------------ Contents of Video ------------ 0:00 - Introduction 2:58 - Purely Visual Issues 9:53 - Arguments For Authenticity 41:20 - Arguments Against Authenticity 1:17:27 - My Version: Cleaned Before Painted Over 1:34:40 - The Elephant In The Room 1:58:48 - The Emperor’s New Canvas 2:05:44 - My Re-creation 2:13:56 - Backlash ------------------------------------------------------
Your objectivity with which you treat the analysis of this work by Leonardo da Vinci is very rationalist, it is impossible for it to fit within the pictorial realism of the Salvator Mundi, because this work is one of the first that has a treatment of the figure of a face that is truly human. I mean, that the face of Christ is treated from a living, expressive and real result of what a true human face usually is in real life, and No, from the symmetrical and rational artificiality of painting proposing anatomical metric rules. I suggest that you look in a mirror every six hours, and you will see how your face changes during those periods of time. Okay?
Never been 100% convinced it is a Leonardo but it certainly looked a hell of a lot more believable before than it did after the "restoration." It's revealing that the chief question they seemed to ask was "How can it be restored?" instead of "Should it be restored?" I think the actual question they were asking was basically "How can we make this look more like what people expect a Leonardo to look like?"
Me neither. Nothing seems right about this painting. Some of the odd things I never saw when looking at the painting, but most of them I realized immediately.
@@darkcult99 I think it's a fake too. But wouldn't a professional forger have done a better job? And why bother? The forger didnt get the $450 million.
After learning so much more about the painting, it’s honestly insane to believe these art “experts” and connoisseurs/buyers thought it would make most sense to do the restoration instead of leaving the cleaned painting in it’s raw state. Hearing them say that they thought the viewer would focus more on the obstruction than the work that remained is not only an insult to Leonardo and his disciples, but to the viewer as well. Maybe to an untrained eye like mine, the first glance and impression would be directed toward the damage and repairs of the piece, but if anything that would beg the viewer to spend more time looking at the image, allowing them to have a more immersed experience for the work that did remain. The people and businesses who are supposed to know the most and care most about masterpieces or any great art to preserve them in history, are doing way more damage than I would’ve ever imagined. I really appreciate you for the time and effort spent on this. It’s been incredible to watch. One question for you: I know nothing about art restoration and although I agree with you and prefer the raw cleaned work, do you think it would be possible for someone in the real world to come anywhere close to your digital interpretation in restoration form? Thanks again man!
You are right it is a Modestini. Thanks for uncovering the original masculine face and drawing attention to its fine modelling. Also for proving that its eyes were level and its proportions symmetrical. Hope some day they remove Modestini's overpainting and exhibit the cleaned fragments again. Like most of ancient Greek art exists as fragments of genius.
Never mind the painting (which i am fascinated by), this investigation and analysis is the best I’ve seen, and I applaud your skills at creating a top notch video. Now all I need is a collab with Julian for the ultimate resolution and satisfaction.
I actually love the clean version as it is, flaws and all. I think the flaws from natural damage are easier to look at than the flaws of the restoration. Our imagination can fill in the gaps and enjoy the honest details instead of squinting at a blended blur of what the image could have been.
There could also have been a much more limited restoration that didn't attempt to make it look like a finished painting. That, I believe, was for marketing purposes.
I think the cleaned version was utterly profund, whoever the original artist was. The "restored" version looks like something from a 1970s Christmas card
With a passing knowledge of Da Vinci's techniques and all the hidden geometry that provides the foundation many of the classic masters, this piece brings it all home. What better way to literally illustrate the amazing methods of a master than to show it done wrong. I feel a lot more savvy about this topic having viewed this. Additional kudos to the producer of this wonderful clip for the digital restoration..... a bittersweet result. Why the hell couldn't they have just left it alone. The restoration advocates will be justly ridiculed in the future. It's like finding Edgar Allan Poe's first 5 pages of a short story and commissioning Stephen King to finish it. A horrible blight on the art world.
Thanks for the comments and for watching the video. Glad you got something out of it. And, I like your literary analogy with Poe and King, though even that might be a bit generous. Have a good one!
Since 2017, I had this obsession with this piece. I think about it every once in a while and search up TH-cam videos or try to see if there are any updates on its whereabouts, new documentaries, etc. My mind changes constantly over whether or not it is, in fact, a Leonardo. Some days I think OBVIOUSLY HIM other days I think OBVIOUSLY NOT. I have virtually no opinion at this point in time. It can go either way. AND THAT IS WHY THIS PAINTING IS SO DARN FASCINATING. Anyway, this documentary is absolutely fantastic. I couldn't stop watching and you highlighted so much of what I have been thinking personally, but actually put the factual *chef's kiss* touch. I think Dianne Modestini was given the task to fix a painting in terrible shape, clearly, but she overdid it. And seeing the original cleaned version here over and over, wow. I never realized how much work she actually did. This was far beyond a few touch-ups. I really wish they would have left the cleaned version as-is. When I see that, I think, wow. That must be a Leonardo. I think there should have been many more eyes, artists, experts in that room, but also, I don't think they realized what they had when they began "restoring". So many of the flaws I saw that led me to believe it couldn't be Leonardo seem to be restoration. (I always hated his eyes and thought them to be uneven, his cheeks and lack of definition in the neck bother the heck out of me, and that left side with the curls just doesn't look like Leonardo. Right side, however, does, IMO. John the Baptist all the way.) I mean, there are still some oddities that choose me to question, but this is all such a complicated piece. If there wasn't so much money involved, I think we could have those honest discussions. But I just don't trust anyone when it comes to those high levels of $$$$$. I wish more people would be open to talking and having discussions about the findings you published here. Sorry for the rambling comment, but this was just fantastic. Thank you so much for creating this and your own masterpiece! Inspired!
Very rarely do I find a documentary as authentic as this on the net. And entertaining too. Even with ADHD I watched it to the end! The aftertaste is bitter, but that's what you get with authenticity in a world that's governed by frauds. In Leonardo's days it wasn't any different, probably. Thanks for letting us watch all for free!
I found this quite interesting and watched it once in the same morning. Thanks for all your work. I loved seeing the cleaned painting even with all its losses. Your new creation is also a revelation.
I feel like Baumgartner Restorations wouldn't have fucked up like this restorer did. Dude knows how to reattach a panel and use as little fill in medium as possible.
Not an art person, and stumbled across this topic by accident seeing a trailer for 'The Lost Leonardo'. Literally today. I immediately felt there was something strange about this painting. After looking into how this was authenticated I found this video and just finished watching it. Amazing video, and absolutely criminally under-rated. Fantastic job, and thanks for putting all of this together into one place.
It's all bull s#it was one of many different paintings found in different ways to make easy to believe and not to question the items real owner and the incredible story that we are having to keep quite due to the sensitive information that will be easy linked to high profile criminal behaviour and cover story's that are so high profile people who are involved in releasing the information will definitely be silently disposed of to insurerr there secrets and lies never become known so I can never say anything to much but it is so easy to understand once you have been told and seen the evidence of the items reel story that was in a uk home as well as several other paintings and belongings but this is all made up but it is a genuine and very unique piece that his lady help mostly painted and is a fact I was given the information past down to the family and relatives given the youth of their family in the 80s as a boy and he has told me about it and I have seen the evidence that he has told me never to admit it but they will release it one day soon or some one will pay the silent sum
I would never dream of spending over 2 hours watching anything without losing interest easily. This masterpiece has absolutely gripped me. Exceptional work!
Modestini turned an original into a forgery. I recommend looking closely at the cleaned version on a 60" 4K TV screen. There is definitely a beard. The strong and regal expression isn't from the damage, but exquisite shading under the eye and highlighted cheekbone on the left-hand side of the painting (the figure's right side) where most of the damage is. That side of the face is lighter because the light is coming from that direction. This painting could have been saved with an appropriate conservator's retouching by someone with an artist's eye, who could see the traces left behind and could retouch without changing or covering the image that was still there. I sincerely hope she used an isolation layer and completely reversible arrival materials. None of the rules of conservation seem to have been followed here. Hopefully someone will be able to remove the awful overpainting and do it correctly. I'm shocked at how badly this was done and the ridiculous claims made to cover up the egregious mistakes.
Why don't you think he does a good job? Serious question. I don't know anything about restoration, but if had a painting in bad condition I would be happy to give it to him. He seems to do a really good job. Is he no good?
I think this is a FANTASTIC and BRILLIANT documentary/video that blows the so-called experts right out of their exclusive pond!!!! The evidence, the step by step discussion of arguments, of your extensive recreation work, just very impressive and professional. I am not a classically educated artist, or critic, however this painting screamed obscenities at me the first time I saw it. Thank you for proving I am not crazy.
It was all about laundering some money. She was hung out to dry. She was chosen on purpose. There were many better choices for restoration. I love your rendering.
Damn, that is a cynical take, but considering the world we live in I guess it's just realistic. It never occurred to me that Modestini could be a patsy here. Now it will be hard for me to disregard that theory. Though she could also just be in on it. So glad you like my restoration!
Your digital recreation from an artist's point of view is a great contrast to the austere fragment that is the recently restored original. It looks to be more the skilled, unified realization of an artistic endeavor rather than an apologetic, dressed-up admission of failure. I love the way you handled the ornate belts that cross in the middle of the body. In the original, they look awkwardly covered in part due to work added by others. I really agree with your decision to extend the composition's width to provide more space around the right hand.
That is incredible how you finished the eyes without altering them. Da Vinci wouldn't finish a painting with "Off set eyes" like the restoration shows. Yet you did it quite easily and it looks right. The conservator/ restoration specialist could not see it after over cleaning the picture. A lot of detail was lost in the process where reconstruction was done by guessing how things looked originally. She may have confused the lines where the eye lid over the pupil was and accepted that as being what Da Vinci wanted to be. There is a fine beard too, now faded away. The question left is, can it be reversed? Something tells me not. Now if the Salvator Mundi was somehow taken back to the original state, I'm people I'm sure would say it's a fake. I learned a lot from your presentation and it was well explained.
