Talk:Salvator Mundi (Leonardo)

A bookend/partner to this case/article.

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)

Apparently Horton's Pollock received the same empirical verification of attribution (as this 'Leonardo') by selling for $50 million USD after it was taken to Pollock's studio and found to align with floor splatters.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Teri-Hortons-Pollock-sell . 98.4.124.117 (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Legal feud

This Zero Hedgesource says this:

"Following its rediscovery and sale in 2013, the painting was at the centre of a legal feud between current owner Dmitry Rybolovlev, the Russian billionaire and owner of AS Monaco football club, and Yves Bouvier, the owner of Natural Le Coultre, one of the largest fine art storage and shipping specialists.

"The protracted legal battle centred around claims that Mr Bouvier allegedly bought the painting for $80m and sold it to Mr Rybolovlev for $127.5m, a near $50m difference. A small group of critics have even questioned the painting's authenticity."

Should this be added? Or is this just a tabloid version of what's already there? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I would include that, for shure, but is there not another source that could be cited, say Wall Street Journal, or some other reliable source? Coldcreation (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably. A good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Done. It's mentioned without going into detail, but that New Yorker article source goes into all aspects of the case. Thanks for bringing up the issue. Coldcreation (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Questions of authenticity

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.

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. 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."

References

Coldcreation (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Isaacson himself is emphatic in attributing the painting to Leonardo. [1] It's Daley who believes that the image in the orb being distorted in the Hollar engraving means that the image must have been distorted in the original from which that engraving was copied, and thus the painting in question cannot be the authentic original. [2] Others suggest that Hollar could have altered details of the composition. [3] The organization of the section should be clear on this. XOR'easter (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty odd that Isaacson's biography release and sale of the painting coincide so closely. Isaacson has worked on commission before. Classic PR technique of drumming up interest is to commission books (and other things). Point being he may not be the most neutral opinion. -- GreenC 04:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Experts

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)

Sale price

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)

According to sources, the hammer price was $400 million plus $50.3 million in fees [to a close approximation]. That is stated in the article, with citations. Coldcreation (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As for the seller, there is generally more flexibility in negotiating the percentage taken by the auction house [agreed upon well in advance of the sale]. That fee would come out of the hammer price. Coldcreation (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Authenticity

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)

@Wim Kostrowicki: and others: There is a process by which connoisseurs arrive at an opinion about the authenticity of a work. Experts have analyzed Salvator Mundi, at a microscopic level, taking minuscule samples to determine the pigments, materials and techniques used to create it. They also used technical imaging with x-rays, infrared and ultraviolet technology to evaluate how it evolved with each stroke. This research contributed to the work of other teams researching the artistic expression (connoisseurship) and history (provenance) of the piece: a connoisseurs’ eye takes into consideration its 'quality'. (See here). “There’s no doubt that this wasn’t the work of a copyist, but really the hand of a master at work,” writes Nica Rieppi, the principal investigator at Art Analysis & Research.

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)

Yes, more or less. It is not the case that in artworks in general, attribution and provenance always have a subjective element wrt the matter of fact of by whom they were produced and the train of events from that production to the currently available object. Many works of art were publicly commissioned and executed. It's also not the case that in culture the provenance and attribution of this work are anywhere near that kind of certainty of belief and the article currently correctly reflects that. About half of the major media I've observed is focused on the certainty of the attribution and the other half on the price with the attribution/hype as a secondary. Wiki doesn't decide or even argue these issues but it does report them factually. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this. The NG including it in their exhibition was significant, especially as they declined (in effect publicly) to include La Bella Principessa, the other most plausible Leonardo "rediscovery" of recent years (and also backed by Kemp). Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Coldcreation, before I begin, 'we' also includes other people. And considering the fact that we're here to discuss what we should write about the attribution, I don't understand why you're talking in terms of 'we'. You and your friends are not the only ones representing Wikipedia. So please stop writing sentences like: That is why we do not write "disputed" next the the artists name. We're here to discuss what 'we' are going to write. And I happen to disagree with you.

I have to say that I rarely read such a simplistic and flawed view of the process of authenticating art. You seem to depart from the notion that there's a definitive group of 'leading experts' whose opinion in authenticating paintings is for some reason binding or more valuable. But who's deciding which group of scholars we should adhere to? I reckon it's not the decision of Coldcreation himself, because that would be WP:OR and not very WP:NEUTRAL. So who's making the decision according to your lecture then? The only people you've mentioned are Chrities and auction houses, and I hope I don't have to explain that this cannot be taken serious in terms of neutrality (seriously, why did you bring that up?).

The fact of the matter is that there are indeed a lot of 'leading' (who decides that anyway?) scholars in favour of attributing this to Leonardo. But on the other hand, there are also a lot of equally 'leading' scholars who disagree. And then there's another group of scholars who think this painting might be of an unknown painter with 'a bit of Leonardo' included. My point is that it's simply not known and it shouldn't be the job of the Wikipedia community to judge this. Instead, the uncertainty ought to be reflected in the info box. In the same way it has been done with the article of La Bella Principessa and many other works of art: Uncertain. Disputed attribution to... Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

At this point the painting is considered by the vast majority of people as a Leonardo although admittedly there are those who have doubts and there are those who are sceptical; however at this point the painting is being described as and is considered to be a Leonardo...Modernist (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Modernist, 'At this point the grass is considered green, but some consider it yellow. However at this point the grass is considered green.' What the hell kind of reasoning is this? Are you writing this in a coffeeshop? And no, you're not correct, there are those who deny the attribution, which is something different from having 'doubts' or being 'skeptical'. Stop talking fact-free please. And I've read this argument of 'the vast majority' in Coldcreation's piece of gibberish too. Not that it's a particularly strong argument, but where are the sources if I may ask? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against you; I suggest that you stop edit warring!..Modernist (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

My friend, you and Coldcreation don't make up the consensus. And where's the source that backs your argument that 'the vast majority of people consider this painting to be a Leonardo'? Or did you conduct the counting yourself? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Are you kidding? How about the New York Times,[4], Time Magazine [5], Washington Post, [6], The Guardian [7] and the list goes on and on to the millions of readers who now consider this to be a Leonardo...Modernist (talk) 02:10, 21 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)

I've just expanded the "Reception" section to include a more balanced context about how the painting has been received since it appeared in public view. Coldcreation (talk) 08:46, 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)

• Read: WP:UCS and stop edit warring...Modernist (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that there is general consensus amongst experts is in multiple sources within this article. Your personal opinion on these issues is irrelevant. Stop edit warring. Coldcreation (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Coldcreation, I thought it couldn't get worse after 'consensus', but now it's even 'general consensus'(sic). Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? But more importantly: WHERE do you see that consensus exactly? For the third time: please cite the exact passage or sentence the says that there's consensus with regard to the attribution of the painting.

