I learned more about art from this dude than school. Fml

rubbish video

That video makes a bunch of unbased assumptions.

A truly stupid man..

Have you not seen the last supper by date Vinci Christ is presented just that way but none of the disciples

hiScrew you man, it was a Tuesday afternoon and it was due Friday.Yr comment quite funny................pswas it painted by Da VINCI, or NOTWHAT DO YOU THINK?

Dennis Aguilar 😂🤣

Its real i know it i have Time machine

😆😆😆😆

Bahhhaaa

You're absolutely right, it's great.

he must be

Hes world renowned in the field do some research

@@TCO1216 He's the Kim Kardashian of the art world.

@@TheEmpress1768 oh boi that's bad

Lol! So true!!

So do you mean a piece of shiet know it all? True for sure.

Jajajajajajaja

He almost has Ledger’s Joker mannerism. Delightfully engaging.

Audrekx yes, truly disgusting in his way of pretending his the one and only who knows about EVERYTHING. I like to hear the opinion of art critics, but this guy is not a good one. He could sell things on the streets by the way he shouts and try to impose his truth.

Maybe whoever commissioned the painting said, 'put him facing front, holding my crystal orb and wearing my clothes, with your famous ringlet hair, and that beatific look Jesus is famous for, oh, and don't forget that thing you do with hands...' and then paid him a few lira extra.

@8alot4t agreed

Jonathan Nadeau was thinking the same thing

Sorry guys. Leonardo doesn't paint frontal, period. It's not his work. Get over it

@@nnicola78 And you are?!!!

That's so funny cuz I was just thinking the same thing💯😂😂😂

Same i would point at everything 😂

Dang, it would take years to develop the kind of technique that guy has!

i suggest collapseable... with a laser

Art neg crtitics 🤪

It’s also a portrait of Jesus.

Lot of whats if to be paying 450 million for it

@1manuscriptman yet they had a right-handed person restore it

Always funny to hear from " experts " lol even looking just at Leonardo sketches you find tons of art drawn from the front. Namely one of the most famous the Vitruvius man, pick up at least one book of his art before making a video that comes off this pretentious.

But its not.

@@dtrain5519 yes it is

exactly. He would be praising the "mysterious aura in the eyes of Jesus". Ok, maybe it was made by Leonardo's students. But we can't say that it is "junk" and "not art". It is totally unprofessional, and a lie. Because it is art

After watching the two documentaries on this, I think Dianne Dwyer Modestini did a fantastic job of making the painting look like a Leonardo, and it's a great painting, but it's not actually a Leonardo.

"he subverted the popular expectations of his time by deciding to paint a portrait square on, reverting to traditional forms...." etc etc

crieseasily good luck copping the bogo

@@aidansmith393 lmao thanks bro! im sure it will be a joke 😂

@Swanee-Shore what is his Instagram

Carbon dating, paint chemical investigation, brush stroke analysis, nuclear analysis of particles etcetera by the world’s top forensic team on paintings have confirmed the painting to be without a doubt a Da Vinci. So no, please, no KZfaq hack alarmists working for Vice should be teaching anyone but the idiots too lazy to believe anything but a 5 minute video. “Painted him dead on in the chest...” Imagine this idiot if he’d seen any of Picasso or Pollock’s early work...

you're not as handsome as St john the baptist so i'd have to assume he'd give you a hard no. He has a crush on St John

You lot are so infuriatingly dumb! I could chew my fingers off.

Now worth $450 million

in short an imbecile.

🤣💀

banksy would be proud

well i'm not an art expert, but the competition was fierce for funding in Italy back then, so making easy to paint figures wasn't enough. Michelangelo was storming the place with his architecture, scultures and paintings, and if you see his work, he didn't have straight figures and it was to show his prowess... so even tho, Leonardo was a well stablished artist, he just couldn't come up with a less skillfull work... that would be suicide... so in that note i think that he has a very solid point.. They were begging for a male Mona Lisa, and the just jumped in the ship as soon as they thought they founded one...

BUT in all honestly the restorers of the fake Leonardo tells soo much bullshitry. this was never was and never will be a Leonardo with all these references publicly available Leonardo simply never painted such ghastly figures facing dead strait on.