Just watched it again! If I ever had to stand up and make the argument against the restorer's version, all I would do is "Flip it"! What a powerful technique, and you, sir, are a fine example of a fine artist. Hats off!
You took so much time to produce this, very impressive. I had to avert my eyes during the hunchback abuse, not exactly sure what this and aliens, ants, etc. were all about but you’re allowed your artistic license. I did love the Bush reference and fade in and out. Before watching this, the “restoration” never seemed right to me but I didn’t know why. Now I’m angry that very few spoke up. Your version is amazing.
Thanks for watching and commenting. These days, I've caught people using AI to generate text for videos, using an AI voice, and just slapping in pictures. Those videos get hundreds of times more views than mine, but guess what? AI isn't going to slap Gamera or aliens in the video, so in my case, you know it's human, quirky, creative, authentic, and individual.
This only popped up in my 'recommends' a couple of hours ago, and what a flipping treat it was. I went on a whole furious/livid jag of reading about this painting, the claims made for/about it, and its restoration a couple of years ago (you mention at least two of the highly critical articles I read at the time). I felt somewhat sated at the time, and moved onto other things quite quickly so maybe that's why I missed out on your video then. You do such a great job of articulating everything I felt and said at the time, which was a great deal of highly *inarticulate* effing and blinding, shrieking and wailing mainly about *those horrible eyes* but you've shown me so, so much more, you've actually managed to make me angry all over again. Your own effort at recreation was so much more in line with what glimpses were visible, and what might have been possible by a ridiculously skilled and sensitive restorer, even one working with such a high volume of damage. That final flip was excellent. What a great tip! It would never have occurred to me to do that!
Discovering that cropped paintings are indications of fakes and that he used faulty or knotted wood, sold it for me. Originally, I thought you were simply having fun with your videos when you added in longer bits of sci-fi silliness, but now I've seen enough to realize that they serve as "rest stops for the mind and eyes". Your visuals are pretty amazing and unlike anything else I've seen on YT. And I know you were probably careful not to show off your own version too much, but I wish you would have because the work you put in was remarkable and detailed! Excellent work!
Not fakes, they indicate more naive copies of an original. Artists often did studies of master works of art. That is why there are so many "Last Suppers". Religious objects were the most copied of all because wealthy families would commission their own copies from artists that they patronized. The Church was the biggest patron of all, needing art for many churches.
That was really interesting. This piece would be very upsetting to a Saudi billionaire. I didn't mind the unrestored work. Sure, you will clock the damage initially, but ultimately you look beyond it and still see the painting. The ruination suggests a story and journey of half a millennia and what can happen to a masterpiece that isn't cradled in the womb of a museum. They should've left it alone and said "Here's what remains."
"They should've left it alone and said "Here's what remains."" I agree. Thanks for the comment. And yeah, I guess a Saudi prince might not appreciate what this means about the monetary value of his acquisition, but sometimes people like when you tell them the truth. At least he wouldn't still be hoodwinked, if he hasn't already figured it out a long time ago. And, of course, that's just my perspective, though I think a rather strongly argued and persuasive one. Thanks for watching and commenting.
An absolutely astounding documentary. I am an art historian and yet somehow have never seen a photo of the raw cleaned painting. I almost gasped out loud at its beauty. I watched and listened carefully to everything you said, argued and presented and can whole-heartedly concur except for one thing...I do believe most of that extraordinary face in the raw cleaned version is by the Master. I do believe your version is a truer restoration than that which was 'produced', and for which I shall never be able to look at again. Bravo! What incredible work your have done. Thank you.
Cheers. Thanks so much for watching and commenting. Right, the raw, cleaned version is powerful and sublime. So glad another person can see how ridiculous the final result is that we are supposed to respect as Leonardo's most experimental and advanced accomplishment!
Thank you so much for this. I have looked at this image over and over and could not believe that it was a true Leonardo. It makes sense now. Well done.
I watched a video earlier today about tge 'restoration'. When I saw the photo of the cleaned painting and then the restoration, my thought is that the painting should be been left alone and not been 'restored'.
Great work you’ve done here sir, and I’d argue a great service to the art community ( not to be mistaken with the Art World ). I wonder what Loomis would have made of the facial structure. This certainly deserves to be seen , best thing I’ve seen since Tim’s Vermeer. I also found it hilarious in places.
@@artvsmachine I believe it could be due to inclusion of some political content - not much art academia, but more George Bushes photo shapeshifting into Jesus, back and forth.. Just with that, you've accidentally stepped into forbidden waters, and perhaps may be glad this entire video hasn't been blocked or pulled down. Don't forget we live in a dystopian controlled, authoritarian society now. Algorithms are very sensitive to political content.
What a fantastic deep dive into this painting! Your 'cleaned' interpretation visually strikes a far more authentic and less off-kilter impression then the restored interpretation of the Mundi, especially in its placement of the eyes and shape of the jawline. Out of idle curiosity, I have to admit that a similar retrospective on the 'Isleworth' Mona Lisa would be quite interesting, as that is another "so-acclaimed" Leonardo painting to have similarly left an impression on me, and I have no doubts that your thoughts on it would be quite insightful!
I do like your version, or the cleaned one more than what Dianne did to it.... I also think the painting should be send to Baumgartner immediately!! This was fascinating. Thank you and Greetings 👋
I could not help but send my previous message before watching the entire video. I felt thoroughly vindicated for my initial reaction when the 'last Da Vinci' was first presented to the world. I just thought' this is so wrong technically that it cannot be an actual work by the master'. Eric, your in detail examination ( of what should be obvious to many people who have the expertise of being able to see), based on an honest and expansive net of cross references, was conducted better than much of old and/or recent art historical research by so called experts. As both an Art Historian and artist who has studied for almost 20 years (including at the top factory of art dealers and gallerists, a.k.a. the Courtauld Institute of Art), I am not finding it surprising that 'experts' work hand in hand with the art market establishment or that 'academia' has survived by milking donors through flattery and re-assurance of their delusions of grandeur. It is just so insulting to master Leonardo that they passed this collage of mistakes as his last autograph work. He, however, would rather be amused.
How about making a print available of the work after removal and before fill in- with all the "damage" as contributary to the pre-restoration opportunity?
To assume anything in that painting is from Leonardo is just that, and assumption. What is certain, is everyone was invested in selling its Leonardo authenticity. That way each of them made lots of money. If you like it fine, but it's not the work of a master painter. The entire Art World operates to make a profit, so what wouldn't they do to make that profit? It only takes one rich dupe to buy a fake. And with new corporations selling Art Stocks, it doesn't even require the dupes to be rich.
You're right! From the beginning, the restoration definitely felt "off"...something wasnt quite right. I had mixed feelings and looking at the restored version makes me feel uncomfortable.
I’m shocked they tried to restore it. My guess is they thought it would sell for more so they didn’t care about any consequences. Great documentary BTW
Firstly many thanks for the enjoying Video! One question of my side. Have you also considered the underlying signing of the painting as provided by Modestini ?
No sorry für my english I wanted to mention the preliminary drawing under the visible drawing. The Louvre did some Investigations in 2018 upfront the Louvre Exhibition in 2019 as Modestini did as well. She published her results on her Website
I watched this a couple years ago and have been watching a lot of videos on art and how the art world really is and I love the painting of Salvator Mundi and was trying to find anything new or updated but this is the Very Best about this painting. I personally think this is Not a Da Vinci as in he painted it 100%. There is something off about this painting. Always worth watching more than once. Really enjoy your take on the art.
Fascinating documentary! The flip at the end is incredibly jarring and pretty saddening. Would love if Julian Baumgartner got the chance to strip the overpainting back and provide a more sympathetic restoration
I'm glad you appreciated the flip. It really allows people to see the problems with their own eyes without having to think about it or know all the background information.
@@artvsmachine they need to pay you the 450 million dollars. The whole video is 🤌🏻, Theres no doubt, Da Vince himself would be proud of all your hard work and dedication to bring clarification to this Painting and his Legacy.
Because you are not allowed to challenge the status ....just like they try to convince you that modern art of a urinal is good art. Like Klaus's Schaub says you will own nothing and be happy. THE ELITES WILL ESTABLISH YOUR REALITY
This was gold! Also so funny, more laughs than most new comedy movies. Thanks for doing it. On a related note I can't believe that the official Louvre publication on the painting that was actually on sale for like one day before being pulled, and was quoted by some journalists, never leaked. If you're reading this comment and you own it....please do the right thing ;)
This video slaps beyond belief. I so appreciate how thorough and logical it is. This must have been an insane amount of work. But I think you are spot-on. I lost track of how many times I said "Yes!" out loud. It's difficult to believe that so-called experts would seem to not consider so many of these basic things you pointed out. Like, it's mind-boggling! Once you see the things that are wrong with the restoration, they're just so obvious and yikes-inducing. I didn't come away from this with any strong opinion on whether it's a Leonardo, to whatever degree. That is possibly what's of interest to a lot of people, but it wound up not mattering to me. What matters to me is attributing THAT FACE to Leonardo. So I enjoyed your articulation of what's wrong with it and how it got that way. No matter who painted them, I've always hated this painting's awful wall eyes. When you flipped the painting I almost screamed. It's SO BAD. Those eyes are the wonkiest thing I've ever seen. What on earth happened. I didn't realize to what extent the restoration had changed and exaggerated its expression so much. Sorry to the restorer -- I do believe she took on an impossible task -- but it's astonishingly bad and I don't know how anyone could think it's acceptable or beautiful work. The cleaned up version, even with all its cracks and missing paint and damage, is so much nicer. I hadn't seen it in its non-restored state before, and was shocked. I'd rather see that version displayed, but maybe with the cracks and missing paint filled in with black, so they're not as bright, or something... Your editing style is quite unusual but it was entertaining, modern and fun for a subject that can be stodgy. Absolutely savage dramatic readings, too. In all, I loved this video. Thank you for making it.
