Just who in the hell has half a BILLION dollars to plop down on a single painting?
And it isn't even very good (looks like some Renaissance tranny).
Plus there's a good chance that Leonardo didn't even paint it. Sakes.
Just who in the hell has half a BILLION dollars to plop down on a single painting?
And it isn't even very good (looks like some Renaissance tranny).
Plus there's a good chance that Leonardo didn't even paint it. Sakes.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 179||12/07/2017|
It’s fake I own the original.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 1||11/15/2017|
I just wish they'd stop referring to Leonardo as "da Vinci".
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 2||11/15/2017|
Oh brother, art world da Vinci fangurl alert:
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 3||11/15/2017|
Someone paid half a bil not for what da Vinci slapped on the canvas, but for what restorers did.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 4||11/15/2017|
They are laundering money. That's the whole point of the high-end art market. It's what rich people collectively agreed to use to park and/or launder wealth—art and New York/London real estate.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 5||11/15/2017|
That is one creepy Jesus.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 6||11/15/2017|
Christie's made a video of the people viewing the painting. See Leo DiCaprio at 3:08. Patti Smith somewhere there.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 7||11/15/2017|
He’s not even cute
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 8||11/15/2017|
OP - The fact that it sold for $450 million shows it's not a fake. And that people are incredibly stupid.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 9||11/15/2017|
[quote]it's not a fake
It's not a fake—but it's not a Leonardo. The consensus from those not on Christie's payroll is that it was painted by some of his proteges.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 10||11/15/2017|
He looks like Mona Lisa's brother who stays in his room all day smoking weed and playing guitar.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 11||11/15/2017|
That really does not look like a Leonardo. The eyes, in particular, look messed up — they don’t look like they are focused on the same object.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 12||11/15/2017|
R2 why shouldn't they call him da Vinci?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 13||11/15/2017|
That money should be used to fix America's infrastructure problem or upgrade our schools or feed the hungry. Jesus would agree.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 14||11/15/2017|
The buyer is probably Russian or Chinese, R14.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 15||11/15/2017|
It's like he's staring directly into my eyes.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 16||11/15/2017|
R15 Probably some autistic Chinese billionaire
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 17||11/15/2017|
Sell this crap to the tasteless Chinese.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 18||11/15/2017|
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 19||11/15/2017|
R18 Chinese have zero taste. Among the rudest people you will ever meet too.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 20||11/15/2017|
Looks genuine to me
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 21||11/15/2017|
only to you, sweetie
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 22||11/15/2017|
The previous owner, who bought it for 127 million, is also Russian. It's stolen oil money. You'll never see this painting again. It's probably in a vault in Switzerland right now.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 23||11/15/2017|
R23 The owner before that bought it for $10,000 at an estate sale.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 24||11/15/2017|
Fran Lebowitz on the $120 million Picasso gets to the point.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 25||11/15/2017|
OMG I *so* need to make thought bubbles for the vid @ rR7
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 26||11/15/2017|
It's a fake. Or a school of.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 27||11/15/2017|
Oh yeah Sal, I went to school with that guy. Heza good fella.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 28||11/15/2017|
Actually the eyes are the perfect part of the painting. In my opinion it is real but the price just tells you how ridiculously rich, rich people are. That simply is not right...it is a major sin.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 29||11/15/2017|
R24, that's one lucky bastard.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 30||11/15/2017|
It's filthy money that's stolen by filthy Russians (and other scumbags). Another thing Fran Leibowitz said: "You don't earn a billion dollars--you steal it."
There's a hilariously snarky comment in the NY Times from some art expert saying it was too dull to be a Leonardo. Yet other experts claim it is. So whatever.
Apparently there are many Datalounge "art experts" weighing in here--as if you queens know anything about it!
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 31||11/15/2017|
What does his hole look like?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 32||11/15/2017|
Leibowitz is one broke bitch, and she’s a little touchy about it.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 33||11/15/2017|
When it comes to religious art, da Vinci is a hack.
Bouguereau, on the other hand, is a true master.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 34||11/15/2017|
[quote]Another thing Fran Leibowitz said: "You don't earn a billion dollars--you steal it."
Like you'd know, cunt!
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 35||11/15/2017|
Jesus looks trans in this new painting
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 36||11/15/2017|
Carl Bloch, another master
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 37||11/15/2017|
r5 real estate is more likely to hold its value. Using this particular painting for anything underhanded makes no sense to me.
