Author: David Cycleback

Thermoluminescence Testing in Ancient Artifacts Authentication and Fake Detection

sfo-greek-pottery

Ancient Greek ceramic

Thermoluminescence Testing (TL) is an advanced scientific method used to help date ceramics, clay, lava and some bronzes. It measures the accumulation of natural radiation in the item since it was last fired at high temperature, such as when ceramics were originally made or during a volcano eruption.

Depending on the conditions, it has a margin of error of about 7% to 50%. However, even at the high margin of error, it is still useful in determining if a vase or ceramic figure is really ancient or a modern fake.


The science of thermoluminescence testing
Most natural minerals, such as the quartz and felspar contained in clay and ceramics, have the property of thermoluminescence where they retain energy from natural radioactive decay in and around the mineral. The retained energy is in the form of trapped electrons. The energy naturally increases at a steady rate over time. Raw (unfired) clay in the ground has had an accumulation of this radiation energy from millions of years.

When a high amount of heat– such as when firing clay to make a ceramic bowl, a big fire or a volcanic eruption–, this energy is released from the material as thermoluminescence. Thermoluminescence literally translates to ‘heat light’, and it is given off in the form of a faint blue light. The more energy in the material, the brighter the light. This heating that releases all the thermoluminescence sets the material’s “thermoluminescence clock” to zero. The material then again slowly accumulates the radiation from that zero point.

il_570xN.1249700119_6s6q

ancient lava stone formed at extreme heat

The second heating– the thermoluminescence test done in a laboratory– releases the thermoluminescence that the material has gained since the first firing, and this thermoluminescence is measured.

Knowing the annual rate of thermoluminescence accumulation in the material, the time since the original heating can be calculated.  This means that, with the margin of error, it can be determined how long ago the ceramic was made, or the lava was formed by the volcanic eruption.

The simple equation for this is:
Age = accumulated themrolominence / rate of themoluinensce gain per year

Though this sounds straightforward, there are the mentioned margins of error.

In the ideal situation– such as when the item is taken directly from the site of an archaeological dig or where there is original dirt still affixed to the object– other objects and surrounding dirt and clay can be taken for testing comparison. In these cases, the margin of error is at the low end: say 7-10 percent.

However, some items are tested without any original material for comparison, and this raises the margin of error.

Further, there are environmental and other causes that make the equation’s rate of accumulation time line less than linear, raising the margin of error. Exposure to heat, light and x-rays (such as at airports or during conservation) can make the line less linear.

In extreme cases, the margin of error can be 50%. However, even with a margin of error of 50%, this is usually enough to determine if the material is really ancient or modern. The object has usually already been examined and judged by historians and other experts for stylistic, material and other related evidence of age and authenticity, and the thermoluminescence test is the final piece to the authentication puzzle. Even at the high margin of error range, it determines if the material is “old or new.”

The experts at the thermoluminescence labs will take all these and other issues that can affect the margin of error, and discuss the issues with you.

01

thermoluminescence testing equipment


Other problems and issues in thermoluminescence dating
There are a number of issues that must be taken into consideration, including attempts by forgers to trick the system.

The test requires that small samples are taken from the item, though they are usually taken from inconspicuous areas and the spots can be neatly restored afterwards. 

Some forgeries involve putting together separate pieces.  A piece can be made from different ancient parts, or a combination of ancient and modern parts.  A commonplace forgery involves putting a modern fake on top of an ancient base from a broken piece.  This is problematic, because the testing samples are often taken from the inconspicuous places, such as the bottom.  

Some forgeries are modern carvings made out of old material, such such as carving a figure out of ancient Chinese brick.  Even though it is a forgery, the thermoluminescence test will say the carving is old, because the material is old.

This is why it is ideal to take samples from different parts of the object, and thermoluminescence testing should be used in conjunction with other tests and examination including a historian’s stylistic analysis and historical knowledge, x-ray/uv/ir examination to identify any restoration or alterations, looking for alterations to patina, and looking for glue or adhesive where parts are affixed together.

Spectroscopy can identify modern added materials, alterations to patina, and has been demonstrated to be useful in identifying items recently reworked from old material.  Spectroscopy identifies chemicals and compounds at the molecular level.  With an unaltered ancient item, the outer surface should spectroscopically test different thant inner parts, as the outer layer is altered by years of exposure to the elements, often gaining a patina.  If the outer layer and inner parts measure identically by a spectroscope, that suggests the material was carved recently.

f514da0ea0cc3ce6e1b321cdd9c820f6--horse-sculpture-painted-pottery

Tang Dynasty pottery horse

Since the test is destructive, porcelain, should not be thermoluminescence tested except for very special reasons.  This test is usually only done for porcelain in cases such as court dispute or insurance valuation for a broken piece.

Some have wondered if forgers will try to beat the test by artificially adding thermoluminescence by their own heating. However, experts consider this type of deception far fetched because getting the right “date” would take great technical expertise and expensive equipment that only advance laboratories have.

