Leonardo and the Salvator Mundi Painting

London’s prestigious National Gallery is about to open a major show of Leonardo da Vinci paintings.  Included in this exhibition will be a painting formally called Salvator Mundi or Savior of the World.  Art Historians and Leonardo scholars believe this painting to be by Leonardo which is why it will be included in the exhibition but there is no absolute proof that this work of art, though acknowledged to be exceedingly fine, is in fact by Leonardo.  I am asking you to read an article from the Los Angeles Times  (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-charney-leonardo-20111106,0,2568694.story) and offer your thoughts on this attribtion as a Leonardo work of art.  You might also visit London’s  National Gallery website  (http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/) for additional information regarding the Salvator Mundi and the larger Leonardo exhibition.

Advertisements

49 comments on “Leonardo and the Salvator Mundi Painting

  1. Tasha Jenkins says:

    I’m not sure featuring the “Salvator Mundi” painting as a work of Leonardo da Vinci should be done without the proper conclusions being met. They have dated the painting to da Vinci’s time, which is needed, but I think that scholars need to not only look at it to judge whether it is one of da Vinci’s paintings, but they also need to eliminate the possibility that it could be done by Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. By determining that the painting isn’t likely to be Boltraffio’s I think it would be easier to believe that it is actually da Vinci’s. If the exhibit makes note that “Salvator Mundi” is not definitively da Vinci’s, it could be a great learning example to people visiting the exhibit and could shed some light on the behind-the-scenes work done by scholars to authenticate works of art.

    • Robin McKinney says:

      I agree with you. I think we can only rely on what the experts say. We have no other options. They can only rule out the other possibilities and say that it fits, but they may never be 100% sure of their findings. I think the work of art should still be added to his other work, but with the notion that it is uncertain. I also agree that when they decide one way or another, this would be a great learning tool.

  2. Brianna Maxim says:

    I think that even though the painting looks like Leonardo’s doesn’t mean it should be labeled as his artwork. Just putting it up in the Leonardo exhibit and saying it looks like his but we aren’t sure, shows that a conclusion hasn’t been made and it makes it look like they didn’t really care too much about whose it was before they put it up. Proving something true is harder that proving something to be false, so I agree with Tasha Jenkins that they must first at least prove that the painting was not created by Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio’s. For good measure, they could check some of the other painters of that time and comparing the artwork as well.

  3. Casey Teator says:

    Basically I agree with what they said. There is no real proof that it isnt Giovanni Antonio Boltraffios painting. They even said that they ran tests that even people could find ways to surpass. They did not compare this artwork to any other artists artwork. There are numerous ways that they could still test this even if it takes time or its difficult. There is no conclusion on whos art work this is and hopefully they dont just give up and say that its Leonardos just because it looks like him. Who knows, it could be his for real or it could be Giovannis. Maybe we will find out soon!

  4. Lauren Lantrip says:

    This must be a hard choice for them. If it is a long lost painting of Da Vinci, that would be wonderful and it would really bring in the people, but if it isn’t it would not be right to place it in the Da Vinci gallery. I don’t think that is should be allowed, but I’m not saying you can’t place it in another gallery, and label it something like, “Thought to be Da Vinci Long Lost Painting.” Just because it fits his style and looks like his work, doesn’t mean it’s his. Like it said in the article, there are tons of talented artists who attempt to re-create or imitate another artist’s work. I think it’s too risky to place it in the gallery under the name of Da Vinci. Who knows, maybe they want this controversy to attract more business and attention.

  5. Sela Tuamoheloa says:

    It seems very logical to me to place the Salvator Mundi in Leonardo da Vinci’s new exhibit.
    Prior to this finding, it was documented that there were studies of the Salvator Mundi done by da Vinci, which was common for him to do before he completed a painting. It was also documented that he was commissioned to paint this image and it was considered in literature to be a “lost” painting of his.
    There are other works that will be included in this exhibit done by students of da Vinci. Paintings by da Vinci are even acknowledged if it appeared as if someone had added on to it. The experts used were able to distinguish even the most subtle differences in his work and his students. I’m sure these experts are highly credible, for the gallery to label it one of his works.
    The National Gallery’s website states, “The recent restoration of this picture has revealed many of Leonardo’s characteristic working methods.”
    Personally, just by looking at this image I would guess it was done by him. It is very similar to some of the paintings he did as a court artist in Milan. His features, especially his eyes, also remind me of the Mona Lisa.
    Even if it was not done by him, it was done by an excellent student of his, and based on his designs. Therefore, it definitely belongs in this exhibit.

