$450 Million?

da Vinci, "Salvator Mundi," ca.1500

In the news lately has been the staggering auction price paid for a painting verified by many scholars as being by Leonardo da Vinci. The work, labelled "Salvator Mundi," was painted about 1500 and thought lost for centuries until discovered about a decade ago in a small auction in the United States. Apparently the picture had been overpainted and mis-attributed as a copy of the lost Leonardo.

It was auctioned at Christie's in New York not long ago and fetched $452 million, an enormous price for anything, let alone a ho-hum painting. (The previous record for an "old master" was a paltry $70 million or so, for a Rubens.) The astonishing price is probably because of supply and demand: this is the only work by this most famous painter that is in private hands. And there are fewer than 20 works by his hand at all. Nonetheless, the sale price touches on obscenity.

I have not seen the painting in person--it was recently on display in New York and has been exhibited previously at the National Gallery--but a high-resolution image is useful (right). Even if the painting was pristine, to my eye it isn't up to other works by da Vinci. Certainly it is no Mona Lisa, a work it can be compared with fairly readily. Salvator Mundi seems to lack the life and solidity that the lady embodies. Also, although the painting was said to be severely damaged the robe and parts of the hair look nearly pristine, making me wonder about how much restoration has taken place (a lot?). Even more useful is a close look at the eyes. They are faint and very soft--perhaps incomplete but more likely severely damaged by previous attempts at restoration. Maybe they were finished by another hand and those layers removed? Leonardo is of course also famous as the painter who could never finish anything, so it's possible that this work is an unfinished "masterpiece" that was overpainted and perhaps has been cleaned so much that the features--especially the eyes--are almost entirely eroded. Either way it's hard to know how much of this work is actually by da Vinci and how far it was toward completion.

The painting has a flat, full-frontal composition unlike other subjects by da Vinci ("Lady With an Ermine" for example) without the sense of motion and turning he often produced. The paint handling has been verified as daVincian--many thin layers--but while the garment is intriguingly painted, not much can be said about the features. The static head and shoulders, the enormously long fingers, and the overall palette are other features of the work that are unattractive to my eye. Still, it sold for an enormous sum and has been hailed by Christie's as a "masterpiece."

So was this sale about art or aesthetics? Not on your life. This was the sale of a rare brand-name commodity. Is it worth the price? Well, that depends. As a branded object it may be worth the money paid but as a painting it manifestly is not. It is a rare object with less aesthetic value than it has been assigned; an overpriced relic of a famous genius. Someone was willing to place it in a special category by paying an egregious sum. The Washington Post  seems to disagree and so does the New York Times.

In my view, as art, Salvator Mundi is a pedestrian example of Renaissance work. There are many many portraits and paintings of heads that are superior to this one. No one doubts that Leonardo was a brilliant man; he was a towering intellect who happened to paint sometimes but was actually more adept at other things. His curiosity and attention were easily diverted and he had trouble finishing. But even if this is a completed, finished work, ascribing such an astronomical value to it is outrageous.