More insight into Rembrandt and Rubens attributions
Replicating research is also valuable in art history, provided that attention is paid to expertise and interpretation. This is evident from research by art historian and curator Charlotte Rulkens. The approach leads to more transparent and better comparable attributions of works by Rembrandt and Rubens, among others.
Replication in art history
‘The impetus for my research is the so-called replication crisis in the biomedical and social sciences, which showed that many studies did not yield the same results upon repetition. This raised the question of whether similar problems also exist in the humanities, where expert judgment plays a central role,’ says Rulkens.
The research shows that replication of attribution research yields more than just confirmation of previous conclusions. ‘It makes assumptions visible, helps improve methods, and contributes to better recording of expert knowledge. This makes the judgment of experts, often perceived as a “black box,” more transparent and easier to discuss.’
Role of expertise and interpretation
According to Rulkens, other disciplines can learn from this. ‘In many replication discussions, the emphasis lies on data and measurement methods, while the role of expertise and interpretation remains underexposed. Yet these factors are essential to understanding why studies are sometimes reproducible and sometimes not.’
Importance of attributions
Attributions help determine how artworks are interpreted, presented, and valued. Differences in expert judgment can lead to divergent conclusions, sometimes with major cultural and financial consequences. The research offers tools to make this process more transparent and careful.
Method: Attribution Expert Consensus Meeting
For the study, Rulkens, together with a multidisciplinary team, repeated previous attribution studies of two portraits by the young Rembrandt and a painting related to Rubens. In doing so, she developed the method of the Attribution Expert Consensus Meeting.
Rulkens: ‘Experts first give their judgment individually, then discuss this jointly, and subsequently reassess the work. This approach reduces mutual influence and makes visible where experts agree or disagree. In this way, outcomes can be better compared and replicated in the future.’
More information on the thesis
