This like most " art" is fake.many supposed famous artists actually never existed. But money laundering is real and bribery drug money laundry sales at southbys are very popular.😮
Kemp is - plain and simple - the absolute best, hands down, full stop. It’s like fresh air, this. Let us never take this sadly uncommon kind of reporting for granted. Thank you Martin, and The Academy. Terrific. - j.a.c.
Could you point me to anywhere in print or on video where Kemp replies to the comments in relation to the _impossible_ anatomy of the right hand? On YT the case was made very persuasively in the video titled "A Yen for Detail The Critical Eye Part 3 (Leonardo did NOT Paint the Salvator Mundi)"
Beltracchi, the most famous art forger of our time, himself said that the painting is a sorry excuse for a forgery and that Leonardo would’ve never drawn something like this.
STELLAR presentation, thank you! With a BA in Art Hsitory, this is wonderful content. My favorite paintieris William Bouguereau. I love Lenardo da Vinci, Carravaggio, George Inness, Alfred Dellobbe, Gistave Doyen.... among others! Kimberly
I have read the book and seen many photos of the badly damaged painting discovered in an obscure auction house in America. Leonardo may or may not have painted the work or part of the work originally but in my unqualified opinion the amount of restoration that was done to this work goes way beyond damage repair to the point where there is almost nothing left of the original work which is a terrible shame.
While true this doesn't make any sort of convincing counterargument to the fact that the 2019 Louvre scientific report mentioned & quoted from in the video demonstrates that they _did_ perform a proper examination and _did_ subsequently conclude that the painting was the real deal.
As a classical painter with an extensive knowledge of old master techniques I immediately felt the work was by Da Vinci. It has the refinement and delicacy of application that is often lacking in the work of his students and followers. The accusation that the restoration was too aggressive is very subjective. The public has no idea just how extensive the restoration attempts have been on the most famous works by the old masters hanging in the great museums.
Want to know what is an even _better_ - even if impossible - twist? That twist of the right hand. Go watch the video titled "A Yen for Detail The Critical Eye Part 3 (Leonardo did NOT Paint the Salvator Mundi)"
@@notanemoprog The presenter said it was a rare PDF, and I thought that was funny because you just send a copy to people, not the actual item. Have a nice day.
I've always loved the term Emeritus Professor. Emeritus is such a wonderful word. Most people don't know what it means but when they hear it they're impressed anyways "I don't know what it means but it sounds important!"
Such an amazing and amusing contrast: this huge dog and these sweet tiny chirping complaints...🙂 So kind and patient - would have deserved lots of treats ...
6:35. I can't believe you can compare this image with the St John from the Louvre and conclude that the same person painted them. That absolutely gives the game away.
Would have been interested to hear something about the condition of the work, some reports that there has been so much restoration and overpainting that the work today is less than 50% Leonardo.
@@eddieharris6004 He's commented on that extensively already in other contexts. And, you can just Google what the painting looked like completely stripped down back to original paint. There's a photo available. There's far more the 50% original paint. By area, it's well over 90% probably.
@@reference2592 I would not call it that much but even if it was 90% it's been 90% covered over with "restoration". To expound about the painting technique of the face which was heavily damaged seems silly to me. The face you see now is not that created by the original painter.
@@rocksem9451 The painting is 26 x 18 inches. 10% is 47 square inches. Nothing even remotely close to that was repainted. Perhaps you think "important parts" were repainted. Meh. Again, just look at the before and after photos. No one's hiding them. If you don't like the result, propose something better.
@@reference2592 I've looked at them. Virtually every inch of that painting has been retouched to some degree. Large portions of the hair, face nd hand were recreated.
since I first ever saw the painting I never thought it was by Da Vinci's hand, It has a lot of his characteristics, but the overall face does not have the impact as all his other works.I would say it's in the manner of Da Vinci.And I know the way auction houses work they would sell it for a slight provinance just to reap the big profits it would make.
The 2019 Louvre scientific report he mentions & quotes from proves that they performed a proper examination and concluded that the painting was the real deal.
@@tedsmart5539 No. Google "How the Louvre concealed its secret Salvator Mundi book" and you will see that "the volume contains new scientific analysis by the Centre for Research and Restoration of the Museums of France and cautiously attributes the work to Leonardo himself."
