This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Salvator Mundi (Leonardo) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Salvator Mundi (Leonardo) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 November 2017. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Who the $&% Is Jackson Pollock? a case where a demonstrated provenance was widely rejected VS. this, a case where a dubious provenance affords a historical transaction. 98.4.124.117 ( talk) 11:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
https://www.quora.com/Did-Teri-Hortons-Pollock-sell . 98.4.124.117 ( talk) 08:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
This Zero Hedgesource says this:
Should this be added? Or is this just a tabloid version of what's already there? Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The following text was removed in this edit. I question wether or not this should remain in the article or be removed. Since it is sourced, I will revert the removal, pending a discussion here:
...stating: In one respect, it is rendered with beautiful scientific precision, but Leonardo failed to paint the distortion that would occur when looking through a solid clear orb at objects that are not touching the orb. Solid glass or crystal, whether shaped like an orb or a lens, produces magnified, inverted, and reversed images. Instead, Leonardo painted the orb as if it were a hollow glass bubble that does not refract or distort the light passing through it. [1]
Michael Daley, the director of ArtWatchUK, also raised doubts on the authenticity of the painting. He noted that there's practically no evidence that proves that Leonardo was ever involved in painting a Salvator Mundi subject; thus disputing the important argument in favor of attributing the painting to Leonardo, namely that the painting contains pentimenti and for that reason has to be attributed to Leonardo himself. [2] Daley notes on the Salvator Mundi painting being the prototype of a subject painted by Leonardo: "This quest for an autograph prototype Leonardo painting might seem moot or vain: not only do the two drapery studies comprise the only accepted Leonardo material that might be associated with the group, but within the Leonardo literature there is no documentary record of the artist ever having been involved in such a painting project." [3]
References
Coldcreation ( talk) 15:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Wikipedia is usually pretty careful to reword claims like this: "The world's leading Leonardo expert." For example, The New York Times is a little more careful to say that Carlo Pedretti and Kemp are both " another top Leonardo expert". Is there any way we could tone down the Los Angeles Times to say Kemp is "One of the" leading experts? - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Done - SusanLesch ( talk) 17:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I have not altered the article because I may be wrong; but I believe that the actual price arrived at in the auction was 400 million dollars, and the addition 50 million was the auction house commission, which is an additional charge and does not come out of the bid price.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 23:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Considering the amount of controversy regarding the question whether or not Salvator Mundi is an authentic work by Leonardo, should the info box at the Salvator Mundi article read that this painting is a work by Leonardo or should it say something like 'Uncertain. Disputed attribution to Leonardo' (as is the case with La Bella Principessa), since several leading Da Vinci scholars - e.g. Jacques Frank and Charles Hope - don't believe this painting can be attributed to Da Vinci. Wim Kostrowicki ( talk) 03:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Christie's does not generally authenticate works of art, though they do have their own specialists as well, and will also refer to contrary views expressed by others, in certain cases. In this case, they relied on experts in the field. Auction houses take the time necessary to build academic support for a painting if they think it is authentic.
Until evidence surfaces to the contrary (a risk taken by the buyer), this painting is today considered a work of Leonardo da Vinci. It has not been qualified (by the leading experts who have analyzed it) as 'Attributed' to/'Studio' of /'Circle’ of/'Follower' of/'Manner' of/ or 'After' the artist. Calling this work anything else here at Wikipedia is POV. Yes, some experts disagree. There may not be a single ultimate authoritative voice on the attribution of Leonardo: There are always arguments for and against. But in 2011, after research, some of the world’s foremost experts confirmed the Leonardo attribution, e.g., Luke Syson, when then National Gallery curator, included the painting in his Leonardo exhibition. The preponderance of the experts to date, is that it is authentic. ( See here in layman's terms). The fact that some experts dispute full authenticity is mentioned in the article. But it is not up to us here at Wikipedia to determine attribution, such as School of, or Attributed to. That is why I changed the image file name at Commons. That is why we do not write "disputed" next the the artists name. Coldcreation ( talk) 07:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is clear, according to WP:CSECTION:
Articles on artists and works by artists often include material describing the opinions of critics, peers, and reviewers. Although the term "criticism" can, in that context, include both positive and negative assessment, the word "Criticism" should be avoided in section titles because it may convey a negative connotation to many readers. Alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments".
