Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Culture and Art
Reference:

The specifics of attribution of paintings: the Morelli method

Sheremeteva Natalya Vladimirovna

Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil Law Disciplines, Vladivostok State University; Master's student, School of Arts and Humanities, Far Eastern Federal University; assistant judge, Arbitration Court of Primorsky Krai.

690105, Russia, Primorsky Krai, Vladivostok, Russian str., 57zh, sq. 274

nata-sheremet@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0625.2022.12.37449

EDN:

PNOEPZ

Received:

01-02-2022


Published:

30-12-2022


Abstract: Attribution and the study of painting pose two important questions to researchers: the choice of methodology and terminology used in describing and highlighting the characteristics of a work of art. "Visual research" as an integrated approach to the problems of reception and creativity forms a system of stable principles of analysis of the monument, focused on the study of the vision and complex extraverbal aspects of the existence of the subject in the historical and cultural space. The analysis of painting involves an integrated approach based on the study of technique and material, the features of shaping and means of artistic expression, iconography and semantics, the creative method of the master and the consumer's reaction, the role in the context of everyday culture and the principles of reception in a synchronous and diachronic cut.In the 19th century, the Italian art critic Giovanni Morelli made a significant contribution to the theory and practice of painting by outstanding masters of the Renaissance. Methods based on deep knowledge in the field of human anatomy and the analysis of the artist's professional skills have influenced not only the history of art, but also the development of criminology, criminology, psychoanalytic theory and psychotherapeutic practice. This article analyzes the method of Giovanni Morelli, which is adapted not only to the needs of attribution, but is also applicable to forensic tasks requiring the analysis of human skills and habits, as well as the identification or attribution of works of art.


Keywords:

methodology of art history research, visual research, history of art, attribution, Giovanni Morelli, means of artistic expression, painting, scientific approaches, methodology, fine arts

This article is automatically translated.

The aesthetic theory of art is studied logically and consistently. Art is defined as a problem area of artistic culture, one of the cognitive forms of the world, a realistic model of an artistic image. The artistic image is considered as a general artistic phenomenon and artistic thinking, a specific form of artistic cognition, a special means of reflecting thoughts and feelings about the surrounding world, its internal structure: universal, special and individual, objective and subjective, perceptual unity. with reason; ambiguous, metaphorical.

Already in the 18th century, the issue of attribution became particularly relevant due to the increase in the number of undated and unsigned monuments and works of art being studied. The art of determining a picture by the way it is painted is the most dubious of the arts after medicine.

One of the problems of the so-called stylistic criticism of works of art is to separate the original elements of the artist's approach and technique from the secondary and accidental ones. This is what distinguishes the original from the reproduction, the author's repetition and forgery in the hand of a less talented master, how the artist matures and how early and atypical his work is, the work of the master and the work of his students and imitators, primary state and later edits, additions and corrections, editing of masters in student works.

Another question is the peculiarities of personal style and author's technique, their evolution in the creative path of the artist. The works of early artists often differ greatly from the works of the middle and late period.

As for old paintings, there is a so-called "problem of old paints". Paintings painted with oil paints are covered with a colorless varnish for better preservation of color and brightness. This is usually done by the artist himself before presenting the work to clients or the public. On the eve of the opening of the exhibition, the artists directly varnished the paintings in the exhibition hall in the presence of specially selected guests.

Research methodology. The methodology is based on a systematic analysis of a wide range of historical and cultural material (primarily paintings). The main condition and feature of such an analysis was the attention to the general cultural side of a phenomenon and, as a result, the explanation of the phenomena of art as part of culture. At the same time, works of art are considered in accordance with their specifics, their formal and stylistic qualities, iconographic features, and sometimes symbolic meaning are revealed.

