The evidence is overwhelming the TS is not artwork of any kind, so we can rule this out as a possibility. And ironically, the ones who claim the TS is an artwork are primarily from those who know little about artwork. As I stated:
otseng wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:27 am If the shroud was truly a medieval artwork, the above facts would make no sense. Why should scant attention be made to it by the art community, but it would be the most scientifically analyzed artifact? It is a pioneer in many aspects of art techniques centuries before others have discovered or used them. Yet it is not credited by the art community as being the first of its kind. There is practically dead silence from the art community on the shroud.
So, if the TS is not artwork, the only other possibility is it must involve the body of a crucified man.
Even Michael Tite, head of the 1988 C14 dating, does not accept it as an artwork, but believes it involved a body that was crucified.
Dr. Michael Tite, the project coordinator who supervised the carbon-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988, was recently interviewed by the BBC.Dr. Tite’s opinion is that the Shroud is not a painting. He also believes that it is a real shroud which enveloped a real crucifixion victim.
https://www.raydowning.com/blog/2016/3/ … -real-body
“It’s my view that a body was involved in some way or another because of its three-dimensional nature.” – Michael Tite
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1108258#p1108258