The forensic mindset: art and crime

Take a look at the paintings in Fig. 1, Fig. 2. The first is Strand von Ste. Adresse by Johan Jongkind (1863); note the artist’s signature in the lower left corner. The second, Skating in Holland, was attributed to Jongkind and is thought to have been painted between 1890 and 1900; also note the signature in the lower left corner. Fig. 3 shows the signatures in detail. It does not take a questioned document examiner to conclude that there is a strong probability1 that Jongkind did not sign Skating in Holland, and there may be enough evidence to exclude Jongkind from that signature, but that would take a questioned document examiner.

Fig. 1.

Strand von Ste. Adresse, 1863, by Johan Jongkind - The Yorck Project (2002) 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei (DVD-ROM), distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing.

Fig. 2.

Skating in Holland, 1890–1900, signed “Jongkind”, by unknown author. Source: https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/imitator-of-johan-barthold-jongkind-skating-in-holland.

Fig. 3.

Signatures from Fig. 1, Fig. 2.

The worlds of art fraud and cultural heritage chemistry are very similar to forensic science, easy signature comparisons notwithstanding. The mindset is the same, the evidence just as precious and irreplaceable, and many methods are identical: a museum conservation laboratory looks much like a forensic laboratory (Fig. 4). Conservation scientists use the same variety of microscopic, spectroscopic, chromatographic, and other scientific techniques and instruments as forensic scientists do to examine objects. Just as with forensic science, non-destructive techniques are preferred. When sampling must take place, microscopic fragments are removed from the object and their provenance on the object is recorded just like any crime scene. The range of materials to be studied is vast, much like forensic science: textiles, metals, wood, biological materials, pigments, papers, inks, leather, and on and on.

Fig. 4.

Panoramic view of the conservation science lab at the Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields. Photo courtesy of Newfields.

Art crime is ranked as the third highest-grossing criminal trade worldwide by the U.S. Department of Justice, behind only drugs and arms, and yet arts-based scientific research rarely features in forensic meetings or literature. Theft, fraud, looting, and trafficking of art worldwide create losses of $8 billion annually. The FBI has its own Art Crime Team, started in 2004, with over a dozen special agents who work with special trial attorneys for these types of cases. The Bureau runs the National Stolen Art File, a computerized index of reported stolen art and cultural properties for the use of law enforcement agencies worldwide. Most art counterfeit cases are run by the FBI or US Postal Service: the fraud is committed across state lines and monies are exchanged via the mail or by wire.

Given the philosophical and methodological similarities between conservation and forensic science, it is strange that more interaction has not occurred. This special issue of Forensic Science International: Synergy promotes just that, the confluences of cultural hertiage and forensic science in methods, materials, and mindset. Through these papers and interactions, it is hoped that we learn from each other, seeing the beauty in the analysis of art and the art of analyzing evidence.

Declaration of competing interest

Max Houck is the Editor-in-Chief of Forensic Science International: Synergy. No other competing interests exist.