The state of study of the issue. The identified problems were touched upon in one way or another by the majority of researchers who turned to art and culture. A great contribution to their study on the material of literature was made by F.I. Buslaev, A.S. Arkhangelsky, A.I. Sobolevsky, D.S. Likhachev, A.N. Robinson, N.S. Demkova, A.S. Demin, O.A. Belobrova, E.K. Romodanovskaya, N.I. Prokofiev, L.I. Sazonova, A.M. Currently, I.A. Bondarenko, V.V. Sedov, S.S. Popadyuk, Yu.V. Tarabarina and others are working in this field. Iconography, painting and graphics have become the subject of research by A.I. Uspensky, I.E. Grabar, V.N. Nechaev, B.V. Mikhailovsky and B.I. Purishev, N.E. Mneva, S.I. Maslenitsyn, I.P. Bolottseva, V.G. Bryusova, E.S. Ovchinnikova, A.A. Pavlenko, T.E. Kazakevich, L.N. Savina, N.I. Komashko, T.L. Nikitina, V.P. Golikova, A.A. Sidorova, O.R. Khromova, A.G. Sakovich, A.V. Gamlitsky and a number of other scientists. Carving, sculpture and applied art are reflected in the works of N.N. Sobolev, N.N. Pomerantsev, N.V. Maltsev, I.M. Sokolova, V.I. Troitsky, M.M. Postnikova-Loseva, N.A. Mayasova, A.V. Silkin, M.N. Levinson-Nechaeva, I.N. Ukhanova, M.V. Martynova, I.A. Bobrovnitskaya, I.A. Selezneva, V.V. Igosheva, S.V. Gnutova. A.V. Preobrazhensky, N. Findeisen, V.M. Brazhnikov, V.N. Peretz, V.N. Vsevolodsky-Gerngross, O.A. Derzhavina, L.A. Sofronova were engaged in music and theater.

There are few works on the general problems of attribution of culture and art. As fundamental, it is necessary to highlight the works of B.A. Uspensky, A.M. Panchenko and M.B. Plyukhanova, where various aspects of the topic are covered, including the topic of specificity and the problems of attribution studied in this article.

Objects of ancient art are a storehouse of secrets and riddles. While studying collections, researchers are faced with the need to solve various problems related to the exhibits. This concerns establishing the date of their creation, clarifying the plot, the identity of the person depicted or determining the place shown in the landscape, and, finally, authorship [5, 112]. Sometimes it can be done immediately and without much effort. Sometimes the solution of such problems stretches for years. The proposed options, according to the researcher, are close to the truth, can then be revised by the author of the idea himself or his opponents. This is always associated with the emergence of new data, including those obtained using the latest scientific methods. Ultraviolet and infrared radiation help to analyze the surface of canvases; X-ray reveals the inner structure of painting; chemical analysis of pigments allows you to specify the time of performance of a work of art. Knowledge also retains its significance - the quality of the researcher, which gives him the opportunity to draw conclusions based on his experience. Nevertheless, these conclusions should be reasoned by comparisons and references to well-known precedents.

Such work in art history is called attribution. This term originated on the basis of the Latin word attribuere, meaning "to attribute". It should also be noted that the Latin concept attributum, rooted at first in the field of philosophy with the meaning of "essential property" or "attribute", influenced the definition of the priorities of the new discipline [4, p. 18].

The problems of attribution of painting are widely known and not new. As one of the ways to overcome this problem, we will consider the well-known Mrelli method.

In the scientific passport, which each exhibit should have, there is even a special section – attribution. Of course, not every exhibit passes the re-attribution test. Many modern works of art are accompanied by complete information about them.

Attribution of works of art is one of the main tasks of scientific activity in the field of art, without the solution of which it is impossible to create expositions, organize exhibitions, and ultimately, to reconstruct the historical situation or biography of a particular creative personality. 

Today, new archival documents are being introduced into scientific circulation, allowing to change the seemingly established point of view on a particular picture; new electronic resources appear at the services of researchers, the real geographical boundaries of the search for analogies and information disappear, new methods of technical and technological analysis are proposed. At the same time, even in the modern world of high-tech expertise, a specialist's view, his intuition and experience often remain decisive.

Attribution capabilities have expanded significantly these days, which allows us to take a fresh look at this issue. 

