In a startling revelation that ripples through the art world, two paintings attributed to the renowned 15th-century artist Jan van Eyck may not be his at all. Recent examinations using artificial intelligence have produced results that cast serious doubts on the authenticity of “Saint Francis of Assisi Receiving the Stigmata,” currently displayed in both the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Royal Museums of Turin. This raises profound implications about the very nature of artistic attribution and the legacy of one of Western art’s most celebrated masters.
A Question of Authenticity
The twin paintings of “Saint Francis of Assisi Receiving the Stigmata” are among the few surviving works linked to Van Eyck, whose mastery of oil painting set a benchmark for generations of artists. However, scientific analysis conducted by Art Recognition, a Swiss firm collaborating with Tilburg University, has detected no trace of the painter’s distinctive brushstrokes in either version. The Philadelphia portrayal was found to be “91% negative,” while the Turin counterpart was deemed “86% negative.” Such results suggest a grim possibility: neither painting may have been touched by Van Eyck’s hand.
Till-Holger Borchert, a leading expert on Van Eyck and director of the Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum in Aachen, expressed astonishment at the findings. He noted that these results support the long-held theory that both pieces could have originated from the artist’s workshop, yet were executed by his studio assistants rather than Van Eyck himself. While Borchert welcomed the analysis, he also acknowledged the need for further investigation into the implications of these findings.
The Role of AI in Art Analysis
Dr. Carina Popovici, CEO of Art Recognition, described the high negative percentages as particularly striking. “I had anticipated that if one painting was found wanting, the other would show signs of authenticity,” she remarked. Instead, both artworks emerged with glaring doubts surrounding their origins. This has not gone unnoticed by the curators of the Philadelphia and Turin museums, who are yet to respond to the unsettling implications of the analysis.
Art historians have begun to voice their concerns regarding the reliability of AI-based brushstroke analysis. Dr. Noah Charney, who has previously lauded the accuracy of Art Recognition’s work, remarked on the unexpected nature of the results. He had speculated that the Turin painting would affirm its authenticity while the Philadelphia version would likely be a copy from the artist’s circle. The suggestion that both might be studio works opens the door to the tantalising possibility of an undiscovered original by Van Eyck.
The Impact on Van Eyck’s Reputation
Jan van Eyck is often heralded as a pioneer of oil painting. His works shimmer with an almost supernatural clarity, capturing the minutiae of everyday life with an astonishing level of detail. Yet, the revelation that two of his supposed masterpieces may lack his immediate touch raises questions about the very foundation of his artistic legacy. With fewer than 20 paintings universally accepted as authentically his, the stakes for Van Eyck’s reputation could not be higher.
As the National Gallery in London prepares for an upcoming exhibition dedicated to Van Eyck’s portraits, these findings add an unsettling layer to the narrative of his work. The art community is left grappling with the implications of a potentially diminished legacy, as the allure of Van Eyck’s genius hangs in the balance.
Why it Matters
The authenticity of artworks is a cornerstone of art history, influencing everything from market value to cultural significance. The questioning of Van Eyck’s paintings not only challenges our understanding of his oeuvre but also prompts a broader conversation about the role of technology in art verification. As AI scrutiny becomes more prevalent, we must consider how our perceptions of artistic genius can shift in the wake of new evidence, reshaping the legacy of artists long revered and the stories we tell about them.
