|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: North America
Posts: 1,603
|
Since Boro Nut thinks that the artist whose links
I posted is mistaken I thought I would post just
a TAD from one of those links to give Boro Nut a
chance to respond and explain why the artist is
wrong.
Quote:
SUPPORT:
The Shroud is linen. Raw, unprepared linen repels water, difficult to cover with paint. There is no such paint
known to art which - applied to raw linen -- would give the optical effect we see on the Turin Shroud and no
visible drag. Because of the watermarks on it, any water-soluble binders are totally excluded for technical reasons.
GROUND:
The aqueous mediums used before the thermoplastic mediums were introduced in the high renaissance, did not
have the flexibility to apply them directly to unstretched canvas without a gesso ground. Medieval paintings
were carefully prepared with a gesso ground and even then could not be folded or rolled without serious
damage. We neither see a gesso ground underneath the Shroud image nor the typical damages which folding
and rolling caused to aqueous paints.
PAINTS:
If we argue that the Shroud is a painting then, professionally, the paint mediums have to be discussed first, not
the pigments. The painting, as a visible optical illusion, depends on the intricate interplay between mediums and
paint particles. The mediums have to create a tight, continuous film. The visibility and therefore the integrity of a
painting solely depends on how well this film remained intact. It does not depend on the individual paint
particles. Any discontinuity in the medium film indicates a painting is severely damaged, with parts of it
erratically missing. (FIG. F.)
FIG. F
Example of damaged painting:
1) Disintegrating colloidal egg emulsion causing flaking, typical cracking.
2) Unstretched pure linen canvas, no rigid backing.
3) Damage Caused by folding
FOR A CONTINUOUS IMAGE TO EXIST ON A PAINTING, WHILE THE PAINT MEDIUM HAS
RETURNED TO DUST OR JUST TINY GLOMERATES, LEAVING THE MILIMICRON PIGMENT
PARTICLES WITHOUT TIGHT ADHESION TO THE GROUND OR TO THE SUPPORT WOULD BE
TOTALLY AGAINST THE LAWS OF NATURE, SCIENTIFICALLY INACCEPTABLE AND A
TECHNICAL IMPOSSIBILITY REGARDING THE PRACTICE OF ART. This would be harder to explain
than the Turin Shroud itself. (FIG. G.)
FIG. G
Example of highly damaged painting (Byzantine).
Cause: disintegrating colloidal medium.
THE TURIN SHROUD SHOWS A CONTINUOUS, UNINTERRUPTED, VISIBLE IMAGE. IT DOES
NOT, HOWEVER, SHOW A CONTINUOUS, UNDAMAGED, VISIBLE MEDIUM FILM WHICH
HAS TO BE PRESENT WITH A COHERENT IMAGE. IT IS THEREFORE MANDATORY TO STATE,
THE PAINT PARTICLES FOUND ON ITS SURFACE AND THE POSSIBLE TINY GLOMERATES
OF A PAINT MEDIUM ARE INDEPENDENT FROM THE IMAGE EXISTENT ON IT. IT
THEREFORE IS NOT A PAINTING.
From the above statement derives that the medium films always are visible by the naked eye and they are
always cohesive until there is a cohesive image. All mediums share this in uniformity. But otherwise the study of
mediums is filled with complexities. Since they are mostly natural products they are highly variable mixtures. In
many cases only the practicing artist with a vast experience will detect and understand some of their erratic
behavior.
THE MEDIEVAL MEDIUMS. (FIG. H.)
FIG. H
The Thermoplastic and Convertible mediums.
Dr. McCrone considers the Turin Shroud to be a medieval painting. Hence, the mediums used in medieval art
should be discussed here in particular. The convertible mediums were in use, the thermoplastic binders were
not yet known. The convertible mediums show a colloidal structure and, unlike ordinary solutions, they cannot
be completely dissolved in liquids, but tiny dry pigment particles remain dispersed in a suspended equilibrium.