Even if you gain advantages parking it in a free port and having your money guy do the dodgy paperwork on it for tax reasons, your paperwork depends on it having value. If it's declared an improper attribution or worse, then it's worthless even for money laundering. The underground isn't stupid about what it accepts for collateral; this is an old, known racket.
You'd best do something smart, like David Thomson did, and pick the right painting to have "sympathetic" experts authenticate.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 38||11/15/2017|
Julius Kronberg's David and Saul is also sublime.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 39||11/15/2017|
[quote]looks like some Renaissance tranny
With a webbed neck
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 40||11/15/2017|
Bitch has NO chin and/or is a linebacker.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 41||11/15/2017|
"FRAN LEBOWITZ BUYS $3.1 MILLION APARTMENT."
Suck on that, bitch at r33.
Oh and r35, so can you, cunt!
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 42||11/15/2017|
I'm surprised she has that much money...from answering questions in college auditoriums?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 43||11/15/2017|
r34 and r37, more Datalounge art experts. MARYS!
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 44||11/15/2017|
Bouguereau = dragqueen ... da Vinci = the real thing
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 45||11/15/2017|
Amazing how much money some people have. And what they do with it.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 46||11/15/2017|
It was considered a fake until at least 2005, according to the OP article.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 47||11/15/2017|
Compared to other paintings of Jesus, this one gives me the chills The face and eyes have a hazy aura about it, as if Jesus is looking right into you from another realm or dimension.. DaVinci painted his subject to appear more real than they are as if they had a soul, kind of like an optical illusion painting but of people, that was his genius. I would warn people who are stoned from looking at this painting.
However, the amount of money paid for it is wasteful and ridiculous.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 48||11/15/2017|
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 49||11/16/2017|
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 50||11/16/2017|
And this one is really eerie: side by side comparison with the Shroud of Turin
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 51||11/16/2017|
Christies or its PR molls keep saying it's the last Leonardo in private hands, but it's not. Even blind Freddy knows the Duke of Buccleuch owns one which was restored to him after being stolen several years ago.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 52||11/16/2017|
The original (before restoration)?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 53||11/16/2017|
And the Duke of Devonshire owns Leonardo drawings.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 54||11/16/2017|
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 55||11/16/2017|
Jesus looks stoned.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 56||11/16/2017|
Leonardo was an atheist most if his life, but he became a fervent believer in his later years, even receiving the holy viaticum on his deathbed. His lover (and greatest student) was the only person with him--other than several priests--at his death. 🖼
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 57||11/16/2017|
Sounds as if the buyer went slightly mad and HAD to have it.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 58||11/16/2017|
please Fran, get your facts RIGHT. + Steve Wynn is NOT blind ( eyesight going but still....) I used to like Fran....now
not so much.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 59||11/16/2017|
That's really the picture BEFORE the so-called "restoration" they did, r53 / r55?
How do they even justify such a radical difference in everything from lighting to actual facial features.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 60||11/16/2017|
R37, that is about one step away from Thomas Kinkade or that painting of the huge Jesus staring at the twin towers are crying. Kitsch.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 61||11/16/2017|
Jesus looks stoned.
—Anonymous ... Well to believe you are the son of god...here to take away the sins of the world, you've got to be high on something
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 62||11/16/2017|
It's a bad painting, no matter who did it. Leonardo never did anything else with such a schlock factor, except his execrable John the Baptist. But the hand and arm are good.
I hope this is one with a Chinese collector who never lets anyone see it again. Pukeworthy.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 63||11/16/2017|
R37 R39 R34 you have truly horrible taste.
[quote]why shouldn't they call him da Vinci?
His name is Leonardo. "Vinci" is the name of his birthplace.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 64||11/16/2017|
A one hour documentary about this painting and Da Vinci in general.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 65||11/16/2017|
Can anyone link to a decent, critical article about the"restoration". I am assuming the Netflix doc is an hour long advert created by Christies.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 66||11/16/2017|
I had to laugh at that poster calling Leonardo a hack and then posting the kitschy Bouguereau, Bloch and Kronberg. Blech.
