Amazing,.... four years have now past since this article in review was put up by myself, and the worlds MFA markets are still remaining stupid and ignorant, while using the same old ways of determining who had done what when it comes to what the masters of fine art has actually done.
Vanrijngo's Bravejournal Exclusive.
January 16th 2005
By Robert J. Miller
IT’S NOW BECOMING THE SHOWROOM for International art forgery schemes by "Exclusive Art Group", expressively one from Manhattan in New York in the news today, and seemingly to me a lot more around the world. With the amount of copied supposed masterful works of art which is available for purchase throughout the worlds fine auction houses, the question of authentic remains the big question. The search for these dishonest gallery owners and office managers, of such schemes where they would initially start from authentic works of art and would then hire supposed talented artists who could make fairly good renditions from looking at the original works working up close, is a ongoing battle in this world of deceit. It is totally amazing to me how these people think that they can get away with such things now that technologies are catching up and in my own oppinion has already caught up. It will make it much more difficult if it is even possible to continue these type of art scams with the use of these qualities. It also seems to me that the most important of these qualities is not the art work itself, but the forged documents of the provenances, certificates of identity, and reproducing of details of markings on the back of the canvas and frames. This I feel is more damning evidence for experts today to allow this scam to work. Who knows for sure that they hadn't made copies of earlier copies with the same king of provenance and certificates that they themselves had made. There are very few technologies that undergo overnight changes but that is what 's happening today in computer sciences and scanning programs after September 11, 2001.
Specifically, I think what is happening due to all the controversies and misguiding, the amount of confusion concerning the art market and foundations trying to determine who had done what, mandates some kind of identifier of many new procedures in confirming works of art. Most all art experts are reluctant to except some of these new scientific technologies, for example, they claim only their own expertise of hands on intuitive inspections should exceed over all other testing, all the while they require provenance and certificates of identifications on every piece of art work which they are willing to attach their own name to and it has to coincide with the decisions of the foundations administrators. That by itself creates the need to identify several thousand if not millions of works of art now in question and sitting limbo in art collections around this world.
As I have been told before by an expert of van Gogh's forgeries, that the "Automatic NO" will remain the rule of authenticating anything for anyone without provenance and certificates of authenticity, unless it is something which belongs to them. Legislative mandates for things like this have in the past been left up to the “trusted art experts” using identification processes that is now in use and which has been in existence for way to long as far as I am concerned. Concerning these allegations as far as the investor sector, the potential buyers, it looks like a business ready to explode, only in the wrong way.
While venturing capitalists are sniffing around, and some big names I'd think like Motorola, Fujitsu, Sony, Panasonic, most I believe should or are getting prepared to get involved one way or another. The computer science and scanning market is still in a curious state of anticipation. Different groups of academic Institutes and testing, along with coalitions of other institutions are all getting involved in various kinds of ways, whether it be new hardware and software, what will work best for everything from passports to drivers’ licenses and national ID, seemingly leaving the art thing to the ones who happen to be in charge at the present time. As far as I am concerned, I feel personally that fine arts should have priority and an early preference for this type of testing for the amount of money which will be lost in the future by the owners of art work previously purchased and what is already being lost at this same time by art investors. At the same time, civil liberties groups and privacy advocates are urging caution for our loss of privacy. Regardless, at some point in the next year or so, some monster-sized contracts are more than likely going to be awarded to some big corporations, and I figure a lot of prominent people are going to run and hide so as to escape prosecution and reprisals for their own actions.
So what kinds of biometrics will be used by the mid-decade of this new century? Most likely options will be a scanner, able to do such things as the iris scanner which will be able to read the brush stroke of each and every artist to a % and degree of accuracy . Scanning recognition should be the most important technology used in art verification which is developing right now in many educational institutes, but with various competing methods for scanning. The idiosyncrasies of each and every artist scanned can and most likely will be used in finding out who the true artists might happened to have been. Fingerprint biometrics are already used to check welfare eligibility in a few states such as California and Texas. Some governments such as Hong Kong, the Philippines, Argentina are creating national ID program using similar technology. It has been said quite a few of the Fortune 500 companies are already using some form of fingerprint scanning for network or PC access around the world.
Hand scans, where a person puts his whole hand on a flat plate are newer and not assumed as accurate as fingerprints. People who don’t want their fingerprints taken l believe are the ones who have some unsavory personal history and are reluctant to any type of hand-scans also, though they may be in jeopardy of loosing their positions for the recommendation of this technology. In any event, Israel uses hand-scans in trusted traveler kiosks at Ben Gurion International, and at Disney World your hand identifies you as a season pass holder.
Iris scans and retinal scans looks at the patterns in the colored part of your eye and also on the inside rear of your eyeball, which means you have to stick your eye right up close to a lens while they’re used primarily in extreme high security situations, for instance nuclear power plants. Thus, iris scans can be done from six inches to a foot away. You just look into a camera while a computerized voice tells you to move left or right, which ever is necessary. In scanning the idiosyncrasies of a artist, paints used, brush strokes, dating of the canvas weave, and all the rest needed to be looked at, there will be no more denying of who the artist was or happened to have been if they have other true works of the artist's to compare to. Forging artist's be aware, for you just might find yourself in jail or prison just for trying to make someone else rich for yourself just making wages.
Facial recognition is another of the newest and oldest biometrics. Oldest, because when someone compares the picture on your driver’s license with your face, that’s human-powered biometrics, and as most know, not always that easy as far as recognizing the person if you look at your own drivers license. As far as newest is because computers are now getting smart enough to do it themselves. While facial scanning is expensive with one big attraction for some agencies that is, thanks to pictured drivers licenses and passports, almost everyone is on file somewhere which can be scanned into a recognition data base. The downside is that it’s more accurate if it is the same machine that’s to recognize you does the scan in the beginning or first place.
"Of course, this type of new data makes no difference if it can be fooled.' This is exactly what I myself is getting at, the scanner along with computer science will not lie,.... it has no use for money. ' Toward that end, biometrics manufacturers are now devoting far more research and resources in defeating frauds and spoofs. It’s terribly hard, but one can still fool some programs with homemade materials,” says Nanavati. “You don’t need an FBI lab to do it.” I say myself with the use of this technical science, no one will have the balls to try it.
In the next few years of biometrics programs and progress will unfolding of legal and social issues. Everyone from the ACLU and Congress to Microsoft, the INS and every drivers’ license bureau in the country has definite thoughts on how all this should proceed. In the end, an even bigger issue than how we are identified is how the information will be used: for example, will all of the states’ driver license bureaus be able to share information, creating what some see as a de facto national ID card?
But that, in some ways, is putting the cart ahead of the horse: at present there aren’t even accepted standards for how biometric data is recorded and transmitted. “Standards haven’t matured as they might naturally in a gradually growing market,” says Nanavati. “The legislation can’t require standards if they don’t exist.” In the meantime, standing amidst hundreds of biometric devices, Nanavati clearly has his work cut out for him. He ends the discussion in order to go interview a job candidate: in the midst of the tech downturn, his 30-person firm is looking to hire an additional 10 researchers immediately.