In Old Master auction catalogues, one regularly encounters wording such as: “We are grateful to X for confirming the attribution on the basis of a photograph.” Such a statement does not render the specialist’s opinion meaningless, but it does place limits on it. What exactly has the expert assessed, and what evidence remained beyond view?

With Old Masters, a single line in an auction catalogue can carry considerable weight. A recognised specialist has confirmed the attribution, on the basis of a photograph. For a prospective buyer, the first part may sound reassuring. The second may instead raise doubts. Does this mean the expert has never actually seen the painting in person? Quite often, the answer is indeed no.

That does not automatically mean that the opinion carries little value. Photography has been part of the connoisseur’s toolkit for generations. A specialist who knows hundreds of works by a painter and the artist’s circle can recognise a great deal in good photographs: compositional types, characteristic figures, handling of the brush, colour relationships, recurring motifs and connections with documented works.

But a photograph remains a reproduction. It shows what a painting looked like under particular photographic conditions. It does not automatically provide access to the painting as a physical object. That is precisely where the distinction lies.

Photography and connoisseurship are not opposites

Photographic reproductions have played an important role in the development of art-historical connoisseurship. Bernard Berenson, one of the most influential connoisseurs of Italian Renaissance painting, made extensive use of photography. His photographic archive at Villa I Tatti today contains approximately 300,000 prints and other photographic documents. The collection also documents Berenson’s working methods as a connoisseur, as well as changes in the provenance and restoration history of individual objects.[1]

The principle is straightforward. Anyone wishing to compare works located in Florence, London, Madrid and private collections needs reproductions. Photographs make systematic comparison possible on a scale that looking only at original works could never achieve.

Yet the history of connoisseurship also reveals the problem. A photograph makes comparison easier while simultaneously removing information. Scale, surface, transparency, relief, gloss, paint structure and even colour may be experienced differently from the original. A highly experienced specialist can therefore form a serious stylistic opinion from photographs. That does not make those photographs equivalent to physical inspection.

What does wording such as ‘confirmed on the basis of a photograph’ actually mean?

An expert who has seen only photographs may, for example, have concluded that the composition, figure types and manner of painting correspond with an artist’s oeuvre. This does not necessarily mean that the expert has personally established what the paint surface looks like under magnification, whether the construction of the panel is consistent, which restorations are present, or what infrared or X-ray examination might reveal. With Old Masters, that distinction is essential.

A painting consists of more than its visible image

Take a seventeenth-century panel that, in a professional photograph, looks convincingly like a work by Rembrandt, Jacob van Ruisdael or Jan Brueghel. What can the photograph show? Perhaps the handling of the brush is clearly visible. Perhaps craquelure, impasto and wear can be assessed to some extent. Detail photographs may allow the signature, hands, faces and passages of paint to be studied.

Other information, however, requires examination of the object itself. A conservator can examine a surface under magnification, follow the structure of the paint layer and attempt to distinguish between original paint, varnish, retouching and overpaint. Raking light can make differences in surface relief and deformation more apparent. Ultraviolet examination can reveal certain restorations. Infrared examination may show underdrawing or alterations to the composition.[2]

This does not mean that every painting requires all of these methods of analysis. It does mean, however, that an ordinary photograph provides only one category of information within a much broader spectrum of investigation.

Stylistic conviction is not the same as technical evidence

This distinction becomes especially important as soon as the question of authenticity arises. A panel may appear stylistically convincing and yet raise questions when physically examined. Conversely, a painting may look unimpressive in a mediocre photograph while examination of the original reveals qualities that disappeared in reproduction.

Technical examination can also answer different kinds of questions. Examination of the wood may help establish whether a support is chronologically compatible with a proposed date. Pigment or binding-medium analysis may identify materials that are, or are not, consistent with a particular historical period. Underdrawing can reveal similarities with documented workshop practices.

An old panel does not automatically make the painting on it old. A pigment available around 1650 does not prove that Rembrandt applied it. Nor is an old signature independent proof of authenticity. In a sound attribution study, art-historical documentation, connoisseurship and technical evidence are therefore considered together.

Sometimes an expert changes their opinion once the painting is seen in person

Once an expert has actually seen the painting, the opinion is sometimes revised. What is interesting about such cases is not that the first assessment was “wrong”. Rather, they demonstrate that the expert’s information base has changed.