Formed on the wave of knowledge, initially selectively related to the object of study ("masterpiece studies"), the science of art has always raised doubts about the adequacy of methods and the reliability of results [6, p. 9]. Already in the twentieth century, attempts to reduce research practice to concentrated work with a specific work, to reliance on a philosophical and theoretical basis, to scrupulous identification of the narrative foundations of visual language or to the analysis of pure form detached from the context formed a very contradictory in its mosaic methodology of art studies. Neither the structuralist scheme of oppositions, nor the interdisciplinary approach, nor the liberation from the conventions of scientific language and the transition to an essayistic style of presentation have solved the problem of forming a scientific research base: history and art criticism, source specificity and dynamic individualism of the author's interpretation collide, forming a complex set of methodological problems of studying art.

Modern art criticism inherits the traditions of the past, including issues of the formation of a corpus of scientific approaches to the monument, doubts about the adequacy of certain methodological guidelines, memories of the selectivity of preferences and the "amateur nature" of the original concept of reasoning about art. The scientific status of research installations comes into conflict both with the subject of study and with the established tradition of verbal embodiment of visual experience, the primary nature of which generates a kind of ambivalence of reception. The duality of perception and the emphasis on visual impression, which gave rise to the "visual turn" of modern humanitarian knowledge, forms a new body of methodological guidelines and rules when working with a work of art [6, p. 215].

The study of the means of artistic expression of the epoch becomes a scientific problem somewhat later, although the question of the characteristic features of the style appears in the reflections of scientists. The formation and development of the methodology for the study of decorative and applied art is primarily due to the principles of formal stylistic analysis and the study of everyday culture, the classification can be based on chronology, technical characteristics, types of objects, etc. [7, p. 105]

Attribution of art initially assumed an integrated approach, logically connected with an appeal to the art history, historical-archaeological, cultural-anthropological principles of material analysis. Since the appearance of reference publications and analytical scientific publications, it has been the artistic design of household items and the environment that has contributed to the formation of interdisciplinary methods of study [6, p. 219].

The problematic field of research is the issues of chronology and style. Researchers use the principle of periodization based on the sequence of historical events, determine the epochs by the ruling dynasties. Attribution requires the definition of the region of creation, school, workshop, perhaps a group of masters or a specific artist, the author's problem has become one of the key ones in modern research that refutes the concept of "nameless art". On the basis of identifying stylistic analogies, fixing the distinctive features of the workshop (brand), determining the ways of movement of the artel, the concept of medieval art is formed, characterized by an individual creative manner. The problem of exhibiting medieval monuments in the museum space - the formation of permanent expositions and exhibition projects - is solved through the scientific reconstruction of the principles of the existence of the object in the architectural and artistic environment.

Determining the significance of the works of Giovanni Morelli and his expert art criticism practice for improving the methods and means of forensic research is important both for the purposes of identification or attribution of works of fine art, and for solving forensic problems that require the analysis of human skills and habits. The name of Morelli and his works are not well known to domestic criminologists and forensic experts, although his works, which provide data on the skills of artists to depict human ears, hands, nails, as well as elements of the landscape and the environment captured in paintings, are of undoubted interest. Some of his observations can also be used to improve the methods of identification research of terrain areas and certain categories of objects based on their images.

In 1870, at the request of the Minister of Education, he went to Naples to formulate new legislative norms for the creation of galleries, the reform of fine art education and the rules for the restoration and conservation of works. According to the results of the trip, a report was submitted in which Morelli described about 760 paintings, some of which, in his opinion, were attributed incorrectly. In 1874, having settled in Milan, Morelli spent two years publishing articles on the attribution of paintings from the Italian Renaissance in the Viennese fine Arts magazine (Zeitschrift fur bildende Kunst).

The Morelli method

The method [10, p. 37] is based on a long-term study of the works of Italian Renaissance artists. The main discovery to which Morelli first drew the attention of art historians is the repeatability and individuality of the features of the artists' performance of "secondary" elements of images, mainly peripheral, details of the appearance of people in portraits and in paintings with images of groups of people, clothing, the environment (landscapes, architecture, interior, drapery). Convincing attributions of Giovanni Morelli, which proved the validity of his approach, made it possible to talk about the "Morelli method", and more often – the "Morellian" method [10, p. 40].

