How Science found Mona Lisa’s Pearl Necklace: The evolution of scientific involvement in art history from the nineteenth century to the twenty-first century Julia Ilana Eckstein Honors Thesis for Science, Technology and Society University of Pennsylvania December 2012 Jonathan D. Moreno, Ph.D. 1 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Jonathan D. Moreno, University of Pennsylvania David and Lyn Silfen Professor, for his guidance and support in my pursuit of this topic. His enthusiasm and curiosity inspired me in my research and writing. In addition, I would like to thank the University of Pennsylvania Science, Technology and Society Department for introducing me to subjects that have truly shaped my undergraduate academic experience. This project would not have been possible without the unwavering encouragement from my parents who shared their love of art and its history with me from a very young age. I would also like to thank my brother who has continuously confirmed that interests in the hard sciences and the arts are not mutually exclusive. 2 Abstract Today, academic disciplines often collaborate as a means of achieving profound intellectual truths. Twenty-first century art history exhibits this method of research in its mobilization of chemistry, astronomy, and physics to investigate artworks. However, the beginning of art history as an institution in the eighteenth century established the field as an elite and exclusive area of study. The same was true of traditional sciences. It was not until museums were built and society attributed cultural importance to artworks that the art world acknowledged the possibility of scientific contributions, especially in the context of conservation. International political turmoil during World War I and World War II accelerated this shift in perspective as cultural objects stored in museums needed protection from destruction. Securing museums and ensuring paintings and sculptures were properly stored and restored led to the introduction of conservation science, museum laboratories, and innovative scientific techniques. Chemical analysis formed the foundation of conservation science; however, with the development and commercialization of infrared photography following World War I, astronomers and scientists realized that using this radiation to analyze paintings would reveal critical aspects of the layers beneath a work’s visible surface. This realization made infrared technology a revolutionary tool in art examination. It also suggested that art historians and scientists were not so different in their research methods and academic curiosities. Consequently, contemporary international networks in art and astronomy pursue similar goals: preservation and progress. 3 INTRODUCTION The Mona Lisa once wore a pearl necklace. The words “once wore” should not apply to a static individual in a painting. While scholars in art history have extensively analyzed the Mona Lisa’s smile, her eyes, whether or not she was really a she, the prospect that she wore something other than what appears in the painting seemed implausible. With the exception of material deterioration, the image on the surface of the canvas is the final product. This is the image we and so many observe in museums. However, in 1992, John F. Asmus of the Institute for Pure and Applied Physical Sciences, University of California, San Diego, published “Mona Lisa Symbolism Uncovered by Computer Processing.”1 His analysis revealed that Leonardo Da Vinci adorned the Mona Lisa with pearls and sat her in front of a different backdrop. In order to conduct this research, Dr. Asmus received grants from the National Science Foundation and the IBM Corporation.2 He used the IBM 3090 for image processing, worked with individuals at the IBM Palo Alto Scientific Center, and digitized images at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.3 While the Louvre Museum in Paris provided the physical painting, the actual research and processing took place exclusively in laboratories by traditionally trained physicists. In 1986, six years before Dr. Asmus formally published his findings, The New York Times published a piece by Walter Sullivan entitled “Space-Age Methods Penetrate Art of the Past.” The article explained how technology used to process images of the rings of Saturn was now being applied to art of the “great masters.”4 It may be surprising that physics was being directly applied to research in the arts. However, the application of “space-age” technology in the 1 John F. Asmus, “Mona Lisa Symbolism Uncovered by Computer Processing,” Materials Characterization (1992): 119-128. 2 Asmus, “Mona Lisa Symbolism Uncovered by Computer Processing,” 128. 3 Asmus, “Mona Lisa Symbolism Uncovered by Computer Processing,” 128. 4 Walter Sullivan, “Space-Age Methods Explore Art of the Past,” New York Times (June 1986): C1. 