This distinction played a role in a painting offered by Sotheby’s in 2008 as Attributed to Frans Hals. According to the catalogue, Hals specialist Seymour Slive had known the work only from a photograph and had cautiously considered it a copy after another portrait. Examination of the actual panel led to the conclusion that it was an independent painting.[3]

These are important examples because the experts involved are not inexperienced observers. Even leading connoisseurs may revise their opinions when new information becomes available. That is not a weakness of connoisseurship. Anyone who regularly follows auction catalogues will see that photographic assessments are by no means unusual.

Yet photographic attributions are used continually in the Old Master market

The wording used in such assessments deserves attention. Confirming and suggesting do not, in ordinary usage, express the same degree of endorsement. Collectors should nevertheless not assume that all experts, auction houses and individual artist markets apply a single universally standardised scale of certainty. Ideally, different levels of investigation can be distinguished clearly alongside one another: photographic connoisseurship, physical inspection and technical imaging.

Assessing condition from photographs is another matter

Attribution to an artist and assessment of condition are sometimes discussed in the same conversation, but methodologically they are different matters. A photograph can reveal many condition-related phenomena. Paint loss may be visible, cracks can be identified, a network of craquelure may be described, or an unevenly glossy surface may be observed. None of this amounts to a complete condition report.

For a collector, this distinction has practical importance. When a specialist says from a photograph that a painting “looks good”, that may be a useful first impression. It does not necessarily mean that it has been established whether the paint layer is stable, how much retouching is present, whether an old lining or cradle has structural implications, or to what extent the varnish has yellowed.

Not every photographic assessment is the same

The phrase “on the basis of photographs” is itself incomplete. Did the expert see professional photographs of the entire front and reverse? Were the colours calibrated? Was there reflection from the varnish? Was the painting photographed under glass? Were details recorded in daylight as well as under controlled artificial light? Did the expert also receive a technical report, provenance documentation and historical photographs?

Can an expert rule something out from a photograph?

Sometimes a photographic assessment can be surprisingly powerful. If a connoisseur immediately sees characteristics in an image that are fundamentally incompatible with the work of a particular artist, that may be sufficient to make further investigation seem unnecessary.

Something that clearly fails to convince in a photograph may sometimes provide sufficient reason to reject an attribution or to decide that further investigation is unlikely to be worthwhile. The reverse is less straightforward: the fact that something looks highly convincing in photographs does not prove that all of the material and art-historical evidence will also be consistent.

A reproduction cannot by itself rule out the presence of modern materials beneath a convincing surface. For that reason, “it looks right” is never the same as “it has been demonstrated to be authentic”.

What does a photographic expert opinion mean for market value?

In practice, the opinion of an authoritative specialist on a particular artist can be highly significant even when it has been given solely on the basis of photographs.

For certain artists, only a small number of specialists have opinions that carry substantial weight in cataloguing, marketability and acceptance within the market. Explicit support from a recognised specialist can therefore have commercial significance. The wording on the basis of a photograph, however, should remain part of that information.

For a serious buyer, at least four questions then become relevant: what exactly was the wording of the opinion, what documentation did the expert see, was the painting subsequently examined in person, and is there technical evidence that supports or complicates the opinion?

A photograph can provide a sound preliminary expert opinion, but it cannot replace physical examination

Assessing paintings from photographs also has a long tradition within connoisseurship and remains normal practice in the international Old Master market. A photographic expert opinion can carry serious art-historical weight, particularly when it comes from someone with exceptional knowledge of a specific artist’s oeuvre. It can support an attribution, open up a new line of research, or make clear that a supposed discovery is unlikely to be promising.

The expert has assessed a representation of the painting, not necessarily the complete physical object. With Old Masters, that limitation matters because it is precisely the combination of stylistic observation, examination of the object, provenance and technical evidence that can strengthen or weaken an attribution. A photograph can therefore be sufficient for a well-founded opinion.

The closer that opinion comes to a definitive statement about authorship, authenticity or condition, however, the more important it becomes to ask what information the expert was not able to see.

Do you have a particular interest in this artist or in this subject?

Do you follow this artist, or have you come across a work you would like to know more about? We regularly research works appearing on the market and are always happy to exchange views on quality, provenance, art-historical context and previous auction results. You can contact us directly via info@antonello.art.

Notes and sources

[1] Villa I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies, “Photograph Archives” and “Bernard and Mary Berenson”.

[2] Canadian Conservation Institute, “Condition Reporting – Paintings. Part II: Examination Techniques and a Checklist”, CCI Notes 10/7.

[3] Sotheby’s, Important Old Master Paintings including European Works of Art, 2008, lot 316, Attributed to Frans Hals. The catalogue states that Seymour Slive had cautiously considered the work a copy on the basis of photography, while later inspection of the panel led to a different interpretation.