'Salvator Mundi': Leonardo da Vinci's missing masterpiece?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- ‘Salvator Mundi’ is a painting surrounded by mysteries. In this talk, Professor Martin Kemp FBA explores evidence that it is indeed a work of Leonardo Da Vinci, the painting’s key components, and the alleged whereabouts of the ‘Salvator Mundi’ today.
Speaker: Professor Martin Kemp FBA, Emeritus Professor of the History of Art, University of Oxford; Honorary Fellow, Trinity College, Oxford
This video is for informative and educational purposes.
To read a blog version of this talk, please visit our website: www.thebritish...
10-Minute Talks are a series of pre-recorded talks from Fellows of the British Academy screened each Friday on RUclips and also available on Apple Podcasts. podcasts.apple...
Subtitles, also known as closed captions, are available on our RUclips videos. You can access them by clicking on the 'CC' button or gear icon on the video. The 'CC' button and gear icon are usually located at the bottom of videos.
Find out more about the British Academy: www.thebritish...
For future events, visit our website: www.thebritish...
Subscribe to our email newsletter: email.thebriti...
Images included in this video:
0:33 - Salvator Mundi attributed to Leonardo da Vinci c.1490-1519, oil on panel, private collection. (Photo by VCG Wilson/Corbis via Getty Images)
01:22 - The drapery of a sleeve, Leonardo da Vinci c.1504-8. © Royal Collection Enterprises Limited 2024 | Royal Collection Trust. Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence.
01:28 - The drapery of a chest and sleeve, Leonardo da Vinci c.1504-8. © Royal Collection Enterprises Limited 2024 | Royal Collection Trust. Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence.
01:41 - Salvator mundi by Wenceslaus Hollar; after Leonardo da Vinci, 1650. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence.
01:41 - Anonymous, Salvator Mundi (Cristo Redentore benedicente), first half of XVI century, Worsey Collection.
01:41 - Salvator mundi prima del restauro, c. 1499, Cook Collection 1913.
01:41 - Salvator mundi, copy, from the Ganay collection.
01:41 - Gerolamo Alibrandi, Studio di Leonardo, Cristo come Salvator Mundi, c.1519, Museo di San Domenico Maggiore. Fondo Edifici di Culto -Ministero dell'Interno.
01:41 - Anonymous, Christ as Salvator Mundi, Zurich, Private collection, former Viktor Stark Collection.
01:41 - Copy, Christ as Salvador Mundi, Circle of Leonardo da Vinci c. 1452-1519.
01:41 - Cesare da Sesto, Salvator Mundi (1516-1517). Wilanów Palace, Warsaw
01:41 - Salvator Mundi, copy, Gian Giacomo Caprotti, 16th century.
03:10 - Leonardo da Vinci c1472-c1519. From The Literary Works of Leonardo Da Vinci, Vol. 1 by Jean Paul Richter, PH. DR. [Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, London, 1883]. (Photo by The Print Collector/Getty Images)
05:10 - Raffaello Sanzio, Prime Mover, 1509-11, Stanza della Segnatura, Palazzi Pontifici, Vatican. © Web Gallery of Art
05:43 - Leonardo Da Vinci, Optics of the Eye (Paris, Institut de France, Manuscript D)
06:36 - Leonardo da Vinci, Saint John the Baptist. Around 1508-1519. Paris, Musée du Louvre. © 2016 Louvre
09:06 - Christie's To Auction Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi" Painting. Photo by Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty Images
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
What a splendid piece of instruction - balanced, factual and unsensational. Thank you for your sanity.
Indeed!
This like most " art" is fake.many supposed famous artists actually never existed. But money laundering is real and bribery drug money laundry sales at southbys are very popular.😮
@@CliffordClaytonGorovoy Wow dude you should write a book about this
@notanemoprog there is one it's called the Bible
@@CliffordClaytonGorovoy Weird flex, but OK
So utterly refreshing to listen to a learned man and his deep passion. Wonderful.
Martin Kemp talks to me on Leonardo, and I'm listning and watching it while feeding sourdough starter at my kitchen. Just heavenly!
Don't burn them!
Thank you, you explained it very well! Even a layperson like myself can understand and you have convinced me that it is the work of Leonardo da Vinci.
Wonderful! Thank you so much for all that you do! You have enriched my life immeasurably.
Kemp is - plain and simple - the absolute best, hands down, full stop. It’s like fresh air, this. Let us never take this sadly uncommon kind of reporting for granted. Thank you Martin, and The Academy. Terrific. - j.a.c.
Could you point me to anywhere in print or on video where Kemp replies to the comments in relation to the _impossible_ anatomy of the right hand? On YT the case was made very persuasively in the video titled "A Yen for Detail The Critical Eye Part 3 (Leonardo did NOT Paint the Salvator Mundi)"
Wonderful talk. I echo what others have said in praise. I wish videos like this weren’t so rare.
