Wait, you have one 74 subs?! This is just a slight interest of me but you got my sub regardless because this quality editing, research etc is ridiculous for 74 subs. I hope your channel explodes, the quality is there!
For once, Christie's did correctly categorize the painting as a contemporary art. Because most of it was painted by Modestini in the last ten years. Although, it should have been labeled as: Work by Diane Modestini based on the studio of Leonardo. Maybe, just maybe, Leonardo did touch a bit of the lips, and the hair ringlets. But the rest is definitely not by him. All facts point to "Not-by-Leonardo": The defective wood panel, the dead-on pose, the mismatch eyes, the swollen cheeks as if he got a toothache, the crooked nose, the incorrect anatomy of the fingers, etc. Not to mention the lack of proper provenance. Even by the 18th century, the name Leonardo was already big. Kings and queens all over the world covet his works. But somehow it ended up in New Orleans? People desperately wanted it to be a Leonardo, and so people got deluded and believe it to be true.
...which was the exact purpose of al this. I'm glad someone with lots of money and no taste bought it. Now with all its controversy, it's mostly worth nothing. Funny.
@@bodawei425 It IS funny and entertaining to watch. Rich people burning money. MBS pressed Macron to force the Louvre to authenticate it by exhibiting it side by side with La Gioconda. It was a very close call and nearly happened. The Louvre in fact already printed a catalogue claiming it to be an authentic Leonardo. One phone call from the president would have made it happen. But Macron, say what you will about his politics, at least in this case he resisted and stand by the truth. And The Louvre pulled back the false catalogue and the whole charade was over. It's no longer The Male Mona Lisa. The London National Gallery, who earlier exhibited the piece, seemed to also regretted it. Luke Syson, the curator who pushed to include it in the exhibition soon was let go by the museum.
Leonardo would never had chosen such a defective wood panel with knots. If you were him, would you dedicate so much time and effort on a bad surface? No, you would go out and find a better panel. Especially when Leonardo was already in his mature years. It was claimed that this was painted around the same time as the Mona Lisa. It's not like we're talking a large panel. It's tiny. It made more sense if this was a student work. A student who didn't have a lot of money, and just used a spare panel laying around for practice session with the Master. By comparison, The Mona Lisa panel - and even The Ginevra de Benci which was older - are still in a top notch condition. There are minute cracks on the oil paint layer, but that was expected when one consider its age. Given enough time, all oil paintings eventually have cracks. At the time when Modestini was restoring it, the panel was already broken up into 3 big pieces. It had to be glued by a wood specialist, barely held together with lots and lots of glue. The panel was also riddled with wood worm holes.@@sizey8105
Thank you. I also appreciate hearing your thoughts about this. Luke Syson was the curator who were pushing to make The National Gallery to include the Salvator Mundi in the Leonardo's exhibition. He no longer worked at the museum soon after the exhibition had ended. It was very unwise for such a leading and respected museum to help promote a piece that is on sale. Because it lend an air of authenticity and prestige to the painting. Especially on a doubtful piece. Syson also appeared on a documentary "The Lost Leonardo" (a very good reporting, I highly recommend it). But among all commentators who appeared on that show, he was the only one who had to be accompanied by a lawyer. In case he said something that might incriminate himself. He also gave highly cryptic answer on why he believes the painting is an authentic Leonardo. A normal behavior for someone who is innocent, I'm sure. At one point, the film producer pressed him to explain further, and the lawyer quickly stepped in and shut it down.@@sizey8105
There are a few paintings that have destroyed the so called "Deep Sleeper Market". This painting is only one of them. The problem with renaissance art is that there were so many students/workshop artists & studio artists working there. Attribution is always so difficult. You failed to mention the so called experts that attributed this painting to Leonardo. Only one of them did, that was Christies No.1 problem, they conveniently believed the socalled No.1 expert & conveniently ignored the others who stated it was a Studio/workshop. The art world is not only corrupted by the Money making Auction Houses, but it is equally corrupted by the Academic world of egos in their heirarchical order of superiority. Most of them are also very subjective using very subjective words, like lacking sponteneity. Mystical subtlety etc. I can tell you half of the art you see at galleries are all fake, or by sudio, workshop, in the manner of, follower of & many of the so called masterpieces only have a few hundred years of provenance. I have spent the last 2 years writing my book about Art corruption in the Van Dyck Artworld. It is totally full of fake experts who will tell you you are looking at a copy, then they will buy it off you for nothing. Not one of them will listen to the science or the research. Even then when they are faced with the obvious they will say the opposite.
