hiScrew you man, it was a Tuesday afternoon and it was due Friday.Yr comment quite funny................pswas it painted by Da VINCI, or NOTWHAT DO YOU THINK?
Audrekx yes, truly disgusting in his way of pretending his the one and only who knows about EVERYTHING. I like to hear the opinion of art critics, but this guy is not a good one. He could sell things on the streets by the way he shouts and try to impose his truth.
exactly. He would be praising the "mysterious aura in the eyes of Jesus". Ok, maybe it was made by Leonardo's students. But we can't say that it is "junk" and "not art". It is totally unprofessional, and a lie. Because it is art
After watching the two documentaries on this, I think Dianne Dwyer Modestini did a fantastic job of making the painting look like a Leonardo, and it's a great painting, but it's not actually a Leonardo.
Carbon dating, paint chemical investigation, brush stroke analysis, nuclear analysis of particles etcetera by the world’s top forensic team on paintings have confirmed the painting to be without a doubt a Da Vinci. So no, please, no UA-cam hack alarmists working for Vice should be teaching anyone but the idiots too lazy to believe anything but a 5 minute video. “Painted him dead on in the chest...” Imagine this idiot if he’d seen any of Picasso or Pollock’s early work...
After watching a documentary listing numerous arguments for why it is by Leonardo it's a bit disappointing to hear this guy's only argument, the subject is frontal. Good showman but not very convincing.
Maybe whoever commissioned the painting said, 'put him facing front, holding my crystal orb and wearing my clothes, with your famous ringlet hair, and that beatific look Jesus is famous for, oh, and don't forget that thing you do with hands...' and then paid him a few lira extra.
If he was a lawyer, I think he would have lost this case. He might be right but he's got to put together a more articulate case than simply "Leonardo's subjects never sit this way."
well i'm not an art expert, but the competition was fierce for funding in Italy back then, so making easy to paint figures wasn't enough. Michelangelo was storming the place with his architecture, scultures and paintings, and if you see his work, he didn't have straight figures and it was to show his prowess... so even tho, Leonardo was a well stablished artist, he just couldn't come up with a less skillfull work... that would be suicide... so in that note i think that he has a very solid point.. They were begging for a male Mona Lisa, and the just jumped in the ship as soon as they thought they founded one...
BUT in all honestly the restorers of the fake Leonardo tells soo much bullshitry. this was never was and never will be a Leonardo with all these references publicly available Leonardo simply never painted such ghastly figures facing dead strait on.
'The Fraud of The Century' PAY ATTENTION NOW: (From An Insider) The '$alvador Modestini' pardon me (Mundi) was a discovery by Alex Parrish who bought the dilapidated wreck for around $1200. Apparently he went halves with the art dealer Robert Simon at $600 each. It was already heavily overpainted beyond recognition from origin thus absolutely no possible way to validate the hand of Da Vinci. - The Modestini Makeover restoration ensued. She jazzed it up over 2 painstaking years whilst at the same time it's profile was glorified by Martin Kemp who happens to be the convenient Da Vinci artworld armchair academic expert. What I find absolutely hilarious is The Arabs would actually buy a 'Controversial Christ.' Even Judas must be giggling.!! In my own opinion having watched the geopolitics intertwined with status and order.. The Saudis bought it to SLAP DOWN their little irritating nemesis 'Qatar' whom are currently as Sovereign World Art Champions with Billions invested in Arts and Highest Profile World Record Prices paid for paintings. Kemp is only privvy to the Royal Collection. He is a laughing stock in the Old Masters artworks as he's never seen the Da Vinci artworks from private collections. These artworks are well away from the corrupt cartel institutions and art dealers. Incidentally, Martin Kemp & Cohorts Luke Syson proceeded to glorify the Salvador Mundi via the UK National Gallery whilst other renowned experts with integrity didn't want their name bestowed with Artworld Corruption. Martin Kemp had instigated and planted the seed to suggest there is a possibility of the hand of Da Vinci. ie dissemination of Rumour and Hearsay (without providing EVIDENCE to support the sudden theory) The build up to legitimise the sudden found battered painting is absolutely disgusting. It's like The Vatican suddenly validating a new found 'Dead Sea Scrolls' or 'Shroud of Turin' The Salvador Mundi is like a replica iphone deemed to be an Apple but 'Made In China' with a Silicon Valley Intel Processor hailed as a thoroughbred authentic Apple product: Experts like Carmen Bambach were falsely implicated over her alleged acceptance in attribution. Even Martin Kemps fellow Oxford Academic colleague Mathew Landrus reacted to telling it the way it is as The Salvador Mundi is a 'Luini' painting all day long. For the record 'The Mundi' was previously attributed to Boltraffio (Da Vinci studio artist). Too many hearsay artworks validated via gatekeepers of the Cartel Institutions with Billions of Dollars at stake. It's called The Art Game - where the Big Boys park their money safely. Months before the 2017 Christies auction - certain Louvre insiders and a few in the know became worried as insiders already knew it was an inside job to clear the air with Dmitry Rybolovlev (former owner of The Mundi whom was had bought it from his art dealer Yves Bouvier) Interesting to see the chain of events from when the original buyers Paerish and Simon who had only paid $1200 then sold it to Bouvier for around $80m. Yves Bouvier then immediately flipped it to Dmitry for around $127m the very same month. Incidentally Dmitry whom is currently financially sanctioned hasn't received payment from Christies per the auction. Furthermore, the Arabs have held back payment due to the Painting Authentication Saga whilst in parallel - Dmitry is still battling in the courts for the €700M fleeced from him by his long time dealer Yves Bouvier). Patrick Drahi (New Sothebys owner) must be absolutely loving it as 'Christies' are now running around like Headless Chickens wishing for more attribution weight to balance the furore. 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.
albrecht durer painted Christ facing directly towards the observerthat he had never painted anything like that before That doesn't mean that it wasn't his own hand
Always funny to hear from " experts " lol even looking just at Leonardo sketches you find tons of art drawn from the front. Namely one of the most famous the Vitruvius man, pick up at least one book of his art before making a video that comes off this pretentious.
He provided facts though: 1. The ringlets of hair are good quality but that and only a few other aspects of the painting show the same expertise of da Vinci. 2. Other paintings by Leonardo are more complex because the subjects are posing on their side and allow for more details to be painted in. Their features are more detailed and have more depth than the painting of Jesus. 3. The painting of Jesus--a direct, frontal painting--was too simple. Da Vinci was painting people from side angles which is makes it much more difficult to paint the details. 4. That this was more likely painted by one of da Vinci's students as evident from other paintings.
@@5445jedi ua-cam.com/video/KIUP8l7HUWI/v-deo.html&ab_channel=GreshamCollege you should watch this. Leonardo did paint a Salvator Mundi. The only question is "is this his version?" The guy in this Vice video is claiming he couldn't have painted one at all...
No doubt this man has great devotion and knowledge of his field, and so I find it hugely disappointing to see him have such a definitive opinion based on fairly weak arguments. I guess nobody will know for sure, but the analysis arguing it’s authenticity are profoundly compelling and far better presented. I think this man may have got a bit lost with his own ego and clearly enjoys a performance.
Emperor Palpatine I mean he made a good point! Why would he revert to an older and more traditional portrait style (pre renaissance style) while trying to impress potential employers when he can do so much better?
Richard Timms his name is Jerry saltz. Look him up he did an amazing couple videos. He didn’t go to school at all and is on the one of the tops of the art critic food chain. He felt like the other publications were too academic and didn’t make sense so he made it new, fresh, and understandable.
“Not art.” Wow. So pretentious. It’s still a beautiful piece. The last Supper is a beautiful piece of art also, not painted by DiVinci either, but instead done by his students. That doesn’t make it not art, it a beautiful piece, adored by million.
My thoughts exactly. "Get a real painting"... So a 15th Century masterpiece that he admits was likely touched up by Leonardo (at the very least) isn't a 'real painting?' Dude probably had a bad layover experience in Dubai and is trying to get revenge.
Mona Lisa and xyz.. A lesson below THE HARD TRUTH... it's basically 'The Pedophiles Painting' 5 copies of this pile of hearsay. Allegedly created and touched up by the Master who in turn would've touched up his young boys to enlighten the glory. (Common Practice back then however the Catholic Church & Co clearly follow through with Tradition. 'Old Habits Die Hard' ANYWAY regarding "Old Master Artworks !!!!" having been in the Art Game.... I have to tell 'The Hard Truth'. Hardly any public information or any proven DNA analysis or irrefutable fact based evidence is available for scrutiny. Too many hearsay artworks from gatekeepers of certain Cartel Institutions . Nor are there any details to do a 'Columbo' via impartial non commercially biased scientific institutions or real 'EXPERTS'. The portraits of Da Vinci plus high level artworks are never open to impartial scrutiny. There is never any salient facts satisfactory beyond reasonable doubt. The Gioconda DNA has never been ascertained nor have they ever found the body or any the bones. Examples Caravaggio etc etc.. What is seldom discussed as per during WWII - the so called Gioconda was stolen and somewhat conveniently and eventually retrieved. Of the 5 known copies - thanks to the 1911 theft - misdirection pursued. Since the cover up aka smokescreen that ensured - The Louvre have never ever and never will allow anyone to scrutinise the copy in Paris. Too Big A $candal BUT they did find major discrepancies in the base sketch It's like viewing a portrait of Obama and decades later the Base sketch is identified as Desmond Tutu. Conveniently the armchair acclaimed academics ie Martin Kemp & Cohorts indirectly linked to museums, appraisers and auction houses are quick to say.. . 'The Artist Changed His Mind'. Perhaps the '$alvador Modestini' sorry (Mundi) was a glorious discovery by Alex Parrish to acquire a $1200 dilapidated wreck and suddenly a beyond recognition / restoration justified the evidence whereby one is to believe Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought well let's do a painting with a Christ holding a crystal ball. Pardon My Thumb WTF.😅😅😅😅😅 Move over to recents whereby the National Gallery aka 'Kemps Pals' and their splendid authentic Uhmm 'Virgin of the Rocks' plus many more Old Master artworks have entirely different base sketches and inconsistencies towards deriving a 100% artwork from the very hand of the Old Master. So Today's Lesson.. Dear Deluded Humans !! It's a Monetisation game. The In$titutions accommodate $elfies and $alvation.. my advice.... WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.
