vincent Willem Van Gogh. The merchant was
sentenced to 19 months in prison and ordered to pay the sum of 30,000 marks in compensation.
14 Salvatore Lorusso and Andrea Natali

• One of the most famous forgers of the twentieth century, the Dutchman, Hans Van Meegeren, known as
“the forger who defrauded the Nazis”, managed to deceive experts from all over the world. For years, his
Vermeers were acclaimed to be the most significant works by the master. His fakes were never uncovered
by any expert. He even succeeded in deceiving Professors De Vild and Bredius, two of the greatest Ver-
meer scholars, convincing them of the authenticity of some skillfully forged paintings that the two lumi-
naries – attributing them to the “master from Delft” – had defined indisputable masterpieces. In 1945,
when he was arrested and accused of collaborating for selling paintings to Goering, he decided to confess.
Paradoxically, he ended up in court because he was accused of having violated the laws on the restriction
of Dutch artistic heritage, not because of his forgeries. He therefore declared himself guilty of forgery, but
to be believed, he had to paint a fake Vermeer in court. Van Meegeren’s skill alone would not have been
enough to deceive the experts if he had not also had the foresight to procure materials used three hundred
years earlier and to avoid using brushes produced in the twentieth century. To make his forgeries, he
searched for old 17th century canvases of no artistic value from which he carefully scraped the color.
He then carefully introduced some dust into the fake he had just finished, to create the effect of craquelure
(the spontaneous lattice of small cracks typical of aged oil paintings). He was also well-acquainted with
De Vild’s treatise on the techniques and materials used by Vermeer and often made use of the rare ultra-
marine blue pigment obtained from the precious lapis lazuli, as well as lilac oil.
• In the 1980s, Federico Zeri refuted the authenticity of the famous Ludovisi throne. Everyone considered
it a masterpiece of Greek sculpture from the fifth century BC, but Zeri judged it to be a nineteenth-
century fake artefact.
• In 1983, it was Zeri once more who tried to prevent the Getty Museum from purchasing a statue – a free-
standing young Greek (Kouros) – having identified it as a forgery from the external patina which, in his
opinion, had been artificially antiqued with acids. He was not heeded and the sculpture was bought by
the American museum for $7 million. Seven years later the Greek Kouros turned out, unequivocally, to
be a fake.
• 1984 is the year of the “Modigliani heads” made by four pranksters and thrown into the Fosso Reale
(originally a moat and part of the city’s defence system) in Livorno. The art historian, Giulio Carlo Argan,
at the time, spoke of the “miraculous discovery of three unfinished ... wonderful sculptures by Modigliani,
whose authorship is unquestionable and leaves no room for contradiction.”. Argan’s peremptory judgment
was followed by a chorus of enthusiastic confirmations from experts, professors and the director of the
National Gallery of Modern Art. The only person to expose the hoax immediately and without hesitation
was Federico Zeri, who defined the alleged sculptures by Modigliani as “curbstones”.
• The National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne exhibited the work known as Head of a man as an original
Van Gogh, but in 2007 turned out to be a fake created by an unidentified contemporary of the artist.
• In 2008, three oil paintings attributed to Marc Chagall, Portrait of a woman, Family and Fiddler, on loan
from the Moscow Museum of Modern Art were removed from exhibition at the Suntory Museum in
Osaka, because their authenticity was questioned by the Chagall Committee in Paris.
• The most recent attribution of worldwide impact involves a crucifix known as the Gallino Crucifix (after
the antique dealer Giancarlo Gallino) in polychrome linden wood measuring 41.3 cm x 41.3 cm, be-
lieved to have been made by a young Michelangelo who had just turned twenty, between 1494 and 1495.
The Italian state, after an initial request of 15 million euros, bought the crucifix in December 2008 from
the antique dealer in Turin for € 3,250,000, to the great satisfaction of the then Minister for Cultural
Heritage and Activities, Sandro Bondi and the experts who endorsed its authenticity. However, not
everyone shares the certainty of this attribution to Buonarroti; indeed some of the greatest scholars of
the Florentine genius have cast doubts on this illustrious authorship. Among them the art historians
Francesco Caglioti and Paolo Barocchi, who believe that the crucifix was produced by a skilled wood-
carver at the end of the 1400s, giving it an economic valuation of not more than 100,000 euros. Firmly
against the attribution to Michelangelo are Professor Montanari, the American art historian, James Beck
and the German scholar, Margrit Lisner, perhaps the greatest living expert on the artist.
Controversy regarding the crucifix continues.
Part One – Attribution and authentication of art works 15