Thanks for that comment. I think you got my best points, including that it's a travesty of art history, logic, aesthetics, and reality in general to attribute the restored face to Leonardo (and on top of it claim it's his most exalted achievement). Yeah, it was a ton of work. As for my video-editing style here, well, I like to experiment a bit and can't help getting a bit weird and creative with it, and also throwing in some humor. If I can't make it my own, what's the point? So glad you appreciated my video, and thanks for watching and sharing your impressions.
Right. And I gather the restorer didn't do that for some reason. Perhaps she put faith in the minute changes she methodically made and didn't [want to] check for a subtle but profound unintended transformation of the painted image.
I'd like to propose a (digital) version of The Salvator Mundi with all non-Da Vinci brushstrokes removed. Probably only then can we truly enjoy and appreciate Da Vinci's genius
They should have given it to master Baumgartner!! Perhaps humanity wouldn't have lost this piece to restorer's incompetency. The cleaned version is amazing as it is, even with cracks and surface damages. The end result is an abomination, tbh. Art vs machine did a really amazing job with reconstruction, congratulation!
Thanks for this. Fascinating documentary. I think that your 'cleaned version" at 1:26:50 is probably what any restoration should have aimed for. I agree that the present restoration is a total mess. Some minimal restoration was probably needed due to the white showing and visually drawing the eye to the areas of paint loss and damage. I think this is a magnificent painting, whether or not it is by Leonardo.
It is undeniably a "group effort" between at least one original artist, Father Time and 500 years of physical damage and atrophy, at least one amateur paint-over, and more than one restoration. The main artist and artistic vision at this point belongs to Modestini, as she did the final edit. How many people worked on it in Leonardo's time, one can only guess. Personally, I don't see evidence of multiple hands in the cleaned state of the painting, and most of what are conspicuously different styles are directly tracable to damage and restoration. That said, I am not dismissing the possibility that it's a studio effort, which Jerry Saltz also promulgated.
Your first argument about the eyes is actually the strongest point in favor of this being an authentic Leonardo painting. Haven't you looked closely at the eyes in some of his portraits. The left eye looks at us and the right past us. Some esoteric thing. The face is a male and female blend, again, an esoteric meaning. Very, very few faces are symmetrical anyway, to create a very lifelike portrait, you need the asyemmetry.
Thanks for commenting. While your arguments have merit theoretically, the best explanation by far as to the assymetry and striking disfigurement of the head is 500 years of damage, including the painting being cracked in half, at least one comic paint-over, caustic cleanings, and a final awkward attempt to patch it all together with cosmetic touches. Watch the rest of the video. There's no escaping the fact that the painting, and specifically the eyes, were brutally damaged. The restorer herself stated that they were beyond her ability to restore them. I do not say that the painting wasn't originally by Leonardo, but the image we see now does not represent his skill, talent, or vision. Rather, it's a grotesque insult to his own art and his legacy. Of course, that's my take on reality. Yours may differ, and that's fine. Have a good one.
Brilliant presentation! I especially liked the part about "Everybody wants a barbecue!". Even if you don't agree about the message you nevertheless have to love this video!
Amazing production you've put into this. Glad the algorithm brought me here. What an absolute joke they played with this painting. Or should I say scam, fraud, destruction. The fact that it was bought with Oil money instead of 400 Mclarens is fitting.
Yeah. I was warned not to share this video because I might piss off the buyer with the oil money, who, they tell me is a very dangerous fellow. However, I'm just the messenger. Should have bought the 400 Mclarens instead.
I didn’t exactly know what it was but the refinished version was very strange and unsettling. I wanted to cover the eyes to keep them from looking at me. Now I know why. The correct symmetry does wonders and Da Vinci would have been extremely symmetrical. Your version seems much more Da Vinci like than the current version. Great job!!
Thank you for your insightful documentary, where your humour created a charismatic understanding of the whole. Indeed, the picture you created is, in my opinion, closer to Leonardo's original than the corrected version. Perhaps it is better that that version disappeared somewhere, presumably in a Middle Eastern locker forever...
I never intended to sell that one because, well, it never occured to me because I'd only added to an image of the original. In the case of my version(s) I redid everything to such an extent that I can call it my own and market it with a clean conscious.
It would be interesting to see you do the opposite digital treatment to the Mona Lisa to see what it might look like if it was "abraded" then "retouched"...how would the empress's new clothes appear!
I like the ethereal way Christ glows in the Modestini restoration. Maybe that’s what the artist intended? Your restoration has merit, and the problems you pointed out with the Mondestini restoration I think are valid; however, that glow about the body, that hazy look of the face-for me at least adds what I think is a deliberate mystical quality of the artist’s original intentions and, perhaps, intentionality. That mystical quality/effect makes this piece stand out from the other Salvator Mundi’s you’ve compared it to. Dare I say it possesses a Gnostic vibe about it.
In reality Modestini removed any glowing by making the background a flat black color, and removing any shading and modeling between hair and background. As I pointed out in the video, the hair is just cut with a hard edge just like someone had cut out the image with scissors and pasted it there. And that certainly is not possibly what a genuine Renaissance artist would have done. The mysteriously spiritual aura you attribute to the face is just whatever was necessary to blur serious damages into something that appeared finished. It's a fuzzy abomination and an insult to the actual skill and intent of any competent artists of the time. But for many people who want the image to be something, there's a sort of placebo effect. You project your own spiritual whateverness upon the image and attribute that resonance to the image itself. You are just like all the people weeping in front of a catastrophic failure of a restoration, done in the name of making extraordinary amount of money. You are looking at the emperor's ball sack and swooning at the embroidery.
Looking at the emperor’s ball sack and swooning at the embroidery, lol. I don’t know if I’ll finish watching this video. I’m over halfway finished and I’ve found it very informative; however, I’m getting the impression you’re a real jerk.
Well, consider that I spent months creating a documentary that's over 2 hours, and I recreated the Salvator Mundi as a digital painting (which to my great surprise nobody has improved upon since) and you presumed to argue against the content of my video, under my video, and without watching it. You basically took a cr@p on my work. So, who's a jerk?
@@artvsmachine God gave rock and roll to you Gave rock and roll to you Put it in the soul of everyone God gave rock and roll to you Gave rock and roll to you Saved rock and roll for everyone
This is terrific! Really well done, fascinating, and has so much food for thought. The only part I had a problem with was toward the end. I couldn't bear to see Charles Laughton as the hunchback of Notre Dame - too heartbreaking, so I missed a lot of what was on the screen. It took me many more hours to get through this because I kept going back and watching parts again. I will go back and rewatch many more times. I hope you produce more excellent documentaries such as this. Thank you so much!
@@artvsmachine It took me a few sitting to get through the whole video but really enjoyed it 🙏 I've always wondered what she was paid for the restoration.
You mean Baumgartner Restoration? Now, if you want to do an insulting play on words, it should be Bumgardener not gardner, and someone is a gardener of bums. I get your joke. Definitely I'm not that dude. He's a traditional restorer and I'm a contemporary artist. He makes a killing on TH-cam and I make next to nothing. But I've decided I'll take your comment as a compliment. Thanks, bro. Have a chill day, and keep on keeping on.
That's because the circles around the eyes look like John's famous glasses, plus Jesus was always kind of a hippy at heart and a little bit Rock 'N Roll.
Excellent production , so well argued and loved the atmosphere - compelling We had a Verrocchio David Status at my school and he was a phenomenal sculptor although I doubt he put down his brushes after seeing Leo's angels although its a great anecdote - but I think everything was excellently proved with great critical thanking
I'm going to side with your sense of reality on this. Yes, I also doubt Verrocchio gave up painting after seeing Leonardo's work. Good call. Glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
Your analysis of the restoration was revelation to me even as a art historian..brilliant and I now agree, plus yes Leonardo had a large studio of assistants.. Auction houses suffer from selective memory loss..
I love what you had to say and I agree with you. This is not an original da Vinci painting. I really do not see how anybody could claim it to be an original Maybe Leonardo had something to do with it, but he would never have claimed it as his own work Your argument is compelling, and I don’t think anybody would even worry about it had it not been for the fact that it sold at auction for such an enormous amount of money
Yup. The restoration has amateur mistakes, and you're right that he wouldn't have claimed it as his own because he was in stiff competition with Michelangelo, among others, and this piece could not compare with other serious works of the time. The fact that people try to make this painting his greatest achievement is a disgrace and an insult to his legacy as well as art history and art in general. But, hey, we live in a time where everything is just about money, money, and more money. I'm hoping the pendulum of corruption and incompetence has swung as far as it can go and we will start heading back towards honesty, decency, authenticity, individuality, integrity, and so on.
The background is to me the first thing I notice and the most inauthentic feature of this work. There is an inescapable "tacked on" appearance. To me, it is as though the black background is actually cut out and pasted over the figure beneath. It is so outrageously incorrect that that it astonishes me that these critics did not simply reject it out of hand.
Yes. I covered that in the video. The restorer made an executive decision to make the background a flat black, and rather than the hair or clothing softly fading into the background, they are as if cut out. Dastardly. I compared this sad eventuality to paintings contemporaneous with Leonardo and how they gradually faded figures into dark backgrounds. Good call catching that.
@@artvsmachine Yes. I was relieved to hear you say that. I mean you can see it from across the room! I didn't realize that the background had been repainted, which confirms how it looks. I don't think it looks at all like a Leonardo, in whole or in part.