Most of these aqueous mediums are emulsions, and some of them are just colloidal solutions. An emulsion is a
stable mixture of an aqueous liquid with an oily, fatty, waxy or resinous substance. The egg yolk medium film
for instance is an emulsion, the egg white medium is not. They are highly visible. The hand-ground pigments,
(which have larger particles and more intense color), used in the Middle Ages, have to be suspended in 15 -
50% more binding materials than today's machine ground pigments. The iron oxides are on the uppermost scale
of this.
The convertible aqueous mediums remain in liquid form until they dry. Some remain water-soluble, others, like
egg mediums, do not. The mediums which remain water-soluble after drying are the most vulnerable and are
losing their binding power quicker than those which dry up non-soluble by water. One thing is certain, however,
that the bond in the convertible mediums with colloidal structures is only temporary and their affinity is
unpredictable. When they lose their binding power, they pulverize and fall off. They expose the particles of
pigments they held to the ground. They too return to their original dust form and do not adhere. The pigment
particles left behind are not just any size. As stated also by Ralph Mayer, paint chemist par excellence, in order
that true colloidal characteristics would be exhibited, at least in one dimension the particle must measure not
more than 200 milimicrons and not less than 5 milimicrons. Thus the colloidal realm stretches between the
smallest particle visible through an ordinary microscope and the largest molecules. Anything seen outside of this
realm does not indicate the remnant of a medieval painting technique.
DECAY: (FIG. F & G)
An inconsistent paint film causes serious damages in a painting, with a patchy, flaky or entirely destroyed look
of its image. Each paint medium necessitates a different technique, which are clearly distinguishable from each
other. The professional artist can also recognize the typical decay of the different paint mediums and the
damaged look this causes to the techniques. We do not see any of them on the Shroud of Turin.
The Shroud was folded and refolded, rolled, exhibited, carried, exposed to sun and handled. All medieval
convertible mediums require the use of a rigid support to paint on. The Shroud is not a rigid painting support. If
a convertible paint medium would have been used on it would have long ago lost its binding power, and
medium and pigment would have fallen off as dust, destroying the image entirely. Whatever dust of either
materials would have remained on its surface would have to be dispersed all over the cloth and would not have
accumulated logically in the image areas. This excludes that the red color, marking the wounds, is vermilion.
Vermilion:
Vermilion is mercuric sulfide. Because it repels water it does not mix well with the medieval aqueous mediums.
It is erratically permanent and highly unstable. It turns black exposed to light, air and through chemical reactions
with other pigments and materials, when suspended in convertible mediums. It also turns black due to heat and
fire such as the 1532 fire in the Chambery Chapel. Because of these known, highly unstable qualities, artists did
not use vermilion on paintings to be exposed to the elements or on walls. It would have turned black in any
case by now, but not likely that it would have been used in the first place, unless on less important copies of the
Shroud.
Glue Medium:
Dr. McCrone mentioned tiny remnants of an animal collagen -- part of a glue paint medium -- he found on the
Shroud.
Let us see if this suggestion holds up against professional experience.
Animal glue made in the Middle Ages from kid, rabbit, or sheep skin or goat, sheep and fish bone, has very
unpleasant properties as a paint medium. Hence the lack of its use in fine art. It has very little stability as an
uninterrupted paint film and continuously absorbs and discharges moisture from the atmosphere. This causes
scaling of the paint film, which remains totally water-soluble and lacks permanence.
As for techniques, a painting done with glue, as medium, would be flat and decorative. Good examples for this
are the Egyptian wall paintings, preserved only inside of undisturbed tombs in a very dry climate, the
inexpensive Kodex illustrations (the good ones were done with gum arabic) and some decorative items, such as
shields. This technique cannot be used for realistic figurative art, as the image on the Shroud.
Because of the lack of permanence certain chemical additives are always used with animal glues, such as
formaldehyde, or inorganic salts, zinc chloride or magnesium silicofluoride. These were not found on the
Shroud.