Loved every minute - and wasn’t expecting the mic drop moment at the end!
Thoroughly enjoyed the video, the analyses, the commentary and anecdotes.
Thank you Master.
Wonderful. I needed to be convinced, and now I am. Thank you.
For aome reason i got a peace of mind listening to him talk
Very interesting, a compelling presentation, you're explanation and description grabbed my attention prof.
STELLAR presentation, thank you! With a BA in Art Hsitory, this is wonderful content.
My favorite paintieris William Bouguereau. I love Lenardo da Vinci, Carravaggio, George Inness, Alfred Dellobbe, Gistave Doyen.... among others! Kimberly
I have read the book and seen many photos of the badly damaged painting discovered in an obscure auction house in America. Leonardo may or may not have painted the work or part of the work originally but in my unqualified opinion the amount of restoration that was done to this work goes way beyond damage repair to the point where there is almost nothing left of the original work which is a terrible shame.
While true this doesn't make any sort of convincing counterargument to the fact that the 2019 Louvre scientific report mentioned & quoted from in the video demonstrates that they _did_ perform a proper examination and _did_ subsequently conclude that the painting was the real deal.
The controversy surrounding the painting, its sudden appearance at Christie’s makes for a fascinating story. Thank you.
Thank you Professor. Leonardo, brilliant throughout time.
Superb! What a brilliant mind
thank you! excellent.
Such an amazing and amusing contrast: this huge dog and these
sweet tiny chirping complaints...🙂
So kind and patient - would have deserved lots of treats ...
10:07 unexpected cheekiness. Love it.
Excellent thank you.
I've always loved the term Emeritus Professor. Emeritus is such a wonderful word. Most people don't know what it means but when they hear it they're impressed anyways "I don't know what it means but it sounds important!"
Interesting - l remember reading somewhere that there was an awful lot of restoration done when the painting was found
I was hoping the professor would weigh in on the restoration work performed on the painting. Disappointed that didn't happen.
Yep. Also, we need that PDF
@@notanemoprog It's a very rare PDF.
@@DustyMagroovy Well, apparently any journalist who wanted it got it, so not _that_ rare
@@notanemoprog The presenter said it was a rare PDF, and I thought that was funny because you just send a copy to people, not the actual item. Have a nice day.
Beltracchi, the most famous art forger of our time, himself said that the painting is a sorry excuse for a forgery and that Leonardo would’ve never drawn something like this.
i liked the twist at the end
Me too 🤣
Want to know what is an even _better_ - even if impossible - twist? That twist of the right hand. Go watch the video titled "A Yen for Detail The Critical Eye Part 3 (Leonardo did NOT Paint the Salvator Mundi)"
As soon as I saw the hand and then the hair ringlets I was convinced it was a Leonardo. I still believe it to be so.
Strange to me, that so many idiots have decided for themselves that it isn't da Vinci, especially after hearing about the evidence in favor. I won't claim expertise in art history, but I am an artist, and it really looks like his work to me. Learning that the evidence strongly inclines toward it being the real thing just makes me feel like my eye picked out the winner.
It existed for hundreds of years and nobody thought it was a real da Vinci. This fellow was one of the main players in the big art deal. His words mean nothing, really.
@@hermanhale9258 This is just baseless slander. Do better.
@@notanemoprogjealousy is what it is.
It is a phenomenon of our time to insult all those who differ from one's own opinion. We have Dan Brown to thank for the fact that people talk so often about "da Vinci" - although it should be known that this is not Leonardo's last name. "Salvator Mundi" is a money-making machine and not a Leonardo.
Would have been interested to hear something about the condition of the work, some reports that there has been so much restoration and overpainting that the work today is less than 50% Leonardo.
@@eddieharris6004 He's commented on that extensively already in other contexts. And, you can just Google what the painting looked like completely stripped down back to original paint. There's a photo available. There's far more the 50% original paint. By area, it's well over 90% probably.
@@reference2592 I would not call it that much but even if it was 90% it's been 90% covered over with "restoration". To expound about the painting technique of the face which was heavily damaged seems silly to me. The face you see now is not that created by the original painter.
@@rocksem9451 The painting is 26 x 18 inches. 10% is 47 square inches. Nothing even remotely close to that was repainted. Perhaps you think "important parts" were repainted. Meh. Again, just look at the before and after photos. No one's hiding them. If you don't like the result, propose something better.
@@reference2592 I've looked at them. Virtually every inch of that painting has been retouched to some degree. Large portions of the hair, face nd hand were recreated.
Spot on. Any opinion on the restoration?
Sold at auction for $1,175 in 2005. Previously sold for £45 in 1958.
