In the world of dots. And we are down to analysing the process of "Mark Making" here.
We have Four types of dots...
Pyramid Cartouch Dots.. Which appear to be identical in form to the "random splashes"
Vyse Journal dots.. Which are described as small circles in his high Res. drawing. Drawn in ink with a nibbed pen.
Hills facsimile dots.. Which are described as large water colour dots, painted with a long soft "chinese paintbrush", Very typical for that era.
Perring.. No dots at all.. dotless..
If I were looking at this I would try to determine the chronology of the images.
I would also look at the image making process.. Brush type etc..
A brush makes a huge difference to the nature of the gesture.. That is why artists select different brushes.
Hills facsimile painting was clearly made with a "Chinese brush", these became popular and were first imported into Europe during the early part of the 19th century.
European artists had "discovered" oriental painting techniques and were eager to use them.
All of that, later, sinuous Art Nouveau didn't spring from nowhere.
It was all the rage.. Kinda like a new graphics software package hitting the market today.
Research "victorian water colours birds, flowers"
Prior to that, European artists tended to use hog hair stiff brushes.
Even in art , technological development drives the creative process.
Chinese brushes were readily and commercially available at the time of Vyse. They were very fashionable. Along with water colours, exotic inks and oil paint manufactured and sold in lead tubes.. It was a media explosion on a par with digital graphics.
Chinese brushes are designed for painting sinuous curves. Which they are very good at.
I understand that the AE did not have access to Chinese brushes.
The hard evidence suggests that AE paint brushes were short and stiff.
The second set of Glyphs to the lower right of the contentious glyph was clearly made using a short stiff brush. Which would suggest that it is ancient.
I am not sure that the contentious cartouche could have been made with such a short stiff brush.
I would suggest that based purely on the photographs, the contentious cartouche was made using a long, soft, round, sable, chinese, 1/4-1/2 inch paintbrush. It would have been about one foot long with a bristle length of about one, to one and a half inches.
In fact, very similar to the brush that was used to make the Hill facsimile.
In my "art world" reading a "brush mark" or "gesture" could be compared with determining an authentic signature. In that it is very difficult to quantify but nevertheless can be done.
This is as much as can be done using internet photographs. The next stage would be direct observation using various wavelengths of light, followed by microscopic pigment and binder analyses.
Post Edited (07-Sep-14 12:29)