Resurrecting Leonardo's Salvator Mundi from Over Restoration: digital restoration and recreation.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi" may or may not be authentic, but the painting after it was cleaned and before it was extensively restored and retouched looks convincing. After the restoration, however, it looks like a poorly executed fake.
In part one I discussed all the problems with the image, and I touch on them again here. But I focus on clear problems we can see with the restoration itself. Then I propose how to recreate what the painting would really have looked like had Leonardo painted it.
I decided to attempt this myself, and demonstrate 4 tools for editing the painting in Photoshop. Later, I update to show my partial cleaning and reworking of some key areas. Further, I introduce 3 other versions of the Salvator Mundi, and highlight their strengths and weaknesses.
I discuss why an artist's eye is perhaps necessary to assess the authenticity of paintings, and quickly share some portraits I struggled with, and which helped me become more attuned to anatomical errors in rendering the face.
In the third and last video, I will share my completed attempt to recreate what Leonardo's original painting would have looked like.
-------------------------------------------------
If you want more of this kind of creative and unusual content, show some love by becoming a patron on Patreon for $1 a month: / ericwayne
For more art criticism, see my blog with hundreds of articles on art, artists, art criticism and art theory: artofericwayne...
Support me through PayPal: artofericwayne...
Fascinating! This is where You Tube really shines. I wish it hadn’t taken two years for me to find it!
Thanks so much, Janet. I don't get a lot of views on RUclips for whatever reason, but I do get comments like your that help make up for it.
I absolutely cant wait to see your finished version of the Salvador Mundi! Your videos are extremely unique and creative and I hope everyone sees that 🙏🙌✅
Coming soon!
They should have hired him as a proportion expert to team up with a painter that didn't need glasses
Great stuff. Your Photoshop skills, art work, and art history knowledge really come together in this one. Looking forward to the final product!
With all the technology and digital tools we have available by now its MIND BOGGLING that people would paint OVER the actual canvas for 6 years instead of presenting whats left of it to the public and make an elaborate effort with digital tools to show how it MIGHT have looked like (like you did here). Its incomprehensible to me.
In the end, some people got madly rich off of it, and so there the ultimate good was achieved. I haven't made a penny off of my version, my video, etc. Such is life.
Really good thorough explanation of your issues with this painting, as well as your usual cool editing.
The final restoration looks COMPLETELY airbrushed when compared to the cleaned version. The restorer completely changed the tone and texture of the skin! Why?!!
Really appreciating this series, been following your blog for a long time now, awesome to see you start putting things out in video form. I'm excited to see your restored version!
-Frank Heiler
Hi Frank. Ah, I believe you are the artist whose attic was struck by lightning a few years ago, and you lost many of your paintings. I’m glad to discover you are still painting, assuming you’re the same Frank Heiler. Well, RUclips has an algorithmic stranglehold on my videos, so they only reach people I already know, so I’m pretty sure you’re the same guy. Great to hear from you, because I didn’t know you followed my blog. It’s encouraging to discover artists are watching my videos.
Though it’s also a good and a bad sign. Good because I want to reach artists who genuinely love painting and visual art. Bad because those people are far and few between.
@@artvsmachine3703 Hello…. is this Julian Baumgartner speaking throughout this seriously interesting program? IF so how wonderful to hear your voice, again… …
This was recommended to me, the algorithm is working!
Nice to know RUclips is actually recommending my video.
I’ve been watching lots of paint restoration from bumgartner And that led me to this! So it seems the RUclips algorithm is working!
Absolutely amazing. I had no idea what Photoshop (in the hands of an expert) is capable of. Excellent video
Glad you enjoyed it! Yeah, the computer art software is incredible these days.
This is fantastic, so fascinating, I love watching your editing skills, mesmerizing!
Thank you so much! I didn't realize people like watching someone Photoshop. Good to know.
Wow, love this video. I think this was the restorers mistake, looking at Mundi and interpreting what she thought DaVinci would do, likely using techniques that he would have done, probably didn't want to use much modern techonology. But, this is the opposite of what should have been done, in a project like this, every single part from the source that you can use, should be used. Then using science and math like DaVinci and you did, it gets so much closer and much less of someones 'interpretation'. Modern techniques make this so much easier. Wish they had used your technique, printed the reference to scale, and had the restorer paint on using this. Amazing work.