The current header for that section is Dissenting views. This, like "Criticism", has negative connotations. The topic of that section is evident in the first sentence of the section. I will therefore retitle that section "Reception". If anyone thinks "Responses", or "Reactions" etc. is more appropriate, feel free to change it. As far as the discussion above, consensus amongst experts is that Salvator Mundi is a work by Leonardo. That is reflected in this article and the sources therein. Other views are also expressed in the article and sources therein; viewpoints are presented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. The goal here at Wikipedia is to present the facts, as does this article. The facts are: (1) A painting by Leonardo da Vinci was recently discovered (or rediscovered following restoration) and sold at auction. (2) There are those who disagree that the painting is by Leonardo da Vinci. Coldcreation ( talk) 04:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Modernist Again, where in your sources is it written that 'the vast majority considers this painting to be a Leonardo'? As far as I can see it, you conducted the counting yourself, which falls under own research and is not allowed. Same goes for Coldcreation who said: 'As far as the discussion above, consensus amongst experts is that Salvator Mundi is a work by Leonardo.' Really, 'consensus'? How the hell is there ever such a thing as consensus amongst experts, let alone with this painting. I'm sorry, but what's written here is really absurd to the degree that I suspect POV. Wim Kostrowicki ( talk) 19:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Here are a few examples where the exact term "consensus" was used with regard to the authenticity of Salvato Mundi. Note, consensus is not obligatorily required in the authentication of artworks (see below). Note too, consensus is general agreement among a group of people, not necessarily all of the people.
Authentication: "...in the art world, the only acceptable attributions are those made by known recognized authorities on the artists whose names and artworks are being attributed. [...] people who have extensively studied the artists in question, published scholarly papers about them, curated museum or major gallery shows about them, teach courses about them, buy or sell at least dozens or preferably hundreds of works of art by them, write books or articles or exhibition catalogues or essays about them, and so on." (Source:
Authenticating and Attributing Art: What you Need to Know, www.artbusiness.com)
"Certainly a work that has been created entirely by the artist's hand would satisfy the expectation that it is authentic. There are situations in which the predominant part of the work was done by the artist’s hand, but he may have had assistants or students assist in its completion. If the artist authorizes the piece and claims it as his own, this alone may satisfy the test of authenticity."
Factors considered are:
(Source:
Cynda C. Ottaway, Leslie Wright, Legal Issues in Art Authentication & Valuation)
On this note, here are some of the publications on Leonardo da Vinci by Martin Kemp, one of the (if not the) leading authorities on Leonardo world-wide, and one of the scholars that authenticated Salvator Mundi.
I hope this helps. Coldcreation ( talk) 07:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
* This is interesting. Coldcreation ( talk) 19:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is extremely broad among Leonardo and Italian Renaissance scholars, which is acknowledged by respectable curators. Unfortunately, because of the publicity generated by last week's sale, a great deal of misinformation has been bruited about in the press and in social media. A lot of self-proclaimed "experts" and art critics have come out and been given equal stature to experts. If this painting merits the "Uncertain. Disputed attribution" label... I'm afraid contributors will be busy updating the majority of wikipedia pages on Old Master paintings, including the London version of Leonardo's Virgin of the Rocks. A lot of the criticism is directed at the condition of the object, but that should not be confused with attribution. The painting was studied and is accepted by the following Leonardo experts: David Alan Brown (National Gallery of Art); Maria Teresa Fiorio (Raccolta Vinciana, Milan); Martin Kemp; Pietro Marani. Carmen Bambach deems some parts to be by Leonardo (e.g.the blessing hand) and others partly by Boltraffio (e.g.the face). Frank Zollner (never studied the object itself) was a critic, though he now accepts parts to be by Leonardo. Carlo Pedretti and his circle previously considered another version of the Salvator Mundi, called Ganay after part of the provenance, to be Leonardo's lost original (people can decide the merit for themselves). Many other Italian Renaissance specialists agreeing with the attribution: Luke Syson (Metropolitan Museum of Art, formerly of the National Gallery, London); Nicholas Penny (former director of the National Gallery, London); Vincent Deleuvin (Louvre); Keith Christiansen, Stephan Wolohojian and Andrea Bayer (Metropolitan Museum of Art); Mina Gregori, etc. I'm sure this will be discussed in more detail in a forthcoming publication: Margaret Dalivalle, Martin Kemp and Robert Simon, Leonardo’s Salvator Mundi and the Collecting of Leonardo in the Stuart Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. For now, some of this is mentioned in parts by Christie's. 68.174.71.189 ( talk) 23:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Modernist keeps reverting edits addressing the authorship dispute. The entries about Daley were removed from the article because one source didn't even mention him and the other is a primary source from Daley himself at Artwatch. You have to find a reliable source to put this back in the article. There's also no reason to create a "dispute" section when that issue is addressed in the section titled "Restoration and attribution". Dkspartan1835 ( talk) 16:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Daley has been quoted worldwide as a google search reveals instantly. Some sources: Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/nov/20/artistic-license-experts-doubt-leonardo-da-vinci-painted-450m-salvator-mundi, Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/oct/19/mystery-jesus-christ-orb-leonardo-da-vinci-salvator-mundi-painting, Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/art/artists/salvator-mundi-mystery-orb-worlds-expensive-painting-real-leonardo/, NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/18/arts/international/a-name-game-with-the-old-masters.html, etc etc. No need to rely on a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erknowling ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Should there be an explanation for the connection between these two subjects? