Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Alleged da Vinci Painting 'Salvator Mundi' Sells for $450M(!)

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 17912/07/2017

It’s fake I own the original.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 111/15/2017

I just wish they'd stop referring to Leonardo as "da Vinci".

by MichelangelDOH!reply 211/15/2017

Oh brother, art world da Vinci fangurl alert:

by MichelangelDOH!reply 311/15/2017

Someone paid half a bil not for what da Vinci slapped on the canvas, but for what restorers did.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 411/15/2017

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 511/15/2017

That is one creepy Jesus.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 611/15/2017

Christie's made a video of the people viewing the painting. See Leo DiCaprio at 3:08. Patti Smith somewhere there.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 711/15/2017

He’s not even cute

by MichelangelDOH!reply 811/15/2017

OP - The fact that it sold for $450 million shows it's not a fake. And that people are incredibly stupid.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 911/15/2017

[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 1011/15/2017

He looks like Mona Lisa's brother who stays in his room all day smoking weed and playing guitar.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 1111/15/2017

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 1211/15/2017

R2 why shouldn't they call him da Vinci?

by MichelangelDOH!reply 1311/15/2017

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 1411/15/2017

The buyer is probably Russian or Chinese, R14.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 1511/15/2017

It's like he's staring directly into my eyes.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 1611/15/2017

R15 Probably some autistic Chinese billionaire

by MichelangelDOH!reply 1711/15/2017

Sell this crap to the tasteless Chinese.

Everyone wins!

by MichelangelDOH!reply 1811/15/2017

sizemeat verificata?

by MichelangelDOH!reply 1911/15/2017

R18 Chinese have zero taste. Among the rudest people you will ever meet too.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 2011/15/2017

Looks genuine to me

by MichelangelDOH!reply 2111/15/2017

[quote]dl meme

only to you, sweetie

by MichelangelDOH!reply 2211/15/2017

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 2311/15/2017

R23 The owner before that bought it for $10,000 at an estate sale.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 2411/15/2017

Fran Lebowitz on the $120 million Picasso gets to the point.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 2511/15/2017

OMG I *so* need to make thought bubbles for the vid @ rR7

by MichelangelDOH!reply 2611/15/2017

It's a fake. Or a school of.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 2711/15/2017

Oh yeah Sal, I went to school with that guy. Heza good fella.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 2811/15/2017

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 is a major sin.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 2911/15/2017

R24, that's one lucky bastard.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 3011/15/2017

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 3111/15/2017

What does his hole look like?

by MichelangelDOH!reply 3211/15/2017

Leibowitz is one broke bitch, and she’s a little touchy about it.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 3311/15/2017

When it comes to religious art, da Vinci is a hack.

Bouguereau, on the other hand, is a true master.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 3411/15/2017

[quote]Another thing Fran Leibowitz said: "You don't earn a billion dollars--you steal it."

Like you'd know, cunt!

by MichelangelDOH!reply 3511/15/2017

Jesus looks trans in this new painting

by MichelangelDOH!reply 3611/15/2017

Carl Bloch, another master

by MichelangelDOH!reply 3711/15/2017

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 3811/15/2017

Julius Kronberg's David and Saul is also sublime.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 3911/15/2017

[quote]looks like some Renaissance tranny

With a webbed neck

by MichelangelDOH!reply 4011/15/2017

Bitch has NO chin and/or is a linebacker.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 4111/15/2017


Suck on that, bitch at r33.

Oh and r35, so can you, cunt!

by MichelangelDOH!reply 4211/15/2017

I'm surprised she has that much money...from answering questions in college auditoriums?

by MichelangelDOH!reply 4311/15/2017

r34 and r37, more Datalounge art experts. MARYS!

by MichelangelDOH!reply 4411/15/2017

Bouguereau = dragqueen ... da Vinci = the real thing

by MichelangelDOH!reply 4511/15/2017

Amazing how much money some people have. And what they do with it.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 4611/15/2017

It was considered a fake until at least 2005, according to the OP article.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 4711/15/2017

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 4811/15/2017

Large version

by MichelangelDOH!reply 4911/16/2017

Flemish counterpart

by MichelangelDOH!reply 5011/16/2017

And this one is really eerie: side by side comparison with the Shroud of Turin

by MichelangelDOH!reply 5111/16/2017

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 5211/16/2017

The original (before restoration)?

