Detail from hyperspectral imaging data, revealing the drawing for the angel and baby of the first composition (under the landscape at the right side of the painting). © The National Gallery, London.
Posted on 02/15/2020 6:37:37 AM PST by SunkenCiv
Leonardo da Vinci's The Virgin of the Rocks (about 1491/2-9 and 1506-8) originally had a very different composition, new research by the National Gallery in London revealed. Analysis of the artwork showed that two distinct drawings depicting the same figures in different poses lie beneath the painting, which is one of the most popular in the museum's collection.
In the first composition, the angel holds the infant Christ much more tightly, and both figures are positioned higher. The Virgin also looks toward the pair, instead of staring downward. A second composition aligns much more closely to the final version, but still sheds light on Leonardo's artistic process. In that version, the infant Christ's head is seen in profile, and some of the angel's curly hair is missing. Experts also found handprints on the painting from patting down the priming on the panel, which may belong to an assistant or to Leonardo himself.
The newly discovered drawings were made using materials that contained zinc, enabling them to be seen in macro X-ray fluorescence maps. The scientific analysis of the painting also involved new infrared and hyperspectral imaging. Research conducted in 2004 and 2005 showed that the Virgin's pose had been altered, but revealed little evidence of other changes to the painting. An 18-month restoration of the work began in 2008 and it was returned to public display in 2010.
The National Gallery's The Virgin on the Rocks is Leonardo's second version of the painting (though some have questioned its attribution to the Renaissance master). Many experts theorized that Leonardo's clients were not satisfied with the original painting, causing him or an assistant to repaint it. A version from the 1480s belongs to the Louvre...
(Excerpt) Read more at artsy.net ...
Detail from hyperspectral imaging data, revealing the drawing for the angel and baby of the first composition (under the landscape at the right side of the painting). © The National Gallery, London.
I'm not sure how the graphic is showing up, I'm a bit graphics challenged on this vintage hardware/software, and I was able to view it at the originating page, but my link didn't work for me here.
Here are the other GGG topics introduced since the previous Digest ping, I guess I'd better get back to work o^:
Detail from hyperspectral imaging data, revealing the drawing for the angel and baby of the first composition (under the landscape at the right side of the painting). © The National Gallery, London.
Leonardo da Vinci, The Virgin of the Rocks, with tracing of the lines relating to underdrawing for the first composition, incorporating information from all technical images. © The National Gallery, London.
Leonardo da Vinci, The Virgin with the Infant Saint John the Baptist adoring the Christ Child accompanied by an Angel, or The Virgin of the Rocks, ca. 1491/2–9 and 1506–08. © The National Gallery, London.
Okay, I loused up the URL, but also, I figured out the direct link [with some snarks redacted by 'Civ].
Detail from hyperspectral imaging data, revealing the drawing for the angel and baby of the first composition (under the landscape at the right side of the painting). © The National Gallery, London.
Two observations on the article -
First, Mary is “staring down”, (their phrase), at the infant John in the final image - which the article did not note.
Second, was the infant,John in the early drawings?
It also was not noted, and I was unable to see any evidence of that in the early drawings.
Maybe John’s addition, was what prompted the change?
Thanks much FRiends,
Tatt
Yeah...but are there secret messages embedded in the drawings?
You know...something to write a best seller about?
LOL.
Thanks, but I respectfully suggest using the width=500 modifier in future. :^)
Interesting post, SunkenCiv.
It’s enjoyable to be exposed to the resultant painting that made the light of day.
Don’t dismiss entirely that this is a science. This particular study is a science, which are seldom without its cynics, atheists and several detached working researchers. It’s more about DaVinci, who *he* was, and the inspiration he derived from that, which is rather well known in his historic works.
Confirmations and affirmations don’t sell a lot of books beyond the science genre and in this case, the dying arts community.
I was mocking the author Dan Brown, not the Art of Da Vinci or the science behind his work.
(sigh)
I don’t think the other woman was an angel. I think it was Elizabeth, the mother of John.
After Mary became pregnant, she went to the hill country to see Elizabeth. The hill country is exemplified by all the rocks and the cavernous type surroundings.
Elizabeth uttered her famous words “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb” ..which became the basis for the still chanted prayers to Mary by Catholics.
It would make sense that the two women would visit together with their months apart babies.
Now, Elizabeth in reality was an old women who had been barren up until her husband interceded on her behalf as high priest, before God. In this painting however, she is depicted as a maiden ehich would place her as subject to Mary, considering her words to Mary at the announcement of their pregnancies.
Another beautiful painting is Van Eck’s annunciation. They cleaned and restored that painting in the 1990’s and then placed it for viewing in the National Art Gallery (Smithsonian Museum) in DC. I got to see that one up close and from only a foot away. It was something I’d wanted to see in person, so it was exciting to me to be able to do that.
For what it’s worth...
I’m a bit confused. This is showing that Leonardo da Vinci was composing a different picture, and then changed it to what we see now?
That's correct.
The MonaLisa keyword, chrono sorted:
"That must be some book."
My pleasure. When I get fired up, I'll try to track down a topic in the FRchives, which is about a different painting, perhaps a different artist as well, which covers over an entirely different painting, probably by the same artist.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58518/undercover-art-6-paintings-were-hiding-something
http://www.google.com/search?q=xray+reveals+earlier+painting+under+famous+work+of+art
Oh, thanks. I didn’t really read you that way at all, but I wasn’t trying to be a scold in my reply. We carry on. :)
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.