Well, i found this extremely interesting...illuminating. You've ruined the restored version for me but that's alright. I agree that it probably would have been better left in the stripped back state. I do like this version best as the original as compared to the others. There's something about it. I am curious about a couple of things. Why did the restorer change the tint of seemingly the whole painting? One has to assume the stripped back version depicts the color palette intended by the artist. Why is the tunic a softer and lighter shade of blue? Why is so much light introduced onto the face? Etc. I liked the point you made about art experts generally not being artists...as well as the casual viewer. The restorer however, is. Its safe to assume she knows the things you're sensitive to and mentioned here. Why did she make the choices she made? Certainly she's no slouch. Do you think she was tasked with making a confection reminiscent of The Mona Lisa? Kind of tonally? Anyway, i look forward to the next installment.
I'm not sure how much she changed the colors, because the photos we see of the restored, Modestini version, are in different lighting situations. One was done with strobe lighting for some reason. This is why I haven't addressed the color in the videos, and instead focused on the anatomy, composition, etc.
In all the photos and videos I can find, the Modestini version SEEMS lightened and washed out. If she did do that, it would be a way to try to match the lighting of the hand versus that of the face, with are incongruous. The hand is strongly lit from the upper left and has high contrast shadows. The face is in dimmer light with softer shadows, and the direction of the light isn't as apparent, especially in her version.
I don't know that she's an artist, just a restorer. In college her major was art history. To really retouch this painting -- I now know from experience -- you have to be competent with anatomy, perspective, foreshortning, lighting, shading, modeling, and a host of other things. Not only is there no evidence in the restoration that she has any of these skills -- seems rude to point it out, but it's true -- she's made what look like egregious amateur mistakes.
Another possibility is that she's not allowed to do any interpreting (though she did to produce the one very clumsy thumb), in which case artistic skill would be irrelevant. She could only fudge the "in painting", which is painting in the gaps to connect the dots. I'll explain more in the final video. And I have mroe concrete argument, evidence, and examples to share. The mystery will be solved.
My version is coming down the home stretch and looking good. It needs a few more days for fine tuning, but is worth the wait. The video will take as much as an additional week. Stay tuned.
Looking forward to seeing the final creation!
There are something like 30 versions of this painting, and many of them have goofy looking faces, goofy crystal balls, goofy hair. At least one of them has the same goofy eyes. The artist SAID she left the eyes alone, they look that way because they are damaged from time. Interestingly, she said that her husband, an expert in art restoration himself, saw the cleaned painting on his death bed and said it was by a very great painter, he didn't know who, but from the generation after Leonardo.
I agree. There is something about a painting surviving which makes it even more powerful. Stripping that back is only appropriate when the old repair is bad workmanship, and destroying otherwise good workmanship is like saying that no one but Da Vinci can hold a brush.
truly amazing video, very much look forward to seeing your finished result.
Thank you! Cheers!
The unrestored version, stripped of all later additions, even in its damaged state, is just a more compelling, eerie image than the awful thing that sold at auction for millions of dollars.
Exactly. And I think the experts know that, but they are very clever about how they endorse the painting. What is at stake is hundreds of millions of dollars, future ticket sacles, the reputations of certain institutions and experts, who controls the narrative, and who gets rich off of it. I'll knock all that out of the park in my final video.
I don't know why the restorer did the boo-boo with the improperly-placed cloth coming out of where the cross-chest piece would be. You can clearly see in the cleaned version that there was the crosspiece there, but she inexplicably turned it into cloth. It's bizarre why she would do that. I wouldn't trust her stated observation that there were no vestiges of a beard either. It seems obvious to me that there are clearly traces of a light beard on the cleaned version.
bravo ¡¡¡ excelente estudio , muy detallado y sin tapar errores engañosos .
Thank you! The lady that restored it butchered it lol! So bad. I can't believe no one called her out on it.
You are doing god’s work! 👏🏽👏🏽
Is it technically feasible that the owner of this painting could remove the restorations? What a rumble that would stir in the art world.
That may be quite possible. Contemporary restorers usually make their additions non-destructive. But in this case I'm sure it would be an extremely delicate task.
Fantastic research (especially in the 2 hour video) amusing but convincing ! 😇
I'm late to the game but have really enjoyed your analysis. The side-by-side comparison with Durer's self-portrait is really striking. In a WSJ clip about Modestini, a commenter notes that there should be a clear protective layer of paint between the cleansed original and "restoration" --- is that the standard practice?
From what I've heard, it is standard practice now to make restorations reversible.
Awesome restoration
I agree..
The Salvator Mundi restoration is a complete disaster. While I'm sure Dianne Dwyer Modestini is a talented restoration artist I think she went way overboard and essentially pulled off a higher end version of a Cecilia Jimenez restoration.
