Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by nicrtay
The Last Leonardo: The Secret Lives of the World's Most Expensive Painting by Ben Lewis
4.0
This is a great casual history, not just about the (in)famous Salvator Mundi, but of the grey areas of art history and art criticism.
Anyone who's ever felt like they have a hot-and-cold relationship with art history will truly be able to appreciate what Lewis has to discuss here. For example, if several art historians are mulling over whether they wish to attribute a work to Da Vinci, why have they chosen what they've chosen? Is it in their particular interest to agree that it is a Da Vinci? In some instances in the Salvator Mundi's history, yes.
However, I think the most interesting discussion in this piece is about the oxymoronic action of artifact restoration. In the case of the Salvator Mundi, which has been overwashed, repainted, and "restored" so many times, can it even still be thought of as a Da Vinci work, if it ever was to begin with? If eighty percent of the strokes in the painting can be attributed to someone else, does the painting still hold the same meaning as it originally did? Does Da Vinci's "presence" (God, I hate that term) still reside in it?
This is honestly a wonderful read for anyone who is vaguely familiar with most of Da Vinci's works (many of them are mentioned by name, so an initial understanding would heighten your comprehension of the topics).
Here's hoping that the Salvator Mundi will be brought to the public again and further discussion about art and its 'authorship' can continue.
Anyone who's ever felt like they have a hot-and-cold relationship with art history will truly be able to appreciate what Lewis has to discuss here. For example, if several art historians are mulling over whether they wish to attribute a work to Da Vinci, why have they chosen what they've chosen? Is it in their particular interest to agree that it is a Da Vinci? In some instances in the Salvator Mundi's history, yes.
However, I think the most interesting discussion in this piece is about the oxymoronic action of artifact restoration. In the case of the Salvator Mundi, which has been overwashed, repainted, and "restored" so many times, can it even still be thought of as a Da Vinci work, if it ever was to begin with? If eighty percent of the strokes in the painting can be attributed to someone else, does the painting still hold the same meaning as it originally did? Does Da Vinci's "presence" (God, I hate that term) still reside in it?
This is honestly a wonderful read for anyone who is vaguely familiar with most of Da Vinci's works (many of them are mentioned by name, so an initial understanding would heighten your comprehension of the topics).
Here's hoping that the Salvator Mundi will be brought to the public again and further discussion about art and its 'authorship' can continue.