The Economist takes a look at the scientific tools available to museums and through forensic firms like Cranfield Forensic Institute (CFI). One of the main questions is why the art market is so resistant to employing technology to provide the kind of information that it often believes can only come from recondite connoiseurship:
Importantly, the availability of technology is limited. The number of experts is small; the cost of equipment and staff to analyse output is high. Some big museums can afford high-tech laboratories of their own to analyse their collections. Private owners, dealers and auction houses must employ the few laboratories like CFI that do commercial work. Fees depend on the time involved. This means that except when sentiment outweighs prudence, customers are more likely to bring CFI a piece valued at £300,000 than one worth £3,000, even if the time needed is as little as a day. The use of artificial intelligence will no doubt provide more insight in future. Indeed, Robert Erdmann, chief scientist at the Rijksmuseum has started work on “21st Century Connoisseurship”, a Machine Learning project that seeks to bring together existing technologies in one “supertool”.
Is art-connoisseur yet another job threatened by technology? (The Economist)
More from Art Market Monitor
Robert Frank Is Worried About the Art Market
Sotheby’s Brings AI Portraiture Work to Contemporary Day Sale in March
Artelligence for October 31, 2017
de Vries Bacchic Figure Makes $27m at Christie’s
Sotheby’s Increases Auction Commission Margin in Q1
Forensic Accoutant Testifies Knoedler Depended Upon Fakes for Profits