Strange to me, that so many idiots have decided for themselves that it isn't da Vinci, especially after hearing about the evidence in favor. I won't claim expertise in art history, but I am an artist, and it really looks like his work to me. Learning that the evidence strongly inclines toward it being the real thing just makes me feel like my eye picked out the winner.
It existed for hundreds of years and nobody thought it was a real da Vinci. This fellow was one of the main players in the big art deal. His words mean nothing, really.
It is a phenomenon of our time to insult all those who differ from one's own opinion. We have Dan Brown to thank for the fact that people talk so often about "da Vinci" - although it should be known that this is not Leonardo's last name. "Salvator Mundi" is a money-making machine and not a Leonardo.
I understood the Salvator Mundi was bought by Prince Badr bin Abdullah Al Saud be exhibited at the opening of the Louvre Dubai, but perhaps I am wrong?
Yes, he was the buyer, but the painting was not exhibited in the museum. Unfortunately I think this painting is being used for nefarious money laundering which is happening in the art world. Sad.
The ONLY time I've heard an expert say it's authentic. I heard another expert say, when asked if Da Vinci painted it, "Well, he may have walked past it while it was being painted."
I wonder why Da Vinci did not show any refraction behind the cristal globe? He did the same with the wine glasses on the table in his painting of the Last Supper. Why would he do that?
Two thoughts come to mind, the crystal globe is not in direct light therefore the refraction is not apparent to the eye or because the crystal globe represents the heavens and the heavens do not refract light........just my guess.
Very interesting, thank you. But considering the ridiculous amount of retouching and over painting I don't see how anyone can ever confidently say this is by DaVinci's hand. Any examination proceeding from the "restored" painting seems futile to me.
The Louvre scientific report he mentions and partly quotes from proves that they performed a proper examination and concluded that the painting was the real deal. We need that PDF leaked.
So neat at the end...the painting in question seems to me to be a pretence...note I do not use the term 'fake'...my gut instinct tells me I am right...also, I don't care for the image nor the way it has been painted...I should think the (anonymous?) buyer wants to keep a low profile given the controversy...dgp
This is not a masterpiece. It's well painted ( in places ) , but far from the masters best works. And I have to say , doesn't look like the Da Vinci's work. If this is his work , it's one of his wrost.
Except it’s obviously not a Leonardo. And it was completely knackered and has been restored within an inch of its life. Not mentioned is that Leonardo was a genius and certainly knew how optics work, and the painter of this painting didn’t care.
Main issue with the painting is the heavy amount of restoration it went through, maybe only 20% of its original in the artists hand rest is all from expert inpainting restoration.
When he says best he can do 😂, like we expected him to pull out the real painting , he seems sad he could produce it for us lol Think we can let you off with not having the most expensive painting in the world to show us :)
Such a master piece should not be allowed to auction for filthy rich , no benefit to have this discussion when artefact has been lost from public and academics alike
I have a fancy opinion on this painting may be 180º different in 50 years time when they shall have invented some new way to date things, like I don't know, a way of retrieving conversations that happened next to a painting by getting the molecules to 'remember' what patterns they vibrated in 500 years ago, or something like that. I suspect it is a fake.
Well, if this is Leonardo, it's Leonardo on a very bad day. The blurred nature of the face is simply ridiculous, and it's just absurd to compare it to St. John, which we are looking at through a huge amount of varnish. The embroidary is badly done and the garment doesn't seem to be on a body, it is stiff and empty. Really, the work tells us a lot more about the restorer's notions, than it does about Leonardo. Give it about forty years, and then everyone will say it's ridiculous.
I think Leonardo contributed to the painting, yes, but it was subsequently very badly damaged and the latest 'restoration' by Modestini is truly horrible.
I'm sorry to disagree, but I do not believe this is by da Vinci. Painted on wood with knots in it? No chance!! Painted by someone close to him or just after perhaps.
Thank you for your formidable compilation of studies and the multiple copies that attest to the origin of the Salvator Mundi. I value your scholarship. You leave the aesthetic appraisal to the connoisseur where I take a modest position and from which I must say I remain utterly unconvinced that this image as a whole can be from the hand of Leonardo. The cockeyed look, the static stooled posture , sfumato no neck etc. sorry. Perhaps the sly Salai was sly enough to get this far into the rendition. Leonardos opus feels lost.