Here in the Netherlands we had the artist Herman Brood who painted so many thing he couldn't even authenticate his own works. Somehow his manager is now the sole arbiter of what is real and what not, even on pieces Herman himself had doubts about 🤷🏻♂️ They obviously are no DaVincis but they go for a good chunk of money all depending on some random Herman had put his trust. Especially when he killed himself by jumping of a high class hotel, things got wild. It's truly a worthwhile lookup.
Interesting video and I have no doubt that the concerns you described about this being attributed to Da Vinci are too significant to ignore. I do question your apparent belief that a video is greatly enhanced by deliberate glitches, noise, distortions and all manner of technical flaws that have traditionally been carefully minimized in order not to distract from the presentation. I have to wonder if in six months, the entire picture will be completely obscured from beginning to end so that it is just audio accompanied by patterns of flashing light and abstract shapes. It may be a novel visual art form at that point but will not be as informative as a proper documentary with actual intact images and video footage. I hope you will reconsider the notion of that tradition being obsolete. I don't think it is.
If I'm an idiot private collector who insists on hiding important art away from the world for my own selfish pleasure I might cause this painting to vanish for two reasons: 1) It's mine, I paid for it, everybody else can get stuffed. Indeed, I take an evil pleasure in knowing the answer to all the speculation. 2) Having found out it's a fake and being the kind of person who enjoys possessing important art rather than appreciating it I don't want the embarrassment of being duped. Yes, I absolutely despise 'collectors' of such works who hide them away for their own selfish reasons - on that basis I hope it's a fake!
Alisa, apparently you are unaware that the "Principessa" painting that you cited as one of only two authentic Leonardos recently discovered is itself a fake. A talented forger used the cashier at his supermarket as the model.
Thank you for your comment! As far as I know, both paintings that I mentioned - “Benois Madonna” and “La Bella Principessa” are still the subject for debate about its attribution to Leonardo. According to the book “Leonardo Da Vinci” by Walter Isaacson - we can’t say for sure that “Principessa” was painted/not painted by Leonardo. So I decided to put it in the video because this both paintings still have a big chance to be Leonardo’s in comparison to another fake paintings.
Of course, it's not worth 450 million. And neither is the Mona Lisa. It's all hype. If someone else painted the Mona Lisa, it would have been forgotten about.
A really excellent presentation! Thanks!!!! I doubt if the painting is by Leonardo: the eyes are not illusionistic, and the skull is too small for the facial features, among other things. That said, the painting is horrible enough to be be a late Leonardo. His later paintings (the two St Johns) are really bad; they're quite repulsive, particularly the one whose finger points to Heaven. (M. John Angel, Studio Director, Angel Academy of Art, Florence)
If you want to see if it's a genuine Leonardo, x-ray it. Only Leonardo left no outline. Not to mention all the layers he used. I didn't even go to college and I know that. Shouldn't they? I call shenanigans.
Sadly, the 'blockbuster' art market is mostly smoke and mirrors, created to inflate egos, inflate prices and repress tax accountability. The "Art" is largely incidental. I was initially very sceptical but slowly came to the opinion that Leonardo has played a part in it. That said, it was dubiously attributed, badly damaged, very badly overpainted and technically poorly executed in parts so $450 milion hardly seems a bargain.
This is a great job of restoration---or is it at least in part such an improvement that it borders on a falsification? The secrecy about the painting may conceal a deception. The Rumint indicates it now belongs to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. He is known for two things :fabulous weakth and a history of outrageous extravagance. He has bought many things without due diligence and on a whim seemingly out of egoism and an attempt to outscore everyone else. If he bought this painting, he has bought a White Elephant and enriched a few people in the art world.
@@erbalumkan369 If you look at a photo of Salvator Mundi before restoration, you will note the painting was in bad condition with many faded spots, which were filled in during restoration. Perhaps the painting was "over-improved" so that it would sell. I wouldn't use the word "mediocre."