Getting an object thermoluminescence tested

These tests are done in a laboratory with expensive equipment and trained scientists. There are numerous places around the world that do this testing, often universities, but also a number of private institutions. Amongst the most prominent testing sites are:

Oxford Authentication in Oxford England: http://www.oxfordauthentication.com/

Daybreach Aecaemoetric Lab in Connecticut USA: http://daybreaknuclear.us/bortolot_daybreak_frameset.html

Advertisements

Spectroscopy in Art and Artifacts Authentication

In its most general sense, spectroscopy (often called spectrometry) is the science of examining and measuring light as it interacts with or is emitted by matter, and includes such basic things as measuring light passing through a prism and observing with our eyes the colors of objects.  When you shine a blacklight on an object to see the color and brightness of the fluorescence, that is a basic form of spectroscopy.

In art and artifacts authentication and forgrery detection, however, spectroscopy involves various highly advanced methods of analyzing the molecular structure of material and objects by shining infrared, x-rays, gamma rays and lasers at the material and analyzing the electromagnetic radiation that is returned.  

IonSpec_FT-ICR_(Fourier_transform_Ion_cyclotron_resonance)_Mass_spectrometer

mass spectrometer

Whether reflected, fluoresced or scattered, the returned light is determined by the molecular makeup of the material, and the advanced forms of spectroscopy can be used to not only identify the material, but identify the material’s exact chemicals and compounds and their concentrations.  

Knowing the material, chemicals and compounds is invaluable in authentication and forgery detection, and has identified some of the most sophisticated and famous forgeries. Many sophisticated forgeries have been identified because the chemicals and compounds identify the material as being from the wrong time and even originating from the wrong place.  Spectroscopic analysis can go as far as identifying the geographical origins of pigments, ivory and gems.

 

Colorimetery: the scientific measuring visual light

While spectroscopy gets highly advanced and technical, a basic method of it is called colorimetry.  Colorimetry measures the visual color of materials and objects.  

The most basic form of colorimetery, and spectroscopy, is when we judge the color of something with our own eyes.  Under white light, we see a ball as red or a coffee mug as blue.  We identify different kinds of wood in part by their different shades of brown.  The color of the light we see is determined by the atomic makeup of the material.

home-design-set-of-large-sized-oz-colored-ceramic-coffee-soup-mugs-incredible-image-concept-7178tmntx0l-_sl1500_-white

The visual colors of everyday objects are determined by the atomic makeup of the materials.

However, human vision is inexact and subjective.  As demonstrated by color vision tests at the optometrist, it varies from person to person, and even a person’s eye to eye.  

Colorimetry uses a scientific instrument called a colorimeter to measure color at a precise and objective level.

Identifying color at such a precise level is important in numerous areas and for many reasons, including when examining inks, paints, dyes and gems.  In cases of court contested documents, such as wills and contracts, alterations to the writing are often  discovered because a colorimeter identities by the color that different inks were used.  The colorimeter identifies very slight differences in color of the inks that are unnoticeable by the naked eye.

20525941_10209704479664310_7006828363654863463_n

Chinese Purple, sometimes known as Han Purple, was a manufactured pigment used by ancient Chinese.  Made from the metals barium and copper, along with the elemnet silicon, their most famous use was on the Terracotta Army. Being able to identify colors and knowing when they were introduced and used is important in dating items.

 

image022

Precisely identifying the colors of printing inks is an important part of dating printing. Shown at the microscopic level, the magenta in this lithograph print identifies the printing as modern.

15312a_lg

Colorimetry is commonly used in the examination and identification of pen inks on questioned documents.

 

Infrared, Raman, Mass and X-Ray Spectroscopy

As mentioned, advanced spectroscopy shines different ranges of electromagnetic radiation on the material and examines the light that is return.  These methods use an expensive device called a spectrometer, which can be a stand alone, but is often hooked up to a computer and sometimes a microscope.  They range in size from handheld to large complex-looking systems.

While there are many different kinds and variations of advanced spectroscopy used for many purposes and in many areas, the ones most commonly used to examine art and artifacts are infrared spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy and mass spectrometry.

Infrared spectroscopy shines infrared light and measures the inter-atomic bond vibrations.  It is based on that molecules absorb frequencies depended on their chemical structures.

Named after the 1930 Physics Nobel Prize winner C. V. Raman, Raman spectroscopy shines a laser beam of light, and measures slight energy changes to some of the scattered back light that is caused by material’s molecular vibrations.  C. V. Raman was the first to publish a paper on this vibrational scattering, which is called Raman scattering or the Raman effect.  

X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy measures the x-ray fluorescence given off from a material when shortwave x-rays or gamma rays are shined on the material.  The shined x-rays or gamma rays add energy to the atoms.  The atoms can hold this energy only for a short time before having to give it off.  The atoms give off the energy in a different form than received– a longer wavelength of x-rays that is the fluorescence.  You can see how this is related to ultraviolet or blacklight fluorescence, where the black light causes the material to give of a visible light fluorescence.

Done in a vacuum, mass spectrometry ionizes the atoms of the material and measures the mass-to-energy ratio.  Francis Aston and J. J. Thompson won Physics Nobel Prizes for their work in this area.

These different types of spectroscopy examine and measure different aspects of the materials and create different spectrum charts.  Shown on a computer screen, each spectrum is based on the molecular makeup of the material and and serves as a fingerprint for identifying the chemicals or compounds in the material.  Each chemical or compound will have its own, unique spectrum.

cbook

Infrared spectroscopy spectrum for d-glucose. This spectrum is unique to the sugar, and serves as a fingerprint for identification.