• Another among the most famous forgers worth mentioning is Helmyr De Hory, an able forger who spe-
cialized in post-Impressionist paintings.
It must also be said that many old masters had potential imitators among their students. A well-known ex-
ample is that of Guercino, who declared in his diary he had put his signature on several paintings produced in
his workshop. There were also painters who reproduced their work after many years, such as Giorgio De Chirico,
perhaps the greatest forger of himself and at the same time one of the most copied artists, together with Fer-
nando Botero. In 1925, De Chirico “fooled” the famous tailor Jacques Doucet by selling him a replica of his
painting Piazza d’Italia produced several years before.
In the past, it was also common to combine restoration work with forgery. Restoration interventions by forg-
ers were carried out either to completely replace the original or to alter the entire work to such an extent that
it was no longer possible to distinguish the old part from the new.
The huge increase in the number of fakes together with the problem of attribution, therefore represent a
great problem in the art market.
These are just some examples that further underline the scientific importance of correctly evaluating the
objects to be sold; in fact, “fakes can teach us many things, perhaps above all, that experts can make mis-
takes”.
Libraries, archives, museums and private collections are teeming with fakes. From ancient Greece to the
present-day, the debate about forgery is a fascinating (and, in some cases, painful) chapter in our civilization.
Indeed, the clash between forgers, counterfeiters, fraudsters and critics has resulted in a better understand-
ing of our literary, artistic, religious and political history. The debate regarding the authenticity of a Boccioni
canvas exhibited in Milan initiated in the first decade of 2000 by Maurizio Calvesi, and that by Luciano Can-
fora regarding the Artemidorus papyrus, can be credited with relaunching the theme of counterfeiting and
forgery and bringing it to the attention of the general public.
One well-known case of forgery from the past involves the Constitutum Constantini (Donation of Constan-
tine), whose non-authenticity was cleverly denounced by the Italian humanist, Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457). The
matter was not an insignificant one, given that the full sovreignty of the Church over the Western Empire had
been founded on this presumed donation, granted by Emperor Constantine (4th century) to Sylvester I. With
his careful philological and historical analysis, Valla showed that the Pope’s temporal power was based on a
resounding fake of medieval origin and for this reason is regarded as one of the founders of modern textual
criticism. If the reasons that led to fabricating a false document and to the critic exposing the fraud are clearly
evident in the case of the Constitutum Constantini (in the service of Alfonso V of Aragon, Valla harbored a
genuine hatred for the abuses of the papacy), in many other situations they are much more complex.
It is difficult to find a single explanation that can account, over the centuries, for the famous fakes by Dio-
nysius of Eraclea del Ponto and Annius of Viterbo, Thomas Chatterton and John Payne Collier, William Henry
lreland and James Macpherson, Constantine Simonides and Paul Coleman-Norton. The reasons may be the
most varied, just as the individuals who practice the craft of forgery are extremely diverse. Any general theory
would lead to a simplified and ineffective picture of this phenomenon. It is enough to read the brilliant book
by the historian Anthony Grafton, an internationally renowned scholar, to retrace the most important stages,
from ancient Egypt to today, that have marked the evolution of this crime. In Forgery and critics, creativity and
duplicity in the Western scholarship, published in 1990 and translated from English into several other languages,
including Italian (1996 Einaudi), it is possible to find an analysis of the most striking literary fraud. For Grafton,
falsification is a sui generis ‘offence’. And to examine it, you need to shed light on the three elements that nor-
mally come into play in any judicial investigation: motive, body of evidence and method of execution.
The desire to make a forgery is motivated by very varied reasons. Social and professional ambition: in the
late 19th century, Wolfgang Helbig, a German archaeologist, came to be considered a great authority on Roman
artefacts after he “discovered” a gold fibula, the famous Praeneste Fibula, which he himself had made; the sa-
distic pleasure of deception: Paul Coleman-Norton, a professor of classics at Princeton, in 1950, published an
unknown fragmentary copy of a Greek text taken from a series of homilies contained in the Gospel according
to Matthew; the visceral love for a historical figure: the forgery of the Acts of the apostle Paul was made to give
16 Salvatore Lorusso and Andrea Natali

more prestige to the saint’s enterprises; pure envy: the case of defamation, Sir Frederick Madden, curator of the
manuscripts section of the British Museum, brought against his colleague John Payne Collier, a well-known
Shakespeare critic, relating to the Perkins Folio bearing emendations in Elizabethan script, which modern forensic
tests of the ink have proven to be forgeries. One could even add mere mythomania, an unfathomable field.
The methods used to produce the forgeries, however, follow general rules to a certain extent. They may in-
clude the linguistic nature of the text and its physical appearance, sometimes artificially aged using precise
techniques; a narrative of the circumstances of the finding, which almost always ends up offering mysteri-
ous explanations, such as the aristocratic foreigner who appears, hands over the manuscript and then disap-
pears; or the construction of an archival source that is difficult to verify, as in the case of an original document
that suddenly vanishes or a funeral mask that no one has ever seen.
Over the centuries, the growing number of libraries, catalogues, archives and sophisticated investigative
tools has only contributed to exacerbating the challenge between forgers and critics, as increasingly sophisti-
cated techniques are employed in acts of forgery and more advanced methods in philological text-analysis are
used to expose them. A symbiotic process that becomes more complicated when faced with another paradox:
very often the most desperate hunters in their quest for fakes have, in turn, forged texts to use them for seem-
ingly ‘noble’ ends.
The case of Erasmus de Rotterdam is a representative example of literary forgery. In an edition of works by
Saint Cyprian, the De duplici martyrio, he inserted his own text, which testified to how the origins of the Church
were more in harmony with his own theology. But despite paradoxes and contamination between the two arts
– forgery and criticism – as Anthony Grafton states, it is unquestionable that “the exercise of criticism is a sign
of health and virtue of a civilization. The prevalence of forgery is a sign of illness and vice”.
Forging refers to the act and effect of counterfeiting, imitating documents, writing, works of art and bank
notes. A forgery (or fake) is therefore understood as an object made to look genuine with the precise intent of
deceiving others about its author and period of execution. This is particularly true today for fake artefacts which
in general are destined for the international art market. In the specific case of a painting, for example, a fake
usually imitates the particular style of an artist in order to be placed on the market as an autographed work.
It follows that, from a legal point of view, in order to define a work of art as fake, evidence of malice is re-
quired. But it is precisely this point of declaring a work of art as fake which is a complex matter.
The concept of forgery, as legally punishable fraud, is relatively modern. Dating back to the end of the last
century, the offence is closely connected with the full recognition of copyright (a law first sanctioned in England
in 1735), as well as with the implementation of procedures that are legally well-defined.
Furthermore, forgery is commonly recognized as an element of significant interest in understanding the shift
in tastes and preferences of a certain era; in this perspective it assumes a value that can be defined as historical-
critical, as it can be identified in the approach to reading and interpreting the art produced in those eras. It can
therefore also be considered a cultural experience, as it stems from a specific cultural context and is produced
to meet cultural needs.
The question of art forgery is related to that of the copies and replicas to be discussed later, but neither the
copies nor the replicas however, have the intent of being fraudulent. A fake, as has been pointed out, repre-
sents a repetition of the original with the intent to deceive.
Until the nineteenth century, however, a copy also had other purposes. Conservation was one. In this case,
copies were often made to safeguard the memory of paintings, such as murals, that were badly deteriorating and
to have a record of the original.
A replica, on the other hand, is the repetition of a work by the author himself. The reasons for replicating a
painting or sculpture are different. The artist may repeat a successful subject at the request of a collector or
simply to improve the prototype, possibly modifying it in the process, or perhaps because there was a flaw in
the material used. Nevertheless, it is rare that a replica or any subsequent execution, is perfectly identical to the
original due to the presence of these variations, without excluding the possible intervention of collaborators.
This finding is particularly relevant in the case study of the Mona Lisa reported later.
On the other hand, the value of a replica varies greatly and is always considered in relation to its condition
and the reasons that motivated its execution. It may happen that the autographed replica comes from a deepen-
Part One – Attribution and authentication of art works 17

