{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01964839710444674, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.165605095541402, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In de voetsporen van Max Friedländer

Since the early twentieth century connoisseurship has been criticised because of its subjective character. Max Friedländer, the connoisseur par excellence in the field of early Netherlandish painting, always defended connoisseurship as an indispensable art-historical tool. In his days the technical examination of paintings was gradually introduced. Now, it is a full-fledged field of expertise with its own experts. But no matter how much technical examination has led to new insights, it appears that it is not always able to ‘crack the code’. An attribution issue that is still under debate concerns the shutters of the Werlaltarpiece (Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado). Since the nineteenth century they have been attributed alternately to the Master of Flémalle alias Robert Campin or to Rogier van der Weyden. The enigmatic Werlaltarpiece exemplifies the need for connoisseurship and technical research to go hand in hand.