Was the $450m Salvator Mundi actually Not Painted by Leonardo Da Vinci ??! - REACTION and DISCUSSION
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 дек 2024
- Make your own opinion, spend your $450 million wisely.
www.france.tv/...
salvatormundir...
www.telegraph....
www.telegraph....
www.theguardia...
www.theguardia...
Like and subscribe !
#art #davinci #salvatormundi
***
➡ Thank you for supporting me on Patreon!
/ florentfarges
➡ LEARN OIL PAINTING - A 7 HOURS VIDEO COURSE :
www.florentfar...
➡ ADVANCED PAINTING COURSE ON COLOR AND PAINT - A 9HR COURSE :
www.florentfar...
➡ Free Resources for artists :
www.florentfar...
✔ Social media :
Facebook :
/ florentfargesarts
Instagram :
/ florentfarges.arts
Support me on PATREON and access real-time tutorials with commentary (and more) :
/ florentfarges
If you want to connect with me, the best option is to use the contact form on my website.
Write me :
www.florentfar...
***
About me (bio) :
Website :
www.florentfar...
I am an artist living and working in France. I learned the techniques of the Atelier of the Nineteenth century and now I try to share some of my knowledge with the rest of the world, because I think that beauty still has an important role to play in artistic creation. I do mostly drawing and oil painting, and my goal is always to provide techniques, thoughts and explanations that can be useful to anyone, from beginners to more advanced artists.
The material I use most of the time (not necessarily in this video) :
Drawing
Equipement
✓ Kneaded eraser
✓ Plumb line
✓ Small mirror
✓ An old synthetic brush
✓ Masking tape
✓ Cutter
✓ Sandpaper or sanding block
✓ Mahlstick or Hand rest (DIY)
✓ Level ruler
Graphite
✓ Pencils 2H, HB and 2B
Charcoal
✓ If available: Nitram charcoals (H, HB and B)
✓ Square charcoals
✓ Natural charcoal box
Black and white chalk
✓ Sketch pencil Conté white
✓ Square Conté noir : HB and 2B
✓ Chalk or pencil holder
✓ Pencil sketch Conté Pierre noire : H and HB
Sanguine
✓ Sketch pencil Conté : Blood and blood Medici
✓ Crayon Polychromos Faber-Castel : sanguine
✓ Sketch pencil Conté white
Oil painting
Palette
(Extra-fine paint, recommended brands depending on availability: Lefranc Bourgeois, Winsor and Newton, Royal Talens Rembrandt)
✓ Titanium white PW6
✓ Yellow ochre PY42
✓ Burnt Sienna PR101 or PBr7
✓ Venetian red or English red PR101
✓ Permanent Alizarin crimson (Attention: do not use the traditional pigment, which is not very light-fast) PV19 or PR177 or Quinacridone Rose PV19
✓ Cobalt teal blue PG50
✓ French ultramarine blue PB29
✓ Raw umber PBr7
✓ Burnt umber PBr7
✓ Ivory Black PBk9
Brushes
✓ About ten filbert hog bristle brushes sizes n° 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12
✓ Some flat brushes
✓ Round sable brush or round Kolinsky sable n° 4, 8, 10, 12 (from the size of the nail (about one inch) or synthetic imitation
Medium
✓ Linseed stand oil
✓ Odourless mineral spirits
✓ Safflower oil
Surface
✓ Linen canvas, fine grain universal coating
✓ For studies : Canson oil-acrylic oil paper Figueras
Others
✓ Palette
✓ Foam and spalter brushes
✓ Palette knife in the shape of a water drop, no souldering
✓ A few small pots, containers, jars...
✓ Paper towels
***
#art #painting #inspiration
***
Thanks for watching !
I think it's ironic that such a huge amount of money rides on the question of whether Leonardo's apprentices touched it while, obviously, a very large part of it was painted a few years ago by the lady who "restored" it.
Well said. Huge amount of repair and touching up
Thats the interesting thing about older works in general though - most old masters have a lot of restoration work done to them and most of it done before proper conservation techniques were created I think a lot of people would be surprised to see the true condition of them.
The very same painting with an entirely different look was sold years ago by Sothebys at auction for *$60*
The 2005 discovery and the build up to legitimize the painting is artworld antics.
Absolutely Disgusting Elitest Artworld Attribution and Corruption.
Absolutely no possible way to validate the hand of Da Vinci. -
Martin Kemp and Robert Simon who bought it for $1200 engineered the process to validate the painting without publicly providing or revealing the methodology to prove the controversial attribution and inconsistencies in provenance and restorations pre 2005.
The original battered panel years ago looks much different.
60 years ago it were sold via Sothebys for *$60 dollars*
In 2017 years its sold for $450M having been bought online for *$1200* a decade earlier.
@@daniyalg2436 No doubt it's had a big build up in value but it's a bit disingenuous to say that it sold for $60 (it sold for 45 pounds in 1959 adjusted for inflation thats about $1500 USD) and it sold for $10000 in 2005. approx. 80 million in 2013 before the 450 million in 2017
@@adamschaapveld8153 you need schooling..
Artnet and online articles are often inaccurate hence why
dissemination is often hearsay.
FYI
My company back in 2014 was asked to underwrite The Modestini Mundi before Christie$ needed to perform their delusion.
We said NO as we already had first hand information it were a fake.
Our CEO was an an Old Master collector.
We already knew it was a fake from the reports which were suppressed by The Louvre prior to publication.
The artworld insiders were heavily divided per the controversial attribution.
Martin Kemp already has zero credibility as per the controversial Bella Principessa delusion.
FYI
The Modestini Mundi was previously in the Cook collection in England bought for as little as $60 or so dollars
ie 45 british pounds at Sotheby's back way before you were even born.
Robert Simon Fine Art bought it online for $1200. The Baton Rouge family only received $700 after taxss per the online 2005 auction.
When Robert Simon asked Martin Kemp to view it - it then became a hearsay Da Vinc theni sold to Bouvier for around 80M who immediately flipped it to Dmitry for around 127.5M the very same week.
Christies 2017 was $400M plus buyers premium towards $450.3M
If you actually knew concise information - you would be competent enough to understand the exchange rates and adjustments over the decades
But I do acknowledge you can easily become deluded.
Any armchair expert can view online various articles without having a clue about the reality.
