Maurizio Seracini’s lulling Italian accent sweeps through the air as students listen intently during an informal lecture about the works of Leonardo Da Vinci. With his light gray suit, glasses sliding slightly down the bridge of his nose, he looks just like any other professor. But the UCSD bioengineering alumnus is the art world’s own Sherlock Holmes, pioneering a discipline where art and science come together in unexpected ways. Seracini’s detective work is not in the form of fingerprinting or body outlines; rather, he tracks brush strokes and paint to discover what went into some of the world’s most famous masterpieces.
Maurizio Seracini (right) uses high tech machines to analyze some of the world’s most famous paintings. Seracini is currently in search of Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Battle of Anghiari” in Florence, Italy’s Palazzo Vecchio.
A self-proclaimed “Doctor of Art,” Seracini uses X-ray, stereomicroscopes, echographs and other machines to analyze art masterpieces. Using this technology, Seracini has found previously unknown drawings and alterations in many famous paintings, including Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Adoration of the Magi.” Seracini is also using science to search for “Battle of Anghiari,” a Da Vinci work that has not been seen since 1563. Seracini is using his technique to find the long-lost painting believed to be hidden behind a wall in the Palazzo Vecchio’s Hall of Five Hundred in Florence, Italy.
Despite criticism from restorers and art historians who do not agree with his scientific approach to art conservation, Seracini’s discoveries have attracted much interest around the world. In Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code,” Seracini is the only nonfictional character. Part of the book explores Da Vinci’s “Last Supper” and whether it depicts Mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus. The novel has spawned controversy over the painting and its popularity has even spawned an upcoming Hollywood movie.
In March, an exhibit in Florence’s Uffizi Museum will include Seracini’s findings on “Adoration of the Magi” and his current research on “Battle of Anghiari.”
Guardian: What do you say to those that say technology and art are two completely different areas that should be separated from one another?
Seracini: Art is not only to be seen and appreciated, but it also needs to be understood. Any artist who has created a masterpiece is sending us a message; he is showing us his creativity. Science could very well give the most important contribution for conserving paintings which are really our cultural heritage. With science, we’re getting an objective knowledge of the work of art to allow us to understand it and to allow for conservation.
G: You describe yourself as being the “Doctor of Art.” What do you mean by that?
S: In the medical field, it would be unthinkable to have a surgeon, analyst or specialist, but not have a primary doctor who would know how to examine the patient, the proper methodology for treatment and how to determine a proper cure. Unfortunately, art works are subjected to decay or diseases that can only be recognized and treated through technology. When I go into a museum, it’s like I’m going into a hospital where I see a lot of sick patients. We’re lucky to have these artworks, but if we don’t see them in a scientific way, we’re going to lose them.
G: What is the best and worst part of what you do?
S: The best part of my job is to have the privilege to be in contact day after day, sometimes for weeks and months, with some of the greatest masterpieces in Western culture. The fact that you’re there alone, working day after day on the artwork, it’s like unveiling a mystery.
The worst part is trying to explain to people they should stop restoring without first establishing the best way to conserve an art work. My science is absolutely indispensable in restoring a work of art. We need a new breed of scientists worldwide to do this kind of work. I’ve fought the battle for 30 years and I was hoping that by now a lot of things would have changed in this field, but there is a lot of resistance.
G: Would you then call yourself a rebel in the art world?
S: Oh yeah. I haven’t made too many friends. Restorers have the assumption that they know what they’re doing and that there’s no need for science.
G: Have you read the “Da Vinci Code?” What do you think about the conspiracies that it mentions, especially with the Last Supper painting?
S: It is an interesting book. In terms of what it said about the Last Supper, I don’t think we have any evidence or proof of any sort to say that the figure on the right-hand side of Christ was not a man but was indeed a woman. Regardless of Dan Brown and his story, there is some difference in the way the face of that figure looks compared to all the other apostles, but to say that it’s absolutely a woman, I think it’s a little bit jumping ahead.
G: How do you feel about being part of the book?
S: If there would’ve been contact between Dan Brown and myself and I had a chance to explain to him and show him what I was doing, perhaps it would have been much better. I was surprised when I read my name and my work in a fiction book and it did not mention that I was not a nonfiction character. There’s nothing wrong with talking about my work, but it should be put in the right frame. At the end, you might be remembered for something you have not done or you have not said.