The spectrometer has software that contains a library of the spectrums that will match up the tested material’s spectrum and tell you what what is the compound or chemical.  

The process can be as simple as shining the spectrometer on the material, and the software telling you on the screen that the material is iodine, aspirin, gold or whatever it is.  Handheld spectrometers are used at recycling centers to immediately identify the scrap metal compositions, and at airports to quickly identify mysterious substances, such as pills and powders.  

Further, the height of the peaks of the on the spectrum tells you the concentration of the chemicals in the material.

Certain ranges of light interacts better with certain chemicals ,so the different types of spectroscopy are often used complementarily with each otherwhen examining a material. For example, infrared spectroscopy is better at reading a certain range of chemicals, while Raman spectroscopy a slightly different range.  Thus, an old painting may be examined by both infrared and Raman spectrometers.

This analysis can be non-destructive— meaning no sample has to be removed from the object– and can often be be done on sight.  The scientist can bring the Raman, infrared or x-ray fluorescence spectrometer to the huge painting on the wall of the museum, rather than the painting having to be brought to the lab.

The exception is with the mass spectrometer that requires a sample, in part because the process takes place in a vacuum.

Handheld-XRF-spectrometers

handheld x-ray fluorescence spectrometer

 

Why being able to identify the chemicals and compounds is important to authentication and forgery detection

Knowledge of the materials and their chemical makeups in an artwork or artifact is important to authentication and forgery detection in many ways.  There is much known, and continuous research, about the invention, chemical makeup and historical use and making of materials.  It is sometimes even known where artists and cultures obtained the materials to make their objects– such as the imported minerals used to make paint or local stone to make artifacts.  Thus, spectroscopic analysis of a questioned object can identify materials, chemicals and compounds in it that are consistent with the item being genuine and of the correct age, and conversely compounds or materials inconsistent if not impossible with the item being genuine.  The following are examples:

  • Hans van Meegeren’s forgery of a 1600s Jan Vermeer painting was in part verified as fake because the paint contained Bakelite, a synthetic resin invented in the 20th century.
VanMeegeren_The_Disciples_at_Emmaus

Han van Meegeren forgery of a Vermeer

  • A painting forger used the correct type of lead white for an Old Master’s painting, but the specific compounds used to make the paint came from a geographical source unavailable to the original painter.
  • Forgeries of Man Ray’s photographs were identified due to too modern of chemicals in the photopaper.
  • Spectroscopy can tell the difference between natural and synthetic diamonds as it can identify the source chemicals the gems were produced from.
  • It has identified sophisticated forgeries of ancient precious metal relics, because, while the correct metal was used in the forgeries, the specific compounds of the metals were different than used by the original peoples.
  • Spectroscopy identified the crystal anatase in the ink used on the Vinland Maps, with anatase being unknown in use that early.
1200px-Vinland_Map_HiRes

the long disputed Vinland Map

  • The Hitler Diaries were identified as forgeries in part because the binding material was identified as a modern synthetic and the paper contained chemicals that were introduced after World War II.

 

 

Harold Edgerton, Stroboscopic Photography and the Question of What is Art

(This is a reprint of an art history paper written for London Art College)

3275878_1

The item for my last paper is the above original 1959 stroboscopic photograph of Harold Edgerton holding a balloon with a bullet being fired at it.  The back has the original information sheet from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).  I pick the photograph because it involved a new way to look at the world and because it touches on the questions of what is art.  Edgerton did not consider himself be to an artist nor his photos to be artworks, but many collect his photos as artworks and they are hung in art museums.

Harold Edgerton was an American professor of electrical engineering at MIT who became world famous for his invention of the strobe light (the basis for today’s flash photography) and stroboscopic photography.  The latter is a form of ultra high speed photography using strobe lights.   This image was photographed at 1/2,000,000th of a second.

Edgerton was studying turbine engines in his 1930s Cambridge Massachusetts lab and wanted clear stop-action images of the engines in motion. However, camera systems of the day could not take such high speed photographs because their shutters opened and closed too slowly. A turbine is many times faster than a camera shutter. Instead of ‘clicking’ photos of high speed objects, Edgerton’s new process turned off the lights, opened wide the camera’s shutter and, in the darkness, shot quick flashes of light from his strobe light onto the moving subject. The camera film would thus show a series of instantaneous and frozen-in-time shots of action.

At the advice of a student, Edgerton started taking stroboscopic photographs of everyday objects and revealed a world never before seen by human eyes.  He showed still, unblurred images of things that move far too fast to be clearly perceived by human eyes.  This included speeding bullets, hummingbirds’ wings in mid flap, atomic explosions, smashing glass, the swing of a golf club and the splash of a milk drop.  

dp70423

atomic explosion

hee-nc-39008-l

Woman with her pet humming birds

Not only were these photographs scientifically revealing and important– and that was Edgerton’s purpose–, but non-scientists found them fascinating, sometimes beautiful and some were even considered to be works works of art.   His photographs are auctioned by Sotheby’s and Christie’s and exhibited by museums including the Museum of Modern Art.  Many people I asked consider some of his most famous photos to be art.