'The Fraud of The Century' PAY ATTENTION NOW: (From An Insider) The '$alvador Modestini' pardon me (Mundi) was a discovery by Alex Parrish who bought the dilapidated wreck for around $1200. Apparently he went halves with the art dealer Robert Simon at $600 each. It was already heavily overpainted beyond recognition from origin thus absolutely no possible way to validate the hand of Da Vinci. - The Modestini Makeover restoration ensued. She jazzed it up over 2 painstaking years whilst at the same time it's profile was glorified by Martin Kemp who happens to be the convenient Da Vinci artworld armchair academic expert. What I find absolutely hilarious is The Arabs would actually buy a 'Controversial Christ.' Even Judas must be giggling.!! In my own opinion having watched the geopolitics intertwined with status and order.. The Saudis bought it to SLAP DOWN their little irritating nemesis 'Qatar' whom are currently as Sovereign World Art Champions with Billions invested in Arts and Highest Profile World Record Prices paid for paintings. Kemp is only privvy to the Royal Collection. He is a laughing stock in the Old Masters artworks as he's never seen the Da Vinci artworks from private collections. These artworks are well away from the corrupt cartel institutions and art dealers. Incidentally, Martin Kemp & Cohorts Luke Syson proceeded to glorify the Salvador Mundi via the UK National Gallery whilst other renowned experts with integrity didn't want their name bestowed with Artworld Corruption. Martin Kemp had instigated and planted the seed to suggest there is a possibility of the hand of Da Vinci. ie dissemination of Rumour and Hearsay (without providing EVIDENCE to support the sudden theory) The build up to legitimise the sudden found battered painting is absolutely disgusting. It's like The Vatican suddenly validating a new found 'Dead Sea Scrolls' or 'Shroud of Turin' The Salvador Mundi is like a replica iphone deemed to be an Apple but 'Made In China' with a Silicon Valley Intel Processor hailed as a thoroughbred authentic Apple product: Experts like Carmen Bambach were falsely implicated over her alleged acceptance in attribution. Even Martin Kemps fellow Oxford Academic colleague Mathew Landrus reacted to telling it the way it is as The Salvador Mundi is a 'Luini' painting all day long. For the record 'The Mundi' was previously attributed to Boltraffio (Da Vinci studio artist). Too many hearsay artworks validated via gatekeepers of the Cartel Institutions with Billions of Dollars at stake. It's called The Art Game - where the Big Boys park their money safely. Months before the 2017 Christies auction - certain Louvre insiders and a few in the know became worried as insiders already knew it was an inside job to clear the air with Dmitry Rybolovlev (former owner of The Mundi whom was had bought it from his art dealer Yves Bouvier) Interesting to see the chain of events from when the original buyers Paerish and Simon who had only paid $1200 then sold it to Bouvier for around $80m. Yves Bouvier then immediately flipped it to Dmitry for around $127m the very same month. Incidentally Dmitry whom is currently financially sanctioned hasn't received payment from Christies per the auction. Furthermore, the Arabs have held back payment due to the Painting Authentication Saga whilst in parallel - Dmitry is still battling in the courts for the €700M fleeced from him by his long time dealer Yves Bouvier). Patrick Drahi (New Sothebys owner) must be absolutely loving it as 'Christies' are now running around like Headless Chickens wishing for more attribution weight to balance the furore. Why do I know this Insider Info ?? I have active first hand experience in overseeing hedge fund and contracts for high level asset acquisitions. I was formerly at a firm where my teams job was to facilitate the processes of asset management exceeding values above $250m. During the last decade - The Art Market needed a boost as it was the safest hedge against other markets. We were part of the underwriting per the overly inflated insurance premiums assigned to major high end artworks and real estate. The artworks appraisals had already been blatantly exaggerated from the outset and the valuations were manipulated with everyone in the chain having a piece of the pie. Prior to the Salvador Mundi Modestini makeover with absolutely ZERO evidence or underlay of the original artwork from origin - the alarming thing is we are somehow expected to believe that Leanardo Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought - well today let's do an out of characteristic Front Faced Christ holding a crystal ball. Pardon My Thumb Folks WTF.😅😅😅😅😅 AGAIN.... Such major inconsistencies and the deriving towards validation of an artwork from the very hand of the Old Master is highly questionable. Surprise Surprise ' the Mona Lisa base sketch is totally different from the surface. In 2000 - analysis and findings ascertained major discrepancies in the base sketch of the Mona Lisa: Alarmingly a totally different base sketch was unravelled - Absolutely Gamechanging - hence for the first time this century - it's a whole new perspective in analysis and finding what's beneath the surface. Louvre Mona Lisa As the science evolves with the latest technologies to provide irrefutable evidence of clarifying the genetic profile of an artwork from origin -... Martin Kemp and cohorts react by saying... 'The Artist Changed His Mind' !!!! So Today's Lesson.. In my own humble opinion !! It's a Monetisation Money Maker game. 'The Da Vinci Game' The Louvre, National Gallery, MOMA and fellow Institutions will always need to accommodate and welcome much needed tourism. The institutions are required to generate merchandise sales to accommodate and welcome the Social Media Selfies and Insta insecure Ducklips: After all - The Vatican doesn't yet open up the Secret Chambers. Until then. My Advice.. WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.

