The Photograph and the Connoisseur

Connoisseurship is done through extensive research and comparing individual pieces with one known to be from the attributed artist’s oeuvre. This is a difficult and often expensive task, because the connoisseur has to compare artworks by viewing one for which he takes extensive notes and then traveling, often internationally, to view the other. In this scenario the connoisseur conducts the comparison with nothing but a few notes and his memory. This is hardly a perfect system. When connoisseurs were relatively new they may have had access to a sketch or print copy of one or both works, but these were only as good as the copier was skilled and presented the copier’s interpretation of the work. The connoisseur had quite the task to complete. In the 1820’s his task seemed to become easier with the advent of modern photography.

Photography allowed connoisseurs to view and compare works together, under the same conditions, without the difficulties of travel, the deficiencies of memories, and the interference of a copier’s interpretation. This meant that the connoisseur could compare brushstrokes and make a more accurate comparison. However, this was not the case. Connoisseurs believed that they were making accurate comparisons, and thus their dedications were beyond doubt, but they soon realized they were still dependent upon the interpretation of the photograph and the quality of the image. The lighting, angle, and distance of the photograph can affect what the connoisseur sees and does not see. Photography is a deceptive aid. While it is more practical than travelling great distances to see two works separately, and more accurate then a drawn or printed copy, photography is still just a copy.

While photography does not provide accurate copies for traditional connoisseur methods, these copies are useful for non-traditional comparison methods. An example of a non-traditional method is discussed in the article “Fractal expressionism.” Through the use of photography the abstract paintings of Jackson Pollock were analyzed. A computer grid was placed over a scanned photograph to analyze the dispersal pattern of paint in Pollock’s works. Through this method a pattern was discovered that could not have been proven without the use of photography. This pattern can now be used to determine the authenticity of paintings attributed to Jackson Pollock.


A primary task of the connoisseur is to judge the authenticity of an
As photographic technology has developed the role of photography in connoisseurship has expanded. Since the birth of modern photography art has been studied through photographs. While the majority of people experience artworks solely through photographs, professional connoisseurs recognize the limitations of a photo and prefer to see the artwork in person and then use a photograph in addition to notes to aid their memories. In this fashion, photography will continue to be used by connoisseurs. It will also be used in conjunction with science to find new tools for authenticating artwork. The photograph is welcome to stay, but only as an advisory tool. It will not be used as the primary source for comparison.

3 Types of Prints

The three major categories of printmaking techniques are Relief, Intaglio, and Lithographic.

The oldest known printed book, the Diamond Sutra from China, was made from relief prints. It is currently held in the British Library. Relief is the oldest printmaking category and has undergone many adaptations creating multiple techniques including but not limited to: woodcut, wood engraving, photoengraving, mezzotint, anastatic printing, stipple engraving, and linocut. Relief printing developed separately in ancient times in China and Egypt. When working in relief artists remove the areas of the matrix that will not be printed. This leaves the lines and “image” to be printed on the surface plane, while the “white” space, or area that is not going to be printed below the surface plane. The surface of the matrix is then coated in an even layer of ink, and then pressed onto paper or linen. This process does not require large amounts of pressure to create a print.

Intaglio prints are made from matrixes similar to relief prints, however the area to be printed is carved out of the surface. This leaves the “white” area of the print on the surface and the “colored” area depressed. In the printing process ink is pressed into the plate and then wiped off of the surface of the matrix. This process is typically done with a printing press to ensure that high, even pressure is placed on the matrix. The press pushes the paper into the inked crevices. The pressure creates an outline or indentation in the paper along the edge of the matrix. This technique was invented in the 1430’s. Intaglio prints were used to create multiple copies of books and art before the advancement of photography and the digital age. Intaglio prints are still used today, though they are less fashionable. An example of a recent intaglio print can be found at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Roger Vieillard’s 1963 Horse. The print clearly shows how the depth of a carved line in the Matrix effects the resulting shade and clarity of the print. The cactus in the image is carved deeper than any other line, making it pop out on the page.

Lithographic prints are made from a smooth porous stone or plate. The image is made with a grease pencil on the surface of the stone. The stone is then wetted, which will stop the oil-based ink from adhering to the stone when spread across the surface for printing. This technique is the only one that will produce a printed image that is in the same direction as the original. The other techniques produce mirrored reflections. This technique was invented in 1796 by Alois Senefelder and became popular in the early 19th century. Artists such as Manet, Redon, and Goya composed lithographic prints during this time. The MoMA currently has Redon’s L’Oeil comme un ballon bizarre se dirige vers l’infini from 1882. The piece is an excellent example of the shades of gray in a lithographic artist’s repertoire as well as the detail and clear lines possible with this technique.