Very interesting, thank you. But considering the ridiculous amount of retouching and over painting I don't see how anyone can ever confidently say this is by DaVinci's hand. Any examination proceeding from the "restored" painting seems futile to me.
The Louvre scientific report he mentions and partly quotes from proves that they performed a proper examination and concluded that the painting was the real deal. We need that PDF leaked.
My one-time lecturer at Glasgow University!
Just one time,or every week?
Let himself go since the Spandau Ballet days.
In your picture of copies, the one in the middle of top row, is a black and white of the original in early 20th century.
6:35. I can't believe you can compare this image with the St John from the Louvre and conclude that the same person painted them. That absolutely gives the game away.
I understood the Salvator Mundi was bought by Prince Badr bin Abdullah Al Saud be exhibited at the opening of the Louvre Dubai, but perhaps I am wrong?
Yes, he was the buyer, but the painting was not exhibited in the museum. Unfortunately I think this painting is being used for nefarious money laundering which is happening in the art world. Sad.
Why does nobody mention what to me is blindingly obvious. The face is both male and female. Beautifully done. Look at each side in isolation.
I wonder why Da Vinci did not show any refraction behind the cristal globe? He did the same with the wine glasses on the table in his painting of the Last Supper. Why would he do that?
Two thoughts come to mind, the crystal globe is not in direct light therefore the refraction is not apparent to the eye or because the crystal globe represents the heavens and the heavens do not refract light........just my guess.
@@trustmemysonisadoctor8479well thought
Something very sad in the juxtaposition of the quiet painting and the "financial circus".
So neat at the end...the painting in question seems to me to be a pretence...note I do not use the term 'fake'...my gut instinct tells me I am right...also, I don't care for the image nor the way it has been painted...I should think the (anonymous?) buyer wants to keep a low profile given the controversy...dgp
The SM is an ideolized portrait of Francis I, if it is by him at all.
To me the Globe represents the Invisible Universe and not a stone.
There is an Invisible Universe and it is not impossible to reach it by any means.
quartz hrystal formation dosent predominantly need great heat and pressure, more oversaturated liquid and millions of years
i'd buy that for a fiver!
I think Leonardo contributed to the painting, yes, but it was subsequently very badly damaged and the latest 'restoration' by Modestini is truly horrible.
Oddly I don’t really care for the painting. Sometimes Leo can miss.
I call it Fish Face.
Some % is original. Snall ripple-- look at the social shock waves. Art benefits. Priceless.
But what about the ambassadors? Where did that idea come from?The anamorphic?
LEAK THE PDF
Main issue with the painting is the heavy amount of restoration it went through, maybe only 20% of its original in the artists hand rest is all from expert inpainting restoration.
This painting might have been begun by Leonardo and finished off by one of his apprentices whom the master employed.
he is falling apart gush
It is not missing. Currently it hangs in my library.
Such a master piece should not be allowed to auction for filthy rich , no benefit to have this discussion when artefact has been lost from public and academics alike
The ONLY time I've heard an expert say it's authentic. I heard another expert say, when asked if Da Vinci painted it, "Well, he may have walked past it while it was being painted."
since I first ever saw the painting I never thought it was by Da Vinci's hand, It has a lot of his characteristics, but the overall face does not have the impact as all his other works.I would say it's in the manner of Da Vinci.And I know the way auction houses work they would sell it for a slight provinance just to reap the big profits it would make.
The 2019 Louvre scientific report he mentions & quotes from proves that they performed a proper examination and concluded that the painting was the real deal.
@@notanemoprog The report said it was consistent with other paintings of the period. The science doesn't deal in feels.
@@tedsmart5539 No. Google "How the Louvre concealed its secret Salvator Mundi book" and you will see that "the volume contains new scientific analysis by the Centre for Research and Restoration of the Museums of France and cautiously attributes the work to Leonardo himself."
@@tedsmart5539...take it up with the Louvre.
Except it’s obviously not a Leonardo. And it was completely knackered and has been restored within an inch of its life. Not mentioned is that Leonardo was a genius and certainly knew how optics work, and the painter of this painting didn’t care.
When he says best he can do 😂, like we expected him to pull out the real painting , he seems sad he could produce it for us lol
Think we can let you off with not having the most expensive painting in the world to show us :)
Easy currency
I think I want to believe it's fake because of a passionate dislike for the vile human who purchased it. It would be supremely funny if the Saudis spent all that money on something that wasn't real.
🧢
Whether its by Da Vinci or not, to many people it is an unbalanced, badly proportioned, undefined piece of work.
I have seen this painting in real life with no crowds around. Just me and the painting.
I immediately thought `fake` and walked straight past it.
If it is, I still don't feel it.
I wasn’t aware that Dicaprio was such a great painter
Such a shame the painting now is in the hands of a killer.
