AI analysis casts doubt on Van Eyck paintings in Italian and US museums | Art

A decades-old assumption about two paintings attributed to the 15th-century Flemish master Jan van Eyck is being challenged by new scientific analysis. The works, near-identical depictions of Saint Francis of Assisi Receiving the Stigmata, hang in the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Royal Museums of Turin and their authenticity is now in question.

The Question of Authorship

For years, these paintings have been considered important examples of Van Eyck’s artistry, representing his skill in both naturalistic portraiture and religious themes. However, a recent study utilizing artificial intelligence has cast doubt on this long-held belief. The analysis, conducted by Art Recognition, a Swiss company working with Tilburg University in the Netherlands, found no discernible evidence of Van Eyck’s brushstrokes in either painting.

The AI-driven analysis yielded striking results: a “91% negative” reading for the Philadelphia version and an “86% negative” reading for the Turin painting. This suggests a high probability that Van Eyck did not personally paint these works.

Studio Work or Lost Original?

Till-Holger Borchert, a leading Van Eyck scholar and director of the Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum in Aachen, suggests the findings support the idea that the paintings are “studio works.” This means they were likely created by artists within Van Eyck’s workshop, under his direction, but not necessarily by his own hand. He acknowledged being “surprised” by the analysis but emphasized the need for further investigation.

Dr. Carina Popovici, Art Recognition’s chief executive, noted the unusual nature of the results. She stated she “expected that, if one painting was negative, the other would be positive,” but both analyses came back negative. She also indicated that the Philadelphia and Turin museums “won’t be happy” with these findings.

What Happens Next?

The museums housing the paintings have been contacted for comment, and their responses could range from commissioning further research to re-evaluating the paintings’ attribution. The museums will seek additional expert opinions and conduct further scientific tests. A re-attribution of the works could impact their display and scholarly interpretation.

Art Recognition has a track record of identifying questionable artworks. In 2024, the company detected approximately 40 fake paintings being sold on eBay. They also previously determined that Rubens’ Samson and Delilah in the National Gallery was likely not painted by the artist himself.

The National Gallery in London is preparing an exhibition of Van Eyck portraits in November, which may provide a new context for understanding his work and the role of his studio.

Frequently Asked Questions

What method was used to question the paintings’ attribution?

Artificial intelligence was used to analyze the brushstrokes in the paintings. Art Recognition, a Swiss company, conducted the analysis and found a high percentage of negative results, indicating Van Eyck likely did not paint them.

What is a “studio work”?

According to Till-Holger Borchert, a studio work is a painting produced in an artist’s workshop, but not necessarily by the artist’s own hand. It suggests the work was created under the artist’s direction by assistants or apprentices.

Has Art Recognition identified questionable artworks before?

Yes, Art Recognition has previously identified approximately 40 fake paintings on eBay in 2024 and concluded in 2021 that Rubens’ Samson and Delilah was “91% negative,” meaning it was unlikely to be by Rubens.

As art historians and museums grapple with these new findings, will the understanding of artistic creation in the 15th century need to be revised to account for the collaborative nature of workshops like Van Eyck’s?