Here is my new Life Goal. To learn all I can about the Salvatore Mundi. When I was a little girl, thought the Mundi painting had everything to do with the Sal Magundhi Club in Manhattan. Before my Dad had The Big One, he was a Graphic Artist. He knew alot about fine art, but because of his Mental Illness, he couldn't pursue his interests. His love and respect for art rubbed of on me.
This is a experience, it has techinical comment, opinion and even a new version, I don't know nothing about art(however I love to draw not paint.) and this make me learn so much, I watched like a movie. Cheers from Brazil!
The thing you pointed out in the painting are REALLY glaring to me ... the cockamammy eyes, the bent nose , the lip cleft, the hair on the left side ..... Least we forget that everything in the Portrait is crystal sharp until it gets to the figures face, and it gets very very fuzzy. IF this is genuine perhaps it was an effort to portray the more human aspects of the person VS the perfection of the divine as usually painted ? Too many issues with this painting
It's so surprising that a fine art conservator doesn't necessarily have any training in drawing and painting. As for looking at the mirror image of a picture you're working on, in (Emile A.) "Gruppe on Painting," he advises: " ... one of the most important ( tools is): a mirror. As you paint, you get used to mistakes, but seeing the picture in reverse gives you a fresh eye. Errors jump out at you. And it's a good way to check for balance. In my studio, I have three mirrors ..."
I don't understand how they argue that the corrected thumb makes it a painting made by Leonardo himselve. I would rather think, it's more plausible that someone like Luini did it wrong at first and Leonardo corrected it...
Good point. We don't know that both variations of the thumb were done by the same person. It's a bad argument anyways, because it relies on the notion that all of the versions of the Salvator Mundi are based on the same cartoon (outline drawing), and are hence straight copies with no attempt at originality or experimentation, and yet they are all remarkably different.
Thank you for this video. I found having the painting analysed by an artist very helpful. I appreciate the respect that you have shown to Dianne Modestini who has paradoxically been vilified both for improving and for ruining the painting. As you made clear, her task was to replicate where there was evidence and to cover damage in a neutral fashion without inventing anything. I agree with you that it would have been better to have left the painting in its raw state. I wonder if people’s emotional response to the painting is partly to do with the damage that shines through the restoration. A resurrected but still scarred saviour. I think that people would have responded to it in its overtly damaged state, just as they do to scarred and ruined buildings.
I think it's the power of suggestion and they would have responded equally well to some of those other savior paintings I shared, notably the one by Solario.
I’m sure you’re right about the power of suggestion. Sadly the Leonardo name and the hype give this particular painting far more attention than it deserves.
Yeah, me, too. I was drawn in by how anyone could take the final painting seriously as a Leonardo, but in researching it I learned a lot and discovered some new artists as well.
Making a version myself on canvas and I gave up twice . I am on it again and to be honest, the process will make me a much better artist. Humbling sometimes yes. I truly believe it is an original painting by DaVinci.
Did I say oak? Igadz! Nice catch. It's walnut, if memory serves me, and I think I came across that factoid enough times. Just misspoke in the viddy. That little bit was impromptu.
Arrived here by way of WP. Began watching, realized I knew nothing at all about this painting (except the meaning of the title). So I did a Wikipedia run & discovered that the person isn't a slim woman with a beard & ancient soul-patch, which is what I assumed in prior encounters. Will watch in segments so that I have time to research & digest in between. This is SO COOL. ::applause::
Fascinating reconstruction. One point is both versions portrayed show less cheekbone shadow than on the left of the damaged original. Its as if both restorations prefer the da vinci standard full rounded cheeks. A pity because the shadow makes for a more masculine shape.
Great opening. I felt the same way! Overall, though, I don't come away with a definite understanding of whether or not you believe the painting is primarily by daVinci. You basically say that it could be but that time and the restorer, have screwed it up beyond the point of knowing. This seems like a cop-out. It seems to me that a determination can be reached that it is primarily by the Master, in which case who cares how much it's been subsequently screwed-up as this only affects its price; or that it is primarily not by the Master, in which case it is deemed "School of" or "Studio of" daVinci. Should I assume your perceived equivocation means you think the original work falls under the latter opinion? BTW. You should do a series of Cabbage Patch Dolls on a Cross, possibly 'paying' for sins of the '80s. Thank you.
So I’m a fellow digital artist , and a huge DaVinci nut. A couple of points I’d like to mention to you , the crocked eyes are a signature DaVinci mark , it’s in John the Baptist , it’s in the Virtruvian man , Mona Lisa pupils are crocked as well. You showed the 6 most popular mundis , the first one or top left , is suspected to be a young DaVinci himself , DaVinci had a lazy eye, proof ? Virtruvian man is a DaVinci self portrait in his mid 30’s and no doubt matches the widely accepted old men self portrait that everyone knows. Look very close and you see the eyes are crocked . DaVinci painted a lot of things twice , including mundi , he took the original self portrait face from sal mundi one , reversed or mirrored it in the 450 mill dollar version , that’s why the features look so awkward. The whole no neck distinctive line you mentioned , sfumato or smoking effect , DaVinci said portraits should never depict facial features in rigid solid lines , hence the smoking look. Also to any DaVinci doubter out there , Sal Mundi is completely composed of the golden ratio, the hands , the designs in his robe , the face , the whole portrait is one golden ratio after another , this is 1000% Leo DaVinci signature. If you ever watched the Shroud of Turin documentary on you tube , you know DaVinci faked that as well , using his face as Christ , it’s a riddle , and he does it again in Mundi. The shroud of Turin, Mona Lisa , and both mundi match DaVinci s facial proportion grid sketch exactly….they were all made by the same person. And one last thing , you were trying to figure out what the bunched up robe just below the right hand meant , it’s a symbol hidden in the folds , I can’t rem the name , but someone in the 450 mill version painted over it cause they didn’t understand it either. The orb Jesus is holding also has 3 white specs , they are the 3 main stairs of Orion’s Belt , it’s some cryptic message that our gods came from Orion’s Belt…. So the eyes , the neck , the folds , the orbs , the golden ratio , the mirrors faces , the fact it’s painted twice , is 1000 percent DaVinci and no one else. And it’s possible he left it unfinished, he tended to do that a lot
All the theories about why da Vinci deliberately made the eyes wildly eschewed aside, we know as a fact from the restorer herself that thy at least one of the eyes was so damaged that she couldn't do anything to it without changing his expression. On top of that, as I pointed out, she nevertheless inadvertently ended up emphasizing the wrong parts and accentuating the damage. The rest is theory. The same sort of problem happened with the neck. We know as a fact that is was overly restored in the past with harsh chemicals. We also know what the painting looked like before and after Dianne Modestini restored it. The character of the Christ in the painting is determined by 500 years of damage, multiple restorations, and the final reworking by Modestini. We can be absolutely sure that the resultant portrait is NOT Leonardo's original intent. That's reality. I'm just the messenger.
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bzivN4KDg-k/mqdefault.jpg)
------------ Contents of Video ------------
0:00 - Introduction
2:58 - Purely Visual Issues
9:53 - Arguments For Authenticity
41:20 - Arguments Against Authenticity
1:17:27 - My Version: Cleaned Before Painted Over
1:34:40 - The Elephant In The Room
1:58:48 - The Emperor’s New Canvas
2:05:44 - My Re-creation
2:13:56 - Backlash
------------------------------------------------------
This video ought be an NFT.
Your objectivity with which you treat the analysis of this work by Leonardo da Vinci is very rationalist, it is impossible for it to fit within the pictorial realism of the Salvator Mundi, because this work is one of the first that has a treatment of the figure of a face that is truly human. I mean, that the face of Christ is treated from a living, expressive and real result of what a true human face usually is in real life, and No, from the symmetrical and rational artificiality of painting proposing anatomical metric rules. I suggest that you look in a mirror every six hours, and you will see how your face changes during those periods of time. Okay?
Never been 100% convinced it is a Leonardo but it certainly looked a hell of a lot more believable before than it did after the "restoration." It's revealing that the chief question they seemed to ask was "How can it be restored?" instead of "Should it be restored?" I think the actual question they were asking was basically "How can we make this look more like what people expect a Leonardo to look like?"
Me neither. Nothing seems right about this painting. Some of the odd things I never saw when looking at the painting, but most of them I realized immediately.
What I'm asking is what do people expect a pile of dog shit to look like?
Isn’t it widely accepted at this stage that this is not authentic. Some forger out there is laughing his/her arse off to this day …
@@darkcult99 I think it's a fake too. But wouldn't a professional forger have done a better job? And why bother? The forger didnt get the $450 million.
After learning so much more about the painting, it’s honestly insane to believe these art “experts” and connoisseurs/buyers thought it would make most sense to do the restoration instead of leaving the cleaned painting in it’s raw state. Hearing them say that they thought the viewer would focus more on the obstruction than the work that remained is not only an insult to Leonardo and his disciples, but to the viewer as well. Maybe to an untrained eye like mine, the first glance and impression would be directed toward the damage and repairs of the piece, but if anything that would beg the viewer to spend more time looking at the image, allowing them to have a more immersed experience for the work that did remain. The people and businesses who are supposed to know the most and care most about masterpieces or any great art to preserve them in history, are doing way more damage than I would’ve ever imagined.
I really appreciate you for the time and effort spent on this. It’s been incredible to watch. One question for you: I know nothing about art restoration and although I agree with you and prefer the raw cleaned work, do you think it would be possible for someone in the real world to come anywhere close to your digital interpretation in restoration form? Thanks again man!
You are right it is a Modestini. Thanks for uncovering the original masculine face and drawing attention to its fine modelling. Also for proving that its eyes were level and its proportions symmetrical. Hope some day they remove Modestini's overpainting and exhibit the cleaned fragments again. Like most of ancient Greek art exists as fragments of genius.
