An analysis of two paintings by the 15th-century Flemish artist Jan van Eyck in museums in the US and Italy raises a profound question: What if neither of them were Van Eyck’s?
St. Francis of Assisi Receiving the Stigmata, the name given to nearly identical unsigned paintings hanging in the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Royal Museum of Turin, representing two of the few surviving works of one of the greatest masters of Western art, distinguished for his naturalistic paintings and religious subjects.
The only problem is that neither version may actually be from his hand.
Scientific tests involving artificial intelligence on the paintings by Art Recognition, a Swiss company collaborating on research with Tilburg University in the Netherlands, have been unable to detect any of van Eyck’s brushstrokes. It concluded that the Philadelphia photo was “91% negative” and the Turin version was “86% negative”.
Til-Holger Borchert, one of the leading van Eyck scholars and director of the Suermundt-Ludwig-Museum in Aachen, said van Eyck’s findings support scholars who had suggested that both versions were studio paintings – produced in the artist’s workshop but not necessarily by him.
He said that, although he was “surprised” by the analysis, it raised further questions that needed to be addressed.
Dr Carina Popovici, chief executive of Art Recognition, said such high negative percentages for paintings were particularly dramatic. In contrast, another Van Eyck analysis – Arnolfini Portraitwhich is one of the most popular paintings in the National Gallery in London – said it had an 89% chance of being authentic.
She said she was also shocked by the findings: “I expected that, if one painting was negative, the other would be positive. But no, both turned out to be negative.”
She told the Guardian: “I’m guessing the Philadelphia and Turin museums won’t be happy. It’s not good news on these paintings.” The Philadelphia and Turin museums have been contacted for comment. Critics have argued that the condition of the painting and subsequent restoration can influence such AI-based brushstroke analysis.
Dr. Noah Charney, an art historian discussing his findings of early Philadelphia painting podcastdescribed Art Recognition’s previous analyzes as “remarkably accurate” and said that the negative results for both paintings were so surprising that intensive tests were conducted to confirm the results.
He said that he hoped that the Turin picture would be confirmed by van Eyck, and that the Philadelphia version would turn out to be a copy, whether from the artist’s workshop or later.
He said, “The negative results show that both of these pictures are studio work, which may mean that we have a lost original that was more completely created by van Eyck’s hand than these two.”
He said on his podcast, “If a work comes out of Van Eyck’s studio, it doesn’t mean that he really painted the surface level of all aspects of it.” “It’s a misconception that people get from this 19th-century idea that a solitary artist in a garret in Paris drank wine, smoked cigarettes, wore a beret and did every aspect of the work himself.”
Van Eyck is considered one of the pioneers of oil painting. Charney said, “(Van Eyck) didn’t invent oil painting, but he perfected it so well that it felt like everyone else had been working in his shadow for centuries.” “His surfaces sparkle with such fine light that you need a magnifying glass to take it all in. Every stone, hair, reflection and glow is presented with a kind of supernatural clarity.
“His ability to make the everyday shine is why many consider him not only a great painter, but one of the greatest observers of reality in all of Western art. And yet despite all his fame, Van Eyck’s surviving works of art are small: fewer than 20 paintings universally accepted as being by his own hand.”
The National Gallery in London is preparing to hold an exhibition of Van Eyck paintings in November.
In previous analyses, Art Recognition detected 40 counterfeit paintings being offered on eBay in 2024. In 2021 it also concluded that Rubens’ Samson and Delilah in the National Gallery was “91% negative”, supporting critics who had long suspected that it was painted by the 17th-century Flemish master.