The way I read those newspaper articles (!) is slightly different. For instance: 'Authentication is a serious but subjective business. (...) it is accepted as a Leonardo by many serious scholars, though not all.' (dixit NY Times). Is that what falls under 'general consensus'? Or what about this one: 'Jacques Frank, art historian and da Vinci specialist who examined the piece, told the New York Times, “The composition doesn’t come from Leonardo. He preferred twisted movement. It’s a good studio work with a little Leonardo at best, and it’s very damaged.”' Is that what you mean by 'general consensus'? The way you talk is really laughable and the fact that you're accusing me of POV is the world upside down. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 03:47, 22 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.

• ""There is extraordinary consensus it is by Leonardo," said Nicholas Hall, the former co-chairman of old master paintings at Christie's, who now runs his own Manhattan gallery. "This is the most important old master painting to have been sold at auction in my lifetime."" (Source: Robin Pogrebin, Scott Reyburn, Leonardo da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3 Million, Shattering Auction Highs, New York Times, 15 Nov. 2017)
• "2011 Consensus decision, facilitated by NGL director Nicholas Penny confirmed Leonardo attribution. Officially announced in a press release document issued from current owners' publicity representative link." (Source: H. Niyazi, "Platonic receptacles, Leonardo and the Salvator Mundi", iconographic and provenance details of the painting, 18 July 2011)

• "While Christie’s claims “an unusually uniform scholarly consensus” that the painting is by Leonardo, some respected experts on Renaissance art who have seen the work have failed to succumb to Stendhal syndrome." (Source: Scott Teyburn, "Get in Line: The $100 Million da Vinci Is in Town", The New York Times, 13 November 2017)

• ""The reasons for the unusually uniform scholarly consensus that the painting is an autograph work by Leonardo are several, including the ... relationship of the painting to the two autograph preparatory drawings in Windsor Castle; its correspondence to the composition of the 'Salvator Mundi' documented in Wenceslaus Hollar's etching of 1650; and its manifest superiority to the more than 20 known painted versions of the composition. Furthermore, the extraordinary quality of the picture — notably the blessing hand and the hair — and its close adherence in style to Leonardo's known paintings from circa 1500, solidified this consensus." (Source: Merrit Kennedy, Last Da Vinci Painting In Private Hands Will Be Auctioned Next Month, www.npr.org, October 11, 2017)

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:

• (a) Connoisseurship, the close visual analysis to determine whether the work looks and "feels" like a work by the subject artist;
• (b) Provenance, which is the ownership and possession history since leaving the artist’s studio;
• (c) Historical Context or how the work fits in with other works done by the artist around the supposed time of creation;
• (d) Forensic Analysis to determine the history of the work.
  

(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)

I was notified of this discussion by the FRS. The way I see it, its up to the sources and the quality of said sources. We do not - I repeat, do not get to add any undue weight one way or the other. If 100 sources of the tinfoil hat brigade this this is a clever forgery by the Reptilians (or whatever), it weighs less than a single, small team of actual experts in the field. That a hundred conspiracy theorists might think its a fake is notable, but not equal to the referenced opinions of established experts, most of whom have apparently authenticated the work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: who was talking about conspiracy theorists? What the hell are you talking about? We're talking about leading art historians such as Jacques Frank, Charles Hope and many others; as I clearly pointed out in the question. The sources @Coldcreation: is using on the other hand are predominantly from Christie's, and I hope I don't have to explain that they're not exactly an objective party in this matter. Coldcreation apparently thinks it's not a problem to include the opinions of the very people who are trying to make as much money out of an auction as possible, and then you get ridiculous phrases like: 'extraordinary consensus' or 'an unusually uniform scholarly consensus' or whatever that means. However, also in the sources Coldcreation provided there's already doubt, for instance: 'while Christie’s claims “an unusually uniform scholarly consensus” that the painting is by Leonardo, some respected experts on Renaissance art who have seen the work have failed to succumb to Stendhal syndrome.' I guess the consensus isn't as 'unusually uniform' and 'extraordinary' after all. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, you're going to want to keep a civil tongue in your head, as I tend to respond rather unpleasantly to people who forget to AGF with me. Since you seem to be deliberately missing the point, I'll make it clear:

it is solely your Sherlocking that certain sources are voicing their opinions to make more money off a sale. You do not get to presume. You do not get to deduct. You do not get to suggest so much as a fart in the wind, all because you (as an editor) are useless as a reference for such deductions. We have objectively reputable sources that suggest that the painting is authentic, and some sources that are considerably less so that suggest otherwise. You want to guess which ones we are going to use in Wikipedia? If you have to think about it, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you. If others agree that dissenting views about authenticity are significant, then we note the dissent. Otherwise, it would be Undue Weight to mention it. If objective experts say its real, you don't get to second-guess them as an editor in Wikipedia. Its that easy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Stendhal syndrome? In which source does that appear? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: read the contribution by Coldcreation above. It's the NY Times Coldcreation was citing (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/arts/design/davinci-leonardo-dicaprio-christies.html). Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for "Are you fucking kidding me?" in the edit summary of your sourced content deletion. Of course, we weren't quoting that bit of rhetorical hyperbole in the article. I'll let you know when I learn to read. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: can the POV tone of this article please stop? There are quotations by Christie's everywhere. Coldcreation has been using it in order to make us believe that there really is consensus. And not normal consensus, but 'unusually uniform' and 'extraordinary' consensus. What is the next step? Super duper hyper galactic consensus? I can't believe people are using an auction house to present information as encyclopedic. 'Unusually uniform consensus' is not the language of a scholar, but that of a salesman. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not actually personally responsible for the "POV tone of this article." And I'm not convinced that quotations by Christie's are actually "everywhere". If that were so, the article would be rather short of real content. I guess you could always count them for us? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: like I said: Coldcreation and others apparently think there's consensus with regard to the attribution, their contributions to this article (which are numerous) departed from that notion. That's more or less the point in this debate. And I think I've given more than enough sources to prove that by far not everyone thinks this is a Leonardo. In fact, the only two that I can count - apart from Christie's which cannot be taken serious - are Martin Kemp and Rieppi and her team (who are predominantly only conducted research on the originality of the painting itself). So where's that consensus exactly that the article in its entirety is trying to make us believe? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

