Experts question authenticity of Van Eyck's famous paintings after AI analysis.
Recent studies using artificial intelligence to analyze two of Jan van Eyck's most famous works, which are considered among the greatest examples of western art, have raised doubts about their authorship. The paintings in question - Saint Francis of Assisi Receiving the Stigmata and Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife – both hang in prominent museums across Italy and the US.
Art Recognition, a Swiss company that collaborates with Tilburg University, conducted the AI analysis on the paintings using advanced image recognition software. The results showed that neither version was conclusively proven to be by Van Eyck's hand. In fact, Art Recognition stated that the Philadelphia painting was "91% negative" and the Turin version was "86% negative". This level of uncertainty has left scholars questioning whether these two famous works are studio paintings created by Van Eyck in his workshop.
Some notable art historians have expressed their surprise at the findings. Dr Noah Charney, an expert on Van Eyck's work, stated that if both versions were indeed studio paintings, it suggests a lost original painting made directly by Van Eyck himself. He believes that these works do not necessarily mean that he physically painted every detail of them.
The implications of this study have sparked renewed debate among art experts and museum-goers alike about the role of artificial intelligence in verifying artworks' authenticity.
While the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Royal Museums of Turin have yet to respond, their handling of these paintings will likely come under scrutiny. The lack of any conclusive proof has raised questions as to how museums verify and authenticate artworks.
Experts point out that AI analysis can sometimes be influenced by a painting's condition and later restorations.
Recent studies using artificial intelligence to analyze two of Jan van Eyck's most famous works, which are considered among the greatest examples of western art, have raised doubts about their authorship. The paintings in question - Saint Francis of Assisi Receiving the Stigmata and Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife – both hang in prominent museums across Italy and the US.
Art Recognition, a Swiss company that collaborates with Tilburg University, conducted the AI analysis on the paintings using advanced image recognition software. The results showed that neither version was conclusively proven to be by Van Eyck's hand. In fact, Art Recognition stated that the Philadelphia painting was "91% negative" and the Turin version was "86% negative". This level of uncertainty has left scholars questioning whether these two famous works are studio paintings created by Van Eyck in his workshop.
Some notable art historians have expressed their surprise at the findings. Dr Noah Charney, an expert on Van Eyck's work, stated that if both versions were indeed studio paintings, it suggests a lost original painting made directly by Van Eyck himself. He believes that these works do not necessarily mean that he physically painted every detail of them.
The implications of this study have sparked renewed debate among art experts and museum-goers alike about the role of artificial intelligence in verifying artworks' authenticity.
While the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Royal Museums of Turin have yet to respond, their handling of these paintings will likely come under scrutiny. The lack of any conclusive proof has raised questions as to how museums verify and authenticate artworks.
Experts point out that AI analysis can sometimes be influenced by a painting's condition and later restorations.
! I mean, we're living in an age where AI can analyze art like it's nobody's business, but at the same time, some of the most iconic works are being called into question. It just goes to show how much our understanding of art and history can evolve over time.
? But seriously, this study is making me think about the value we place on human creativity and the skill it takes to create something truly unique.
.
. I can imagine how frustrating it must be for art historians and museum-goers who have grown up with these pieces being considered masterpieces. it's also crazy to think that AI analysis might be able to reveal new info about artworks' past. but at the same time, it's also kinda scary to think that there could be some discrepancy in their authenticity 
. It's a great reminder that our understanding of history can always be challenged, and that's what makes it so interesting 
It's not just that he might've added some last-minute touches or used a different medium for certain parts, but genuinely who made them in his workshop? 
I think it's time to rethink how we verify artworks' authenticity, maybe incorporate some more modern tech into the mix... but at the same time, can't we appreciate these works for who they are – even if we don't know every tiny detail about them? 
And what's with the AI analysis thingy anyway? Is that really how we're gonna figure out whether these paintings are legit or not? It seems kinda sketchy to me. I mean, if a Swiss company and some Dutch university can get 91% "negative" on something, then shouldn't they just come clean and say it's not Van Eyck? 