Also, this painting doesn't "feel" like Da Vinci. I bet it's a fake.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 67||11/16/2017|
[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 68||11/16/2017|
Does the sale price include the auction premium? If not, how much would this premium be?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 69||11/16/2017|
The overpainting made Salvator look like a drag queen. The provenance of the work is pretty shaky--whole decades and centuries unaccounted for.
It's not a bad work, but it's not in the same league as the truly authenticated works.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 70||11/16/2017|
Saltz feels it's a fake.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 71||11/16/2017|
Yes, the 450M price tag includes the Buyer's Premium. The actual hammer price was 400M.
And r67 is right, Bouguereau is the epitome of tacky 19th century sentimental kitsch, so whoever believes he's a superior artist to Leonardo has no taste whatsoever. That said, this Salvator Mundi has been so thoroughly restored (particularly in the face) that it's hard to see what it initially looked like. Only the right hand and the garment have survived relatively intact. The rest is a skilled interpretation by a competent restorer. This auction record marks the triumph of marketing and branding over connoisseurship.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 72||11/16/2017|
Oh my sides! The soulless atheists who scamper at the sight of an inspired religious painting and instead drip praise on this tranny-in-blue da Vinci knockoff are truly the ones devoid of any taste whatsoever.
Bouguereau, Bloch, and Kronberg are all undisputed masters in their own right. Enough said.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 73||11/16/2017|
Moment Leonardo da Vinci's Salvator Mundi sells for record-breaking $400m .
I can't even afford a Bob Ross original. :-(
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 74||11/16/2017|
R74 obviously voted for Trump. She sounds like a monumental sap.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 75||11/16/2017|
There was a great NY Times article a few years ago on how some of the world's greatest art has been hidden away in vaults in Switzerland
I imagine this will end up there as well
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 76||11/16/2017|
R73 They are exactly as R72 described them: "tacky sentimental kitsch"
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 77||11/16/2017|
r7 That video was Wonderful! the painting must be captivating in person. Too bad it went to a private collector so the world can't share in it.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 78||11/16/2017|
Article re r76
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 79||11/16/2017|
R78, the painting no longer exists. At best, what you are looking at is a historical interpretation of what it might have looked like. The vast majority of the original is either gone or so far gone as to be merely a shadow of what it was.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 80||11/16/2017|
r76 that's horrible. losing our culture to greed.
r78 what do you mean?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 81||11/16/2017|
Maybe Bill Gates bought it to go with his da Vinci notebooks.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 82||11/16/2017|
I watched a mystery recently set in the 20s at an English country house.
The well-to-do wife made the husband keep all his tacky Pre Raphaelite paintings in his enormous study, because she couldn’t bear to look at them.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 83||11/16/2017|
[quote] looks like some Renaissance tranny
Oh you're going to hell for sure.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 84||11/16/2017|
If his final drawings for the painting were found at Windsor Castle, then I would bet that might be a clue to the buyer.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 85||11/16/2017|
maybe it's the restoration, maybe it's because it's not by Leonardo, but that painting is crap.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 86||11/16/2017|
I've worked in this business for a bit. Basically the ones paying this sort of many are always drug dealers and private investors trying to laundry crime money.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 87||11/16/2017|
Why is everyone sooooo awestruck in the video? Why is Patti Smith wearing shades in a darkened room?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 88||11/16/2017|
R3 is on the money. The high-end art market is simply about money laundering now. Same as high-end real estate. You say oligarch - I say kleptocrat.
Makes me wonder if there something in our genes that the human condition so often rewards the sly, the criminal, the narcissist, the psychopath? So much greed. And it’s never enough. What is it that drives that? Blah!
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 89||11/16/2017|
[quote] The high-end art market is simply about money laundering now. Same as high-end real estate.
In this particular instance, it's not just "art". It's Da Vinci. You could buy Picasso's all day and not have the same status as owning a genuine(?) work of the most famous painter of the Renaissance. Unless the painting is proven to be a fake the next time it sells will be for over a billion.
Looking at the art market broadly I don't dispute the money-laundering theory. But this example can just as easily be for bragging rights and/or investment speculation.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 90||11/16/2017|
Look at the hand seen through the globe. There is no refraction of light in the glass orb. Leonardo the science genius of his time would not have missed that.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 91||11/16/2017|
R91, that detail caught my eye, too; it's one of the many things that make the painting ring false.