So, how many? Thanks. If there are two sides of the debate, both should be added, with sources. I don't see that it's particularly productive to describe either side as "POV bullshit". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: even one time quoting Christie's as a serious source in an encyclopedia is one time too many. The vast part of the 'reception' section is made up of quotes of Christie's employee's. Same goes for the info box: attributing this in its entirety to Leonardo is a reflection of that ridiculous Christies's statement: 'unusually uniform consensus'. Why don't you show a critical attitude against this nonsense? Using an auction house as a source in an encyclopedia, are you kidding me? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I also fail to understand your edit summary claim that "Christie's has no place in an encyclopedia!" That looks quite POV to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: that I have to explain this is beyond believe. An encyclopedia is a reflection of the status questionis in scholarly work. Are you seriously saying it's unproblematic to use the opinion of an auction house on art? How do you think your local grocery store is rating the fruit it's selling? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

You demand that "Christie's has no place in an encyclopedia". So they employ people who are non-experts, perhaps with the same training and skills as those who sell fruit in the local grocery store, yes? So the name "Christie's" should be banned? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

* This is interesting. Coldcreation (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I'm obviously not against pointing out that this painting was sold through Christie's, however using Christie's as a source on art history is a bad idea to say the least. Although they employ art historians, at the end of the day they also want to sell a painting for as much money as possible. So obviously they're as less critical as possible. The result is that there isn't a mention of specialists against attributing it to Leonardo and also making ridiculous claims like 'unusually uniform consensus'. Again, that I have to explain this to you is in my opinion beyond believe. @Coldcreation, what's interesting about that? Why don't you supply some proper sources to support your claim instead of talking about irrelevant issues. Like I've stated before, it's a matter of fact that many leading scholars don't agree with the attribution at all. What makes the opinion of the experts in favor of attributing it to Leonardo more important than the many people against the attribution? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Very sorry if it's "beyond believe". I think it's important to be clear. I think it's important to give both sides of a dispute. You still haven't told us how many Christie's quotations there are. How many Christie's quotations are there? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Already gave the answer. Please learn how to read. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I wonder what this guy would say about this dispute: User:C.Gesualdo? or this guy User:UnicovW? hmmm....Modernist (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Pathetic little man. Doesn't have arguments left comes up with this. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. This user is a serial sock. He was banned indefinitely at Wikipedia NL for sock puppetry and vile language directed toward other users and moderators. I have not yet checked, other wikipedias may have banned him as well (aside from here). I don't think he cares about the attribution of Salvator Mundi. He just needs to interact with people in his extremely unpleasant, vulgar and nasty manner. That's what he thrives on. Good riddance Kostrowicki. Coldcreation (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

"What the hell are you talking about?" Quite a telling phrase that one, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

And there's worse than that too. I've had with this user. Coldcreation (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Cry me a river. Give me proper sources first, then we'll talk. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC) @Martinevans123: you cannot be taken serious, I'm sorry. If your intellectual capacities are so limited that you can't understand it's problematic to quote Christie's, then it's useless to have a discussion with you. Have a nice day. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere. Are you? My intellectual capacities are so limited that I think you're a serial sockpuppet. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: You're not contributing anything to the discussion. Why are you even here? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

To remind everyone you're an abusive serial sockpuppet. Want to give us a few more "what the hell"s before you go? I'm "beyond believe", remember? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I'm sorry I don't understand your hysteric incoherent nonsense. Perhaps an idea to stop eating space cake? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps an idea to stop using Wikipedia as your own personal playground? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 24 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)

Edits by Modernist

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)

There is already a section above (Questions of authenticity) devoted to this precise topic. Please take it there. Coldcreation (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if it's here or there. The Isaacanson quote is fine. But the Daley quote is going until there's a reliable source about it. That's why it was removed before. So why does there have to be a discussion about removing something that doesn't have a reliable source?Dkspartan1835 (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The dispute is widespread - [8]...Modernist (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Isaacson (also the biographer of Bill Gates and Einstein) is no expert, and not worth quoting. Fox News (just above) has come up with better people. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Good points Modernist and Johnbod. I've gone ahead and added two of those experts opinions to the article. Note, I have not removed Isaacson's quote. It seems like he did his research, even though not a specialist or expert on the topic. Coldcreation (talk) 07:11, 18 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)

See also: La Bella Principessa

Should there be an explanation for the connection between these two subjects? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Orb

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)

Good question. The Globus cruciger is similar, and depicted in other versions (copies) of this painting. In this version of the orb there is no cross. Coldcreation (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted that so I assumed it might have a different meaning. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC) this is an interesting image.

Celestial spheres, Orb (optics) and Sphere are all related. In context it was an artistic metaphor. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at all of those. But none seemed to be exactly appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And of course, the otherwordliness of this sphere is precisely because there is neither refraction nor reflection. Compare Hand with Reflecting Sphere by M.C. Escher drawing illustrating refraction reflection and the optical properties of a transparent mirrored sphere, e.g., a Gazing ball. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Good find... That looks like a metallic sphere though, not transparent.Coldcreation (talk) 12:12, 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)

A digression. Interesting links that illustrate the principles involved:

• MyGolAnd (May 30, 2010). "REFRACTION LASER GLASS THROUGH BALL.flv" (Video) – via YouTube.
• Daily Mail Reporter (26 February 2012). "Look into my crystal ball: Topsy-turvy pictures show the world refracted through glass". Daily Mail.
• Bond, Simon. "7 Tips for Doing Crystal Ball Refraction Photography". Digital Photography School.
• Paul N. (December 9, 2014). "How is light refracted inside a crystal ball?".
  