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 03:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Orb is not linked anywhere. Is there a suitable link? Perhaps it's meaning/ significance could be briefly added? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You are right. It is reflection on a mirror globular ball, not refraction, and it is a self portrait. Still Life with Spherical Mirror. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Halloween card The depiction of Christ holding an orb is not only an icon but a meme. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Lots of good suggestions about what is related. But sorry, I've lost track of any proposal of what might be added or linked. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if this has been asked before, but the lead, and only the lead, says "rock crystal orb". Is rock crystal in sources? Like somone said, the refraction or whatever seems wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The 2011 restoration is (barely) mentioned in the article. This is the version that toured on exhibit. Many of the attribution critics refer to this version in their analysis, noting the changes made after exhibition and prior to auction. Should an image of this version be included in the article? ( As seen here from this article) — 2606:A000:1126:28D:F935:C7E2:FE1:E49 ( talk) 16:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
There needs to be consensus to attribute the painting to the workshop of Leonardo in the lead, instead of blatantly saying it's a painting by him—which is disputed. The article body represents the multiplicity of views, with the dominant opinion being that it's by his workshop, with only partial attribution to Leonardo. Saying it is by his workshop in the lead better represents the current views of experts, made thoroughly explicit in the press in the last several months. UpdateNerd ( talk) 20:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This recent change made artnet news. UpdateNerd ( talk) 23:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll give it a try. Coldcreation ( talk) 15:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Returning to this. I find it problematic that the lead sentence was changed partly using a book source that won't be released until August 2019 so we can't actually read its contents. The article I replaced it with clears some things up regarding recent misreporting of the painting's status and its alleged rejection by the Louvre. However, I still find it troubling that the only sources I can find calling the painting incontrovertibly a signature work are Martin Kemp and Christie's, which is also the source of the lead's statement "several leading scholars have considered it to be an original work", cited from a tabloid. While Kemp is one of the leading experts, where are the other Leonardo scholars who are actively arguing that it is 100% by him, or that it's even possible to make such a judgement on a semi-damaged work? On similar articles where there are difficult-to-back claims being reported, we usually don't even refer to them unless there is primary-source documentation; Leonardo never wrote about painting Salvator Mundi so we don't have proof of his being the main/only artist. There are several scholars who make a compelling case for the work being a collaborative effort, so I think we need to at least mention that in the first sentence per WP:BALANCE. UpdateNerd ( talk) 03:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
There are experts (reliably sourced) who believe the Mona Lisa is a copy of an earlier version, produced by a follower. That does not mean it should be included in the lead sentence (along with other conspiracy theories). The list at MOS:FIRST included several reasons why our lead sentence here is justified. Others in the list obviously are irrelevant. As it stands now, the lead in its entirety well captures the essence of the article. Coldcreation ( talk) 09:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I have mentioned the 'copy' formerly located in the Marquis Jean-Louis de Ganay Collection, as it is relevant to the search for Leonardo's Salvator Mundi. Coldcreation ( talk) 06:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I would argue that including the image of the Ganay painting in its current position is misleading, confusing, and it might be time to remove it. UpdateNerd ( talk) 23:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
References
WP:BRD is a helpful guideline which instructs us to discuss disputed changes, not edit-war until it's the way we like. I'm willing to compromise on the end result once a discussion has taken place, but you can't just upset the status quo (especially if you've just reverted another editor's changes to restore a more stable viewpoint). Please don't hold a double-standard in your editing style just to make it how you like; this is per WP:OWN. UpdateNerd ( talk) 06:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I think we should be better about bringing up discussions when making big changes to this article. My string of edits were gradual and partly the addition of newly available information. I don't want my edits to perceived as attacks on others' opinions and vice-versa. On both sides, good sources and fresh perspectives are being brought to the table, which is helpful. But please listen to each side before getting in revert-restore cycles (partly a note to self here), engage in on-topic discussions when there is an issue, and avoid accusatory behavior. Thanks UpdateNerd ( talk) 02:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There's been some back and forth about the relevance of news of an upcoming musical about the painting. As far as I can tell, the production company in the process of producing this musical is legitimate and reasonably relevant. The news sources that have published articles about the planned musical are legitimate, including CNN, the Art Newspaper, and ArtNet News. Even if the musical never comes to fruition, the fact that one was in beginning stages is notable in regards to the current cultural clout the painting has. Coldcreation noted in an edit comment that the musical should have it's own page, which it probably will in the future if the project moves further. I don't necessarily see, however, why that means the musical should be omitted from this page.
