Post by hi224 on Aug 19, 2019 2:56:19 GMT
"Last Leonardo Da Vinci" did Da Vinci actually paint? An art mystery.
Salvator Mundi ("Savior of the World") - I spelled it wrong in the title, d'oops!-is an art world mystery that has fascinated me since I first read about it a few months ago. This is my first write-up so constructive crit welcome
There are really two mysteries with this one: Is it a real Leonardo? And where is it now, after being sold for a staggeringly high price?
Description of the painting
"Author and art critic Ben Lewis calls the Salvator Mundi "the most beautiful question mark that's ever been painted." For more than a century, art dealers hunted for the lost treasure — the Salvator Mundi, or Savior of the World. It is an ethereal picture rumored to be the work of an original renaissance man." (CNN)
The Guardian describes it thusly "If the scars of age are even more visible, so is the youthful beauty of Christ. He looks like just the kind of androgynous, long-haired model Leonardo loved to portray and, said his 16th-century biographer Vasari, surround himself with, in a workshop that was the Renaissance precursor to Warhol’s Factory."
According to Wikipedia, "The painting depicts Jesus in Renaissance dress, making the sign of the cross with his right hand, while holding a transparent, non-refracting crystal orb in his left, signaling his role as Salvator Mundi (Latin for 'Savior of the World') and representing the 'celestial sphere' of the heavens. Around 20 other versions of the work are known, by students and followers of Leonardo. Preparatory chalk and ink drawings of the drapery by Leonardo are held in the British Royal Collection." (Wikipedia)
The painting is haunting and arresting as an art object, although the face is considerably less crisp than the garment and the crystal globe that the Christ-Figure holds in his hand. The face does have the shimmering androgynous repose that the Mona Lisa has, and a similar thin-lipped mysterious almost-smile. There is something about it, even in images on the internet, that feel ancient and modern at once, a Da Vinci signature.
If this painting is a true Da Vinci, it would be among the most rare and valuable art objects existing. "Only about 20 paintings by him survive. Others are known to have been lost or destroyed, but he was never prolific. Those few existing paintings have been treasured, making the reappearance of a forgotten one even less likely." notes The Guardian magazine.
Early history and provenance
"Leonardo da Vinci's Salvator Mundi may have been painted for Louis XII of France and his consort, Anne of Brittany. It was probably commissioned around 1500, shortly after Louis conquered the Duchy of Milan and took control of Genoa in the Second Italian War. Leonardo himself moved from Milan to Florence in 1500. Various copies of the painting were made by followers of Leonardo including his pupil Salaì (1511). Some versions differ significantly from the original, with a few, including one by his pupil Marco d'Oggiono (c. 1500) and another by Salaì depicting a more youthful subject
Leonardo's painting seems to have been at James Hamilton's Chelsea Manor in London from 1638 to 1641. After participating in the English Civil War, Hamilton was executed on 9 March 1649 and some of his possessions were taken to the Netherlands to be sold.
Bohemian artist Wenceslaus Hollar could have made his engraved copy, dated 1650, in Antwerp at that time. It was also recorded in Henrietta Maria's possession in 1649, the same year her husband Charles I was executed, on 30 January. The painting was included in an inventory of the Royal Collection, valued at £30, and Charles' possessions were put up for sale under the English Commonwealth. The painting was sold to a creditor in 1651, returned to Charles II after the English Restoration in 1660, and included in an inventory of Charles' possessions at the Palace of Whitehall in 1666.
It was inherited by James II, and may have remained with him until it passed to his mistress Catherine Sedley, whose illegitimate daughter with James became the third wife of John Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham. The duke's illegitimate son, Sir Charles Herbert Sheffield, auctioned the painting in 1763 along with other artworks from Buckingham House when the building was sold to George III."
Modern times
"The painting was likely placed in a gilded frame in the 19th century, which it remained in until 2005. It was bought by British collector Francis Cook in 1900 for his collection at Doughty House in Richmond. The painting had been damaged from previous restoration attempts and was attributed to Bernardino Luini, a follower of Leonardo. Cook's great-grandson sold it at auction in 1958 for £45 as a work by Leonardo's pupil Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, who the painting remained attributed to until 2011." (wikipedia)
"In 1978, Joanne Snow-Smith developed a compelling case that the supposed copy located in the Marquis Jean-Louis de Ganay Collection, Paris, was the lost original based on its similarity to Saint John the Baptist. Many art historians were convinced, as she was able to establish a direct historical connection between Leonardo da Vinci, the engraving by Wenceslaus Hollar and the painting in the Ganay collection."
