If you think the art world is set in stone, think again. I recently discovered a fascinating story about how artificial intelligence helped confirm that a painting sold for just £71,000, dismissed as a mere copy, is likely an authentic Caravaggio. That’s right, a 17th-century masterpiece hiding in plain sight, reconsidered thanks to modern technology.
The mystery of The Lute Player and its fluctuating value
Caravaggio‘s works are rare gems, with only a few dozen paintings surviving to this day. When one turns up, it’s headline news and often valued at eye-watering sums. So the story of The Lute Player, which Sotheby’s sold in 2001 as just a “circle of Caravaggio” work for a modest £71,000, is quite remarkable. Originally sold back in 1969 for just £750 as a copy, this painting hung under the shadow of doubt for decades.
But here’s where things get interesting. Scientific AI analysis carried out by the Swiss firm Art Recognition, collaborating with Liverpool University, pointed to an 85.7% probability that the Badminton House version of The Lute Player was actually painted by Caravaggio himself. According to Dr Carina Popovici, the lead researcher, probabilities above 80% are considered very strong in authentication studies.
“The AI result knocks Mr Christiansen off his perch.”
This finding is stunning because top art institutions like Sotheby’s and the Metropolitan Museum have long dismissed this version as a copy or a work by a less celebrated artist from Caravaggio’s circle. The AI study also raised doubts about another version, held in the Wildenstein collection, declaring it not authentic, contradicting previous expert opinions. Details like the lute’s craftsmanship—scrutinized by specialist David Van Edwards—supported these conclusions, showing clear faults in the supposedly authentic Wildenstein version that didn’t appear in the Badminton or the Hermitage versions.
Why did traditional scholarship resist this new attribution?
It was intriguing to see some prominent art historians and curators resist the AI-backed attribution. The Met’s former head of European paintings famously asserted no modern scholar would believe the Badminton version was Caravaggio’s. Yet others in the art community suspect that traditional art historians are sometimes
caught up in established narratives and subjective biases, willing to overlook new types of objective evidence like AI analysis that could rewrite art history.
Clovis Whitfield, the British art historian who bought the painting in 2001, believed strongly in the Badminton piece’s authenticity for years, especially when cross-referencing historical descriptions from Caravaggio’s early biographer Giovanni Baglione, who noted minute details such as dew drops on flowers in the painting. The AI results now seem to vindicate his long-held views.
This clash between tradition and technology highlights a key tension in the art world today. AI offers a fresh set of eyes—objective, data-driven, and capable of unearthing connections and details that human experts might miss or dismiss. But integrating these insights requires openness to challenge long-standing assumptions.
What this means for art and AI in the future
The rediscovery of Caravaggio’s hand in The Lute Player thanks to AI is an exciting example of how technology is transforming art authentication. When AI is combined with rigorous historical research and expert craftsmanship analysis, it delivers a holistic perspective that could revolutionize how we view, value, and preserve art.
This story also shows that AI is not just some futuristic buzzword in art but a practical tool already questioning accepted knowledge and possibly correcting historic oversights. As scientific methods improve, and more artworks undergo similar analysis, we might find ourselves rewriting art history textbooks or uncovering other masterpieces hidden behind erroneous attributions.
The painting’s journey—from a cheap “copy” sold for hundreds to a likely Caravaggio valued in the millions—reminds us how much there still is to discover and reassess. It also raises questions about the future home of such works—should they be in public collections so everyone can appreciate their full value?
Key takeaways
- AI is increasingly powerful for authenticating art, providing objective evidence to support or challenge traditional scholarly opinions.
- The Badminton House version of The Lute Player is now believed to be an original Caravaggio with high probability, overturning decades of dismissal as a copy.
- The case highlights cultural inertia but also the opening of new paths as tech and human expertise combine to deepen our understanding of art history.
It’s amazing to think that centuries after Caravaggio’s death, technology can still transform our view of his work—and no doubt, countless artworks will undergo similar scrutiny in years to come. It’s a thrilling time to be an art lover and an AI enthusiast alike.
