Is that that plumber’s full name?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Isleworth Mona Lisa is quite nice.