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Cf., Crystal ball. World's largest flawless crystal ball image is quite compelling. See also Crystal gazing. Cf. Gazing ball. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And Crown glass (window). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Um, Jesus used a crystal ball? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not. Physical/optical properties establish it wasn't a Crystal ball. Same with Gazing ball and Crown glass (window). While it has been likened to a Crystal ball, it depicts an otherworldly Celestial sphere, sometimes analogized or used as an artistic metaphor and icon to a Globus cruciger. It is a universal transcendant Orb defying space, time and laws of physics, perspective and optics. Which is my great piece of WP:OR until we can find a WP:RS. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I actually saw you beavering away. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 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)

Ha! I'm working on some OR too right now: Structurally analyzing Leonardo's Salvator Mundi, to see if he used the Golden ratio in it's compositional construction. About the crystal ball: I wonder if he used it for fortune telling! We could write an nice WR:OR about that orb. Coldcreation (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The background seems to be monotone black. Is that unusual? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's just the photographic reproduction; plus the small scale of the image. If you zoom in on the Commons version it looks like there's no black at all!!!Coldcreation (talk)

In some respects this is redolent with the idea of a Solar eclipse image. As to the comment I put forth as OR, which I think summarizes the many interpretations that are likely, it could be put into an explanatory note with an appropirate cn template. yes, I know about WP:ORand WP:Synth. Just offering a suggestion. 16:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Memling

1460s

1480s

Sorry, I actually meant the whole painting. Am digressing. Probably need a separate thread. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 21 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)

It's just a variant form of Globus cruciger. Use that, maybe explaining more fully. There are certainly precedents for a crystal gc in Early Netherlandish painting. A large plainish, crystalish globe beneath Christ's feet had become rather standard in Last Judgements. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 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)

Reading a little more, removing rock crystal per the quote by Walter Isaacson. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the source provided (Martin Kemp, Christ to Coke: How Image Becomes Icon, Oxford University Press (OPU), 2012, p. 37, ISBN 0199581118). I will add an explanation in the main article about that. Coldcreation (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. If Kemp is "one of the world's leading experts" it´s reasonable to go with his view for the lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

2011 restoration

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)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've now added the image. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Workshop or Leonardo

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)

What are your sources for the "dominant opinion being that it's by his workshop" claim? The May 2019 article mentioned in your edit summary? Here? Coldcreation (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A variety of sources, for instance [9]. I'm not saying that better sources won't eventually be able to refute this, but the job of Wikipedia is to represent a balanced view of all the relevant sources, not present original research of what we think is true. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You write the "dominant opinion being that it's by his workshop", yet your source only mentions one person. And the May 2019 article linked above mentions one person: Lewis, who told the Hay literary festival: "My inside sources at the Louvre, various sources, tell me that not many curators think this picture is an autograph Leonardo da Vinci". Anonymous sources are meaningless. Coldcreation (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

One issue is that Leonardo, being only an intermittent painter, hardly had a regular "workshop" crew like successful contemporaries. He is more often assigned "followers" or a "circle". At this period it seems there was mostly just Salaì working directly for him. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

We should rephrase it to reflect the situation then, not just state an outdated stance that multiple leading experts have said is inaccurate. Few, if any, scholars are currently arguing for full attribution, and with the widespread press against it, we should incorporate the perspective of the dominant RS. We could for instance say:

"Salvator Mundi is a painting dated to c. 1500 previously thought to be by Leonardo da Vinci. More recent scholars have concluded that Leonardo only contributed some elements, with one of his followers such as Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio being the main artist." UpdateNerd (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned that the large number of articles being written about the attribution of the painting is perhaps exaggerating how many scholars agree or disagree with the attribution. For example, while I do think that the reporting that the Louvre wants to attribute the painting to Leonardo's workshop is important, to my knowledge neither the Louvre nor the scholars employed there have given public statements, reasoning, or even confirmation. Scholars at the National Gallery continue to support their attribution despite criticism. Martin Kemp also continues to argue it is by Leonardo. At the same time, I've read that Dr. Carmen Bambach at the Metropolitan Museum of Art is not attibuting the paitning to Leonardo in her upcoming catalogue, though that catalogue is not yet published so this cannot yet be confirmed. Given this, I also am weary of pointing to specific Leonardeschi in the lead, instead leaving that discussion for later sections. At this time, I would be comfortable with a header stating something like:

"Salvator Mundi is a painting dated to c. 1500 with a disputed attribution to Leonardo da Vinci." CamEQ (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2019 (CDT)

I far prefer that version over what I wrote above. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Already in the lead: "Although several leading scholars consider it to be an original work by Leonardo da Vinci,[5] this attribution has been disputed by other specialists.[6] Coldcreation (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

But the first line in the lead shouldn't simplify a complex situation. Yes, Kemp's opinion should be highly respected in the article as he is a leading expert. But his and a few other opinions (including that of the restoration artist, whose viewpoint should be considered as possibly biased) shouldn't totally eclipse the opinion of several experts who strongly dispute full attribution. See also [10] supporting workshop attribution. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The author of that article disclaimer to his analysis, [He has] "not seen this painting nor any Leonardo painting 'in the flesh', is revelatory. Coldcreation (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That the author of a media outlet isn't himself a Leonardo expert doesn't mean he can't report on the statements of art experts. Keep in mind WP:SECONDARY. Here are the relevant points from that article:

• Zöllner: "This attribution is controversial primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the badly damaged painting had to undergo very extensive restoration, which makes its original quality extremely difficult to assess. Secondly, the Salvator Mundi in its present state exhibits a strongly developed sfumato technique that corresponds more closely to the manner of a talented Leonardo pupil active in the 1520s..."
• Lewis reporting on the five leading Leonardo scholars: "The final score from the National Gallery meeting seems to have been two Yeses, one No, and two No Comments." (Keep in mind that Kemp appears to be one of the supporters according to [11].) Not settled attribution to Leonardo just because one or two experts thinks so, and we should definitely not represent it as such in the first sentence. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