albrecht durer painted Christ facing directly towards the observerthat he had never painted anything like that before That doesn't mean that it wasn't his own hand

OMG people - it was tradition in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance to have portraits of a blessing Christ facing front and looking at the viewer.

What are the facts that is by D?

He provided facts though: 1. The ringlets of hair are good quality but that and only a few other aspects of the painting show the same expertise of da Vinci. 2. Other paintings by Leonardo are more complex because the subjects are posing on their side and allow for more details to be painted in. Their features are more detailed and have more depth than the painting of Jesus. 3. The painting of Jesus--a direct, frontal painting--was too simple. Da Vinci was painting people from side angles which is makes it much more difficult to paint the details. 4. That this was more likely painted by one of da Vinci's students as evident from other paintings.

@@5445jedi kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ga-Fg5udnK65h30.html&ab_channel=GreshamCollege you should watch this. Leonardo did paint a Salvator Mundi. The only question is "is this his version?" The guy in this Vice video is claiming he couldn't have painted one at all...

I’m sure you know more about art then him… thanks for providing your expert advice though

It's just a printed reproduction. Maybe cost $50 to make?

@@TASmith10 r/wooooosh

@@TASmith10 🤓

Lol yes!

$400m

triggered lol

It only applies to social issues. It's all bout someone's feelings being hurt or victim status. SJW type shit. You're the only one bringing this up about him being triggered. Maybe you're trying to justify for all the times someone called you triggered? IDK just asking.

@@RJL612 The top comment at the time I made this comment was "I've never seen someone so triggered by a piece of "art." There are more like it if you take a second to look. I watched the video, didn't understand why people were calling him "triggered," and I wrote the comment. That about sums it up for you?

Yeah, like how bad is now good, I guess...

Basically lol. I love how the internet makes language fluidity move so fast these days

agreed

unwatchable*

Richard Timms his name is Jerry saltz. Look him up he did an amazing couple videos. He didn’t go to school at all and is on the one of the tops of the art critic food chain. He felt like the other publications were too academic and didn’t make sense so he made it new, fresh, and understandable.

@@cruzanderson1275 Thank you.

My thoughts exactly. "Get a real painting"... So a 15th Century masterpiece that he admits was likely touched up by Leonardo (at the very least) isn't a 'real painting?' Dude probably had a bad layover experience in Dubai and is trying to get revenge.

what he's commenting on is the insane overevaluation of that piece. the art world at that high level is essentially a money laundering scheme.

