# "da Vinci" Painting **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 16, 2017, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/da-vinci-painting/801766 "2017-11-16T12:41:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![somepumpkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7feea3/32.png) [@somepumpkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/somepumpkin)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/da-vinci-painting/801766/21 "2017-11-16T20:24:53Z")
> [@Philster](#): > > Leonardo has clearly become bigger than his home town. Still haven’t confused him with Mario Da Vinci. > . Is that that plumber’s full name? ---
**Author:** ![Rough\_Draft](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@Rough\_Draft](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rough_Draft)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/da-vinci-painting/801766/22 "2017-11-16T20:28:13Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Okay, I’ll bite: [which one would you pick?](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/nov/16/all-leonardo-da-vinci-painting-rated-salvator-mundi) Thanks for asking! In my pipe dreams I’d probably pick _The Adoration of the Magi_. I think it’s beautiful even in its unfinished state. If Leo had completed it, I bet it would stand as his greatest masterpiece, or at least rank in the top three or four. I like the Cecilia Gallerani portrait also, even though it’s probably been retouched and repainted as much as _Salvator Mundi_. That ermine (or ferret, or whatever it is) is very impressive, and Cecilia is quite fetching too. _Saint John the Baptist_ has always creeped me out. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/da-vinci-painting/801766/23 "2017-11-16T20:32:12Z")
> [@bonzer](#): > > I do however think the pro-Leonardo physics arguments about purported double refraction in the prism are wishful thinking.) The point is that it’s _not_ a glass prism. It represents the world, or even the whole universe. Christ is depicted as the ‘Saviour of the World’. The world is transparent to his divine sight and is held in his hand. So it’s perfectly reasonable that it’s not refracting light as glass would. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/da-vinci-painting/801766/24 "2017-11-16T21:37:19Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > The point is that it’s _not_ a glass prism. > > It represents the world, or even the whole universe. Christ is depicted as the ‘Saviour of the World’. The world is transparent to his divine sight and is held in his hand. So it’s perfectly reasonable that it’s not refracting light as glass would. My point was that the likes of Sir Martin Kemp have suggested that it’s a crystal of Iceland spar and does (somewhat) realistically show a double refraction, deducing from that that only Leonardo would have included such a detail. That’s what I find unconvincing, from beginning to end. Other non-realistic interpretations of the orb have obviously been proposed. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/da-vinci-painting/801766/25 "2017-11-16T21:53:33Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > 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? The obvious problem with such a claim is that most of the key experts declared themselves in favour of its authenticity before the last time it was sold. So the terms of the deal with Christie’s, however dodgy, can have had no bearing on those earlier opinions. In fact, this is a textbook example of the opposite. The consortium that owned the painting before 2013 was very smart in consulting a wide range of experts before they went public. Some of them, such as Martin Kemp, make a point of not accepting payments for their opinions on attributions. Others were curators of public museums who are forbidden for accepting such payments. That’s one of many reasons why their opinions carried weight with other art historians. The real work in creating the expert consensus was done before the latest seller or Christie’s got involved. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/da-vinci-painting/801766/26 "2017-11-16T22:02:55Z")
Wait a minute… That _Guardian_ article says that _The Virgin of the Rocks_ was heretical, because it shows Mary and the angel both more focused on John than on Jesus. How can they tell? I see Mary (recognizable because she’s traditionally shown wearing blue) and another adult figure (who in the first version might or might not be an angel), and a couple of toddlers. Obviously the two toddlers are Jesus and John, but if you asked me which one was Jesus, I’d say “obviously the one whose shoulder Mary is holding”. ---
**Author:** ![Rough\_Draft](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@Rough\_Draft](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rough_Draft)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/da-vinci-painting/801766/27 "2017-11-16T22:11:28Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Wait a minute… That _Guardian_ article says that _The Virgin of the Rocks_ was heretical, because it shows Mary and the angel both more focused on John than on Jesus. How can they tell? I see Mary (recognizable because she’s traditionally shown wearing blue) and another adult figure (who in the first version might or might not be an angel), and a couple of toddlers. Obviously the two toddlers are Jesus and John, but if you asked me which one was Jesus, I’d say “obviously the one whose shoulder Mary is holding”. Well, I’m no Catholic, so I may have the terminology wrong, but clearly John the Baptist (on the left) is supplicating before Jesus (on the right), and Jesus is blessing John. Or at least that’s what I recall reading. I agree their identities can be confusing at first glance. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2017, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/da-vinci-painting/801766/28 "2017-11-17T00:19:50Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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? As long as you buy the art because you like it, the money you make should be a secondary bonus. Not that I can stop anyone, I just think absurd prices like half a billion dollars make the whole system a joke. I can guarantee there are people who buy great art that they don’t like so hide it away, keeping it sequestered in storage to protect their investment, just so they can sell it for a profit ten years later; The opposite purpose of art, which should be seen and enjoyed by all. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2017, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/da-vinci-painting/801766/29 "2017-11-17T01:29:16Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Okay, I’ll bite: [which one would you pick?](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/nov/16/all-leonardo-da-vinci-painting-rated-salvator-mundi) I’ve always loved the original version of _The Virgin of the Rocks_. But really, any of them is light-years better than the fucking _Mona Lisa_. That painting blows. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2017, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/da-vinci-painting/801766/30 "2017-11-17T05:04:24Z")
The Isleworth Mona Lisa is quite nice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/da-vinci-painting/801766.md?page=1)