Science, Art & Deception of the Mind

In his investigative report with the title "The mark of a masterpiece" published July 12, 2010, in The New Yorker, David Grann informs us about the novel use of methods adopted from forensic science to authenticate works of art. Deception seems intricately interwoven with art. Grann's fascinating story informs us about the scientific method and the power of deceit. It tells us about people who become vulnerable to deception and exploitation on their quest for affirmation of their believe because of pride, ego and money. Establishing the provenance of a masterpiece mainly relies on the subjective expertise to date. However, the desire to discover a new masterpiece by a fabled artist may obfuscate judgment and reason. Definitive objective prove is, therefore, highly sought after.

David Grann portrays the art expert Peter Paul Biro. Biro gained distinction in the world of art for using cutting-edge scientific methods to successfully identify fingerprints of famed masters like Turner, Pollock and Leonardo on hitherto-unknown paintings and drawings. He employs spectral microscopy and computer-supported image analysis to derive his conclusions.

We tend to believe that we are able to establish veracity beyond any doubt with hard data produced by objective machines that do not posses vested interests in the outcome of the examination. However, as David Grann's investigation elegantly reveals, the interpretation of the data may entirely lie in the hands of the investigator. He takes sole responsibility of deciding whether the evidence is sufficient to prove the identity of the fingerprint in question.

Because of our fallibility, more than one expert commonly shoulder such decisions. Peter Paul Biro states that he developed his own imaging equipment, which is one of a kind. No other expert could be asked to verify his findings because they lack the experience with the revolutionary methods he devised. The burden of prove rests with him alone.

This situation puts Biro in a unique position of extraordinary responsibility. The scientific method insists on the reproducibility of findings, preferably by independent examination. Additional verification with different methods may be necessary. Peter Paul Biro is intending to use DNA profiles from hair samples for this purpose. As the only expert in his method, he must know that his career and future depend on his truthfulness. Any scientist's credibility is intimately linked to her/his integrity. Deliberate misrepresentation of evidence is a serious offense, destroying the most highly-respected reputation.

Addenda

• Anyone versed in fluorescence or confocal microscopy could quickly learn how to image fingerprints. You may not even need a microscope. The detective in the video uses a magnifying glass to examine them. A CCD camera with a macrolense on a solid stand will suffice. A a high-quality light source and fiber optics are needed to produce sufficient illumination of the specimen as well as light filters for the wavelengths at which the images need to be captured. For storage and processing we need a computer with frame grabber and software.  In total, the equipment may not cost more than $100,000.-. The software for the described image treatment, that is background correction and subtraction, contrast enhancement and erosion to lay bare patterns, alignment and overlay of images as well as subsequent differentiation can be achieved with Wayne Rasband's ImageJ. The application is java-based freeware and can be downloaded from Wayne's National Institutes of Health site. The site also provides helpful information on equipment. For statistical analysis, we could quantify the number of picture elements, also known as pixels, in which the compared fingerprints overlap and use pixel-by-pixel paired t-tests to assess statistical significance as measures of identity. According to Grann, Biro charges $1,000.- per day for his qualitative analyses of fingerprints. His judgment must account for most of the cost (07/22/10).
• Bryony Jones reports in her post with the title "Museum discovers 'new' painting" published online by CNN on Mar. 23, 2012, on an excellent example demonstrating how improved X-ray spectrography helped authenticate a Van Gogh painting previously attributed to an imitator. The painting depicts a still-life of summer flowers exhibited in the Kröller-Müller Museum in Otterlo, the Netherlands. It had been examined with less powerful X-ray methods before, and it was known that there was another composition underneath. Using the new imaging method, experts unambiguously uncovered under the still-life two wrestlers entangled in a match known to have been painted by the famous painter. In addition, the method confirmed that the pigments in the paints were consistent with those used by Van Gogh at the time. Modern technology correctly applied helps (03/24/2012).
  
• On rare occasions, identification seems straight-forward. The proud new owner of this Renoir rediscovered comments: “One man's trash is another (wo)man's treasure!” (09/12/2012):

Related Posts

• Leonardo's View

Method, Mind & Spirit

Today, we commemorate the 200^th birthday of Charles Robert Darwin. On Feb. 9, The New York Times published a collection of articles to celebrate this occasion and the 150^th anniversary of the publication of his most influential work entitled "On the Origin of Species". On Feb. 11 and Feb. 12, National Public Radio's Morning Edition devoted segments of almost eight minutes to Darwin's work and life.

Confronted with forms of life on the Galapagos Islandsthat seemed in shape related, yet diverse, Charles Darwin concluded that two rules best explain his observations.

Variation: The first rule required that each creature contained the information for its species' blueprint known as Bauplan to German scholars. The blueprints needed to be permanent, passed down to a great extent conserved through the generations. This permanence would achieve the regularity of Bauplan observed within a species. Yet, the blueprints needed to be mutable, allowing variation of form such that the species may be resistant against or take advantage of emerging novel conditions in its environment.

Selection: The second rule stipulated that the variations of Bauplan within a species would guarantee that the best adapted form survived, procreated, and eventually evolved into an entirely new species.

Applying the two rules in due diligence on the material he collected, Darwin was able to construct a tree of life. Darwin's Theory of Evolution was born.

