theguardian.com
Samson and Delilah" Authenticity Questioned: New Evidence Challenges Rubens Attribution
Art historian Euphrosyne Doxiadis argues that the National Gallery's "Samson and Delilah," purchased in 1980 for a record price, is a 20th-century copy, not a Rubens original, citing stylistic inconsistencies, historical evidence linking it to the Madrid art circle of Joaquín Sorolla, and a witness account contradicting the gallery's account of its backing.
- What are the broader implications of this case for art authentication practices, museum acquisitions, and the trust placed in established institutions?
- The controversy surrounding "Samson and Delilah" highlights the challenges of art authentication and the potential for misattribution. Doxiadis's findings, supported by AI analysis and historical evidence, raise significant questions about the acquisition practices of major institutions and the reliability of provenance. The potential impact is a reassessment of the gallery's collection and future authentication processes.
- How does the provenance of the painting, including the involvement of Gaston Lévy and the Madrid art circle, contribute to the doubts about its authenticity?
- Doxiadis's research connects stylistic discrepancies in "Samson and Delilah" to the practices of Joaquín Sorolla's Madrid art circle in the early 20th century. She posits that Gaston Lévy, a conservator connected to this circle, and his students may have created the painting as a copy of a lost Rubens original, explaining stylistic inconsistencies and the missing toes. This interpretation is supported by witness accounts and documentation.
- What specific stylistic inconsistencies and historical evidence challenge the attribution of the National Gallery's "Samson and Delilah" to Peter Paul Rubens?
- New evidence challenges the authenticity of the National Gallery's "Samson and Delilah," raising doubts about its attribution to Peter Paul Rubens. Art historian Euphrosyne Doxiadis will present a stylistic comparison in March, arguing that the painting lacks Rubens' characteristic brushstrokes and contains inconsistencies with his known works. This challenges the painting's authenticity and its acquisition history.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative strongly frames the story to support the argument against the painting's authenticity. The headline itself implies doubt, and the article consistently emphasizes Doxiadis's research and its implications, while minimizing the counterarguments. The inclusion of quotes such as Daley's description of Bosselaers' disclosure as "dynamite" further amplifies the negative portrayal. The article uses phrases like "dismissed as a 20th-century copy" and the book title "NG6461: The Fake National Gallery Rubens" to strongly suggest the painting is not authentic. The early mention of AI tests showing a 91% probability of inauthenticity further reinforces this narrative.
Language Bias
The article uses strong, loaded language to present Doxiadis's claims, describing the evidence against the painting as "dynamite" and characterizing the discrepancies in brushstrokes as "bad craftsmanship" and an "unacceptable fiasco." These choices evoke strong negative emotions towards the painting's authenticity. The repeated use of phrases that suggest the painting is a fake also enhances this bias. More neutral alternatives might include phrases like "significant stylistic differences" or "discrepancies in technique" instead of emotionally charged terms.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the arguments against the painting's authenticity, presenting Doxiadis's research extensively. However, it omits any direct response from the National Gallery or Christie's beyond their refusal to comment. This omission prevents the reader from accessing the opposing viewpoint and assessing the full range of evidence. The article also doesn't detail the specific stylistic comparisons made by Doxiadis, only summarizing her conclusions. While brevity is understandable, this lack of detail limits the reader's ability to independently evaluate her claims.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as a simple choice between the painting being an authentic Rubens and a 20th-century copy. It doesn't fully explore the possibility of other explanations, such as a work by a follower of Rubens or a collaborative effort.