Pollock Positive?
March 2007
CAMBRIDGE, MASS.—The results are in concerning the analyses of paintings discovered in
2002 and attributed to Jackson Pollock. Three paintings from among 32 discovered by Alex Matter (A&A Update, Summer 2005), son of Pollock’s friend and photographer Herbert Matter, were subjected to a barrage of tests at Harvard University Art Museums’ Straus Center for Conservation, including carbon dating, electron microscopic and spectroscopic examinations. “We tried to use as many analytical procedures as possible, so we could compare and cross-check the results,” says senior conservation scientist Narayan Khandekar. “Some tests were good at looking at pigment, and some were good looking at the media.”
During the study (from September 2006 to December 2006), it was determined that while two of the boards used were consistent with pre-1955 materials, several pigments, as well as materials used in each painting were not available prior to 1950 (the paintings are thought to have been created from 1946 to 1949 using Robi paints, possibly referring to Herbert’s brother-in-law, Robi Rebetez from Switzerland). Some of the pigments tested were not available until after Pollock’s death in 1956, while yet others were not available until after Herbert Matter’s death in 1984. “In ‘No. 9,’ the black pigment was not available until 1962,” Khandekar explains. “So, you would have to also subtract everything placed on top of that pigment.” Test results on the brown pigment used in “No. 29,” which was severely damaged prior to testing, showed the paint is a Ciba-Geigy pigment that wasn’t used as an artist’s paint until 1996.
Alex Matter, in a release on www.pollockexhibit.com, says that the paintings were so heavily restored that the test results of some pigments should not be included. He cites independent experts that question the project, explaining “varnish could have contaminated test results.” Khandekar says his research team considered all this. “We interviewed the restorer and took into account what he used,” he says. “We are absolutely sure that what we were looking at was part of the original painting. The varnish has no effect on pigment analysis.”
For more Information www.artmuseums.harvard.edu |
During the study (from September 2006 to December 2006), it was determined that while two of the boards used were consistent with pre-1955 materials, several pigments, as well as materials used in each painting were not available prior to 1950 (the paintings are thought to have been created from 1946 to 1949 using Robi paints, possibly referring to Herbert’s brother-in-law, Robi Rebetez from Switzerland). Some of the pigments tested were not available until after Pollock’s death in 1956, while yet others were not available until after Herbert Matter’s death in 1984. “In ‘No. 9,’ the black pigment was not available until 1962,” Khandekar explains. “So, you would have to also subtract everything placed on top of that pigment.” Test results on the brown pigment used in “No. 29,” which was severely damaged prior to testing, showed the paint is a Ciba-Geigy pigment that wasn’t used as an artist’s paint until 1996.
Alex Matter, in a release on www.pollockexhibit.com, says that the paintings were so heavily restored that the test results of some pigments should not be included. He cites independent experts that question the project, explaining “varnish could have contaminated test results.” Khandekar says his research team considered all this. “We interviewed the restorer and took into account what he used,” he says. “We are absolutely sure that what we were looking at was part of the original painting. The varnish has no effect on pigment analysis.”
email this article
print this article
digg this
del.icio.us
RSS