Wow...this creature has an ego the size of a planet! You're no connoisseur, you're a nobody...who can't recognize the hand of da Vinci. I won't be so foolish as you are, I won't claim expertise where I have none. Still, it looks precisely as a da Vinci painting ought...and I leave it to the experts to figure out the truth, unlike you.
No better person to call it out for the painting as it is. The forgers knew more of the paintings than the so called curators of said paintings. Rembrandt knock offs being a prime example.
I think I want to believe it's fake because of a passionate dislike for the vile human who purchased it. It would be supremely funny if the Saudis spent all that money on something that wasn't real.
I SAW ONE AT THE THRIFT STORE FOR 4.50 AND NO BUYERS, SO EVENTUALLY IT ENDED UP IN THE TRASH PILE. I CANNOT IMAGINE ANYONE WHO WOULD EVEN CARE TO HAVE IT IN THER HOME, LET ALONG HANGING UP ON THE WALLS! FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION IS ONE HEEL OF A BIG ( CHOKE)!
Kemp destroyed his reputation with this failed attribution. Also, he vouched for that recent sideview drawing of a woman. He said it was also by Leonardo, an attribution no one accepts. He's gone dotty.
What a splendid piece of instruction - balanced, factual and unsensational. Thank you for your sanity.
Indeed!
This like most " art" is fake.many supposed famous artists actually never existed. But money laundering is real and bribery drug money laundry sales at southbys are very popular.😮
@@CliffordClaytonGorovoy Wow dude you should write a book about this
@notanemoprog there is one it's called the Bible
@@CliffordClaytonGorovoy Weird flex, but OK
So utterly refreshing to listen to a learned man and his deep passion. Wonderful.
Martin Kemp talks to me on Leonardo, and I'm listning and watching it while feeding sourdough starter at my kitchen. Just heavenly!
Don't burn them!
Thank you, you explained it very well! Even a layperson like myself can understand and you have convinced me that it is the work of Leonardo da Vinci.
Kemp is - plain and simple - the absolute best, hands down, full stop. It’s like fresh air, this. Let us never take this sadly uncommon kind of reporting for granted. Thank you Martin, and The Academy. Terrific. - j.a.c.
Could you point me to anywhere in print or on video where Kemp replies to the comments in relation to the _impossible_ anatomy of the right hand? On YT the case was made very persuasively in the video titled "A Yen for Detail The Critical Eye Part 3 (Leonardo did NOT Paint the Salvator Mundi)"
Wonderful! Thank you so much for all that you do! You have enriched my life immeasurably.
Beltracchi, the most famous art forger of our time, himself said that the painting is a sorry excuse for a forgery and that Leonardo would’ve never drawn something like this.
Loved every minute - and wasn’t expecting the mic drop moment at the end!
Wonderful talk. I echo what others have said in praise. I wish videos like this weren’t so rare.
Wonderful. I needed to be convinced, and now I am. Thank you.
Very interesting, a compelling presentation, you're explanation and description grabbed my attention prof.
Thoroughly enjoyed the video, the analyses, the commentary and anecdotes.
Thank you Master.
STELLAR presentation, thank you! With a BA in Art Hsitory, this is wonderful content.
My favorite paintieris William Bouguereau. I love Lenardo da Vinci, Carravaggio, George Inness, Alfred Dellobbe, Gistave Doyen.... among others! Kimberly
I have read the book and seen many photos of the badly damaged painting discovered in an obscure auction house in America. Leonardo may or may not have painted the work or part of the work originally but in my unqualified opinion the amount of restoration that was done to this work goes way beyond damage repair to the point where there is almost nothing left of the original work which is a terrible shame.
While true this doesn't make any sort of convincing counterargument to the fact that the 2019 Louvre scientific report mentioned & quoted from in the video demonstrates that they _did_ perform a proper examination and _did_ subsequently conclude that the painting was the real deal.
As a classical painter with an extensive knowledge of old master techniques I immediately felt the work was by Da Vinci. It has the refinement and delicacy of application that is often lacking in the work of his students and followers. The accusation that the restoration was too aggressive is very subjective. The public has no idea just how extensive the restoration attempts have been on the most famous works by the old masters hanging in the great museums.