I've seen this painting in the flesh.
2011, National Gallery London.
It was a once in a lifetime Leonardo exhibition.
Obviously the talk of the show was this newly found, newly restored, newly attributed Leonardo.
I stood 3 feet from it for 10 minutes and was mesmerised.
It was quite the most sumptuous thing I'd ever seen.
Incredible.
Then I suddenly thought... there is no way on earth this was a Leonardo.
It hit me like a punch.
It's too good to be true, I thought.
It is literally incredible.
Immediately it stopped being good.
And I stood there for the next 10 minutes looking at everything that wasn't right about it.
The glass orb wasn't right; the optics were completely wrong.
If it were a sold glass sphere the image of the hand behind would be inverted.
If the sphere were hollow there would still be more refraction distortion than was there.
Would Leonardo, an artist/scientist/polymath, get that wrong?
The sfumato was fabulous.
Too fabulous.
How could a thing of such beauty have disappeared into obscurity - it was utterly sublime.
Didn't make sense.
The sfumato was too dreamy, too fantastic, too Leonardo, too overdone.
But worse... the eyes looked dreamy too. Too dreamy. A bid drowsy even, and slightly awkward.
The right hand in blessing pose was completely faultless, though. Genuinely by a proper genius, whoever painted it, quite possibly Leonardo. That seemed totally right. Not affected or contrived.
But everything else began to look a bit over-glazed or under-wrought or in the case of the orb, simply wrong.
It wasn't until many years later that I understood the extent of the restoration.
And when I saw images of the unrestored painting I realised that at least 95% of what I'd seen had been the hand of the restorer.
No wonder it looked both too good to be true and at the same time not good enough.
The right hand still looked correct though.
And maybe the unrestored facial features before the sfumato restoration went over the top, maybe there could have been by Leonardo... on an off day.
What is absolutely certain though, is the painting you now see is not by Leonardo, it is by a restorer.
It's definitely worth looking at for about 10 minutes, to see that lovely right hand and the sfumato technique that really goes to town, but don't look too closely or you start hating yourself for loving it so much before it loses its charm.
Yep. Its 100% a fake.
Thanks for sharing the experience. I was waiting for it to be exhibited in Abu Dhabi, but alas. How such cultural milestones are allowed to become personal properties is another matter at debate here, but that's for some other time.
Anyways, as for this painting goes, it's suspicious that a bunch of art world wizards would decide to "restore" a masterpiece on their own accord, before having it validated as a Leonardo. It's even more suspicious that the art world, or collector's world which frowns upon restoration in general and would absolutely refuse to give attribution unless all the restoration has been stripped down somehow readily agreed to do so.
@@bigbulk688 I concur with everything you point out here. What's more, I've done a bit more digging into the Leonardo expert who attributed the work to Leonardo. Martin Kemp is one of the world's leading experts on Leonardo... but there's something not quite right about him either! He weirdly, recently also attributed a Trois Crayon on vellum to Leonardo, even though there is no evidence that Leonardo ever employed the French Trois Crayon technique, or worked on vellum. What's more, other experts laim it to be a "screaming 20th century fake" and the art forger Shaun Greenhalgh says he created the work in the 1970s. It is of "Bossy Sally from the Co-op" a checkout girl at the local supermarket. Greenhalgh has given away his 'tells' - which can only be found on the work if it is truly by him, and not a Leonardo, but Kemp, and the owner who have vested interests in the work being attributed to Leonardo, refuse to investigate these 'tells' presumably since they can only lose - if the tells are not there, it does nothing to prove it is a Leonardo, but if they are, then it is certainly a Greenhalgh. What is interesting, and to my mind disingenuous to the point of being unscrupulous, is that they refuse to look. This is not the act of a dispassionate expert, whose pursuit of the truth ought to be paramount, but the act of an egotist who does not wish to incur damage to a reputation he has worked hard to nurture. It seems his reputation is more important to him than the truth. And how better to bolster one's reputation than to attribute two works to Leonardo when no one else has discovered one for centuries. It rather smells all too fishy.
I realised that at least 95% of what I'd seen had been the hand of the restorer. ...ABSOLUTELY
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment! The “restorer” ruined the painting and made it more her own. In my opinion she violated the code of ethics of a restorer. Would have been nice to see someone with integrity like Baumgartner have a chance this. Would have been a completely different outcome. So sad such a treasure was completely destroyed with massive amounts of over painting. 😢
I like that you pointed out that art should be placed in public museums. In our times, art is no longer appreciated for its own sake but has been commodified. The real soul of a piece is to tell a story and to touch people's heart and mind.
Museums are quite recent institutions, since the French revolution or so. This kind art of has always been funded by rich private people, or by church (at least they would put it in public display). Most of the art in museums today was rarely seen by the masses.
Not really. Your hypothesis will destroy the value of art itself. If any artwork can not be owned & enjoyed privately, its value will be greatly reduced and become disincentive for artists. Exclusivity is essential part of art and its creation. You want art for mass and only for mass? You have graffiti along with its mass-level quality.
@Kral St
What's the point of trying to keep the value artificially high?
@@wazzap500 Those with no money for such goods will say the prices are artificially high, but the super rich who have the money will think the prices are decent, whether they bought it for investment, pleasure, or proud, they never think the prices are artificially high, or they will not purchase it. So that is just a matter of perspective.
FYI. The same painting with an entirely different look was sold by Sothebys at auction for *$60*
The 2005 discovery and the build up to legitimize the painting is artworld antics.
Absolutely Disgusting Elitest Artworld Attribution and Corruption.
Absolutely no possible way to validate the hand of Da Vinci. -
Martin Kemp and Robert Simon who bought it for $1200 engineered the process to validate the painting without publicly providing or revealing the methodology to prove the controversial attribution and inconsistencies in provenance and restorations pre 2005.
The original battered panel years ago looks much different.
60 years ago it were sold via Sothebys for *$60 dollars*
In 2017 years its sold for $450M having been bought online for *$1200* a decade earlier.
I agree that it was over-restored. The painting in its cleaned state indeed told more of a story and in a way seemed like the sfumato techniques of da Vinci were more imaginable.
The cleaned pre-restored painting almost certainly looks like a Leonardo. The right hand is astonishing, and what was left looked stunning. But the restoration has altered it a lot. The eyes look like they are in completely the wrong place. The neck seems to not exist. The Orb looks strange. Leonardo's original painting is gone.