The method is based on the use of "hints" – the features of the image of minor details, rather than the general features of the composition and the subject or other broad interpretations that are often used by art historians, copyists and imitators [2, p. 39]. Morelli believed that the artist's individuality is expressed most reliably in the details that the audience is least interested in. The discovery of this pattern was largely facilitated by Morelli's medical education and deep knowledge in the field of anatomy [10, pp. 51-52].

Giovanni Morelli attributed the "Donna Velata" by Raffaello Santi, paintings by Lorenzo Lotto, Palma il Vecchio, Antonio da Correggio; established the authorship of the famous "Sleeping Venus" from the Dresden Art Gallery, belonging to the brush of the outstanding Venetian painter Giorgione. Previously, the painting was considered a copy of the work of Titian (Tiziano) that has not been preserved [8, p. 204].

Morelli was called an amateur and tried to prove that his method was possible only in theory. But he had a strong following. For example, the Italian attribution master Federico Zeri (1921-1998) believed that the one with the most photos wins. An expert should have erudition and "seen enough material", therefore, have an archive and a file of sketches and photographs at hand [1, p. 179].

Morelli denied that his method could be reduced to a mechanical process in which attribution is carried out using just a small detail. He came to his conclusions about the authorship of paintings not only by the shape of hands, nails, ears or toes. He claimed that his observations are just one of many tools that help in the practice of attribution of paintings [3, p. 31]. Analyzing Morelli's works on attribution of paintings by Italian artists from a forensic and forensic point of view, it should be noted that his methods are extremely important not only for the purposes of identifying a particular author, but also for the purposes of developing and using diagnostic and classification studies of works of fine art, in particular, for attributing a particular work to a certain circle artists or painting school, assessment of the quality of restoration of paintings, etc. [9, p. 12]

Morelli's name and his method are mentioned in many scientific works devoted to the history of art criticism, attribution of paintings and graphics, fine art of the Italian Renaissance, as well as collecting. It should take its deserved place in the history of criminology and forensic examination.

Giovanni Morelli made a great contribution to the theory and practice of scientific attribution of works of fine art. He can be considered the founder of the method of identifying the author of the product by professional skills reflected in the created objects. He also characterized such properties of professional artistic skills as stability and individuality [8, p. 133].

The artist's abilities and habits, according to his opinion, manifest themselves mainly in the depiction of minor details – hands, fingers, nails, ears, halos, furnishings, elements of the background landscape. In the future, this served as an impetus for the development by criminologists of methods for identifying a person by the structure of the auricle, which is displayed both in paintings and photographic portraits, and in traces-displays on the surface of some elements of the scene of the incident (windows, doors, etc.).

The use of the Morelli method and the possibility of a comprehensive forensic examination of the cultural value of works of art, together with an appropriate arsenal of tools and special knowledge in the field of art history, criminology and materials science, as well as the involvement of digital technologies, can significantly improve museums, art historians and the reliability of the results of attribution activities for world experts, auction houses and amateur collectors.

Conclusions:When it comes to knowledge in the field of art, the discussion often boils down to a very simple, but very ambiguous question of attribution, that is, establishing the authorship of a work.

This seemingly simple question often causes controversy — partly because large sums of money can be at stake: if a work of art is created by a famous master, it is expensive, and if it is created by someone not very important or if it is a fake, then it is worth nothing. Because of this, if people get the wrong answer to the question about the authorship of the picture that they would like to hear, it can make them very angry. So we should focus our attention on how exactly we form knowledge in the field of art.

It is necessary to recall an extremely important figure in the field of art — the konosiere. This word comes from the French connoisseur ("the one who knows"). In the art world, this word has a very specific meaning: a conosier is an expert, an expert on a certain era or author who can establish authorship, that is, if you show him some work of art and ask who created it, they will be able to answer this question. 