Never mind the painting (which i am fascinated by), this investigation and analysis is the best I’ve seen, and I applaud your skills at creating a top notch video. Now all I need is a collab with Julian for the ultimate resolution and satisfaction.
Agree 👍
If Modestini used the kinds of reversible materials and techniques Julian has shown us, hopefully this can be properly restoresd!
The analysis is convincing, the editing is fun, the final restoration is compelling. First time seeing your videos. Instant subscribe.
Cheers! Thanks for watching and commenting.
I actually love the clean version as it is, flaws and all. I think the flaws from natural damage are easier to look at than the flaws of the restoration. Our imagination can fill in the gaps and enjoy the honest details instead of squinting at a blended blur of what the image could have been.
There could also have been a much more limited restoration that didn't attempt to make it look like a finished painting. That, I believe, was for marketing purposes.
I think the cleaned version was utterly profund, whoever the original artist was. The "restored" version looks like something from a 1970s Christmas card
1970's Christmas card is kind of a refreshing idea in 2023. But, yeah, it ain't in it with a real Renaissance masterpiece.
With a passing knowledge of Da Vinci's techniques and all the hidden geometry that provides the foundation many of the classic masters, this piece brings it all home. What better way to literally illustrate the amazing methods of a master than to show it done wrong. I feel a lot more savvy about this topic having viewed this. Additional kudos to the producer of this wonderful clip for the digital restoration..... a bittersweet result. Why the hell couldn't they have just left it alone. The restoration advocates will be justly ridiculed in the future. It's like finding Edgar Allan Poe's first 5 pages of a short story and commissioning Stephen King to finish it. A horrible blight on the art world.
Thanks for the comments and for watching the video. Glad you got something out of it. And, I like your literary analogy with Poe and King, though even that might be a bit generous. Have a good one!
Since 2017, I had this obsession with this piece. I think about it every once in a while and search up TH-cam videos or try to see if there are any updates on its whereabouts, new documentaries, etc. My mind changes constantly over whether or not it is, in fact, a Leonardo. Some days I think OBVIOUSLY HIM other days I think OBVIOUSLY NOT. I have virtually no opinion at this point in time. It can go either way. AND THAT IS WHY THIS PAINTING IS SO DARN FASCINATING.
Anyway, this documentary is absolutely fantastic. I couldn't stop watching and you highlighted so much of what I have been thinking personally, but actually put the factual *chef's kiss* touch. I think Dianne Modestini was given the task to fix a painting in terrible shape, clearly, but she overdid it. And seeing the original cleaned version here over and over, wow. I never realized how much work she actually did. This was far beyond a few touch-ups. I really wish they would have left the cleaned version as-is. When I see that, I think, wow. That must be a Leonardo.
I think there should have been many more eyes, artists, experts in that room, but also, I don't think they realized what they had when they began "restoring". So many of the flaws I saw that led me to believe it couldn't be Leonardo seem to be restoration. (I always hated his eyes and thought them to be uneven, his cheeks and lack of definition in the neck bother the heck out of me, and that left side with the curls just doesn't look like Leonardo. Right side, however, does, IMO. John the Baptist all the way.) I mean, there are still some oddities that choose me to question, but this is all such a complicated piece. If there wasn't so much money involved, I think we could have those honest discussions. But I just don't trust anyone when it comes to those high levels of $$$$$. I wish more people would be open to talking and having discussions about the findings you published here. Sorry for the rambling comment, but this was just fantastic. Thank you so much for creating this and your own masterpiece! Inspired!
I much prefer the unrestored version. I enjoy the rawness. It tells more of a wholesome story. It already had so much “life”
Very rarely do I find a documentary as authentic as this on the net. And entertaining too. Even with ADHD I watched it to the end! The aftertaste is bitter, but that's what you get with authenticity in a world that's governed by frauds. In Leonardo's days it wasn't any different, probably. Thanks for letting us watch all for free!
Agree. I'm very impressed by this creator
I agree! Listened to this fascinating learning while weeding in the garden. (ADHD, mind you). 😊
I'm always grateful for the smallest gem. This film is one of them. Thank You TH-cam, again!
I found this quite interesting and watched it once in the same morning. Thanks for all your work. I loved seeing the cleaned painting even with all its losses. Your new creation is also a revelation.
Thank you very much! Impressed you got through the whole thing in one sitting!
I feel like Baumgartner Restorations wouldn't have fucked up like this restorer did. Dude knows how to reattach a panel and use as little fill in medium as possible.
Totally agree, the man is a superb craftsman.
Not an art person, and stumbled across this topic by accident seeing a trailer for 'The Lost Leonardo'. Literally today. I immediately felt there was something strange about this painting.
After looking into how this was authenticated I found this video and just finished watching it. Amazing video, and absolutely criminally under-rated.
Fantastic job, and thanks for putting all of this together into one place.
Agree. Underrated creator
It's all bull s#it was one of many different paintings found in different ways to make easy to believe and not to question the items real owner and the incredible story that we are having to keep quite due to the sensitive information that will be easy linked to high profile criminal behaviour and cover story's that are so high profile people who are involved in releasing the information will definitely be silently disposed of to insurerr there secrets and lies never become known so I can never say anything to much but it is so easy to understand once you have been told and seen the evidence of the items reel story that was in a uk home as well as several other paintings and belongings but this is all made up but it is a genuine and very unique piece that his lady help mostly painted and is a fact I was given the information past down to the family and relatives given the youth of their family in the 80s as a boy and he has told me about it and I have seen the evidence that he has told me never to admit it but they will release it one day soon or some one will pay the silent sum
I would never dream of spending over 2 hours watching anything without losing interest easily. This masterpiece has absolutely gripped me. Exceptional work!
Seconded!
Modestini turned an original into a forgery. I recommend looking closely at the cleaned version on a 60" 4K TV screen. There is definitely a beard. The strong and regal expression isn't from the damage, but exquisite shading under the eye and highlighted cheekbone on the left-hand side of the painting (the figure's right side) where most of the damage is. That side of the face is lighter because the light is coming from that direction. This painting could have been saved with an appropriate conservator's retouching by someone with an artist's eye, who could see the traces left behind and could retouch without changing or covering the image that was still there. I sincerely hope she used an isolation layer and completely reversible arrival materials. None of the rules of conservation seem to have been followed here. Hopefully someone will be able to remove the awful overpainting and do it correctly. I'm shocked at how badly this was done and the ridiculous claims made to cover up the egregious mistakes.
I do think there's a very good chance she made her changes reversible, as that appears to be the contemporary standard practice.
baumgartner would've doen a better job of this restoration.
I'd like to ask him!😊
Why don't you think he does a good job? Serious question. I don't know anything about restoration, but if had a painting in bad condition I would be happy to give it to him. He seems to do a really good job. Is he no good?
I love that baumgartners invade every other restoration video out there
baumgartner is a hack and considered a bad source of information in the conservation world
💯
I think this is a FANTASTIC and BRILLIANT documentary/video that blows the so-called experts right out of their exclusive pond!!!! The evidence, the step by step discussion of arguments, of your extensive recreation work, just very impressive and professional.
I am not a classically educated artist, or critic, however this painting screamed obscenities at me the first time I saw it. Thank you for proving I am not crazy.
Thanks! So glad you enjoyed it and appreciated all my little arguments and visual aids. You are not crazy!
It was all about laundering some money. She was hung out to dry. She was chosen on purpose. There were many better choices for restoration. I love your rendering.
Damn, that is a cynical take, but considering the world we live in I guess it's just realistic. It never occurred to me that Modestini could be a patsy here. Now it will be hard for me to disregard that theory. Though she could also just be in on it. So glad you like my restoration!
Your digital recreation from an artist's point of view is a great contrast to the austere fragment that is the recently restored original. It looks to be more the skilled, unified realization of an artistic endeavor rather than an apologetic, dressed-up admission of failure. I love the way you handled the ornate belts that cross in the middle of the body. In the original, they look awkwardly covered in part due to work added by others. I really agree with your decision to extend the composition's width to provide more space around the right hand.
That is incredible how you finished the eyes without altering them. Da Vinci wouldn't finish a painting with "Off set eyes" like the restoration shows. Yet you did it quite easily and it looks right. The conservator/ restoration specialist could not see it after over cleaning the picture. A lot of detail was lost in the process where reconstruction was done by guessing how things looked originally. She may have confused the lines where the eye lid over the pupil was and accepted that as being what Da Vinci wanted to be. There is a fine beard too, now faded away. The question left is, can it be reversed? Something tells me not. Now if the Salvator Mundi was somehow taken back to the original state, I'm people I'm sure would say it's a fake. I learned a lot from your presentation and it was well explained.
Just watched it again! If I ever had to stand up and make the argument against the restorer's version, all I would do is "Flip it"! What a powerful technique, and you, sir, are a fine example of a fine artist. Hats off!
You took so much time to produce this, very impressive. I had to avert my eyes during the hunchback abuse, not exactly sure what this and aliens, ants, etc. were all about but you’re allowed your artistic license. I did love the Bush reference and fade in and out. Before watching this, the “restoration” never seemed right to me but I didn’t know why. Now I’m angry that very few spoke up. Your version is amazing.
Thanks for watching and commenting. These days, I've caught people using AI to generate text for videos, using an AI voice, and just slapping in pictures. Those videos get hundreds of times more views than mine, but guess what? AI isn't going to slap Gamera or aliens in the video, so in my case, you know it's human, quirky, creative, authentic, and individual.
This only popped up in my 'recommends' a couple of hours ago, and what a flipping treat it was. I went on a whole furious/livid jag of reading about this painting, the claims made for/about it, and its restoration a couple of years ago (you mention at least two of the highly critical articles I read at the time). I felt somewhat sated at the time, and moved onto other things quite quickly so maybe that's why I missed out on your video then.
You do such a great job of articulating everything I felt and said at the time, which was a great deal of highly *inarticulate* effing and blinding, shrieking and wailing mainly about *those horrible eyes* but you've shown me so, so much more, you've actually managed to make me angry all over again.