Furthermore, sections in Wikipedia articles for the appearance of artworks in popular culture are common and helpful. It might be worthwhile to have the section for it, as small as this one paragraph is, on the page to encourage growth of the article in an area it currently lacks. I look forward to y'all's thoughts! CamEQ ( talk) 21:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
To keep our WP:NPOV, the first sentence should read that the painting is "attributed to" Leonardo, not by him. I brought this up months ago, but at that time the only other commenter was the person changed the lead to read as it now does. More recently I've noticed more editors and sources bring up the case against full or even any attribution, so perhaps this is the time to make the first sentence read more neutrally. UpdateNerd ( talk) 08:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1=
(
help)
Surprised this has been moved with no discussion whatsoever. Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Looking at the gallery of paintings of Salvator Mundi in the article, I'm struggling to understand why several of them are included. It makes perfect sense to me to include images of the various copies of the painting by Leonardo's followers. Likewise, the youthful christ section makes some sense since they are based off the composition from Leondardo's studio and they are discussed briefly in the body of the article. But we have several images of Salvator Mundi by artists like Durer and Joos van Cleve and El Greco that are not referenced anywhere in the article. The only reason they seem to be there is because they are roughly contemporaneous with the painting (and even then several of them postdate the Leonardo by a centruy or more) and of the same subject. I would think that this gallery should be edited down to only the copies by Leonardo's followers and the youthful christ images as these are the images actually discussed in the article. Thoughts? CamEQ ( talk) 23:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
References
From this discussion, it seems the consensus is that there should be some comparable images to give readers context, but also that they could be more specific. I have updated the gallery to include images that scholars have discussed in published books on the subject in reference to Leonardo's Salvator Mundi. I have also expanded discussion of the sources of the iconography as well as of the copies and variations in the article so that the images in the gallery are relevant. I hope you find my changes agreeable. CamEQ ( talk) 03:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The fullest account of the attribution is found in the major catalogue raisonné,
Zöllner, Frank (2019) [2003]. Leonardo da Vinci: The Complete Paintings and Drawings (Anniversary ed.). Cologne, Germany:
Taschen.
ISBN
978-3-8365-7625-3.. (The following all from page 250): In this, Zöllner, says, "That the design for the New York Salvator Mundi stems from Leonardo himself, is beyond dispute" and later "Whether the New York Salvator Mundi is a largely autograph work by Leonardo is a question that remains open." FYI, Zöllner is speaking from an overview, he expresses his own personal take later, which is distinct and different. The center of the dispute is, and always has been, whether Leonardo made the majority of the work (should be credited as sole author) and only part (and should be credited as a co-creater). There is a smaller group of historians that argue the work is so little by Leonardo that it should not be credited to him at all (though they agree that the work is based on his design, at the least). In reading Zöllner's work, it is no longer clear which side is the most dominant and I'm not sure we can make that decision for ourselves (
WP:OR).
I'm now wondering if we should change to "a painting attributed in whole or part to..." (we could drop the "generally" then) in the lead. I'm not sure the distinction between full and partial attribution is clear enough to favor one side over the other and there are too many heavy hitters on all sides: Syson, Kemp and Marani vs Bambach, Pedretti and Zöllner (that listing is a simplification, but more or less accurate). The attribution section as a whole is a mess, it needs to be completely rewritten with a bigger use of Zöllner and include information from Marani and Pedretti... all the use of news sources to discuss the attribution of a painting from 500 years ago is giving me a headache.
Aza24 (
talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
to reflect the fact that there is no substantiated provenance for the work before it entered the Cook Collection ( https://salvatormundirevisited.com/History-of-the-Salvator-Mundi); in fact, Herbert Cook commented that “I prefer to say a parallel work by some contemporary painter of Leonardo’s school.” (Tancred Borenius, Herbert Cook, Maurice Brockwell, A Catalogue of the Paintings at Doughty House, Richmond, & Elsewhere in the Collection of Sir Frederick Cook, Vol. I (London, 1913), p. 123 cited by aforementioned site). does anyone really think Leonardo would paint a major work, or a work of major spiritual significance, on a panel so grievously marred by a knot? try a student work by Bernardino Luini - the knot would not matter, the pentimenti and sections of "confirmed" Leonardo (hand(Luini's hands are softer), robe, embroidery) would be rationalized, the pigments would be like Leonardo's as Luini was his very talented student - and the model for the subject shows up again and again in Luini's (and other contemporaries') works. I don't intend to engage in a discussion of the painting's authenticity which, in my opinion, is flawed but which doesn't matter, because the work has been entirely ruined by over-restoration. However, the section on provenance is too dreamy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.81.99 ( talk) 22:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Any commentary about whether the painting could have been modelled on salai? There are some strong similarities 2407:7000:AA27:BE00:2082:7571:5B63:628A ( talk) 23:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
It was bought for $1,175 in 2005 (there are many references including The Guardian). Why continue to use "bought for less and $10,000" in the article? 78.18.230.248 ( talk) 13:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