This field of activity was founded by the Italian Giovanni Morelli, who tried to apply scientific methods to the definition of authorship in painting. He specialized in the Italian Renaissance, an era that is still considered the most important, valuable and expensive. Thus, Morelli researched the works of those artists who worked in Italy between 1400 and 1600, including Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Tintoretto, Titian, Bellini, Mantegna, Giorgione and many, many other artists. At that time, the authors usually did not sign their works, and often the artist's followers made copies of his paintings — for example, so that the owner of the painting could hang the original in his city palazzo, and a copy in the country, and no one saw anything wrong with making a copy. However, over time, the owners (and the owner could also be a temple or monastery) could forget where the original is and where the copy is, and in many cases we simply do not know who the author is. Sometimes, over time, the owners of the painting formed a somewhat optimistic idea that it was created by one of the famous artists, for example, Botticelli or Raphael, although in fact this is not the case. 

Morelli decided to try to streamline the whole system and establish who created these works — both in Italy and in museums in other European countries — and published a number of works in which he re-attributed many paintings. He regarded his method as a scientific technique that differed from the approach of other art historians of that time. He said: you should not get hung up on the catchy details of the picture. So, if you are examining the image of the Virgin Mary, you should not look at her eyes and lips, because if it is a copy, the author probably made every effort to make them look exactly the same as in the original, but the author of the copy could neglect less important details. 

In particular, Morelli believed that artists develop their own ways of depicting, for example, ears and hands, and in these details, one might say, they give themselves away. Morelli described how different artists — for example, Botticelli, Mantegna and Giovanni Bellini — depict ears and hands. He used this technique because he believed that it was in these parts of the body that the author resorts to individual artistic solutions and this will give him away, especially if we are talking about a copy. This is how the concept of a bill of lading arose. 

The idea of considering less significant, less obvious details has greatly influenced other scientists. So, Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, got acquainted with the works of Morelli and came to the conclusion that his ideas are very similar to the methodology, which, in his opinion, should be successful in psychoanalysis, in particular in the interpretation of dreams. When patients described their dreams to him, he paid special attention to the little things: in his opinion, in this way he was approaching a true understanding of the psychological state of the patient. So Freud believed that Morelli's technique— attention to minor details that are usually ignored — is similar to the methodology of psychoanalysis. In particular, dream analysis and minor details that patients mention when describing their dreams can become "clues" to understanding their psychology. 

And this is another idea that originated from Morelli's work — the concept of evidence. The word "evidence" is often found in detective novels, but then it was a new intellectual concept — to take a small fact and draw extensive conclusions from it. So, Morelli's work greatly influenced another physician — Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the author of the stories about detective Sherlock Holmes, who solved riddles with the help of evidence, getting a huge amount of information from them. In particular, in one of the stories, Sherlock Holmes solves the riddle by drawing attention to the unique features of the shape of the human ear.

References
1. Bazin J. The history of the history of art: from Vasari to the present day. M.: Progress-Culture.-1994.-528 s
2. Vlasov V.G. Theory of shaping in the visual arts.-St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University.-2017.-188 p.
3. Ginzburg K. Signs. The evidence paradigm and its roots (translated by S. Kozlov) // New Literary Review.-1994.-No. 8.-pp. 27-61.
4. Zinin A.M. Riddles of portraits. Notes of a criminalist.-M.: Prospect.-2019.-160 p.
5. Moxie K. Nostalgia for Reality: the uneasy relationship between art history and visual research. // The World of images: images of the world: anthology of research. visual. culture / ed.-comp. N. N. Mazur; Europe. un-t in St. Petersburg.-St. Petersburg: M.: New publishing house.-2018.-540 p.
6. Don't believe your eyes: deceptions in art: cat. vyst. / State. Hermitage.-St. Petersburg: Publishing House of the State. Hermitage Museum.-2018.-504 p.
7. Reutov A. S. Perception of the visible: the ratio of optical and tactile in the framework of visual research // Manuscript.-2018.-¹ 2 (88).-184 S.
8. Anderson J. The life of Giovanni Morelli in Risorgimento, Italy.-Milan: Official Library.-2019.-268 p.
9. Uglov L. Giovanni Morelli and his friend Giorgione: connoisseur, science and irony // Journal of Art Criticism.-2014.-No. 11.-pp. 1-30.
10. Ventrell F. Female inscriptions in the Morellian method. Constance Jocelyn Foulkes and the Connoisseur's Translation. In: Costa M.T., Hnes H.Ch . (ed.). Migrating art stories. Berlin: Publishing House De Gruyter.-2018.-pp. 37-58.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