Not an expert, but it speaks to me like a daVinci. And I think if you compare to the copies, you clearly see the genius.
thank you! excellent.
Thank you Professor. Leonardo, brilliant throughout time.
Superb! What a brilliant mind
i liked the twist at the end
Me too 🤣
Want to know what is an even _better_ - even if impossible - twist? That twist of the right hand. Go watch the video titled "A Yen for Detail The Critical Eye Part 3 (Leonardo did NOT Paint the Salvator Mundi)"
I was hoping the professor would weigh in on the restoration work performed on the painting. Disappointed that didn't happen.
Yep. Also, we need that PDF
@@notanemoprog It's a very rare PDF.
@@DustyMagroovy Well, apparently any journalist who wanted it got it, so not _that_ rare
@@notanemoprog The presenter said it was a rare PDF, and I thought that was funny because you just send a copy to people, not the actual item. Have a nice day.
The controversy surrounding the painting, its sudden appearance at Christie’s makes for a fascinating story. Thank you.
Interesting - l remember reading somewhere that there was an awful lot of restoration done when the painting was found
10:07 unexpected cheekiness. Love it.
I've always loved the term Emeritus Professor. Emeritus is such a wonderful word. Most people don't know what it means but when they hear it they're impressed anyways "I don't know what it means but it sounds important!"
Such an amazing and amusing contrast: this huge dog and these
sweet tiny chirping complaints...🙂
So kind and patient - would have deserved lots of treats ...
Excellent thank you.
6:35. I can't believe you can compare this image with the St John from the Louvre and conclude that the same person painted them. That absolutely gives the game away.
Would have been interested to hear something about the condition of the work, some reports that there has been so much restoration and overpainting that the work today is less than 50% Leonardo.
@@eddieharris6004 He's commented on that extensively already in other contexts. And, you can just Google what the painting looked like completely stripped down back to original paint. There's a photo available. There's far more the 50% original paint. By area, it's well over 90% probably.
@@reference2592 I would not call it that much but even if it was 90% it's been 90% covered over with "restoration". To expound about the painting technique of the face which was heavily damaged seems silly to me. The face you see now is not that created by the original painter.
@@rocksem9451 The painting is 26 x 18 inches. 10% is 47 square inches. Nothing even remotely close to that was repainted. Perhaps you think "important parts" were repainted. Meh. Again, just look at the before and after photos. No one's hiding them. If you don't like the result, propose something better.
@@reference2592 I've looked at them. Virtually every inch of that painting has been retouched to some degree. Large portions of the hair, face nd hand were recreated.
since I first ever saw the painting I never thought it was by Da Vinci's hand, It has a lot of his characteristics, but the overall face does not have the impact as all his other works.I would say it's in the manner of Da Vinci.And I know the way auction houses work they would sell it for a slight provinance just to reap the big profits it would make.
The 2019 Louvre scientific report he mentions & quotes from proves that they performed a proper examination and concluded that the painting was the real deal.
@@notanemoprog The report said it was consistent with other paintings of the period. The science doesn't deal in feels.
@@tedsmart5539 No. Google "How the Louvre concealed its secret Salvator Mundi book" and you will see that "the volume contains new scientific analysis by the Centre for Research and Restoration of the Museums of France and cautiously attributes the work to Leonardo himself."
Strange to me, that so many idiots have decided for themselves that it isn't da Vinci, especially after hearing about the evidence in favor. I won't claim expertise in art history, but I am an artist, and it really looks like his work to me. Learning that the evidence strongly inclines toward it being the real thing just makes me feel like my eye picked out the winner.
It existed for hundreds of years and nobody thought it was a real da Vinci. This fellow was one of the main players in the big art deal. His words mean nothing, really.
@@hermanhale9258 This is just baseless slander. Do better.
@@notanemoprogjealousy is what it is.
It is a phenomenon of our time to insult all those who differ from one's own opinion. We have Dan Brown to thank for the fact that people talk so often about "da Vinci" - although it should be known that this is not Leonardo's last name. "Salvator Mundi" is a money-making machine and not a Leonardo.