Your own effort at recreation was so much more in line with what glimpses were visible, and what might have been possible by a ridiculously skilled and sensitive restorer, even one working with such a high volume of damage. That final flip was excellent. What a great tip! It would never have occurred to me to do that!
So glad I was able to make you angry all over again! 😅😆😂
Discovering that cropped paintings are indications of fakes and that he used faulty or knotted wood, sold it for me.
Originally, I thought you were simply having fun with your videos when you added in longer bits of sci-fi silliness, but now I've seen enough to realize that they serve as "rest stops for the mind and eyes". Your visuals are pretty amazing and unlike anything else I've seen on YT.
And I know you were probably careful not to show off your own version too much, but I wish you would have because the work you put in was remarkable and detailed! Excellent work!
Not fakes, they indicate more naive copies of an original. Artists often did studies of master works of art. That is why there are so many "Last Suppers". Religious objects were the most copied of all because wealthy families would commission their own copies from artists that they patronized. The Church was the biggest patron of all, needing art for many churches.
That was really interesting. This piece would be very upsetting to a Saudi billionaire. I didn't mind the unrestored work. Sure, you will clock the damage initially, but ultimately you look beyond it and still see the painting. The ruination suggests a story and journey of half a millennia and what can happen to a masterpiece that isn't cradled in the womb of a museum. They should've left it alone and said "Here's what remains."
"They should've left it alone and said "Here's what remains."" I agree. Thanks for the comment. And yeah, I guess a Saudi prince might not appreciate what this means about the monetary value of his acquisition, but sometimes people like when you tell them the truth. At least he wouldn't still be hoodwinked, if he hasn't already figured it out a long time ago. And, of course, that's just my perspective, though I think a rather strongly argued and persuasive one. Thanks for watching and commenting.
+1
An absolutely astounding documentary. I am an art historian and yet somehow have never seen a photo of the raw cleaned painting. I almost gasped out loud at its beauty. I watched and listened carefully to everything you said, argued and presented and can whole-heartedly concur except for one thing...I do believe most of that extraordinary face in the raw cleaned version is by the Master. I do believe your version is a truer restoration than that which was 'produced', and for which I shall never be able to look at again. Bravo! What incredible work your have done. Thank you.
Cheers. Thanks so much for watching and commenting. Right, the raw, cleaned version is powerful and sublime. So glad another person can see how ridiculous the final result is that we are supposed to respect as Leonardo's most experimental and advanced accomplishment!
Outstanding examination of the painting ... beautifully and painstakingly done . Bravo
Thank you so much 😀
This was fascinating, fun and I loved every minute! Bravo!
Awesome! Thank you!
Thank you so much for this. I have looked at this image over and over and could not believe that it was a true Leonardo. It makes sense now. Well done.
You're very welcome. And your eye was spot on.
Good news everyone! They also found the ship of Theseus and are selling it at Christies, next.
Haha, "I've seen a lot of fights, and I've never seen anyone get that messed up." cracked me up!
I watched a video earlier today about tge 'restoration'. When I saw the photo of the cleaned painting and then the restoration, my thought is that the painting should be been left alone and not been 'restored'.
Great work you’ve done here sir, and I’d argue a great service to the art community ( not to be mistaken with the Art World ). I wonder what Loomis would have made of the facial structure. This certainly deserves to be seen , best thing I’ve seen since Tim’s Vermeer. I also found it hilarious in places.
Thanks, Nicholas. I'm glad you were able to find it despite TH-cam's algorithm not liking it one bit.
@@artvsmachine I believe it could be due to inclusion of some political content - not much art academia, but more George Bushes photo shapeshifting into Jesus, back and forth.. Just with that, you've accidentally stepped into forbidden waters, and perhaps may be glad this entire video hasn't been blocked or pulled down. Don't forget we live in a dystopian controlled, authoritarian society now. Algorithms are very sensitive to political content.
I just saw this reply a minute ago.
What a fantastic deep dive into this painting! Your 'cleaned' interpretation visually strikes a far more authentic and less off-kilter impression then the restored interpretation of the Mundi, especially in its placement of the eyes and shape of the jawline.
Out of idle curiosity, I have to admit that a similar retrospective on the 'Isleworth' Mona Lisa would be quite interesting, as that is another "so-acclaimed" Leonardo painting to have similarly left an impression on me, and I have no doubts that your thoughts on it would be quite insightful!
I do like your version, or the cleaned one more than what Dianne did to it.... I also think the painting should be send to Baumgartner immediately!! This was fascinating. Thank you and Greetings 👋
You're very welcome! And glad you like my version.
I could not help but send my previous message before watching the entire video. I felt thoroughly vindicated for my initial reaction when the 'last Da Vinci' was first presented to the world. I just thought' this is so wrong technically that it cannot be an actual work by the master'. Eric, your in detail examination ( of what should be obvious to many people who have the expertise of being able to see), based on an honest and expansive net of cross references, was conducted better than much of old and/or recent art historical research by so called experts. As both an Art Historian and artist who has studied for almost 20 years (including at the top factory of art dealers and gallerists, a.k.a. the Courtauld Institute of Art), I am not finding it surprising that 'experts' work hand in hand with the art market establishment or that 'academia' has survived by milking donors through flattery and re-assurance of their delusions of grandeur. It is just so insulting to master Leonardo that they passed this collage of mistakes as his last autograph work. He, however, would rather be amused.
Your restoration is soooo beautiful, the colours, contrast and simply everything about it feels alot better!!Well done!!
Oh, thanks, man. Glad you dig my version.
How about making a print available of the work after removal and before fill in- with all the "damage" as contributary to the pre-restoration opportunity?
To assume anything in that painting is from Leonardo is just that, and assumption. What is certain, is everyone was invested in selling its Leonardo authenticity. That way each of them made lots of money. If you like it fine, but it's not the work of a master painter. The entire Art World operates to make a profit, so what wouldn't they do to make that profit? It only takes one rich dupe to buy a fake. And with new corporations selling Art Stocks, it doesn't even require the dupes to be rich.
Ive been waiting for this....yay!
You're right! From the beginning, the restoration definitely felt "off"...something wasnt quite right. I had mixed feelings and looking at the restored version makes me feel uncomfortable.
Great video! Comprehensive and interesting to the end. Also aesthetically pleasing 😊😀
This video was great!! Like the Salvator Mundi... Before restauration.. Subbed!
I’m shocked they tried to restore it. My guess is they thought it would sell for more so they didn’t care about any consequences. Great documentary BTW
Thanks. Glad to hear you enjoyed my documentary. Also agree with your synopsis of the problem.
Very interesting and unexpectedly very funny. Great presentation and humor!
Great video! I can see why this took you so long to put together, it was well worth all the effort that obviously went in to it.
Thanks, Art Review. Was a ton of work. Next video I make is going to be a short one. Though I may be a bit busy working on my own art.
Firstly many thanks for the enjoying Video! One question of my side. Have you also considered the underlying signing of the painting as provided by Modestini ?
I don't follow your meaning. Are you suggesting Modestini signed the painting? I'm sure not. That would be hysterical. So, what are you saying?
No sorry für my english
I wanted to mention the preliminary drawing under the visible drawing. The Louvre did some Investigations in 2018 upfront the Louvre Exhibition in 2019 as Modestini did as well. She published her results on her Website
Great analysis indeed! Well informed, nerdy, arty - loved it. Watched them all so far, this is the best. Chapeau!
Much appreciated! Especially appreciate that you've watched more than one of my videos.
Your fixed cleaned version was great. But I think you want a bit too far with your final. Still, amazing job!
I watched this a couple years ago and have been watching a lot of videos on art and how the art world really is and I love the painting of Salvator Mundi and was trying to find anything new or updated but this is the Very Best about this painting. I personally think this is Not a Da Vinci as in he painted it 100%. There is something off about this painting. Always worth watching more than once. Really enjoy your take on the art.
Fascinating documentary! The flip at the end is incredibly jarring and pretty saddening. Would love if Julian Baumgartner got the chance to strip the overpainting back and provide a more sympathetic restoration
I'm glad you appreciated the flip. It really allows people to see the problems with their own eyes without having to think about it or know all the background information.
Absolutely outstanding. How do you not have millions of viewers?!
It's a new channel. Nobody knows about it. Thanks, though. Glad you enjoyed the video.
@@artvsmachine they need to pay you the 450 million dollars. The whole video is 🤌🏻, Theres no doubt, Da Vince himself would be proud of all your hard work and dedication to bring clarification to this Painting and his Legacy.
Because you are not allowed to challenge the status ....just like they try to convince you that modern art of a urinal is good art. Like Klaus's Schaub says you will own nothing and be happy. THE ELITES WILL ESTABLISH YOUR REALITY
This was gold! Also so funny, more laughs than most new comedy movies. Thanks for doing it.
On a related note I can't believe that the official Louvre publication on the painting that was actually on sale for like one day before being pulled, and was quoted by some journalists, never leaked. If you're reading this comment and you own it....please do the right thing ;)
Glad you enjoyed it! Most don't even see the humor. Much appreciated.
This video slaps beyond belief. I so appreciate how thorough and logical it is. This must have been an insane amount of work. But I think you are spot-on. I lost track of how many times I said "Yes!" out loud. It's difficult to believe that so-called experts would seem to not consider so many of these basic things you pointed out. Like, it's mind-boggling! Once you see the things that are wrong with the restoration, they're just so obvious and yikes-inducing.
I didn't come away from this with any strong opinion on whether it's a Leonardo, to whatever degree. That is possibly what's of interest to a lot of people, but it wound up not mattering to me. What matters to me is attributing THAT FACE to Leonardo. So I enjoyed your articulation of what's wrong with it and how it got that way. No matter who painted them, I've always hated this painting's awful wall eyes. When you flipped the painting I almost screamed. It's SO BAD. Those eyes are the wonkiest thing I've ever seen. What on earth happened.