Oh, man, I got some laughs out of that. I didn't know her name, but knew exactly what you were refering to. I may work that into the 3rd video. And, you know, you are right.
Frankly, when I first time saw the ''restored'' Salvator Mundi presented as the lost work of Leonardo, I couldn't believe what they were up to with this, as you call it somewhere, a homunculus as a representative of a divine personality,, the most improtant in the entire Christian world. Except some features, that looked roughly as admissible and would pass for Leonardo's style, the face after Modestini's restoration, looked disastrous. I mean, it is below a reasonable expectation for an amateur work, let alone of an esteemed, experienced pro-restorer. - but my opinion changed quite abruptly, when I saw the cleaned and recovered version - that face has a woinderful appearance of genuine grace and spiritual presence. One issue though, I believe the original most likely had a beard and moustache, in the old Jewish fashion, simply, all men would have had - the idea of a Jesus without a beard is oddly strange. I believe, the original beard may have been scraped off by some contemporaries of Leonardo OR he hadn't finished the entire paining and that might have been the reason other people tried their best of finishing it.... - for what is worth, I believe this and your other videos of Salvator Mundi analyses should be brought to saudi prince's attention and give him a food for thought whether it could be redone again, by someone who can actually do it and retain the original Leonardo's visual. It's undoubtedly a big loss for a Leonardo's piece to go into a private collection and be lost to the world. That's not acceptable.
I love the scratched version (it's my wallpaper!), it also seems to have a green cloak that was removed from the original version. Looking at your digital corrections, they seem spot on! I also don't like how they made the tunic more grayish/turquoise when the original was clearly a deep ultramarine blue. Overall, I think they effed up with the restoration!
Most times I see restorations, I wish they hadn't been done. The colors will usually be brighter, but they will have lost some of the sophisticated lighting and modeling, and subtle modulations of color that hold the whole painting together. There's a kind of alchemy that happens in painting where, in a great piece, the whole will be greater than the sum of the parts. It's hard to say exactly why. Restorations remove a lot of the subtleties that hold the work together and make it transcend just being a picture. This one was particularly bad. That freaking nose! Somewhere I explained that the restorer interpreted the cast shadow of the tip as the edge of the tip, and thus gave him a bent, weird, slightly bulbous nose that's pretty damn ugly. I mean, it's just one of several cringeworthy atrocities. You just can't have an amateur artist fix the damage to a master's painting.
She cut a lot from the top of the head; the eyes are no longer on the midpoint of its vertical.
I agree.
Fascinating.
Wait it took 6 years to vandalize this painting?
That part above the hair totally reminds me of Maddona with child with St. Anne. Even the face and nose n all.
Bravo sir.........that is all
Why thankyou.
I feel sorry for the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia; Mohammed Bin Salman. Despite of having all the advantages and capacity in pocessing the most expensive painting in the world, the Salvator Mundi by Leonardo da Vinci, there are still speculations that the said painting that's already in his own pocession, was only made by Leonardo da Vinci's student from his workshops. It speculated that Leonardo da Vinci has done only a little part to that painting and only made final retouches.
But in my own opinion, I have this strong belief that the said painting is really an art done,solely by the genius painter; Leonardo da Vinci. How come that only the students of Leonardo da Vinci,made this kind of painting, which i believe,has many underlying messages. The Salvator Mundi is barely different from the art of his students. It is differentnfrom any other masterpieces.
How did I get to this conclusion? The painting Salvator Mundi indicates the history of Jesus Christ and His distinctive traits from any other Holy history. The painting showcases the life of Jesus Christ ans His will without any words written, aside from its title. It's really amazing how Leonardo da Vinci shows the existence of Jesus Christ on earth carrying God's good news thru his painting Salvator Mundi. The last supper and the 12 apostles also showed up in the painting, if you give a critical analization and visualization to it. In addition to that, there are some details on that said painting, showing that Judas symbolizes connivance to other beliefs againts Jesus Christ teachings. It also shows the Rising and the Resurrection of Christ. Even the 2nd largest religion, (Islam) by population is also included in this Masterpiece.
It is also subtle to know the fact that the painting Salvator Mundi is in the good pocession of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia; Mohammed Bin Salman. Saudi Arabia is the center of Islam, wherein Kaaba is sacredly built. Yearly Muslim community all over the world gathers and visits Kaaba for Pilgrimage.
It's not easy to believe that Salvator Mundi was created by Leonardo da Vinci's students; and just letting him put some final retouches.
The Salvator Mundi's message has been confidentially hidden for the longest time. Nobody could find any writings about that. If this painting was made by Leonardo da Vinci's students, I'm certain that there are no underlying messages in it.