  6. Brandon Booth says:

    Finding a lost work by an extraordinary artists is truly a wonder, if not a miracle. But a lost painting of Leonardo Da Vinci? The man eclipses all expectations and presses the boundaries of the limits of humanity. A painter, a sculptor, an inventor, an engineer, a philosopher, a medical examiner, an author, a teacher, an architect, a statesman… His efforts in these areas are not only remarkable, many went beyond what we would consider genius. The other greats in history – Michelangelo, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, Aristotle – they all pale in comparison. So to find a lost work of Leonardo, it is truly a great thing. This is the importance of Salvator Mundi.

    But is it real? I am not qualified to answer this question, so I will leave it to the experts to decide. The different methods of examination and verification, “the scientific, the historical and the visceral reactions of connoisseur,” according to the LA Times, are all very amazing, and I am confident that the experts will do their best to be impartial and discern the facts. Nevertheless, the question on whether it is ethical to submit Salvator Mundi in the Leonardo exhibit in London still persists. I am of the opinion that they way in which they are portraying the masterpiece – as a suspected, yet non-confirmed, Leonardo – is ethically sound.

    • Kelly Mamo says:

      I agree with you about Leonardo Da Vinci being truly a wonder! It’s too bad he didn’t leave a positive signature somewhere on the Salvator Mundi. Although the London National Gallery is portraying the painting, I am not so sure its ethically since it has not yet confirmed to being painted by him. I think they are including it to raise a draw for the exhibit.

  7. Heather Galloway says:

    From the article it seems to either be by Leonardo himself, or his student Boltraffio. I agree with Sela’s comment that either way it should be in the exhibit. It makes perfect sense from a business standpoint to include it. It’s not every day that art makes its way into the newspapers and with such a scandel. People will go to the exhibit just out of curiosity alone. Whether it is or is not by Leonardo, which none of us are qualified to say, remains to be seen. By the way the article read, there’s no way of ever knowing for certain – since its whereabouts where unknown for 140 years. If someone wants to buy the painting for $200 million that’s up to them. I personally find the painting kind of creepy.

    • Kelly Mamo says:

      I agree with you about adding the painting as a business decision for London’s National Gallery. It will certianly draw more crowds than not because of the controversy. I would lean towards it being painted by his student Boltraffio rather than Da Vinci. If I lived in London, I would check it out!

  8. Shay Lamm says:

        I believe that the museum should put the piece of work out in the museum just because it will now be known as, “Leonardo’s Missing Art,” whenever I will see the picture for the rest of my life I will relate it back to that article and the fact that people thought it was his. In my own experience I do have a great feeling that the piece of work is in fact Leonardo’s because when looking at the, “Last Supper,” painting it kind of looks alike and it is of Jesus.  Also Leonardo came up with the sfumato form of dry paint that Leonardo brought to the fore, is that just accidental? Yes someone could be copying him but we will have to wait and see what the results are.

    • Ricky Blomberg says:

      It may look like something of his, but even in the article is says how he was even a popular artist in his own time, so someone could have easily just copied his style and form. Does it even say their will be results? I don’t even know how they can say who’s work is who’s anyways. They don’t REALLY know unless the historical documents line up, but just because it was from the same time period ect ect ect. doesn’t mean anything.

