"The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding." Leonardo da Vinci. William Shakespeare and/or Leonardo da Vinci also once said that "Eyes are the windows into men's souls".
This documentary about the controversial painting recently attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, "Salvator Mundi" ("Savior of the World") may also show that in the art world, the eyes of a potential master painting may also reveal men's souls, particularly those who may seek to benefit from such an artwork. In other words, the mesmerizing power of a painting's eyes may reveal everything from awe and wonder to contempt and avarice among those involved in the art trading game. Art is not just about beauty but also commerce and even reputations.
Most of us laypeople who hear about old master paintings which are auctioned for millions of dollars, euros, or pounds, can only dream of possessing such works. However, those in the middle of the fine art game see things the public rarely glimpses.
This documentary reveals how a painting like "Salvator Mundi" (c. 1500-1510) have many forces at work among players in a host of different areas: art restorers, art historians, art collectors, art dealers, art auctioneers, museum curators, and even national governments. All are shown to have played a part in the fascinating recent history of "Salvator Mundi".
The painting was won at auction by two art dealers who are constantly looking for "sleepers". "Sleepers" in the fine art world refers to misattributed fine art, including paintings and other fine art, which are sold with a misunderstanding of the paintings' origins. In some cases, the artworks turn out to be of much greater importance and in turn of much higher value.
Robert Simon and Alexander Parish bought the painting for under $1200 in 2005, the auction house out of New Orleans believing it was simply a copy of a long lost Leonardo da Vinci. Not a real Leonardo, but simply by one of his students, assistants, or maybe even a follower who had not known Leonardo at all. It was described as heavily over-painted and a "wreck".
They commissioned art historian and restorer Dianne Modestini to restore the painting in two phases. Firstly, to clean and remove the overpaint, and secondly, restore those areas which had been "lost".
After the restoration, Simon and Parish sought to sell the painting in part to pay for their many expenses, mostly the restoration. Thus begins a strange and winding tale from its placement in the art market, its eventual sale (twice), the last at Christie's Auction House, and then the strange circumstances regarding its being pulled from a Louvre exhibition of works of Leonardo.
It begins with art experts, some favorable to the painting with a few unfavorable. There is the Swiss art dealer Yves Bouvier who had a Russian oligarch client, Dmitry Rybolovlev. Rybolovlev desired to buy the best paintings on the market. As events unfold, in part because of information regarding Bouvier's business practices, it turns out Bouvier was defrauding his client and others regarding prices he paid for paintings and then for how much he resold them to his clients.
It winds up in an auction at Christie's where it sells for a record hammer price of $400 million, plus $50 million in premium/commission for a total of $450 million. The total surpasses the previous auction record of approximately $180 million (hammer) for a fine art piece.
But even the high price at the auction is not the end of the story. For a time, no one knew who the buyer was, the Saudi Crown Prince. The Prince agrees to lend the painting to the Louvre for their special Leonardo da Vinci exhibition. But at the last moment, he pulls the painting from the exhibit.
What happened? The claim is about national politics (MBS wanted the painting in the same room as the Mona Lisa, aka Giaconda, but the French refused). However, further speculation is that the Louvre examined the painting themselves and may have found some attributes of the painting which may affect its reputation negatively. Several people involved try to obtain information from the Louvre, but they hit a brick wall.
Overall a wonderfully compelling documentary about the art world, and how it's not just about artistic beautiful but politics and careers. Of all the people interviewed, art historian/restorer Dianne Modestini comes off with the most integrity. She determined the work was by Da Vinci when she began restoring the painting's lips. No one painted lips like Leonardo, and she concluded that was enough to convince her it was real. She had no ax to grind and was going to be paid for her work regardless. So her opinion I value highly. However, other art historians disagree...
This documentary about the controversial painting recently attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, "Salvator Mundi" ("Savior of the World") may also show that in the art world, the eyes of a potential master painting may also reveal men's souls, particularly those who may seek to benefit from such an artwork. In other words, the mesmerizing power of a painting's eyes may reveal everything from awe and wonder to contempt and avarice among those involved in the art trading game. Art is not just about beauty but also commerce and even reputations.
Most of us laypeople who hear about old master paintings which are auctioned for millions of dollars, euros, or pounds, can only dream of possessing such works. However, those in the middle of the fine art game see things the public rarely glimpses.
This documentary reveals how a painting like "Salvator Mundi" (c. 1500-1510) have many forces at work among players in a host of different areas: art restorers, art historians, art collectors, art dealers, art auctioneers, museum curators, and even national governments. All are shown to have played a part in the fascinating recent history of "Salvator Mundi".
The painting was won at auction by two art dealers who are constantly looking for "sleepers". "Sleepers" in the fine art world refers to misattributed fine art, including paintings and other fine art, which are sold with a misunderstanding of the paintings' origins. In some cases, the artworks turn out to be of much greater importance and in turn of much higher value.
Robert Simon and Alexander Parish bought the painting for under $1200 in 2005, the auction house out of New Orleans believing it was simply a copy of a long lost Leonardo da Vinci. Not a real Leonardo, but simply by one of his students, assistants, or maybe even a follower who had not known Leonardo at all. It was described as heavily over-painted and a "wreck".
They commissioned art historian and restorer Dianne Modestini to restore the painting in two phases. Firstly, to clean and remove the overpaint, and secondly, restore those areas which had been "lost".
After the restoration, Simon and Parish sought to sell the painting in part to pay for their many expenses, mostly the restoration. Thus begins a strange and winding tale from its placement in the art market, its eventual sale (twice), the last at Christie's Auction House, and then the strange circumstances regarding its being pulled from a Louvre exhibition of works of Leonardo.
It begins with art experts, some favorable to the painting with a few unfavorable. There is the Swiss art dealer Yves Bouvier who had a Russian oligarch client, Dmitry Rybolovlev. Rybolovlev desired to buy the best paintings on the market. As events unfold, in part because of information regarding Bouvier's business practices, it turns out Bouvier was defrauding his client and others regarding prices he paid for paintings and then for how much he resold them to his clients.
It winds up in an auction at Christie's where it sells for a record hammer price of $400 million, plus $50 million in premium/commission for a total of $450 million. The total surpasses the previous auction record of approximately $180 million (hammer) for a fine art piece.
But even the high price at the auction is not the end of the story. For a time, no one knew who the buyer was, the Saudi Crown Prince. The Prince agrees to lend the painting to the Louvre for their special Leonardo da Vinci exhibition. But at the last moment, he pulls the painting from the exhibit.
What happened? The claim is about national politics (MBS wanted the painting in the same room as the Mona Lisa, aka Giaconda, but the French refused). However, further speculation is that the Louvre examined the painting themselves and may have found some attributes of the painting which may affect its reputation negatively. Several people involved try to obtain information from the Louvre, but they hit a brick wall.
Overall a wonderfully compelling documentary about the art world, and how it's not just about artistic beautiful but politics and careers. Of all the people interviewed, art historian/restorer Dianne Modestini comes off with the most integrity. She determined the work was by Da Vinci when she began restoring the painting's lips. No one painted lips like Leonardo, and she concluded that was enough to convince her it was real. She had no ax to grind and was going to be paid for her work regardless. So her opinion I value highly. However, other art historians disagree...