Jessica McKa Great comment 😂

Mona Lisa and xyz.. A lesson below THE HARD TRUTH... it's basically 'The Pedophiles Painting' 5 copies of this pile of hearsay. Allegedly created and touched up by the Master who in turn would've touched up his young boys to enlighten the glory. (Common Practice back then however the Catholic Church & Co clearly follow through with Tradition. 'Old Habits Die Hard' ANYWAY regarding "Old Master Artworks !!!!" having been in the Art Game.... I have to tell 'The Hard Truth'. Hardly any public information or any proven DNA analysis or irrefutable fact based evidence is available for scrutiny. Too many hearsay artworks from gatekeepers of certain Cartel Institutions . Nor are there any details to do a 'Columbo' via impartial non commercially biased scientific institutions or real 'EXPERTS'. The portraits of Da Vinci plus high level artworks are never open to impartial scrutiny. There is never any salient facts satisfactory beyond reasonable doubt. The Gioconda DNA has never been ascertained nor have they ever found the body or any the bones. Examples Caravaggio etc etc.. What is seldom discussed as per during WWII - the so called Gioconda was stolen and somewhat conveniently and eventually retrieved. Of the 5 known copies - thanks to the 1911 theft - misdirection pursued. Since the cover up aka smokescreen that ensured - The Louvre have never ever and never will allow anyone to scrutinise the copy in Paris. Too Big A $candal BUT they did find major discrepancies in the base sketch It's like viewing a portrait of Obama and decades later the Base sketch is identified as Desmond Tutu. Conveniently the armchair acclaimed academics ie Martin Kemp & Cohorts indirectly linked to museums, appraisers and auction houses are quick to say.. . 'The Artist Changed His Mind'. Perhaps the '$alvador Modestini' sorry (Mundi) was a glorious discovery by Alex Parrish to acquire a $1200 dilapidated wreck and suddenly a beyond recognition / restoration justified the evidence whereby one is to believe Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought well let's do a painting with a Christ holding a crystal ball. Pardon My Thumb WTF.😅😅😅😅😅 Move over to recents whereby the National Gallery aka 'Kemps Pals' and their splendid authentic Uhmm 'Virgin of the Rocks' plus many more Old Master artworks have entirely different base sketches and inconsistencies towards deriving a 100% artwork from the very hand of the Old Master. So Today's Lesson.. Dear Deluded Humans !! It's a Monetisation game. The In$titutions accommodate $elfies and $alvation.. my advice.... WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.

Names are all that counts for these people.

Read his pieces for NY Mag. Also read his wife Roberta Smith's work. Roberta is known as the better critic, not that Jerry is bad, but Jerry is the personality in the duo. They are kind of referred to as the only critics left with actual opinions. Most criticism today is just description of a show. Highly recommend Jerry's "My Life as a Failed Artist" for Vulture Mag.

Damn Poopy looking nice!

cynthia van teylingen LOL

Hats off to The Fraud of The Century !! Anyone deluded enough to think the Mundi is real Da Vinci..., PEOPLE: WAKE UP AND SMELL THE STARBUCKS.. Trumps toupee is more real than this $1800 pile of hearsay. Let's look at the unequivocal irrefutable facts: YES FACTS INVESTIGATIONS: By looking at the various versions of Leonardo’s students’ works, one can see that Luini paints just like that work you see in the Salvator Mundi. Between 5% and 20% of the painting was by Leonardo, and that Luini was the “primary painter". FACT: The Salvator Mundi was in fact attributed to Luini in 1900, when it was acquired by Sir Charles Robinson for the Cook collection. “It’s more accurate than just calling it a Leonardo.” FACT: In June 2018, the French government issued a decree of immunity from seizure for the painting during a proposed loan period lasting up to 3 March 2020. The owner listed in the legislative document at that time is the Department of Culture and Tourism, United Arab Emirates (UAE). The October 2018 “order” also reveals that the museum is describing the $450m Salvator Mundi as “attributed to” Leonardo rather than as a definitive autograph work. The term “attributed to” usually refers to an attribution made by a knowledgeable expert, but suggests that the attribution has not been confirmed by a scholarly consensus. SUMMATION: The UK National Gallery London is an insult to humanity. Kemp & his cohorts legitimised and then further enhanced the profile of The Mundi with the help of their esteemed convenient enhancer 'RESTORER' Diane Modestini: AND NOW in London..the 'Christ with the Doctors' by Luini: The National Gallery aka (Kemps Crew) has even got the sheer audacity to put this Luini (Salvador Mundi) accredited painter right next to the 'Virgin of the Rocks ' which incidentally is questionable too as follows... FACT: Leonardo used a zinc-based pigment in his sketches, which was detected using macro x-ray fluorescence maps. The painting was also analyzed with hyperspectral imaging. The work underwent an 18-month restoration beginning in 2008, returning to view in 2010. FACT: # # # # The National Gallery of London has released revelatory new images of one of its most beloved masterpieces, Leonardo da Vinci’s The Virgin of the Rocks (1491-99, 1506-08), showing underdrawings beneath the surface of the work that depict an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT composition. # # # # Ask yourself the question.. Does an $1800 dilapidated wreck bought in 2005, doctored, overlayered and jazzed up by the convenient expertise of Diane Modestini to be then laundered via the Swiss then the Russian resulting in an eventual $450m auction in just 12 years.. Even Baron De Rothschild must have been giggling in his grave.. Sound like a good return? Furthermore - in the build up to legitimising the Salvador Mundi - the so called experts whom sat in a room with Kemp to democratically debate the validness of The Mundi was an understandable yet convenient process with protocol. Kemp and his fellow protagonists whom then meticulously enhanced the profile of the Mundi went to all lengths and then to falsely include the use of academic names and undocumented opinions of worldwide renowned experts ie Carmen Bambach etc. ADVICE: If you really want to mislead the world by laundering a pile of worthless junk..try doing it without the advance knowledge of the people in the know especially the Louvre whistleblowers whom knew it was a fake. FOOTNOTE: The expertise of art analytical cross referencing FACT BASED JOURNALISM and overwhelming evidence suggests the blatant efforts and corrupt antics are despicable and shameful. If you actually want the world to believe the Mundi is a genuine 100% Da Vinci...then allow the independent non commercially related scientific experts to test the $1800 pile of junk. PITY: The world is slowly realising the antics of Kemp and his Cohorts worldwide. BUT LEST WE FORGET.. It's also convenient to have a 500 year celebration of Da Vinci’s death but the question is Why is The Mundi still 'MISSING'.

