Salvator Mundi - master of the dead eyes
Salvator Mundi, various attributions (Louvre Abu Dhabi)
The Salvator Mundi painting, widely touted as a Leonardo, seems to have disappeared into the limbo of the Saudi Royal family’s treasury where it will doubtless lie, like an ingot of gold in a vault, unseen by most and unappreciated by its owner except as proof of the great wealth required to secure it. Frequent mention, however, is still made of this picture, and while that continues, so does the undesirable confusion that is spread by any demonstrable misattribution. This Brief Study is intended to provide that demonstration.
From left: Head of the Young John the Baptist (Drawing from a private collection, featured in an auction catalogue from 1934 as ‘School of Leonardo’) ; Salvator Mundi ; Head of a Woman (Musee du Louvre?)
Drawings, as always, are helpful. Here are two, to set beside the Salvator Mundi: on the left of it a drawing of a young John the Baptist, on the right a drawing of a young woman, possibly at the Louvre. It is enough to compare, and find similar, the eyes, the nose, the mouth, the treatment of hair. If likeness means anything, it ought to obtain in a juxtaposition such as this. As soon as it becomes clear that these two images are products of the same hand, it becomes clear also that the artist who made the drawing cannot be Leonardo, who never drew like this, and therefore Leonardo cannot be responsible for the painting either.
Of course the Salvator Mundi is Leonardesque. It is by an inferior artist (perhaps Salai, as once suggested by Suida) who has latched onto the ‘sfumato’, or smoky mysteriousness, that is displayed – for some tastes, to excess – in the late Leonardo Saint John the Baptist at the Louvre and copied by this artist in a painting at the Walters Museum. This mysteriousness, the smoky atmosphere implied in the etymology of the Italian word, is indulged in by this artist as if it was all that mattered in Leonardo’s art. The result is that Christ stares out at us, like a ghost from another world, with those strange, ‘dead’ eyes.
Left: St John the Baptist by the follower of Leonardo – Walters Museum, Baltimore ; right: Leonardo’s original – Musée du Louvre
Comparing the earlier drawing with the two paintings of John the Baptist
Comparing the earlier drawing with the two Baptist images either side, one by the copyist, the other by Leonardo, reveals as much as the difference in colour, the ‘Salvator’ eyes, nose and mouth.
Both attributed to the School of Leonardo, Left: ‘Head of a Youth’ – Ambrosiana, Milan ; Right: Portrait of a Lady – Columbia Museum of Art, South Carolina)
Another drawing , of an androgynous-looking youth at the Ambrosiana, shows the same rather long eyes whose lids are more prominent than anything between them . This might almost be a study for the no less ghostly Portrait of a Lady at Columbia Museum of Art in South Carolina. The same artist’s draughtsmanship (or lack of it) is seen in a drawing (Mona Vanna) and a painting both featuring a naked Mona Lisa. A weak sense of form is disguised by a quantity of perfunctory smudging of charcoal or graphite. His admiration for Leonardo is matched by his failure to understand how necessary a proper grounding in observational drawing was to Leonardo’s painted work. A similar failure attended the followers of Turner.
Left: Mona Vanna, attributed to Leonardo ; Right: Female Figure, attributed to Salai
If we return to the Salvator Mundi, we can observe the unconvincing treatment of drapery folds and the way in which ornamented braidwork is not adequately integrated with the rest of Christ’s robe, but lies across it in two, rather than three, dimensions. When our eye moves to the orb, it is equally dissatisfied by the lazy depiction of it, with no attempt at highlight. The orb is as dead as the eyes.
The draperies, braidwork and orb from Salvator Mundi tell us this is not Leonardo’s work
Colour is always a significant indicator in paintings. In this case we have a near-Prussian blue with chestnut browns trailing off into a deeper brown penumbra. This is the palette of the Lansdowne Madonna (‘Madonna of the Yardwinder’), a more impressive work than the Salvator Mundi but displaying a similar tendency to wrap figures in a haze of sfumato.
Left: The Lansdowne Madonna – Private Collection – features the same colour palette and ‘sfumato’ as the Salvator Mundi
Clearly I do not hold this artist in much esteem. Plutocrats are welcome to spend a fortune on his work, but the rest of us should keep our eyes peeled for quality and not allow our vision to be blurred by the ‘Leonardo mystique’ and the floaters of dubious attributions. What this case highlights, not for the first time, is the regrettable necessity for connoisseurs to apply themselves to mediocrities. In an ideal world they would not need to, but they often have to because one person – an originator whom others follow – has ascribed a work by an inferior artist to a vastly superior one. These words, inferior, superior, imply what is at stake: a difference of quality. The exercise I have conducted here will have some value if it succeeds in demonstrating that difference. A painter who has little sense of form cannot disguise the fact, try as he may, with ‘mystery’ that has no depth or substance; it is hollow and spectral, like the dead eyes. If we cannot definitely name him, let us nickname him the Master of the Dead Eyes.
6 notes
·
View notes
No, The Salvator Mundi Is Not a Split Androgynous Image.
I took the liberty of mirroring the sides of the head to show it is not deliberately a split androgynous image.
For some mysterious reason, my video about the Salvator Mundi not being a real Leonardo, basically because it sucks, has suddenly been getting a lot of traction after being buried by the algorithm for 2 years. And so I’ve been fielding a lot of comments, and people keep telling me that…
View On WordPress
2 notes
·
View notes