In 2005, a Salvator Mundi was presented and acquired at an auction for less than $10,000 (€8,450) by a consortium of art dealers that included Alexander Parrish and Robert Simon,a specialist in Old Masters It was sold from the estate of Baton Rouge businessman Basil Clovis Hendry, Sr., at the St. Charles Gallery auction house in New Orleans. It had been heavily overpainted so it looked like a copy, and was, before restoration, described as "a wreck, dark and gloomy"." (Wikipedia)
Is it real?
The painting's veracity as a true Da Vinci is hotly contested. Some think there is an intangible yet distinct Leonardo touch to the painting, others think it is "from the workshop of Leonardo Da Vinci".
About a year into her restoration effort, Dianne Dwyer Modestini noted that color transitions in the subject's lips were "perfect" and that "no other artist could have done that." Upon studying the Mona Lisa for comparison, she concluded that "The artist who painted her was the same hand that had painted the Salvator Mundi." However, it's important to note that this same restorer was pretty heavily criticized by art historian Art Kemp in a withering note "both thumbs [the pentimenti] are better than the one painted [restored] by Diane"
(Using infrared photographs Simon had taken of the painting, Modestini discovered a pentimento (earlier draft) of the painting which had the blessing hand's thumb in a straight, rather than curved, position. The discovery that Christ had two thumbs on his right hand was crucial. This pentimento (literally 'repent') showed the artist had a second thought about the positioning of the thumb. Such a second thought is considered evidence that this is not a copy but indeed an original, since copiers would have no doubts about composition.)
"In 2006, National Gallery director Nicholas Penny wrote that he and some of his colleagues considered the work a Leonardo original, but that "some of us consider that there may be [parts] which are by the workshop." Penny conducted a side-by-side study of the Salvator Mundi and Virgin of the Rocks in 2008. Martin Kemp later said of the meeting, "I left the studio thinking Leonardo must be heavily involved," and that "No one in the assembly was openly expressing doubt that Leonardo was responsible for the painting."
Several features in the painting have led to the positive attribution: a number of pentimenti are evident, most notably the position of the right thumb. The sfumato effect of the face—evidently achieved in part by manipulating the paint using the heel of the hand—is typical of many Leonardo works.
The way the ringlets of hair and the knotwork across the stole have been handled is also seen as indicative of Leonardo's style. Furthermore, the pigments and the walnut panel upon which the work was executed are consistent with other Leonardo paintings.
Additionally, the hands in the painting are very detailed, something that Leonardo is known for: he would dissect the limbs of the deceased in order to study them and render body parts in an extremely lifelike manner. (Wikipedia)
The one little flaw that screams "fake"
"A major flaw in a painting identified as one of Leonardo da Vinci's lost works makes some historians think it's a fake, according to The Guardian. The crystal orb in the image doesn't distort light in the way natural physics does, which would be an unusual error for da Vinci... The glass orb raises some doubts about the painting's authenticity, according to some experts. It's especially puzzling, writes Walter Isaacson in his biography of the artist, because da Vinci was famously fastidious about the reflection and refraction of light in his work." (Insider.com)
Real! No, Fake! No, Real! the debate and drama continues, $450 million later
The painting recently sold to a mysterious Middle-Eastern buyer for $450 million dollars, shocking the art world. But did the buyer get a rare world class masterpiece, or a muddled and much-restored patchwork of a copy "in the style of" Da Vinci?
Bloomberg reports "Shortly after the gavel came down, the New York Times published a piece by the critic Jason Farago wherein—after also noting that he’s “not the man to affirm or reject its attribution”—he declared that the painting is “a proficient but not especially distinguished religious picture from turn-of-the-16th-century Lombardy, put through a wringer of restorations.”
The drama around the painting involved the Louve attributing the painting to the "workshop" of Da Vinci rather than the artist himself.
As a recent article from Art Net explains, "On May 26, the Telegraph published an article to the effect that the Louvre insisted on attributing Salvator Mundi as “from the workshop of Leonardo da Vinci,” which may have accounted for MBS’s refusal to lend the work since such a reputational downgrade would diminish the value substantially. More damning to the painting’s authenticity as an autograph Leonardo was a Guardian article on June 2 that quoted the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Carmen Bambach saying she was wrongly referenced in Christie’s catalogue as attributing the painting to the artist alone. To the contrary, Bambach stated that the work was mostly painted by “Leonardo’s assistant, Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio.” (Art Net)
The Guardian article notes "“Photographs seem to show that, before it was touched up, it was all Leonardo,” he says. “They show the painting mid-restoration – and it looks as if the subsequent retouching has obscured the quality of the face.” Clayton is not questioning the painting’s authenticity. He’s suggesting that a very pure Leonardo has been partly “obscured”. (The Guardian)
So what do you think? Is this beautiful and ethereal painting a fake, real, or somewhere in between?