It has long been known in the research culture that using the word "problem" in the title of an article or scientific work of any other genre is, in fact, a weak point of research – since the author thereby signs the impossibility of concretizing this problem and putting it in the title. On the other hand, the very fact of problematization is still half the battle, it is necessary not only to put any problem at the forefront, but also to propose a solution to it, and so any author can say: I formulated the problem, this is my scientific contribution. But unfortunately or fortunately, this is still not the case. We always expect a very specific result from scientific work, and not a stingy formulation of the problem. The author needs to seriously reflect on this circumstance and take it into account. As for the subject of research – attribution of paintings, it really exists in the space of art history, museology, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, but also in cultural studies. In this case, the author aims to trace methodological approaches to attribution. Along the way, again, I note that methodological approaches to the problem are in no way possible to determine, since any problem itself needs to choose an adequate methodology for its research. By the way, methodological approaches to attribution are also not a very good option, because in this case it is not at all clear whether we are talking about approaches to the study of attribution or whether the author is still focused on the methodology of the attribution process itself. But it is still necessary to turn to the content of the work in order to understand in which direction the author of the article proposed for review is considering the designated topic. The weak point of the work is the lack of an adequate analysis of the scientific discourse on the topic, it turns out that the author is its pioneer, but this is unlikely to be the case in reality. An integral part of the research culture is to prove to readers and experts that the author is so well–versed in the topic that he can formulate his own concept and fit it into existing developments. This cannot be said for this article, just as it cannot be said about how well the author is versed in the selected issues. In many of his expressions, the author expresses rather controversial ideas, which are strange to hear in a work devoted to painting as the most important form of art; they are of a rather dubious nature and do not fit into any of the methodological approaches that the author is ready to defend. Here are just a few examples: "however, painting is perceived as part of museum practice..." (how can painting be part of museum practice?); "analysis of social institutions is of particular importance in the study of painting: workshop organization, principles of training, requirements for the master..." (obviously, we are not talking about social institutions here at all, and, for example, about didactics, the specifics of the work of artists), etc. All these subjective interpretations only aggravate the already rather difficult position of the author, to whose professional competence serious questions may arise. Meanwhile, the author is thoroughly working on the concept of attribution, which in general can be called a good place for the whole study. But still, in this case, it would be desirable to focus on some one key content that would most correspond to the logic of the work. The author mainly focuses on the Morelli method in the article, while the title states methodological approaches that I did not find in the article. The topic is not disclosed. This material can only be considered as a kind of draft or outline for serious work.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