ing, renewal or decantation of the initial inspiration and in time, may assume the value of authenticity or be
considered distinct from the first work of art; conversely, it may happen that an autographed replica or one that
is very similar to the original loses its value, simply because it has been evaluated as a copy.

1.2. LEGISLATION

The year 1735 is an important one for the art market and for those who invest in it. 1735 was the year Eng-
land promulgated the first copyright law, which, in addition to protecting the author of “an intellectual work”,
as well as the consumer-user, created a division between what was genuine and had a value and what was not,
and was, therefore, practically worthless.
It was in relation to this act that the term forgery began to be used, thus distinguishing it from imitation.
This meant that forgers became subject to an effective penalty, whereas until then, they had only risked moral
condemnation.
In Italy, the different criminal activities involving art forgery were all configured by Law no. 1062/1971,
whose Articles 3-7 were brought together in Art. 127 of the Consolidation Act of 1999. In 2004, the contents of
the Act were revised with Art. 178 (Forgery of Works of Art) of the Code of the Cultural and Landscape Heritage.
Its applicability, after an initial jurisprudential conflict, which was clarified in court, refers to all forgeries of works
of art, (thus including works by living authors of less than fifty years).
The contents of Art. 178 remained unchanged in the revised Legislative Decree of 21 September 2019 and
are reported here.

Article 178

1. “The following shall be punishable by imprisonment for a period of three months to four years and with
a fine ranging from €103.00 to €3,099.00:
a) whosoever, for purposes of gain, counterfeits, alters or reproduces a work of painting, sculpture or graphic
art, or an antique object or an object of historical or archaeological interest;
b) whosoever, even if he/she did not participate in the counterfeiting, alteration or reproduction, puts on
sale, or holds for purposes of sale, or introduces into the territory of the State for such purpose, or in any
case puts into circulation, as authentic, counterfeited, altered or reproduced samples of works of painting,
sculpture, graphic art or antique objects, or objects of historical or archaeological interest;
c) whosoever, knowing them to be false, authenticates works or objects, indicated in letters a) and b) which
have been counterfeited, altered or reproduced;
d) whosoever, through other declarations, evaluations, publications, affixation of stamps or labels or by any
other means, certifies as authentic or contributes to the certification as such of works or objects indi-
cated in letters a) and b) which have been counterfeited, altered or reproduced, knowing them to be false.
In the first case a), as the crime is a common offence and can be perpetrated by anyone, the law punishes all
those who try to forge works for gain, but, nevertheless, requires the subjective element of wilful intent to con-
stitute a crime.
As for the material element, there is no distinction between the type of object, whether it is a sculpture,
painting, print, etc. or the technique used to produce it; neither is there any reference to the number of copies
that are made and put into circulation, an element which may be assessed to appreciate the uniqueness of the
criminal design and the continued or repeated criminal conduct.
What emerges is the non-ownership of the perpetrator of the forgery of the artistic original. In fact, it is clear
that the anti-juridical nature of the forger’s conduct has been repeatedly excluded by the legal system. The
crime is therefore uncontested, in the case the forger has made and put into circulation one or more copies of
the legitimately owned work, since only one civil aspect of the law has been considered – that of copyright.
Hence, the law punishes those who forge a work of art, and also those, as in case b), who place it on the
market or use it in business transactions or introduce any fake, altered or reproduced works into the coun-
18 Salvatore Lorusso and Andrea Natali