Professor Mcgoninnical
Salvator Mundi's Highly questionable authenticity, only time and newer technology in the future will possibly tell, if it's even allowed when it resurfaces.
This is not a masterpiece. It's well painted ( in places ) , but far from the masters best works. And I have to say , doesn't look like the Da Vinci's work. If this is his work , it's one of his wrost.
A copy based on sketches by Leonardo ...even this interesting fellow posts with a question mark .
You only need to look at the face in reverse to see what an appalling picture it is and certainly not a complete Leonardo at all…
The other student paintings that came out of Da Vinci's studio look pretty similar. One is very much the same face, but in reverse.
It's anatomically clumsy. Leonardo was never clumsy.
Now we know why you say it’s original .
Thank you for your talk still in doubt that it was Leonardo’s paint .
I cannot be convinced this is a work by Leonardo. It lacks sublime qualities in so many ways.
Thank you for your formidable compilation of studies and the multiple copies that attest to the origin of the Salvator Mundi. I value your scholarship. You leave the aesthetic appraisal to the connoisseur where I take a modest position and from which I must say I remain utterly unconvinced that this image as a whole can be from the hand of Leonardo. The cockeyed look, the static stooled posture , sfumato no neck etc. sorry. Perhaps the sly Salai was sly enough to get this far into the rendition. Leonardos opus feels lost.
Wow...this creature has an ego the size of a planet! You're no connoisseur, you're a nobody...who can't recognize the hand of da Vinci. I won't be so foolish as you are, I won't claim expertise where I have none. Still, it looks precisely as a da Vinci painting ought...and I leave it to the experts to figure out the truth, unlike you.
I can’t help but agree with you…
One worries that a drug dealer has got it.
Well, that was totally unconvincing.
I doubt Leonardo painted this.
I have a fancy opinion on this painting may be 180º different in 50 years time when they shall have invented some new way to date things, like I don't know, a way of retrieving conversations that happened next to a painting by getting the molecules to 'remember' what patterns they vibrated in 500 years ago, or something like that. I suspect it is a fake.
I'm sorry to disagree, but I do not believe this is by da Vinci. Painted on wood with knots in it? No chance!! Painted by someone close to him or just after perhaps.
Martin, many would conclude, was on the Christie’s payroll …
Can you let me know the make/ colour of your hair colourant?
From a muslim wievpoint, the title of "Salvator Mundi" is blasphemy. So wouldn't it be logical that the painting is burnt?
some critic called it a wish list painting, i can totally see that, its too da Vinci to be a real Da Vinci
Salvator Mundi is obviously a fake, it's like how an AI would do a Leonardo: let's do a bit more sfumato so old profs go for it.
I SAW ONE AT THE THRIFT STORE FOR 4.50 AND NO BUYERS, SO EVENTUALLY IT ENDED UP IN THE TRASH PILE. I CANNOT IMAGINE ANYONE WHO WOULD EVEN CARE TO HAVE IT IN THER HOME, LET ALONG HANGING UP ON THE WALLS! FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION IS ONE HEEL OF A BIG ( CHOKE)!
I have a computer print out hanging on my wall in my home. It's strange.
Isn’t this guy a scam artist? Seriously. Read the book on how this guy manipulated the provenance to make it seem more valuable.
No better person to call it out for the painting as it is. The forgers knew more of the paintings than the so called curators of said paintings. Rembrandt knock offs being a prime example.
10 minute talks but the video is 10.30, tells you all you need to know. More lies.
It's not a da Vinci
Thanks - it's a great relief to have this clarified.
@@daigreatcoat44 You're very welcome
Found the Dan Brown fan
@@notanemoprog The 'da Vinci Code' was a fun book ;)
@@adamblackshaw9151 Well, that's true. It also ruined Leonardo forever, by introducing the abominable practice of referring to him as "da Vinci" :)
The dullest problem wiith this painting is the androgynoid aspect of the SM as well as of the St John The Baptist, knowing that the Atelier of LdV was an autentic brothel for invertites. This painting is a blasphemy !
Bob Hope should just give it up, already.
Lookin' rough!
This taste sour.
Well, if this is Leonardo, it's Leonardo on a very bad day. The blurred nature of the face is simply ridiculous, and it's just absurd to compare it to St. John, which we are looking at through a huge amount of varnish. The embroidary is badly done and the garment doesn't seem to be on a body, it is stiff and empty. Really, the work tells us a lot more about the restorer's notions, than it does about Leonardo.
Give it about forty years, and then everyone will say it's ridiculous.
Kemp destroyed his reputation with this failed attribution. Also, he vouched for that recent sideview drawing of a woman. He said it was also by Leonardo, an attribution no one accepts. He's gone dotty.
Yes the work on vellum was an obvious fake