지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
We are used to relying on the knowledge and experience of art historians, curators, art dealers to tell a fake painting from an authentic one. However, there is a limit to this kind of judgment. The difference in their educational background, taste and opinion, and the fact that they rely solely upon “what is visible to the naked eye” can be sources of disagreement. What is hidden within the material of the work of art and the secrets of its execution remain unknown, making the object all the more permeable to false judgments.
X-ray, UV, Infrared are some of the devices used to aid the human eye in studying a work of art. These means are not yet applied in the field of examination for the determining of the authenticity of paintings although they are known not to affect much the materials. One of the reasons for this is that these devices are not quite well introduced to the field. Another reason could be the tradition of relying upon subjective assumptions. For instance, a work that is doubted by many to be a fake, could tum into an authentic work with the opinion of a so-called “expert.” Even if there is no immoral intention to this kind of statement, it would be preferable that there are other specific and objective arguments to support it.
There is actually increasing interest in the scientific analysis as a means of determining the authenticity of a work of art. However, the results of these scientific analyses cannot be taken as the absolute truth. The processes are often very complex and if the objective of the analytic study is not clearly understood, the scientist can actually come up with several completely different results with a single sample.
Scientific analysis can support the expense but can also be very dangerous if the reliance is absolute. Thus, we should bring in actively the devices using x-ray, UV, infrared in determining the authenticity of works of art. In the Occident, where the history expertise of works of art is longer, it is not difficult to see conclusions drawn based on basic means such as x-ray examinations. Firstly, the examination with the human eye accompanied by x-ray, UV, IR, and microscope examinations should be done. It is only after this that we should have recourse to scientific analysis in order to obtain more concrete and specific information.
X-ray, UV, Infrared are some of the devices used to aid the human eye in studying a work of art. These means are not yet applied in the field of examination for the determining of the authenticity of paintings although they are known not to affect much the materials. One of the reasons for this is that these devices are not quite well introduced to the field. Another reason could be the tradition of relying upon subjective assumptions. For instance, a work that is doubted by many to be a fake, could tum into an authentic work with the opinion of a so-called “expert.” Even if there is no immoral intention to this kind of statement, it would be preferable that there are other specific and objective arguments to support it.
There is actually increasing interest in the scientific analysis as a means of determining the authenticity of a work of art. However, the results of these scientific analyses cannot be taken as the absolute truth. The processes are often very complex and if the objective of the analytic study is not clearly understood, the scientist can actually come up with several completely different results with a single sample.
Scientific analysis can support the expense but can also be very dangerous if the reliance is absolute. Thus, we should bring in actively the devices using x-ray, UV, infrared in determining the authenticity of works of art. In the Occident, where the history expertise of works of art is longer, it is not difficult to see conclusions drawn based on basic means such as x-ray examinations. Firstly, the examination with the human eye accompanied by x-ray, UV, IR, and microscope examinations should be done. It is only after this that we should have recourse to scientific analysis in order to obtain more concrete and specific information.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 회화작품 조사방법
Ⅲ. 맺음말
참고문헌
Abstract
「회화의 진위 판정에 사용되는 조사방법 고찰」에 대한 질의
김현숙 선생님의 질의에 대한 답변
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
무용과 과학기술을 융합한 그룹 E.A.T.에 관한 연구
무용예술학연구
2019 .01
-
‘움직이는 조각’과 공연예술
서양미술사학회논문집
1990 .12
-
美術後援硏究의 方法論에 대한 小考
서양미술사학회논문집
1994 .12
-
미술과 공예 : 그 경계와 위상
미술사학
2007 .08
-
1950년대의 한국미술(1), 제1공화국 미술의 태동과 진통
미술사논단
2015 .06
-
Glocalization 시대의 현대미술
현대미술학 논문집
2006 .12
-
1980년 전후 유럽 내의 독일 미술 전시들, 무엇을 어떻게 무대에 올렸는가?
현대미술학 논문집
2007 .12
-
전통과 현대의 다리를 놓다 : 석남 이경성의 미술사 인식
한국근현대미술사학
2011 .12
-
1960년대 이후 한국 현대미술에 관한 사회학적 논의 : 브르디외(Pierre Bourdieu)의 ‘자본’ 개념을 활용한 사회구조적 분석
미술사연구
2009 .12
-
패션 브랜드의 진정성에 대한 한국 소비자의 인식과 진정성 결정요인의 영향
한국의류학회지
2016 .01
-
마르크 샤갈의 회화적 표현기법을 활용한 바디페인팅의 ART in ART디자인
한국인체미용예술학회지
2014 .01
-
한국 근현대 서양화 및 시각문화 연구사
한국근현대미술사학
2012 .12
-
예술과 경제
현대미술학 논문집
2009 .12
-
지역 미술과 권력
미술이론과 현장
2005 .01
-
미술가와 역사-미술사 교육의 한계와 전망
미술이론과 현장
2004 .01
-
스베트라나 앨퍼스에 대한 비평적 조망
현대미술사연구
2011 .12
-
The relationship between interactive installation art and traditional art
TECHART: Journal of Arts and Imaging Science
2019 .05
-
예술고등학교 무용교육에 관한 연구 －한ㆍ미 예술고등학교 무용 교육과정을 중심으로－
무용예술학연구
2003 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-650-017321063