Getting back to McCrone...
Here is McCrone's theory of how the TS was created:
These results suggest that a talented artist carefully
studied the New Testament, sources of information on
the crucifixion, and other artists' paintings of Christ.
He then thought about a shroud image in terms of a
dark tomb. Instead of the usual portrait with normal
light and shadow, he assumed that the image could only
be produced by body contact with the cloth. He
painted directly on the cloth to image the body-contact
points (forehead, bridge of the nose, cheekbones,
mustache, beard, etc., over the entire body, front, and
back). This automatically creates a negative image;
areas that normally catch available light and appear
bright, like the bridge of the nose, would instead all be
dark. However, those dark areas appear bright on a
photographic negative. He decorated the body with
blood stains as required by the New Testament de-
scriptions. These he rendered dark on the Shroud,
hence they form a photographic positive image super-
imposed on the otherwise negative Shroud body image.
The Shroud artist used a style of painting and
painting materials common in Europe during the 14th
century. A chapter entitled "Practice of Painting
Generally During the Fourteenth Century" in an 1847
book' by Sir Charles Locke Eastlake entitled Methods
and Materials of Painting of the Great Schools and
Masters covers precisely the Shroud-like images. He
refers to the process as the English or German mode
of painting faint images ("grisaille", a light monochrome
image). As Eastlake writes: "...After this linen is
painted, its thinness is no more obscured than if it had
not been painted at all, as the colours have no body."
"The peculiarity of the English method appears to have
been its absolute transparency." "A manuscript of the
time contains directions for the preparation of trans-
parent colours for painting on cloth." Eastlake con-
tinues: "The Anglo-German method appears, from the
description, to have been in all respects like modern
water-colour painting except that fine cloth, duly
prepared, was used instead of paper."
http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/uploads ... 560933.pdf
There are many problems with his theory which reveals he did not really understand the shroud.
"These results suggest that a talented artist carefully
studied the New Testament, sources of information on
the crucifixion, and other artists' paintings of Christ."
Even with studying the NT, there is actually not much details on what happened during the passion week. What is interesting is the shroud contains
more information than what is described in the gospels.
There is not a lot of detailed information on crucifixion in textual records. There is even less in archaeological records. Yet the shroud provides evidence never seen elsewhere on how scourging and crucifixions occurred.
The shroud deviates in many ways with artist paintings, esp in the details. The TS deviates with the location of the wounds in the hands, the depiction of the crown of thorns, the scourge marks in the front of the body, scourge marks from shoulders to feet, not wearing any clothes. Also, if it was painted, the TS is the first example of hyperrealistic art.
"He then thought about a shroud image in terms of a dark tomb."
Not sure what he means by this. Nothing can be seen in a dark tomb.
"Instead of the usual portrait with normal
light and shadow, he assumed that the image could only
be produced by body contact with the cloth."
Since the cloth is draped over the body, there are few contact points. So, painting the image of points of contact with the cloth would have little imaging.
"This automatically creates a negative image;
areas that normally catch available light and appear
bright, like the bridge of the nose, would instead all be
dark."
Why would an artist have painted the first negative image that would proceed by hundreds of years the first actual negative image? How can anyone imagine to paint a technique that wasn't even invented yet? Even today, nobody paints a hyperrealistic negative image. It doesn't make any sense for someone in the medieval ages to paint one before it was even conceived.
"He decorated the body with
blood stains as required by the New Testament de-
scriptions."
This would not be correct because there are no body imaging under the blood stains. The blood stains would've had to been on the cloth first.
"These he rendered dark on the Shroud,
hence they form a photographic positive image super-
imposed on the otherwise negative Shroud body image."
The blood stains on the TS are reddish, not dark.
"The Shroud artist used a style of painting and
painting materials common in Europe during the 14th
century."
The materials might be available then, but the artistic style is completely different. There was nobody that could paint hyperrealistically at that time.
"A chapter entitled "Practice of Painting
Generally During the Fourteenth Century" in an 1847
book' by Sir Charles Locke Eastlake entitled Methods
and Materials of Painting of the Great Schools and
Masters covers precisely the Shroud-like images."
Does the book mention the TS as an example of such a technique? Highly doubtful, since McCrone does not quote from the book that the TS used such a technique. If what McCrone claims is true, then why would this book not mention the TS? Why does
any art book fail to mention the TS?
"As Eastlake writes: "...After this linen is
painted, its thinness is no more obscured than if it had
not been painted at all, as the colours have no body."
The STURP team concluded it was not painted. Further, the water and fire damage over the years of the TS did not cause any image running, distortion, or smears. So, there's no way it could've been painted.
"A manuscript of the
time contains directions for the preparation of trans-
parent colours for painting on cloth."
Further evidence it is not painted is the coloration is only on the top-most fibers. The superficiality of the coloration is what contributes to the "transparent color." How can one paint individual fibers?
