To Be Or Not To Be...



To anyone who has studied Fine Art - properly, and at a practical level - there are two species of art-related persons that provoke a righteous animus amongst our number. Critics and dealers. I am struggling to [re?]watch the programme about a lost Leonardo that could [have been?] be worth gazillions of dollars on the market if proven 'genuine'. Two things spring to mind about this: one, was Leonardo da Vinci, as he is widely credited, 'the greatest painter of all time'? Two, does this painting have anything to offer to the history of art, apart from its putative connection to Leonardo?

Firstly, Leonardo da Vinci was a polymath - admittedly of genius - and his principal focus was on the natural sciences. His painting, although highly accomplished, was effectively a sideline, and he was as experimental in its physical execution as he was in other areas of his endeavours. One of the reasons his paintings have survived in such small numbers is that he experimented wildly with substrates, ground preparations and pigments; many of which were doomed to be short-lived. Like many 20th century painters, his pictures died a natural death within a relatively short time through the use of poorly-chosen materials.

Was he the greatest painter of all time? Technically, no; but I think he was also pretty limited in manner and execution. I feel his overall reputation clouds our view as to his actual contribution to the history of art. The painting in question in this TV programme appears, even on screen, to be a bit of a curate's egg: and on first sight it appears either to be unfinished, or the work of several hands: certainly no masterpiece. Its putative value rests solely on attribution, and its value, monetary or otherwise considered in that rather sketchy light: surely not the best criteria we have for judging works of art...?

Comments

Followers

Popular posts from this blog

Of Feedback & Wobbles

Days of Future Passed

Messiah Complex