The eyes are not on the same height. The eyes seem to look in different directions. One is bigger than the other as well. The left jaw seems feminine while the right jaw seems masculine. The curls in the hair on his right side are not par with those on his left side. Could go on.
I am just commenting on the video title: stop calling it a fake! We know 100% it is an original! We even know that Leonardo was involved, at least in the concept of the painting. The debate is only whether is was painted by Leonardo or not.
That's the most Caucasian lookin Hebrew I've ever seen! It can be "Mundied" up all day, but that's a white guy. Western European (a tad Mediterranean), white guy. This "painting" reminds me of a certain painting with sunflowers, which painting is that.....with sunflowers? You know, the one that everyone insists is authentic, but you can not see it, or analyze it, or view. I wonder why? This, is the result of someone WANTING this to be genuine, and doing everything they could to make it so. Very sketchy!
Mr. Unusual: Caucasian is a race of human beings. Hebrew is a language. Mundi means "world." So how can a painted image be 'worlded' up? What does that even mean? Finally, Van Gogh painted at least ten separate works of sunflowers with many of them on public display in museums all over the mundi. So your argument - if you indeed have one - is unclear to the point of being opaque. Sadly, we suspect that you're MFA thesis simply won't pass muster. But the good news: Starbucks is always hiring.
@@dukeofhaas Dear Duke: Ouch! That was a spankin! Why you so mad at me? I can read the Wiki page on the word "Hebrew" just like anyone else, and the word does not just refer to the language. Do you want me to copy & paste the whole thing? So my misuse of "Mundi" is a bit over the top. A feeble attempt at personifying a descriptive physical attribute to a particular "type" of painting depicting the same subject. Not many people still read Latin, outside of religious texts. Humor hits different people differently. Yes, The Sunflowers! One of many, yes.The version that was sold to the Japanese insurance company President that no one has seen in like 20 years, it's not a Van Gogh. It's a copy. I was attempting to use humor as a comparison between that copy, and this one. Who's "we"? It's just me. I'm not going for an MFA so, I'm not worried about that. What's with the Starbucks crack? Is the implication that those working at Starbucks are your intellectual inferior? Humor is cloudy, trying to show some stranger how smart you are by attempting to insult them, it's beneath a Duke.
@@UNUSUALUSERNAME220 Glad you appreciate our attempt at sarcastic humour. You've proven yourself to be a worthy good sport by replying. As you suspected, nothing we** wrote was intended to be a personal attack. After all, we don't personally know you, so how could it be taken personally? **We like to use the Royal "We." Nothing more than a humorous affectation. Ciao for now!
If art 'experts' cannot agree that it is solely the work of Leonardo what insight do you possess to say that it is? If you take the trouble to read my post you will see that that all I say is that there are serious difficulties in making an absolute attribution. $450 million is a lot of money to ride on conjecture.@@karllieck9064
Wait, you have one 74 subs?! This is just a slight interest of me but you got my sub regardless because this quality editing, research etc is ridiculous for 74 subs. I hope your channel explodes, the quality is there!
Even more infuriating this video has 8k views, 170 likes and 74 subs. Really people? Really??
Thank you so much!
@@rickyrico80quite right. Another subscriber here.
For once, Christie's did correctly categorize the painting as a contemporary art. Because most of it was painted by Modestini in the last ten years. Although, it should have been labeled as: Work by Diane Modestini based on the studio of Leonardo.
Maybe, just maybe, Leonardo did touch a bit of the lips, and the hair ringlets. But the rest is definitely not by him. All facts point to "Not-by-Leonardo": The defective wood panel, the dead-on pose, the mismatch eyes, the swollen cheeks as if he got a toothache, the crooked nose, the incorrect anatomy of the fingers, etc. Not to mention the lack of proper provenance. Even by the 18th century, the name Leonardo was already big. Kings and queens all over the world covet his works. But somehow it ended up in New Orleans?
People desperately wanted it to be a Leonardo, and so people got deluded and believe it to be true.
...which was the exact purpose of al this. I'm glad someone with lots of money and no taste bought it. Now with all its controversy, it's mostly worth nothing. Funny.