Darwin provided us with hypotheses that could be tested with comparisons of the fossil record of past life forms, in as much as they were open to experimentation in laboratories as well as in contemporary natural environments. We have gained enormous insights from these studies into the fashion with which life may fit into the history of our planet and the history of the universe. His theory of evolution helps us to explain where we are coming from and where we may go to, using the scientific method.

The scientific method constitutes a natural extension of our innate playfulness and curiosity. Our mind is very sensitive to the extraordinary. It bothers us. We immediately wonder why things seem different, and thus we experiment unrelentingly with cause to unravel the mystery of effect, until we arrive at satisfactory explanations. Without this gift, we would not be here today. The scientific method requires that cause and effect are reproducible, that experimental conditions can be adjusted to influence results in a predictable way, and eventually that any theory emerging from experimentation is mutable, that it can be replaced with an improved theory, if our assumptions prove irreconcilable with our observations.

By contrast, faith is unrestrained, boundless, free from experimentation. Faith, thus, constitutes a complement to the scientific method. Hence, attempts at setting articles of faith against the scientific method are bound to end in futility.

Addenda

• The Economist provides an interesting statistic in an article on today's acceptance of Darwin's ideas on Feb. 5.
• The Tennessean's Bob Smietana posted an insightful article entitled "Darwin still Divides Believers in the Bible" on the possible reconciliation of Darwin's theory and faith on Feb. 14. The comments are of note.

The trip with which the journey began:

Why Scientists like Artists

It is often said that Nashvillians possess two lives. One is spent on a day job to make a living. The other unfolds during the off hours, when we pursue our musical aspirations. If the music works out, we will quit our day job. I was once privileged to meet someone who was about to make this lucky transition. She was recording her first CD. Because I had never witnessed a recording session, I asked her whether I could not tag along to experience what it was like. She graciously agreed, and I ended up visiting a recording studio.

It was different from what I had expected. The location was somewhere in the countryside a forty-minute drive from Nashville. The producer worked out of his basement. Below the keyboards and mixers, I saw plenty computer equipment. The music could be heavily computer-generated. Essentially, this man was able to produce the sounds of all instruments in a band by himself, except the steel guitar. I was told that this was one rare instrument whose sound could not be synthesized to satisfaction yet. On my day, the soundtrack for the steel guitar was recorded. After that my friend sang. She was cooped up in a sound-insulated booth that doubled as the closet for the washer and the drier on other days. All afternoon, my friend repeated the same line until her voice almost broke and she needed a lolly pop to continue singing.

The producer was working with a man who possessed the golden finger that came down on a button exactly at the point in time when the line had to be spliced into the song. My friend had to sing the line precisely the way the man with the golden finger demanded. What he asked for was so nuanced, I could hardly hear the difference. He was profoundly insistent and perfectionist about the process. My friend gave her best to deliver. After three hours, I myself imagined hearing what the man with the golden finger was aiming at. The day went by like a breeze. My friend told me afterwards that she had spent many weeks like this and was not quite finished yet. Her hard work eventually paid off with a collection of beautiful songs, opening the way into the Bluebird Cafe. In Nashville, music means business!

I am not musically versed in any respect. I am a research scientist. What struck me most about the production process was its similarity to the work I know. The beginning of any research study is an idea, that is the hypothesis. The scientist shapes the hypothesis and designs the experiments to prove or disprove it. The results provide new insights. Things may turn out different from expectation. The hypothesis will change and experimentation proceeds until a break-through is achieved.

Watching my friend at work that day, I learned that making a song adheres to the same procedure. The singer/songwriters and producers shape the tune and the lyrics of the song until they fit perfectly together and all aspects fall in place. Eventually a new song is born. In this process as much as in scientific research, experience is essential for the design of a flawless product, pure and free of contradiction. As many scientists teach, my friend became a councilor. She published a collection of interviews with successful singer/songwriters, giving advice to those who wish to pursue this career. Today, she coaches young talent to get started. You may visit her here.

Addenda

• When we listen to Bob Boilen's segment on NPR's All Things Considered entitled "Moby: One Song, Two Days, Three Versions" broadcast today, we grasp immediately that artists and scientists are striving in the same fashion to perfect a product shaped countless times in their imagination. In that sense humans seem unique. No other creature we know is able to accomplish such act of creation (05/04/10).

• It is fascinating how similar the creative process in the arts and the sciences can be. The eminent pharmacologist Otto Loewi had the idea for the experiment that would prove the existence of neurotransmitters and win him the Nobel Prize in his dreams. Keith Richards had the fundamental idea for "I can't get no satisfaction", one of The Rolling Stones' signature songs, in his dreams as well. Loewy needed to scribble notes down on a pad that he had placed on his bed stand. He had had the dream of the experiment on a prior night, but had nothing to write it down with at that time, and forgotten the details when he awoke. When the dream re-occurred, he was prepared with pad and pencil, finding his notes next morning. Richards habitually took his guitar hooked up to a tape recorder to bed and woke up one morning, finding the basic tune for the fabled Stones song recorded on the tape. Listen to this, at times mildly strained, interview with Terry Gross broadcast on National Public Radio's Fresh Air under the title "The Rolling Stones' Keith Richards Looks Back At 'Life'" today in context with Richard's just-published memoir entitled "Life" (10/25/10).