  9. Ricky Blomberg says:

    I like how the journalist who wrote this claims that the transparent orb is supposed to be a symbol for the earth, but if no one knows who actually painted this picture how can you say what that is a symbol for. And again, how can you even make claim that this is supposed to be Jesus Christ? Is the title of the painting somewhere on the painting, and if so why didn’t the artist leave his name somewhere? There are too many questions and too much speculation, but no hard facts. And just because it has a form or brush stroke that Leonardo da Vinci doesn’t mean it was his. Someone could sound like a certain popular musician and he might not put his name on a song that he sings, but does that mean that it is the popular singers name just because their voices are similar? See what I mean. This is the main thing that always comes up, opinion and speculation. I want hard facts, and no one is there to ever give them. I do like how at the end he says that no one really knows, but then why are these people trying to pawn it off as da Vinci’s? They are just assuming everyone will eventually accept it as his. They don’t even know who’s possession it was in for almost 150 years, so it might not even be the real deal. It was only found again a little over 100 years ago, so someone could be fooling with us.

  10. Brittany Rowland says:

    It is a very great painting to look at, however, I cannot be the judge of whether it is real or fake or not obviously. The proper tests should be done though before they try to pass it off in an art show as one of Leonardo’s great pieces. I found it very interesting that in the article it mentioned that many people who forge artwork can have even figured out how to date the wood so it appears to be centuries old. That is a real blow to the art world in my opinion. What’s to say that many of the so called “lost” paintings that arise or even ones thought to be original, are in fact the real deal. However it seems to have a valid history of where it came from and appears with what little evidence they have that the painting was actually owned by King Charles I in 1649. To me it’s just a toss-up on who actually painted it. They mentioned in the article that there was speculation that it was painted by a pupil of Da Vinci’s named Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. With no proof of the painting actually being painted by Leonardo da Vinci, I am left on the fence with this one.

  11. Kelly Mamo says:

    According to the Los Angeles Times, there are several factors to consider when trying to determine if a painting is to be deemed “painted” by someone else. First, connoisseurship(expects determining whether it looks like something an artist has done), then provenance — the documented history of an object, and lastly, scientific analysis (the wood and paint can be tested to see if they are the same on paintings Da Vinci did paint) needed to be considered before Leonardo Da Vinci could be labeled the artist of Salvator Mundi.

    In this particular case, I supppose it’s possible Da Vinci painted it however, I don’t believe it to be true. There is always some kind of new “find” that sort of draws in people to see something for themselves. I think this may be the case in the exhibition of Salvator Mundi at the London National Gallery.

  12. Sean Reilly says:

    After reading the article provided above from the Los Angles Times, there is no doubt that even mentioning Leonardo Da Vinci in the same breath as a painting will bring about an arousal. Da Vinci has had an enormous number of beautiful and legendary paintings that almost everyone in the world can recognize. The story about the Mona Lisa during WWII showed just how prized a work of art by Da Vinci is worth. I think it is a great honor and tribute for the work of Da Vinci that the London National Gallery is putting on this display of his works.

    But the real question here is whether or not the painting “Salvator Mundi” should be included in the show. In a time where forgeries were not on the forefront of the art world, there would be no question that it would be included at the London National Gallery. However, we live in a time characterized by dishonesty and must be hesitant to believe something wonderful has surfaced. While it is very possible that the painting has surfaced after 60 years of unknown where a bouts, we feel the need to examine it further. As mentioned in the article, the painting matches with the time Da Vinci would have painted it and the tools used also match. The article does a good job in providing the reader with doubt about the authenticity of the painting by adding in a piece about ancient Chinese forged pottery. In conclusion, I believe the painting should be included in the show as it provides a stigma that the art world needs. I think it is great for the art world to have a discovery like this and if it does turn out to be fake, then at the least it brought about a interest to the world of art that has been missing from the main stream for quite some time.

  13. Robin McKinney says:

    I think it is a non rational issue. It cannot be proven or disproved. I’m not sure that it should be up in an art gallery with the rest of his art, but it does not make sense to not have it up either. Maybe it should be up in Leonardo’s section, but have the plaque tell the arguments. If it was his apprentice or whoever, they probably will not be able to ever find out. We only have the experts to fall back on and if it was an apprentice, he may have used the same tools or paint as Leonardo. During that time maybe the same supplies for artist make it difficult to ever say whether it is real or not. I think the best we can do is rely on the art experts, like Kemp, to tell us his thoughts. We have nothing else to go on and we would have to just go by his best judgement.