That man is crazy and stupid.

This guy was fun and brilliant

Emperor Palpatine I mean he made a good point! Why would he revert to an older and more traditional portrait style (pre renaissance style) while trying to impress potential employers when he can do so much better?

I have bad news for you ...the hand and crystals were repainted during restoration and there are very less or hardly any before pictures of the painting..plus no scrutiny of the restoration process that went on for 4-5 years.

Why do you think that the crystal ball "feels like da Vinci" ????

There lies the problem: IT IS NOT A GOOD PAINTING......the eyes, the robe, the wood panel it is painted on, the cheekbones ......and for most : the painting of the globe......it is not to the standard of Da Vinci.......it's of the school of......

Everything you just cited was actually painted by Dianne Dwyer Modestini, the restorer. It feels like Da Vinci because Dianne is a fantastic painter and that's what she tried to recreate. You should watch the two documentaries on this painting.

MY LIKE AND COMMENT IS AN INVESTMENT THEN

That's just sad! I hope for civilizations sake that's wrong.

Yep... and an happy meal will be around 500 million! :P

Never 😂

Better Safe it before sell it

@Ahmed N I've taken a crap before but for the first time I decided to take my pants off completely rather than just pull them down! : l

Exactly, and in what drawing, painting or sculpture do you see of a god of some kind turned away from you? Always faced forward.

@@crispy9224 everything in this painting is wrong from the asymmetrical eyes to the fingers not abiding to the anatomy of human hands and the orb that is just not supposed to look like that if you follow the laws of optics, this is definitely not a leo painting, he was a freak when it comes to the details , just look at that neck tell me how leo could've drawn a neck like that one, it looks like jesus just had a car accident and his neck is still swollen

Are you arguing from the point of view of faith? He painted Jesus many times, both as an adult and as a baby, it was never depicted like this. And do you think he had some kind of special spiritual relationship with Jesus? At best he was a teist-pantheist, not the kind of guy that cries when the pastor is shouting some bullshit like JESUS KNOWS YOOOOU.

RIDICULOUS

exactly!

I think it's less about "can't" and more about "wouldn't". I think his argument is that Leonardo always used more dynamic, interesting poses and angles and that he wouldn't settle for something so relatively flat and overdone. I don't know enough about the subject myself but I don't think it's unprecedented to argue the Salvator Mundi doesn't fit in with his other work.

Jesus was always portrayed straight.

He never said he cant... when you hear a metallica song, you know its them, when you watch Norm macdonald do stand up, you know its him..... when davinci paints you know its him... that painting isnt all him.... do a little more research on Leo and all his painting and his style and you will see....

Interestingly..Leonardo left out the beard.. The Savior is timeless and forever young.. God is not old but forever young.. But I believe he wanted to paint in a Greek Icon style.. This was always the way you showed Christ.. This so called "art-critic" should take into consideration the 1500 years of art history before making that "simple" decision..

👎🏼

Okay, the man lied professionally for a living. I'd find it hard to believe much of what he says.

Beltracchi never forged a Leonardo da Vinci painting.

He's the Kim Kardashian of the art world.

So I am not only one who was thinking about Lewis Black

Yes, the problem is that works by Dianne Dwyer Modestini, who actually painted it, don't sell for $450 million.