Though intended and used by Edgerton as a purely scientific device, his novel technique can be compared to historical novel artistic methods of looking at and depicting the world, including the ‘blurry’ brushwork and colors of impressionism, John Constable’s use of color and brushwork to better depict reality, Caravaggio’s use of lighting, pose and hyper reality to depict scenes in a new and visceral way.   Some stroboscopic photos reveal the subject in a series of snapshots, closely resembling Marcel Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2.  (See the later shown Edgerton photo of a tennis player and Elliot Elisofon’s 1952 stroboscopic photo of Marcel Duchamp descending stairs).  

All these novel techniques expand our minds and view of the world, give us more information about the subjects and give us new aesthetic experiences.  The novelty alone produces an aesthetic and emotional reaction (sometimes good, sometimes bad).  Edgerton said the photos often revealed unexpected results and details.  Science– and Edgerton considered his photos to be science– can expand our minds and give us wonder similar to art.  Pure mathematicians often say they get an aesthetic and sublime emotional response to doing their work– though they also say accurate results always trump beauty.

dffd127995b3a57601f10b272abd15e8

Tennis player by Edgerton

9ab2b0f181c6e3546eb898f4a8115c5f

Duchamp descending stairs by Elisofon

Not only do many consider some of Edgerton’s photographs to be beautiful, but they often find them profound and inspiring as they reveal a once secret world that happens beneath our very noses.  Many may find the images bring up philosophic topics of time, reality and perception, and perhaps give religious inspiration (‘God’s  details’).  

Others may not consider them art, but still find them fascinating and worthy of hanging on a wall– or at least taping to the refrigerator door.  Some may call them eye candy not art, but, as I say about movies, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to be entertained.  I think Edgerton’s photos are fascinating, but more eye candy than art. Though I also know art is subjective and if a viewer considers them metaphysically and emotionally profound, I won’t argue with them.

What is particularly interesting is Edgerton firmly called himself a scientist not an artist and, while he no doubt found many of the images striking and even beautiful, did not consider them artworks.  He said “Don’t make me out to be an artist.  I am an engineer. I am after the facts. Only the facts.”   

If people call his photos artworks, it had nothing to do with his intent or design.   In fact, I bet he would have said that, as a scientist doing scientific tests, thinking about about making them artistic would be dangerous.  Predetermined results, aesthetic aims, trying to get final results that are pretty and pleasing to the senses and emotions makes for bad science.  That some of the photos came out aesthetically pleasing and would look nice hung on a wall were fine, but Edgerton thought the aesthetics to be beside the point and the focus on it dangerous to his work.

Further, not all of this photos are considered ‘art’ and this gets into the nature of why people consider some things art and other things not.  Some of this photos are fairly ugly or mundane, if still fascinating. I picked the 1959  photo in part because it is not terribly attractive. Interesting but not ‘beautiful.’

I showed a friend two Edgerton photos: his famous milkdrop photo (shown below) and this original 1959 photo.  She said the milkdrop photo was art, but not the 1959 photo.  They are both similar high speed photos, so how is one considered art and one not?  Because one was ‘beautiful’ or aesthetically pleasing to her taste and the other was not.  Her response was immediate. She didn’t have to mull it over or do research.  Is the definition of what is art this superficial?  Or was she mistaking eye candy for art?  Is her seeming superficiality and gut emotional reaction an example of why Edgerton, the scientist doing scientific work, had a clinical distaste of the word artist and art?

78c160c8759d3fa6933ae8d0d0488977

Edgerton’s Milk drop

As discussed in my earlier papers on Renoir,  Kandinsky and the article on neuroaesthics, some neurobiologists believe that our aesthetic and emotional reactions to art and nature is in major part based in hard wired neurological reactions to basic qualities.  The viewer’s wonder, awe and attracted attention at the novelty of the above image is natural and evolutionary, as is the emotional pleasingness of the symmetry, colors and ‘texture.’  The neurobiologists would say it is natural that the simple, balanced milk drop photo is more aesthetically pleasing than the dark, muddled 1959 photo.

While it was a scientific device for Edgerton, other photographers intentionally used his high speed techniques for artistic purposes.  Famed Life magazine photographer Gjon Mili was the first photographer to use the techniques for aesthetic purposes.  All modern art photographers who use flashes have Edgerton to thank.

1a59d854869270ab2145238d82440386

‘Woman in raincoat’ (1941) by Gjon Mili

Edgerton was no dummy (MIT professors rarely are) and made high quality prints of his most beautiful images and sold them as signed limited edition works.  These are what are sold at auction and displayed in museums.   Whether or not this was a jaded money grab can be debated.  He may have thought the photographs neat looking and, as a well known promoter of science to the general public, was happy to fill the public’s need for scientific eye candy.

Though not pretty, the 1959 photograph has value amongst some collectors, not as an artwork but as a historical artifact.  Collectors of antique artifacts and memorabilia do not only collect objects of beauty but objects of historical or other non-art interest. Most of Edgerton’s signed and limited edition art photos were made years after the images were shot, and vintage original examples such as this are rare.  Vintage original photos with Edgerton himself in the photo are even rarer.  The 1959 photo was used as an ephemeral press release by M.I.T. and it was chance that it was not lost or thrown out over the years.  It wasn’t until recent years that press, news and wire photos, some by famous photographers, became collectable and financially valuable.

If not art, this 1959 photograph would be desirable to collectors of science and history of photography memorabilia.  That the back has the original M.I.T. tag on back makes it even more desirable to artifact collectors.

