THE GENTILESCHI DEBATE THROUGH MACHINE EYES

• Corpus: structured lists for Artemisia and Orazio—split into unquestioned, questioned, and workshop—plus gender-sliced views of a broader Baroque set.
• Models: (1) an artist classifier (Artemisia vs. Orazio) to read painterly decisions; (2) a gender pattern classifier (Female vs. Male) to check for broad stylistic tendencies, not identity.
• Output: a ranked list of high-confidence reattributions/confirmations and a bucket of disagreements that warrant human review. It’s a filter, not a verdict.

• Ambiguity: workshop labels can mix hands (master, assistants, copyists). Training on them bakes in noise.
• Leakage risk: repeated cartoons/templates across both artists can let a model memorize composition rather than painterly decisions.
• Policy: workshop images are shown for context, not used for training. Examine them after you’ve reviewed higher-confidence signals.

• Agreement + high confidence: top of the queue for re-examination.
• Disagreement: often workshop influence, copies, or transitional periods. Use the modal bars (artist vs gender) to see why.
• Always cross-check: compare with the static galleries and published scholarship before changing a catalogue entry.

Working lists and attributions reference:

• R. Ward Bissell, Orazio Gentileschi and the Poetic Tradition in Caravaggism, 1981.
• Keith Christiansen (ed.), Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi, Metropolitan Museum of Art / Rome, 2001.

Notes: the Orazio pages explicitly cite these; this homepage routes to those files directly.