Moreover, the facts discovered always have to be controlled by reference to established standards. Structure revealed by microscopic examination must be compared with that of known substances; chemical and spectrographic analysis has to be checked by reference to a codified series of earlier tests; crackle on a surface can only be labelled as false if the nature of genuine crackle is known; and the reading of whatever is discovered by X-ray, ultra-violet, or infra-red rays calls for comparison with verified results of previous examinations. The facts yielded by one method of investigation may by themselves not be sufficient evidence of forgery; if, however, they can be joined with the results of other methods, all pointing in the same direction, a strong case can be built up. As in a court of law, this, rather than production of a single dramatic and decisive piece of evidence, is what usually happens.
It might be thought that the combination of expert and scientist would leave the forger with his occupation gone. On the contrary, he continues to flourish. In the face of the expert, he discards the clumsy copy and the inept certificate, utilizing the improved methods of photography and reproduction and the increasing flood of learned works, to help save him from anachronisms and inherent contradictions in his work. The scientist he meets either by concentrating in fields where scientific methods of inquiry are relatively helpless, or by himself going to school with the scientist. The results of recent scientific work have put at his disposal much knowledge of what to do, what to avoid, and how to baffle certain types of investigation. Moreover, he has even taken over certain procedures worked out by scientists, such as those for hastening the effect of time, and has applied them to his own problems; cases are known of forgeries having been submitted, through innocent hands, for scientific investigation, to find out whether they will survive the ordeal, and if not, what are the mistakes to be avoided in the future.
* * * * * * * *
One question is often asked in connection with forgeries: Why should a once-admired object be disregarded or condemned on being proved a forgery, seeing that it is still the same object? One reason is human snobbery; another, and more important, is that when an object is proved to be a forgery, it is to us no longer the same object that it was. After the discovery, human knowledge about the positive and negative qualities of the object has increased, and a new judgment has to be made upon it. Exactly the same thing happens with a genuine work. As familiarity with it grows, it becomes another thing to the spectator’s eyes and mind, and so it may rise or fall in his esteem. Conceivably, the characteristics which proclaim something to be a forgery might, when discovered, cause it to be more highly regarded; but that kind of forgery is not yet known, though it may perhaps exist.
W. G. CONSTABLE
William George Constable was born in Derby, England, in 1887 and educated at Cambridge University and the Slade School of the University of London. He was formerly Assistant Director of the National Gallery, London; Director of the Courtauld Institute (University of London); and Slade Professor of Fine Art at Cambridge University. Since 1938, he has been Curator of Paintings at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
The author of numerous books and magazine articles, Mr. Constable has devoted himself particularly to the study of English and Italian paintings and drawings. This is reflected in his more recent publications: Venetian Painting (1950); a monograph on the English artist Richard Wilson (1953); and The Painter’s Workshop (1954).