In the journal Culture and Art, the author presented his article "The specifics of attribution of paintings: the Morelli method", in which a study was conducted of the method of studying a work of art based on identifying its inherent features, analyzing and comparing them with similar and related objects and concluding about the time and place of its creation, authorship. The author proceeds in the study of this issue from the fact that in modern art criticism much attention is paid to the theoretical side of the study of art, the artistic image. Attribution of works of art, according to the author, is one of the main tasks of scientific activity in the field of art, without which it is impossible to create expositions, organize exhibitions, reconstruct the historical situation or biography of a particular creative personality. Attribution is a mandatory section of the passport of any museum exhibit. The relevance of this research lies in the wide range of applications of this technique in modern art criticism, as well as in a large number of works of art that need expertise to confirm authorship or belonging to a certain era or direction. The author notes that the issue of attribution of a certain work of art has not lost its relevance since the XVIII century. Scientific novelty is determined by the analysis of the attribution methodology developed by J. Morelli. The practical significance of studying the problems of attribution of works of art lies in the frequent occurrence of controversial issues concerning authorship and, accordingly, the value of a certain object. The theoretical basis of the research was the works of scientists of art historians working with art objects of different directions and genres (F.I. Buslaev, Yu.V. Tarabarina, I.E. Grabar, A.G. Sakovich, M.M. Postnikova-Loseva, V.N. Vsevolodsky-Gerngross, B.A. Uspensky, etc.). Various works of art served as empirical material. The methodological basis of the research is based on a systematic analysis of a wide range of historical and cultural material, the main condition of which was, on the one hand, attention to the general cultural side of a phenomenon and, as a result, an explanation of the phenomena of art as part of culture, and on the other, the identification of the specifics of the work of art, formal stylistic qualities, iconographic features, and Sometimes there are symbols. Having conducted a bibliographic review of the works devoted to the studied problem, the author notes the wide scientific coverage of the topic of the phenomenon of the object of art of various directions and genres as part of the socio-cultural stratum of society, but at the same time the author concludes that there are few works on the general problems of attribution of culture and art. The purpose of the study is to analyze the attribution methodology developed by Giovanni Morelli and explore the potential of its application in the study of objects of artistic culture. The author states that modern attribution of a work of art is a complex interdisciplinary method that includes many areas: philosophical and aesthetic justification, stylistic analysis, art historical descriptive methods, technological laboratory analyses. An important criterion, according to the author, is the expert's experience, knowledge and intuition. The plot of the work, the socio-cultural context, the materials, the technique of writing, and the style of the artist are subject to a comprehensive analysis. Attribution of art initially assumed an integrated approach related to the appeal to the art, historical, archaeological, cultural and anthropological principles of material analysis. Thanks to scientific and technological progress, the possibilities of modern attribution have significantly expanded. For the purposes of his research, the author pays considerable attention to the description and analysis of the original expert method of attribution of works of fine art, developed by the Italian art historian of the 18th century Giovanni Morelli. This technique was the result of many years of studying a large number of works of fine art of the Renaissance (760 paintings) and systematization of the empirical material obtained. The essence of the Morelli method is to study the repeatability and individuality of the features of the artists' performance of secondary elements of images. Morelli paid special attention to the specifics of drawing body parts (hands, ears), garments, and small background details. In his opinion, these elements escape the attention of both art experts and those who decide to make copies (forgeries) of the painting. According to the author, Giovanni Morelli made a great contribution to the theory and practice of scientific attribution of works of fine art. He can be considered the founder of the method of identifying the author of the product by professional skills reflected in the created objects. He also characterized such properties of professional artistic skills as stability and individuality. The author notes the high practical importance of the Morelli method not only in the field of art criticism, but also from the point of view of its application in forensic examination. The method is important not only for the purposes of "identifying a specific author, but also for the purpose of developing and using diagnostic and classification studies of works of fine art, in particular, to attribute a particular work to a certain circle of artists or a painting school, to assess the quality of restoration of a painting." In addition, this method marked the beginning of the development by criminologists of methods for identifying a person by the structure of the auricle, and was also adopted by many scientists and authors of works (A. Conan Doyle and his Sherlock Holmes deduction method). After conducting the research, the author comes to the conclusion about the high practical significance of the Morelli method in the field of attribution of works of art and its influence on subsequent scientific discoveries not only in the field of art criticism, but also psychology, criminology. It seems that the author in his material touched upon relevant and interesting issues for modern socio-humanitarian knowledge, choosing a topic for analysis, consideration of which in scientific research discourse will entail certain changes in the established approaches and directions of analysis of the problem addressed in the presented article. The results obtained allow us to assert that the study of the application of the method of attribution of works of art is of undoubted theoretical and practical cultural and art criticism interest and can serve as a source of further research. The material presented in the work has a clear, logically structured structure that contributes to a more complete assimilation of the material. An adequate choice of methodological base also contributes to this. The bibliographic list of the study consists of 10 sources, including foreign ones, which seems insufficient for generalization and analysis of scientific discourse on the studied problem. This list does not contain the works mentioned by the author in the bibliographic review. The author fulfilled his goal, obtained certain scientific results that allowed him to summarize the material. It should be stated that the article may be of interest to readers and deserves to be published in a reputable scientific publication after the specified flaw has been eliminated.