by MichelangelDOH!reply 5311/16/2017

And the Duke of Devonshire owns Leonardo drawings.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 5411/16/2017

Split screen

by MichelangelDOH!reply 5511/16/2017

Jesus looks stoned.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 5611/16/2017

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 5711/16/2017

Sounds as if the buyer went slightly mad and HAD to have it.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 5811/16/2017

please Fran, get your facts RIGHT. + Steve Wynn is NOT blind ( eyesight going but still....) I used to like

not so much.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 5911/16/2017

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 6011/16/2017

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 6111/16/2017

Jesus looks stoned.

—Anonymous ... Well to believe you are the son of to take away the sins of the world, you've got to be high on something

by MichelangelDOH!reply 6211/16/2017

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 6311/16/2017

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 6411/16/2017

A one hour documentary about this painting and Da Vinci in general.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 6511/16/2017

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 6611/16/2017

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 6711/16/2017

[post redacted because 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 6811/16/2017

Does the sale price include the auction premium? If not, how much would this premium be?

by MichelangelDOH!reply 6911/16/2017

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 7011/16/2017

Saltz feels it's a fake.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 7111/16/2017

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 7211/16/2017

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 7311/16/2017

Moment Leonardo da Vinci's Salvator Mundi sells for record-breaking $400m .

I can't even afford a Bob Ross original. :-(

by MichelangelDOH!reply 7411/16/2017

R74 obviously voted for Trump. She sounds like a monumental sap.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 7511/16/2017

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 7611/16/2017

R73 They are exactly as R72 described them: "tacky sentimental kitsch"

by MichelangelDOH!reply 7711/16/2017

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 7811/16/2017

Article re r76

by MichelangelDOH!reply 7911/16/2017

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 8011/16/2017

r76 that's horrible. losing our culture to greed.

r78 what do you mean?

by MichelangelDOH!reply 8111/16/2017

Maybe Bill Gates bought it to go with his da Vinci notebooks.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 8211/16/2017

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 8311/16/2017

[quote] looks like some Renaissance tranny

Oh you're going to hell for sure.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 8411/16/2017

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 8511/16/2017

maybe it's the restoration, maybe it's because it's not by Leonardo, but that painting is crap.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 8611/16/2017

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 8711/16/2017

Why is everyone sooooo awestruck in the video? Why is Patti Smith wearing shades in a darkened room?

by MichelangelDOH!reply 8811/16/2017

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 8911/16/2017

[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 9011/16/2017

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 9111/16/2017

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 9211/16/2017

Landering front

by MichelangelDOH!reply 9311/16/2017

Do you mean like Ann Landers?

by MichelangelDOH!reply 9411/16/2017

I think the video of the people staring at the painting in R7 is more fascinating than the painting.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 9511/17/2017

"Transvestitor Mundi"

by MichelangelDOH!reply 9611/17/2017

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 9711/17/2017

#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 9811/17/2017

Cher D'El Centro

by MichelangelDOH!reply 9911/17/2017

"Salvator Mundi" could pass for Mona Lisa's brother or Mona Lisa in drag.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 10011/17/2017

Money laundering.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 10111/17/2017

What happened to his cigarette?

by MichelangelDOH!reply 10211/17/2017

I found the model.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 10311/17/2017

[R37] [R39] [R34] = Donald Trump

by MichelangelDOH!reply 10411/17/2017

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 10511/17/2017

Yay! My da Vinci just went up!

by MichelangelDOH!reply 10611/17/2017

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 10711/17/2017

R107, Russian oligarchs spend on ending human lives.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 10811/17/2017

Ha, yes, R108!

by MichelangelDOH!reply 10911/17/2017

R7, That video really was wonderful. Thanks!

by MichelangelDOH!reply 11011/17/2017

There are billions of ordinary human lives worth nothing.