I don't know much about the painting but a video clip of MBS being told a big emphatic "NO" by the Louvre would be worth quite a few dollars if monetised on RUclips. I wonder if anyone has ever said "NO" to MBS before. Priceless in itself. LMAO
Interesting..allways enjoy your videos..👍
Yes. His brother lost his head over it! Or was it his Uncle? 🤔
@@howlingwaters2741 It was scheduled to be in the Louvre in Sept 2018, on 2nd Oct 2018 MBS had all his frustrations taken out on Jamal Kashoggi.
Maybe he should make an NFT of that event and try to recoup some of that 450 million.
I met a guy who’s friend sold the Salvatore Mundi in Baton Rouge LA for 900.00 at an estate sale. His father had money but had long run out. He told me the painting was in horrible condition. But still I would cry every day of my life if it was me that sold it.
Sold at New Orleans Auction Gallery in 2005 and it was sold as “attributed to”
The painting is over restored to the point of having to imagine the true beauty of this painting behind a filter, like viewing a masterpiece through a neck curtain.
It's a travesty.
I think the uncleaned painting is the one I like the best. The restored version is a muddy, undefined, blurry copy. The uncleaned has clear eyes, a wider range of values as seen in the highlights, and a truer sense of personhood. For sure, the uncleaned is more masculine than the restored. The restored is more soft and akin to the Mona Lisa. The cleaning did more damage then good. This is an example of taking a great work of art to the level of a copy. I am glad there are photos of the uncleaned to show the true essence. Maybe we can learn from this.
Thanks Florent! This is such an interesting story as you said. I feel like this painting really belongs in a museum, where it can be seen. The prices for art at Christies or Sothebys are crazy - it's always about a financial investment not about the art. Therefore I really loathe the art market when it comes to prices. Such old pieces have another degree of value for future generations, they need to be seen and to be available to the public.
A financial investment indeed. On other hand and other cases, let's not forget that art purchased at auction is nowadays one of the best way to launder money.
I love seeing your comments on this. It's an extremely good examination of the current state of this work. Thanks!
I think the restoration looks more extreme than it actually is. The colours are cleary very different all over compared to the cleaned versions. This has to be due to different kind of scans/photos. To me I think the weirdest part is the neck. It looks like someone took the idea of sfumato to a comical degree. This might be because it is the work of someone else or it might just be that Leonardo painted a weird neck, wouldn't be the first time.
Or it's just the restoration merely filling in the area without adding the super fine hair details leonardo usually does.
Of all of the known pieces by the hand of Leonardo primarily- the salvator mundi is the one that clearly looks off in such a manifest way. Its a beautiful painting, but they definitely rushed the attribution with so much money at stake. I love your view on this. We should appreciate the art for its own sake and history and not merely whos hand authored it. The buyers and sellers, auction house and investor arent dealing in the same art that those of us who appreciate art for its beauty and story are, and thats a shame.
This is a brilliant discussion. And fair play to this channel. I totally agree with your argument. I am an artist and I am disgusted with how society views such works primarily due to such monetarily value! We seriously need to realise that the talent/technique is far more important than what the final product of an artist is. Unfortunately the art world is clearly controlled by those who wish for profit rather than the beautiful aura of such works ❤
It does not matter who painted it . The painting had so much " restoration " that nothing of the original is visible.
Thanks for this heartfelt video Florent! Captures the frustration of how many feel about this work. The job of art now is to appreciate in value, rather than be appreciated.
Yes as high school art history tells you, these paintings were a team effort! Just look at Leonardo's own early contributions to Verrocchio's work as a student.
To me, the hand on the left is definitely Leonardo's, especiallly the detail in the sleeve. The face though bears a striking resemblance to Boltraffio's "Young Woman with a Scorpion Chain". Compare the tapered nose and browline and the overly soft use of stufmato. X-rays also suggest Leonardo may have been involved in the early sketches in that one too. I reckon Leonardo did the hand on the left, but Boltraffio did the face.
Its obviously very lucrative to give sole attribution to Leonardo. For example The National Gallery still attributes Virgin of the Rocks only to Leonardo, despite overwhelming evidence he was helped by students.
If anyone is interested in finding out more about this painting and the changes made at each restoration, this is a good article - artwatch.org.uk/tag/michael-daley-and-salvator-mundi/ . It's a long article, but 2/3 of the way down there are photos of the original painting when in the Cook collection, after restoration in 2005, at which point it went into restorer Dianne Modestini's hands, how it looked in 2011, and finally the painting that went up for auction in 2017. It's simply not the same painting... Here's another good article artwatch.org.uk/tag/the-cook-collection/ .
No matter of the scratches and the old distorted surface of the original painting, in my opinion it is way much deeper and convincing specially for the face it is amazing . .
First thing that instantly came to my mind when I saw it was the orb and the lack of optic distortion. Never really kept up much with his art but his engineering/physics attention to detail was phenomenal
I absolutely agree with you sir..as long as it was touched by da Vinci, then it's still a great painting..and for me they should've left it as is..there are times restoring paintings or any artworks, brings down the value, the quality and even the authenticity..
For the price, your right..maybe it'll also sell millions, but not near the domain of $450M..
I have never felt that it was a true Leonardo for several reasons... The most important is that he was a scientist as well as a great artist, and the globe is scientifically painted incorrectly. Reflection would be upside-down in a glass ball. This would have been second nature to Leonardo.
The other thing is that Leonardo never did a portrait face-on. He always shifted the body position and face a few degrees to the side. This was his style.. it added a third dimension to all his figures and allowed for more complex shadowing and perspective. A student would prefer not to angle.
All that being said, 'maybe' he kept it face-forward because it was Christ, and maybe he didn't invert the reflection because it has some sacred meaning to him... but those are big 'maybe's".
A third thing that stands out is that the light source is inconsistent.
If we look at the left side, the hand's light source is very clearly from the left. If we look at the right side, the shoulder has a light source coming from the upper right. The face is lite from the front, and the globe has no light reflections at all.
These are more the mistakes of a student, not a master.
Wonderful explanation
If ppl play shady games, they sometimes get burned
I think I’ll ask Julian Baumgartner.
Sure ! I am curious to know what he thinks of this !!!
He does remarkable work
WORD!!!