In fact, many collectors of historical artifacts would have no desire for the signed limited edition photos, because they are not vintage.  They are history collectors who want artifacts from the period and might dismiss the later made art photos as reproductions.  Some would scratch their heads why someone would pay good money for a photograph made years after the image was shot.  A collector of American Civil War memorabilia wants a battle flag, sword or photograph from the time of the war, not a reproduction made one hundred years later.  How attractive or physically accurate is the reproduction does not matter to them. For history collectors, age is an essential quality.  

Due to the two types of collectors, the later made art photo and the ‘dingy’ but original 1959 photo have about the same financial value.  One because it is a limited edition ‘work of art’ signed by the famous scientist and photographer, and the other because it is a rare historical artifact showing a rare scene.  One could be displayed in an art museum and the other in a science and technology museum.

Responses versus Answers

To a question, there are two types of responses: An answer and a response. An answer is the correct answer to the question. A response is not the correct answer, but a response or reaction to the question.

While perhaps relevant to the question and offering useful information, a response does not answer the question. It could be said that to a question there is either an answer or anything else (a response).

Question: “What does 1 + 1 equal?”

Answer : “2”

Response : “I’m sorry, I don’t know. I was never good at math. Give me a geography question.”

The “2” is the answer. It gives the correct answer to the question. The “I’m sorry, I don’t know ….” is a response. It does not give the correct answer or attempt to give the correct answer. It’s not so much that the response is wrong, but that it gives an answer to a different, unasked question.

Saying “Are you trying to insult my intelligence?” is a response to the question, rather than an answer. Saying “I don’t have to answer your stupid questions” is a response rather than an answer.

Question: “Johnny, did you take a cookie from the cookie jar?” (Johnny took a cookie from the cookie jar.)

Answer: “Yes, I did.”

Response: “I don’t know. I did a lot of things today. I don’t recall taking a cookie, but it’s possible I might have taken it and forgotten about it. What kind was it?”

Response: “What if I did?”

As shown above, while a response doesn’t give an answer, it can offer information and even unintended insight into the psychology of the responder. The response “What if I did?” neither answers nor attempts to answer the question, but reveals defiance in the responder.

* * * *

Many questions cannot be answered by humans. They usually are unanswerable because the answer is beyond human knowledge and sometimes comprehension.

The following are unanswerable questions.

“Exactly what number of grains of sand make up the Sahara Desert at this moment?”

“In square miles, what is the exact volume of the universe?”

Unanswerable questions can only receive responses. Even if you correctly guess the exact number of square miles in the universe, neither you nor anyone else will know that your guess is correct, and likely neither you nor anyone else will assume the guess incorrect. An unknowably correct guess is classified as a response. Obviously it can’t be identified as an answer, as the answer is unknown.

* * * *

Many questions are unanswerable because the questions are skewed, sometimes misworded.

Question: “What is the best color?”

Response: “I can’t say what is the best color, but green is my favorite.”

Response: “I don’t know, but blue is probably the most popular.”

Response: “Red.”

There is no absolute, objective answer to the question. Any answer to the question is a response. Any pick of color a subjective response. The first two responses offer perhaps useful information, but don’t attempt to answer the question. The response “Red” is also a response cloaked as an answer.

As with earlier unanswerable questions, the responses can give related information and reflect upon the responded. The first two offers information about the popularity of colors. The ‘matter of fact’ answer of “Red” reflects on the personality of the responder.

* * * *

The following are common unanswerable human questions:

“What is the meaning of the universe?”

“Why am I here?”

“What is my purpose on this earth?”

There can only be responses to these questions. Religions and many political and social systems are responses to these and other unanswerable questions. They may present their responses as answers, but they are responses. Calling a response an answer is part of the response.

Much of science is a response to unanswerable questions, often the same questions that religion, philosophy and art respond to. Categorizing living things is a response.

* * * *

Responses to unanswerable questions shouldn’t be judged as answers, but as responses. Considering it is impossible to know the answer, is this response to the question legitimate and reasonable? Is this response a fair way to respond to the unanswerable?

I would classify the earlier response “I can’t say what is the best color, but green is my favorite” as fair. It is not an answer, but a fair enough response to an unanswerable question. As suggested before, I don’t think much of the “Red” as it’s posing as the answer when there is none. The green guy is happy to give you his opinion, but readily acknowledges he doesn’t have the answer. That seems to be a fair response.

I’m an art historian, and in art and collectible authentication, perhaps the number one rule is the expert should never make up an answer when he doesn’t have one. He shouldn’t say he’s 100% sure, when he’s only 75% sure. If you don’t know, you don’t know and, considering no one knows everything, there’s nothing deficient about an expert saying he doesn’t know. Find a self-proclaimed expert who has all the answers and you’ve found someone whose opinion you should be wary of. This should help explain why I didn’t much of the “The best color is Red” answer. If she said “I have no clue” she would have gotten high marks. If she said “I don’t answer dumb questions,” she might have gotten even higher.

 

 

…..

 

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY: THE HUMAN MIND IS PRIMARILY ABOUT PRACTICAL FUNCTION NOT IDENTIFYING TRUTHS

While identifying facts and making accurate perceptions are important parts of the human function and survival, the human mind is not entirely about this or perhaps even mostly about this.