I understood the Salvator Mundi was bought by Prince Badr bin Abdullah Al Saud be exhibited at the opening of the Louvre Dubai, but perhaps I am wrong?
Yes, he was the buyer, but the painting was not exhibited in the museum. Unfortunately I think this painting is being used for nefarious money laundering which is happening in the art world. Sad.
The ONLY time I've heard an expert say it's authentic. I heard another expert say, when asked if Da Vinci painted it, "Well, he may have walked past it while it was being painted."
My one-time lecturer at Glasgow University!
Just one time,or every week?
Spot on. Any opinion on the restoration?
In your picture of copies, the one in the middle of top row, is a black and white of the original in early 20th century.
I wonder why Da Vinci did not show any refraction behind the cristal globe? He did the same with the wine glasses on the table in his painting of the Last Supper. Why would he do that?
Two thoughts come to mind, the crystal globe is not in direct light therefore the refraction is not apparent to the eye or because the crystal globe represents the heavens and the heavens do not refract light........just my guess.
@@trustmemysonisadoctor8479well thought
Something very sad in the juxtaposition of the quiet painting and the "financial circus".
I wasn’t aware that Dicaprio was such a great painter
Very interesting, thank you. But considering the ridiculous amount of retouching and over painting I don't see how anyone can ever confidently say this is by DaVinci's hand. Any examination proceeding from the "restored" painting seems futile to me.
The Louvre scientific report he mentions and partly quotes from proves that they performed a proper examination and concluded that the painting was the real deal. We need that PDF leaked.
The SM is an ideolized portrait of Francis I, if it is by him at all.
As soon as I saw the hand and then the hair ringlets I was convinced it was a Leonardo. I still believe it to be so.
So neat at the end...the painting in question seems to me to be a pretence...note I do not use the term 'fake'...my gut instinct tells me I am right...also, I don't care for the image nor the way it has been painted...I should think the (anonymous?) buyer wants to keep a low profile given the controversy...dgp
Sold at auction for $1,175 in 2005. Previously sold for £45 in 1958.
Let himself go since the Spandau Ballet days.
Why does nobody mention what to me is blindingly obvious. The face is both male and female. Beautifully done. Look at each side in isolation.
I have seen this painting in real life with no crowds around. Just me and the painting.
I immediately thought `fake` and walked straight past it.
quartz hrystal formation dosent predominantly need great heat and pressure, more oversaturated liquid and millions of years
But what about the ambassadors? Where did that idea come from?The anamorphic?
This is not a masterpiece. It's well painted ( in places ) , but far from the masters best works. And I have to say , doesn't look like the Da Vinci's work. If this is his work , it's one of his wrost.
Except it’s obviously not a Leonardo. And it was completely knackered and has been restored within an inch of its life. Not mentioned is that Leonardo was a genius and certainly knew how optics work, and the painter of this painting didn’t care.
Oddly I don’t really care for the painting. Sometimes Leo can miss.
I call it Fish Face.
i'd buy that for a fiver!
Some % is original. Snall ripple-- look at the social shock waves. Art benefits. Priceless.
If it is, I still don't feel it.
A copy based on sketches by Leonardo ...even this interesting fellow posts with a question mark .
I cannot be convinced this is a work by Leonardo. It lacks sublime qualities in so many ways.
Whether its by Da Vinci or not, to many people it is an unbalanced, badly proportioned, undefined piece of work.
To me the Globe represents the Invisible Universe and not a stone.
There is an Invisible Universe and it is not impossible to reach it by any means.
Main issue with the painting is the heavy amount of restoration it went through, maybe only 20% of its original in the artists hand rest is all from expert inpainting restoration.
It is not missing. Currently it hangs in my library.
FYI
Love you ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
When he says best he can do 😂, like we expected him to pull out the real painting , he seems sad he could produce it for us lol
Think we can let you off with not having the most expensive painting in the world to show us :)
Such a master piece should not be allowed to auction for filthy rich , no benefit to have this discussion when artefact has been lost from public and academics alike
It's anatomically clumsy. Leonardo was never clumsy.
I have a fancy opinion on this painting may be 180º different in 50 years time when they shall have invented some new way to date things, like I don't know, a way of retrieving conversations that happened next to a painting by getting the molecules to 'remember' what patterns they vibrated in 500 years ago, or something like that. I suspect it is a fake.