Yes, about restoration there are some questions. But the thing which made me fun is that how everyone amateurish-snobs support the idea of the same another one about the "mistakly painted the glass bowl". It prove that YOU don't know nothing about optical effects. To have a inverted image in a bowl- is too close to the drapery, is out of right focal distance. Second: that one who say that is a fake- probably didn’t ever seen a X-ray, IR and scientific analyses of this painting. At the last, he never seen pre restoration photos of SM. The bubble, (which are probably inclusions in a rock crystal, not glass) in a bowl- they have in medium 1 mm in diameter, but they still have the glare and shadows. The replica of SM in Ambrosiana, probably made by one of Leonardo's students- even closely don't stay at level.
It’s funny to observe how someone wants to reduce the price by ordering this entire pseudo "incriminating" campaign, and the amateurish-snobs without own opinion quickly eat it.
Florent, your idea of art is mine..art needs be seen, studied. Well done sir. And conservation is better than restoration.
If I had $450 million, I'd buy a painting I liked and hang it on the wall. Then I would enjoy the remaining $449+ million, spending it on many other beautiful things.
I really appreciated your story about the Salvator Mundi. I hate the restored painting and it begs the question that the restorer has repainted the artwork so has diluted the Leonardo and workshop artwork even further. I cannot believe the prices of artworks these days and a lot of wonderful artworks are locked away from the public eye. Artists paint for their works to be seen, not locked away somewhere else. Again, thank you for this video.
During the renaissance, most of the work done by artists was private contracts, made for the rich nobility and elite, which was never meant to be seen by the public, it was solely meant for the clients “pleasure” if you will. The concept or idea rather, of displaying art in public venues, etc, took off quite some time after the renaissance. Therefor the question, if nowadays someone from the elite class purchases a work of art for an immense amount of money, why should they display it to the public? They bought it for themselves not for the public. And if they want to hide it from the rest of the world, then I’m inclined to agree with them, let em hide it. They own it so let them decide what to do with it.
The face looks normal in the cleaned state vs the original before restoration. They look like completely different paintings.
X ray analysis showed it was a paint by numbers.
Your point of view and insight are wonderful. I agree with you that this Salvator Mundi should be in a museum and available to be viewed by the public.
This story brings up so many good, controversial questions in the art world...it will be interesting to see how the rest of the story unfolds
The cleaned was the best version by far. I agree ... there is no way to know who did what. It’s still an amazing painting
Really good video! Thanks for uploading it and taking the time to make it! I love your channle. It is so refreshing to watch a video that is on a higher level of quality than the general content one can find here on youtube.
This is a wonderfully thoughtful and informed look at the negative impact of art marketing, of which commoditizing and hype are such natural parts. Many pupils of the old masters, such as Rembrandt and Rubens, became so skilled their work was hardly distinguishable until the advent of modern technological analysis. Then followed an avalanche of reattributions. The sad part, as you speak of, is the way attribution influences the way demoted works are perceived by museums and the public. Prestige, museum visitor numbers, and postcard reproduction sales are driven by attribution to famed artists. Rembrandt's "Polish Rider" suffered when experts first took it from the master, then years later returned it to his hand. During it's time in the wilderness I saw no less masterful (and lovable) a work of art, but I really had to think it through. Studio works were, in their time, understood to include the labor of partners but be "by" the master. Star pupils whose independent works were later confused and misattributed weren't selling counterfeits. They, too, had become masters, but their fame became lost in the shadows of their teachers. Nowadays, the ability to painstakingly work out attribution down to percentages is fascinating scholarship and can perhaps head off outrages of the marketplace. But ought we devalue works of more than one hand when we could instead celebrate the mastery of more participants? I agree with you: Salvator Mundi is most powerful, moving and informative in it's damaged state. But now it's a $450M Da Vinci "blockbuster," the reputation of it's owner is implicated, and it will probably never be allowed to be seen in public as itself--a stellar, magical work of comingled authorship, as so many great paintings actually are.
Salvatore Mundi is a Leonardo Studio Piece and a heavy handed “Restorer” not a Leonardo DaVinci piece. The marketing hype propaganda, absent of the heavy restoration, was to increase interest and value. Nothing more.
I prefer the colour and texture pre-restoration, but I also think the huge scars should have been repaired/restored. I do think she went a bit far - particularly the area under the chin looks too airbrushed.
A fascinating and refreshing video. I have no idea what's going on in nowadays art market, but this story was really interesting. I think that there is something really mysterious and even kind of mystical or spiritual about this portrait. I suppose that this is due to the dark colors, the out-of-this-world calm face of the man (reminds of Jesus Christ) and that crystal ball. Thanks for the great video Florent! It would be really nice if you'll make more videos like that on the future (though I love watching the other types of videos you are making!).
Salvatore Mundi, means the Savior of the World, i.e. Christ, in the times of Leonardo da Vinci. He lived in a very Catholic society and a lot of the art produced at that time had religious (Christian) motives.
@@ktb183 I didn't know that this is the meaning of Salvatore Mundi. Thanks for that! And yeah, I know that in the end the majority of Renaissance best known figures were religious, and even deeply religious in many terms, and that specifically as to the painters of that era, they did loads of commissions for the catholic church.
Even if Leonardo didn't paint the whole thing, if it's true that he contributed the beautiful blessing hand, I think that still makes this a significant piece worthy of awe; not to mention its wild history - what of it is known and unknown - that took it around the world and left it in the state it's in. It's certainly not worth what the buyer paid - no painting is - and I think I prefer it in its cleaned, unrestored state, but I'm still fascinated by this painting for its journey and its partial Leonardo contribution. The whole thing might not be a total Leonardo autograph but I think if we found a painting of just a hand painted by Leonardo the whole world would pretty similarly freak out and a super-rich person would've still spent a few hundred million on it.
I find Modestini’s contribution truthful and beautiful -and in continuation of the Renaissance tradition of production- and da Vinci is present through a mimesis of ideation across time. He is there even if he never touched the painting. Whatever one determines with respect to the analysis of the hand and orb, these are fascinating features of the composition. I understand the museum’s position on attribution and this is exactly what a museum should do. Good! I want it. I would buy it for the going price, if I could, even if the original pigments turn out to be applied by Elmyr de Hory. It is beautiful, and for me, its complex collaboration history enhances its beauty.
