I've been searching for a way to properly articulate this-- why does it matter, really, who painted it? I mean I understand that monetary value has a lot to do with a painting (and painter's) pedigree. But how can aesthetically judging a painting be influenced by who painted it? Shouldn't we judge an individual piece of artwork based on its own merits, not the reputation of who we think created it?

I mean, if I've got this right, if it's a Reubens, it's priceless, but if it's by someone else, it's worthless. That's not art. That's autographs.

If the National Gallery is exhibiting a painting that is not what it purports it to be, then of what value is any other work of art shown there. Technical merit alone is not sufficient. If a highly skilled forger copies a Rembrandt, one could admire the skill required to make the copy, but would it be legitimate to say they are equal, as if the artist is not important at all? There is value in the originality of the creator. If a writer copies the style of a revered author, does that make the two equal? If the National Gallery believes this painting to be a good and masterly work of art, that is well and good; proper attribution being a minimum requirement one would think. If they consider it inferior work, slapping a respected artists label on it does no one justice. Owning up to a 5 million dollar mistake might be difficult, but how much is ones reputation worth?

I'd be interested in hearing a balanced discussion of this image and attribution issues. Unfortunately this article is not it. The author never presents any evidence for the painting's authenticity, speaks of art historians and curators in a sneering tone as "experts" (quotation marks from the article) and seems hellbent on presenting this as an example of institutional fraud and negligence. Mistakes in attribution do happen, and it does sound like the provenance for this work could be questionable. The differences between the work and contemporary copies also seem worthy of note.

Nevertheless, I'm not buying the argument on the basis of this article. I also find it odd that there seem to be no actual Rubens scholars (and there are a lot of them out there) arguing against this work - at least as the article presents it, the painting's detractors are contemporary artists (not that contemporary artists can't have valid insights into past works) and a painter who has published on Egyptian/Roman art. It's also not news that dendochronology is not a foolproof method for determining authenticity. And for the record, I know a number of artists who would take issue with the statement that Rubens is the "painter's painter par excellence" - they tend to prefer Rembrandt as a rule.

It is clear that Rubens is not a dutch painter, he was a flemish painter. Normally this distiction would be minimal as at that time he low lands were just being separated (by the Spanish). Dutch painter : Rembrandt, Flemish painter: Rubens. Look at paintings by both and you'll know the difference.

The remainder of the article is much more accurate than the title.

I am not an art historian. I have studied art in college, and I have a pretty good eye for detail, but I have no art history pedigree.

I went to the site AfterRubens.org. It seems clear to me that whoever paited that particular painting was NOT a master. The hand of the old woman on the left was the individual piece of evidence that convinced me, although there are many other parts that seem very poorly done.

Go look for yourselves. Rubens was much better than that.

There is very little in this article that you can't find on AfterRubens.org. Seems as if the author merely reiterated the claims made on the website, got some biographical data on Ms. Doxiadis, interviewed some of Ms. Doxiadis's friends, and got a few vague comments from the museum. This was more like a positive review of a website than an in-depth article exploring a possible art forgery. Were there no outside Rubens experts who could have weighed in on this?

Forgers like Elmyr de Hory claim to have paintings in all the world's most prominent museums. That Samson and Delilah might be fake is not entirely shocking, but the shallow, lazy, and seemingly biased reporting in this article only encourages me to doubt Ms. Doxiadis's claims. Fascinating topic. Poor treatment.

You people need to get laid, or grab hold of reality in earnest, or SOMETHING.

And Salon's editors need to unscrew their heads from their assholes.

Rob Anderson doesn't think this is important! Therefore, it must not be important.

I feel soooo much better now, thanks!