Salvator Mundi ("Savior of the World") - I spelled it wrong in the title, d'oops!-is an art world mystery that has fascinated me since I first read about it a few months ago. This is my first write-up so constructive crit welcome
There are really two mysteries with this one: Is it a real Leonardo? And where is it now, after being sold for a staggeringly high price?
Description of the painting
"Author and art critic Ben Lewis calls the Salvator Mundi "the most beautiful question mark that's ever been painted." For more than a century, art dealers hunted for the lost treasure — the Salvator Mundi, or Savior of the World. It is an ethereal picture rumored to be the work of an original renaissance man." (CNN)
The Guardian describes it thusly "If the scars of age are even more visible, so is the youthful beauty of Christ. He looks like just the kind of androgynous, long-haired model Leonardo loved to portray and, said his 16th-century biographer Vasari, surround himself with, in a workshop that was the Renaissance precursor to Warhol’s Factory."
According to Wikipedia, "The painting depicts Jesus in Renaissance dress, making the sign of the cross with his right hand, while holding a transparent, non-refracting crystal orb in his left, signaling his role as Salvator Mundi (Latin for 'Savior of the World') and representing the 'celestial sphere' of the heavens. Around 20 other versions of the work are known, by students and followers of Leonardo. Preparatory chalk and ink drawings of the drapery by Leonardo are held in the British Royal Collection." (Wikipedia)
The painting is haunting and arresting as an art object, although the face is considerably less crisp than the garment and the crystal globe that the Christ-Figure holds in his hand. The face does have the shimmering androgynous repose that the Mona Lisa has, and a similar thin-lipped mysterious almost-smile. There is something about it, even in images on the internet, that feel ancient and modern at once, a Da Vinci signature.
If this painting is a true Da Vinci, it would be among the most rare and valuable art objects existing. "Only about 20 paintings by him survive. Others are known to have been lost or destroyed, but he was never prolific. Those few existing paintings have been treasured, making the reappearance of a forgotten one even less likely." notes The Guardian magazine.
Early history and provenance
"Leonardo da Vinci's Salvator Mundi may have been painted for Louis XII of France and his consort, Anne of Brittany. It was probably commissioned around 1500, shortly after Louis conquered the Duchy of Milan and took control of Genoa in the Second Italian War. Leonardo himself moved from Milan to Florence in 1500. Various copies of the painting were made by followers of Leonardo including his pupil Salaì (1511). Some versions differ significantly from the original, with a few, including one by his pupil Marco d'Oggiono (c. 1500) and another by Salaì depicting a more youthful subject
Leonardo's painting seems to have been at James Hamilton's Chelsea Manor in London from 1638 to 1641. After participating in the English Civil War, Hamilton was executed on 9 March 1649 and some of his possessions were taken to the Netherlands to be sold.
Bohemian artist Wenceslaus Hollar could have made his engraved copy, dated 1650, in Antwerp at that time. It was also recorded in Henrietta Maria's possession in 1649, the same year her husband Charles I was executed, on 30 January. The painting was included in an inventory of the Royal Collection, valued at £30, and Charles' possessions were put up for sale under the English Commonwealth. The painting was sold to a creditor in 1651, returned to Charles II after the English Restoration in 1660, and included in an inventory of Charles' possessions at the Palace of Whitehall in 1666.
It was inherited by James II, and may have remained with him until it passed to his mistress Catherine Sedley, whose illegitimate daughter with James became the third wife of John Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham. The duke's illegitimate son, Sir Charles Herbert Sheffield, auctioned the painting in 1763 along with other artworks from Buckingham House when the building was sold to George III."
Modern times
"The painting was likely placed in a gilded frame in the 19th century, which it remained in until 2005. It was bought by British collector Francis Cook in 1900 for his collection at Doughty House in Richmond. The painting had been damaged from previous restoration attempts and was attributed to Bernardino Luini, a follower of Leonardo. Cook's great-grandson sold it at auction in 1958 for £45 as a work by Leonardo's pupil Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, who the painting remained attributed to until 2011." (wikipedia)
"In 1978, Joanne Snow-Smith developed a compelling case that the supposed copy located in the Marquis Jean-Louis de Ganay Collection, Paris, was the lost original based on its similarity to Saint John the Baptist. Many art historians were convinced, as she was able to establish a direct historical connection between Leonardo da Vinci, the engraving by Wenceslaus Hollar and the painting in the Ganay collection."