The embarrassment to the Saudis is worth the sacrifice of a workshop piece tbh. He'll probably destroy it out of rage.
Poor little bone Sawman.
Greed corrupts all markets. Let’s embrace artistry instead.
Luckily there is a lot of great art that’s not too expensive
Not really this work is better than da vinci we need to find out who painted it!
Une analyse très intéressante.
Au final je suis d'accord avec toi. Pour le spectateur peu importe si c'est juste Leonard ou pas. La peinture mérite d'être admirée.
Surely with this amount of restoration it is no longer really a possible genuine Leonardo? By having another artist’s work involved in restoring it is surely no different than if other of Leonardo’s students were originally involved. As you say it would have been better left unrestored.
Wonderful video and delivery. +you somehow managed to make this video very aesthetically pleasing to look at. Well done sir!
Thanks, I appreciate 🙏
Just saw your video, two years after publication. And yes, I agree it’s been over restored. I suppose the restorer was doing what she was commissioned to do, but it goes too far. It now looks “perfect” maybe even better than the original. It’s mind boggling that the Prince would invest so much without having it confirmed by multiple sources for its authenticity and value. With all the controversy, it can never be sold again for a profit. It may never be displayed again. Galleries don’t like those kinds of controversies: over-restored, questionable authenticity, angry owners… it’s a shame all the way around. It’s a painting we studied in school. Thanks for your video!
It is sad to see that now art has become like a commodity in the top class mafia. Paintings are not bought for its beauty and technicalities but rather, who made it and who bought it, and not to mention the tax benefits attached to it and also thr status symbols
I've said this four years ago: it's not 100% Leonardo. If it were, Bill Gates, Bezos, Musk, an institution, etc would've won the bid. Trust me, it's by Boltraffio or Luini with accents from Leo such as the curls, drapery and detailed ornamentation. The art world would've known about the restoration and a group of academics, historians and experts would've agreed what to do with it like the Sistine Chapel, The Last Supper and other pieces. Instead, Dianne Modestini restored it by the advice of a handful of people who benefited from the sale.
And paid very well to say she thinks it's real !
*The Fraud of The Century*
What is hilarious is The Arabs would actually buy a 'Controversial Christ.'
Even Judas must be giggling.!!
The Mundi is just another
Da Vinci Delusion for The Masses.
The build up to legitimise the sudden found battered painting is absolutely disgusting.
What is disgusting is the original owners only got $700 after Robert Simon Fine Art dealers bought online for only $1200 and immediately assigning their corrupt Da Vinci academic Martin Kemp to ble$$ the battered plank.
The 2017 Christie$ was a necessary process to appease the original controversy.
Research *The Bouvier Affair*
Literally major inconsistencies in provenance and the process towards legitimise the derived attribution is very controversial.
FYI. The same painting with an entirely different look was sold by Sothebys at auction for *$60*
The 2005 discovery and the build up to legitimize the painting is artworld antics.
Absolutely Disgusting Elitest Artworld Attribution and Corruption.
Absolutely no possible way to validate the hand of Da Vinci. -
Martin Kemp and Robert Simon who bought it online for $1200 engineered the process to validate the painting without publicly providing or revealing the methodology to prove the controversial attribution and inconsistencies in provenance and restorations pre 2005.
The original battered panel years ago looks much different.
60 years ago it were sold via Sothebys for *$60 dollars*
In 2017 years its sold for $450M having been bought online for *$1200* a decade earlier.
The pentimento argument (the thumb was changed indicating the artist changed this mind implying an original artwork) is a fallacy.
Famous fakers throughout the centuries have used pentimento.
The Pentimento theory or thumb duplicate is a classic forgers trick.
Erik Heborn was a specialist.
Any decent forger knows how to create deception and to manipulate specific subjectivity of a forgery as they would know to expect the painting to receive a close inspection.
Wolfgang Beltracci did brilliant fakes for years even when Sothebys continued to sell his works via auctions and dealers to BigBoy buyers.
Carlos Slim was sold multiple fakes of Modigliani and other artworks whilst the authentications were validated by multiple experts prior to auction sales.
*Martin Kemp is crucial to the Museums as their balance sheets are dependent on Museum footfall and merchandi$e.*
*Why do you think the ONLY ACCEPTED Da Vinci's are ONLY IN TOP END MUSEUMS!!!!*
Why do I know this Insider Info ??
I have active first hand experience in overseeing hedge fund and contracts for high level asset acquisitions.
I was formerly at a firm where my teams job was to facilitate the processes of asset management exceeding values above $250m.
During the last decade - The Art Market needed a boost as it was the safest hedge against other markets.
We were part of the underwriting per the overly inflated insurance premiums assigned to major high end artworks and real estate.
The artworks appraisals had already been blatantly exaggerated from the outset and the valuations were manipulated with everyone in the chain having a piece of the pie.
Prior to the Salvador Mundi Modestini makeover with absolutely ZERO evidence or underlay of the original artwork from origin - the alarming thing is we are somehow expected to believe that
Leanardo Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought - well today let's do an out of characteristic Front Faced Christ
holding a crystal ball.
Pardon My Thumb Folks
WTF.😅😅😅😅😅
AGAIN....
Such major inconsistencies and the deriving towards validation of an artwork from the very hand of the Old Master is highly questionable.
Surprise Surprise ' the Mona Lisa base sketch is totally different from the surface.
In 2000 - analysis and findings ascertained major discrepancies in the base sketch of the Mona Lisa:
Alarmingly a totally different base sketch was unravelled
- Absolutely Gamechanging -
hence for the first time this century - it's a whole new perspective in analysis and finding what's beneath the surface. Louvre Mona Lisa
As the science evolves with the latest technologies to provide irrefutable evidence of clarifying the genetic profile of an artwork from origin -...
Martin Kemp and cohorts react by saying...
'The Artist Changed His Mind' !!!!
So Today's Lesson..
In my own humble opinion !!
It's a Monetisation Money Maker game.
'The Da Vinci Game'
The Louvre, National Gallery, MOMA and fellow Institutions will always need to accommodate and welcome much needed tourism.
The institutions are required to generate
merchandise sales to accommodate and welcome the Social Media Selfies and Insta insecure Ducklips:
After all - The Vatican doesn't yet open up the Secret Chambers.
Until then.
My Advice..
WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.
@@daniyalg2436 enjoyed reading your comment 😊
It's not a Da Vinci, it's a painting by a restorer!
"Museums are just a lot of lies, and the people who make art their business are mostly impostors." Picasso
Great examination, Florent. Thank you :)
It is a Dianne Modestini, not a Leonardo da Vinci.
Jesus, I can’t imagine what that guy who had this painting Hanging in his stairwell feels….
Well done. The same conditions apply to the origins of and market for "Golden Age" Italian violins. Many are "restored" to the extent that they can barely be considered as the authentic work of the original master's workshop (and the fact that much of the work was not completed by the master is not widely appreciated.) The demand for "certified" works provides incentive for every sort of manipulation, and the market has all the qualities of a bubble...but it has lasted for generations, and will undoubtedly persist for many more.
I just roll my eyes every time you say the "WEIRD HAND". To me it's a beautiful hand, no different than the Mona Lisa, it's very soft with no hard edges.
Totally agreed, all marketing and no merit. The painting from a layman's eyes, can still be considered " Leonardos" own as it bears his signature sfumato technique & other hallmarks, but the way they hyped it, in CHRISTIE'S , is downright shameful. That level of hyping is very unethical.
Someone in the comments section said it better than I ever could: "The soul of a painting is in the story it tells, and the hearts it touches." (Paraphrased).
Personally, I think it has a fascinating (if not controversial) story to tell that is a rollercoaster of emotions. Probably the most important value we can take from this thing is how modern society has effectively "corrupted" what was once considered beautiful and perfect, if only for our sensibilities and desires. It's no different than Banksy shredding a canvas he made that was sold at auction. It went from a beautiful painting, to a beautiful work of art! It's transformed.
Is Salvator Mundi a painting by Leonardo Da Vinci? Yes. But it's also a painting _somewhat_ by Leonardo Da Vinci, finished by his posse, redone by someone long ago, undone by someone else, painted over by some lady, popularized by zealot quick-triggered dealers (who possibly lied) who kinda scammed a wealthy Saudi....who then despite all these efforts keep it hidden from the public so nobody can look at it and possibly expose all of this definitively. It's crazy, but that painting is now, for WORSE over better....a symbol of modern art and society. And for three small payments...you TOO can have a copied copy of the main copy by the original lady who slapped some paint on it!!
I agree with everything you said! This hysteria about attribution completely puts aside the artistic value of what is indeed a masterpiece, that should be looked at and enjoyed. I think it is plausible that students contributed, but this does not reduce the value of the painting at all.
Excellent presentation, Florent.
Leonardo began his formal studies in the studio of Verocchio (?). Leonardo naturally surpassed his teacher after not a very long time. His teacher had to concede Leonardo's genius. Also, Leonardo was known for not finishing a work. I'd read that Leonardo carried the (still) unfinished Mona Lisa around with him for several years. I am glad the painting was restored, one way or another. You have a better idea of what you're really looking at. People who have sensitivity to energies could well get different information from the picture, in addition to the scholarly investigations. Such people might get impressions/insights. Person would stand a few inches away from picture and extend their palms toward it without touching it, of course. There's nothing which is not known, and knowledge is like spokes on a wheel, leading to the center. You never know where it will come from.
I'd gladly trade it for a Bouguereau.
I think that this painting has more "Da Vinci" technique in it, than few of the paintings attributed to him. Sfumato, atmospheric perspective, the subtlety of the forms on the fingers.
Great analysis and video. I would like to see a video breaking down in more detail the technical analysis of what determinants and intricate variables are used to rule out Davinci vs someone else. What nuances let you know the odds of it being a Davinci.
Nicely thought out....thank you
Yeah, the problem is definitely in how it was common to practice or learn to paint by copying these master paintings. I have to assume a LOT of 'original' oil paintings attributed to famous painters, are in fact made by their students instead. What if an original got 'lost' (read: hangs somewhere in a house or villa, outside of public awareness)? But the museum found the copy? It may be from the correct era, however it wouldn't be from the actual famous painter. As for the quote of 'If I'm wrong, nobody died , somebody lost a lot of money' ... I would be very careful to assume that type of thing. Whenever these types of amounts of money is involved, people might in fact end up dying over it. Not even joking. I would also say $450M is not a very reasonable amount of money for a painting. I'm often wondering if $40M makes sense and that's only because we've gotten used to how people spend that kind of money whenever these are sold.
Dear Florent,
I was at the Detroit Institute of Art the other day and saw the Salvator Mundi in their collection. It's by Giampetrino, who was a member of the Da Vinci circle (workshop). Have a look at the link and I think you'll find some surprising similarities to the Da Vinci attributed one. I hope the link works.
www.dia.org/art/collection/object/salvator-mundi-45855
The style is really different from Leonardo's despite the obvious similarities. To me it looks like a student (Giampetrino I guess) was making a portrait of a noble lady, gave up halfway through and decided to finish the painting by slapping on a beard and calling it "Jesus" instead. The features and proportions are way overly feminine to me.
Has artificial intelligence already revealed something about this?
if you just go after the money..... it is going to bite you...
Very interesting video well done 👍 if I had 450 million I don’t see myself buying art that is essentially broken, even restored I think you can see the essence of the painting has been taken away in my opinion, I think I would prefer to buy a load of your artwork Florent 😊😊
I love that it was restored, its no different than the many restorations done through the years of the mural of THE LAST SUPPER by Leonardo. The last restoration taking place in 1999. At this point little of the original remains & nobody complains about the mural's restorations, because we know if it was not restored through years we would not have it today & for that I'm internally great-full.
Of course it should be placed in public museums. I agree with you at the point that it seems to be done at Leonardo's but not entirely by himself. Thanks for sharing this interesting video
Interesting conversation, Florent
I find it weird that they would try to devalue the work based on the fact that Leonardo’s apprentice touched the piece.
This is because it was a known fact that Rubens in particular, apprentices did the majority of the work and he would do the final touches.
The work was still done under the masters supervision and direction.
Is there anywhere to watch that documentary with English subtitles?
I saw this painting a few years ago when it was on show in Scotland. I immediately (although I had not heard anything about it at the time) thought that it was not by Da Vinci. This was a gut feeling based purely on the stylistic visuals, not on any historical or scientific knowledge. But I still think it was not by him.