I didn't realize to what extent the restoration had changed and exaggerated its expression so much. Sorry to the restorer -- I do believe she took on an impossible task -- but it's astonishingly bad and I don't know how anyone could think it's acceptable or beautiful work. The cleaned up version, even with all its cracks and missing paint and damage, is so much nicer. I hadn't seen it in its non-restored state before, and was shocked. I'd rather see that version displayed, but maybe with the cracks and missing paint filled in with black, so they're not as bright, or something...
Your editing style is quite unusual but it was entertaining, modern and fun for a subject that can be stodgy. Absolutely savage dramatic readings, too. In all, I loved this video. Thank you for making it.
Thanks for that comment. I think you got my best points, including that it's a travesty of art history, logic, aesthetics, and reality in general to attribute the restored face to Leonardo (and on top of it claim it's his most exalted achievement).
Yeah, it was a ton of work. As for my video-editing style here, well, I like to experiment a bit and can't help getting a bit weird and creative with it, and also throwing in some humor. If I can't make it my own, what's the point?
So glad you appreciated my video, and thanks for watching and sharing your impressions.
As an artist myself I have often used the mirror flip technique. We all have a distortion bias that is made obvious when flipped.
Right. And I gather the restorer didn't do that for some reason. Perhaps she put faith in the minute changes she methodically made and didn't [want to] check for a subtle but profound unintended transformation of the painted image.
Bro. You need way more views. You do good content. Not over the top music and hype.
Great quality videos
I'd like to propose a (digital) version of The Salvator Mundi with all non-Da Vinci brushstrokes removed. Probably only then can we truly enjoy and appreciate Da Vinci's genius
They should have given it to master Baumgartner!! Perhaps humanity wouldn't have lost this piece to restorer's incompetency. The cleaned version is amazing as it is, even with cracks and surface damages. The end result is an abomination, tbh. Art vs machine did a really amazing job with reconstruction, congratulation!
Thanks for this. Fascinating documentary. I think that your 'cleaned version" at 1:26:50 is probably what any restoration should have aimed for. I agree that the present restoration is a total mess. Some minimal restoration was probably needed due to the white showing and visually drawing the eye to the areas of paint loss and damage. I think this is a magnificent painting, whether or not it is by Leonardo.
The painting was clearly a group project and multiple students worked on it, as well as DaVinci. That’s why it wasn’t signed. It was a study.
It is undeniably a "group effort" between at least one original artist, Father Time and 500 years of physical damage and atrophy, at least one amateur paint-over, and more than one restoration. The main artist and artistic vision at this point belongs to Modestini, as she did the final edit. How many people worked on it in Leonardo's time, one can only guess. Personally, I don't see evidence of multiple hands in the cleaned state of the painting, and most of what are conspicuously different styles are directly tracable to damage and restoration. That said, I am not dismissing the possibility that it's a studio effort, which Jerry Saltz also promulgated.
Your first argument about the eyes is actually the strongest point in favor of this being an authentic Leonardo painting. Haven't you looked closely at the eyes in some of his portraits.
The left eye looks at us and the right past us. Some esoteric thing.
The face is a male and female blend, again, an esoteric meaning.
Very, very few faces are symmetrical anyway, to create a very lifelike portrait, you need the asyemmetry.
Thanks for commenting. While your arguments have merit theoretically, the best explanation by far as to the assymetry and striking disfigurement of the head is 500 years of damage, including the painting being cracked in half, at least one comic paint-over, caustic cleanings, and a final awkward attempt to patch it all together with cosmetic touches. Watch the rest of the video. There's no escaping the fact that the painting, and specifically the eyes, were brutally damaged. The restorer herself stated that they were beyond her ability to restore them. I do not say that the painting wasn't originally by Leonardo, but the image we see now does not represent his skill, talent, or vision. Rather, it's a grotesque insult to his own art and his legacy. Of course, that's my take on reality. Yours may differ, and that's fine. Have a good one.
Brilliant presentation! I especially liked the part about "Everybody wants a barbecue!". Even if you don't agree about the message you nevertheless have to love this video!
Amazing production you've put into this. Glad the algorithm brought me here. What an absolute joke they played with this painting. Or should I say scam, fraud, destruction. The fact that it was bought with Oil money instead of 400 Mclarens is fitting.
Yeah. I was warned not to share this video because I might piss off the buyer with the oil money, who, they tell me is a very dangerous fellow. However, I'm just the messenger. Should have bought the 400 Mclarens instead.
I didn’t exactly know what it was but the refinished version was very strange and unsettling. I wanted to cover the eyes to keep them from looking at me. Now I know why. The correct symmetry does wonders and Da Vinci would have been extremely symmetrical. Your version seems much more Da Vinci like than the current version. Great job!!
Thank you for your insightful documentary, where your humour created a charismatic understanding of the whole. Indeed, the picture you created is, in my opinion, closer to Leonardo's original than the corrected version. Perhaps it is better that that version disappeared somewhere, presumably in a Middle Eastern locker forever...
WAIT A MINUTE! Where can we get your clean version? That was my favorite
I never intended to sell that one because, well, it never occured to me because I'd only added to an image of the original. In the case of my version(s) I redid everything to such an extent that I can call it my own and market it with a clean conscious.
This presentation must have taken you a lot of time and it is wonderful. Thank you so much!
You're very welcome! And thanks for watching and commenting.
It would be interesting to see you do the opposite digital treatment to the Mona Lisa to see what it might look like if it was "abraded" then "retouched"...how would the empress's new clothes appear!
I like the ethereal way Christ glows in the Modestini restoration. Maybe that’s what the artist intended? Your restoration has merit, and the problems you pointed out with the Mondestini restoration I think are valid; however, that glow about the body, that hazy look of the face-for me at least adds what I think is a deliberate mystical quality of the artist’s original intentions and, perhaps, intentionality. That mystical quality/effect makes this piece stand out from the other Salvator Mundi’s you’ve compared it to. Dare I say it possesses a Gnostic vibe about it.
In reality Modestini removed any glowing by making the background a flat black color, and removing any shading and modeling between hair and background. As I pointed out in the video, the hair is just cut with a hard edge just like someone had cut out the image with scissors and pasted it there. And that certainly is not possibly what a genuine Renaissance artist would have done.
The mysteriously spiritual aura you attribute to the face is just whatever was necessary to blur serious damages into something that appeared finished. It's a fuzzy abomination and an insult to the actual skill and intent of any competent artists of the time. But for many people who want the image to be something, there's a sort of placebo effect.
You project your own spiritual whateverness upon the image and attribute that resonance to the image itself. You are just like all the people weeping in front of a catastrophic failure of a restoration, done in the name of making extraordinary amount of money. You are looking at the emperor's ball sack and swooning at the embroidery.
Looking at the emperor’s ball sack and swooning at the embroidery, lol. I don’t know if I’ll finish watching this video. I’m over halfway finished and I’ve found it very informative; however, I’m getting the impression you’re a real jerk.
Well, consider that I spent months creating a documentary that's over 2 hours, and I recreated the Salvator Mundi as a digital painting (which to my great surprise nobody has improved upon since) and you presumed to argue against the content of my video, under my video, and without watching it. You basically took a cr@p on my work. So, who's a jerk?
@@artvsmachine God gave rock and roll to you
Gave rock and roll to you
Put it in the soul of everyone
God gave rock and roll to you
Gave rock and roll to you
Saved rock and roll for everyone
@ff441980fredcrowe Check out my most recent video, and then lecture me about rock and roll: th-cam.com/video/9Xeo8ProhTs/w-d-xo.html
This is terrific! Really well done, fascinating, and has so much food for thought. The only part I had a problem with was toward the end. I couldn't bear to see Charles Laughton as the hunchback of Notre Dame - too heartbreaking, so I missed a lot of what was on the screen. It took me many more hours to get through this because I kept going back and watching parts again. I will go back and rewatch many more times. I hope you produce more excellent documentaries such as this. Thank you so much!
Thanks, man. I'm really pleased when someone watches the whole thing and understands it. Cheers!
@@artvsmachine It took me a few sitting to get through the whole video but really enjoyed it 🙏 I've always wondered what she was paid for the restoration.
This is without a doubt the most interesting and entertaining post that Mr. Bumgardner has ever produced. Kudos to you sir.
You mean Baumgartner Restoration? Now, if you want to do an insulting play on words, it should be Bumgardener not gardner, and someone is a gardener of bums. I get your joke. Definitely I'm not that dude. He's a traditional restorer and I'm a contemporary artist. He makes a killing on TH-cam and I make next to nothing. But I've decided I'll take your comment as a compliment. Thanks, bro. Have a chill day, and keep on keeping on.
I honestly like your painting better, this should be on the Louvre
7ish minutes in with the yellow guid lines added, he looks like John Lennon.
That's because the circles around the eyes look like John's famous glasses, plus Jesus was always kind of a hippy at heart and a little bit Rock 'N Roll.
Excellent production , so well argued and loved the atmosphere - compelling We had a Verrocchio David Status at my school and he was a phenomenal sculptor although I doubt he put down his brushes after seeing Leo's angels although its a great anecdote - but I think everything was excellently proved with great critical thanking
I'm going to side with your sense of reality on this. Yes, I also doubt Verrocchio gave up painting after seeing Leonardo's work. Good call. Glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
I don't think I've ever seen a better video.
Fantastic video. Thanks very much
Cheers. It is always great to hear a positive response.
The anonymous digital recreation of what this painting likely actually looked like is very beautiful!
Thanks. It's not really anonymous though, because it's by me.
The fade into the Gojira montages is giving me LIFE!
Ha! I got so much criticism for those wacky touches. Glad a few people appreciate it.