try; the penal consequences are therefore the same, provided that the agent is aware of the non-authenticity of
the alienated property, and is thus acting with the willful intent of wrongdoing. As the seller is not necessarily
a professional, it is a common offence and the seller a common criminal, if found to be in possession of the
goods before selling them; in this regard, legal proceedings provide for court decisions to establish whether
they have been an accessory to the crime of fraud and/or receiving stolen goods.
Based on Art. 64, paragraph 1 of the Code of the Cultural and Landscape Heritage (Law n.42/2004), those
who trade for the purpose of selling paintings, sculpture, graphic art or antique objects or objects of historical
or archaeological interest, or whosoever in any case habitually sells the aforesaid works or objects, in addition
to reporting their commercial activity to the relevant public authority and recording on a special register each
day, all commercial operations “must provide the buyer with documentation certifying authenticity, or at least
probable attribution, and provenance; or, lacking such, a declaration must be provided, containing all the in-
formation available with regard to the authenticity of the work or object or to its probable attribution and
provenance, according to the procedures provided for by the legislative and regulatory provisions pertaining to
administrative documentation”.
With regard to these provisions, it is easier to understand the content contemplated by Art. 178 and, more
specifically, e) and d) which refer back to a) and b). It is clear they describe crimes in which general misconduct
is a psychological element; the conduct of the seller is also relevant, for statutory purposes, as a ground for
terminating the contract.
Paragraph 2 of Art. 178 highlights an “aggravating circumstance in the crime” with consequent “disqualifi-
cation pursuant to Art. 30 of the penal code”, when “the facts are committed in the exercise of a commercial
activity” (similarly to what is provided for in Paragraph 4 of Art. 174); this sanction therefore is presumable in
the event that said activity is carried out not only occasionally or habitually, but at a professional level.
The last Paragraph in Art. 178 also provides for “the confiscation of counterfeit, altered or reproduced
specimens of the works or objects indicated in Paragraph 1”, unless “it concerns things belonging to persons
unrelated to the crime”.
Since this is a case of compulsory confiscation, the Supreme Court has deemed it admissible, even in the event
of the death of the accused and consequent inadmissibility of the offence, and specifies that the heirs of the
accused cannot be included among the “external parties” as they are untradeable goods and, therefore, cannot
be part of the estate. Lastly, the Court of Cassation has justified the ban on the sale of confiscated items by auction
(expressly sanctioned by the same fourth paragraph), including non-authentic works, “since they are art fakes and
not” copies “of sculptures, paintings or graphic works.”
This wording reminds us that Art. 179 mentions the legitimacy, therefore the non-punishment of those who
reproduce or offer works for sale that are expressly declared to be inauthentic and repeats the same provisions
contained in Art. 8 of Law n. 1062/1971 (subsequently reconfirmed in Art. 128 of the Consolidation Act of 1999),
excluding punishment for the production, reproduction and sale of the goods in question, in the event that the
subject expressly declares the non-authenticity of the work “in the act of displaying or selling”.
The attestation must respond to specific formal requirements, so that the related cause of non-punishment
is valid, as it has to be done either by means of a written annotation on the work or object or, when this is not
possible, due to the nature or the size of the copy or imitation, by means of a declaration issued at the time of
display or sale.
Finally, Paragraph 4 also excludes punishment in the case of artistic restorations that have not convincingly
reconstructed the original work and, therefore, are not a faithful copy of the original and will consequently not
disrupt the market and mislead buyers [13].

