A team of experts is investigating a painting bought for under $50 at a garage sale, believing it to be an undiscovered portrait by Vincent van Gogh.  The story illustrates some of the newest methods—and thorniest challenges—of authenticating art.

---

Background
The painting, entitled Elimar (after an inscription written in a corner of the canvas), uses thickly-applied paint to depict a fisherman repairing his net.  An anonymous antique enthusiast picked it up at a Minnesota garage sale a few years ago; all the buyer knew was that it might have previously been property of a local antique shop owner.  In 2019, the buyer reached out to an art research firm called LMI Group International, who examined it and were intrigued enough to buy it. 
 
Since then, LMI—which is led by former MET curator Maxwell Anderson and art lawyer Lawrence Shindell—has invested over $30,000 in a “data-based approach” to authenticating the work as a genuine Van Gogh, enlisting the help of more than a dozen experts, including chemists, patent lawyers, and curators.  Elimar could be worth somewhere in the ballpark of $15 million if it is authentic, and would add a new piece to Van Gogh’s known oeuvre.  (Indeed, LMI may be hoping for their find to echo the story of Salvator Mundi, an artwork purchased in New Orleans for $1500 in 2005 which, after a winding journey—and a litigious one, see here for just some of the details—was reattributed to Leonardo da Vinci and sold for over $450 million in 2017.)  But Elimar’s authenticity remains far from established—and indeed, as discussed further below, an alternative attribution has been suggested by some experts.

---

A Three-Pronged Approach to Authentication
In broad strokes, art authentication is often described as a “three-legged stool,” requiring analysis of an artwork’s provenance (that is, the history of the work’s ownership over time); examination of the work through the lens of connoisseurship (in which experts assess the extent to which the new work fits into their knowledge of the artist’s oeuvre and methods); and subjecting an artwork to physical testing through the use of scientific and forensic tools.  Each of the three legs must be sturdy for a work to be confidently authenticated. 
 
Against this backdrop, one of the major challenges posed by Elimar becomes clear: its provenance prior to the garage sale is essentially unknown.  This means that LMI’s years-long analysis had to focus largely on traditional connoisseurship as well as modern scientific techniques.  Its efforts have culminated in the firm’s 458-page report, which looks at everything from the brushstrokes and composition, to the historical and artistic references in the work, to chemical analysis of the pigments used. 
 
Of particular note, the report discusses the work as a possible re-envisioning by Van Gogh of an earlier similar work by Danish painter Michael Ancher, and theorizes that it comes from a chapter of Van Gogh’s career when he was known to have been experimenting with such “translations” of others’ works.  Also interesting is the report’s examination of a red pigment used in Elimar, which was previously thought to have been available in France only after Van Gogh’s death; LMI’s report presents historical evidence including patent filings indicating that the pigment may have been available decades earlier, during Van Gogh’s career.  As to the final leg of the stool, however, the report’s section on provenance contains no firm information before 2016; rather, it focuses on explaining why it is plausible, based on what we know about Van Gogh’s life, that previously-unknown works might still be surfacing today.

---

The Role of An Authoritative Voice
One key to authenticating Elimar remains elusive—the approval of the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam.  Indeed, in 2018, the anonymous garage sale buyer had previously sent information about Elimar to the Museum, which at the time refused to recognize the work’s legitimacy.  And the museum recently reaffirmed that it does not consider the work to be authentic. 
 
LMI Group has expressed bewilderment at the museum’s response, stating that the museum, in one day, dismissed the report’s findings without offering any explanation or examining the painting in person.  It also implied that, while the institution is widely considered the final authority on Van Gogh, its judgments are not flawless, noting at least four occasions where the museum changed its previous opinion on the authenticity of a Van Gogh painting. 
 
As we have written before (see here and here for examples), museums, foundations, and other authorities in the art market are often hesitant to offer definitive opinions about the authenticity of works, due to the legal risks; indeed, the Van Gogh Museum has previously been threatened with legal action over other disputed pieces.  Nevertheless, for many artists, market consensus effectively recognizes a key authoritative voice whose imprimatur is a de facto prerequisite to the successful attribution—and saleability—of a work. 

---

Emerging Technologies
The Elimar report is also noteworthy because it highlights the way scientific, forensic, and computer-based analyses are constantly providing new potential tools for art authenticators.  The report describes chemical analysis of pigments to ensure the painting is consistent with the types of paint that were available to the suspected artist at the time; this methodology has been important for years, and indeed, has been an important factor in exposing multiple recent forgery scandals (see here and here for details).  But other scientific technology is in play as well.  For instance, the report outlines an attempt to analyze DNA from a human hair embedded in the paint; while the attempt was ultimately unsuccessful, such advancements will likely become more feasible and reliable as the science behind them evolves.  Likewise, LMI commissioned a mathematical analysis of the letters in the inscription on Elimar, comparing them with lettering on other known Van Gogh works, to help bolster its claim that the writing is by the same person.  
 
And while LMI expressly states that it did not use artificial intelligence (AI) tools in assessing Elimar, it also says it is “committed to a thorough assessment of these nascent technologies” and is “pursuing advances in this area through its subsidiary, NC3.”  Indeed, in the wider art market, the use of rapidly-evolving AI technology to assist with art authentication is already underway.  For example, a Swiss auction house recently partnered with AI authentication company Art Recognition to become the first to sell an artwork authenticated solely by artificial intelligence.  The system analyzed the painting’s features, providing an authenticity report based on algorithms that evaluated brushstrokes and other key patterns.  Similarly, Hephaestus Analytical, a tech company specializing in AI and scientific analysis, has merged with ArtDiscovery to enhance art authentication by combining AI, chemical analysis, and provenance research, aiming to set new standards for accuracy and reliability in the art market. 

---

An Alternative Theory Emerges
Intriguingly, some experts have now added a new layer to the mystery, positing that the painting’s inscription, Elimar, is not the title of the work, but in fact is the name of its real painter; these scholars argue that LMI’s painting is not by Van Gogh, but by an obscure Danish artist named Henning Elimar, who might have been inspired by the same Michael Ancher portrait discussed in the LMI report.  LMI, unsurprisingly, vigorously disputes the Henning Elimar theory. 
 
The story of Elimar captures the state of art authentication today.  There are remarkable scientific tools available, and even more potentially powerful tools in development—and the growing precision and accessibility of these emerging technologies may ultimately help address some of the challenges inherent in determining the authenticity of high value works.  But for now, this type of analysis is still only one leg of the stool, and such tools are not sufficient, in and of themselves, to serve as the final word for the market—particularly when traditional authoritative experts remain skeptical.