“Salvator Mundi” sold for a record $450,000,000 at auction. Most of the coverage I’ve seen seems to accept that this is a genuine da Vinci, not mentioning any skepticism in the art world. At the same time I saw a story that included an interview with an art expert who claimed that it was highly unlikely (as in, almost certainly not) a da Vinci. He cited many factors that lead him to his conclusion and was pretty convincing to my art- uneducated self. The auction house, seller and buyer all have motives for believing in its authenticity.I’m not sure but I think the expert in the story said that the authenticator(s) of the painting may have been paid a percentage of the sale price instead of the usual flat rate - clearly a a motive to reach a “genuine” conclusion. In the end, the opinion of the buyer is the only one that matters but what does the rest of the art world have to say about this?
I think you should buy art because you like it, not because it will make you money.
Meh. It’s at least “Leonardo adjacent” and there’s enough Big Stupid Money out there that someone wanted to bag that trophy.
From what I’ve read, many people in the art world are skeptical of its authenticity. The articles I’ve read also talk about the poor condition, saying that it’s been overcleaned.
Now the game is to guess who bought it. I think the government of Dubai bought some high-value paintings, intending to establish a world-class museum. But would they be interested in such a Christian painting? And there are Chinese buyers also trying to assemble world-class collections.
Remember, prior to this, there were only fifteen paintings by the artist known, and none were in private hands. So even given the doubts and the quality issues, this was a once-in-many-lifetimes opportunity.
The chronology of the painting at Christie’s indicates that there was a slew of experts from many different museums who formed the consensus that the painting was authentic. It is not as if they just had their in-house conservator make the call. There will always be dissenting opinions on a “found” work like this, especially one that has had extensive restoration.
Is it officially acceptable to refer to the artist as “da Vinci”? I remember when Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code came out, one of the many things people ridiculed Brown for was referring to Leonardo as “Da Vinci,” as though that were his last name. What’s the Straight Dope?
In my understanding, it’s as if your full name were “Thudlow Boink of Lincoln, Illinois,” and people said “Hello there, of Lincoln, Illinois!” every time you showed up somewhere, which would enrage you.
Why? I mean, on the one hand, I’m usually glad to buy stuff that will make me money; and, on the other hand, if I like art that I can look at, I look at it.
Have I been doing that wrong?
Is it any worse than referring to Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg as “Gutenberg”?
On the plus side, you can join the Hong Kong Cavaliers.
Leonardo has clearly become bigger than his home town. Still haven’t confused him with Mario Da Vinci.
.
Mangetout started a thread about da Vinci’s name a while ago that persuaded me that using da Vinci as though it is Leonardo’s surname is a reasonable thing to do.
I’m no expert, so it’s pointless for me to speculate on whether it’s really a Leonardo or not.
I will say this: If I could pick any Leonardo to own myself, Salvator Mundi would be dead last on the list. It’s just a dead, completely uninspired thing.
I kind of thought the same thing. But AIUI, it’s been cleaned to hell and back, which may be why it looks so flat.
Okay, I’ll bite: which one would you pick?
After looking at all of those, my favorite is Lady with an Ermine.
Salvator Mundi isn’t that bad IMHO, on the other hand this painting is horrible.
I love you, and would like to bear … err, meet you and enjoy a viewing of one of the greatest movies ever.
The leader of which could oddly enough have an informed opinion whether or not the painting was legitimate.
At least one prominent art world commentator has noted that the non-specialist reaction to the sale has tended to overlook how uniform the informed opinions actually are.
(FWIW, having seen the painting itself, in the context of the (London) National Gallery’s Leonardo At The Court Of Milan exhibition a couple of years ago, my non-expert opinion was that the attribution was plausible enough. I do however think the pro-Leonardo physics arguments about purported double refraction in the prism are wishful thinking.)