  14. I think that adding the painting to the exhibition is alright. They have done as much research and investigation to try to prove that it is in fact Leonard’s painting. Although they are not one hundred percent sure about it I feel that they should include that on the paintings information in the exhibition. I think that the audience has aright to know that the painting may or may not be Leonardo’s painting. I feel that the painting should be included and left to the audience’s perception.

  15. Mitch Cain says:

    Adding the painting to the exhibition is acceptable in my view, but only under the condition that it is clearly identified as THOUGHT to be a work of Da Vinci as opposed to having been confirmed as a piece crafted by his hand. I believe that one must be honest when presenting information to the public, and the doubt that surrounds this piece ought to cause the curator of this museum to detail, in large print, the doubts surrounding this piece.

    The painting itself is magnificent, and should be on display regardless of the creator. I am comfortable with the piece adjoining other works by Leonardo, but only on the grounds that such information is made available to the public.

    • Helen Marie Brandon says:

      I think it’s a good idea that they identify the painting as a possible Leonardo, as well. I doubt they will ever know for sure, so the public should not be under the impression it is 100-percent his, especially considering the price of the painting will increase much if it is truly identified as his. You are completely right when you say honesty is important in a situation like this.

      I think the painting is beautiful as well, and I would not be surprised to find that it was Leonardo’s. It definitely looks like some of his earlier pieces, but it still could have been done by someone who greatly appreciated his artistic style.

      Good job!

  16. Helen Marie Brandon says:

    I don’t think that anyone will ever be able to say for certain that this is a Leonardo painting. However, I will agree there is strong reason to believe it to be so. Scientific evidence shows it was created in his time and pigments correspond with other Leonardos. What convinces me most is the sfumato effect that was used on the painting, something that Leonardo made popular. However, I don’t think it would be a far reach to say that this was painted by someone who knew him and his style well, like the pupil the article mentioned. Ultimately, we may never know, but it is obvious Leonardo at least influenced the painting.

    I think it’s a good idea to put this in the exhibition. This will allow fellow Leonardo fans to judge for themselves. Maybe they will see something the experts didn’t that will leave no doubt that it is Leonardo’s.

  17. Kristian Garcia says:

    I do not think they should include “Salvator Mundi” into the art exhibit unless without a doubt that it is the work of Leonardo da Vinci’s painting. At least research on the background the history and everything else to make sure it is really his work. Just because the style and the painting resembles that of da Vinci, it does not necessarily mean that he is the one who painted it. many people could have copied his work, or copy his style. Even in the article, it states, “Leonardo was so famous during his lifetime that flocks of artists, from his own circle and elsewhere, sought to imitate his style.” The researchers should scrutinize every inch, every detail to make sure that it is da Vinci’s work just to make sure he is not getting the credit of another artist.

  18. Marel Gil says:

    I agree with some of my classmates. I dont think that “Salvator Mundi” should be included under Leonardo da Vinci’s exhibition. I feel that paints done by Leonardo that can be proven should be shown and if they wanted as a tribute to him, have artwork done by his students and lovers and why not include this one for everyone to come and take a stab and let it up to them to figure out if it is or isn’t. Even though through science we can tell the date in which it was made, like the article mentioned, we can not be sure if it was not someone else who did it at the same time as da Vinci. If anything, I think that more historical background is needed to be able to determine if this is indeed one of Leonardo’s “lost” paintings. How do we know if some other painter, famous or not, Leonardo imitator or not, tried something out that was different and this was the end result; an imitation of Leonardo’s style of painting. I also agree that so much more research should be done before the title of “Leonardo’s ‘Lost’ painting” is put onto “Salvator Mundi”.

  19. Alex-Arthur Williams says:

    If their was more evidence that Salvator Mundi was created by Leonardo their would be no risk puting it in a exibition featuring Leonardo Da Vinci work. Since their is not enough evidence the way they can gain more info on it is by comparing Mundi to other art pieces that Da Vinci is know for and pieces he did that aren’t well known done by him and go from their to determining the connection of the painting.

