[livius]

The “new” one actually was the original. It was repainted a couple of centuries later to give it a more sheep-like look.

I think people are reading way too much into this. If you look at many paintings of the time, you will notice that painters, even good ones, simply did not get the eyes and face shape right on a lot of animals.

[StoneRainbow68]

-—The “new” one actually was the original. It was repainted a couple of centuries later to give it a more sheep-like look.-—

Thank you! The whole point of the restoration is to get back as close as possible to the original, and that includes removing ham-fisted restoration attempts at later times where “improvements” are made by later artists.

[dhs12345]

I am a big fan of artists who try to be as accurate and real as possible. I think that they are called a “realist.” That is why I love Leonardo da Vinci.

So it is probably just a difference in preference.

I also admire Leonardo da Vinci for his math and science. A true genius as an artist and a scientist.

[Yardstick]

I thought that might be the case. I wonder how they “peeled back the layers” to find out what the underlying original face looked like. The article probably explains it, but this is FR.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I wonder if the original artist did that on purpose to make it look more “human”, to present the idea that the lamb is actually Jesus.

[SunkenCiv]

Yes, way too much. Plus, y'know, from time to time they weren't trying to do anatomically correct paintings of animals, particularly not in this case.