To survive and function, the human must do other things such as act and guess in ambiguous and mysterious situations. Many of these functions are not about identifying facts and assessing truth, but making speedy and practical decisions. In fact, humans are in part hard wired to make speedy intuitive decisions in the face of lack of knowledge.

As an example I use way too often, avoiding instant danger is often about how to react to the unknown and unknowable. If a mysterious large shape is moving quickly at you, taking the time to accurately identify the shape (‘gathering the facts’) is the opposite of what you need to do. Get out of the way right now, then worry about identification later. If it turns out to be nothing harmful, say just a shadow, no big deal other than you might look a bit foolish. If it turns out to be a boulder or falling board, you’ve saved yourself from harm or worse. And this is the natural and automatic subconscious self-preservation instinct of humans.

This is just one example of how truth finding is not always the priority of the mind and in fact can get inhibit function. Survival is commonly said to be about erring on the side of safety– as it takes only one time being hit by a speeding car or falling off a cliff to be dead. The key word there being ‘erring.’ In this case, the mind is designed to err.

The human mind has limited capacity and capabilities, and human function can be inhibited by too much information including facts and truths (see How Humans Use False Information and Made Up Beliefs to Produce Personal Achievement). If your task is to move across a room, trying to identify and learn the history and “truth” of everything and everyone in the would lead to you dying of old age before you reached the other side. Humans must actually block out and distort information in order to function. In order to read a complicated passage or do math, people cover their ears to block out noise or tell others around them to quit talking.

And don’t forget that humans are social animals and functioning, thriving and surviving involves interaction with people and other animals that are full of cognitive biases, delusions, limited information and viewpoints, emotions, selfish motives, social politics and order, subjective tastes and irrational drives. Humans survived and thrived as a species because they work as social groups.

Early economists made the fatal mistake of basing their models on the assumption that humans act entirely rationally when making economic decisions. Later economists realized the models had to be thrown out, because they learned that humans do not act entirely rationally when purchasing, selling, investing, valuating and saving.

In short, the commonly voiced sentiment that the human is by nature a truth seeker, and that is its key function, is highly debatable.

Wassily Kandinsky’s Composition VI

composition-vi

Wassily Kandinsky was one of the first artists to make completely abstract paintings.  His 1913 oil painting on canvas Composition VI is an example of his non-representational works.  

Kandinsky is another step in the progression from the previous artists Constable, Renoir and Boccioni.  Constable, Renoir and Boccioni used recognizable figures and scenes, but used new and often abstract techniques to express perception, feelings and ideas.  Kandinsky took it to the next level, dropping recognizable things and trying to express his ideas and feelings entirely through pure colors, shapes, lines, marks and composition. Not only did he want to express his ideas in non-representational art, he felt that was the only way to do it.  

Kandinsky was a devout Orthodox Russian and felt colors and other qualities not only affected the emotions and aesthetic experience but resonated with the soul.  He aspired to have a communion between art, artist and audience, and the act of painting was an emotional and spiritual experience for him.

Europe was in a time of turmoil, of industrial, artistic and philosophical change, and the upcoming World War I.  This affected many artists, including Boccioni, who saw the world as changing and saw the world in a new light.  They tried to express and address the changes in new aesthetic languages.  The old languages were outmoded, artifacts of a world that no longer existed.  A new world needed new languages.  Many artists were as much philosophers and theorists as artists.  As a deeply religious person who saw things differently that the average person, Kandinsky felt he was a prophet bringing people to a new art, language and era. He felt that today’s avant garde understood by few was tomorrow’s common knowledge, and he was a leader bringing a new knowledge and rebirth out of the day’s turmoil.

In previous painting essays I have discussed how neurobiologists believe humans naturally and neurologically react to basic sensory qualities, including colors, symmetry (or lack thereof), shapes, angles, etc., and this is a major part of our aesthetic and artistic experience, along with how we perceive the natural world.  These are the things that Kandinsky worked in.  He was trying to communicate entirely this way, using what he felt were natural inborn reactions to basic qualities,  He wanted to make an art that communicated beyond culture and historical perspectives.  

While Kandinsky was concerned with resonating on an emotional, aesthetic level, he was a theorist and academic and his works involved much academic study, research and planning.  He was a law professor before turning to art, taught art design courses and was a theorist who wrote extensively on how colors, shapes etc created meaning.  He experimented with and tested how colors and other basic qualities resonated with him and, he hoped, resonated with others (Though this shows how his theories and color rules were in part subjective to him.  Whether or not they apply to everyone’s mind and eyes is debatable.).  Composition VI involved six months planning.  It also was finished with him repeating a mantra (‘flood’) to get over a mental block and free his subconscious.  This illustrates how his work was both academic and intuitive.

He compared visual art to music and wanted his art to be like music.  He said music is abstract yet evokes specific ideas and emotions.  And this is true.  Combinations of notes and instruments can communicate ideas such as speed, physical landscape, danger, drama, evil, happiness, joy.  Music can be sad and it can be funny.  And much of this reaction to sounds in inborn in humans. Our reactions to thunder and songbirds, loud low notes and soft high ones are natural.  This is what Kandinsky was trying to achieve through colors, shapes and visual composition.