Leonardo da Vinci was right on his famous lines ;
" There are three classes of people, those who see, those who see when they are told, and lastly those who do not see."
AM I correct in thinking this is ‘BAUMGARTNER’ narrating here?
Nope. Not the same person at all.
Sólo hay que fijarse en la bola de cristal, que no corresponde a la óptica correcta. No sólo Da Vinci no cometería este error, creo que no lo haría ningún buen pintor del renacimiento
Where is the new documentary? I can't find it anywhere
This is the second in the series. The third I haven't made yet. It will be within the next two weeks. Stay tuned!
No tuvo vergüenza de resaltar errores engañosos ... muy bien ¡¡¡
According to French authorities, it's very unlikely that Salvator Mundi is by Leonardo. Or at least that more than a few passages of it are by him. But putting that aside, the issues you raise here still hold. Great video!
It apparently depends on which French authorities. Some are saying the Louvre put out a detailed catalogue attesting to its authenticity. There's an article about this in the NYTimes. Someone made a film about what you are saying, but I think this isn't taken that seriously. Personally, I just don't know.
i admit that i know nothing about art, but even to me it looks off
The unrestored image looks more compelling like a Leonardo.
Absolutely.
I agre
❤😂❤
Should have given it to Julian to do.
The restoration is pure crap. She completely destroyed the painting and with that its value is now gone. I wouldn't have paid $5 for this painting. The painting is ugly to say the least. It is an insult to Leonardo Da Vinci to attribute this version of the painting to. The should have kept the unrestored version as is or given it to a competent person to do so if it really had to be restored.
guys, if the monalisa painting is fragile, the cracked cracks can be updated, just erase using kerosene 'simple right' and don't bother to make it again 'because if you make it again it's not considered original' okay, thank you
This video is about the Salvator Mundi, not the Mona Lisa, m'kay?
You're probably too young to remember the actress Jacklyn Smith, one of the original Charlie's Angels TV series. There was this full page blow up of her face in a magazine, where all you see is her beautiful face, but she points out all the imperfections (at least a dozen) circled and highlighted, that you'd never notice unless you were constantly looking at it as she must have. It's great that you were able to clearly and plainly do that here with this piece.
Oh, I'm old enough to know who Jacklyn Smith is. Funny, I was an elementary school when "Charlie's Angels" first came out in '76. I never watched it, but the boys would talk about who was their favorite, and by the actresses names. This happened so frequently that I knew all their names without ever watching the show. Personally, I had a thing for the Bionic Woman, from the same time period. Anyway, point is, it's kinda' funny elementary school boys being so attracted to adult women.
Glad you found my video helpful in highlighting the various oddities in the painting.
The lady that restored it is also the one that stripped it. She butchered the stripping to. It could have been a lot more cleaner. That lady ruined the whole painting.
I think it shouldn't have been one conservator but a committee of them because it's only her veiw. Should have been analyzed step by step technology doubt it was used this guy on the ball.Great insight thankyou need a younger conservator.
Should give the image over to google AI software and see what happens? Probably can do a few acceptable versions. Good video. Provacative. Oh I see you are doing this 😀
Feed it his previous pieces like Mona or ermine and get the software to be trained by them to guide the restoration.
Or have John Myatt to do a genuine fake!
I think this is painted by a student/helper of DaVinci..
That's what a lot of experts think as well, and that perhaps Leonardo just touched up a few areas.
a question... i see that everyone that painted Salvatore mundi did the eyes kinda squinting... was that a mistake or an actual feature of the original Salvatore mundi? kinda like a Christ pantocrathor, the asymmetrical eyes as a symbol of his dual nature? and he even have the hands giving a blessing. He lacks the books but has an sphere and an alussion to a refraction miracle. Maybe the painter wanted to make a critique? that god could be knew in observation and not in blinly following scripture?
Good question. I cover the Christ Pantocrator issue in my longer video. The short answer is "no". ruclips.net/video/2DiPcM4Duaw/видео.html
I like the ideas of Christ's dual nature and all, but the Salvator Mundi's eyes are that way because of 500 years of damage, and even the restorer said she couldn't possibly fix them. In the case of the original Christ Pantocrator painting, which I included in the other video, there are a lot of almost comical anatomical errors, which are just due to the artist's ability (or, shall I say, inability) to render figures naturalistically. We can come up with the reason he has a goiter in his neck and the Bible he's holding looks like an accordian as well, or we can just accept that that's how people painted at the time.
Check out the longer video for a very thorough analysis of everything wrong with the painting, and why so many theories just don't really cut it. But I do like your thinking! Don't get me wrong.