Read his pieces for NY Mag. Also read his wife Roberta Smith's work. Roberta is known as the better critic, not that Jerry is bad, but Jerry is the personality in the duo. They are kind of referred to as the only critics left with actual opinions. Most criticism today is just description of a show. Highly recommend Jerry's "My Life as a Failed Artist" for Vulture Mag.
Hats off to The Fraud of The Century !! Anyone deluded enough to think the Mundi is real Da Vinci..., PEOPLE: WAKE UP AND SMELL THE STARBUCKS.. Trumps toupee is more real than this $1800 pile of hearsay. Let's look at the unequivocal irrefutable facts: YES FACTS INVESTIGATIONS: By looking at the various versions of Leonardo’s students’ works, one can see that Luini paints just like that work you see in the Salvator Mundi. Between 5% and 20% of the painting was by Leonardo, and that Luini was the “primary painter". FACT: The Salvator Mundi was in fact attributed to Luini in 1900, when it was acquired by Sir Charles Robinson for the Cook collection. “It’s more accurate than just calling it a Leonardo.” FACT: In June 2018, the French government issued a decree of immunity from seizure for the painting during a proposed loan period lasting up to 3 March 2020. The owner listed in the legislative document at that time is the Department of Culture and Tourism, United Arab Emirates (UAE). The October 2018 “order” also reveals that the museum is describing the $450m Salvator Mundi as “attributed to” Leonardo rather than as a definitive autograph work. The term “attributed to” usually refers to an attribution made by a knowledgeable expert, but suggests that the attribution has not been confirmed by a scholarly consensus. SUMMATION: The UK National Gallery London is an insult to humanity. Kemp & his cohorts legitimised and then further enhanced the profile of The Mundi with the help of their esteemed convenient enhancer 'RESTORER' Diane Modestini: AND NOW in London..the 'Christ with the Doctors' by Luini: The National Gallery aka (Kemps Crew) has even got the sheer audacity to put this Luini (Salvador Mundi) accredited painter right next to the 'Virgin of the Rocks ' which incidentally is questionable too as follows... FACT: Leonardo used a zinc-based pigment in his sketches, which was detected using macro x-ray fluorescence maps. The painting was also analyzed with hyperspectral imaging. The work underwent an 18-month restoration beginning in 2008, returning to view in 2010. FACT: # # # # The National Gallery of London has released revelatory new images of one of its most beloved masterpieces, Leonardo da Vinci’s The Virgin of the Rocks (1491-99, 1506-08), showing underdrawings beneath the surface of the work that depict an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT composition. # # # # Ask yourself the question.. Does an $1800 dilapidated wreck bought in 2005, doctored, overlayered and jazzed up by the convenient expertise of Diane Modestini to be then laundered via the Swiss then the Russian resulting in an eventual $450m auction in just 12 years.. Even Baron De Rothschild must have been giggling in his grave.. Sound like a good return? Furthermore - in the build up to legitimising the Salvador Mundi - the so called experts whom sat in a room with Kemp to democratically debate the validness of The Mundi was an understandable yet convenient process with protocol. Kemp and his fellow protagonists whom then meticulously enhanced the profile of the Mundi went to all lengths and then to falsely include the use of academic names and undocumented opinions of worldwide renowned experts ie Carmen Bambach etc. ADVICE: If you really want to mislead the world by laundering a pile of worthless junk..try doing it without the advance knowledge of the people in the know especially the Louvre whistleblowers whom knew it was a fake. FOOTNOTE: The expertise of art analytical cross referencing FACT BASED JOURNALISM and overwhelming evidence suggests the blatant efforts and corrupt antics are despicable and shameful. If you actually want the world to believe the Mundi is a genuine 100% Da Vinci...then allow the independent non commercially related scientific experts to test the $1800 pile of junk. PITY: The world is slowly realising the antics of Kemp and his Cohorts worldwide. BUT LEST WE FORGET.. It's also convenient to have a 500 year celebration of Da Vinci’s death but the question is Why is The Mundi still 'MISSING'.
It's not just the ringlets. The hand, the crystal ball, the whole thing feels like a Da Vinci. I can't imagine one of his students pulling off something this good.
I have bad news for you ...the hand and crystals were repainted during restoration and there are very less or hardly any before pictures of the painting..plus no scrutiny of the restoration process that went on for 4-5 years.
There lies the problem: IT IS NOT A GOOD PAINTING......the eyes, the robe, the wood panel it is painted on, the cheekbones ......and for most : the painting of the globe......it is not to the standard of Da Vinci.......it's of the school of......
Everything you just cited was actually painted by Dianne Dwyer Modestini, the restorer. It feels like Da Vinci because Dianne is a fantastic painter and that's what she tried to recreate. You should watch the two documentaries on this painting.
It only applies to social issues. It's all bout someone's feelings being hurt or victim status. SJW type shit. You're the only one bringing this up about him being triggered. Maybe you're trying to justify for all the times someone called you triggered? IDK just asking.
@@RJL612 The top comment at the time I made this comment was "I've never seen someone so triggered by a piece of "art." There are more like it if you take a second to look. I watched the video, didn't understand why people were calling him "triggered," and I wrote the comment. That about sums it up for you?
@@ggCrispyChip everything in this painting is wrong from the asymmetrical eyes to the fingers not abiding to the anatomy of human hands and the orb that is just not supposed to look like that if you follow the laws of optics, this is definitely not a leo painting, he was a freak when it comes to the details , just look at that neck tell me how leo could've drawn a neck like that one, it looks like jesus just had a car accident and his neck is still swollen
Are you arguing from the point of view of faith? He painted Jesus many times, both as an adult and as a baby, it was never depicted like this. And do you think he had some kind of special spiritual relationship with Jesus? At best he was a teist-pantheist, not the kind of guy that cries when the pastor is shouting some bullshit like JESUS KNOWS YOOOOU.
I think it's less about "can't" and more about "wouldn't". I think his argument is that Leonardo always used more dynamic, interesting poses and angles and that he wouldn't settle for something so relatively flat and overdone. I don't know enough about the subject myself but I don't think it's unprecedented to argue the Salvator Mundi doesn't fit in with his other work.
He never said he cant... when you hear a metallica song, you know its them, when you watch Norm macdonald do stand up, you know its him..... when davinci paints you know its him... that painting isnt all him.... do a little more research on Leo and all his painting and his style and you will see....
Interestingly..Leonardo left out the beard.. The Savior is timeless and forever young.. God is not old but forever young.. But I believe he wanted to paint in a Greek Icon style.. This was always the way you showed Christ.. This so called "art-critic" should take into consideration the 1500 years of art history before making that "simple" decision..
Fun fact: The greatest and most famous art forger of our time "Wolfgang Beltracchi" also said publicly that this work is something Leonardo would've never done. And this guy knows what he is talking about, because he forged Leonardo paintings which were so good that experts like in this video, said that they are real.
It was customary, during the Renaissance, (and before), to depict the Christ figure as facing directly forward, looking into the eyes of the viewer. Albrecht Dürer was criticized for his self-portrait depicting himself like Christ, looking straight at the viewer, in the same manor as this painting, even depicting the two fingers! Da Vinci knew of Dürer's work. Why would he not toy with a similar idea?
So Da Vinci wouldn't paint anyone face on but his students would. And he'd correct the hair but not the posture of the subject? Yeah, sounds legit 🤷♂️🤦♂️
Its not like he despises painting someone in flat posture but just for the students to not struggle as much painting it which is why the guy said one of his students could have painted it cause its jus so flat and kinda basic something one of his students could do
I don’t like it when people say “not great art” I agree with his judgement on the painting but this is the problem with the art industry. A bunch of stuck up subjective art critics choosing what you should like
The painting is done showing just the front without turning sideways, but there is another painting made by Leonardo da Vinci and it is called the last supper. The last supper has Jesus in the middle showing the front of his body and the Salvatore Mundi has Jesus showing the front of his body.
