4.5 Article

An analytical investigation of a wooden panel painting attributed to the workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder

期刊

JOURNAL OF CULTURAL HERITAGE
卷 55, 期 -, 页码 185-194

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2022.03.010

关键词

XRF; Imaging; Underdrawing; Wood microscopy; Radiocarbon; Lucas Cranach

资金

  1. National Center for Cultural Heritage Research [353/DF-I/2016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A multidisciplinary investigation was conducted on the painting believed to be by Lucas Cranach the Elder, revealing insights into the materials and techniques used, supporting the hypothesis of its origins in his workshop.
A multidisciplinary investigation was conducted on the painting Judith with the Head of Holofernes from about 1530, attributed to Lucas Cranach the Elder. The investigation started with a digital imaging approach using several techniques in the UV-VIS-IR range, as well as X-radiography. The imaging approach was combined with physico-chemical characterization of the wooden support and painting materials using various techniques such as micro-XRF spectrometry, optical microscopy (OM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and radiocarbon (C-14) dating. The imaging analysis revealed signs of degradation in the wooden support and in the paint layer along with some changes in the original composition of the painting. The elements detected by XRF suggested the presence of pigments typically found on paintings by Lucas Cranach such as lead white, lead-tin yellow, vermilion, iron oxides, azurite, carbon black, and bone black. Radiocarbon dating revealed that the painting was made on panel cut-out from the inner side of a tree that was over 100 years old when cut. The results supported the hypothesis that the painting under question was likely produced in the Workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder with consistent stylistic features and materials compatible with the estimated completion date 1530. (C) 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据