By the way great video, thank you.
Bravo. Well explained, well said from a perspective of learning from the original before the restoration. Even if it is from the workshop, not only is it still a stunning piece, but it would have been nice to research the artist who created it to give him or her due credit.
There is such strong Presence in this painting- before restauration ! It gave me schivers to look in those eyes...after restauration it is looking banal..what a pity. Leonardo or not- I would like to see it live ! Where is it? On princes jacht ? What if he sinks ? Thank you Florent !
I agree with you. Hope it becomes available to public art professionals and public.
MBS:
I would like to refund it,,, ( I have the receipt )
From the video, the Louvre research concluded that part of the painting was done by Leonardo and the rest was done by his pupils. (See the “Full attribution to Leonardo” section of the Wikipedia article on the Salvator Mundi.)
This version of the Salvator Mundi is clearly superior to the many copies of the work done by pupils. A master artist was involved in its creation which would be Leonardo.
As for partial attribution to Leonardo, this was common in Italian Renaissance art, where pupils often helped with the completion of a work. A famous example is Verrocchio’s The Baptism of Christ, where this painting by Verrocchio was assisted by Leonardo da Vinci.
I have seen it. Such art is worthy to be put into a museum.
As for the restoration of the Salvator Mundi, Florent Farges is an artist who is expressing an opinion. Restorations can vary and the one for the Salvador Mundi could be considered acceptable by some expert scholars. Dianne Modestini Is one such expert.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art hired Dianne Modestini as an Assistant Conservator of Paintings. For years, Dianne Modestini also served as an educator at New York University's Institute of Fine Arts. She taught students about European painting techniques, paying particular attention to restoration.
The controversy for this painting is the massive price paid for the work and that it was sold to Saudi Arabia. That brought politics into the debate.
Since there is a great dislike by many for Saudi Arabia, this has prejudiced the discussion against the painting. For instance, just displaying the Salvator Mundi at the Louvre is considered to be support for Saudi Arabia as stated in the video. There are many famous paintings, such as by Rembrandt, which has been questioned. But the display of such a painting has never in my memory led to international negotiations and controversies at the highest level.
Without that massive cost paid by a private Saudi owner, the work would probably be in a museum today. But because of politics, this painting probably cannot be displayed outside of Saudi Arabia.
PS. On RUclips there is a channel called Baumgartner Restoration.
That channel has a video called *”The Conservation of Salvator Mundi, No Not That One.”*
This video shows a restoration of another Salvator Mundi painting (not by Leonardo with his pupils).
The painting in the Baumgartner Restoration video is from the 1500s and is on a wood panel which has a crack. It had areas of old overpainting and several sections which were missing paint.
* The Baumgartner Restoration video gives an idea of what the process of restoration means.
- The crack was glued and repaired
- The earlier over painting was removed.
- The several areas of this painting that were missing paint were repainted by the restorer to look like the original. For instance, the hand was missing paint and so the restorer added paint to the hand which looked like the original paint. The finished restoration has all the areas of missing paint repainted with colors from black to gold which matched what was left of the original.
'Restorations can vary and the one for the Salvador Mundi could be considered acceptable by some expert scholars. Dianne Modestini Is one such expert...' - I see, sure diane M.the expert (scholar) would consider acceptable her own expert (restoration) job!
Thanks for posting this, Florent! Very interesting. Have you seen the new doco by the Danish director? Thoughts on that or update to this film?
Over restored. It has lost its life, focus, and beauty.
Debatable.
I would have either not restored anything at all or mostly done it like she did (obviously I could not do anything alike).
Look at the hair to the left.
She repainted the damaged part but without the intricate detail.
She wanted it not to look damaged without it beeing an eyecatcher.
Everybody will focus on the right part of the hair since that is so nicely done.
The glass sphere is questionable since it sticks out and looks alot better in new without there beeing alot of damage to the old one.
Have always had a gut feel that it is not his alone. Aknowledge my absolute lack of expertise. so enjoyed this account.
Could you tell me how would someone know if a painting was done exclusively by the hand of just one painter? Especially if was a job done in a place like you said in a studio with so many students?
as an artist who only family and friends know i think davinci inspires me ,but so do many artists .when i first saw the lady who restored this say its a real davinci i got so exited ,i wanted to get out my oils and try this,ive painted several jesus works none id sell not that good .but i love the lord and want to paint a good portrait none of us ever saw jesus so its anyones guess what he looks like.i like this one but ill do my own
I never thought that looked like Leonard's work. I saw the original when it was discovered and went on tour framed by a beautiful cabinet made by an Italian woodcarver who came on the tour. It didn't look like that. In fact it looked closer to the Durer. That second one you showed! I remember it gave off a powerful force and was so beautiful!
Having watched some of the analysis videos on the geometry that underpins this piece, all I have to say is "if it ain't a da Vinci, it'll do 'til a da Vinci comes 'round."
The painting is mesmerizing, beautiful and at minimum under the direction of Leonardo. That should be enough.
Very interesting video, thank you!