LEAK THE PDF
he is falling apart gush
🧢
Easy currency
You only need to look at the face in reverse to see what an appalling picture it is and certainly not a complete Leonardo at all…
The other student paintings that came out of Da Vinci's studio look pretty similar. One is very much the same face, but in reverse.
Now we know why you say it’s original .
Thank you for your talk still in doubt that it was Leonardo’s paint .
Well, if this is Leonardo, it's Leonardo on a very bad day. The blurred nature of the face is simply ridiculous, and it's just absurd to compare it to St. John, which we are looking at through a huge amount of varnish. The embroidary is badly done and the garment doesn't seem to be on a body, it is stiff and empty. Really, the work tells us a lot more about the restorer's notions, than it does about Leonardo.
Give it about forty years, and then everyone will say it's ridiculous.
Professor Mcgoninnical
I think Leonardo contributed to the painting, yes, but it was subsequently very badly damaged and the latest 'restoration' by Modestini is truly horrible.
Such a shame the painting now is in the hands of a killer.
I'm sorry to disagree, but I do not believe this is by da Vinci. Painted on wood with knots in it? No chance!! Painted by someone close to him or just after perhaps.
Thank you for your formidable compilation of studies and the multiple copies that attest to the origin of the Salvator Mundi. I value your scholarship. You leave the aesthetic appraisal to the connoisseur where I take a modest position and from which I must say I remain utterly unconvinced that this image as a whole can be from the hand of Leonardo. The cockeyed look, the static stooled posture , sfumato no neck etc. sorry. Perhaps the sly Salai was sly enough to get this far into the rendition. Leonardos opus feels lost.
Wow...this creature has an ego the size of a planet! You're no connoisseur, you're a nobody...who can't recognize the hand of da Vinci. I won't be so foolish as you are, I won't claim expertise where I have none. Still, it looks precisely as a da Vinci painting ought...and I leave it to the experts to figure out the truth, unlike you.
I can’t help but agree with you…
One worries that a drug dealer has got it.
Isn’t this guy a scam artist? Seriously. Read the book on how this guy manipulated the provenance to make it seem more valuable.
No better person to call it out for the painting as it is. The forgers knew more of the paintings than the so called curators of said paintings. Rembrandt knock offs being a prime example.
10 minute talks but the video is 10.30, tells you all you need to know. More lies.
I think I want to believe it's fake because of a passionate dislike for the vile human who purchased it. It would be supremely funny if the Saudis spent all that money on something that wasn't real.
I doubt Leonardo painted this.
Salvator Mundi is obviously a fake, it's like how an AI would do a Leonardo: let's do a bit more sfumato so old profs go for it.
This taste sour.
Well, that was totally unconvincing.
I SAW ONE AT THE THRIFT STORE FOR 4.50 AND NO BUYERS, SO EVENTUALLY IT ENDED UP IN THE TRASH PILE. I CANNOT IMAGINE ANYONE WHO WOULD EVEN CARE TO HAVE IT IN THER HOME, LET ALONG HANGING UP ON THE WALLS! FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION IS ONE HEEL OF A BIG ( CHOKE)!
I have a computer print out hanging on my wall in my home. It's strange.
Can you let me know the make/ colour of your hair colourant?
From a muslim wievpoint, the title of "Salvator Mundi" is blasphemy. So wouldn't it be logical that the painting is burnt?
Bob Hope should just give it up, already.
Lookin' rough!
It's not a da Vinci
Thanks - it's a great relief to have this clarified.
@@daigreatcoat44 You're very welcome
Found the Dan Brown fan
@@notanemoprog The 'da Vinci Code' was a fun book ;)
@@adamblackshaw9151 Well, that's true. It also ruined Leonardo forever, by introducing the abominable practice of referring to him as "da Vinci" :)
some critic called it a wish list painting, i can totally see that, its too da Vinci to be a real Da Vinci
Kemp destroyed his reputation with this failed attribution. Also, he vouched for that recent sideview drawing of a woman. He said it was also by Leonardo, an attribution no one accepts. He's gone dotty.
Yes the work on vellum was an obvious fake