Kandinsky had synesthesia, where people see or strongly associate colors with musical notes, tastes, other.  He saw colors when he heard notes and heard notes when he painted color.  In fact he associated specific colors with specific notes.  This clearly was an influence on his art and theories, and other artists have had synesthesia including Duke Elliott, Vladimir Nabokov and Frank List.   

Beyond just emotions, he was trying to express complex ideas and stories. Composition VI is about the apocalypse, a giant flood and rebirth– depicted all at once! As with Boccioni, he was trying to show many, often conflicting and juxtaposing ideas and qualities in one work.  The apocalypse and rebirth are conflicting– one is about turmoil, violence and terror, while the other is about peace and happiness.  His work is like trying to depict the “calm before the storm,” but with the calm and storm happening at the same time.  In writing about Composition VI, Kandinsky said how there were many different feelings, conflicting and juxtaposing emotions from the different colors and shapes.  It is telling a complex story with many parts and details.

This painting was a challenge for me– in part because it is so complex, busy and non-representational.  However, when I looked at his other paintings, I did get different reactions and feelings from them, and saw how colors and shapes evoke aesthetic feelings and aesthetic responses.  And Composition VI is supposed to be complex.  It is is supposed to take thought and examination.  Kandinsky even said the painting had three centers.  He also said the meaning and feelings one gets from it change as you look at the different parts and move closer to the painting.  This is comparable to Boccioni’s sculpture where its form changed as you walk around it.  

One way the work is harder to understand than Boccioni’s is there is no clearly recognizable representational anchor.  It is, after all, non representational.   Boccioni’s sculpture was complex and abstract, but it clearly was a running figure. Your reading and interpretations started from this anchor and easy to understand theme. Though once I read about Composition Vi being about the apocalypse, flood and rebirth, that was something from which I could start.  And in fact, once this theme is known, many visitors to a museum may enjoy discussing how it shows this and if it shows it well.  Boccioni is also better understood and appreciated when you know his philosophy and what he was trying to thematically express in his art

The painting certainly perplexed me at first.  But looking at his other paintings and watching a youtube video where his paintings were shown with Schoenberg music gave me a better handle.  I like some abstract art, especially music.  This includes Schoenberg, Gyorgi Ligeti and noise music (try listening to the drone metal band Sunn 0))).  It can greatly resonate with me.  The Kandinsky didn’t, but that’s all subjective and I do understand and appreciate what he was trying to do.  I also have bad color vision, which won’t help.

The painting is valued as an artwork and a new artistic movement.  Further Kandinsky studied and showed how we communicate and perceive things, including emotionally and aesthetically,  through basic qualities.  This helps teach us how all art works, including centuries old representational works.  Even representational works use qualities of color, angle, shape to express ideas and emotions.  And art involves reactions that are beyond the literal and conscious.  Kandinsky’s works and theories help us look at past art, but also how we look at the world and how artist can do things in their own works even when representational.

Though I didn’t entirely get into Kandinsky, some of his works remind me much of Hieronymous Bosch’s works, which I do like a lot.  Bosch’s great paintings on similar religious themes used identifiable if fantastical creatures, but were complex and busy stories like Composition VI and produce visceral, sublime reactions from the audience.  Bosch speaks to the subconscious. He had a way with composition and details that to me is Kandinsky-esque.  And, as mentioned, really all art communicates to us using these devices.  All art connects to the subconscious and communicates feelings and ideas that are beyond the conscious.  That is what is the art.

Umberto Boccioni’s ‘Unique Forms of Continuity in Space’

.  boccioni_unique_forms_of_continuity_in_space_1913

Unique Forms of Continuity in Space is a famous large bronze sculpture by Italian futurist artist Umberto Boccioni.  Boccioni made the plaster sculpture in 1913, with the bronze examples seen in museums being cast from the plaster sculpture or from other bronze castings.  

The work is a part of the short lived but influential futurist movement. Originating in early twentieth century Italy, futurism was an artistic, philosophical and social movement that emphasised modernity, constant change and movement into the future, technology and inventions, speed, youth and violence.  It said it wished to destroy Italy’s old artistic and social past (Though I would contend it merly built on it).  It lauded such modern technology as cars, airplanes and the industrial city.  One futurist said the car was more beautiful than an ancient Greek statue.  The futurists glorified war and welcomed World War I as a way to cleanse society of its old ways.  It was nationalistic, aspiring to make Italy modern and victorious, bring it to a glorious future. It is telling that Boccioni and the movement died with World War I.

Unique Forms of Continuity in Space

Along with issuing numerous manifestos, including by Boccioni, futurism wished to express its ideas in new, original artistic ways.  It encourage originality, rebellion against traditional styles and even good taste, and dismissed traditional art criticism.  It used many mediums, including painting, sculpture, architecture, theater, film and fashion. This not only showed that they wanted to dominate all aspects of society and life, but that their ideas couldn’t be captured by just one medium.  Boccioni’s works were in painting, literature (futurism manifestos) and sculpture, and he was the first to freely use different materials in his sculptures.

In Unique Forms of Continuity in Space, Boccioni wanted to express this philosophy, including of constant change, movement, speed and moving in the future.  