It didn't impress the NYTimes, which labeled it "proficient" at best.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 92||11/16/2017|
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 93||11/16/2017|
Do you mean like Ann Landers?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 94||11/16/2017|
I think the video of the people staring at the painting in R7 is more fascinating than the painting.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 95||11/17/2017|
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 96||11/17/2017|
Okay, so I did some digging, and...
#1) Salvator Mundi was previously owned by Russian billionaire, Dmitry Rybolovlev (see paragraph one at link)
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 97||11/17/2017|
#2) Guess who has ties to this Russian billionaire?
[quote]In 2008 Dmitry Rybolovlev bought Palm Beach’s most expensive house from Donald Trump. He landed it for a cool US$95 million. Back then, in the late nighties this was considered to be an absolute fortune. The future US president initially bought the spot for US$41.4 million in the bankruptcy proceedings of the disgraced nursing home tycoon Abe Grosman. But instead of moving into the sprawling palace – or even kitting it out to be a posh beach pad for vacations, Russian fertilizer magnate decided to demolish it – and promptly started proceedings to get the go-ahead to do so.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 98||11/17/2017|
Cher D'El Centro
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 99||11/17/2017|
"Salvator Mundi" could pass for Mona Lisa's brother or Mona Lisa in drag.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 100||11/17/2017|
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 101||11/17/2017|
What happened to his cigarette?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 102||11/17/2017|
I found the model.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 103||11/17/2017|
[R37] [R39] [R34] = Donald Trump
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 104||11/17/2017|
I'd assume it's some Russian "oligarch" (i.e. mafioso) but they're mostly Jewish and I don't see them buying a Jesus pic.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 105||11/17/2017|
Yay! My da Vinci just went up!
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 106||11/17/2017|
I wonder how much would this person, who spent 450 million on a painting, be willing to pay to save an ordinary human life.
My bet is... very little.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 107||11/17/2017|
R107, Russian oligarchs spend on ending human lives.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 108||11/17/2017|
Ha, yes, R108!
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 109||11/17/2017|
R7, That video really was wonderful. Thanks!
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 110||11/17/2017|
There are billions of ordinary human lives worth nothing.
How many verified Da Vinci paintings are there?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 111||11/17/2017|
R111, Wikipedia says about 24.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 112||11/17/2017|
R112, yes, and there are questions over even some of those. The number of unquestioned Leonardos seems closer to 15.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 113||11/17/2017|
[quote]There are billions of ordinary human lives worth nothing.
No human life is worth nothing.
And what use will any of us have of this Leonardo if it will be locked in someone's vault for the next decade or so. This painting is nothing but a commodity for its owner.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 114||11/17/2017|
But the question is, what kind of commodity? Even if the painting is an original Leonardo da Vinci, only about 6" square of the original exists. The rest is basically a fabrication. Christies did a great job of hyping the painting this time around. Next time, buyers might be more critical.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 115||11/18/2017|
[quote]only about 6" square of the original exists.
And that 6" square is the ONLY Leonardo in private hands. That is the point.
It will only increase in value.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 116||11/18/2017|
[quote] His lover (and greatest student)
R57, wasn't his closest 'companion' a 14-year-old boy apprentice?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 117||11/18/2017|
that Jesus has major gay face
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 118||11/18/2017|
That's what I said, but they still hung me upside down and pissed on me.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 119||11/18/2017|
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 120||11/18/2017|
Well he didn't stay 14.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 121||11/18/2017|
[quote]I've worked in this business for a bit. Basically the ones paying this sort of many are always drug dealers and private investors trying to laundry crime money.
Selling your paint by number at a flea market is hardly the same thing. Money laundering is alway a possibility but it's very unlikely because there is SO much doubt over the authenticity. There are much, easier ways of parking half a billion dollars. Hell real estate in Miami, NY or CA can do that and it has actual legitimate resale value. No crim is going to take a risk on this.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 122||11/18/2017|
Neither did Woody Allen's adopted daughter / now wife, R121.
Mama always said: The only way to date and fuck a truly nice, obedient guy - is to raise him from his early teens.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 123||11/18/2017|
r52, the Leonardo painting you refer to is in the Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 124||11/18/2017|
R124, (and I'm not R52) that painting is on loan; it is still privately owned.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 125||11/18/2017|
What is she about to do to that baby???
