3.9 Article

The Art of Everyday Objects: A Non-Invasive In Situ Investigation of Materials and Techniques of Italian Pop Art Paintings on Aluminium

期刊

HERITAGE
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 42-60

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/heritage5010003

关键词

contemporary art; synthetic organic pigments; binders; non-invasive analyses; Raman spectroscopy; Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy; spectrofluorimetry; visible reflectance spectroscopy; IR reflectography; false colour IR; UV induced fluorescence; portable microscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the materials used by the artist Silvio Pasotti in two paintings made on aluminium support. Various molecular analysis techniques were employed to identify the pigments and binders used, and imaging techniques were used to gain a better understanding of the painting practice.
Two paintings, made on aluminium support by Silvio Pasotti (among the major exponents of 1960s Italian pop art) were investigated in a totally non-invasive manner to identify the materials used by the artist. Raman spectroscopy, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), visible reflectance spectroscopy, and spectrofluorimetry with visible excitation were exploited as molecular analysis techniques, which are particularly suitable to recognise also synthetic organic materials, such as pigments and binders. The effectiveness of this multi-analytical approach was demonstrated, leading to the identification of several synthetic organic pigments, both conventional and special effect ones, introduced during the first half of the 20th century, as well as some well-established inorganic ones. Combining FTIR results both in the medium and near IR ranges, considerations regarding the binders employed by the artist could also be made, suggesting the use of both nitrocellulose and acrylic paints. Imaging techniques, such as IR reflectography, false colour IR, UV induced fluorescence, and portable microscopy, were also used to achieve a better knowledge of the painting practice.

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

3.9
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