I did a few Da Vinci study sketches awhile back so when this came out I was really confused. I wonder if anyone who has did his studies may have had the same issue but I didn't know what the issue was. I dont know now because its way too restored so how are we going to learn from this? It was a hard pill for me to swallow. It a good painting on its own but yah good idea I would like to see this along side his paintings from his studio where the other painters worked and even if you have to skip over the restoration or try to read around all of that. This was a very interesting video and i really enjoyed it. Thanks 👍
This will be an unpopular take. But prior to watching this video I've been immersing myself in the process and thought behind restoration of fine art works. I think there are arguments to be made on both sides of the restore, or not to restore question. In particular I reference the work of the Baumgartner Restoration workshop in forming my own opinions about restoration of fine art and masterworks of art. Next, I want to point out that when asking these questions, or perhaps better stated, raising these concerns can be an exercise in determining intent. Make no mistake-- if the Louvre raises questions it's because they have a reputation at stake especially since they had earlier examined and made a determination about Leonardo's limited contribution to the painting. I feel a video by a Frenchman in support of the Louvre's concerns is a bit spurious. Not that experts in the U.S. got it absolutely correct either. I can make no conclusion as to that not having that kind of background. In fact, I don't know how the Louvre or experts in the U.S. can actually determine to a certainty how much of Salvator Mundi was completed by Leonardo despite claims on both sides which formed their "opinion". I use "opinion" here as that is all this could be. So, I guess in a way I'm in agreement that validating this work as being 100% by Leonardo is a fool's errand. It may not be possible. I do remember seeing a documentary some years ago about Leonardo's journey to the French court and traveling there with only three of his works-- the Mona Lisa and his Salvator and one other unidentified work. I tend to believe if he kept the Salvator it would likely have been due to the fact he had completed it wholly or to a great degree by his own hand. But I cannot know that for certain. If the provenance for Salvator can be linked to the painting that passed hands from the French to the English court, an argument may be made that to the degree possible this is the Salvator is that painting. I have no idea how the French experts can inform the Saudis that this Salvator exists with only limited contributions by Leonardo. Without specifics I tend to cast that opinion in a spurious light. Again, they have a reputation to uphold and if they got it wrong do you believe they would admit that? My guess is no. I've watched some programming regarding how works of art are validated by the entities who claim absolute rights of authentication. And in better understanding how this process works it's frightening how iron-fisted this can play out-- to the point that some works are confiscated (for lack of a better term) when these works are determined to be not by the master's hand. Once taken these works can be destroyed or warehoused at their discretion with no renumeration to the owner. If an owner were not to comply in turning it over to the authenticating entity, they are threatened with court action. I understand concerns for forgeries diluting the market but taken to the extreme reputation and egos are definitely in play when authenticating works of fine art. In my opinion the restored Salvator (not having seen it in person) seems etherial and dreamlike and most effectively conveys the serene love of Christ for the world.
These fine art collectors have lost interest on the art itself and only focus on the artist. I can never understand this. Art value should be based on merit.
Im sure you've also heard about the fact that Leonardo would likely have known to invert the features viewed thru the crystal orb, too. I cannot imagine a perfectionist like him could've slept knowing that detail was wrong...
I watched something about that topic. It's possible he didn't invert the image in that part because he felt it would distract the viewer from the face of Jesus, or to show that Jesus is not a typical human being and the properties of physics do not apply fully to him. Anything's possible though, just something to think about
*The Fraud of The Century*
What is hilarious is The Arabs would actually buy a 'Controversial Christ.'
Even Judas must be giggling.!!
The Mundi is just another
Da Vinci Delusion for The Masses.
The build up to legitimise the sudden found battered painting is absolutely disgusting.
What is disgusting is the original owners only got $700 after Robert Simon Fine Art dealers bought online for only $1200 and immediately assigning their corrupt Da Vinci academic Martin Kemp to ble$$ the battered plank.
The 2017 Christie$ was a necessary process to appease the original controversy.
Research *The Bouvier Affair*
Literally major inconsistencies in provenance and the process towards legitimise the derived attribution is very controversial.
FYI. The same painting with an entirely different look was sold by Sothebys at auction for *$60*
The 2005 discovery and the build up to legitimize the painting is artworld antics.
Absolutely Disgusting Elitest Artworld Attribution and Corruption.
Absolutely no possible way to validate the hand of Da Vinci. -
Martin Kemp and Robert Simon who bought it online for $1200 engineered the process to validate the painting without publicly providing or revealing the methodology to prove the controversial attribution and inconsistencies in provenance and restorations pre 2005.
The original battered panel years ago looks much different.
60 years ago it were sold via Sothebys for *$60 dollars*
In 2017 years its sold for $450M having been bought online for *$1200* a decade earlier.
The pentimento argument (the thumb was changed indicating the artist changed this mind implying an original artwork) is a fallacy.
Famous fakers throughout the centuries have used pentimento.
The Pentimento theory or thumb duplicate is a classic forgers trick.
Erik Heborn was a specialist.
Any decent forger knows how to create deception and to manipulate specific subjectivity of a forgery as they would know to expect the painting to receive a close inspection.
Wolfgang Beltracci did brilliant fakes for years even when Sothebys continued to sell his works via auctions and dealers to BigBoy buyers.
Carlos Slim was sold multiple fakes of Modigliani and other artworks whilst the authentications were validated by multiple experts prior to auction sales.
*Martin Kemp is crucial to the Museums as their balance sheets are dependent on Museum footfall and merchandi$e.*
*Why do you think the ONLY ACCEPTED Da Vinci's are ONLY IN TOP END MUSEUMS!!!!*
@@jonk1370 Indeed, I could see that as a remotely possible explanation just based only on the little I know. I just consider that for someone who went to such fantastic lengths to study nature in order to accurately replicate it and then just discard those lessons in such an obvious way seems like it should at least warrant some skepticism from the art historians validating that part of the painting. On the other hand, he was a pretty sneaky character with the subtle references...it's likely we'll never know the truth at this point though.
Good video. You asked about the globe. Can you see an index finger pentimento in the cleaned version and restored? That is impressive. Are pentimentos in the copies?
100% agree with you. I like the unrestored one better
The painting hangs in a yacht named Serene by MBS.
Rembrandt , Rubens and a host of others had the same workshop practice . Leonardo worked in one himself when he was an apprentice to Verrocchio....a lot of Rembrandt's works were done by his pupils as copies .
One of the problems with determining authorship of Medieval and Renaissance art is that the concept of authorship was understood differently. Master painters were in no way "mass producing" paintings. Having apprentices was seen as the correct practice for any skilled artisan. The master would pass on traditional skills and any new techinques he developed. In exchange the apprentices would complete less complex tasks so that the teacher would be able to concentrate on the more complex. The master would create a composition (idea and design) and the apprentices would complete the work under his supervision and with corrections. The idea of the artist as a solitary genius, who becames a fraud if he receives any help is a modern invention. I am not an expert, but Leonardo was the favourite painter of one of my art teachers. I don't think that painting is a Leonardo for two reasons, there was no transparency in the authentication process and it doesn't look right.
Is it a beautiful piece that can be appreciated just for what your eyes see in front of you? Did the story of this painting end upon its completion? Is it still on its journey through history? Yes ! I see art as it has traveled thru the mind of the creator. What did he see? What did he feel ? What influences contributed to its creation. Drama of the day, politics ,desperate times .So much beyond each brush stroke . The story continues …..and the price ??? Well ridiculous…it is priceless and now locked away .How silly . Art is valuable for what the viewer sees and feels .
I have so much nothingness to say, my silence will speak to the endless void.