It really really is

that may be true may not be the reality as is none of us were there You didn't know him personally I didn't know him personally All the people who did have been dead for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years all we have to go on is the testimony of some people who know him And perhaps and perhaps other testimonies were written and lost or have yet to be discovered that would indicate otherwise So be careful when you're so cocksure about

Malice Burgoyne I had the rare opportunity to see this(behind glass) and without a doubt it’s an authentic LDV. The lighting: nobody short of a master could do it and the proportions are all LDV. I had zero doubt and neither did anybody else. This video on the other hand is all *Vice.* A brofest internet news source that will sensationalize anything, offer no succinct points and walk the line between conspiracy and reality without shame. This painting is as fake an LDV as the Mona Lisa.

Carbon dating wouldn't invalidate the painting if it were from his workshop of the same period. Real art historians have been doubting this painting ad nauseam attributing the work to his pupil Luini. Also, if the pinnacle of art credibility, the louvre, has twice procrastinated the viewing because of internal doubts... there should be red flags going off. The painting could be real, but one could just as confidently assert that it is of his workshop, thus I think it should be labeled "attributed to".

"Carbon dating, nuclear examination of particles, brush stroke analyses, paint cross testing with his other work" None of these would invalidate the idea that it came from his studio, just not him. His pupils would be using the same canvas (carbon dating), his pupils will be using the same pigments (nuclear examination of particles), his students may even be using the same brush stroke (because they are his students). The dead giveaway that it probably isn't wholly his is the time in which it was created. His style and contrapposto was wayyyyy too advanced at the time to make something so stoic. The reality might be that one of his students created the painting. Da Vinci may have contributed somewhat, a few instructive brush strokes here and there, but it probably wasn't his. If this was dated to one of his earlier works, it may have been possible that this is an early trial, but given that we know that this was painted when Da Vinci was rather significantly experienced, it's unlikely that it was his.

Malice Burgoyne Another schmuck on KZfaq who thinks he’s an expert in all things fine art.

"Picasso made 33,000 pieces of art. About 10 are great, most are good, the rest are bad." That's because Picasso isn't actually a good artist. Just a good entrepreneur.

Its not like he despises painting someone in flat posture but just for the students to not struggle as much painting it which is why the guy said one of his students could have painted it cause its jus so flat and kinda basic something one of his students could do

nein auchnein that’s unlikely he is a world renowned art critic

philo 3 “Never drawn Jesus before?” LOL Guess you’ve never heard of The Last Supper!!!

@@grecomic that's not a portrait bud, it's a scene

How?

A large percentage of paintings in art museums are fakes, copies and forgeries, so yeah. No one wants to admit they've been had, so they go along. People still buy tickets and come look, so...

What you saw at Christie's is a painting by Dianne Dwyer Modestini, the "restorer". If you want to see what it looked like before she painted it you should watch the two documentaries on the painting.

Most artists don’t break form. You don’t find a Vermeer without a heavy play on light. Or a Van Gogh that resembles a Picasso.

Well it makes sense. Diving into those details can be what distinguishes a Leonardo from artist who worked in studio B. You're not going to see wide ranging and detailed landscapes in a Raphael for example. He makes a point. Leo in his entire life was all about depicting nature and movement and drama. Every single one his paintings and majority of his drawings have something to them that makes it more than just there. He's expressed this love for such stuff in his notebooks and to contemporaries. The idea that he decided to do this more "stagnate" and front on depiction is out of character. As an amateur art history and Leo historian, I'd agree with him and some other experts that this is red flag. Not so say that he would've never done it, I can imagine Leo painting away at this, but it's definitely worth bringing up. If Leonardo did have a role in the creation of Salvador Mundi, I'd sooner agree that it was in conjunction with a pupil of his who wanted to do it. How much so would be even harder to say.

@@Tijjain obviously, you haven't studied "Leo" enough. An intimate lover of his art would immediately recognize his works.

@@RebeckaSarkozy With all due respect given the fact that Leonardo specialised experts are split in how they do or don't believe he painted this tells us enough. Basing our ideas of who did what or who didn't on "love," a.k.a emotion, is not an empirical or reliable way to attribute art. Yes, I admit when I first saw this I was like: "HELL YEAH LEONARDO!!!" still am. But skeptical. I'm sure similar things could've, and have been, said about paintings formally attributed to Leo. I'm not saying I disagree completely; I said I can see him doing this in a studio. It's his style, it's his palette, it's symbolism. But given the context of his life time, it wasn't uncommon for pupils and other artists to either: copy another's works (especially the style), work on things together, or "edit" finished work. If this a Leonardo, how much is it so? 100%, 83%, 50, 29 etc. What if this is a pupils copy of the original; maybe Leo helped with it; what if an artist afterwards changed things? These are the questions and more historians have to ask before putting a name on it. This painting specifically until now was attributed as "Student of Leonardo da Vinci."