In The Lost Leonardo film, some critics (who appear in this article), raise the issue that the picture has a significant knot in the wood and that Leonardo would not have painted such an important picture on a wooden panel with a knot in it (even an IP above raises this point)? However, I notice that the Louvre's scientific team dismissed that there was an actual knot in the wood (per this paper). Could be worth adding something about this debate to this article (which is very high quality). 78.18.230.248 ( talk) 20:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
65.7cm and 45.7cm are the true measures as sold and stated by Christies. Wiki has been altered and found to be incorrect.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Salvator Mundi (Leonardo) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Salvator Mundi (Leonardo) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 November 2017. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Who the $&% Is Jackson Pollock? a case where a demonstrated provenance was widely rejected VS. this, a case where a dubious provenance affords a historical transaction. 98.4.124.117 ( talk) 11:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
https://www.quora.com/Did-Teri-Hortons-Pollock-sell . 98.4.124.117 ( talk) 08:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
This Zero Hedgesource says this:
Should this be added? Or is this just a tabloid version of what's already there? Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The following text was removed in this edit. I question wether or not this should remain in the article or be removed. Since it is sourced, I will revert the removal, pending a discussion here:
...stating: In one respect, it is rendered with beautiful scientific precision, but Leonardo failed to paint the distortion that would occur when looking through a solid clear orb at objects that are not touching the orb. Solid glass or crystal, whether shaped like an orb or a lens, produces magnified, inverted, and reversed images. Instead, Leonardo painted the orb as if it were a hollow glass bubble that does not refract or distort the light passing through it. [1]
Michael Daley, the director of ArtWatchUK, also raised doubts on the authenticity of the painting. He noted that there's practically no evidence that proves that Leonardo was ever involved in painting a Salvator Mundi subject; thus disputing the important argument in favor of attributing the painting to Leonardo, namely that the painting contains pentimenti and for that reason has to be attributed to Leonardo himself. [2] Daley notes on the Salvator Mundi painting being the prototype of a subject painted by Leonardo: "This quest for an autograph prototype Leonardo painting might seem moot or vain: not only do the two drapery studies comprise the only accepted Leonardo material that might be associated with the group, but within the Leonardo literature there is no documentary record of the artist ever having been involved in such a painting project." [3]
References
Coldcreation ( talk) 15:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Wikipedia is usually pretty careful to reword claims like this: "The world's leading Leonardo expert." For example, The New York Times is a little more careful to say that Carlo Pedretti and Kemp are both " another top Leonardo expert". Is there any way we could tone down the Los Angeles Times to say Kemp is "One of the" leading experts? - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Done - SusanLesch ( talk) 17:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I have not altered the article because I may be wrong; but I believe that the actual price arrived at in the auction was 400 million dollars, and the addition 50 million was the auction house commission, which is an additional charge and does not come out of the bid price.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 23:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Considering the amount of controversy regarding the question whether or not Salvator Mundi is an authentic work by Leonardo, should the info box at the Salvator Mundi article read that this painting is a work by Leonardo or should it say something like 'Uncertain. Disputed attribution to Leonardo' (as is the case with La Bella Principessa), since several leading Da Vinci scholars - e.g. Jacques Frank and Charles Hope - don't believe this painting can be attributed to Da Vinci. Wim Kostrowicki ( talk) 03:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Christie's does not generally authenticate works of art, though they do have their own specialists as well, and will also refer to contrary views expressed by others, in certain cases. In this case, they relied on experts in the field. Auction houses take the time necessary to build academic support for a painting if they think it is authentic.
Until evidence surfaces to the contrary (a risk taken by the buyer), this painting is today considered a work of Leonardo da Vinci. It has not been qualified (by the leading experts who have analyzed it) as 'Attributed' to/'Studio' of /'Circle’ of/'Follower' of/'Manner' of/ or 'After' the artist. Calling this work anything else here at Wikipedia is POV. Yes, some experts disagree. There may not be a single ultimate authoritative voice on the attribution of Leonardo: There are always arguments for and against. But in 2011, after research, some of the world’s foremost experts confirmed the Leonardo attribution, e.g., Luke Syson, when then National Gallery curator, included the painting in his Leonardo exhibition. The preponderance of the experts to date, is that it is authentic. ( See here in layman's terms). The fact that some experts dispute full authenticity is mentioned in the article. But it is not up to us here at Wikipedia to determine attribution, such as School of, or Attributed to. That is why I changed the image file name at Commons. That is why we do not write "disputed" next the the artists name. Coldcreation ( talk) 07:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is clear, according to WP:CSECTION:
Articles on artists and works by artists often include material describing the opinions of critics, peers, and reviewers. Although the term "criticism" can, in that context, include both positive and negative assessment, the word "Criticism" should be avoided in section titles because it may convey a negative connotation to many readers. Alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments".
