"New" Da Vinci painting unveiled

anart

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/230872-New-Leonardo-Da-Vinci-Painting-To-Be-Made-Public

A portrait of Christ holding a crystal ball (or is that just the 'transparent world')? Oh my...

I find this painting fascinating. As usual with Da Vinci, there seems to be a lot going on 'under the surface' with this one.

SALVATOR_MUNDI.jpg


The eyes border on creepy, but why?
 
go2 said:
Anart,

Is this the same image?
Click to expand...

It definitely doesn't look the same - though that pose of blessing the world is standard (from what I understand) for 'Salvator Mundi'. The eyes in this supposedly newly found image are really different, though (IMO).
 
anart said:
go2 said:
Anart,

Is this the same image?
Click to expand...

It definitely doesn't look the same - though that pose of blessing the world is standard (from what I understand) for 'Salvator Mundi'. The eyes in this supposedly newly found image are really different, though (IMO).
Click to expand...

The eyes are very...well reptilian in the newly found painting. The contrast of the two paintings is disturbing. I prefer the Marquis de Ganay version, which sold for a few hundred dollars; although the price is probably going up, now that the new Da Vinci "Salvator Mundi" is valued at a few hundred million. Could this be an art world scam?
 
It`s only a guess, but it seems as though the painting is describing the duality, or contrast between the male and the female. Or both sides of the coin, sort of.

In the black and white painting, the feminine side (left) has a darker background, a slightly larger eye, holds a circle or ball in the left hand and the left shoulder is draped. All feminine aspects.

While on the right, or male side, it displays the ancient phallic sign of the fingers pointing upward, has a smaller eye (a more narrow viewpoint? ) and a lighter background behind the head. All early male symbolism.


The picture seems to be a portrayal of both male and female aspects in one body?
 
Meager1 said:
It`s only a guess, but it seems as though the painting is describing the duality, or contrast between the male and the female. Or both sides of the coin, sort of.

In the black and white painting, the feminine side (left) has a darker background, a slightly larger eye, holds a circle or ball in the left hand and the left shoulder is draped. All feminine aspects.

While on the right, or male side, it displays the ancient phallic sign of the fingers pointing upward, has a smaller eye (a more narrow viewpoint? ) and a lighter background behind the head. All early male symbolism.


The picture seems to be a portrayal of both male and female aspects in one body?
Click to expand...

It also looks much more masculine if seen from a distance (or my eyes are playing tricks on me...).
 
No, your right, I can see that too.

And notice, if you do the same with the colored painting it`s just the opposite, the further away you look at it, the more feminine it becomes.
 
In both paintings it appears to me that the eyes are looking in two slightly different directions, which may be what makes them kinda creepy.
 
Also, the neck is oriented to the right ( male side ) in both paintings, which tends to make it appear off somewhat. And the ball in the left hand seems to be "radiating" something up the left side in both of the paintings, which makes it look as if there is some "energetic communication" from the ball that is not extended to the right side.
 
anart said:
Meager1 said:
It`s only a guess, but it seems as though the painting is describing the duality, or contrast between the male and the female. Or both sides of the coin, sort of.
[...]
The picture seems to be a portrayal of both male and female aspects in one body?
Click to expand...

My same thoughts here. I mirrored the image:

SALVATOR_MUNDI_m.jpg
SMH.jpg
Click to expand...
 
For what it's worth I flinched briefly while seeing the picture.
It's interesting how the eyes are of different sizes, it looks really off.
 
Wow, mirroring caused a huge difference in the shape of the face particularly.

It didn`t make either of them any less creepy though!
 
This painting kind of cheeped me out too. I don't know why...

I also don't know why but.. some part of me doesn't think this is the real deal. Da vinci's other works have never given me the feeling I got when I looked at this picture, but that's very subjective.

Also, I wonder why there is no color photo of the painting posted by anart. This one is in color, but they are definitely not the same painting.
 
If you noticed this too, in the colored one the right shoulder is the more feminine appearing one, it is lower and rounder then the left shoulder, which is high and straight which is much more masculine in appearance, but it should have been just the opposite.

Also the whole face in the colored one is feminine, except for the beard, even the eyebrows seem plucked and contoured like a woman would do. Weird.
 
I wonder if the black and white was preliminary sketch for the color portrait? Leonardo may have used different models for each work. I read somewhere that the model for Mona Lisa was actually may have been male. Use of different models for each of these works, perhaps of different sexes, might account for some of the impressions we get.

I agree that the eyes in the bw portrait are disconcerting. Not sure if they appear evil or just physically ill.

Mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom