Posted on 10/10/2017 7:33:40 PM PDT by Swordmaker
I’ll bet it at least doubles that figure. There’s a lot of rich people out there and a scarcity of true artwork to bid on.
Many have dubbed the evocative work “the male Mona Lisa” because of its similarities to the iconic painting, according to Francois de Poortere, head of Old Master paintings at Christie’s.
The Renaissance work, which hung in the collection of King Charles I in the 1600s, was long believed to have been destroyed until its rediscovery in 2005.
What a strange article, that presupposes that people are more familiar with the Mona Lisa than with our Lord Jesus Christ.
And in New York, that may just be true.
Nice! I was in Milan in June and saw a lot of works by Luini - some of them excellent. I knew nothing about him before that, but I found that he was part of a family of painters. He was the most talented of them.
However, good as Luini was, he did’t quite make it to the Da Vinci level..
Leonardo had his studio and his patrons in Milan. And he also had a tiny vineyard, which is being recreated at the museum located on the site. They have only a few vines and haven’t gotten much of a harvest, but in about 5 years, they expect to be making wine from these grapes.
Leonardo would have approved. They did DNA work and found the variety of grape he used.
That is a beautiful painting...stunning.
Most painters are famous for just one work.
In Da Vinci's case that work is Mona Lisa, Rembrandt's would be Night Watch, Michelangelo's Creation of Adam, Botticelli's The Birth of Venus and Van Gogh's Starry Night.
I suspect there is still some hesitation in various quarters about the authentication, even if a number of experts have declared it a DaVinci and not merely of his “influence.”
If it were utterly unquestionable as a DaVinci it could probably fetch closer to $250-300 million in the rarified art market. A few greats have pushed toward that range in recent years, and there may never be another DaVinci on the private collectors’ market (there are so few and others are all in museums I think). I’m no expert but I have to suspect that it’s only the less than bomb-proof authentication that would keep this as “low” as $100 million in the current art market, which has been flooded with fortunes from Asia..... fewer and fewer “greatest” old master paintings are still available in the private markets as they get donated to museums through the years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings
> “Da Vinci’s ‘male Mona Lisa’ expected to sell for $100M — Salvatori Mundi”
I won’t pay more than $95M — NOT A PENNY MORE!
I’m no expert, but this painting does not seem as “finished” as the Mona Lisa. For the Renaissance era and for Da Vinci specifically, it has (to my eye) a somewhat vague and incomplete appearance, as though it needed more work.... the eyes especially! The eyes are very disappointing for an Old Master painting, I would say. I don’t know if the attribution is rock-solid but to my amateur eyes I immediately think it’s more likely to be by a student of Leonardo Da Vinci than by Da Vinci himself..... but what do I know, ha ha??
I’m ready to bid $98 million, so I shall take it from you at auction!!
My guess is that it goes for a lot more! A DeVinci is pretty near priceless.
When I lived in Des Moines we’d occasionally visit the nice art museum, which was impressive for such a small metropolitan area. The late designer Halston, being from Des Moines, donated a nice collection of modern art.
The stoned dude is lacking one thing - a little Doobie between the fingers of the upheld hand. Looks like a guy I partied with in high school.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.