@@RebeckaSarkozy and you would ofccourse

@@RebeckaSarkozy even to a dumb, uninformed, ignorant dirt man like myself, when compared to the provided examples that are pretty much confirmed as "pretty much 100% done by ya boi, Leo"... it looks like utter, compete crap, in comparison.

Harshil Patel stop being everywhere lol

Shows he is comfortable speaker

a character certainly, but please do not confuse this man with a legit prof. This guys a formed truck driver turned art critic. Not a historian, not a scientist.

@@maggetman69 Frank Gehry was also a truck driver.

@@abegohr2576 My point isn't that he can't create art or that been a truck driver somehow denigrates his work. It's that his approach in proving this fake isn't necessarily one grounded on a wealth of academic knowledge. Imo this man is an art critic, nott an art historian, not an expert on forgery. This video is really just his opinion, and in mine it's not an enormously valuable one, though I enjoyed the video.

The last supper also shows Christs head at an angle and his apostles in many poses, along with background, foreground, and several hidden codes.

Check it agaib cuz the head is lookibg towards his left and his eyes to the table.

ive never seen someone so triggered by vegetables and exercise

Well apparently you can't tell art from trash

He just takes his work more seriously than others.

I've never seen somebody so triggered by Jerry Saltz '"triggered' ness.

Couldn't it be possible that the painting is a piece could be made face on because he hasn't tried it yet?

For real though, he didn't even come up with his one and only argument himself!

I dont agree with him therefore I'm going to twist his words in my head and make him racist!

Science, in art history, is still really subjective. I don't think it even matters if it's real or fake tbh.

I dont know for sure but that was most definitely done along with getting historians to weigh in on attribution. The margin of error is present but that would have put it being made in the same period and area using the techniques of that area at that time. The auction house wouldn't put it up for auction if they hadn't at least done that much ground work. The tricky thing is attributing it to DaVinci himself or his studio; which Jerry makes the point of but (him being Jerry) puts his pizzazz on.

This is a very unimpressive refutation from the so called "Da Vinci Connoisseur" Jerry Saltz, he's been triggered over this piece since day one. The "Portrait of a Musician" that is referenced is hardly more dynamic, it's simply a figure turned in stiff 3/4 against a black background -- oh, also unfinished. To claim to know the mind of Leonardo is just laziness, we don't know how he would see fit to paint Christ. The hair, features in the face and especially that hand all say Leonardo. Was some of this done by a student? Possibly...probably, but so were vast portions of many famous paintings, nothing new there. Granted this picture has been heavily restored, but after all, it is 500 years old. This was nothing more than a chance to make noise for Saltz and clearly it paid off.

@@bigwetbutt The fact that after paying $450 million the museum has twice delayed putting in on display has to indicate they have serious doubts about the painting.

@@TheRealCartman1 We don't know what it indicates, they aren't being transparent about it. They aren't getting their money back, even if critics (not historians) like Saltz keep shouting, putting it up as the real deal and being done with it would at least quiet them. This is not a painting that people will be ever agree on across the board and it basically comes to down to Leonardo experts giving the nod or not, they have for the most part. I don't think anyone believes that even before the restoration 100% percent of this was done by him. We just don't know what happened to the picture, there are not enough documents.

Nah mine had fucking ads making it 4:30

David dobrick edited this

What's your opinion on the wood used to paint on with the giant knot in it? From what I understand DaVinci was pedantic about his wood and he could afford to be. From what I understand no other of his works used a bad piece of wood, in fact they were quite the opposite, the grain used for his other works is excellent. Now I have little knowledge of art so I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong here, but as a normal logical thinking guy, this has my alarm bells ringing. PS. Sorry to spring this question upon you, it's just you have shown you are qualified and think this is a real DaVinci. So I'm very interested in your thoughts on this.

@@cypherpunk12 didn’t he paint the last super on wet plaster they say “Knowingly” with his body square facing?