No-one who knows anything about Leonardo would characterise him as telling a student that he was a klutz or slapping the student's hand. Leonardo was adored by his students and was infinitely patient, even with he most difficult among them. Things to be considered in dismissing this work as by Leonardo: 1. The painting was quite badly damaged. It was restored, sold, and then had more restoration. The further restoration was in my opinion, a disaster. It has lost a great deal of the tonal quality that the painting once had. One of the problems with people who clean paintings is that they are generally technicians rather than artists.hey do not always recognise an artist's intentions. When an artist paints a face, one of the last things to be added are the subtleties o the shadowing. To a "restorer" these final refinements may look like dirty smudge and be cleaned off, along with h candlesmoke and varnish. n the case of this painting, one can get an idea of what has been lost by comparing the face, which is an anaemic ghost of its former self, and the upraised right hand which is a masterly piece of three-dimensional painting. 2. Should we dismiss the work because it is full face, rather than turned? No. Painting a full-face figure was hardly ever done. It was a challenge, even for Leonardo da Vinci. We tend to think of it as the most obvious way to show a face, because it shows two eyes and a mouth, and it is the way that little children draw faces. But artists don't. Painting a face full-face means that the artist has to deal with the problems of painting a brow that juts forward, eyes set into sockets, a nose that projects forward, a mouth that projects but not as much as the nose, a bottom lip that recedes underneath, a chin that juts but not as much as the nose, and a jaw that recedes rapidly to the neck. All this is vey difficult to achieve. MOST portraits were in profile. Leonardo encouraged his pupils to paint heads in three-quarter view. Very few painters in the late 1400s/early1500s EVER painted a figure straight on, like this. Does this mean that Leonardo probably did NOT paint it? In my opinion it means the exact opposite. It means that Leonardo, who loved a challenge, probably DID paint it.
that may be true may not be the reality as is none of us were there You didn't know him personally I didn't know him personally All the people who did have been dead for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years all we have to go on is the testimony of some people who know him And perhaps and perhaps other testimonies were written and lost or have yet to be discovered that would indicate otherwise So be careful when you're so cocksure about
I LOVE the painting I don't care who painted it just the way it is. Just because you're a "connoisseur" doesn't mean you have to call other people's (whoever might have painted it) trash. That makes you an as*hole connoisseur. I bought a reproduction because I love it so much and no matter how much you hit it with your pointer I still love it.
I think the image of Christ is most impactful by directly facing the viewer. It's confronting. Christ is right there, staring at the viewer with His full attention. It's clever. I disagree that it was purely a matter of the artist being lazy or untalented.
I saw the da Vinci at Christie's, I am convinced it's a real one. Absolutely magic details that make you think the depicted person is alive. It has this special vibration like only the da Vincis in th Louvre have.
What you saw at Christie's is a painting by Dianne Dwyer Modestini, the "restorer". If you want to see what it looked like before she painted it you should watch the two documentaries on the painting.
A large percentage of paintings in art museums are fakes, copies and forgeries, so yeah. No one wants to admit they've been had, so they go along. People still buy tickets and come look, so...
Dianne Modestini, one of the most talented and renowned portrait interpreters and restorers on Earth was contracted to spend five years restoring da Vinci's Salvator Mundi. She too was skeptical such a treasure could resurface after such a long time but she soon became convinced she was uncovering the masterwork only da Vinca could produce. In other words... you be full of schite !!!
This guy seems to be missing an obvious fact. There are many known "copies" by other artists of Leonardo's "Salvator Mundi". All of those paintings and sketches (of varying quality) portray the same figure, facing forwards, holding a crystal sphere.
5 років тому+54
Or get a technical art historian to do a real investigation. This is actually science, not subjective opinion from hipster art critics. In any case, all of these paintings have been retouched so many times there is almost nothing of the original pigments left.
I dont know for sure but that was most definitely done along with getting historians to weigh in on attribution. The margin of error is present but that would have put it being made in the same period and area using the techniques of that area at that time. The auction house wouldn't put it up for auction if they hadn't at least done that much ground work. The tricky thing is attributing it to DaVinci himself or his studio; which Jerry makes the point of but (him being Jerry) puts his pizzazz on.
This is a very unimpressive refutation from the so called "Da Vinci Connoisseur" Jerry Saltz, he's been triggered over this piece since day one. The "Portrait of a Musician" that is referenced is hardly more dynamic, it's simply a figure turned in stiff 3/4 against a black background -- oh, also unfinished. To claim to know the mind of Leonardo is just laziness, we don't know how he would see fit to paint Christ. The hair, features in the face and especially that hand all say Leonardo. Was some of this done by a student? Possibly...probably, but so were vast portions of many famous paintings, nothing new there. Granted this picture has been heavily restored, but after all, it is 500 years old. This was nothing more than a chance to make noise for Saltz and clearly it paid off.
@@bigwetbutt The fact that after paying $450 million the museum has twice delayed putting in on display has to indicate they have serious doubts about the painting.
@@TheRealCartman1 We don't know what it indicates, they aren't being transparent about it. They aren't getting their money back, even if critics (not historians) like Saltz keep shouting, putting it up as the real deal and being done with it would at least quiet them. This is not a painting that people will be ever agree on across the board and it basically comes to down to Leonardo experts giving the nod or not, they have for the most part. I don't think anyone believes that even before the restoration 100% percent of this was done by him. We just don't know what happened to the picture, there are not enough documents.
It’s funny because some experts say the exact opposite. Obviously I am far from a expert, but to me it looks very similar to his other portraits. They know it’s around his time period and there many things in the painting that he was known for doing in his art work. I guess we’ll never know. I still think it’s pretty damn cool if you ask me though..
a character certainly, but please do not confuse this man with a legit prof. This guys a formed truck driver turned art critic. Not a historian, not a scientist.
@@abegohr2576 My point isn't that he can't create art or that been a truck driver somehow denigrates his work. It's that his approach in proving this fake isn't necessarily one grounded on a wealth of academic knowledge. Imo this man is an art critic, nott an art historian, not an expert on forgery. This video is really just his opinion, and in mine it's not an enormously valuable one, though I enjoyed the video.
The secret code of Salvator Mundi that was created by Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo da Vinci created the Salvator Mundi as the Universal Language of the Holy Bible. That is the summary of the Holy Bible for every one, no need to translate in to other languages to be understood, because art has its own language and deep meaning for everyone. I certainly beleave that every one will be able to understand what each of my word means in the right time.
The crystal and the hand are what made experts say it is a DaVinci, not the curls. And DaVinci never drew Jesus before so this whole argument about how he hasn't drawn like this before is meaningless, despite his antics.
I'm not an art historian but I have seen all of the known works of Leonardo da Vinci...maybe it was not painted by him but it definitely has a da Vinci "feeling" to it that none of the copies have.
Just because he had not done a large work straight on like he did on Salvador Mundi, does not mean he could not or never did. That is part of the joy and freedom of the artist... To paint however the scene you want it to look... And unless you were alive 400 yrs ago and knew Da Vinci how on earth could he know this. The fact that he had not done that perspective may have been what attracted him to paint this painting that way. This guy sounds like a chump with a theory that he can not back up on a very very famous work.
although i agree that this does not look like Da Vinci's work, i dont agree with his main point that "he never painted anything in full face view, so this cant be his work". just because other portraits were in 3/4 view or profile view, doesnt mean he never did full face view paintings. albrecth durer's self portrait from exactly the same time was in the same view as this painting. and Durer's self portrait was said to be based on a long history of portraits of Jesus that were depicted in the same view. its possible Da Vinci would be doing the same thing and exploring that particular historic image. someone as amazing as Da Vinci surely would have explored many different painting techniques, and it seems illogical to assume he never painted any portraits from this "full face" view just because we dont have any other examples in his portfolio.
Im not an expert but isn't this kind of picture supposed to be staring you straight forward and somewhat intensely in the face? I also read there are plenty of copies made after the original and they all had a christ positioned like this... And apparently the painting was so damaged, a lot of the finesse/details are just gone, so yes unfortunately there are only parts which still look exceptional. For me, just by looking at it, it gives me this typical mysterious da Vinci feel, it must have been beautiful after it was just finished! As for why it was so expensive, it's somewhat of a miracle a da Vinci even got on the market, and let's face it, it's about having just something from this unique artist, with whom even now in the twenty first century nobody can even remotely be compared with on the same level.
And today, we now know that The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, The Louvre in Paris, and The Museo Nacional del Prado (and all their respective curatorial teams) have unanimously declared this painting to definitely *NOT* be by the hand of Leonardo, and what is more, they have all unequivocally gone on the record and stated that they will *NOT* exhibit this painting with any attribution to Leonardo.
Its hard to be convinced that Salvator Mundi is indeed a bona fide Leonardo. But I find this argument of it 'not being a Leonardo' quite flimsy. Who is this man to tell Leonardo will never paint a figure face on just because he never did it before or after. How does this man knows exactly what Leonardo would do 500 years ago? It's all speculation just like those who say it is a Leonardo. Not convinced....need concrete argument for both sides.
as great as Da Vinci was, this guy thinks he just "pttt" and did those ringlets? like it took 5 seconds in a classroom? he's hella wrong, just a narcissist I think
Jerry Saltz is such an 'expert' he doesnt even realise the St John the baptist is back to front. Its only after this video is shot that Vice realise they have to address the problem in post production. For me this undermines Saltz's merits completely. This video is a total hack job.