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 126||11/19/2017|
You lost, r126, hunty?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 127||11/19/2017|
r125, thanks for the link. I guess the difference is that that painting isn't entirely by Leonardo. I would also assume the present owner would eventually give it to the Gallery permanently, though with the art market as it is, hard to say--even if it's only partly by Leonardo. It's still a lot more interesting a work than that $450 million Christ painting.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 128||11/19/2017|
The spindle is a symbol of Mary's domesticity and a presaging of Christ's death on the cross?
Why do I think that desperate art historian's make this shit up?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 129||11/19/2017|
The Duke of Buccleuch lives VERY grandly.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 130||11/19/2017|
And will the Duke of Buccleuch present noble in his manor on Christmas?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 131||11/19/2017|
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 132||11/19/2017|
His 33 year old son, Walter Scott the Earl of Dalkeith, is a dead ringer for the 3rd Duke. Though married, he smells cookies and might indeed present his ginger hole.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 133||11/19/2017|
R129, I know. I've always found this painting to be quite sinister, but then that is characteristic of Leonardo's paintings. At any rate, this Madonna is in much better condition than 'Salvator Mundi,' has a much more dynamic composition, and probably has more Leonardo in it than 'Salvator Mundi.'
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 134||11/19/2017|
Noble ginger hole presented by Walter Scott the Earl of Dalkeith.
Sounds very pretty.
Gives new meaning to "exhibiting my Leonardo."
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 135||11/19/2017|
For the artist who invented chiaroscuro, this painting is pretty clunky. Kind of flat, spatially. The right arm and hand looks like a bolt-on, like it doesn't even fit within the frame let alone the composition. I'm skeptical. My gut says no.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 136||11/19/2017|
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 137||11/19/2017|
r136 is the autistic party guest just interrupting a conversation.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 138||11/19/2017|
Sorry to spoil the light-hearted banter R138, but it's boring the fuck out of me.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 139||11/19/2017|
Actually, your post was good, R139. It's R138 and his "presenting hole" series of posts that are tedious and add absolutely nothing to the conversation.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 140||11/19/2017|
Alastair Sooke mentions in R3 that experts were impressed by a pentimento in the raised hand's thumb, as if a reasonably clever forger wouldn't have thought to build that in. Tsk, tsk. Too thin, cutie.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 141||11/19/2017|
Oh dear. Sorry, r140, if a couple people having a little fun is so terribly boring. Please do, continue, r141.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 142||11/19/2017|
'Would love to see this painting under UV and infrared lighting. 'Looks like the dog's dinner as it is -- there seems to be have been lot of skinning and inpainting -- if not overpainting -- from past restoration. Looks like signs of water damage to me. Panel is bowed pretty badly, and there was significant paint loss in vertically running "channels".
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 143||11/19/2017|
If this were truly a Leonardo, who didn't do that many paintings actually, it is truly priceless.
A Renaissance art expert, however, on NPR did mention that it just as too many of the stylistic techniques attributable to Leonardo jumbled together in one painting--which makes it suspect.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 144||11/19/2017|
R144 That is called a pastiche, and is indeed an attribute of many forgeries.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 145||11/19/2017|
Forgeries get passed off all the time as real and fool many professionals.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 146||11/19/2017|
I read a book a year ago about this forger living in a barn in England who forged hundreds of famous paintings--credibly--using house paint instead of art paint, and people believed it. He finally got caught after many years and did time.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 147||11/19/2017|
Christ's left shoulder is really awkward looking. Way too high and misshapen. It's as if in a previous cleaning, a pentimento was uncovered there. In other words, the artist intended the shoulder to be lower and and more natural and made corrections which were reversed by a restorer.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 148||11/19/2017|
I visited Leonardo's atelier often and I don't recall ever seeing this painting there.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 149||11/19/2017|
R146 Non-invasive, portable tools, like an XRF gun, which have become affordable in recent years, have embarrassed many a museum official. Let's just say that more than a few paintings are quietly being put into storage.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 150||11/19/2017|
I would say, don't bet your life on ANY of it. While money is a renewable commodity, your life is not, and you WILL get burned sooner or later in the - ahem - art market.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 151||11/19/2017|
R150, LOL. That's the thing about connosieurship--not foolproof, evidently. I remember reading Rene Gimpel's books, and even he thought some very famous paintings hanging in museums were fakes.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 152||11/19/2017|
So people (investors - business conglomerates - these days) buy NAMES, otherwise magnificent paintings by forgers would be be honored, right? Because art is supposed to be about how it makes you feel, right? For me and you - and the great majority who are not 1 percenters - it really comes down to the axiom, Buy What You Like, and really you can never go wrong that way.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 153||11/19/2017|
R153, well, they're no magnificent paintings because the forger did not come up with the painting or the style himself.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 154||11/19/2017|
R154 I must disagree. All artists rip each other off, in the first place, and many cashiered Old Masters are beloved.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 155||11/19/2017|
I had a life-changing experience when I saw The Last Supper in July. I know the whole mural is now basically a reconstruction and there are barely any of Leonardo's brush-strokes left on that wall but it's still a magnificent sight to see.