@@bodawei425 It IS funny and entertaining to watch. Rich people burning money.
MBS pressed Macron to force the Louvre to authenticate it by exhibiting it side by side with La Gioconda. It was a very close call and nearly happened. The Louvre in fact already printed a catalogue claiming it to be an authentic Leonardo. One phone call from the president would have made it happen. But Macron, say what you will about his politics, at least in this case he resisted and stand by the truth. And The Louvre pulled back the false catalogue and the whole charade was over. It's no longer The Male Mona Lisa.
The London National Gallery, who earlier exhibited the piece, seemed to also regretted it. Luke Syson, the curator who pushed to include it in the exhibition soon was let go by the museum.
Leonardo would never had chosen such a defective wood panel with knots. If you were him, would you dedicate so much time and effort on a bad surface? No, you would go out and find a better panel. Especially when Leonardo was already in his mature years. It was claimed that this was painted around the same time as the Mona Lisa. It's not like we're talking a large panel. It's tiny.
It made more sense if this was a student work. A student who didn't have a lot of money, and just used a spare panel laying around for practice session with the Master.
By comparison, The Mona Lisa panel - and even The Ginevra de Benci which was older - are still in a top notch condition. There are minute cracks on the oil paint layer, but that was expected when one consider its age. Given enough time, all oil paintings eventually have cracks.
At the time when Modestini was restoring it, the panel was already broken up into 3 big pieces. It had to be glued by a wood specialist, barely held together with lots and lots of glue. The panel was also riddled with wood worm holes.@@sizey8105
Thank you. I also appreciate hearing your thoughts about this. Luke Syson was the curator who were pushing to make The National Gallery to include the Salvator Mundi in the Leonardo's exhibition. He no longer worked at the museum soon after the exhibition had ended. It was very unwise for such a leading and respected museum to help promote a piece that is on sale. Because it lend an air of authenticity and prestige to the painting. Especially on a doubtful piece.
Syson also appeared on a documentary "The Lost Leonardo" (a very good reporting, I highly recommend it). But among all commentators who appeared on that show, he was the only one who had to be accompanied by a lawyer. In case he said something that might incriminate himself. He also gave highly cryptic answer on why he believes the painting is an authentic Leonardo. A normal behavior for someone who is innocent, I'm sure. At one point, the film producer pressed him to explain further, and the lawyer quickly stepped in and shut it down.@@sizey8105
There are a few paintings that have destroyed the so called "Deep Sleeper Market". This painting is only one of them. The problem with renaissance art is that there were so many students/workshop artists & studio artists working there. Attribution is always so difficult. You failed to mention the so called experts that attributed this painting to Leonardo. Only one of them did, that was Christies No.1 problem, they conveniently believed the socalled No.1 expert & conveniently ignored the others who stated it was a Studio/workshop. The art world is not only corrupted by the Money making Auction Houses, but it is equally corrupted by the Academic world of egos in their heirarchical order of superiority. Most of them are also very subjective using very subjective words, like lacking sponteneity. Mystical subtlety etc. I can tell you half of the art you see at galleries are all fake, or by sudio, workshop, in the manner of, follower of & many of the so called masterpieces only have a few hundred years of provenance. I have spent the last 2 years writing my book about Art corruption in the Van Dyck Artworld. It is totally full of fake experts who will tell you you are looking at a copy, then they will buy it off you for nothing. Not one of them will listen to the science or the research. Even then when they are faced with the obvious they will say the opposite.
Here in the Netherlands we had the artist Herman Brood who painted so many thing he couldn't even authenticate his own works. Somehow his manager is now the sole arbiter of what is real and what not, even on pieces Herman himself had doubts about 🤷🏻♂️ They obviously are no DaVincis but they go for a good chunk of money all depending on some random Herman had put his trust. Especially when he killed himself by jumping of a high class hotel, things got wild. It's truly a worthwhile lookup.
Auction houses believe whoever will guarantee the highest sales price.
Go on!!! Get it off your chest. Do you suffer from caligraphillia
I’d love to read your book if it’s available anywhere, it sounds really interesting and from what I know about the art market a rich area of study …
It's called "money laundry".
"Money laundering"...to be precise.