The current header for that section is Dissenting views. This, like "Criticism", has negative connotations. The topic of that section is evident in the first sentence of the section. I will therefore retitle that section "Reception". If anyone thinks "Responses", or "Reactions" etc. is more appropriate, feel free to change it. As far as the discussion above, consensus amongst experts is that Salvator Mundi is a work by Leonardo. That is reflected in this article and the sources therein. Other views are also expressed in the article and sources therein; viewpoints are presented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. The goal here at Wikipedia is to present the facts, as does this article. The facts are: (1) A painting by Leonardo da Vinci was recently discovered (or rediscovered following restoration) and sold at auction. (2) There are those who disagree that the painting is by Leonardo da Vinci. Coldcreation ( talk) 04:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Modernist Again, where in your sources is it written that 'the vast majority considers this painting to be a Leonardo'? As far as I can see it, you conducted the counting yourself, which falls under own research and is not allowed. Same goes for Coldcreation who said: 'As far as the discussion above, consensus amongst experts is that Salvator Mundi is a work by Leonardo.' Really, 'consensus'? How the hell is there ever such a thing as consensus amongst experts, let alone with this painting. I'm sorry, but what's written here is really absurd to the degree that I suspect POV. Wim Kostrowicki ( talk) 19:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Here are a few examples where the exact term "consensus" was used with regard to the authenticity of Salvato Mundi. Note, consensus is not obligatorily required in the authentication of artworks (see below). Note too, consensus is general agreement among a group of people, not necessarily all of the people.
Authentication: "...in the art world, the only acceptable attributions are those made by known recognized authorities on the artists whose names and artworks are being attributed. [...] people who have extensively studied the artists in question, published scholarly papers about them, curated museum or major gallery shows about them, teach courses about them, buy or sell at least dozens or preferably hundreds of works of art by them, write books or articles or exhibition catalogues or essays about them, and so on." (Source:
Authenticating and Attributing Art: What you Need to Know, www.artbusiness.com)
"Certainly a work that has been created entirely by the artist's hand would satisfy the expectation that it is authentic. There are situations in which the predominant part of the work was done by the artist’s hand, but he may have had assistants or students assist in its completion. If the artist authorizes the piece and claims it as his own, this alone may satisfy the test of authenticity."
Factors considered are:
(Source:
Cynda C. Ottaway, Leslie Wright, Legal Issues in Art Authentication & Valuation)
On this note, here are some of the publications on Leonardo da Vinci by Martin Kemp, one of the (if not the) leading authorities on Leonardo world-wide, and one of the scholars that authenticated Salvator Mundi.
I hope this helps. Coldcreation ( talk) 07:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
* This is interesting. Coldcreation ( talk) 19:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is extremely broad among Leonardo and Italian Renaissance scholars, which is acknowledged by respectable curators. Unfortunately, because of the publicity generated by last week's sale, a great deal of misinformation has been bruited about in the press and in social media. A lot of self-proclaimed "experts" and art critics have come out and been given equal stature to experts. If this painting merits the "Uncertain. Disputed attribution" label... I'm afraid contributors will be busy updating the majority of wikipedia pages on Old Master paintings, including the London version of Leonardo's Virgin of the Rocks. A lot of the criticism is directed at the condition of the object, but that should not be confused with attribution. The painting was studied and is accepted by the following Leonardo experts: David Alan Brown (National Gallery of Art); Maria Teresa Fiorio (Raccolta Vinciana, Milan); Martin Kemp; Pietro Marani. Carmen Bambach deems some parts to be by Leonardo (e.g.the blessing hand) and others partly by Boltraffio (e.g.the face). Frank Zollner (never studied the object itself) was a critic, though he now accepts parts to be by Leonardo. Carlo Pedretti and his circle previously considered another version of the Salvator Mundi, called Ganay after part of the provenance, to be Leonardo's lost original (people can decide the merit for themselves). Many other Italian Renaissance specialists agreeing with the attribution: Luke Syson (Metropolitan Museum of Art, formerly of the National Gallery, London); Nicholas Penny (former director of the National Gallery, London); Vincent Deleuvin (Louvre); Keith Christiansen, Stephan Wolohojian and Andrea Bayer (Metropolitan Museum of Art); Mina Gregori, etc. I'm sure this will be discussed in more detail in a forthcoming publication: Margaret Dalivalle, Martin Kemp and Robert Simon, Leonardo’s Salvator Mundi and the Collecting of Leonardo in the Stuart Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. For now, some of this is mentioned in parts by Christie's. 68.174.71.189 ( talk) 23:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Modernist keeps reverting edits addressing the authorship dispute. The entries about Daley were removed from the article because one source didn't even mention him and the other is a primary source from Daley himself at Artwatch. You have to find a reliable source to put this back in the article. There's also no reason to create a "dispute" section when that issue is addressed in the section titled "Restoration and attribution". Dkspartan1835 ( talk) 16:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Daley has been quoted worldwide as a google search reveals instantly. Some sources: Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/nov/20/artistic-license-experts-doubt-leonardo-da-vinci-painted-450m-salvator-mundi, Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/oct/19/mystery-jesus-christ-orb-leonardo-da-vinci-salvator-mundi-painting, Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/art/artists/salvator-mundi-mystery-orb-worlds-expensive-painting-real-leonardo/, NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/18/arts/international/a-name-game-with-the-old-masters.html, etc etc. No need to rely on a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erknowling ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Should there be an explanation for the connection between these two subjects? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 03:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Orb is not linked anywhere. Is there a suitable link? Perhaps it's meaning/ significance could be briefly added? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You are right. It is reflection on a mirror globular ball, not refraction, and it is a self portrait. Still Life with Spherical Mirror. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Halloween card The depiction of Christ holding an orb is not only an icon but a meme. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Lots of good suggestions about what is related. But sorry, I've lost track of any proposal of what might be added or linked. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if this has been asked before, but the lead, and only the lead, says "rock crystal orb". Is rock crystal in sources? Like somone said, the refraction or whatever seems wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The 2011 restoration is (barely) mentioned in the article. This is the version that toured on exhibit. Many of the attribution critics refer to this version in their analysis, noting the changes made after exhibition and prior to auction. Should an image of this version be included in the article? ( As seen here from this article) — 2606:A000:1126:28D:F935:C7E2:FE1:E49 ( talk) 16:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
There needs to be consensus to attribute the painting to the workshop of Leonardo in the lead, instead of blatantly saying it's a painting by him—which is disputed. The article body represents the multiplicity of views, with the dominant opinion being that it's by his workshop, with only partial attribution to Leonardo. Saying it is by his workshop in the lead better represents the current views of experts, made thoroughly explicit in the press in the last several months. UpdateNerd ( talk) 20:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This recent change made artnet news. UpdateNerd ( talk) 23:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll give it a try. Coldcreation ( talk) 15:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Returning to this. I find it problematic that the lead sentence was changed partly using a book source that won't be released until August 2019 so we can't actually read its contents. The article I replaced it with clears some things up regarding recent misreporting of the painting's status and its alleged rejection by the Louvre. However, I still find it troubling that the only sources I can find calling the painting incontrovertibly a signature work are Martin Kemp and Christie's, which is also the source of the lead's statement "several leading scholars have considered it to be an original work", cited from a tabloid. While Kemp is one of the leading experts, where are the other Leonardo scholars who are actively arguing that it is 100% by him, or that it's even possible to make such a judgement on a semi-damaged work? On similar articles where there are difficult-to-back claims being reported, we usually don't even refer to them unless there is primary-source documentation; Leonardo never wrote about painting Salvator Mundi so we don't have proof of his being the main/only artist. There are several scholars who make a compelling case for the work being a collaborative effort, so I think we need to at least mention that in the first sentence per WP:BALANCE. UpdateNerd ( talk) 03:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
There are experts (reliably sourced) who believe the Mona Lisa is a copy of an earlier version, produced by a follower. That does not mean it should be included in the lead sentence (along with other conspiracy theories). The list at MOS:FIRST included several reasons why our lead sentence here is justified. Others in the list obviously are irrelevant. As it stands now, the lead in its entirety well captures the essence of the article. Coldcreation ( talk) 09:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I have mentioned the 'copy' formerly located in the Marquis Jean-Louis de Ganay Collection, as it is relevant to the search for Leonardo's Salvator Mundi. Coldcreation ( talk) 06:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I would argue that including the image of the Ganay painting in its current position is misleading, confusing, and it might be time to remove it. UpdateNerd ( talk) 23:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
References
WP:BRD is a helpful guideline which instructs us to discuss disputed changes, not edit-war until it's the way we like. I'm willing to compromise on the end result once a discussion has taken place, but you can't just upset the status quo (especially if you've just reverted another editor's changes to restore a more stable viewpoint). Please don't hold a double-standard in your editing style just to make it how you like; this is per WP:OWN. UpdateNerd ( talk) 06:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I think we should be better about bringing up discussions when making big changes to this article. My string of edits were gradual and partly the addition of newly available information. I don't want my edits to perceived as attacks on others' opinions and vice-versa. On both sides, good sources and fresh perspectives are being brought to the table, which is helpful. But please listen to each side before getting in revert-restore cycles (partly a note to self here), engage in on-topic discussions when there is an issue, and avoid accusatory behavior. Thanks UpdateNerd ( talk) 02:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There's been some back and forth about the relevance of news of an upcoming musical about the painting. As far as I can tell, the production company in the process of producing this musical is legitimate and reasonably relevant. The news sources that have published articles about the planned musical are legitimate, including CNN, the Art Newspaper, and ArtNet News. Even if the musical never comes to fruition, the fact that one was in beginning stages is notable in regards to the current cultural clout the painting has. Coldcreation noted in an edit comment that the musical should have it's own page, which it probably will in the future if the project moves further. I don't necessarily see, however, why that means the musical should be omitted from this page.