His paintings, on the other hand, never did much for me. The only one I really like is "La belle ferronnière" but they're not even sure if it really is Leonardo's (as is the case with most of his other paintings).
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 156||11/19/2017|
Great example R156. I think I heard that about 2% of The Last Supper is original.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 157||11/19/2017|
It's 20% according to that documentary because Leo took too long to paint and the plaster would dry before he decided what to do next.
And in only a matter of decades the painting started to deteriorate.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 158||11/19/2017|
the restoration of The Last Supper is a horror.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 159||11/19/2017|
You should take a look at the Sistine Chapel which was turned into the Sunday comics.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 160||11/19/2017|
[quote] the restoration of The Last Supper is a horror.
I disagree. It's 100% better
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 161||11/19/2017|
If this turns out to be a fake (or 'school of' painting) - can the buyer claim compensation from the experts at Christie's, who vouched for its authenticity? Can the buyer claim the full amount paid for the painting ($450m) or is there an insurance limit?
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 162||11/20/2017|
R162 That would cause an earthquake in the art world, and ruin Christie's reputation for a long time.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 163||11/20/2017|
I dunno R160 -- there's no accounting for taste. It may be that those garish colors are accurate.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 164||11/20/2017|
R162, there is actually a guarantee offered by Christie's on the authenticity of the Leonardo, but it expires after 4 years.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 165||11/20/2017|
This painting will always be suspect and it was a bad purchase. However, the only stakeholder I wish bad things for is the auction house.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 166||11/20/2017|
They're speculating that Jeff Bezos bought it, that last year he sold some stock for over 1 billion dollars. The article claims Bezos is the world's richest man. Well. Amazon dominates the sales world, that's for sure.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 167||11/25/2017|
OP's Jesus looks like he's been smoking weed.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 168||11/25/2017|
r59, take a nap, grumpy.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 169||11/27/2017|
r146 very few of them actually do fool museum curators. That's a myth the art world propagates to prevent the financial house of cards from collapsing.
Many paintings are taken in as donations, aka tax avoidance schemes from rich donors. In order for that to work, they have to be valued. Part of the value is of course the authentication. Museum officials can easily find 'experts' willing to state attribution, but with certain caveats that let them off the hook if the works' origin is challenged. That doesn't mean their own curators are necessarily fooled.
If collector X is bequeathing your institution his billion dollar collection with known masterpieces, you're not going to sweat a few of them with dodgy origins.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 170||11/27/2017|
Revealed! The purchaser is a "mysterious" minor-league Saudi prince who is a good friend of the new power-mad Saudi crown prince.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 171||12/06/2017|
Jesus looks very Italian street boy there.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 172||12/06/2017|
In fact, I think I've seen that Jesus up from Bensonhurst hustling and selling weed at Uncle Julius bar back in the day.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 173||12/06/2017|
If I'm going to pay $450 million for a painting, I want to see both hands.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 174||12/06/2017|
So a Saudi prince bought it. Strange: first, wrong religion and second, Islam forbids art that shows the human form.
I know, I know it is merely a way to launder money.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 175||12/06/2017|
Analysis of the sale:
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 176||12/07/2017|
Supposedly going to the Louvre Abu Dhabi.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 177||12/07/2017|
This is all about money laundering.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 178||12/07/2017|
You can get a good reproduction of this painting on framed canvas for $160 from Amazon.com. I'm getting one next year to hang in my living room.
|by MichelangelDOH!||reply 179||12/07/2017|