Jerry Saltz: Leonardo has never painted anyone dead-on with their chest directly this way. Leonardo: The Vitruvian Man Jerry Saltz: Windows Error sound *Its not exactly a painting, but you get the point.*
I can't get the point because its not a painting. A painting took a lot of effort, do you know how expensive and exhausting was to paint at that time? Nobody would waste any time and resources in doing something below their level of technique, specially Leonardo who left a lot of works unfinished. Doing this thing is like BMW putting their people to make cars with 2hp, with no radio etc.
I love that Jerry Saltz IS this video. YASSSS JERRY!!! ALL THE T!!!! Really is my favorite art critic. Such a character and tells you how it is. I love it and him
I had an art history teacher very much like Jerry, except Italian. It made the work come alive :) bravo vice for expanding your content and personalities! More from Jerry please!
Art history major, here. I have been in the business 35 years. Although this man does have a point, for him to say Leonardo ( a genius who could work in various mediums) could only paint within certain compositional parameters is absurd. The well regarded conservationist who restored the piece said that the underpainting's pigments, under careful analysis, were used only during Leonardo's time. This makes this man's claim of forgery unsubstantiated.
What's your opinion on the wood used to paint on with the giant knot in it? From what I understand DaVinci was pedantic about his wood and he could afford to be. From what I understand no other of his works used a bad piece of wood, in fact they were quite the opposite, the grain used for his other works is excellent. Now I have little knowledge of art so I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong here, but as a normal logical thinking guy, this has my alarm bells ringing. PS. Sorry to spring this question upon you, it's just you have shown you are qualified and think this is a real DaVinci. So I'm very interested in your thoughts on this.
@@DAVES696 I don't know they the plaster was wet, the exact start date of the paining is unknown exactly, so it could definitely have been dry plaster. Jesus head in the last supper is not square on either, and his body turns slightly left (Jesus left) to accommodate his head, otherwise the painting would not look like a natural pose. His body is, this is similar to other art, the Mona Lisa for example, where she is facing slight left with her right shoulder slightly forward. There are no known square facing Leonardo DaVinci art, unless this is the first.
@@cypherpunk12 I never said head but body! The thing is he had so many apprentices that used to do his cartoons on big pieces and copy his originals for sale it’s a tough to distinguish truly.. their is even speculation that Cesare de Sesto had a big involvement with the piece at the Santa Maria delle Grazie and was part of the refurbishment plus other added alterations was added, which they say left moisture locked between the walls and with the humidity lead to a fast deterioration so that’s why it was done over many stop starts with archive letters from the Duke of Milan Francesco Sforza and the architecture, Guiniforte Solari showing us the dates it was started and near completion of the Convent! It wasn’t just this factor but pigments and methods used was different too but my point is, things was done to help long processes to be shortened to bring in a quicker income and relaying this point to the materials used as you mentioned in the first post
I'm a bit sceptical about this one, though not necessarily because of the pose. There are several surviving copies of a Leonardo 'Salvator Mundi', with the same Byzantine pose, so the original must have been like that. The thing that bothers me more, with this particular painting, is the fact that it was so badly damaged and over-painted, before, and that it is so extensively 'restored' now that it is hard to know what to make of it.
@IronicallyVague No, it's not a forgery, it's just a painting where experts can't verify who exactly painted it. A forgery is a work made by a con man who claims the work is by a famous person in order to jack up the price. The people who found this artwork didn't paint it. It was painted back in Da Vinci's time...
@IronicallyVague If you knew the history of this work better, you would have to concede that it being a modern forgery is an impossibility. Before you comment, look it up.
@IronicallyVague Ok, but what are you basing the accusation on? I mean, we know the work was painted on materials made and used 500 years ago in Italy. I'm sure that amount of technical testing was already done just to get any experts to "confirm" it as a Da Vinci... Strong accusations require strong evidence.
@IronicallyVague No need to apologize. And, having said everything above it's still entirely possible it could be a forgery made in modern times. You'd just need a damn good forger with all the right materials to make the artwork. I mean, you can still find canvases from those times and paint over it and you can mix your own paints with the exact same pigments they used back then, with the same chemical compositions. It's a big game of chemistry testing to get each pigment right, but it can be done, and there are forgers out there who know how. More likely, it's a real renaissance painting from the school or studio of Da Vinci. What triggered me about the video was how the speaker called it junk and not art. That's complete b.s.
Not anti-muslim, but I'm worried that gulf states are not emphasising their own art. Also worried that should a fundamentalist regime come to power that treasures of Western art might be destroyed as happened to the statues of Buddha at Banyam.
Are you joking? Abu Dhabi is in the UAE, one of the most stable, wealthy, safe, and modernized countries in the world, let alone the Middle East. Don't confuse them with Iraq or Egypt.
WATCH NEXT: What Made The Da Vinci Painting Worth So Much Anyways - bit.ly/2E8SFKr
I learned more about art from this dude than school.
Fml
rubbish video
That video makes a bunch of unbased assumptions.
A truly stupid man..
Have you not seen the last supper by date Vinci Christ is presented just that way but none of the disciples
Da Vinci in his grave: Screw you man, it was a Tuesday afternoon and it was due Friday.
hiScrew you man, it was a Tuesday afternoon and it was due Friday.Yr comment quite funny................pswas it painted by Da VINCI, or NOTWHAT DO YOU THINK?
Dennis Aguilar 😂🤣
Its real i know it i have Time machine
😆😆😆😆
Bahhhaaa
He’s like the art version of Gordon Ramsey
Lol! So true!!
So do you mean a piece of shiet know it all? True for sure.
Jajajajajajaja
He almost has Ledger’s Joker mannerism. Delightfully engaging.
Audrekx yes, truly disgusting in his way of pretending his the one and only who knows about EVERYTHING. I like to hear the opinion of art critics, but this guy is not a good one. He could sell things on the streets by the way he shouts and try to impose his truth.
I need a pointing stick
That's so funny cuz I was just thinking the same thing💯😂😂😂
Same i would point at everything 😂
Dang, it would take years to develop the kind of technique that guy has!
i suggest collapseable... with a laser
Had this always been a known and verified work by Da Vinci, he would be singing it’s praises and commenting on how much of a masterpiece it is.
But its not.
@@dtrain5519 yes it is
exactly. He would be praising the "mysterious aura in the eyes of Jesus".
Ok, maybe it was made by Leonardo's students. But we can't say that it is "junk" and "not art". It is totally unprofessional, and a lie. Because it is art
After watching the two documentaries on this, I think Dianne Dwyer Modestini did a fantastic job of making the painting look like a Leonardo, and it's a great painting, but it's not actually a Leonardo.
"he subverted the popular expectations of his time by deciding to paint a portrait square on, reverting to traditional forms...." etc etc
Can this guy teach art history for me?! damn what a character
crieseasily good luck copping the bogo
@@aidansmith393 lmao thanks bro! im sure it will be a joke 😂
@Swanee-Shore what is his Instagram
Carbon dating, paint chemical investigation, brush stroke analysis, nuclear analysis of particles etcetera by the world’s top forensic team on paintings have confirmed the painting to be without a doubt a Da Vinci. So no, please, no UA-cam hack alarmists working for Vice should be teaching anyone but the idiots too lazy to believe anything but a 5 minute video.
“Painted him dead on in the chest...” Imagine this idiot if he’d seen any of Picasso or Pollock’s early work...
you're not as handsome as St john the baptist so i'd have to assume he'd give you a hard no. He has a crush on St John
After watching a documentary listing numerous arguments for why it is by Leonardo it's a bit disappointing to hear this guy's only argument, the subject is frontal. Good showman but not very convincing.
Maybe whoever commissioned the painting said, 'put him facing front, holding my crystal orb and wearing my clothes, with your famous ringlet hair, and that beatific look Jesus is famous for, oh, and don't forget that thing you do with hands...' and then paid him a few lira extra.
@8alot4t agreed
Jonathan Nadeau was thinking the same thing
Sorry guys. Leonardo doesn't paint frontal, period. It's not his work. Get over it
@@nnicola78 And you are?!!!
he acts like a fake art specialist in a heist movie.
You're absolutely right, it's great.
he must be
Hes world renowned in the field do some research
@@TCO1216 He's the Kim Kardashian of the art world.
@@TheEmpress1768 oh boi that's bad
“I never murdered anyone before this so it can’t be me your honour” is the same energy as his argument
You can tell how passionate he is about this topic by the amount of holes he created on the canvas painting 🌝.
It's just a printed reproduction. Maybe cost $50 to make?
@@TASmith10 r/wooooosh
@@TASmith10 🤓
If he was a lawyer, I think he would have lost this case. He might be right but he's got to put together a more articulate case than simply "Leonardo's subjects never sit this way."
well i'm not an art expert, but the competition was fierce for funding in Italy back then, so making easy to paint figures wasn't enough. Michelangelo was storming the place with his architecture, scultures and paintings, and if you see his work, he didn't have straight figures and it was to show his prowess... so even tho, Leonardo was a well stablished artist, he just couldn't come up with a less skillfull work... that would be suicide... so in that note i think that he has a very solid point.. They were begging for a male Mona Lisa, and the just jumped in the ship as soon as they thought they founded one...
BUT in all honestly the restorers of the fake Leonardo tells soo much bullshitry. this was never was and never will be a Leonardo with all these references publicly available Leonardo simply never painted such ghastly figures facing dead strait on.