1.3. HOW TO RECOGNISE A FORGERY

The German art historian, Friedrich Winkler states: “To hone your ability to distinguish what is authentic,
the best exercise is to recognize what is false”. In response to this statement, Eric Hebborn, the notorious British
forger, declared: “And who better than a consummate forger can recognize what is false? Once upon a time,
not only did artists learn by making copies and imitations, scholars and anyone who wanted to become an expert
Part One – Attribution and authentication of art works 19

did too. I am of the opinion that this practice should be restored: by integrating normal studies with learning
the techniques of the ancient masters first hand, you would get a much deeper knowledge of art than that given
by a purely academic approach”. Today’s art specialists, as well as antique dealers and collectors, seem not to
share Hebborn’s opinion. The fact of the matter is that their problem is precisely that of ascertaining the authen-
ticity (or non-authenticity) of a work of art, so they are constantly in search of the existence of scientific meth-
ods which will provide conclusive evidence. History is full of forgeries.
Between the 16th and 17th centuries, abuse in the buying and selling of fake works grew to such an extent
that Giulio Mancini, an Italian art collector, dealer and writer, devoted an entire chapter to the question in his
Considerazioni sulla pittura, in which he outlined a useful method to expose them: a very interesting method
which successively helped to develop the skills of connoisseurs and art historians, because it emphasized the
need to observe and recognize the stylistic peculiarities of each individual author, i.e. the different way each artist
uses their colors and their brushes, as well as less evident traits, because their movements are mechanical and
instinctive and can be found in the way the hair, the beard and the eyes are painted. This approach can be de-
fined as the first methodological set of rules for the modern expert.
Until the mid-nineteenth century, trying to identify a fake was, therefore, an arduous undertaking. Investiga-
tions were entrusted to an art expert who, based on personal experience, used his critical judgment to compare
and evaluate the relationship between the artistic qualities of the painting in question and its hypothetically
“authentic” counterpart, to decide whether it was a fake or not. This is how the expert determined authentication
(in Italian, known as expertise). Even today, subjective evaluations are based on historical, stylistic, aesthetic, and
iconographic analyses.
However, increasingly more and more sophisticated and reliable scientific methodologies, involving the use
of different instruments and advanced technologies, are being employed to help recognise forgeries to obtain
decisive analytical results and reach a final judgment, because it is objective and definitive.
Consequently, any work believed to be a forgery can be examined by historians and critics in search of errors
and stylistic anachronisms, while technicians, conservators and restorers can investigate all the technical-material
properties of the work in question, from the support to the pictorial layer.
In the brief discussion concerning forgery (and later on, in examining the different degrees of expressing
certainty in the attribution of art works), we have looked at how various expedients have been used to respond
to different needs in different eras: from imitating the great masters to forging for gainful and speculative pur-
poses. It is important to consider therefore, that the issue of art forgery also includes a range of intermediate
categories which may be classified between the authentic and the fake and bear no relation to acts of fraud or
other related offences.
Market demand for works of art and the consequent request to produce non-authentic works have led to
attempts to contrast the phenomenon not only from a legislative point of view, by issuing new rules and increasing
penalties, but also scientifically, by adopting increasingly sophisticated techniques.
Some fundamental aspects concerning the forgery of art works are summed up below:
• forgery presupposes intentional misconduct;
• the forger is motivated by economic gain;
• relying exclusively on artistic knowledge (subjective evaluation) is often not enough to reveal whether a
work of art is a forgery or not; there have always been, and will probably continue to be, artists capable
of reproducing paintings, styles and other forms of art expression. Very often it is only their circumstan-
tial confessions that have led to the discovery of their fakes.
This is why it is important to make an objective evaluation based on the use of diagnostic-analytical and IT
technologies, which help in:
• identifying and studying the composition of the materials used to execute the art work;
• defining the material structure of the work and, therefore, the artistic technique employed at the time it
was produced;
• adopting strategies that complicate and make it more expensive to make forgeries, thus limiting profit-
ability for those who produce them.