Loot: The Battle Over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World

“They were made by other civilizations and found in Turkey. It’s the heritage of all humanity, the heritage of the whole world. This land belongs to us, but what we find under the soil, if we can’t look after it, maybe other people should.” –Mr. Kazim Akbiyikoglu

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the above statement, Sharon Waxman’s book, Loot: the Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World will facilitate an understanding of the points of view about repatriation. Sharon Waxman attempts to accurately depict the multitude of opinions concerning repatriation. Whether or not she has been successful is debatable, but Loot definitely hits close to the mark. Waxman focuses her efforts on four countries: Egypt, Turkey, Greece, and Italy. All four of these have had objects repatriated to them from major Western museums, such as the Museé du Louvre, the British Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the J. Paul Getty Museum. By focusing on these four countries, Waxman provides a balanced array of opinions pertaining to repatriation, a hot topic in today’s art world as museums and collectors are forced, for the first time, to answer to countries of origin for questionable past collection policies.



These origin countries want the return of the art of past civilizations which has been removed from their country under questionable circumstances. They argue that the art of ancient civilizations, such as Egypt, is their heritage first, before the heritage of western civilization and the world. Museums that are currently in possession of such objects argue that these pieces belong to the whole world and should be housed where the most people will have access to them. These museums frequently try to support the actions of the past by arguing that modern day inhabitants of these ancient sites are not direct descendants of the civilizations that created the art and therefore lack understanding and appreciation for the artifacts in question. The local inhabitants are portrayed as current inhabitants of the land who see ancient art as a price tag and perpetuate the looting of priceless art. Waxman present these two conflicting points of view and the variances in between without showing her personal opinion.

In Loot, Sharon Waxman approaches repatriation as a veteran journalist. She wrote for the Washington Post for ten years, reporting on Middle Eastern and European politics and culture. She went on to be a New York Times cultural correspondent, primarily focusing on Hollywood. Prior to her journalism career, she received a Master’s from Oxford University in Middle East Studies. Waxman’s approach to researching repatriation reflects her background in journalism because it was primarily focused on collecting first person narratives. She used literary sources to gather an understanding of the history of the four countries presented, but the information regarding present day situations stems from the interviews she conducted. The individuals interviewed were impressive and abundant. Interviewees include current museum staff, past museum staff, national cultural directors, law enforcement, art smugglers, and community members. Waxman provides her readers with the uncommon opportunity to see a panoramic view of repatriation that includes the perspectives of people who have had first hand experiences with repatriation. These experiences are often conveyed in their own words.

These interviews allow her to present the various perspectives held by individuals as well as the different approaches to achieving repatriation used by the four countries she focuses on. Egypt, Turkey, Greece, and Italy follow strategies with various levels of aggression. According to Waxman, Egypt’s strategy has been directed by Zahi Hawass, the secretary-general of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities. Hawass has proved to be a formable figure for museums to contend with. He prefers to use the media to grab the public’s attention and support. This is an unconventional approach that is typically looked down upon by museum professionals who believe these issues should be solved through direct communication with the museum. He often surprises people with his candor and spontaneous outbursts in situations when the media is present. While he is often over the top, it has proven to be an effective technique. Today every museum with an Egyptian collection knows his name and is weary of his attention.



Turkey’s approach has traditionally been subtler than Egypt’s. Waxman focuses on the return of the Lydian Hoard to Turkey from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City to show Turkey’s approach. In this example, repatriation was the result of the hard work of civilians with sparse support from the government. While the government has recently increased its role in repatriation, the return of the Lydian Hoard was the result of one journalist’s persistent effort. Waxman presents this example by showing how the Lydian Hoard originally left Turkey as the result of greed and a lack of understanding and respect by the local community. Even after its return, the Lydian Hoard was not safe from greedy hands and the prize piece of the collection was stolen from the museum. Today Turkey’s museums are underfunded and lack security, space and qualified personnel.



Greece has approached repatriation by individually tackling the arguments used against them. The primary example that Waxman uses is the Elgin Marbles held in the British museum. One argument the British Museum has used in the debate over where the marbles belong is that Greece lacked a place where the marbles could be properly cared for and shared with the public. However, this is no longer the case. A new Acropolis museum that meets these provisions is scheduled to open in the summer of 2009. Whether the marbles return to stand in this new facility is yet to be determined. In Greece’s effort to have the Elgin marbles and other artifacts returned, they have attempted to meet the standards of the international museum community and use international laws to support their claims.



Italy has traditionally ignored the use of investigation and law. The primary example Waxman provides is the Italian government’s interaction with the J. Paul Getty museum. In this situation, the Italian government collected evidence that many of the objects held in the Getty’s antiquities department were illegally exported from Italy. Italy pressured the Getty into returning these objects by threatening legal action. Italy eventually followed through on its threat and filed charges against one of the museum’s curators, Marion True. This seems to have worked as a large portion of the requested artifacts have been shipped to Italy, while other objects are awaiting the result of continuing negotiations.



Loot is an engaging read as one is welcomed into a world of intrigue. Waxman is able to show why repatriation is an important and highly debated issue. Whether or not the reader is familiar with the world of museums, they will enjoy the time spent within the pages and go away with new knowledge on the subject. Because of Waxman’s talent as a writer and knowledge of the subject, the reader is able to understand the different and often contradicting perspectives of individuals, institutions, and countries involved.