How many verified Da Vinci paintings are there?

by MichelangelDOH!reply 11111/17/2017

R111, Wikipedia says about 24.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 11211/17/2017

R112, yes, and there are questions over even some of those. The number of unquestioned Leonardos seems closer to 15.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 11311/17/2017

[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 11411/17/2017

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 11511/18/2017

[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 11611/18/2017

[quote] His lover (and greatest student)

R57, wasn't his closest 'companion' a 14-year-old boy apprentice?

by MichelangelDOH!reply 11711/18/2017

that Jesus has major gay face

by MichelangelDOH!reply 11811/18/2017


That's what I said, but they still hung me upside down and pissed on me.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 11911/18/2017


I disagree

by MichelangelDOH!reply 12011/18/2017

Well he didn't stay 14.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 12111/18/2017

[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 12211/18/2017

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 12311/18/2017

r52, the Leonardo painting you refer to is in the Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 12411/18/2017

R124, (and I'm not R52) that painting is on loan; it is still privately owned.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 12511/18/2017

What is she about to do to that baby???

by MichelangelDOH!reply 12611/19/2017

You lost, r126, hunty?

by MichelangelDOH!reply 12711/19/2017

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 12811/19/2017

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 12911/19/2017

The Duke of Buccleuch lives VERY grandly.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 13011/19/2017

And will the Duke of Buccleuch present noble in his manor on Christmas?

by MichelangelDOH!reply 13111/19/2017

*noble hole

by MichelangelDOH!reply 13211/19/2017

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 13311/19/2017

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 13411/19/2017

Noble ginger hole presented by Walter Scott the Earl of Dalkeith.

Sounds very pretty.

Gives new meaning to "exhibiting my Leonardo."

by MichelangelDOH!reply 13511/19/2017

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 13611/19/2017

Warhol Jesus

by MichelangelDOH!reply 13711/19/2017

r136 is the autistic party guest just interrupting a conversation.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 13811/19/2017

Sorry to spoil the light-hearted banter R138, but it's boring the fuck out of me.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 13911/19/2017

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 14011/19/2017

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 14111/19/2017

Oh dear. Sorry, r140, if a couple people having a little fun is so terribly boring. Please do, continue, r141.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 14211/19/2017

'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 14311/19/2017

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 14411/19/2017

R144 That is called a pastiche, and is indeed an attribute of many forgeries.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 14511/19/2017

Forgeries get passed off all the time as real and fool many professionals.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 14611/19/2017

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 14711/19/2017

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 14811/19/2017

I visited Leonardo's atelier often and I don't recall ever seeing this painting there.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 14911/19/2017

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 15011/19/2017

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 15111/19/2017

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 15211/19/2017

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 15311/19/2017

R153, well, they're no magnificent paintings because the forger did not come up with the painting or the style himself.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 15411/19/2017

R154 I must disagree. All artists rip each other off, in the first place, and many cashiered Old Masters are beloved.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 15511/19/2017

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 15611/19/2017

Great example R156. I think I heard that about 2% of The Last Supper is original.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 15711/19/2017

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 15811/19/2017

the restoration of The Last Supper is a horror.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 15911/19/2017

You should take a look at the Sistine Chapel which was turned into the Sunday comics.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 16011/19/2017

[quote] the restoration of The Last Supper is a horror.

I disagree. It's 100% better

by MichelangelDOH!reply 16111/19/2017

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 16211/20/2017

R162 That would cause an earthquake in the art world, and ruin Christie's reputation for a long time.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 16311/20/2017

I dunno R160 -- there's no accounting for taste. It may be that those garish colors are accurate.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 16411/20/2017

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 16511/20/2017

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 16611/20/2017

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 16711/25/2017

OP's Jesus looks like he's been smoking weed.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 16811/25/2017

r59, take a nap, grumpy.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 16911/27/2017

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 17011/27/2017

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 17112/06/2017

Jesus looks very Italian street boy there.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 17212/06/2017

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 17312/06/2017

If I'm going to pay $450 million for a painting, I want to see both hands.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 17412/06/2017

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 17512/06/2017

Analysis of the sale:

by MichelangelDOH!reply 17612/07/2017

Supposedly going to the Louvre Abu Dhabi.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 17712/07/2017

This is all about money laundering.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 17812/07/2017

You can get a good reproduction of this painting on framed canvas for $160 from I'm getting one next year to hang in my living room.

by MichelangelDOH!reply 17912/07/2017
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.


Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!