Leonardo da Vinci, “Salvator Mundi” (c.1500), oil on panel, 25 7/8 x 18 in.(65.7 x 45.7 cm) (image courtesy Christie’s).
There was an astonishing sale at Christie’s, the last privately held da Vinci, supposedly, for an unprecedented amount of money: over $450 million dollars. The Russian connection is of interest, as is the doubtful provenance of the painting. There’s also the problem of such a painting, if it’s a true da Vinci, going into private hands. No museum could possibly have coughed up over 400 million for it.
Last night, Christie’s auction house sold “Salvator Mundi,” which it claims is the last painting by Leonardo da Vinci in private hands, for an astounding, record-setting $400M (the final price was over $450M with fees). The sale was controversial for a couple of reasons: that mind-numbing number itself, but also the fact that there are a lot of questions — and serious doubts — about the painting’s authenticity, restoration, and provenance.
One can therefore be forgiven for initially overlooking another elephant in the room — the identity of the seller. When there’s this much money involved, though, it usually pays to follow it, and here the money leads directly back to the Russian billionaire Dmitry E. Rybolovlev. Rybolovlev’s family trust sold the painting, through Christie’s, to an undisclosed buyer, but if his name sounds familiar for other reasons, that might be because in 2008 he paid (through a company he controlled) $95M to buy a Palm Beach mansion from Donald Trump.
You can read more about this at Hyperallergic, and there’s an earlier article too. The earlier article is disheartening, to say the least, as half of all the world’s wealth is in a very small circle of people, while little money ever goes to all those things which make for a healthy society. Once again, I’m reminded of A Perfect Circle’s new beatitude…
I keep staring at that painting. I’d like to see it in person, because looking at this photo, something seems very…off. The top of the head and face are vague, there’s almost a sense of deliquescence; it doesn’t match the light and vibrancy seen in the bottom of the hair, the body, and the clothes.
The Grauniad had an article some time ago about the doubts over the painter(s), Mystery over Christ’s orb in $100m Leonardo da Vinci painting (the “$100m” refers to the then-estimated price it would get at the auction; the Grauniad’s edits in {curly braces}):
It sounds like Mr Daley is expressing a similar doubt to that in the OP. I myself, whilst often dismissive of these “stylistic” doubts — I’m bothered by how subjective they at least seem† — find Mr Isaacson has a point.
Christie’s, of course, obfuscates on both these (and presumably other) doubts; for instance (paraphrasing) Circular reasoning, anyone?
On the other hand, artistes can have “off” days or projects that never seem to “come togther”. It could just be a non-very-specular original.
† Obviously, I am not at all an expert here, so my tendency to dismiss “stylistic” attributions is, quite possibly, too unfair on the people who have expertise.
Epic conspicuous consumption.
Marcus, to say the least.
Blf, I’ve read Christie’s statement, and I don’t buy it. They’ve managed to make sure that qualified experts cannot examine the painting, and given the amount of money they’ve just pocketed, they have over 400 million reasons to engage in a dubious exercise here.
There’s also solid reason to doubt its provenance, but there won’t be any investigation there, either.
I’d imagine that a glass orb of that size would have been quite hard to procure so a little fudging would have been in order.
Lofty, I doubt that. Such objects were commonplace among the rich.
Lofty, And, as the excerpt in @2 implies, Da Vinci’s notebooks were full of optically-correct drawings (whether or not any involved orbs is not-said). The excerpted article also points out there is a possibly-related engraving which does have an optically-correct orb. As both Caine and myself have indicated, Christe’s is rubbishing that and other doubts with questionable claims and actions.
Sooooooooo many questions. So many questions.
If it does turn out inauthentic . . . how does the buyer feel about that? Did the buyer just get screwed? Was the buyer in on it and this is an artful (har har) form of money laundering? If it does turn out to be either inauthentic, or a fraudulent sale, what responsibility does Christie’s bear (if any)? What would that do to Christie’s reputation? Is Christie’s increasingly (or perhaps long been) the kind of institution that exists solely as a brokerage house for the ludicrously wealthy anyway, so would that actually be a boon?