Your analysis of the restoration was revelation to me even as a art historian..brilliant and I now agree, plus yes Leonardo had a large studio of assistants.. Auction houses suffer from selective memory loss..
I love what you had to say and I agree with you. This is not an original da Vinci painting. I really do not see how anybody could claim it to be an original
Maybe Leonardo had something to do with it, but he would never have claimed it as his own work
Your argument is compelling, and I don’t think anybody would even worry about it had it not been for the fact that it sold at auction for such an enormous amount of money
Yup. The restoration has amateur mistakes, and you're right that he wouldn't have claimed it as his own because he was in stiff competition with Michelangelo, among others, and this piece could not compare with other serious works of the time. The fact that people try to make this painting his greatest achievement is a disgrace and an insult to his legacy as well as art history and art in general. But, hey, we live in a time where everything is just about money, money, and more money. I'm hoping the pendulum of corruption and incompetence has swung as far as it can go and we will start heading back towards honesty, decency, authenticity, individuality, integrity, and so on.
Amazing documentary and a very beautiful recreation you made of the painting! 🤩
Thank you so much 😀
The background is to me the first thing I notice and the most inauthentic feature of this work. There is an inescapable "tacked on" appearance. To me, it is as though the black background is actually cut out and pasted over the figure beneath. It is so outrageously incorrect that that it astonishes me that these critics did not simply reject it out of hand.
Yes. I covered that in the video. The restorer made an executive decision to make the background a flat black, and rather than the hair or clothing softly fading into the background, they are as if cut out. Dastardly. I compared this sad eventuality to paintings contemporaneous with Leonardo and how they gradually faded figures into dark backgrounds. Good call catching that.
@@artvsmachine Yes. I was relieved to hear you say that. I mean you can see it from across the room! I didn't realize that the background had been repainted, which confirms how it looks. I don't think it looks at all like a Leonardo, in whole or in part.
And 700 years from now, the restored Mt Rushmore will depict The Beatles.
Good one. Also, turns out the Venus de Milo accurately depicts a double amputee of the time, so they tell me.
Here is my new Life Goal. To learn all I can about the Salvatore Mundi. When I was a little girl, thought the Mundi painting had everything to do with the Sal Magundhi Club in Manhattan. Before my Dad had The Big One, he was a Graphic Artist. He knew alot about fine art, but because of his Mental Illness, he couldn't pursue his interests. His love and respect for art rubbed of on me.
This is a experience, it has techinical comment, opinion and even a new version, I don't know nothing about art(however I love to draw not paint.) and this make me learn so much, I watched like a movie.
Cheers from Brazil!
watching this for a second time. man, i just jive with your sense of humor. spot on. lol. shit's hilarious. great editing.
You rock!
Brilliant, I learn so much from you. This is my favorite Chateau show .
The thing you pointed out in the painting are REALLY glaring to me ... the cockamammy eyes, the bent nose , the lip cleft, the hair on the left side ..... Least we forget that everything in the Portrait is crystal sharp until it gets to the figures face, and it gets very very fuzzy. IF this is genuine perhaps it was an effort to portray the more human aspects of the person VS the perfection of the divine as usually painted ? Too many issues with this painting
It's so surprising that a fine art conservator doesn't necessarily have any training in drawing and painting. As for looking at the mirror image of a picture you're working on, in (Emile A.) "Gruppe on Painting," he advises: " ... one of the most important ( tools is): a mirror. As you paint, you get used to mistakes, but seeing the picture in reverse gives you a fresh eye. Errors jump out at you. And it's a good way to check for balance. In my studio, I have three mirrors ..."
I don't understand how they argue that the corrected thumb makes it a painting made by Leonardo himselve. I would rather think, it's more plausible that someone like Luini did it wrong at first and Leonardo corrected it...
Good point. We don't know that both variations of the thumb were done by the same person. It's a bad argument anyways, because it relies on the notion that all of the versions of the Salvator Mundi are based on the same cartoon (outline drawing), and are hence straight copies with no attempt at originality or experimentation, and yet they are all remarkably different.
I'm only halfway through and am hoping that you sell copies of your restoration.!
Thank you for this video. I found having the painting analysed by an artist very helpful. I appreciate the respect that you have shown to Dianne Modestini who has paradoxically been vilified both for improving and for ruining the painting. As you made clear, her task was to replicate where there was evidence and to cover damage in a neutral fashion without inventing anything. I agree with you that it would have been better to have left the painting in its raw state. I wonder if people’s emotional response to the painting is partly to do with the damage that shines through the restoration. A resurrected but still scarred saviour. I think that people would have responded to it in its overtly damaged state, just as they do to scarred and ruined buildings.
I think it's the power of suggestion and they would have responded equally well to some of those other savior paintings I shared, notably the one by Solario.
I’m sure you’re right about the power of suggestion. Sadly the Leonardo name and the hype give this particular painting far more attention than it deserves.
And I have to admit that the puzzle of the painting’s history and origins have drawn me in, even though I don’t particularly like it.
But I’ve learned a lot about the art trade, art restoration , art experts and the skills of Leonardo and his pupils.
Yeah, me, too. I was drawn in by how anyone could take the final painting seriously as a Leonardo, but in researching it I learned a lot and discovered some new artists as well.
Making a version myself on canvas and I gave up twice . I am on it again and to be honest, the process will make me a much better artist. Humbling sometimes yes. I truly believe it is an original painting by DaVinci.
This is better than the Netflix documentary. Fantastic well done. Subscribing now.
Oak or walnut? The powder was used by others and you can purchase it even today. It might help to have the paint dry faster.
Did I say oak? Igadz! Nice catch. It's walnut, if memory serves me, and I think I came across that factoid enough times. Just misspoke in the viddy. That little bit was impromptu.
Arrived here by way of WP. Began watching, realized I knew nothing at all about this painting (except the meaning of the title). So I did a Wikipedia run & discovered that the person isn't a slim woman with a beard & ancient soul-patch, which is what I assumed in prior encounters. Will watch in segments so that I have time to research & digest in between. This is SO COOL. ::applause::
Fascinating reconstruction. One point is both versions portrayed show less cheekbone shadow than on the left of the damaged original. Its as if both restorations prefer the da vinci standard full rounded cheeks. A pity because the shadow makes for a more masculine shape.
Great opening. I felt the same way! Overall, though, I don't come away with a definite understanding of whether or not you believe the painting is primarily by daVinci. You basically say that it could be but that time and the restorer, have screwed it up beyond the point of knowing. This seems like a cop-out. It seems to me that a determination can be reached that it is primarily by the Master, in which case who cares how much it's been subsequently screwed-up as this only affects its price; or that it is primarily not by the Master, in which case it is deemed "School of" or "Studio of" daVinci. Should I assume your perceived equivocation means you think the original work falls under the latter opinion? BTW. You should do a series of Cabbage Patch Dolls on a Cross, possibly 'paying' for sins of the '80s. Thank you.
Ah, someone appreciated the Cabbage Patch sequence! Thanks for watching and commenting!
wonderful video! I've learned a lot! thank you
I really love your cleaned up version before painted over! is that print for sale too?
So I’m a fellow digital artist , and a huge DaVinci nut. A couple of points I’d like to mention to you , the crocked eyes are a signature DaVinci mark , it’s in John the Baptist , it’s in the Virtruvian man , Mona Lisa pupils are crocked as well. You showed the 6 most popular mundis , the first one or top left , is suspected to be a young DaVinci himself , DaVinci had a lazy eye, proof ? Virtruvian man is a DaVinci self portrait in his mid 30’s and no doubt matches the widely accepted old men self portrait that everyone knows. Look very close and you see the eyes are crocked . DaVinci painted a lot of things twice , including mundi , he took the original self portrait face from sal mundi one , reversed or mirrored it in the 450 mill dollar version , that’s why the features look so awkward. The whole no neck distinctive line you mentioned , sfumato or smoking effect , DaVinci said portraits should never depict facial features in rigid solid lines , hence the smoking look. Also to any DaVinci doubter out there , Sal Mundi is completely composed of the golden ratio, the hands , the designs in his robe , the face , the whole portrait is one golden ratio after another , this is 1000% Leo DaVinci signature. If you ever watched the Shroud of Turin documentary on you tube , you know DaVinci faked that as well , using his face as Christ , it’s a riddle , and he does it again in Mundi. The shroud of Turin, Mona Lisa , and both mundi match DaVinci s facial proportion grid sketch exactly….they were all made by the same person. And one last thing , you were trying to figure out what the bunched up robe just below the right hand meant , it’s a symbol hidden in the folds , I can’t rem the name , but someone in the 450 mill version painted over it cause they didn’t understand it either. The orb Jesus is holding also has 3 white specs , they are the 3 main stairs of Orion’s Belt , it’s some cryptic message that our gods came from Orion’s Belt…. So the eyes , the neck , the folds , the orbs , the golden ratio , the mirrors faces , the fact it’s painted twice , is 1000 percent DaVinci and no one else. And it’s possible he left it unfinished, he tended to do that a lot
All the theories about why da Vinci deliberately made the eyes wildly eschewed aside, we know as a fact from the restorer herself that thy at least one of the eyes was so damaged that she couldn't do anything to it without changing his expression. On top of that, as I pointed out, she nevertheless inadvertently ended up emphasizing the wrong parts and accentuating the damage. The rest is theory. The same sort of problem happened with the neck. We know as a fact that is was overly restored in the past with harsh chemicals.
We also know what the painting looked like before and after Dianne Modestini restored it. The character of the Christ in the painting is determined by 500 years of damage, multiple restorations, and the final reworking by Modestini.
We can be absolutely sure that the resultant portrait is NOT Leonardo's original intent. That's reality. I'm just the messenger.
It would be interesting to carry out the more elaborate analysis near 1h21m on the works of the various disciples.