The Ultraviolet against the False and the Illicit Circulation of Art 

(Tempo di lettura: 4 minuti)

Introduction 

In the delicate field of cultural heritage protection, the restorer is often at the forefront, being among the first professionals to meet works of art from judicial seizures. This crucial moment is not limited to a conservative assessment but invites a broader reflection on the material conditions of the work and the possible traces of its recent history – a history sometimes troubled, fragmented or deliberately obscured. 

In this context, non-invasive diagnostic tools such as the Wood (UV) lamp are valuable: not only do they allow to document the state of conservation, but they help to recognize anomalies that could suggest an illicit provenance or alterations made for commercial purposes.

UV analysis and material questions 

The UV lamp allows to observe the pictorial surface under a different wavelength than visible light, making evident fluorescence or absorption that highlight oxidized paints, stucco, recent retouches and other non-original interventions. But its function goes beyond the simple aid to restoration: the reading that results can raise fundamental questions about the context of origin of the work.

Consider the detail in Figure 1: the knee of a female figure, a deity of the Greco-Roman Olympus. In natural light the anatomy appears coherent and without obvious criticalities. However, the observation in UV reveals a large intervention of retouching concentrated precisely on the joint area, probably to cover falls of the pictorial film. Although the restoration is technically flawless and the image readable again, inevitable questions arise: 

Why was a large painting in such poor condition? 

Where and how was it stored? 

What circumstances led to such degradation?

The decontextualization and forced disassembly of works can be important clues. Depriving a painting of its structural elements – frame, frame, supports – makes it easier to hide or transport clandestinely, but also causes serious damage to the pictorial surface, which are subsequently masked by reconstructive interventions.

Observing, questioning, understanding 

The UV survey, as seen, allows to raise questions that are not limited to the technical sphere, but touch the very history of the work. This is where the value of “knowing how to observe, ask questions, understand” comes in – not as an abstract formula, but as a critical and responsible approach.

Faced with what emerges under the ultraviolet radiation, the restorer does not just detect alterations but tries to interpret its meaning: an area extensively retouched, a fluorescence absent where the eye sees continuity, or surfaces that return inconsistent answers. This does not provide automatic answers but opens up scenarios for exploration.

Asking these questions means sharpening the look, developing hypotheses, glimpsing behind an apparent alteration a complex history made up, sometimes, of dismounts, transports, concealments. It is in this step that UV diagnostics transforms from a technical tool to an ethical gesture, returning not only its legibility but also its memory.

Conclusion. The restorer as a critical sentinel 

The use of UV light and non-invasive diagnostic tools must be part of a conscious critical practice, in which technical data is combined with a historical and cultural reading. The restorer – witness of the good – can recognize weak but significant signals: indications of a history made not only of natural degradation, but also of disassembly, make-up, concealment. 

Asking questions, formulating hypotheses, rigorously documenting, these are the tools that turn an observation into a potential avenue for investigation. Not to replace the investigators, but to offer a qualified, attentive and deeply human contribution. 

UV light ultimately illuminates much more than the surface: it can make visible not only materials, but also the unspoken stories that every work sometimes brings with it.