Furthermore, sections in Wikipedia articles for the appearance of artworks in popular culture are common and helpful. It might be worthwhile to have the section for it, as small as this one paragraph is, on the page to encourage growth of the article in an area it currently lacks. I look forward to y'all's thoughts! CamEQ ( talk) 21:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
To keep our WP:NPOV, the first sentence should read that the painting is "attributed to" Leonardo, not by him. I brought this up months ago, but at that time the only other commenter was the person changed the lead to read as it now does. More recently I've noticed more editors and sources bring up the case against full or even any attribution, so perhaps this is the time to make the first sentence read more neutrally. UpdateNerd ( talk) 08:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1=
(
help)
Surprised this has been moved with no discussion whatsoever. Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Looking at the gallery of paintings of Salvator Mundi in the article, I'm struggling to understand why several of them are included. It makes perfect sense to me to include images of the various copies of the painting by Leonardo's followers. Likewise, the youthful christ section makes some sense since they are based off the composition from Leondardo's studio and they are discussed briefly in the body of the article. But we have several images of Salvator Mundi by artists like Durer and Joos van Cleve and El Greco that are not referenced anywhere in the article. The only reason they seem to be there is because they are roughly contemporaneous with the painting (and even then several of them postdate the Leonardo by a centruy or more) and of the same subject. I would think that this gallery should be edited down to only the copies by Leonardo's followers and the youthful christ images as these are the images actually discussed in the article. Thoughts? CamEQ ( talk) 23:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
References
From this discussion, it seems the consensus is that there should be some comparable images to give readers context, but also that they could be more specific. I have updated the gallery to include images that scholars have discussed in published books on the subject in reference to Leonardo's Salvator Mundi. I have also expanded discussion of the sources of the iconography as well as of the copies and variations in the article so that the images in the gallery are relevant. I hope you find my changes agreeable. CamEQ ( talk) 03:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The fullest account of the attribution is found in the major catalogue raisonné,
Zöllner, Frank (2019) [2003]. Leonardo da Vinci: The Complete Paintings and Drawings (Anniversary ed.). Cologne, Germany:
Taschen.
ISBN
978-3-8365-7625-3.. (The following all from page 250): In this, Zöllner, says, "That the design for the New York Salvator Mundi stems from Leonardo himself, is beyond dispute" and later "Whether the New York Salvator Mundi is a largely autograph work by Leonardo is a question that remains open." FYI, Zöllner is speaking from an overview, he expresses his own personal take later, which is distinct and different. The center of the dispute is, and always has been, whether Leonardo made the majority of the work (should be credited as sole author) and only part (and should be credited as a co-creater). There is a smaller group of historians that argue the work is so little by Leonardo that it should not be credited to him at all (though they agree that the work is based on his design, at the least). In reading Zöllner's work, it is no longer clear which side is the most dominant and I'm not sure we can make that decision for ourselves (
WP:OR).
I'm now wondering if we should change to "a painting attributed in whole or part to..." (we could drop the "generally" then) in the lead. I'm not sure the distinction between full and partial attribution is clear enough to favor one side over the other and there are too many heavy hitters on all sides: Syson, Kemp and Marani vs Bambach, Pedretti and Zöllner (that listing is a simplification, but more or less accurate). The attribution section as a whole is a mess, it needs to be completely rewritten with a bigger use of Zöllner and include information from Marani and Pedretti... all the use of news sources to discuss the attribution of a painting from 500 years ago is giving me a headache.
Aza24 (
talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
to reflect the fact that there is no substantiated provenance for the work before it entered the Cook Collection ( https://salvatormundirevisited.com/History-of-the-Salvator-Mundi); in fact, Herbert Cook commented that “I prefer to say a parallel work by some contemporary painter of Leonardo’s school.” (Tancred Borenius, Herbert Cook, Maurice Brockwell, A Catalogue of the Paintings at Doughty House, Richmond, & Elsewhere in the Collection of Sir Frederick Cook, Vol. I (London, 1913), p. 123 cited by aforementioned site). does anyone really think Leonardo would paint a major work, or a work of major spiritual significance, on a panel so grievously marred by a knot? try a student work by Bernardino Luini - the knot would not matter, the pentimenti and sections of "confirmed" Leonardo (hand(Luini's hands are softer), robe, embroidery) would be rationalized, the pigments would be like Leonardo's as Luini was his very talented student - and the model for the subject shows up again and again in Luini's (and other contemporaries') works. I don't intend to engage in a discussion of the painting's authenticity which, in my opinion, is flawed but which doesn't matter, because the work has been entirely ruined by over-restoration. However, the section on provenance is too dreamy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.81.99 ( talk) 22:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Any commentary about whether the painting could have been modelled on salai? There are some strong similarities 2407:7000:AA27:BE00:2082:7571:5B63:628A ( talk) 23:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
It was bought for $1,175 in 2005 (there are many references including The Guardian). Why continue to use "bought for less and $10,000" in the article? 78.18.230.248 ( talk) 13:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
In The Lost Leonardo film, some critics (who appear in this article), raise the issue that the picture has a significant knot in the wood and that Leonardo would not have painted such an important picture on a wooden panel with a knot in it (even an IP above raises this point)? However, I notice that the Louvre's scientific team dismissed that there was an actual knot in the wood (per this paper). Could be worth adding something about this debate to this article (which is very high quality). 78.18.230.248 ( talk) 20:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
65.7cm and 45.7cm are the true measures as sold and stated by Christies. Wiki has been altered and found to be incorrect.