  20. Eason Dong says:

    I don’t think it matters. This is a historic art piece and we should all apperciate it. Only a few scholars had access to it shows to me that those scholars should have a very comfortbale feeling about whether this picutre belongs to Da Vinci or not. Never the less, it is a great opportunity for the art lovers and Da Vinci fans to look at it.

    • Lauren Lantrip says:

      Good point. You’re right, just because it isn’t for sure a DaVinci painting doesn’t mean that it’s any less worth appreciation.

  21. Stephanie Gonzales says:

    It seems as if even the article cannot quite decided what to do about the painting. It mentions that yes there is scientific reason to believe it is real yet at the same time says there are ways to get around carbon dating. While there is no clear answer to the question of validity I do not feel that is reason enough to disregard the painting. It is wonderfully beautiful and should be appreciated; although, I feel that it should be known it may or may not be Da Vinci’s. As mentioned in a previous post the painting should be “clearly identified as THOUGHT to be” a work of his.

  22. jessica baker says:

    The article seems just as undecided as if feel if it is real or not. But weather or not I agree with the other classmates that its a art piece that shouldn’t go unlooked at. Yes; it probably be very sad if it wasn’t his but sometimes some things are better left un said.

  23. The painting by Leonardo da Vinci titled Salvator Mundi (Savior of the World) has been newly discovered. Dating around 1500, it shows a half-length Christ facing front while holding a transparent orb as he raises his other hand in benediction (Charney). Much debate has gone around regarding the authenticity of the artwork. It does adhere to Leonardo’s style but is it really Leonardo’s? It can be taken into consideration that Leonardo has been followed by quite a number of students both in his time and until now. His style has been studied, his subjects copied. It would really be a challenge to prove without a doubt if this is the original. However, being included in the exhibit, “Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the Court of Milan” in the National Gallery in London is already a positive comment towards its attribution.

    In order to establish authenticity, an artwork in question would have to go through a rigorous process of examining its materials, craftsmanship, style and documented history. Further weight towards attribution would then be provided by the stamp of approval from the international scholars with their exceptional expertise (Charney). In reflection, Salvator Mundi has gone through all the necessary prerequisites to prove its mark in the art world. Basing on the unequivocal consensus of the experts, it has arrived into the fore as the ‘lost’ Leonardo masterpiece and would now only have to endure the test of time.

  24. Asia Polee says:

    On the painting of Salvator Mundi there is no actual way to authenticate or determine this artwork as Leonardo da Vinci’s. I believe for now that professionals need to conclude or assume that it is indeed Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio’s before labeling it as an addition to one of Leonardo da Vinci’s collection. There should be more proof before making this ultimate decision, until now we’re just uncertain of this fact.

    Learning Module Romanesque to Gothic:
    My thoughts on Romanesque and Gothic art is that this was a time period of art that expressed both beauty and darkness of society. Rome displayed power, strength and glory in their art which was a popular theme in the arena sports and astonishing. Gothic art was a frontier to the masses of society at that point. The glass windows in the church’s as Holy Scriptures signifying light from the sun. I don’t have a specific preference in style I do love the Gothic appeal. The rose colored windows, majestic stones, flying cathedral buttresses and pointed arches. The image that intrigue me the most was the Cathedral of Pisa Bell Tower, known as the “Leaning Tower.” Very graceful in stature not quite perfect but rustic, unique and grandeur in it’s own way. The image that left me disinterested was the Saint Pierre Jamb Statue. The use of the monstrous form of Gargoyles as symbolic form of chaos without restriction leaves me a bit uneasy and not as connected to the animalistic vibe.

  25. dana vargas says:

    I also agree with Tasha Jenkins. They must prove that the painting was not created by Boltraffio before they imply that it could be made my Leonardo Da Vinci. It would not be wise to put false facts out into the National Gallery in London. I think the most appropriate place for this painting would be in perhaps another gallery. I think that it still deserves the credit of having its beauty shown to the world, but not in the Leonardo Da Vinci Gallery since experts are not 100% sure on who the artist was.

