That's what experts at The National Gallery say about "Salvator Mundi": a painting forgotten for years has been declared to be nonetheless than a true Leonardo da Vinci.
So why is a painting that was sold in 1956 for £45 as a work by a poor Leonardo imitator is now valued at £120m? For the art conossieurs and experts who authenticated the work, these are the reasons:
 |
| The" new" Da Vinci: Salvator Mundi (c.1500) |
 |
| St.John the Baptist (1513-16) Oil on walnut, 69 x 57cm, Louvre, Paris. |
Mainly, the glass orb. Here, Christ is portrayed as "Saviour of the World" (Salvator Mundi in Latin), blessing and holding the world in one hand - the crystal globe. A transparent object such as this would be difficult to represent, but Leonardo (having studied nature and light throughout his life), mastered the technical problems perfectly: the transparency, the light and the subtle image refraction. On the stylistic field, the Saviour's facial features have lots in common with other Da Vinci faces: perfect symmetry, long necks; thin, straight noses and small, thight-lipped mouths. His subjects have almond-shaped eyes and a dreamy gaze (look at the Mona Lisa, for instance), as well as softly curling hair (another of Da Vinci's obsessions were spirals), also seen in St John. But although his treatment of faces is unique, it was much copied later, spawning forgeries and copies.
Technically, it also shares Leonardesque traits, chielfly the delicate sfummatto, present in the shades in the face and hair, is made by rubbing the oil paint with his fingers, creating subtle middle tones and merging the chin and neck. This effect can be found in several works. For example, observe the sfummatto in St.John the Baptist's face and arm.
 |
| Wenceslas Hollar, after Da vinci |
 |
| Drapery studies for a Salvator Mundi (c.1504-08) |
The painting was shown to Nicholas Penny, director of the National Gallery in London, and to Luke Syson, curator of its upcoming Leonardo exhibiton, by a consortium of American art dealers, who, after restoration, deemed it a true Leonardo, not only by its technique, but also by its history: it was first mentioned in the collection of Charles I in 1649, and subsequently passed through several owners until bought in 2005 by the aformentioned consortium. It also matches some drapery studies in the Royal Library, Windsor, and an engraving after Leonardo came out around 1650 (left); all adding up to the legitimacy of the author.
But, frankly, the attribution seems rather hurried to me, especially taking into account the blockbuster exhibiton it will be shown at ( Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the Court of Milan )and having a new Da Vinci is about the highest claim a museum can have. However, let's not forget the incredible contribution its discovery has made to art history - and to history in general.
