Here's a question. I can't see the painting clearly enough as it's reproduced in this article but I'm very curious to know about the badge on his cap and the buttons on his jacket. The badge and buttons may have a clue.
Forty years ago when I was a school teacher in South Korea students wore uniforms, including a cap, and the cap badge and jacket buttons sometimes had a Chinese character designating the name of their school, or at least a character indicating 'middle' or 'high' so one knew if the student was in middle school or high school.
Does the Kim Jong-Un figure (if it is he) have any distinguishing mark on the cap badge or buttons? Of course it might be in Hangul rather than Chinese but I wonder if you can see anything in the painting?
Giles Ryan, Bellevue, WA

"The fact that the painting appears in a relatively remote region of North Korea, rather than in the capital Pyongyang, also invites different interpretations. We would expect the beginning of a new cult to be visible first in the center of propaganda -- the capital city."

Brad Martin noted in his book that when Kim Jong-il was being groomed, his paintings were far away from the city center, so his succession was not explicitly acknowledged and noted by foreign visitors until more aspects of the transition went smoothly (up until 1980).

Perhaps this plays a role, along with the idea of insights that you mentioned?

One part of this argument that I find weak is that this is not Europe but China. Although you can find a copy of just about anything Western in China, the fact remains that the scenery in this painting looks more European than Chinese -- wouldn't it to a North Korean audience as well? Why include a neo-gothic cathedral if you want to convey that the scene is in China? And as for the houses on European lakes being mansions rather than humble cottages, North Korean artists would have no reason to paint them that way. Of course they would depict things in a more old-fashioned way, not showing how built-up such a scene would actually be today. So while I defer to the wrtier's expertise in general, I do question his reasoning about these aspects.

This is Kim Il Sung not Kim Jung Un. This church located in Jilin CIty, China. The river called Songhua River. The church is still there. Jilin city is the city where Kim Il Sung had his high school education. This paint shows the time when Kim Il Sung as a student in China during Japanese occupation time. Here is the photo of the church nowdays http://www.panoramio.com/photo/12472168

You mentioned "Kim Il Sung could then not have sent him abroad at age 13, as he died in 1994 when Jong Un was only 11 years old." Actually it is possible. Unlike in the west, in Korea one's age is counted as "one years old" the moment they are born, and depending on the date of your birth, another year can be added at the Lunar New Year. Thus in Korea, people are often considered 1~2 years older than they would be in the west.

Why does Professor Frank characterize the identification of this painting, as a depiction of Kim Jong Un, as a "hoax"? He persuasively argues that the identification is likely mistaken -- but a "hoax" requires an intent to deceive. Where in this article is such intent shown?

Professor Frank reports that he recently received a photo of the painting from a Canadian tourist, Percy Toop. Toop had seen it at an art gallery in northeast Korea. He thought "it seemed to be a recent addition to a group of Kim family pictures." But there's no indication that he told Prof. Frank or anyone else that some North Korean told him it's a painting of KJU, or that a written label identified it as such. He was simply speculating as to the ID, and never pretended to be doing anything more. Does Prof. Frank believe Toop engaged in some act of deception? I'm unable to identify any such act from this account.

Prof. Frank also mentions the coverage of the news of the painting in the Toronto Globe and Mail. The paper reports that most of the experts it consulted seem to believe the painting portrays KJU, but the paper does note one strongly skeptical expert voice. And all of these assessments are presented as opinions, rather than as reports of independently verified fact.

Is Prof. Frank suggesting that the North Koreans are engaged in a hoax? And what would be the object of deception? After all, it's *their* intention that is the matter at issue here.

I think Prof. Frank might better have used the term, "false alarm." A false alarm can be set off intentionally, of course, but the term more typically implies an inadvertent error. There's nothing at all about this that strikes me as a hoax -- at most, just some over-eager public guesswork.