  26. Michael Leary says:

    I’m sort of mixed on the whole thing. If there are still factors about the painting that have yet to be confirmed, especially if one of those factors is the one who created the painting, I don’t think it should be included in the gallery. If there’s a work of art meant to celebrate the artist who made it, I think all the facts better be straight and it better be confirmed that it really does belong to the artist. That said, there’s also a sort of attraction to something like this. People enjoy a good mystery behind a work of art. Including it in your gallery could definitely bring in many people who would like to experience the mystery and scandal behind something as amazing as a painting.

  27. Bonnie Sam says:

    There’s many ways to look at this situation since the painting hasn’t been officially authenticated to figure out who the painting belongs to. Although the painting is between Leonardo da Vinci and his student Boltraffio, it is more difficult to authenticate the differences. I think ‘Savior Mundi’ should be included in the gallery because it is believed to be done by da Vinci and the possibility of the work being done by Boltraffio gives the gallery enough reason to include the painting in the collection. The relation and similarities tied between da Vinci and Boltraffio should qualify the painting to be part of the collection at the gallery. Also the gallery itself could include this extra piece to specifically state that the painting is anonymous to a certain extend of who’s work it belongs to.

  28. Margaret de la Rosa says:

    After reading the article, I am still undecided about whether or not I agree that “Salvator Mundi” is a true Leonardo original. They brought up good points that made it easier to support, however, I am not sure I am totally sold. I feel as if art scholars and historians need to dig deeper in order to truly find the answer. Having said that, I think that including the piece in Leonardo’s gallery poses no threat to its authenticity as its inclusion could be a great way to compare it against the other legitimate works of Leonardo. If anything, including it in the gallery may actually help art scholars better determine whether its an original or not.

  29. Kelly Lytle says:

    I have to say that I think that they should put the “Salvator Mundi” painting in Leonardo’s collection. Even though it may or may not be his, it is linked to Leonardo. It would show people how popular he was and how much he was admired as a painter. The article said that it might even been the work of one of his pupils, Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. There were a few good facts that may lead it to be a painting of Leonardo’s but they shouldn’t rule out that it also may belong to Botraffio. I think that the experts should really do some more research before jumping to conclusions and getting everyone excited over who this painting belongs to.

  30. Alexia Betts says:

    Renaissance:
    The foundations of the theories during the renaissance are very interesting. It’s hard to believe that at one point in ancient artistry nudity wasn’t shameful, and then we evolved universally as a people fearful and ashamed of nudity. It always seems as though overtime we have evolved into a collectively immoral society with less values; holding nothing sacred. However, historical art proves that because of Christianity nudity overtime became more appalling and less acceptable, but began as the epitome of beauty. I liked the Nike of Samothrace, because the body is beautiful. I didn’t like Lorenzo Matani’s Last Judgement. I thought it was gross and unappealing.

  31. christina lopez says:

    THOUGHTS ON LEONARDO
    I love the Mona Lisa because I can never understand what makes it so special and one of the best kept secrets of Leonardo. I look at this painting and all I can see is the “fake” smile but to me it looks real. I get lost in the painting but i cannot see beyond what other scientist and artist see with one look. I find Leonardo’s work of art to be amazing and unique compared to others artists. He has a way of simply creating life through his painting and tricking the mind to see what he wants others to see. Truly, Leonardo has the best kept secrets in art and he is the only one who knows them all. Leonardo is the mastermind behind the best works of arts and one of the first to research weaponry and human anatomy.He deserves to be the best in his field of work and he is the great Leonardo Da Vinci

    • CHRISTINA LOPEZ says:

      POwerpoint

      After viewing all the great works of art from Michelangelo, It is hard not to like Michelangelo David and Sistine chapel. I love the facial expression and the details of the body on the David sculpture. I was amazed at the hand details for David and how Michelangelo even added the blood string on the hand. I find it so hard to keep up with every artist because I am not interested in art on a higher level but just as a past time. Therefore, I don’t really have a preference over sculptures and paintings because I do not understand the value behind each skill.I simply look at a painting or sculpture and i judge based on my likings and not on what they represent as art.