Watercolor paints:
Pure watercolors cannot be used with any success on an unprepared linen. The linen would repel the water
badly even with the chemical additives which watercolors have to have and which were not found on the
Shroud. Their mechanical adhesion would be almost as bad as that of a "dust painting", so called the pastel-like
use of oxide dry pigments by non-professionals. Pastels are stabilized by formaldehyde, they have to be
executed on surfaces kept rigid and protected by glass.
GLUE PAINTINGS, WATERCOLOR PAINTINGS, PASTELS ARE DESTROYED BY WATER (the
water used, for example, in the fire of 1532 in the Chambery Chapel) AND ARE SERIOUSLY AND
TYPICALLY DAMAGED BY FOLDING, ROLLING, HANDLING AND TIME. We see none of these on
the Shroud.
Taking all the above described qualities, chemistry and build up of the colloidal convertible mediums and the
submicron pigment particles found on the Shroud, actually one could not find a better proof than these for the
total independence of the Shroud image from these. They lend to us the strongest support that the Shroud is not
a painting.
WHERE DID THE PIGMENT PARTICLES COME FROM?
What explanation can we find for the occasional milimicron size paint pigment particles and tiny medium
glomerates (if any) on the Turin Shroud?
From the excellent studies of Don Luigi Fossati, S.D.B. of Turin, we know that the Shroud image, -- through
the centuries -- was copied many times by painters. Fifty-two (52) of these are known. These copies,
according to the finds of Fossati, were laid down on the Shroud for "authentication" of the copy. Mr. Paul
Maloney, a professional research archeologist living in the USA has suggested that particles of paint were
passed from the surfaces of these "true copies" onto the Surface of the Shroud, when they were stretched over
it and laid down on it.
EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
It took a professional artist, such as myself, to prove that this suggestion was absolutely true. 3"x3" test pieces
were used made of home spun Belgian linen. These test pieces were painted with art historic techniques used in
early Christian, Byzantine and medieval times, also some renaissance and baroque techniques. The paints used
were a yellow oxide, a calcined iron oxide, and vermilion. The painted samples, after the paints dried well on
them, were touched to clean samples and these clean samples were photomicrographed. (FIGS. Q, R, S) The
tests proved with great precision what Don Fossati and Mr. Maloney suggested. Particles of paint indeed were
passed from the painted samples onto the clean surfaces, thus lending to us a reasonable proof that the painted
"true copies" of the Shroud are most likely responsible for the paint particles on the Shroud. The aqueous
colloidal mediums shed their paint particles much more generously than the thermoplastic mediums of an origin
later than the Middle Ages. As it was expected, the vermilion showed very poor attachment to the raw linen
and readily fall of with even the slightest agitation of the linen. The oxides did better, shed smaller particles but
typically within the required colloidal range. The test even proved that they were the early copies painted in
Byzantine and medieval times, which deposited most of the paint particles.
These results were presented at the International Shroud Symposium in Rome in 1993.
THE ZONE BETWEEN MATTER AND INTELLECT
The Shroud image does not have any style and for that reason it does not fit into any period of art history.
While here I do not wish to discuss art history and its aspects, because the richness and complexity of that
subject would take up many pages, I must say, however, there is no such painting which would not fit with
absolute precision into a particular era of art history and point out with reasonable closeness the artist who
created the painting.
There is no directionality and no lights focus on the Shroud, neither are outlines in any way. These three
elements exist on every painting without exception. These involve laws of nature. The lack of all these again
proves the Turin Shroud cannot be a painting.
THE EXPERIMENTAL AND PRACTICED ARTS
As the independence of the milimicron pigment particles from the image proved against the painting theory, so
does the very practice of art and art anatomy from another angle.
|
leonarde again. I did some editing since
the figures in the URL could not be copied and some incoherence resulted from their deletion.
Does Boro Nut or any other art critic see mistakes
in Isabel Piczek's analysis? If so, what specifically as regards the medium, ground, rate
of decay and all the technical details listed?
Thank you!
|
03-19-2002, 08:32 AM