Have a good one.
It looked like shit and now it looks great.
even perfectly restored its not a great painting--Leonardo or otherwise
It's not perfectly restored or anything approaching that, in which case it is impossible to judge whatever the original painting was.
what exists now is not a Davinci... its a disgrace..
It's a di Sgrace.
Moar
The maker of this video has no clue of the process they used to repair this work of art. It’s laughable that he truly believes that they just hired a random artist to “fill in the blanks.” 😂
The restorer is Diane Modestini, and she's not some "random person". I am perfectly aware of who she is and her methodology, having studied her website that details her process, and having watched multiple interviews. You might consider watching my 2+ hour subsequent video that analyses in much greater detail the problems with the painting: ruclips.net/video/2DiPcM4Duaw/видео.html. Note that the longer video has been viewed over 133,000 times and is over 97% upvoted.
I completely disagree with your characterization of the restoration as making the painting a caricature.
Mere assertion is not an argument.
@@artvsmachine3703 you are right; just because someone says that it is a caricature does not make it so. Isn’t anyone else sick of our culture of anti-intellectualism? I’ve been reading art history for pleasure for more than 50 years. That doesn’t make me an expert, but it has taught me the value of expertise and scholarship. I doubt that the commenters who insult scholars have any idea of the complexities of Leonardo. Truth defies simplicity.
I have complexity, nuance, argument and evidence on my side. Watch my subsequent longer video where I really get into the arguments of "scholars" for and against the validity of the painting. ruclips.net/video/2DiPcM4Duaw/видео.html Also keep in mind that my initial arguments are based on an artist's perspective vs. that of academicians who have never picked up a brush and can't see what is plainly obvious to a lot of artists.
Looks better restored..
What does the figure of Christ in the 450M $ painting, " Salvatore Mundi " denote? Irrespective whether Di Vinci painted it or not.
Only a true Christian can reveal it, as for the rest it is just an expensive art.
Right. I get your point. You are talking about who Jesus is, and what he represents. And you seem to be saying that only a true believer can appreciate the true meaning. There's definitely truth in that, but we can also appreciate the painting as a painting, otherwise only Christians could enjoy a very large portion of art history, including much of Renaissance art.
I really enjoy the Qawwali music of Pakistan, and I'm definitely not a Sufi! I can enjoy cathedrals, mosques, and the pyramids without necessarily believing or accepting any of the religions or beliefs of those who created them.
Depictions of Christ belong in some ways as much to art history and artists as they do to Christianity. However, who and what Jesus is, and what he means to his followers, may belong only to them. I think you may be right about that.
Christ is not history, he is for the day, the painting may be historical concerning only a few , but what it denotes concerns mankind as a whole. So what is more important for an ordinary man, the painting itself or what it denotes?
@@abrahamphilip6439 I already acknowledged your point about what Christ represents to a true believer in Christianity. But, would you agree that there are good and bad paintings of Christ? And should we value a good painting more than a bad one? Do you believe that non-religious paintings have any value?
It is not what Christ represents but what the picture specifically denotes & it is not a blessing as is believed.
@@abrahamphilip6439 Are there good and bad paintings of Christ, and is a good one better than a bad one? Do you have to believe in the biblical story of David and Goliath to appreciate Michelangelo's statue of David?
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT YOU BUT THE TWO PAINTINGS YOU COMPARE IN THE FIRST FEW SECONDS ARE DISPLAYED UNDER DIFFERENT LIGHTS AND WAS IS CLOSER TO THE CAMERA THAN THE OTHER. YOU HAVE already introduced distortion & comparison BY IMPLYING THAT YOU ARE PRESENTING THEM EQUALLY AND HONESTLY. Luv how people on RUclips love to express opinions w/o an education ot gullible audiences.
YOU DON'T NEED TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS!
Of course pictures are taken in different lighting situations, at different angles, and with a different degree of focus. I thought everyone knew that. There are additional changes that are done intentionally or not in photo editing software. This is the reason that nowhere in either of the 2 videos I made so far on the SM have I ever addressed color as an issue!
But there are obvious and outstanding differences between the paintings purely in terms of anatomy and rendering that have absolutely nothing to do with lighting. And those enormous divergences are what I am very specifically and clearly addressing.
If you watch the rest of the video, you will discover just that. Wait for my third video, and watch the whole thing. If you are not convinced at that point, and you want to debate me, I will gladly put you in your place, and without using all caps. Next time think before trying to get a kick in.
And watch the insults as well. You are only making yourself look bad, and "unedcuated".