But why do you selectively fail to mention these quotes from the same article: "There is a strong case to be made for this work being a genuine Leonardo [...]. Or "...in assessing the authenticity of a painting, it is necessary to go directly to those who have decades of experiences in the particular area of expertise. Paolo Galluzzi specializes in the history of sciences as it relates to the Italian Renaissance. His work is of marginal relevance to this particular inquiry. Martin Kemp is the English-speaking world's greatest Leonardo scholar. He was a professor of art history at Oxford (and has since retired), has written dozens of articles and books on Leonardo da Vinci [...]." The important point is that doubts of scholars are taken into consideration in this Wikipedia entry. It is both mentioned in the lead and the main body of text. Coldcreation (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Coldcreation: While I assume your edits to be in good faith, the only consistent goal I see you working towards is to white-wash the article towards attributing it to Leonardo. Christie's, an auction house with vested interest, is not a reliable source. Please stop edit-warring and making POV changes which slant the article to an outdated, disputed perspective. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source showing clearly that Christie's is an auction house "with vested interest" in this case? Or are you perhaps suggesting that all valuations and all attributions by all auction houses should be discounted as unreliable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

They should not be used as the primary source when more reliable secondary sources exist. That's Wikipedia policy. The attribution is widely disputed. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You sound an awful lot like User:Wim Kostrowicki above. Coldcreation (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

UpdateNerd is correct that Christie's has a conflict of interest and we should consider them as a source with more scrutiny. I would advise against citing their 2017 sale page in the lead for the painting's attribution, as it currently is. That is not to say that their work and scholarship is necessarily invalid. If you look at the sale page, under "literature and exhibited," for example, Christie's does cite a large number of published academic sources that I don't believe are considered in our article. Also, they did compile a special publication for the sale with several scholarly articles which may be of interest. CamEQ (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I am happy with the current state of the introduction, which attributes the painting to Leonardo in the first line and then mentions the dispute later in the same paragraph. It may be the best compromise for now. (Regardless, thank you all for your efforts in cleaning up this article. It looks a lot better than it did a week ago.) CamEQ (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This recent change made artnet news. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I like how the author noticed our “mysterious” editing:

”When I received intel from a source with deep Middle Eastern ties as to the possible whereabouts of Salvator Mundi, the world’s most expensive, missing-in-action painting, I immediately went to the authority every writer consults first (whether they admit it or not): Wikipedia. In its entry, the work was referred to as being authored “by the studio of Leonardo da Vinci.” Today, when I returned to capture the precise language employed by the people’s encyclopedia, it had since—over the past week—been mysteriously altered to “a painting by Italian Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci dated to c. 1500. Long thought to be a copy of a lost original veiled with overpainting, it was rediscovered, restored, and included in a major Leonardo exhibition at the National Gallery, London, in 2011–2012.””CamEQ (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't there a way of signifying that an article has been mentioned by a journal or website on the talk page? That's the main reason I linked this. Incidentally, I don't think there's anything particularly surprising about Wikipedia changing from week-to-week, especially on a topic that has been in the news recently. Entertaining to see it mentioned however. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Like this example from the Paris article Talk page:

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)

Your claim that "Leonardo never wrote about painting Salvator Mundi so we don't have proof of his being the main/only artist" is simply chimerical. The lead sentence is consistent with MOS:FIRST. Coldcreation (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying that Leonardo did write about painting it? Source please. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that your claim that Leonardo had to have written about this particular painting in order for it to be considered an authentic work by the artist exists only as the product of unchecked imagination. The very fact that he drew studies on paper of the drapery, without having to have written about it, is evidence of authenticity (something you appear to neglect for whatever reason). If every artist had to have written about their paintings to prove authenticity, museums across the globe would be virtually empty of 'original' works. Coldcreation (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. But I'm saying that it's only a smoking-gun signature work when it's been signed or explicitly documented. The only loose threads pointing to this work's origins seem to be funneling through Christie's and Kemp. A bit strange, isn't it? There actually are countless works without evidence of their authorship (e.g. the Manchester Madonna, which I just came upon by chance). The status quo is to reflect the opinion of the leading scholars with due balance (e.g. 'so and so' attributes the work to 'such and such' artist). In this case, the various scholars who believe that the work is only a partial Leonardo (yes, even though he drew sketches for it) need better representation than the current poorly sourced and narrow focus giving favor to full attribution. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I see your point too, but everything you mention is already in the article. And the lead sentence is consistent with MOS:FIRST. If it makes you feel any better, note that "Leonardo painted the Salvator Mundi with walnut oil rather than linseed oil, as all the other artists in that period did," says Robert Simon [...] "In fact, he wrote about using walnut oil, as it was a new advanced technique." (Source). Coldcreation (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Which part of MOS:FIRST are you pointing to? It wouldn't be overly complicated or redundant to include a note or sideline of the shared attribution viewpoint when it's been given so much attention by reliable sources. The current statement asserts as an objective fact a disputed attribution, which is not well-sourced in the lead. The point about walnut oil is great for the article's attribution section, but doesn't rule out that other artists in his workshop worked on it as a collaboration, with Leonardo only overseeing or contributing certain parts. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:36, 14 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)

Please provide the sources that state that the Louvre Mona Lisa is not by Leonardo, but is a copy (by another hand) of an earlier painting by Leonardo. The issue is not whether Leonardo painted more than one version of his paintings (he did - Virgin of the Rocks), it is whether he was the main painter of a given work. Even if the Louvre Mona Lisa is a copy by Leonardo of an earlier work by him, it is still "by Leonardo".