'The Fraud of The Century'
PAY ATTENTION NOW:
(From An Insider)
The '$alvador Modestini' pardon me (Mundi) was a discovery by Alex Parrish who bought the dilapidated wreck for around $1200.
Apparently he went halves with the art dealer Robert Simon at $600 each.
It was already heavily overpainted beyond recognition from origin thus absolutely no possible way to validate the hand of Da Vinci. -
The Modestini Makeover restoration ensued.
She jazzed it up over 2 painstaking years whilst at the same time it's profile was glorified by Martin Kemp who happens to be the convenient Da Vinci artworld armchair academic expert.
What I find absolutely hilarious is The Arabs would actually buy a 'Controversial Christ.'
Even Judas must be giggling.!!
In my own opinion having watched the geopolitics intertwined with status and order..
The Saudis bought it to
SLAP DOWN their little irritating nemesis 'Qatar' whom are currently as Sovereign World Art Champions with Billions invested in Arts and Highest Profile World Record Prices paid for paintings.
Kemp is only privvy to the Royal Collection.
He is a laughing stock in the Old Masters artworks as he's never seen the Da Vinci artworks from private collections.
These artworks are well away from the corrupt cartel institutions and art dealers.
Incidentally, Martin Kemp & Cohorts Luke Syson proceeded to glorify the Salvador Mundi via the UK National Gallery whilst other renowned experts with integrity didn't want their name bestowed with Artworld Corruption.
Martin Kemp had instigated and planted the seed to suggest there is a possibility
of the hand of Da Vinci. ie dissemination of Rumour and Hearsay (without providing EVIDENCE to support the sudden theory)
The build up to legitimise the sudden found battered painting is absolutely disgusting.
It's like The Vatican suddenly validating a new found 'Dead Sea Scrolls' or 'Shroud of Turin'
The Salvador Mundi is like a replica iphone deemed to be an Apple but
'Made In China' with a Silicon Valley Intel Processor hailed as a thoroughbred authentic Apple product:
Experts like Carmen Bambach were falsely implicated over her alleged acceptance in attribution.
Even Martin Kemps fellow Oxford Academic colleague Mathew Landrus reacted to telling it the way it is as
The Salvador Mundi is a 'Luini' painting all day long.
For the record 'The Mundi' was previously attributed to Boltraffio (Da Vinci studio artist).
Too many hearsay artworks validated via gatekeepers of the Cartel Institutions with Billions of Dollars at stake.
It's called The Art Game - where the Big Boys park their money safely.
Months before the 2017 Christies auction - certain Louvre insiders and a few in the know became worried as insiders already knew it was an inside job to clear the air with Dmitry Rybolovlev (former owner of The Mundi whom was had bought it from his art dealer Yves Bouvier)
Interesting to see the chain of events from when the original buyers Paerish and Simon who had only paid $1200 then sold it to Bouvier for around $80m.
Yves Bouvier then immediately flipped it to Dmitry for around $127m the very same month.
Incidentally Dmitry whom is currently financially sanctioned hasn't received payment from Christies per the auction.
Furthermore, the Arabs have held back payment due to the Painting Authentication
Saga whilst in parallel -
Dmitry is still battling in the courts for the €700M fleeced from him by his long time dealer Yves Bouvier).
Patrick Drahi (New Sothebys owner) must be absolutely loving it as 'Christies' are now running around like Headless Chickens wishing for more attribution weight to balance the furore.
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.
albrecht durer painted Christ facing directly towards the observerthat he had never painted anything like that before That doesn't mean that it wasn't his own hand
OMG people - it was tradition in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance to have portraits of a blessing Christ facing front and looking at the viewer.
Art Historians always act like they know a painter from 400+ years ago. What if Leonardo Da Vinci wanted to try something new?
Art neg crtitics 🤪
It’s also a portrait of Jesus.
Lot of whats if to be paying 450 million for it
@1manuscriptman yet they had a right-handed person restore it
Always funny to hear from " experts " lol even looking just at Leonardo sketches you find tons of art drawn from the front. Namely one of the most famous the Vitruvius man, pick up at least one book of his art before making a video that comes off this pretentious.
This guy just sounds like he straight hating lol 😂
This has the feeling of a cut scene where they explain things in plain English from the movie The Big Short.
Lol yes!
if he could replace some bias with actual fact, i might consider his opinion
What are the facts that is by D?
He provided facts though:
1. The ringlets of hair are good quality but that and only a few other aspects of the painting show the same expertise of da Vinci.
2. Other paintings by Leonardo are more complex because the subjects are posing on their side and allow for more details to be painted in. Their features are more detailed and have more depth than the painting of Jesus.
3. The painting of Jesus--a direct, frontal painting--was too simple. Da Vinci was painting people from side angles which is makes it much more difficult to paint the details.
4. That this was more likely painted by one of da Vinci's students as evident from other paintings.
@@5445jedi ua-cam.com/video/KIUP8l7HUWI/v-deo.html&ab_channel=GreshamCollege you should watch this. Leonardo did paint a Salvator Mundi. The only question is "is this his version?" The guy in this Vice video is claiming he couldn't have painted one at all...
I’m sure you know more about art then him… thanks for providing your expert advice though
>*puts holes on the art*
>*writes "Not Art"*
>*turns it upside down*
*ART*
You lot are so infuriatingly dumb! I could chew my fingers off.
Now worth $450 million
in short an imbecile.
🤣💀
banksy would be proud
No doubt this man has great devotion and knowledge of his field, and so I find it hugely disappointing to see him have such a definitive opinion based on fairly weak arguments. I guess nobody will know for sure, but the analysis arguing it’s authenticity are profoundly compelling and far better presented. I think this man may have got a bit lost with his own ego and clearly enjoys a performance.
Love this more from him please
That man is crazy and stupid.
This guy was fun and brilliant
Emperor Palpatine I mean he made a good point! Why would he revert to an older and more traditional portrait style (pre renaissance style) while trying to impress potential employers when he can do so much better?
I wrote “NOT VIDEO” on my screen with a sharpie and threw my iPad away...
Art history series with this guy would be very watchable.
agreed
unwatchable*
Richard Timms his name is Jerry saltz. Look him up he did an amazing couple videos. He didn’t go to school at all and is on the one of the tops of the art critic food chain. He felt like the other publications were too academic and didn’t make sense so he made it new, fresh, and understandable.
@@cruzanderson1275 Thank you.
“Not art.” Wow. So pretentious. It’s still a beautiful piece. The last Supper is a beautiful piece of art also, not painted by DiVinci either, but instead done by his students. That doesn’t make it not art, it a beautiful piece, adored by million.
My thoughts exactly. "Get a real painting"... So a 15th Century masterpiece that he admits was likely touched up by Leonardo (at the very least) isn't a 'real painting?' Dude probably had a bad layover experience in Dubai and is trying to get revenge.
what he's commenting on is the insane overevaluation of that piece. the art world at that high level is essentially a money laundering scheme.
Jessica McKa Great comment 😂
Mona Lisa and xyz..
A lesson below
THE HARD TRUTH...
it's basically
'The Pedophiles Painting'
5 copies of this pile of hearsay.
Allegedly created and touched up by the Master who in turn would've touched up his young boys to enlighten the glory.
(Common Practice back then however the Catholic Church & Co clearly follow through with Tradition.
'Old Habits Die Hard'
ANYWAY regarding
"Old Master Artworks !!!!" having been in the Art Game....
I have to tell 'The Hard Truth'.
Hardly any public information or any proven DNA analysis or irrefutable fact based evidence is available for scrutiny.
Too many hearsay artworks from gatekeepers of certain Cartel Institutions
.
Nor are there any details to do a 'Columbo' via impartial non commercially biased scientific institutions or real 'EXPERTS'.
The portraits of Da Vinci plus high level artworks are never open to impartial scrutiny.
There is never any salient facts satisfactory beyond reasonable doubt.
The Gioconda DNA has never been ascertained nor have they ever found the body or any the bones.
Examples Caravaggio etc etc..
What is seldom discussed as per during WWII - the so called Gioconda was stolen and somewhat conveniently and eventually retrieved.
Of the 5 known copies - thanks to the 1911 theft - misdirection pursued.
Since the cover up aka smokescreen that ensured - The Louvre have
never ever and never will allow anyone to scrutinise the copy in Paris.
Too Big A $candal
BUT
they did find major discrepancies in the base sketch
It's like viewing a portrait of Obama and decades later the Base sketch is identified as Desmond Tutu.
Conveniently the armchair acclaimed
academics ie Martin Kemp & Cohorts indirectly linked to museums, appraisers and auction houses are quick to say.. .
'The Artist Changed His Mind'.
Perhaps the '$alvador Modestini' sorry (Mundi) was a glorious discovery by Alex Parrish to acquire a $1200 dilapidated wreck and suddenly a beyond recognition / restoration justified the evidence whereby one is to believe Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought well let's do a painting with a Christ holding a crystal ball.
Pardon My Thumb
WTF.😅😅😅😅😅
Move over to recents whereby the National Gallery aka 'Kemps Pals' and their splendid authentic Uhmm
'Virgin of the Rocks' plus many more Old Master artworks have entirely different base sketches and inconsistencies towards deriving a 100% artwork from the very hand of the Old Master.
So Today's Lesson..
Dear Deluded Humans !!
It's a Monetisation game.
The In$titutions accommodate
$elfies and $alvation..
my advice....
WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.
Names are all that counts for these people.
Does this man give art history lessons. I would sign up immediatly. Lol
Read his pieces for NY Mag. Also read his wife Roberta Smith's work. Roberta is known as the better critic, not that Jerry is bad, but Jerry is the personality in the duo. They are kind of referred to as the only critics left with actual opinions. Most criticism today is just description of a show. Highly recommend Jerry's "My Life as a Failed Artist" for Vulture Mag.
Damn Poopy looking nice!
cynthia van teylingen LOL
Hats off to
The Fraud of The Century !!
Anyone deluded enough to think the Mundi is real Da Vinci...,
PEOPLE: WAKE UP AND
SMELL THE STARBUCKS..
Trumps toupee is more real than this $1800 pile of hearsay.
Let's look at the unequivocal irrefutable facts: YES FACTS
INVESTIGATIONS:
By looking at the various versions of Leonardo’s students’ works, one can see that Luini paints just like that work you see in the Salvator Mundi.
Between 5% and 20% of the painting was by Leonardo, and that Luini was the “primary painter".
FACT:
The Salvator Mundi was in fact attributed to Luini in 1900, when it was acquired by Sir Charles Robinson for the Cook collection. “It’s more accurate than just calling it a Leonardo.”
FACT:
In June 2018, the French government issued a decree of immunity from seizure for the painting during a proposed loan period lasting up to 3 March 2020. The owner listed in the legislative document at that time is the Department of Culture and Tourism, United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The October 2018 “order” also reveals that the museum is describing the $450m Salvator Mundi as “attributed to” Leonardo rather than as a definitive autograph work. The term “attributed to” usually refers to an attribution made by a knowledgeable expert, but suggests that the attribution has not been confirmed by a scholarly consensus.
SUMMATION:
The UK National Gallery London is an insult to humanity.
Kemp & his cohorts legitimised and then further enhanced the profile of The Mundi with the help of their esteemed convenient enhancer 'RESTORER' Diane Modestini:
AND NOW in London..the
'Christ with the Doctors' by Luini:
The National Gallery aka
(Kemps Crew) has even got the sheer audacity to put this Luini (Salvador Mundi) accredited painter
right next to the
'Virgin of the Rocks '
which incidentally is questionable too as follows...
FACT:
Leonardo used a zinc-based pigment in his sketches, which was detected using macro x-ray fluorescence maps. The painting was also analyzed with hyperspectral imaging. The work underwent an 18-month restoration beginning in 2008, returning to view in 2010.
FACT:
# # # #
The National Gallery of London has released revelatory new images of one of its most beloved masterpieces, Leonardo da Vinci’s The Virgin of the Rocks (1491-99, 1506-08), showing underdrawings beneath the surface of the work that depict an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT composition.
# # # #
Ask yourself the question..
Does an $1800 dilapidated wreck
bought in 2005, doctored, overlayered and jazzed up by the convenient expertise of Diane Modestini to be then laundered via the Swiss then the Russian resulting in an eventual $450m auction in just 12 years..
Even Baron De Rothschild must have been giggling in his grave..
Sound like a good return?
Furthermore - in the build up to legitimising the Salvador Mundi -
the so called experts whom sat in a room with Kemp to democratically debate the validness of The Mundi was an understandable yet convenient process with protocol.
Kemp and his fellow protagonists whom then meticulously enhanced the profile of the Mundi went to all lengths and then to falsely include the use of academic names and undocumented opinions of worldwide renowned experts ie Carmen Bambach etc.
ADVICE:
If you really want to mislead the world by laundering a pile of worthless junk..try doing it without the advance knowledge of the people in the know especially the Louvre whistleblowers whom knew it was a fake.
FOOTNOTE:
The expertise of art analytical cross referencing FACT BASED JOURNALISM and overwhelming evidence suggests the blatant efforts and corrupt antics are despicable and shameful.
If you actually want the world to believe the Mundi is a genuine 100% Da Vinci...then allow the independent non commercially related scientific experts to test the $1800 pile of junk.
PITY:
The world is slowly realising the antics of Kemp and his Cohorts worldwide.
BUT LEST WE FORGET..
It's also convenient to have a 500 year celebration
of Da Vinci’s death
but the question is
Why is
The Mundi still 'MISSING'.
It's not just the ringlets. The hand, the crystal ball, the whole thing feels like a Da Vinci. I can't imagine one of his students pulling off something this good.
I have bad news for you ...the hand and crystals were repainted during restoration and there are very less or hardly any before pictures of the painting..plus no scrutiny of the restoration process that went on for 4-5 years.
Why do you think that the crystal ball "feels like da Vinci" ????
There lies the problem: IT IS NOT A GOOD PAINTING......the eyes, the robe, the wood panel it is painted on, the cheekbones ......and for most : the painting of the globe......it is not to the standard of Da Vinci.......it's of the school of......
Everything you just cited was actually painted by Dianne Dwyer Modestini, the restorer. It feels like Da Vinci because Dianne is a fantastic painter and that's what she tried to recreate. You should watch the two documentaries on this painting.
In 3030 Memes from my twitter will be worth 400 million dollars
MY LIKE AND COMMENT IS AN INVESTMENT THEN
That's just sad! I hope for civilizations sake that's wrong.
Yep... and an happy meal will be around 500 million! :P
Never 😂
Better Safe it before sell it
I don’t give a shit who painted it, it’s still an absolutely beautiful painting.
$400m
So being passionate about something these days is just being "triggered?"
triggered lol
It only applies to social issues. It's all bout someone's feelings being hurt or victim status. SJW type shit. You're the only one bringing this up about him being triggered. Maybe you're trying to justify for all the times someone called you triggered? IDK just asking.
@@RJL612 The top comment at the time I made this comment was "I've never seen someone so triggered by a piece of "art." There are more like it if you take a second to look. I watched the video, didn't understand why people were calling him "triggered," and I wrote the comment. That about sums it up for you?
Yeah, like how bad is now good, I guess...
Basically lol. I love how the internet makes language fluidity move so fast these days
But if you think about it. Da Vinci could have drawn Jesus facing us Because out of all the people he had drawn, Jesus was the most important one
@Ahmed N I've taken a crap before but for the first time I decided to take my pants off completely rather than just pull them down! : l
Exactly, and in what drawing, painting or sculpture do you see of a god of some kind turned away from you? Always faced forward.
@@ggCrispyChip everything in this painting is wrong from the asymmetrical eyes to the fingers not abiding to the anatomy of human hands and the orb that is just not supposed to look like that if you follow the laws of optics, this is definitely not a leo painting, he was a freak when it comes to the details , just look at that neck tell me how leo could've drawn a neck like that one, it looks like jesus just had a car accident and his neck is still swollen
Are you arguing from the point of view of faith? He painted Jesus many times, both as an adult and as a baby, it was never depicted like this. And do you think he had some kind of special spiritual relationship with Jesus? At best he was a teist-pantheist, not the kind of guy that cries when the pastor is shouting some bullshit like JESUS KNOWS YOOOOU.
RIDICULOUS
Ending a presentation by saying “I want to go home” makes this guy the Kayne of art.
So an artist can’t change his techniques? If Leo usually always painted characters “not” face on then he could not have painted Christ face on? Hmmm
exactly!
I think it's less about "can't" and more about "wouldn't". I think his argument is that Leonardo always used more dynamic, interesting poses and angles and that he wouldn't settle for something so relatively flat and overdone.
I don't know enough about the subject myself but I don't think it's unprecedented to argue the Salvator Mundi doesn't fit in with his other work.
Jesus was always portrayed straight.
He never said he cant... when you hear a metallica song, you know its them, when you watch Norm macdonald do stand up, you know its him..... when davinci paints you know its him... that painting isnt all him.... do a little more research on Leo and all his painting and his style and you will see....
Interestingly..Leonardo left out the beard.. The Savior is timeless and forever young.. God is not old but forever young.. But I believe he wanted to paint in a Greek Icon style.. This was always the way you showed Christ.. This so called "art-critic" should take into consideration the 1500 years of art history before making that "simple" decision..
If only I could enjoy this man's speech as much as he himself clearly does.
Fun fact: The greatest and most famous art forger of our time "Wolfgang Beltracchi" also said publicly that this work is something Leonardo would've never done.
And this guy knows what he is talking about, because he forged Leonardo paintings which were so good that experts like in this video, said that they are real.
👎🏼
Okay, the man lied professionally for a living. I'd find it hard to believe much of what he says.
Beltracchi never forged a Leonardo da Vinci painting.
MORE OF HIM!!!!!!!
nein auchnein that’s unlikely he is a world renowned art critic
It was customary, during the Renaissance, (and before), to depict the Christ figure as facing directly forward, looking into the eyes of the viewer. Albrecht Dürer was criticized for his self-portrait depicting himself like Christ, looking straight at the viewer, in the same manor as this painting, even depicting the two fingers! Da Vinci knew of Dürer's work. Why would he not toy with a similar idea?
Even if it's not a Divinci it's still REAL art! And it's still an amazing painting.
Yes, the problem is that works by Dianne Dwyer Modestini, who actually painted it, don't sell for $450 million.
It really really is
Dude he painted for clients maybe the client said paint Jesus face on....
he's the lewis black of the art world
He's the Kim Kardashian of the art world.
So I am not only one who was thinking about Lewis Black
It makes sense that he would put Christ straight on to distinguish him from earthly people
So Da Vinci wouldn't paint anyone face on but his students would. And he'd correct the hair but not the posture of the subject?
Yeah, sounds legit 🤷♂️🤦♂️
Its not like he despises painting someone in flat posture but just for the students to not struggle as much painting it which is why the guy said one of his students could have painted it cause its jus so flat and kinda basic something one of his students could do
I don’t like it when people say “not great art” I agree with his judgement on the painting but this is the problem with the art industry. A bunch of stuck up subjective art critics choosing what you should like
The painting is done showing just the front without turning sideways, but there is another painting made by Leonardo da Vinci and it is called the last supper. The last supper has Jesus in the middle showing the front of his body and the Salvatore Mundi has Jesus showing the front of his body.
No-one who knows anything about Leonardo would characterise him as telling a student that he was a klutz or slapping the student's hand. Leonardo was adored by his students and was infinitely patient, even with he most difficult among them.
Things to be considered in dismissing this work as by Leonardo:
1. The painting was quite badly damaged. It was restored, sold, and then had more restoration. The further restoration was in my opinion, a disaster. It has lost a great deal of the tonal quality that the painting once had. One of the problems with people who clean paintings is that they are generally technicians rather than artists.hey do not always recognise an artist's intentions. When an artist paints a face, one of the last things to be added are the subtleties o the shadowing. To a "restorer" these final refinements may look like dirty smudge and be cleaned off, along with h candlesmoke and varnish.
n the case of this painting, one can get an idea of what has been lost by comparing the face, which is an anaemic ghost of its former self, and the upraised right hand which is a masterly piece of three-dimensional painting.
2. Should we dismiss the work because it is full face, rather than turned? No.
Painting a full-face figure was hardly ever done. It was a challenge, even for Leonardo da Vinci.
We tend to think of it as the most obvious way to show a face, because it shows two eyes and a mouth, and it is the way that little children draw faces.
But artists don't.
Painting a face full-face means that the artist has to deal with the problems of painting a brow that juts forward, eyes set into sockets, a nose that projects forward, a mouth that projects but not as much as the nose, a bottom lip that recedes underneath, a chin that juts but not as much as the nose, and a jaw that recedes rapidly to the neck.
All this is vey difficult to achieve. MOST portraits were in profile. Leonardo encouraged his pupils to paint heads in three-quarter view. Very few painters in the late 1400s/early1500s EVER painted a figure straight on, like this.
Does this mean that Leonardo probably did NOT paint it?
In my opinion it means the exact opposite. It means that Leonardo, who loved a challenge, probably DID paint it.
that may be true may not be the reality as is none of us were there You didn't know him personally I didn't know him personally All the people who did have been dead for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years all we have to go on is the testimony of some people who know him And perhaps and perhaps other testimonies were written and lost or have yet to be discovered that would indicate otherwise So be careful when you're so cocksure about
I LOVE the painting I don't care who painted it just the way it is. Just because you're a "connoisseur" doesn't mean you have to call other people's (whoever might have painted it) trash. That makes you an as*hole connoisseur. I bought a reproduction because I love it so much and no matter how much you hit it with your pointer I still love it.
I think the image of Christ is most impactful by directly facing the viewer. It's confronting. Christ is right there, staring at the viewer with His full attention. It's clever. I disagree that it was purely a matter of the artist being lazy or untalented.
So many hand motions! 😂
Harshil Patel stop being everywhere lol
Shows he is comfortable speaker
I saw the da Vinci at Christie's, I am convinced it's a real one. Absolutely magic details that make you think the depicted person is alive. It has this special vibration like only the da Vincis in th Louvre have.
What you saw at Christie's is a painting by Dianne Dwyer Modestini, the "restorer". If you want to see what it looked like before she painted it you should watch the two documentaries on the painting.
He would make art museums a lot more fun
How?
A large percentage of paintings in art museums are fakes, copies and forgeries, so yeah. No one wants to admit they've been had, so they go along. People still buy tickets and come look, so...
Dianne Modestini, one of the most talented and renowned portrait interpreters and restorers on Earth was contracted to spend five years restoring da Vinci's Salvator Mundi. She too was skeptical such a treasure could resurface after such a long time but she soon became convinced she was uncovering the masterwork only da Vinca could produce. In other words... you be full of schite !!!
Maybe he was high
This guy seems to be missing an obvious fact. There are many known "copies" by other artists of Leonardo's "Salvator Mundi". All of those paintings and sketches (of varying quality) portray the same figure, facing forwards, holding a crystal sphere.
Or get a technical art historian to do a real investigation. This is actually science, not subjective opinion from hipster art critics. In any case, all of these paintings have been retouched so many times there is almost nothing of the original pigments left.
Science, in art history, is still really subjective. I don't think it even matters if it's real or fake tbh.
I dont know for sure but that was most definitely done along with getting historians to weigh in on attribution. The margin of error is present but that would have put it being made in the same period and area using the techniques of that area at that time. The auction house wouldn't put it up for auction if they hadn't at least done that much ground work. The tricky thing is attributing it to DaVinci himself or his studio; which Jerry makes the point of but (him being Jerry) puts his pizzazz on.
This is a very unimpressive refutation from the so called "Da Vinci Connoisseur" Jerry Saltz, he's been triggered over this piece since day one. The "Portrait of a Musician" that is referenced is hardly more dynamic, it's simply a figure turned in stiff 3/4 against a black background -- oh, also unfinished. To claim to know the mind of Leonardo is just laziness, we don't know how he would see fit to paint Christ. The hair, features in the face and especially that hand all say Leonardo. Was some of this done by a student? Possibly...probably, but so were vast portions of many famous paintings, nothing new there. Granted this picture has been heavily restored, but after all, it is 500 years old. This was nothing more than a chance to make noise for Saltz and clearly it paid off.
@@bigwetbutt The fact that after paying $450 million the museum has twice delayed putting in on display has to indicate they have serious doubts about the painting.
@@TheRealCartman1 We don't know what it indicates, they aren't being transparent about it. They aren't getting their money back, even if critics (not historians) like Saltz keep shouting, putting it up as the real deal and being done with it would at least quiet them. This is not a painting that people will be ever agree on across the board and it basically comes to down to Leonardo experts giving the nod or not, they have for the most part. I don't think anyone believes that even before the restoration 100% percent of this was done by him. We just don't know what happened to the picture, there are not enough documents.
It’s funny because some experts say the exact opposite. Obviously I am far from a expert, but to me it looks very similar to his other portraits. They know it’s around his time period and there many things in the painting that he was known for doing in his art work. I guess we’ll never know. I still think it’s pretty damn cool if you ask me though..
Jerry Saltz would make a great university teacher.
a character certainly, but please do not confuse this man with a legit prof. This guys a formed truck driver turned art critic. Not a historian, not a scientist.
@@maggetman69 Frank Gehry was also a truck driver.
@@abegohr2576 My point isn't that he can't create art or that been a truck driver somehow denigrates his work. It's that his approach in proving this fake isn't necessarily one grounded on a wealth of academic knowledge. Imo this man is an art critic, nott an art historian, not an expert on forgery. This video is really just his opinion, and in mine it's not an enormously valuable one, though I enjoyed the video.
I’m convinced none of these art historians know what the F they’re talking about.
Maybe the artist will come out with new work? He sounds pretty up and coming and his works show a lot of promise
The secret code of Salvator Mundi that was created by Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo da Vinci created the Salvator Mundi as the Universal Language of the Holy Bible. That is the summary of the Holy Bible for every one, no need to translate in to other languages to be understood, because art has its own language and deep meaning for everyone. I certainly beleave that every one will be able to understand what each of my word means in the right time.
The crystal and the hand are what made experts say it is a DaVinci, not the curls. And DaVinci never drew Jesus before so this whole argument about how he hasn't drawn like this before is meaningless, despite his antics.
philo 3 “Never drawn Jesus before?” LOL Guess you’ve never heard of The Last Supper!!!
@@grecomic that's not a portrait bud, it's a scene
This just in...art enthusiasts have found another Leonardo Da Vinci painting. Its a woman painted from the back. Sold for 1.7 billion dollars
I'm not an art historian but I have seen all of the known works of Leonardo da Vinci...maybe it was not painted by him but it definitely has a da Vinci "feeling" to it that none of the copies have.
i love the way he talked in a way that everyone would understand
This guy feels like hes doing an imitation of himself
Um... The last supper shows Christ prettu straight on... But ok
The last supper also shows Christs head at an angle and his apostles in many poses, along with background, foreground, and several hidden codes.
Check it agaib cuz the head is lookibg towards his left and his eyes to the table.
Just because he had not done a large work straight on like he did on Salvador Mundi, does not mean he could not or never did. That is part of the joy and freedom of the artist... To paint however the scene you want it to look... And unless you were alive 400 yrs ago and knew Da Vinci how on earth could he know this. The fact that he had not done that perspective may have been what attracted him to paint this painting that way. This guy sounds like a chump with a theory that he can not back up on a very very famous work.