To the casual viewer, there may be mystery to and head-scratching about the abstract parts of the sculpture, as there is to much abstract art, but the theme of movement and speed are clear. The body and legs positions and the flames, wind or wing symbols on the back of the legs visually and symbolically represent speed and movement.  As a test, I showed the picture of the sculpture to my 81 year old dad with dementia and he said it looked like a running figure. Color and texture express ideas and evoke aesthetic responses, and the shiny bronze evokes to the average person modernity, invention and futuristic technology.   Some call it a superman.

This shows that Boccioni was not completely breaking from the past and past art as he supposedly aspired to, but was building on it.  He incorporated traditional representational forms, recognizable symbols and medium (bronze).   I would call his sculpture a response, or furthering, of traditional art, rather than a break.  Art, even rebellious art, requires shared language the audience can understand.  The sculpture bends and expands the language, but does not get rid of it.

0101

Rodin’s The Walking Man

It has been said that the sculpture alludes to Rodin’s The Walking Man, which shows a more recognizable and traditional depiction of a man walking, though without head and arms.  Rodin focused on part of the person, breaking away from the academic tradition of showing a full figure.  He also produced an unidentified person, where traditional sculptures usually depicted specific and famous people.  Boccioni can be seen as an extension of Rodin’s work.  Michelangelo’s sculptures showed stationary known people in perfect detail, Rodin showed a walking anonymous and more impressionistic man and Boccioni showed a running, even more abstract figure.  The progression is clear.

Boccioni was familiar with and influenced by the impressionists.  His early paintings have an impressionistic look and even his later abstract paintings use bright impressionism colors.  The wings on the legs and the ‘blurry’ abstraction on Unique Forms of Continuity in Space is a very impressionistic way to depict movement and change.  Interestingly, he dismissed impressionism, saying: “While the impressionists paint a picture to give one particular moment and subordinate the life of the picture to its resemblance to this moment, we synthesize every moment (time, place, form, color-tone) and thus paint the picture.”  I bet the impressionists would say they were evoking movement and thus time.  No doubt Boccioni’s rhetorical rejection of impressionism was in part because of their quaint, quiet, mundane life topics– something he definitely was rebelling against.

culpture is often a reaction to or commentary on previous works, so to understand a work you must know the history of sculpture.  So comparing Boccioni’s works to previous works, including impressionistic paintings, is important to understanding them.  Understanding the futurism philosophy is also essential.  Even a reaction or rebellion can only be understood by known what it was reacting to and rebellion against.  And rebellions often retain many of the qualities and methods of what they are rebelling against.  As I mentioned, Boccioni was both rebelling against impressionism and using impressionistic visual techniques.  

Beyond depicting movement, the sculpture intended to express other less tangible and more theoretical  futurism ideas, including the futurism idea of ‘’universal dynamism.’  Universal dynamism says that objects are not separate from each other and that an object is not separate from its surroundings.  A futurism manifesto said “The sixteen people around you in a rolling motor bus are in turn and at the same time one, ten four three; they are motionless and they change places … The motor bus rushes into the houses which it passes, and in their turn the houses throw themselves upon the motor bus and are blended with it.”   Boccioni wrote about his art “Let us fling open the figure and let it incorporate within itself whatever may surround it.”  This explains much of the abstraction of the sculpture.  It is not about a constant, single figure, but a changing figure and it’s surroundings, all in one and one in all.  If the traditional viewer wants a single, unchanged, easily identifiable image, they miss the entire point and are exactly what the futurists were rebelling against.  It is not supposed to be one figure, have one identity. After all, it is titled ‘Forms’ not ‘Form.’  

People have commented that the sculpture changes significantly as you walk around it.  This represents the theme of constant change, in particular in relationship to movement and time.  As the viewer moves, both physically and in time, the work changes.

120860846-uhmilifp-img_5903b1

Boccioni and the futurists adopted techniques of the cubists, and Boccioni’s later paintings are clearly influenced by cubism. Cubism expressed things in new, radical ways.  It addressed the age old problem of depicting three dimensions in two dimensional space by showing objects from multiple angles at once.  It also used abstract techniques to show such things as movement and the passage of time.  For example, to depict movement and the passage of time a cubist painting might show a series of still images of a figure in different places.  Boccioni’s paintings and sculpture are similarly abstract and ‘different’ to casual eyes because they tried to show many things all at once.  It attempts to show different perspectives, including from physical and time changes, in one solid piece.

There are many different ways of depicting things such as movement and time in a still work of art, usually using symbols and mimicking natural cues recognized by the audience.  Literature describes it in letter symbols, demonstrating how humans use symbols to perceive things in their minds.  A human can ‘see’ a sunrise and ‘hear’ sounds in black letters on a white sheet of paper.  The Bayeux tapestry showed a series of figures and events along a long time line, which is similar to how cubists sometimes expressed movement and time.  A still painting or photo expresses movement by body and object position, cropping and effects such as blurriness and color changes.  Cartoons often use lines to express movement.  None of these show actual movement, but evoke it in the viewers’ minds.  Art perception is about imagination, and, in part, the audience looking at painting, sketch or snapshot just assume it is a snapshot in time.  There are countless other ways to depict and express movement, including by incorporating real movement: a mobile, play, the changing series of still images of motion picture film.

 

References:
Wikipedia articles on Boccioni, futurism, the sculpture

Metmuseum.org

Khan academy website

Tate museum website

Theartstory.org article on futurism