4 discipline of art history is not novel nor is the participation of scientists in studying and investigating this field. What is new is the type of technology applied. The link between science and artwork, specifically between astronomy and painting began at the turn of the 14th century with Giotto di Bondone’s wall painting Adoration of the Magi. The painting or fresco depicts the Matthew 2:11 section of the Bible in which three magi find Jesus by following a star, usually depicted as the Star of Bethlehem, and present him with gifts.5 In Giotto’s painting what many have concluded is Halley’s Comet takes the place of the Star of Bethlehem.6 Giotto worked on the painting in Padua, Italy, one of the new centers of mathematics and astronomy.7 According to Roberta J. M. Olson, art historian of the New York Historical Society, Giotto was the first to make the physical truth of astronomy a central element of a painting.8 When compared to contemporary images of Halley’s Comet, Giotto’s painting is “anatomically correct” most likely because of his particular interest in empiricism and observation.9 Thus, the “shooting star” in the painting appears to be his interpretation of the 1301 Halley’s Comet. The painting was completed in 1306 and is housed in the Arena Chapel. The astronomical aspects of Giotto’s work not only shocked his contemporaries but also encouraged investigation by 20th century astronomers into the timing of the painting and the placement of the comet. Jay Pasachoff, astronomer and professor at Williams College, has collaborated with Olson on investigating Adoration of the Magi and other paintings which were supposedly influenced by astronomy. David W. Hughes, Kevin K.C. Yau, and F. Richard 5 R. J. M. Olson and J. M. Pasachoff, "Comets, meteors, and eclipses: Art and science in early Renaissance Italy." Meteoritics & Planetary Science 37 (2002): 1564. 6 Olson and Pasachoff, "Comets, meteors, and eclipses: Art and science in early Renaissance Italy," 1564. 7 Olson and Pasachoff, “Comets, meteors, and eclipses: Art and science in early Renaissance Italy," 1564. 8 Olson and Pasachoff, “Comets, meteors, and eclipses: Art and science in early Renaissance Italy," 1564. 9 Olson and Pasachoff, “Comets, meteors, and eclipses: Art and science in early Renaissance Italy," 1567. 5 Stephenson, referred to by Olson as “a trio of distinguished astronomers,” published “Much Ado About Giotto’s Comet” in 1993. The piece is an analysis of the three comets that would have been visible to Giotto in the first five years of the 14th century.10 In 1980 the European Space Agency launched a spacecraft named Giotto, after Giotto di Bondone, to fly by and study Halley’s Comet.11 This partnership between the art historian and the astronomer or scientist is symbiotic. Analysis in both disciplines yields insights into the perceptions of the artist and historical events in science. Art and science have long enjoyed a mutual respect. That is not to say there is no tension between art historians and scientists, but rather that in their core objectives they exhibit similar analytical skills. They are deeply concerned with materials and composition. They develop and utilize new techniques, follow procedures, and attribute particular importance to history. In order to understand this modern relationship and how scientists like John Asmus or David W. Hughes began analyzing paintings, an overview of the history of science and art is necessary. The two fields did not formally converge until each was established as an institution, and the integration of advanced technologies did not occur until society underwent a significant socio-political shift. More specifically, new photographic technologies of World War I and the commercialization of these instruments meant that the application of science for national protection would expand to include cultural protection. This cultural relevance would ultimately yield a partnership between the scientist and the art historian, one in which understanding artistic truths was consistent with understanding scientific truths. 10 D. W. Hughes, K. K. C. Yau, and F. R. Stephenson, "Giotto's Comet--was it the Comet of 1304 and not Comet Halley?" Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 34 (1992): 21-32. 11 David Leverington, New Cosmic Horizons: Space Astronomy from the V2 to the Hubble Space Telescope. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 128. 6 ORGANIZATION AS INSTITUTIONS In the centuries following Giotto’s painting, art, its mediums, and its subjects evolved. The same can be said for science and, more specifically, the fields of astronomy, physics, and mathematics during the Copernican Revolution. The paradigmatic Renaissance man Leonardo da Vinci simultaneously acted as a scientist and an artist. Where art and science differentiated themselves was in their institutions. In science, organization within universities and the formalizing of communication through societies and journals began in 1660 with the Royal Society of London.12 The Society acted as a platform for scientists to report observations and discoveries while corresponding with members through the Philosophical Transactions.13 Societies in France and Germany developed in the 18th century, and the Royal Astronomical Society was founded in 1820.