This article discusses a book about a cache of previously “undiscovered” work of Frida Kahlo. There is controversy about whether the work is fake or not.
One of the photos in the article has some writing apparently done in blood by Frida. (It says “my blood is here” and has a picture of a heart dripping blood.) My question is, can’t they just test the blood for DNA?
If the blood was mixed with oil paint, or some kind of setting agent or sealant, it probably damaged any DNA in the blood past recognition.
There’s also the fact that you need to have some of Kahlo’s DNA on hand to compare it with, which might not be available.
Firstly, red blood cells don’t have DNA. There would have to be some skin cells, or white blood cells in the sample to get it. While the hemoglobin stains very well and keeps the color, the white blood cells biodegrade much more rapidly. There may be some touch DNA, but that’s difficult to extract as well. Let’s assume they can get DNA.
If they didn’t have her DNA on file, how would they tell if it’s a match? I guess they could compare living relatives, but that only gets you close. She died in 1954, so odds of her having existing blood samples or other dna-capable artifacts are pretty low. On the other hand, she had an extreme number of surgeries due to the accident she was in when she was a teenager. There’s a decent chance some medical samples exist somewhere.
Thirdly, so what? Even if the one written in blood could be authenticated, how does that prove the authenticity of the others?
Enjoy,
Steven
Meh… I bet the CSI folks could enhance a blurry photograph of the spine of the book’s spine and get an instant match. All they’d need is some blue lighting, pumping music, and a machine that goes ‘ping’.