Material Confusion: Anachronistic Pigments in Botticelli’s “Man of Sorrows” Are Explained as “Restorations”

Knowledgeable experts must have been more than a little perplexed by the description published in The Art Newspaper (TAN) on Jan. 11 (and republished by CNN Style, an editorial partner of TAN), regarding Botticelli‘s “The Man of Sorrows,” which sold at Sotheby’s on Jan.27 for $45.4 million. One veteran conservator of old masters, having read published comments by Christopher Apostle, Sotheby’s Head of Old Masters, Americas, alerted me that some pigments said to have been identified in “Man of Sorrows” (which was executed in the “late 15th-early 16th century,” according to the auction house) were anachronistic—a potential red flag.

Here’s how Apostle, as quoted by Alison Cole in TAN (and repeated by CNN), described the materials found by Sotheby’s experts in their technical analysis of the painting:

In terms of Botticelli’s typical pictorial technique, Apostle says “he has switched it up” here, blending tempera and oil. “It’s very hard without doing samples to say what the binding medium is,” he adds, “but the technique seems pretty consistent with what I’d expect to see. We have XRF [X-Ray Fluorescence] technology, so we can look at, for instance, the cadmium element, and we have a lead map, which shows where the fills and losses are. The pigments include chromium, titanium and so on—all the pigments one would expect to see” [emphasis added].

There’s only one problem with this: My conservation-contact unequivocally declared that “only pigments invented in the late 19th and early 20th century [emphasis added] contain cadmium, chromium, and titanium.”

In other words, they would not have been used in Botticelli’s time.

Not content to take my source’s word for it without further verification, I contacted Sotheby’s directly and asked this:

Is it accurate that pigments containing cadmium, chromium and titanium did not exist until the late 19th and early 20th century? If so, how could “Man of Sorrows” be an authentic Botticelli?

Whereupon, a Sotheby’s press spokesperson promptly replied:

Shortly after its publication, TAN [The Art Newspaper] made a correction to its article. This should address your previous questions.

Here’s TAN’s corrective:

CLARIFICATION: 14 January 2022. Sotheby’s has informed us that the information on Botticelli’s pigments provided by Christopher Apostle for this article was not clearly communicated to us, due to its highly technical nature. Chromium and titanium, which are relatively modern pigments (chromium and titanium minerals were not discovered until the end of the 18th century and titanium pigments were introduced only in the early 20th century) should have been clearly associated by Sotheby’s with the retouching of the work during a relatively modern restoration [emphasis added]. And it appears that cadmium (the use of which in pigment only starts in the 19th century) was confused with calcium. No cadmium was detected in the work.

The maps of elemental distribution, which provide Sotheby’s with its findings, were produced by the auction house’s own sophisticated Bruker M6 Jetstream MA-XRF scanner in New York (they have a second in London). In addition to the retouched areas, the maps point to some pigments used to create the work: lead white, copper green and/or blue (verdigris and azurite, for example), mercury red (vermilion), and iron browns (umbers and other earth pigments).

Calcium appears throughout the work, probably as chalk and bone black, and in small fills to areas of paint loss. There are probably other pigments, too, but their constituent elements were not detected by MA-XRF (due to their atomic weight, trace abundance, or both). Sotheby’s operates its state-of-the art-laboratories in both New York and London and they are run by conservation scientist James Martin, who owned and operated Orion Analytical (acquired by Sotheby’s in 2016).

Here’s Martin in his lab, in a photo from Sotheby’s website:

At this writing, I cannot find any corresponding clarification of Apostle’s comments in CNN’s above-linked report. It’s not clear from TAN’s walk-back who was responsible for the unfortunate misunderstanding or miscommunication regarding the pigments found in the Botticelli.

According to Sotheby’s press release announcing Martin’s appointment on Dec. 5, 2016 (of which I have a physical copy in my own files, but was unable to find an online link), he had “taught at the Getty Conservation Institute, the Smithsonian’s Museum Conservation Institute and the FBI’s Counterterrorism and Forensic Science Research Unit” and “played a central role in the most significant forgery investigations of recent times.” This 2018 NY Times article described his work in detail.

And here’s another key question that I posed in my recent query to Sotheby’s about the Botticelli:

Can you say anything about the identity of the buyer and when/whether it will be seen again publicly?

Here’s the reply:

We don’t not have any further information about the buyer of the Botticelli nor their plans, but we will keep you updated should we find out more.

Thanks, Sotheby’s. I expect to be the first to be tipped off, in consideration of my not having shot from the hip. Overriding my desire for the easy “scoop,” I exercised diligence in checking what, on the face of it, seemed to be a problematic set of facts.

Speaking of which…I need to set aside time to listen to Alec Baldwin‘s dramatic three-part (and counting?) podcast, “Art Fraud,” about the authenticity controversies that brought down the Knoedler & Co. gallery. (Martin had testified in court proceedings regarding those disputed paintings.)

A NOTE TO MY READERS: If you appreciate my coverage, please consider supporting CultureGrrl via PayPal by clicking the “Donate” button in the righthand column of the desktop version or by scrolling down to the “DONATE” link in the mobile version. Contributors of $15 or more are added to my email blast for immediate notification of new posts.