We are now on Patreon! Click here to learn more about how you can help support the site.

Sunday, December 5, 2021
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
You are viewing: Home > News > Modern Mysteries > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
Modern Mysteries

Da Vinci sketch reignites Salvator Mundi doubts

November 19, 2020 | Comment icon 30 comments



Salvator Mundi remains at the center of some heated debate. Image Credit: Public Domain
A newly discovered sketch of Jesus by Leonardo da Vinci may prove that he did not paint Salvator Mundi.
Otherwise known as 'Saviour of the World', the controversial painting, which depicts Christ facing towards the viewer while holding an orb in one hand, made waves in the art world recently when it sold for $450 million at auction - making it the most valuable painting in history.

Much of the reason for the extremely high price was the belief that it was painted by Da Vinci himself, however the recent discovery of another of his works has cast some doubt on whether or not the Renaissance genius actually had anything to do with the painting at all.

The new find is a red chalk drawing of Jesus which shares the same style as one of Da Vinci's self-portraits, but which does not seem to match the style of the Salvator Mundi painting.

"I am not the only one who has always said that... [Salvator Mundi] was not actually by Leonardo," said scholar Annalisa Di Maria from the UNESCO Center in Florence.
"[Leonardo] could never have portrayed such a frontal and motionless character."

As things stand, a final decision on whether or not Da Vinci painted Salvator Mundi is still pending, however it is more likely that it was actually painted by the artist Boltraffio who worked at his studio.

Salvator Mundi itself was allegedly purchased by Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman in 2017 and has not been seen since, leading many to question exactly what has happened to it.

If it turns out that Da Vinci did not paint it, it will be worth nowhere near the $450M he paid for it.



Source: Artnet.com | Comments (30)



Unexplained Mysteries is now on Patreon!

Click here to learn more about how you can help support the site and gain access to a range of perks including a subscriber badge, ad-free browsing, an exclusive weekly newsletter, sneak peaks of upcoming features and more.
23 / 25  
We are 92% of the way to our second Patreon subscriber target - thank you!
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #21 Posted by Wepwawet 1 year ago
You called him gay, that is a modern label. The rest of that parargraph was just insults that demeen you, not me. Hm, quoting you, no, I was actually agreeing with you that nobody cares, but you turn this into an insult by calling me an imbecile. Again, it is you who labelled da Vinci as gay, not me, I haven't labelled him or anybody, so have not stuck my nose into anybodies sexual orientatioin at all. I don't care what anybody is, and have made it clear that I do not like labels, a modern mania, so why misrepresent and insult me. Have I insulted you? have I even been impolite in any way or fo... [More]
Comment icon #22 Posted by third_eye 1 year ago
By today's standards, yes, an honorary gay at least. Don't start flaking the snow, it's not insults if you grow some sense of humor, you're made of sterner stuff, I've certainly seen you shovel out much worse, and that's not trying to "demean" you in any way, shape or form.  ~ Nope, I called you a "self styled genius" Leo would have been much kinder than I, imbecile is actually a term of endearment in such a context.  ~ Well I'm sorry you took it that way, anyhow, Leo was gay, like it or not, Leo certainly liked it that way.  ~ Now you're just hurting my feelings...  ~
Comment icon #23 Posted by Wepwawet 1 year ago
There's some bluster there to try and excuse an out of the blue attack on me, and here's me thinking you were one of the more polite and rational members of this forum. Seems that you have been triggered by something I wrote. Perhaps you could clear this up, without being so gnomic in your replies, or, PM me and so remove this totaly uneeded unpleasantness from the thread.
Comment icon #24 Posted by third_eye 1 year ago
Attack? Wow, that there is where your thoughts went awry and too quick to abandon your trust in your better judgement. Frankly, I care very little of what you think of me, just what you think to add to the conversation, this is merely and engagement, not a relationship. Hardly even a commitment.  ~ Gnomic... That's a good one, no need to be so dwarfish to resort to PM, the trigger was entirely you shooting from the clip, whatever the unpleasantness you're so keen to conjure up too is entirely relative to your need to exacerbate on the irrelevant twist to the exchanges currently, don't know abo... [More]
Comment icon #25 Posted by Wepwawet 1 year ago
Yeah, I triggered you, unintentional, but you are triggered all the same and now show an unexpected and unpleasant face. I wonder what triggered you so much that you let your "good guy" mask slip.
Comment icon #26 Posted by third_eye 1 year ago
Yeah, you keep tugging, and your nose is nowhere near my face...  ~ I don't wear that kind of masks, and you're not supposed to peek up those slips... Leo would not have approved, but most likely be amused...  ~  
Comment icon #27 Posted by spartan max2 1 year ago
You're the one who randomly brought up his sexuality 
Comment icon #28 Posted by Desertrat56 1 year ago
Jeeze, no one has even said why they think that portrait was Jesus.  Why are you making assumptions about what Leonardo thought?  You weren't there and only some person who wants to sell the painting claims it is a portrait of Jesus by Leonardo.  Both of those things could be made up to sell it for more money.  It doesn't look like Jesus, it looks more like Mona Lisa or Da Vinci.  Just because the portrait has long hair does not make it Jesus.  And based on the title of the thread I am assuming there is a definite bias by the OP.
Comment icon #29 Posted by Desertrat56 1 year ago
Your bias is showing.  Pull down your skirt.  Not to mention, irrelevant to the OP.  Look up the phrase"Non sequitor"
Comment icon #30 Posted by third_eye 1 year ago
You don't know what "randomly" means...  ~ Your assumptions are based on your cynicism and not on history, hence does not justify your speculative presumptuous predilection to associate all references to being "gay" as purely sexual.  ~ To that, I say...  ~ I like my skirts fine where they are...  ~


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Recent news and articles