Peter Paul Biro (born 1954) is a forensic art analyst, known for his work in authenticating paintings using fingerprint analysis. He has been involved in several high-profile cases, including the authentication of works attributed to artists Jackson Pollock, Leonardo da Vinci, and Goodridge Roberts. Biro's techniques and conclusions have been subjects of debate and scrutiny. In 2009, The New Yorker published an article that critically examined Biro’s methods. Subsequently, Biro filed a defamation lawsuit against the magazine, the article's author, and others, which was ultimately dismissed.

Early life and background

Peter Paul Biro was born in 1954 in Budapest and emigrated to Montreal with his family as a teenager.[1][2] He left college early to join his father and brother in the art restoration business. Through this business, Biro was involved in authenticating a painting by J. M. W. Turner. While examining the Turner painting, he developed the idea to compare a fingerprint found on it to other paintings by the same artist. His effort to use fingerprint analysis marked a departure from the traditionally subjective practice of art connoisseurship.

Biro subsequently built his career on the analysis of fingerprints, operating on the premise that artists may leave their fingerprints on a painting either intentionally or inadvertently during the creation process.[2] Biro employs high-resolution digital photography and advanced imaging to detect these latent fingerprints. He then compares any found prints to known fingerprints of the artists in question. The assumption is that a match could strongly suggest the artist's direct involvement with the painting.

Career

The painting La Bella Principessa on which Biro performed a fingerprint analysis.

Biro gained public attention in 2006 through his involvement in the authentication of a painting that he suspected was done by Jackson Pollock.[3] The artwork was purchased at a thrift store by Teri Horton, a former truck driver, who was unaware of its potential significance. Biro conducted a fingerprint analysis on the painting and concluded that it matched a known fingerprint from Pollock, suggesting the painting's authenticity. These events were captured in the 2006 documentary "Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?" In the film, Biro is featured explaining the forensic techniques he used to reach his conclusion that the painting was indeed a genuine work by Jackson Pollock.

In 2009, Biro conducted a fingerprint analysis on the artwork known as the La Bella Principessa.[4][5] The painting was originally thought to be a 19th-century German painting, but art historians like Martin Kemp began to suspect it might be a work by Leonardo da Vinci. Biro was consulted to examine the painting. He reported finding a fingerprint on the La Bella Principessa that matched on another of Da Vinci's paintings, the Saint Jerome in the Wilderness. This discovery, alongside the assessments of other experts, raised the possibility of reclassifying the artwork as a da Vinci creation, substantially increasing its estimated value. One art dealer speculated that the painting could be worth over $150 million following these revelations.[4]

The New Yorker article and Lawsuit

In 2010, Biro was the subject of an article in The New Yorker written by David Grann, titled "The Mark of a Masterpiece."[2] The article raised questions about Biro's methods and findings. In the 1980's, Biro came under scrutiny for selling forged artworks. He sold two paintings, stating that they were works by Canadian artist Goodridge Roberts. These paintings were later identified as forgeries by experts and Roberts' widow. When the purchaser of the two paintings sought Biro's help to verify the authenticity, he refused to disclose the source and maintained the paintings were genuine, leading to a lawsuit for fraud, in which Biro was found liable. Further issues arose with Biro providing misleading information about the source of the forged paintings and failing to provide proof of transaction. In another case, Biro was sued for duplicating and altering artworks and found liable.

Grann's article also raised questions about Biro's refusal to share detailed evidence for peer review, his practice of modifying fingerprint images on his website for 'security reasons,' and the unconventional techniques he used in enhancing fingerprints on artworks.[2] These doubts intensified when independent examinations suggested that fingerprints on certain artworks authenticated by Biro appeared too recent to be genuine or were possibly forged. For example, finger print experts consulted by Grann suggested that some fingerprints identified by Biro might have been artificially created using a cast from a fingerprint on a paint can.

Biro filed a defamation lawsuit against the magazine and Grann, seeking $2 million in damages.[6][7] Biro argued that the article caused damage to his reputation and health by insinuating that he fabricated fingerprints and planted them on artwork. He expanded his lawsuit to include various other publications that portrayed him negatively, some of which retracted their statements or issued corrections following Biro's lawsuit.[8] Biro's lawsuit was not successful. The US Court of Appeals for the second circuit dismissed Biro’s complaint on the grounds that he failed to demonstrate sufficient facts to support a plausible inference of actual malice in the publication of the article.[9] This ruling also applied to claims against several other publications that had publicized the original story from The New Yorker.

References

  1. ^ "Peter Paul Biro: Forensic Studies in Art". 2019-08-14. Archived from the original on 2024-01-20. Retrieved 2024-01-20.
  2. ^ a b c d Grann, David (2010-07-05). "The Mark of a Masterpiece". The New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X. Retrieved 2024-01-20.
  3. ^ Kennedy, Randy (2006-11-09). "Could Be a Pollock; Must Be a Yarn". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-01-20.
  4. ^ a b "Art Experts Claim New da Vinci Found - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. 2009-10-14. Retrieved 2024-01-20.
  5. ^ Israely, Jeff (2009-10-15). "How a 'New' da Vinci Was Discovered". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2024-01-20.
  6. ^ Ryzik, Compiled by Melena (2011-07-05). "Forensic Analyst Sues Over New Yorker Article". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-01-20.
  7. ^ Zeveloff, Julie (2011-07-06). "Renowned Forensic Art Inspector Sues The New Yorker For Calling Him A Fake". Business Insider. Retrieved 2024-01-20.
  8. ^ Miller, M.H. (2011-12-13). "Peter Paul Biro, Art Authenticator, Expands His Defamation Lawsuit Far Beyond 'The New Yorker' [UPDATE]". Observer. Retrieved 2024-01-20.
  9. ^ Cohen, Patricia (2013-08-02). "Forensic Art Expert's Libel Case Against New Yorker Magazine Is Dismissed". ArtsBeat. Retrieved 2024-01-20.
Categories