  32. Casey Teator says:

    Leonardo:
    Honestly I love the Mona Lisa picture because there is something about it that makes it so different and unique but i just cant tell what it is. It looks simple but then again I just see something special about it. Also, I love the Last Supper. I am not that religious but I am Catholic and just knowing that this has such an important story line behind it, makes it that much more special. The colors he used and the setting just made it feel so real. The way they looked is how you would picture it. If someone was telling the story, you would think of Leonardos painting of the Last Supper. I would have to say that he fits into the art style we have talked about if not hes better. Alot of people know Leonardo, I could probably say almost everyone knows who he is. They particularly know his Mona Lisa and Last Supper paintings. He is a very famous artist.

  33. The most intriguing masterpiece of Leonardo is the “Last Supper” painting, in my opionion. The art beautifully reflects the end walls of Santa Maria Delle Grazie. Additionally, it constitutes renowned paintings of the high Renaissance. The portrait has a well displayed explicit painting technique, through which walls are painted in layers. Furthermore, this masterpiece displays a more dramatic narrative that is supported by subtle pectoral illusions. Leonardo has focused on the moments immediately after Christ, told his apostles that among them there was a betrayer. This continues with the illustration of the Eucharist. Notably, the portrait reflects an emotion wave that sweeps through the apostles regarding Christ’s statement. Actually, the photo practically portrays an expected scene.
    The statement from Christ is reflected by the art as triggering independent reaction among the apostles. This scene is displayed by the portrait, which shows more actual drama expected in the real scene. Furthermore, Christ’s head is placed centrally in the architect and the frame depicts an architectural opening that seems to be “halo like”. Through these scenes, the photos clearly depict an expectation that is surprising to the apostles.The disappearing head of Christ form a perspective projection that gives the portrait a more architectural setting coverage. Judas, being the betrayer is separated out of the rest to emphasize the lack of “unity” between him and the rest of the disciples. Generally, the photos communicate a lot of issues, which relate to what actually transpired during the last supper.
    Leonardo’s paintings are oriented more to religion, which classically reflect the fading face of the ancient Christianity. These features and architect are not only with Leonardo, but also with other ancient artists. Leonardo’s architects, portray the church as a building of uniform interior that formed the structure of all other Christian churches. Leonardo, through his art, aimed at bringing the humanity and nature together. Leonardo, combined both Christian and classical elements in a symmetric plan, in an attempt to synthesize on knowledge and tradition in a more harmonious and natural way. In conclusion, many scholars have tried to conceptualize Leonardo’s techniques of painting.

  34. Jessica Chang says:

    In my opinion, the possibility of the piece being a modern forgery could be confidently ruled out. According to the article, the majority of the favorable appraisals were done by experts who have spent a considerable amount of their careers studying the works of Leonardo. It goes even further to state that with the X-ray methods of evaluation, the paint blends and wood that the painting contains coincide with that of other authentic Leonardo’s. I think that one way or another, Leonard had an influence more directly than not on the painting’s creation. It was mentioned that early, the painting was deemed to be either an original, or by a student of Leonardo, and I believe that this thinking is our best bet. The reality is that we may never know the true origin, however I do think that painting was created among Leonardo’s presence.

  35. Christiane Dolores says:

    What work of art by Leonardo intrigued you the most and why? The work of art that always intrigues me the most is Leonardo’s Last Supper. The man or woman to the left of Jesus Christ in the painting very much looks like a woman, which to what I understand was being implied in the PowerPoint. There is a lot of history behind this painting and the reason why it intrigues me still is because of the history I have with it. I’ve grown up seeing this picture in my home with my parents, my relatives’ homes, and my friends’ homes. It’s a picture I know very well but I never stared at it for long periods of time as a child or teenager. I honestly never thought to really look at it until I read The Da Vinci Code when I was late in my senior year of high school years back. Although it is very possible it is not true, I thank that book because it let me realize what a beautiful piece of art Leonardo’s painting is.

    What are your thoughts on Leonardo’s place in the pantheon of artists when you compare his “style” with work we have looked at earlier? Leonardo definitely uses his color and, to me, he is realistic and can make anything look beautiful. His style is very distinct from artists we have studied earlier in the course of this semester. His style is subtle, focusing on the person as well as the person’s body language and facial expression. There is mystery behind it as well, as you have no idea what the people in his pieces are thinking or trying to convey. I very much like Leonardo Da Vinci’s style of art.