@@DAVES696 I don't know they the plaster was wet, the exact start date of the paining is unknown exactly, so it could definitely have been dry plaster. Jesus head in the last supper is not square on either, and his body turns slightly left (Jesus left) to accommodate his head, otherwise the painting would not look like a natural pose. His body is, this is similar to other art, the Mona Lisa for example, where she is facing slight left with her right shoulder slightly forward. There are no known square facing Leonardo DaVinci art, unless this is the first.

@@cypherpunk12 I never said head but body! The thing is he had so many apprentices that used to do his cartoons on big pieces and copy his originals for sale it’s a tough to distinguish truly.. their is even speculation that Cesare de Sesto had a big involvement with the piece at the Santa Maria delle Grazie and was part of the refurbishment plus other added alterations was added, which they say left moisture locked between the walls and with the humidity lead to a fast deterioration so that’s why it was done over many stop starts with archive letters from the Duke of Milan Francesco Sforza and the architecture, Guiniforte Solari showing us the dates it was started and near completion of the Convent! It wasn’t just this factor but pigments and methods used was different too but my point is, things was done to help long processes to be shortened to bring in a quicker income and relaying this point to the materials used as you mentioned in the first post

His body is pretty square on than 35 degrees in most, slightly yes but forward facing it is, also not like how he was going on about in the video

Me: ok

The Vitruvian man was a sketch not a painting

I can't get the point because its not a painting. A painting took a lot of effort, do you know how expensive and exhausting was to paint at that time? Nobody would waste any time and resources in doing something below their level of technique, specially Leonardo who left a lot of works unfinished. Doing this thing is like BMW putting their people to make cars with 2hp, with no radio etc.

He's not saying it's a copy or forgery. He's saying it's a student work. I say that's a damn good student.

@IronicallyVague No, it's not a forgery, it's just a painting where experts can't verify who exactly painted it. A forgery is a work made by a con man who claims the work is by a famous person in order to jack up the price. The people who found this artwork didn't paint it. It was painted back in Da Vinci's time...

@IronicallyVague If you knew the history of this work better, you would have to concede that it being a modern forgery is an impossibility. Before you comment, look it up.

@IronicallyVague Ok, but what are you basing the accusation on? I mean, we know the work was painted on materials made and used 500 years ago in Italy. I'm sure that amount of technical testing was already done just to get any experts to "confirm" it as a Da Vinci... Strong accusations require strong evidence.

@IronicallyVague No need to apologize. And, having said everything above it's still entirely possible it could be a forgery made in modern times. You'd just need a damn good forger with all the right materials to make the artwork. I mean, you can still find canvases from those times and paint over it and you can mix your own paints with the exact same pigments they used back then, with the same chemical compositions. It's a big game of chemistry testing to get each pigment right, but it can be done, and there are forgers out there who know how. More likely, it's a real renaissance painting from the school or studio of Da Vinci. What triggered me about the video was how the speaker called it junk and not art. That's complete b.s.

Yo stopid

Something he rarely did and even less if it tampered his creativity. And there are lots of Salvator Mundis not looking to the eye of the observer and with different postures, before and after him.

That man was a total BS, yes artist have a pattern and styles but they never abid 100% by them, also the portrait is about Jésus so it is normal for Leo to break his rules for a special subject, and finally Jésus was always painted in that position for centuries, so it makes sense for Leo to follow the tradition while giving his usual feminine touch.

@@gostavoadolfos2023 Whoa - feminine touch? I can't have beta artist works.

The only point I've read that has convinced me that this might not be a da Vinci work is the orb. Leonardo da Vinci would definitely know that the light that shines through the crystal orb would bend and cause an optical illusion. This one doesn't

@@rymdalkis I always thought the orb was him holding the cosmos, it being a metaphor for him holding the universe and having control of it.

@@jordancaunce7642 You were pretty close on. It represents the world, as in the earth (contrary to popular beliefs, every educated person in the middle ages knew that the earth is round). But technically, it is a rock crystal, and I agree with the many art historians who think that it's weird that the brilliant scientist da Vinci, who was a master of painting perspectives, wouldn't know or care to paint the optical illusion

I believe Christ is face dead on in the last supper. I think he is missing other very important aspects that the artist wanted you to take in from this painting. Not to mention the fact that it was, I believe, commissioned and paid for by a client. Perhaps this is exactly what they asked for.