Most artists don’t break form. You don’t find a Vermeer without a heavy play on light. Or a Van Gogh that resembles a Picasso.
low key...even tho its not original, you still shouldve respected that its a portrait of god..
although i agree that this does not look like Da Vinci's work, i dont agree with his main point that "he never painted anything in full face view, so this cant be his work". just because other portraits were in 3/4 view or profile view, doesnt mean he never did full face view paintings. albrecth durer's self portrait from exactly the same time was in the same view as this painting. and Durer's self portrait was said to be based on a long history of portraits of Jesus that were depicted in the same view. its possible Da Vinci would be doing the same thing and exploring that particular historic image.
someone as amazing as Da Vinci surely would have explored many different painting techniques, and it seems illogical to assume he never painted any portraits from this "full face" view just because we dont have any other examples in his portfolio.
Omg this guy. He has the image of Saint John the Baptist backwards 😂
"LoOk aT tHoSE rINgLeTs!" Loved it Haha!
Im not an expert but isn't this kind of picture supposed to be staring you straight forward and somewhat intensely in the face? I also read there are plenty of copies made after the original and they all had a christ positioned like this... And apparently the painting was so damaged, a lot of the finesse/details are just gone, so yes unfortunately there are only parts which still look exceptional. For me, just by looking at it, it gives me this typical mysterious da Vinci feel, it must have been beautiful after it was just finished! As for why it was so expensive, it's somewhat of a miracle a da Vinci even got on the market, and let's face it, it's about having just something from this unique artist, with whom even now in the twenty first century nobody can even remotely be compared with on the same level.
And today, we now know that The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, The Louvre in Paris, and The Museo Nacional del Prado (and all their respective curatorial teams) have unanimously declared this painting to definitely *NOT* be by the hand of Leonardo, and what is more, they have all unequivocally gone on the record and stated that they will *NOT* exhibit this painting with any attribution to Leonardo.
Its hard to be convinced that Salvator Mundi is indeed a bona fide Leonardo. But I find this argument of it 'not being a Leonardo' quite flimsy. Who is this man to tell Leonardo will never paint a figure face on just because he never did it before or after. How does this man knows exactly what Leonardo would do 500 years ago? It's all speculation just like those who say it is a Leonardo. Not convinced....need concrete argument for both sides.
i just have a scenario in my head of Da Vinci’s ghost appearing in front of this dude and be like Am I a joke to you?
Art critic trash talk :D Loving it :)
doesnt really make sense imo, you can draw circles your whole life then nobody believes you when you draw a triangle.
LOVED this piece!!! Hysterical.
To make it more famous and way more expensive, like the boring Mona Lisa. It's all about the marketing. Just ask Banksy💰
as great as Da Vinci was, this guy thinks he just "pttt" and did those ringlets? like it took 5 seconds in a classroom? he's hella wrong, just a narcissist I think
Why is he so hung up on the fact it's middle easterns who has the painting almost offended .. one wonders how much this "influenced" his analysis
I dont agree with him therefore I'm going to twist his words in my head and make him racist!
Jerry Saltz is such an 'expert' he doesnt even realise the St John the baptist is back to front. Its only after this video is shot that Vice realise they have to address the problem in post production. For me this undermines Saltz's merits completely. This video is a total hack job.
Jerry Saltz: Leonardo has never painted anyone dead-on with their chest directly this way.
Leonardo: The Vitruvian Man
Jerry Saltz: Windows Error sound
*Its not exactly a painting, but you get the point.*
Me: ok
The Vitruvian man was a sketch not a painting
I can't get the point because its not a painting. A painting took a lot of effort, do you know how expensive and exhausting was to paint at that time? Nobody would waste any time and resources in doing something below their level of technique, specially Leonardo who left a lot of works unfinished. Doing this thing is like BMW putting their people to make cars with 2hp, with no radio etc.
I love that Jerry Saltz IS this video. YASSSS JERRY!!! ALL THE T!!!!
Really is my favorite art critic. Such a character and tells you how it is. I love it and him
Did anyone else notice the video is exactly 4:20 long?
Nah mine had fucking ads making it 4:30
David dobrick edited this
I had an art history teacher very much like Jerry, except Italian. It made the work come alive :) bravo vice for expanding your content and personalities! More from Jerry please!
Oh, it's an art critic. Essentially one of the least contributive people in all of society
For real though, he didn't even come up with his one and only argument himself!
Someone come and fetch Da Vinci so he can show today's artists what art really is.
Art history major, here. I have been in the business 35 years. Although this man does have a point, for him to say Leonardo ( a genius who could work in various mediums) could only paint within certain compositional parameters is absurd. The well regarded conservationist who restored the piece said that the underpainting's pigments, under careful analysis, were used only during Leonardo's time. This makes this man's claim of forgery unsubstantiated.
What's your opinion on the wood used to paint on with the giant knot in it? From what I understand DaVinci was pedantic about his wood and he could afford to be. From what I understand no other of his works used a bad piece of wood, in fact they were quite the opposite, the grain used for his other works is excellent. Now I have little knowledge of art so I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong here, but as a normal logical thinking guy, this has my alarm bells ringing.
PS. Sorry to spring this question upon you, it's just you have shown you are qualified and think this is a real DaVinci. So I'm very interested in your thoughts on this.
@@cypherpunk12 didn’t he paint the last super on wet plaster they say “Knowingly” with his body square facing?
@@DAVES696 I don't know they the plaster was wet, the exact start date of the paining is unknown exactly, so it could definitely have been dry plaster. Jesus head in the last supper is not square on either, and his body turns slightly left (Jesus left) to accommodate his head, otherwise the painting would not look like a natural pose. His body is, this is similar to other art, the Mona Lisa for example, where she is facing slight left with her right shoulder slightly forward. There are no known square facing Leonardo DaVinci art, unless this is the first.
@@cypherpunk12 I never said head but body! The thing is he had so many apprentices that used to do his cartoons on big pieces and copy his originals for sale it’s a tough to distinguish truly.. their is even speculation that Cesare de Sesto had a big involvement with the piece at the Santa Maria delle Grazie and was part of the refurbishment plus other added alterations was added, which they say left moisture locked between the walls and with the humidity lead to a fast deterioration so that’s why it was done over many stop starts with archive letters from the Duke of Milan Francesco Sforza and the architecture, Guiniforte Solari showing us the dates it was started and near completion of the Convent! It wasn’t just this factor but pigments and methods used was different too but my point is, things was done to help long processes to be shortened to bring in a quicker income and relaying this point to the materials used as you mentioned in the first post
His body is pretty square on than 35 degrees in most, slightly yes but forward facing it is, also not like how he was going on about in the video
i want to only ever learn art history from this man
*Some oligarch in UAE probably has it hanging in his bedroom*
I'm a bit sceptical about this one, though not necessarily because of the pose. There are several surviving copies of a Leonardo 'Salvator Mundi', with the same Byzantine pose, so the original must have been like that. The thing that bothers me more, with this particular painting, is the fact that it was so badly damaged and over-painted, before, and that it is so extensively 'restored' now that it is hard to know what to make of it.
The only person who could copy a Leonardo that well is Raphael so I think it's still a masterful work.
He's not saying it's a copy or forgery. He's saying it's a student work. I say that's a damn good student.
@IronicallyVague No, it's not a forgery, it's just a painting where experts can't verify who exactly painted it. A forgery is a work made by a con man who claims the work is by a famous person in order to jack up the price. The people who found this artwork didn't paint it. It was painted back in Da Vinci's time...
@IronicallyVague If you knew the history of this work better, you would have to concede that it being a modern forgery is an impossibility. Before you comment, look it up.
@IronicallyVague Ok, but what are you basing the accusation on? I mean, we know the work was painted on materials made and used 500 years ago in Italy. I'm sure that amount of technical testing was already done just to get any experts to "confirm" it as a Da Vinci... Strong accusations require strong evidence.
@IronicallyVague No need to apologize. And, having said everything above it's still entirely possible it could be a forgery made in modern times. You'd just need a damn good forger with all the right materials to make the artwork. I mean, you can still find canvases from those times and paint over it and you can mix your own paints with the exact same pigments they used back then, with the same chemical compositions. It's a big game of chemistry testing to get each pigment right, but it can be done, and there are forgers out there who know how. More likely, it's a real renaissance painting from the school or studio of Da Vinci. What triggered me about the video was how the speaker called it junk and not art. That's complete b.s.
This is one of my favorite videos. I return to it every 6 months.
I've been to the louvre, i am an emirati but seeing this happen is hilarious. "Mona lisa in drag"
XDD
They found the painting in an apartment , kinda sus
I hope this guy doesn't need to go into an embassy any time soon
P.S. Too soon?
Love the Robert Hughes references...
look at those RINGLETS
Those ringlets are to die for 👌😩
In-drag... omg chillax my dude. 😂😂😂
“Look at those ringlets”
I fucking love this guy
Not anti-muslim, but I'm worried that gulf states are not emphasising their own art. Also worried that should a fundamentalist regime come to power that treasures of Western art might be destroyed as happened to the statues of Buddha at Banyam.
@Nikol : not anti western, but more than half of the Egyptian treasures from the Pharoah period are in the European and American meuseums!!
Are you joking? Abu Dhabi is in the UAE, one of the most stable, wealthy, safe, and modernized countries in the world, let alone the Middle East. Don't confuse them with Iraq or Egypt.
GIVE THIS MAN HIS OWN SHOW !
Can we get more from this man?!?!?!
He is a true gem.