In 2005, a Salvator Mundi was presented and acquired at an auction for less than $10,000 (€8,450) by a consortium of art dealers that included Alexander Parrish and Robert Simon,a specialist in Old Masters It was sold from the estate of Baton Rouge businessman Basil Clovis Hendry, Sr., at the St. Charles Gallery auction house in New Orleans. It had been heavily overpainted so it looked like a copy, and was, before restoration, described as "a wreck, dark and gloomy"." (Wikipedia)
Is it real?
The painting's veracity as a true Da Vinci is hotly contested. Some think there is an intangible yet distinct Leonardo touch to the painting, others think it is "from the workshop of Leonardo Da Vinci".
About a year into her restoration effort, Dianne Dwyer Modestini noted that color transitions in the subject's lips were "perfect" and that "no other artist could have done that." Upon studying the Mona Lisa for comparison, she concluded that "The artist who painted her was the same hand that had painted the Salvator Mundi." However, it's important to note that this same restorer was pretty heavily criticized by art historian Art Kemp in a withering note "both thumbs [the pentimenti] are better than the one painted [restored] by Diane"
(Using infrared photographs Simon had taken of the painting, Modestini discovered a pentimento (earlier draft) of the painting which had the blessing hand's thumb in a straight, rather than curved, position. The discovery that Christ had two thumbs on his right hand was crucial. This pentimento (literally 'repent') showed the artist had a second thought about the positioning of the thumb. Such a second thought is considered evidence that this is not a copy but indeed an original, since copiers would have no doubts about composition.)
"In 2006, National Gallery director Nicholas Penny wrote that he and some of his colleagues considered the work a Leonardo original, but that "some of us consider that there may be [parts] which are by the workshop." Penny conducted a side-by-side study of the Salvator Mundi and Virgin of the Rocks in 2008. Martin Kemp later said of the meeting, "I left the studio thinking Leonardo must be heavily involved," and that "No one in the assembly was openly expressing doubt that Leonardo was responsible for the painting."
Several features in the painting have led to the positive attribution: a number of pentimenti are evident, most notably the position of the right thumb. The sfumato effect of the face—evidently achieved in part by manipulating the paint using the heel of the hand—is typical of many Leonardo works.
The way the ringlets of hair and the knotwork across the stole have been handled is also seen as indicative of Leonardo's style. Furthermore, the pigments and the walnut panel upon which the work was executed are consistent with other Leonardo paintings.
Additionally, the hands in the painting are very detailed, something that Leonardo is known for: he would dissect the limbs of the deceased in order to study them and render body parts in an extremely lifelike manner. (Wikipedia)
The one little flaw that screams "fake"
"A major flaw in a painting identified as one of Leonardo da Vinci's lost works makes some historians think it's a fake, according to The Guardian. The crystal orb in the image doesn't distort light in the way natural physics does, which would be an unusual error for da Vinci... The glass orb raises some doubts about the painting's authenticity, according to some experts. It's especially puzzling, writes Walter Isaacson in his biography of the artist, because da Vinci was famously fastidious about the reflection and refraction of light in his work." (Insider.com)
Real! No, Fake! No, Real! the debate and drama continues, $450 million later
The painting recently sold to a mysterious Middle-Eastern buyer for $450 million dollars, shocking the art world. But did the buyer get a rare world class masterpiece, or a muddled and much-restored patchwork of a copy "in the style of" Da Vinci?
Bloomberg reports "Shortly after the gavel came down, the New York Times published a piece by the critic Jason Farago wherein—after also noting that he’s “not the man to affirm or reject its attribution”—he declared that the painting is “a proficient but not especially distinguished religious picture from turn-of-the-16th-century Lombardy, put through a wringer of restorations.”
The drama around the painting involved the Louve attributing the painting to the "workshop" of Da Vinci rather than the artist himself.
As a recent article from Art Net explains, "On May 26, the Telegraph published an article to the effect that the Louvre insisted on attributing Salvator Mundi as “from the workshop of Leonardo da Vinci,” which may have accounted for MBS’s refusal to lend the work since such a reputational downgrade would diminish the value substantially. More damning to the painting’s authenticity as an autograph Leonardo was a Guardian article on June 2 that quoted the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Carmen Bambach saying she was wrongly referenced in Christie’s catalogue as attributing the painting to the artist alone. To the contrary, Bambach stated that the work was mostly painted by “Leonardo’s assistant, Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio.” (Art Net)
The Guardian article notes "“Photographs seem to show that, before it was touched up, it was all Leonardo,” he says. “They show the painting mid-restoration – and it looks as if the subsequent retouching has obscured the quality of the face.” Clayton is not questioning the painting’s authenticity. He’s suggesting that a very pure Leonardo has been partly “obscured”. (The Guardian)
So what do you think? Is this beautiful and ethereal painting a fake, real, or somewhere in between?