• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

"Christie’s Is Selling This Painting for $100 Million. They Say It’s by Leonardo. I Have Doubts. Big Doubts." - Jerry Saltz
0

49 posts in this topic

Here's a story covered by Vulture and written by Jerry Saltz that I can sink my teeth into, not only as an art history junkie, but because I see a number of very interesting parallels to the fine art culture and what I've been seeing happen in comic art. These quotes particularly stood out:

One of the first things you’ll hear from a Christie’s official is “the only way to know what this painting is worth is to bring it to auction”; this is patently untrue. Were this a real da Vinci, its worth would be something known in the collective culture. The idea that the best test of a painting is to place it under the hammer at auction simply tells you how out of touch Christie’s has become. But it’s also a sign of a new system of authority, a sad sign of how much power the auction houses have acquired that one of them is pushing a new work by an old master — a work that some experts accept, while many others are highly skeptical of, and yet no furor has been raised. Those experts are probably thinking, “Well, scholarship changes every 20 years and others will correct this,” not wanting to rock the already splintering institutional boat. As in the wider world where people sit by for fear of losing position, it’s no wonder that many old master experts are keeping quiet, not saying much of anything. And of course no one at Christie’s can say, “Wait a minute, guys.” I know many of the people there; all are as passionate and knowledgeable about art as anyone I know. But if any of them think anything is fishy they’re all too far in now to risk their jobs by saying anything publicly, when the mood is “nothing is going to change anyway, and that train has already left the station.”

Well worth the read even if you don't see these parallels like I'm seeing them.

Edited by comicwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know its funny, I clicked on the link and the first second impression was it doesn't look right.

Doesn't mean I have a clue, but its funny how quickly it stood out for the wrong reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing, a very interesting read.  Sadly, these parallels (between the art worlds) will only increase as the hammer price on the top pieces rise.  I'm no expert (did some art restoration using lasers in grad school), but this simply fails the eye test...and probably any true analysis done.  My favorite quote...

"As for Christie’s, as an auction house, it should be shunned by the art world, recognized for what it is — a hostile witness to art."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha!  i like the warhol quote at the end

 

Let Andy Warhol have the last word in summing up what’s really going on; when he heard that the Mona Lisa was coming to New York in 1963, he said, “Why don’t they have someone copy it and send the copy, no one would know the difference.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, suspense39 said:

Ha!  i like the warhol quote at the end

 

Let Andy Warhol have the last word in summing up what’s really going on; when he heard that the Mona Lisa was coming to New York in 1963, he said, “Why don’t they have someone copy it and send the copy, no one would know the difference.”

It's a great quote. Andy was the real King of the One-Liners; too much time is spent on the other aspects of his life and work that are so often criticized, tending to shift focus away from his obvious intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, pemart1966 said:

A few people must have liked it  - just sold for $450.3M - a new record for art at auction...

UGH. I am no Leonardo expert (thought he was a Turtle??) but Saltz raised enough questions that I'd have be much more of an expert than the "experts" to spend even the $100m opening bid on this whatever-it-is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't put much stock in the Saltz article. I think he just wrote the article for the web hits. Its far more widely accepted than the article leads on.

Leonardo was well known to experiment and use unstable materials. Even during his more competitive years with Michelango. I would suggest one read about his Battle of Anghiari. 

The front facing portrait is to be expected. (If its wrong then everyone seems to have gotten it wrong since the copies going back to the 1600's)  

I've seen numerous examples of da Vinci's works in person, done a few articles on his works in college. I have not seen this one in person.

The piece has some bad over painting and is not in the greatest shape. It's not completely out of the question that it also has some work of assistants as well, (as with his other pieces) but I don't see a good reason to state that 90%+ percent was made by others.

Edited by Rip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Rip said:

I wouldn't put much stock in the Saltz article. I think he just wrote the article for the web hits. Its far more widely accepted than the article leads on.

Leonardo was well known to experiment and use unstable materials. Even during his more competitive years with Michelango. I would suggest one read about his Battle of Anghiari. 

The front facing portrait is to be expected. (If its wrong then everyone seems to have gotten it wrong since the copies going back to the 1600's)  

I've seen numerous examples of da Vinci's works in person, done a few articles on his works in college. I have not seen this one in person.

The piece has some bad over painting and is not in the greatest shape. It's not completely out of the question that it also has some work of assistants as well, (as with his other pieces) but I don't see a good reason to state that 90%+ percent was made by others.