Interesting video and I have no doubt that the concerns you described about this being attributed to Da Vinci are too significant to ignore. I do question your apparent belief that a video is greatly enhanced by deliberate glitches, noise, distortions and all manner of technical flaws that have traditionally been carefully minimized in order not to distract from the presentation. I have to wonder if in six months, the entire picture will be completely obscured from beginning to end so that it is just audio accompanied by patterns of flashing light and abstract shapes. It may be a novel visual art form at that point but will not be as informative as a proper documentary with actual intact images and video footage. I hope you will reconsider the notion of that tradition being obsolete. I don't think it is.
Amazing work, Alisa! Please continue! We need more content like this on UA-cam. Спасибо
Excellent work - look forward to seeing more !!
Thank you! Glad you liked it!
The two pointing fingers are so long .. how could anyone be fooled so easily? Da Vinci was a master in human anatomy.
Superb presentation,professional and erudite.Also love those spectacles.
Thank you!
It’s in the Middle East , a corner stone to a museum collection. I believe it’s from his studio, the clear orb convinced me. I’m willing to be wrong
If I'm an idiot private collector who insists on hiding important art away from the world for my own selfish pleasure I might cause this painting to vanish for two reasons:
1) It's mine, I paid for it, everybody else can get stuffed. Indeed, I take an evil pleasure in knowing the answer to all the speculation.
2) Having found out it's a fake and being the kind of person who enjoys possessing important art rather than appreciating it I don't want the embarrassment of being duped.
Yes, I absolutely despise 'collectors' of such works who hide them away for their own selfish reasons - on that basis I hope it's a fake!
Not the first time da vinci depicted the human body out of proportion.
You speak so authoritatively, care to back up your assertation with several examples?
@@dudeforcaster8630 take a look at the virtuan man.
@@dudeforcaster8630 several? I just mentioned one,you can search for more if its of your interest.
Alisa, apparently you are unaware that the "Principessa" painting that you cited as one of only two authentic Leonardos recently discovered is itself a fake. A talented forger used the cashier at his supermarket as the model.
Thank you for your comment! As far as I know, both paintings that I mentioned - “Benois Madonna” and “La Bella Principessa” are still the subject for debate about its attribution to Leonardo. According to the book “Leonardo Da Vinci” by Walter Isaacson - we can’t say for sure that “Principessa” was painted/not painted by Leonardo. So I decided to put it in the video because this both paintings still have a big chance to be Leonardo’s in comparison to another fake paintings.
Maybe it should have been left unrestored and studied more.
How often are the top auction houses sued and found guilty of fraud?
If that is a really a Leonardo, we have to conclude that Leonardo had an off day or two.
Of course, it's not worth 450 million. And neither is the Mona Lisa. It's all hype.
If someone else painted the Mona Lisa, it would have been forgotten about.
No.
The guy who makes most of the money is usually the first guy to dump it.....
A really excellent presentation! Thanks!!!!
I doubt if the painting is by Leonardo: the eyes are not illusionistic, and the skull is too small for the facial features, among other things. That said, the painting is horrible enough to be be a late Leonardo. His later paintings (the two St Johns) are really bad; they're quite repulsive, particularly the one whose finger points to Heaven.
(M. John Angel, Studio Director, Angel Academy of Art, Florence)
Thank you so much!
There are many "art works" by Leonardo. Just not so many paintings.
It’s the eyes that give it away
Is it not in Saudi Arabia?
If you want to see if it's a genuine Leonardo, x-ray it. Only Leonardo left no outline. Not to mention all the layers he used. I didn't even go to college and I know that. Shouldn't they? I call shenanigans.
If it is fake, not my concern, any more, thank you
It is just plain wonderful. Everybody has made money. The world needs more fakes of that dimension.
If Leo Dicaprio is involved it must be legit.
✝️ Subbed/Liked! Great VID! God bless in ‘25! ✝️
It wax analyzed by experts.
What's new in the Antique World? A lot more than people are willing to admit. 🤑
Sadly, the 'blockbuster' art market is mostly smoke and mirrors, created to inflate egos, inflate prices and repress tax accountability. The "Art" is largely incidental. I was initially very sceptical but slowly came to the opinion that Leonardo has played a part in it. That said, it was dubiously attributed, badly damaged, very badly overpainted and technically poorly executed in parts so $450 milion hardly seems a bargain.