I disagree. The Mona Lisa is a different case entirely, where there are documents that Leonardo was drafting it c. 1503, preceding Raphael's sketch, then continued working on it up until his death. Those who think Leonardo created two distinct Lisas are in the minority. That isn't the case with the scholars who have good reason to think that the Mundi was painted by multiple hands—or at least that it is impossible to prove otherwise. I think there is a way to reword it which would cover the minimally required mention. I'm not one of the socks; I'm trying to find the 50/50 compromise exactly between the two extremes, neither of which are objectively true. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

In this recent CNN article, Kemp acknowledges the possibility (however remote) of studio contribution. It also explains that Christie's used Bambach as a reference for full attribution, when she actually attributes it to Boltraffio. As far as I can tell, this leaves Kemp's opinion as the only reliable source for full attribution to Leonardo (the others are the auction house itself and tabloids which we should ignore). Unless other RS beside Kemp can be added to support full attribution, we should probably rephrase the first sentence to "attributed to Leonardo" to be objective and non-partial. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It is premature to change the denomination of authorship at this time. Coldcreation (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but conversely, one could argue that it was premature to attribute it to Leonardo in the first place. The last work attributed to this Renaissance master was in 1909. We'll see what transpires in the next few weeks though, as it is likely to be in the news more. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Prematurity of attribution is not for Wikipedia to decide. After 6 years of investigation and authentication research, the National Gallery in London presented the restored painting at its Leonardo exhibition as an original work by the artist. Christie's was confident regarding authenticity following additional consultations with experts. Authenticity to date remains intact (despite conspiracy theories that suggest the contrary). Coldcreation (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to be consistent among Leonardo's works. At present this is not the case. For Leonardo, the summary of attribution strength is given on the page "List of Works by Leonardo da Vinci". Here we have the following categories: "Universally accepted" (9 major works), "Generally accepted" (12 works), "Lost works" (which may include copies), and "Works without consensus on attribution". Each of these categories is somewhat fluid, with the possibly exception of the current "Universally accepted" works (Mona Lisa, Last Supper, etc.). Salvator Mundi is in the "Generally accepted" category. This is, unfortunately, a wide category, and includes seven works that are thought by nearly all experts to be a part of Leonardo's canon: "The Annunciation", "Ginevra de'Benci", "Portrait of a Musician", "Virgin of the Rocks (London)", "The Benois Madonna", "St. John the Baptist", and "La Belle Ferronniere". The Wikipedia page concerned (which is presented as a table and seems difficult to edit), is full of notes and inconsistencies that have accumulated over time. Each painting in the List is linked to an article about that work. There is inconsistency in how the paintings are referred to in the articles. Of the 11 Generally accepted paintings, all are referred to in the opening sentence of their articles as being "by Leonardo da Vinci", except: The Benois Madonna ("could be one of two Madonnas Leonardo da Vinci had commented on having started in October 1478", The Madonna Litta ("a late 15th-century painting, traditionally attributed to Leonardo da Vinci"), and "La Belle Forronniere" ("usually attributed to Leonardo da Vinci"). At present, Salvator Mundi is among the more certain "Generally accepted" works ("by Italian Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci"). The paintings in this category stated as being "by Leonardo" in their articles have been studied intensively for many decades, and have earned their attributions through countless discussions and public technical examinations (although a few are still discussed as to the respective roles of Leonardo and his collaborators). All of three paintings not given the "by Leonardo" endorsement have remained contenders as autograph. At present, the Salvator Mundi is included with paintings such as "St. John the Baptist", "Lady with an Ermine", and "Ginevra de'Benci". Even those who advocate for the Salvator Mundi would be hesitant to bracket the painting with these. It would seem more appropriate to put it together with the three "Generally accepted" works whose articles do not give unequivocal attribution in their opening sentences. For consistency one could choose between: (a) "could be a painting by Leonardo da Vinci [known until recently through...]" (Benois Madonna), "traditionally attributed to Leonardo da Vinci" (Madonna Litta), or "usually attributed to Leonardo da Vinci" (La Belle Forronniere). None of these quite captures the current position of Salvator Mundi - they are specific to each painting and its history. The three paintings have been the subject of dozens of studies and much scholarly debate. Given how early we are in the study of studying the Salvator Mundi by scholars, and the lack of consensus emerging, it would seem most appropriate to say: "The Salvator Mundi is an Italian Renaissance painting attributed by some experts fully to Leonardo da Vinci. Other experts believe that Leonardo contributed to the painting, although it was mainly executed by others closely associated with him. Since the work emerged only recently, there is an intense and evolving discussion about its attribution." This sums up the position: Some authoritative sources back a full Leonardo attribution through thorough published scholarly studies (Kemp, Syson), others back it only though the general press (Alan Brown, Marani, Landrus), others are equivocal and have not pronounced a verdict (Fiorio), and others reject an attribution mainly to Leonardo through studies (Zoellner, Bambach). As more studies are produced and evaluated, and as more technical and historical data comes to light, it may be possible to move the Salvator Mundi within the "Generally accepted" category from "attributed by some...to Leonardo da Vinci" to "by Leonardo da Vinci".--SatuDua12 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The Ganay painting and the pentimento

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)

The Turin Shroud book you appear to be using as your main reference is WP:FRINGE. If you keep reading it a page past your citation, it explicitly states that it's underlying theory that the Shroud of Turin is a self-portrait by Leonardo. WTF? I mean maybe that's the case, but that's fringe and not what we represent here. The only 'valid' things the source seems to be saying is that Leonardo's painting went missing in the mid-17th century, but that's not verified either; see the History section of our article which notes that Hollar's engraving may itself have been from one of the copies. There are a lot of possibilities, but we can't just inject fringe theories. Please let the discussion play out before restoring this one. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Both the Ganay painting and the pentimento in the Leonardo version are key to the history in the search of Leonardo's version, and authorship (respectively). There is no fringe theory here. Coldcreation (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course the pentimento is relevant. But that has nothing to do with your highlighting of the Ganay painting and fringe theories regarding it, almost exactly copied from The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History—including it's citing Snow-Smith, which is an outdated and poor quality ref. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion on the "quality" of the reference is not justified. And your contention that it is "outdated" is erroneous. This forms part of the history in the search for Leonardo's version. At the time of writing, she was able to convince many specialists. Coldcreation (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The Snow-Smith article, and the book of the same title published in 1982, are good references and relevant to the discussion of "rediscovery." The only thing really wrong with them is that her attribution didn't stick. From a historiographical point of view, it should be included. CamEQ (talk) 01:26, 7 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)