  36. Christiane Dolores says:

    I honestly do not believe that the Salvator Mundi painting should be displayed/exhibited at London’s prestigious National Gallery. Although it may “seem” like his style, it is not certain 100% whether or not the piece really is in fact Da Vinci’s. Perhaps maybe this piece could be exhibited at a different art museum, in which celebrates Da Vinci’s style with other painters and artists that looked up to his style of painting. I do not think it is fair to put Mundi next to something that we all know for certain is Leonardo’s.

  37. Alexia Betts says:

    Leonardo:
    In comparison to other artists we’ve looked at I think that Leonardo’s work stands out as the most unique as well as the most significant and recognizable. Other than Picasso’s unmistakable style, Leonardo’s work is the most recognizable to me because of the cool colors he uses and the clever definition he gives to faces. I think his work is also the most relatable; unlike Chagall who depicts young lovers flying in the night sky, Leonardo gives us Mona Lisa an average woman with a questionable facial expression.
    As much as I hate to be cliché, Mona Lisa is undeniably my favorite work of Leonardo. Besides the popularity and history behind the piece, I really began to appreciate the ambiguity of the piece after reading The Critic as Artist by Oscar Wilde. There are so many different ways to perceive this piece; it really is just a jumping off point for any critic to go well beyond even the artist’s own intentions for the piece.

  38. Alexia Betts says:

    Leonardo:

    In comparison to other artists we’ve looked at I think that Leonardo’s work stands out as the most unique as well as the most significant and recognizable. Other than Picasso’s unmistakable style, Leonardo’s work is the most recognizable to me because of the cool colors he uses and the clever definition he gives to faces. I think his work is also the most relatable; unlike Chagall who depicts young lovers flying in the night sky, Leonardo gives us Mona Lisa an average woman with a questionable facial expression.
    As much as I hate to be cliché, Mona Lisa is undeniably my favorite work of Leonardo. Besides the popularity and history behind the piece, I really began to appreciate the ambiguity of the piece after reading The Critic as Artist by Oscar Wilde. There are so many different ways to perceive this piece; it really is just a jumping off point for any critic to go well beyond even the artist’s own intentions for the piece.

    first post wrong email address!

  39. Alexia Betts says:

    As far as the Salvator Mundi goes I think that it should be included in the exhibition. From a business stand point it is controversial which will bring more people to the exhibition, but from the appreciation that I’ve gained for art through this class I don’t think that it should be displayed because it is not definitely Leonardo’s work.

  40. Crystal Lancaster says:

    I find it very difficult to display a work of art that is only believed to be painted by Da Vinci. The fact that is only been seen by few scholars make it even more questionable. I don’t think it should be displayed as his work but displayed as a possible painting done by Da Vinci in another section but not with any of his other work. After my own research I do not believe that this is not the work of Da Vinci due to the lack of clarity and detail of his work such as the virgin of the rocks and the last supper.

  41. Kevin Stratton says:

    I don’t think a work of art should be included into an exhibition unless there is evidence to suggest that the “Salvator Mundi” painting is in fact Da Vinci’s work. There is a lot of speculation as to whether or not it is in fact his. In my opinion I do not believe this piece was created by Da Vinci. His other works of art have an extreme amount of detail and the color transitions are a lot smoother than this painting. Da Vinci uses great detail in the face as well as the background in his other famous pieces. This painting is a great painting but due to the fact the paint is blurry and the detail is missing I do not believe it to be Da Vinci’s.

  42. poseidonian says:

    I am not an expert, but I think the case on the visual evidence is a lot stronger than others above are suggesting, on the grounds that Leonardo’s sfumato technique appears to be in evidence, and it is lacking in Boltraffio’s work. The circumstantial historical evidence strikes me as plausible as well. But most of all (and I am aware of how suspicious one should be of such experiences) there is the shock of recognition when you *see* it. It just doesn’t *look* like Boltraffio or Luini.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s