This is a great job of restoration---or is it at least in part such an improvement that it borders on a falsification? The secrecy about the painting may conceal a deception. The Rumint indicates it now belongs to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. He is known for two things :fabulous weakth and a history of outrageous extravagance. He has bought many things without due diligence and on a whim seemingly out of egoism and an attempt to outscore everyone else. If he bought this painting, he has bought a White Elephant and enriched a few people in the art world.
Restauration job was mediocre.
@@erbalumkan369 If you look at a photo of Salvator Mundi before restoration, you will note the painting was in bad condition with many faded spots, which were filled in during restoration. Perhaps the painting was "over-improved" so that it would sell. I wouldn't use the word "mediocre."
The eyes are not on the same height. The eyes seem to look in different directions. One is bigger than the other as well. The left jaw seems feminine while the right jaw seems masculine. The curls in the hair on his right side are not par with those on his left side. Could go on.
@@erbalumkan369 Good points.
Where in the world is Salvator Mundi?...........Move over Carmen San Diego....
The eyes look off
Nice
it's failed at math*
Da Vinci Code sect?
I am just commenting on the video title: stop calling it a fake! We know 100% it is an original! We even know that Leonardo was involved, at least in the concept of the painting. The debate is only whether is was painted by Leonardo or not.
Comb your mop.
👍 "promosm"
That's the most Caucasian lookin Hebrew I've ever seen! It can be "Mundied" up all day, but that's a white guy. Western European (a tad Mediterranean), white guy. This "painting" reminds me of a certain painting with sunflowers, which painting is that.....with sunflowers? You know, the one that everyone insists is authentic, but you can not see it, or analyze it, or view. I wonder why? This, is the result of someone WANTING this to be genuine, and doing everything they could to make it so. Very sketchy!
Mr. Unusual: Caucasian is a race of human beings. Hebrew is a language. Mundi means "world." So how can a painted image be 'worlded' up? What does that even mean? Finally, Van Gogh painted at least ten separate works of sunflowers with many of them on public display in museums all over the mundi. So your argument - if you indeed have one - is unclear to the point of being opaque. Sadly, we suspect that you're MFA thesis simply won't pass muster. But the good news: Starbucks is always hiring.
@@dukeofhaas Dear Duke: Ouch! That was a spankin! Why you so mad at me? I can read the Wiki page on the word "Hebrew" just like anyone else, and the word does not just refer to the language. Do you want me to copy & paste the whole thing? So my misuse of "Mundi" is a bit over the top. A feeble attempt at personifying a descriptive physical attribute to a particular "type" of painting depicting the same subject. Not many people still read Latin, outside of religious texts. Humor hits different people differently. Yes, The Sunflowers! One of many, yes.The version that was sold to the Japanese insurance company President that no one has seen in like 20 years, it's not a Van Gogh. It's a copy. I was attempting to use humor as a comparison between that copy, and this one. Who's "we"? It's just me. I'm not going for an MFA so, I'm not worried about that. What's with the Starbucks crack? Is the implication that those working at Starbucks are your intellectual inferior? Humor is cloudy, trying to show some stranger how smart you are by attempting to insult them, it's beneath a Duke.
@@UNUSUALUSERNAME220
Glad you appreciate our attempt at sarcastic humour. You've proven yourself to be a worthy good sport by replying. As you suspected, nothing we** wrote was intended to be a personal attack. After all, we don't personally know you, so how could it be taken personally?
**We like to use the Royal "We." Nothing more than a humorous affectation.
Ciao for now!
The overwhelming evidence shows its authentic.
No, it doesn't. There are innumerable sceptical evaluations. Try reading 'The Last Leonardo' by Ben Lewis (published by Collins) for starters.
I believe also
@@tulyar57It's authentic. Hush. Not everything is a conspiricy.
If art 'experts' cannot agree that it is solely the work of Leonardo what insight do you possess to say that it is? If you take the trouble to read my post you will see that that all I say is that there are serious difficulties in making an absolute attribution. $450 million is a lot of money to ride on conjecture.@@karllieck9064
The London vote was 2 yes, 1 no, and 2 no comment.