I don’t mind the image being moved back to the gallery, but I’m not sure how that follows from the news that the painting is currently on a yacht?CamEQ (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see. You mean that the Time article uses the Ganay image at the beginning but the caption says “Leonardo”? That’s probably more an issue of Getty Images than this article. CamEQ (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the error stems from, and on one hand it's Time's job to fact-check their research. But it's a complex issue and putting the Ganay image in between an overpainted version of the 'real' painting and the restored version greatly confuses things IMO. I'd prefer the Ganay version go back in the gallery. We can always link to the image within the text where relevant. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Editing styles as of late and BRD

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)

@Coldcreation: Perhaps you could pause from your editing of the article and engage in the discussion, which is how the aforementioned BRD cycle works. If you have a planned version of the article you're trying to instate, perhaps consider putting together a draft and presenting it instead of making micro-edits to the article, and reverting anyone who doesn't agree with them. You can't use fringe viewpoints and sources as the main line of reasoning to make changes to an article. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What you have done to this article is exactly the same as what you did to the Golden ratio article. The solution may be to do the same as was done to that article; return to the version of 04:53, 9 April 2019‎, before you began your spree of 80-plus edits here without the slightest discussion at Talk. I am inclined to roll everything back and proceed one section at a time. Coldcreation (talk) 07:13, 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)

Popular Culture

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)

First sentence should say painting is "attributed to" Leonardo, not "by" him

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)

What are the sources to which you refer? Coldcreation (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that there is substantial enough new scholarship for us to justify altering the opening paragraph at this time. The new scholarship there is is a book by Martin Kemp, Robert Simon and Margaret Dalivalle that reaffirms full attribution to Leonardo. We have yet to see what Carmen Bambach will write in her upcoming book, though her opinion has been publicized. I see that UpdateNerd added Jacques Franck's new viewpoint to the article, but rejecting attribution to Leonardo is currently a minority opinion. There has already been exhaustive effort in discussing and compromising over the attribution of the painting under what is basically current scholarship, so I don't see strong reason to change it.CamEQ (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The only "exhaustive effort in discussing ... the attribution of the painting" I'm aware of is that which occurred between myself and Coldcreation when the first sentence was changed. Franck's viewpoint isn't new, but has simply gone further in the direction of zero attribution based on anatomical incorrectness. Kemp is the only quality source that doesn't have direct ties to the auction house, so that's hardly a scholarly consensus. And even Kemp (in addition to the stronger opinion Ben Lewis) has acknowledged the possibility of studio participation. I'd say the majority of quality sources without ties to the work's sale favor partial attribution. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The efforts I'm talking about include those between you and Coldcreation, but also those from 2017 under the header "Attribution" above (though looking it over again it also has a lot of vitriolic bickering). And I understand your concern about scholarly consensus here, though I would emphasize that Martin Kemp's opinion is very important and that to treat his opinion as though it were on equal footing to all other scholars is to miss something significant about the reality of current Leonardo scholarship.

Even if we were to alter the introductory sentence, I don't think that changing it to "Salvator Mundi is a painting attributed to Italian Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci dated to c. 1500" would quite get at the issue. It implies it might be by Leonardo and it might be by someone else, which isn't what most scholars seem to argue. It would have to be "Salvator Mundi is a painting by Italian Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci, probably with participation by his studio, dated to c. 1500" or some variation where we say "by Leonardo" first and "with studio participation" second. This would implicitly acknowledge the importance of Kemp's opinion while also leave room for the ambivalence of other scholar's opinions. Though, as we have discussed before, the entirety of the introductory paragraph already does that work in acknowledging the diversity of opinions among Leonardo scholars. If I remember correctly, this was the compromise that was reached before regards to this matter.CamEQ (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Since we don't have many other active voices here, we might also consider the thoughts of SatuDua12 above from June 2019 which were well reasoned and which none of us responded to at the time. CamEQ (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

For the short term, I'd be fine with your "participation" compromise as it more quickly introduces that there's nuance to this attribution. Regardless of Kemp's importance as a Leonardo scholar, the absence of other unbiased, well-regarded scholars following in his footsteps is highly suspicious, and should also not be treated lightly. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Another argument, which I haven't brought up before, is the partial attribution of Portrait of Luca Pacioli on the basis of how well polyhedra and the reflections they cast are depicted. This is a quality missing in the Salvator Mundi, in the lack of reflection on the sphere. The hand holding it is also of very weak, childlike quality, as recently pointed out. IMO the only portions which are likely by Leonardo are the curls of hair, the hand making the sign of the cross, parts of the fabric (which studies exist for), and perhaps areas of the face too obscured by repair work. There is a significant case for partial attribution, but without full studies for the portrait or documentation of any kind, there's no case for complete attribution outside the opinion of one scholar and his co-authors, however distinguished. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

References

New article title

Surprised this has been moved with no discussion whatsoever. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted, this definitely needs a discussion.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing this move. This indeed is something that should have been discussed first. And even so, moving the article to a new title wouldn't have been appropriate regardless of questions of the attribution, as the composition is from Leonardo's studio and most scholars acknowledge at least partial attribution to him. I imagine that this all is happening now because of a new documentary that will apparently discuss how the Louvre and Mohammed bin Salman disagree over the attribution of the paining to Leonardo. This documentary will probably be illuminating and is certainly an interesting development that we may have to consider in regards to the painting's attribution. It is not however justification to move the article.CamEQ (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The painting was never fully accepted and should have always been "generally attributed" in the lead. There are only 8 (or 6, if we're strictly talking about paintings) major works universally attributed to Leonardo (and are hence the only ones that should be labeled "by Leonardo"). This painting's attribution has always been as sketchy as La Scapigliata and La Belle Ferronnière. However, at the moment, partial attribution at the very least is almost guaranteed; the random art historians in the "Rejection of attribution" section stand no where near Kemp, Syson, Marani and Zollner. Even Bambach doesn't argue for no attribution. The MBS-Lourve fiasco has not changed this (yet, at least). Aza24 (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Gallery Images

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)