Nice brief rebuttal. And good call that any contrary statement piece by a 'name-as-a-business' should be (at least somewhat) evaluated against their own inherent self-promotional efforts. After all, who is Jerry Saltz without putting himself out there early and often, well he's probably Jerry...who??

Not that any of us was in the running to make a run at this piece, but drawing a parellel to comic art and similar concerns of vocal vs. quiet and who may or may not be taken in by a 'story' and aspects that only folks that have been at it for a good long while might notice without it being pointed out to them let's still take a lesson here: Don't trust those with vested* interests in isolation. Seek your own council and do your own research and ultimately do not bid unless you feel comfortable and don't bid higher than you feel comfortable, particularly on a piece that may have...issues (of whatever stripe/s).

 

*The owner/consignor, The House, self-promoting "personalities", etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rip said:

I wouldn't put much stock in the Saltz article. I think he just wrote the article for the web hits. Its far more widely accepted than the article leads on.

Leonardo was well known to experiment and use unstable materials. Even during his more competitive years with Michelango. I would suggest one read about his Battle of Anghiari. 

The front facing portrait is to be expected. (If its wrong then everyone seems to have gotten it wrong since the copies going back to the 1600's)  

I've seen numerous examples of da Vinci's works in person, done a few articles on his works in college. I have not seen this one in person.

The piece has some bad over painting and is not in the greatest shape. It's not completely out of the question that it also has some work of assistants as well, (as with his other pieces) but I don't see a good reason to state that 90%+ percent was made by others.

Probably safe to say that most if not all Renaissance paintings have had some form of restoration or touch up done to them over the centuries.  Many were worked on by assistants with a hand, to varying degrees by the master.  I've always wondered how the "tipping point" is arrived at i.e. the point at which you can/should no longer call a particular work "done by artist X" due to the amount of restoration done by others or the amount of work done by the assistants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, suspense39 said:

"When a controversial piece of such dubious authenticity is sold at prices no museum can afford, making it available only to the increasingly indistinguishable cliques of oligarchs and their head-of-state business pals, it contributes to a market where expertise and devotion to art are dispensed with; the final word on what’s a Leonardo and what isn’t goes to the highest bidder, not the most knowledgeable or most dedicated scholar. It’s hard to envision any benefit to society, or artists, or art."

Should we conclude that Leila Pedro must be doing it for the web hits too?

Edited by comicwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, comicwiz said:

"When a controversial piece of such dubious authenticity is sold at prices no museum can afford, making it available only to the increasingly indistinguishable cliques of oligarchs and their head-of-state business pals, it contributes to a market where expertise and devotion to art are dispensed with; the final word on what’s a Leonardo and what isn’t goes to the highest bidder, not the most knowledgeable or most dedicated scholar. It’s hard to envision any benefit to society, or artists, or art."

Should we conclude that Leila Pedro must be doing it for the web hits too?

The artwatch article linked in the piece is a bit better and more tempered. http://artwatch.org.uk/problems-with-the-new-york-leonardo-salvator-mundi-part-i-provenance-and-presentation/

I've read it (earlier today) and disagree with various claims which Saltz cut and pasted in one of his other articles where he posts a small list of complaints.

But the vast majority of the debate comes from Zollner. Zollner is 1 of over a dozen various experts used as sources in the field. He's in the far minority and much of what he states is highly subjective.

The biggest 2 complaints I see are :

Straight forward pose:

The Glass Globe:

 

To me it doesn't seem unusual that da Vinci would paint a Salvator Mundi face straight-on for various reasons.

While da Vinci is usually more dynamic, it's a face forward established pose. (even before 1500) Da Vinci didn't have a face forward Jesus in his other paintings, however he does have various face forward poses in his notebooks. Not many paints are still around either, so its hard to establish a strong pattern especially with one so experimental.

Behind the Globe shows little distortion and some suggest da Vinci would have done it different because of his studies. Hollar's piece is different, however its different in various aspects, not just the globe/hand.

The restoration artist and others have written a more detailed analysis on the globe, which is somewhere on the internet.

 

I love this stuff. I guess its certainly more exciting when there's debate. 

 

Edited by Rip
added small date
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Rip said:

Behind the Globe shows little distortion and some suggest da Vinci would have done it different because of his studies.

The globe functions more like a concave lens in this painting. I certainly agree that da Vinci's studies would have revealed an actual globe, because he knew how light functioned and his work is historically known for showcasing the union of science with art.

 

globe.jpg

Edited by comicwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0