The high-end art world kind of breaks my heart. I once asked a friend who works in art conservation/restoration about art theft, because I don’t understand it. Sure, I get the thief part that actually takes it from a museum: That’s for cold, hard cash. But the part that follows is what I don’t get. Someone out there—who commissioned the theft or bought the piece on the black market—now has a stolen work of art. Can they enjoy it? If they throw a cocktail party and hang it on the wall to show off, isn’t there a risk that a party attendee might ooh and aah and then leave and make a phone call? Do they have to store it away in some locked chamber like the eponymous Picture of Dorian Gray?
Whereas with the artwork in a museum, it’s available for the public to see. Many great museums even have days where they don’t charge admission, making available collections for even the poorest person to enjoy, if they so choose (and assuming other obstacles—like geography—are not in place). I don’t presume to propose museums don’t have their controversies, because of course they do. But it seems much more equitable—and in the spirit of what art does for us as humans—that the piece remains visible to the maximum potential number of those interested.
But the art thief doesn’t just steal a painting. They steal the opportunity to interact with art, and they steal that from millions of people.
My friend said it came down to ego: A variation on winning by dying with the most toys. So utterly pointless.
Still learning,
Robert
What do they get out of it? “I have something no one else does, and I have the power to obtain it, and I have the power to do anything with it I want.”
Caine,
Then I guess my follow-up question is: Does that kind of exhibition of power need an audience? Is it sufficiently powerful if no one else sees it? And is there a paradox in that power, in that revealing that power potentially weakens, because of the threat of someone contacting authorities (granted, it may be in another country, with different laws, etc.)?
Still learning,
Robert
No, I don’t think it does need an audience. Depends on the person, I suppose. I could see someone like the reclusive Mercer doing something like dropping 400 mil for a painting, which if authentic, belongs in a museum. I could see him with an illicit work. The rich are different, they operate by different rules.
I have no particular reason to think they don’t ‘share’ such stuff with others of their kind. *shrug* Their lives don’t impact with reality much; they have the ability and power to shape their realities.
Caine,
I think this is probably the part I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around. And, if anything, it makes it more sad . . . and not a little creepy.
Thanks for the edification.
Still learning,
Robert
As we’re on the subject of art and its curious journeys, here’s a story:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/08/11/de-kooning-woman-painting-recovered-university-arizona/558290001/
Wild. And again, soooooo many questions.
Still learning,
Robert
Another story, ‘Lost’ masterpiece by Spanish artist found hanging in Welsh castle:
Based on the picture at the link, I agree.
The painting is currently be at the Frick Collection in New York until February, as a last-minute (literally!) addition to an exhibition on the artiste.
blf at #14:
Great story! Thanks for posting that! I find these art mysteries fascinating!
Still learning,
Robert
I have been thinking about that painting, and looking at it off and on, and I don’t think it’s a Da Vinci. It’s too muddy. The hand and sleeve (partially) might have been, maybe. But the rest, eh. It’s not worth $400m that’s for sure.
Marcus, that was my thought when I wrote the first comment. Part of it might be a da Vinci, but the rest of it isn’t. The more I’ve looked at it, my thinking is the top of the head and face might well be the master’s, there’s a similar sense in the face to other portraits; but for whatever reason, it was never finished, and an amateur finished. I doubt this would be ‘school of da Vinci’, because I’d expect them to be better.
As for the rich are different stuff, I recently mentioned a book I read, haven’t blogged about it yet. Oliver Pötzsch has a series of Medieval mysteries which I enjoy greatly. His main characters are the Kuisl family of executioners. The author is descended from the Kuisl executioners. Many of the tools of the trade, which had been handed down through the family for hundreds of years ended up in the Schongau museum. In 1970, the extremely old executioner’s sword was stolen from the museum, and it has never been recovered.
As you can imagine, this would not be something you could just sell; what do you want to bet it’s in the hands of some rich asshole somewhere?
Caine,
Yep, c.f. yet more artifact madness.
(And, that’s another one that’s begging for a fictional mystery treatment à la Arturo Pérez-Reverte.)
Still learning,
Robert
I guess the Hobby Lobby folks will have to wait until the next time to get it for their museum.