It doesn't bother me much. They illustrate the iconographical type, & it's good to have a few of these. If removed, some might be added to Salvator Mundi. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The entire "Other versions" section should be removed. Completely irrelevant to this painting specifically—we have no sources suggesting his work directly influenced them. Aza24 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that they should largely be removed. The only ones from the 'Other versions' section that should be kept are those that are by followers of Leonardo and which are directly influenced by Leonardo's compositon. This would inlcude the first image attributed to Marco d'Oggiono, whcih is clearly the same composition; the fourth image of 'The Head of Christ the Redeemer' by Salai, which Alison Cole describes as likely the "closest to Leonardo's original composition" ; and the ninth image by Yanez, who was a Spanish follower of Leonardo and for which the Prado museum explicitly states the compostion is based on Leonardo's Salvator Mundi. There is a source attached to the second and third images leading to a blog post by an independent art historian discussing how they may have been influenced by Leonardo's translucent orb and Platonic ideals, but unless the paintings and these concepts are discussed directly in this article I still don't think they merit inclusion here. CamEQ (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Generally understanding of works of art is greatly helped by seeing their wider context. The failure of our more narrow-minded editors to realize this is a great weakness in our coverage. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod, remember that we are all working together in good faith. There are real people on the other side of the screen. Trying to dismiss or insult your fellow editors as narrow-minded is not helpful or constructive. Please remain cordial even in disagreement. Thank you for contributing your thoughts on the matter at hand. CamEQ (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the images shown. They make a positive contribution and do not detract from the page. Xenxax (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I find it very instructive to see those paintings grouped as such in this article. Removing them would be a great disservice to Wikipedia readers. Coldcreation (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Makes absolutely no sense. We have no way of knowing if any works by non-followers of Leonardo were at all impacted by his work, and by presenting them in the gallery, we are implying they did. Every single depiction of Salvator Mundi presents him in the same light, before and after Leonardo. We have more than enough, should we now go to Annunciation (Leonardo) and add 13 other paintings of the scene by unrelated artists in a gallery below? Completely unnecessary; "their wider context" can be fully expressed in the Salvator Mundi article, and with the works of his followers here, and perhaps one or two other, not 13... Aza24 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Not opposed to migrating "Other versions" not by Leonardo's friends/followers or mentioned in the article to Salvator Mundi. Leonardo didn't invent the basic premise, and some of these images bear no resemblance to his. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I'm challenging the gallery here not because I think the images are necessarily unhelpful or unrelated, but because they seem to lack intentionality. It makes reasonable sense that the article might discuss the iconography of the Salvator Mundi more generally to place the painting in context, and thus also include images to show how the image type developed well before Leonardo and continued in use afterward. At it is now, however, the article does not really do that beyond discussing the basic iconography in the lead. and ideed that work can be done better in Salvator Mundi. I can also see reading the article again that we do discuss how other artist's painted the orb as made of brass or as a hollow glass containing a landscape, so perhaps some contemporaneous examples showing this should be included. It nonetheless seems to me that the gallery as it is now lacks intentionality and that the range of images included is too broad. We don't need a painting by an unnamed 17th century Flemish artist, as good as the painting might be. We don't need the Jerónimo de Bobadilla, which is itself a later copy after the Joos van Cleve at the Prado. I think that narrowing the list down to maybe four or five contemporaneous examples outside of Leonardo's direct circle of influence would serve readers better. CamEQ (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

References

I'm agreeing more as you get more specific, even though I initially thought I would be opposed. My only concern is that the body of the article is already somewhat image-heavy. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

Revisiting how we discuss the attribution

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)

Agreed. I prefer "attributed in whole or part to..." to the vague and misleading "generally attributed to". UpdateNerd (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Generally agreed. We should not take sides in an ongoing and probably evolving dispute; we should explain that there is such a dispute. Beyond the composition, I don't think anything is generally agreed. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to drop the "generally" if you think it's misleading. Johnbod is right that this is an ongoing debate in art history and it may indeed be some time before art historians come to anything resembling a true general consensus. "Attributed in whole or part to..." seems a bit clunky to me, but I don't know if I have a better alternative and it gets to the issue you want to address. CamEQ (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

We can experiment with the exact grammar to avoid clunkiness; the more important thing is precision. For instance, we could write that it's "... a painting attributed—at least in part—to Leonardo da Vinci ..." We could also use parentheses or commas, but I think dashes help draw the eye to an important portion of the text. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I've just changed it. We can tweak the wording further if need be, but I figured it's better to change to something now, so we don't have a phrasing none of us are confident in just lying around. Aza24 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

history should be amended

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)

IP, see the above section as well. Agreed for the most part. This is the problem with have a provenance/history section before the attribution, the provenance theories are so based around the attribution that it ends up way too messy. I'm willing to work on this article and fix it to where it should have already been by now. I would humbly suggest a formatting similar to what I did at Portrait of a Musician and La Scapigliata. That way, the attribution and dating can be discussed before the history, since they inform it, not the other way around. Then maybe we can separate some of the cruft in the attribution section to a separate description section. Aza24 (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussing attribution first seems appropriate for this article. The modern discussion of the painting began with its discovery in 2005, and until more is known, its history is more the subject of scholarly discourse than an objective chronology. Also agree though that there should be a general description, which would help relieve the bloating of the Attribution section. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Salai

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)

Bought for $1,175 in 2005

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)

The reason your edit was reversed was not because of some attachment to the $10,000 number, but because you did not cite any sources that justified the change. The sources that were left there were the original sources that indicated $10,000.

That being said, since you brought it up here, I did take the time to look and it does say in Ben Lewis's Last Leonardo on page 3 that "[Simon] had purchased it three years earlier for around $10,000 – or so he had told the media" and Simon writes in Part I of Dalivalle, Kemp and Simon's Leonardo's Salvator Mundi & the Collecting of Leonardo in the Stuart Courts on page 11 that the estimate was $1200-$1600 and the hammer price was $1,000, which after auction fees came to $1,175. I think given this that the number should be updated to say it sold for $1,175 but that there should also be a footnote indicating that Simon had shared the price of $10,000 with the media so as to explain to readers and future editors why the number appears with frequency.CamEQ (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that. 78.18.230.248 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Issue of the knot in the wood

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)

measurements

65.7cm and 45.7cm are the true measures as sold and stated by Christies. Wiki has been altered and found to be incorrect.