Leonardo's Salvador Mundi a fake?

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952
The painting Salvator Mundi purported to be by Leonardo Da Vinci sold for a world record 450 million last week but doubts continue to surround the identity of the artist who painted it.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/nov/20/artistic-license-experts-doubt-leonardo-da-vinci-painted-450m-salvator-mundi

There is no doubt that the high money art market is primarily concerned with storing and handing down wealth and possibly even money laundering.

Regardless of whether Da Vinci painted the original black and white picture, the coloured 'restored' version is a completely different painting of a man with a different bone structure.
 


cabledude

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
6,262
$450,000,000 for a painting, that cannot be confirmed as a genuine work....

Mind boggling.
 

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952
$450,000,000 for a painting, that cannot be confirmed as a genuine work....

Mind boggling.
The thing is, if it even was a Da Vinci - they defaced it. It's a completely different painting. That's modern greed to a t. To a t.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,341
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Stick to the essential points:
  • is a provenance based entirely on "expert" opinion a total banker?
  • is a heavy-restored image still the "original"?
  • if the name of Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci couldn't be invoked, would anyone give it house-room?
OK.

So what other benefits are there to ownership? —
  • bragging rights?
  • polishing (be it national or commercial) some operation's jobbie?
  • not ... err ... money laundering? No, no: perish the thought!
 

sadcitizen

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
4,271
Well, Leonardo *did* paint a Salvador Mundi, based on studies of it by artists at the time. Question is whether this is an understudy's work (no, based on the x-rays showing re-posing, and based on records), and whether it's been painted over completely (also no). No doubt good sales and marketing by Christies has been a factor in the high sale price.

if the name of Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci couldn't be invoked, would anyone give it house-room?
The name "Leonardo da Vinci" doesn't carry weight for no reason.
 
Last edited:

Dearghoul

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
9,272
I've seen a few of his paintings and I'm not convinced it's one of his, but I'm no expert. Whether it's genuine or not whoever bought it has deep pockets and it it's a museum or art gallery then the speculation will draw a lot of visitors for years to come. It'd would be a hook to reel people in. My bet is it's been bought by a Russian oligarch who has run out of things to spend money on.
I thought for a bit you might be our esteemed Eagle of the Ninth redux, but as she'd never use the phrase 'I'm no expert but...' you're off the hook;

the one I loved as an example of modern art market hooey, was D. Hirsts diamond
skull.

Unable to flog it himself he formed a 'consortium' to shell out.

In that way the price of his other work didn't take a nosedive as investors got sniffy.

His reason for being instrumental in this cosortium? Well he wanted an input into how it was to be displayed around the world!
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
10,163
Paying that much money for paint that looks like something is B.S. Any old fool that paints a bit could do sunflower (Van Gogh ), the Mona Lisa isn't impressive either.
 

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952
Paying that much money for paint that looks like something is B.S. Any old fool that paints a bit could do sunflower (Van Gogh ), the Mona Lisa isn't impressive either.
The stuff that has commanded the highest prices in the news recently has been far from impressive. Bacon, Modigliani, Basquiat.

Give me a good old Bouguereau anyday.

A Bouguereau



A Basquiat



The works of the latter are far more 'valuable' on the markets than those of the former.

Though Van Gogh was a true visionary.
 

Jack Walsh

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
10,270
Half a billion dollars for a painting, that may even be a fake, and heading for a vault to wait 5 years until some other multi billionaire (or drug cartel, quite probably via bitcoin) decides to pay a billion for it
Utterly repulsive stuff
 

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952
The stuff that has commanded the highest prices in the news recently has been far from impressive. Bacon, Modigliani, Basquiat.

Give me a good old Bouguereau anyday.

A Bouguereau



A Basquiat



The works of the latter are far more 'valuable' on the markets than those of the former.

Though Van Gogh was a true visionary.
What do Basquiat, Bacon and Modigliani have in common?

Heavy drug abuse. Apparently that's a requirement to get above the 100 million mark in the art markets.

How could you become a master of fine art while out of your gourd all the time?

The difference is Bougereau could have turned to drugs and become a Bacon or a Basquiat but the reverse is not true, to create works of great detail, accuracy with dramatic light requires a lot of talent, practice, confidence and dedication. It's why i have time for Picasso, Dali, Van Gogh - they could all of them also paint well - in addition to their idiosyncratic styles and visions.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,443
I remember the episode with the lost Caravaggio "The taking of Christ" when it turned up in Dublin in the early 90s. There were all sorts of reports about copies and works by apprentices and many institutions/museums claiming that they had the original work. In the end, it started to resemble "The taking of the piss".

Paying a half a billion dollars for a painting, even if its real, is really taking the piss.
 

Roberto Jordan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
2,059
I remember the episode with the lost Caravaggio "The taking of Christ" when it turned up in Dublin in the early 90s. There were all sorts of reports about copies and works by apprentices and many institutions/museums claiming that they had the original work. In the end, it started to resemble "The taking of the piss".

Paying a half a billion dollars for a painting, even if its real, is really taking the piss.
In reality though whether its half a billion or 5 million or 500,000 the same argument can be made.

All those sums vastly outweigh whatever utility even a very wealthy ( i.e. multi million net worth) individual could possibly derive from ownership.
Its price is simply a function of the extreme multi billion dollar wealth that customer base for this type of item are in possession of and , one suspects, there desire to sink as much as possible of it into relatively liquid real assets.

In some respects its no different from , for example, central london property prices ( I would add my beloved NY but TBF to the US , at least until now, the fear of federal authorities , be they taxation, security or regulatory, keeps many of the bogeymen ensconced only temporarily in hotel suites...)

There has in ireland and elsewhere been a gross missing of the point in regard to ,for example , the paradise papers. Some well known people have been attacked in the media etc. but there has also been a silly focus on corporate structures etc. The reality is that corporations hold little if any wealth in perpetuity and eventuality assets & earnings flow back to shareholders. In many. most respects publically listed corporations are relatively re-distributive, given access to all comers to the fruits of their labors at relatively low cost. If personal income is taxed failry there is limited argument , beyond giving the public recompense for services/ market access and some element of a dividend on profits based on same, for extreme corporate taxation ....in fact better , in a aging pension dependent population, to shift to the Irish model in terms fo corporate ( at least for publically held entities) vs personal taxation ( but see below for its inherent issuesn with latter) in many countries.

the issue is in private wealth which , as piketty and others or less "red" bent have shown, is increasing exponentially. And this runs all the way from the scions of well known families down to the family down the road leaving 50k in shares and two houses to the next generation. Labor income is over taxed, unearned income, in particular from privately held companies and inheritance, is relatively undertaxed - including in Ireland. Both residency and citizenship of individuals are more meaningful , fairer and needed targets for introducing cross border equalization of taxes .....again the US does a better job than most, Uncle Sam asks every year just how much of my communion money is still held by An POst.

How all of this relates to a silly price for a painting? Well is very drawn out. But I am damn sure whomever bought it has multiple residences and probably multiple passports and didn't accumulate their wealth by curing cancer or winning oscars.
rather than worrying about whether a company pays 5 10 or 15% tax , how about considering the largest holders of wealth globally and the ultimate expression of inequality ? ( warning - you may have to justify why you pay less tax inheriting your grannies 3 bed in Douglas or Clondalkin than a young 20 year old working behind the counter in supermacs.....)
 

IvoShandor

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
7,270
Twitter
yes
One can't tell much from a picture on the Web, but it looks more like a Bernardino Luini to me.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,027
Twitter
No
That leonardo has a lot hanging on his name...


 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top