Slashdot Mirror
Evidence of Lost Da Vinci Fresco Behind Florentine Wall
Lev13than writes "Art historians working in Florence's city hall claim to have found evidence of Leonardo da Vinci's lost Battle of Anghiari fresco. Painted in 1505, the fresco was covered over by a larger mural during mid-16th Century palace renovations. Historians have long speculated that the original work was protected behind a false wall. Attempts to reveal the truth have been complicated by the need to protect Vasari's masterpiece, Battle of Marciano, that now graces the room. By drilling small holes into previously-restored sections of Vasari's fresco, researchers used endoscopic cameras and probes to determine that a second wall does exist. They further claim that the hidden wall is adorned with pigments consistent with Leonardo's style. The research has set off a storm of controversy between those who want to find the lost work and others who believe that it is gone, and that further exploration risks destroying the existing artwork."
Protip: Artists at the time mixed their own paints.
The more you know!
Protip: Artists at the time mixed their own paints.
The more you know!
My grandmother was with Thomas Hart Benton when he painted the Rape of Persephone. He mixed egg whites with his paint.
Those magic scanners can see anything through anything right ?
But I have a real urge to spew out a YO DAWG meme right now.
.: Max Romantschuk
The remaining piece of the code will fall into place. We will finally know the answer to the fifth question, and no longer be cast into the gorge of eternal peril.
It'll be good if Geraldo Rivera hosts the unearthing.
Learn to love Alaska
Seriously, will this affect the tech world in ANY way?
Fuck art and the pseudo-intellectuals who devote their wasted lives to it.
If you truly believe that art has no bearing, benefit, or other influence on technology than it is you who is the pseudo-intellectual.
You can't refer to him as "Da Vinci" unless you're Dan Brown. It's either "Leonardo" or "Leonardo da Vinci".
Because Leonardo Da Vinci was a true nerd and he was a major character in two Assassins Creed games.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Ok, so they used sonar, photos, fiber optic cameras, extracted paint samples and a bunch of other fancy stuff to determine that a lost painting was present on a false wall behind a priceless mural and yet none of the pictures show ANY of this. If this is seriously a "research" project, why are they not posting pictures of the sonar, photos from the fiber optic camera or readings from the paint samples instead of just a bunch of "scientists" standing together for group shots? the closest they have is some student looking at a macbook that's mostly covered by a plant.
I just don't understand the reasoning of those that say furthet exploration is so damaging.
Who cares?
The painting was made for our perusal, not to secretly safekeep behind a 2nd wall. It would be saying the painting has some intrinsic value, that would still exist even when the world had been overrun by zombies.
If we uncover the painting we have the means to protect it, And make copies, to extend human knowledge.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Protip: Artists at the time mixed their own paints.
The more you know!
You do not have to be a "pro" to know that
But that guy's scam is this --- he only tells the world that the "black stuffs" he uncovered from the drilling is "Da Vinci's paint" but there is no proof in what he says
1. Nobody knows whether the "black stuffs" that scam-artist got from the drilling is the same "black stuffs" he sent to lab testing
2. He claimed that he got "black stuffs" from the drilling, but there is no proof that he got any "black stuffs" at all --- it's all what he tells the world, no proof, no nothing
Damn scam-artist has the backing of the mayor - and he is destroying another ancient painting with his hole-drilling exercise
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The problem now is that we're heading into "stuff that Leonardo stood on the other side of the road to is touched with his genius" obsession.
I recently went to the (London) National Gallery Leonardo exhibition, at which a substantial proportion of his surviving works were brought together (both Madonna of the Rocks, for example) and the paintings that survive in a decent condition are astoundingly good: you can argue the toss about the relative merits of Da Vinci, Velasquez, Rembrandt and the rest, but that's the company he's clearly keeping.
However, what you don't get in an exhibition of Velasquez to anything like the same extent is the huge slew of "school of", "preparatory sketch for", "disputed", "attributed" and so on. There's plenty of Velasquez (or Goya, or Titian, or at a slightly less major level Turner) to go around, and therefore there's not the same perceived need to drag up everything last scrap of paper. A lot of the stuff that's of disputed provenance (or even, in the case of Salvator Mundi, is of broadly accepted provenance) wouldn't be held in anything like the esteem it is on purely artistic grounds --- Salvator Mundi was sold without the attribution for less than fifty quid just over fifty years ago, for example, and even though otherwise sensible people can write of Madonna of the Yarnwinder "The merest touch of Leonardo's genius is better than almost anyone else's signature work" (http://goo.gl/f3B88) there's a real whiff of idolatry to this attitude. Clearly, if you want to be regarded highly as an artist, make sure a lot of your paintings decay and you have only a small pool of material for later enthusiasts to obsess over.
In this case, the chances of there being a recoverable painting are close to zero: there are accounts of the paint being melted off the wall with braziers. There's a copy by Reubens of the section that was completed, but a lot of the rest was lost anyway. The painting that's having holes drilled in it is a not inconsiderable piece. âoeBut if I had to choose, I would choose Leonardo,â rather gives the game away.
I've seen Barnett Newman and I know it's all suggestion.
Why not leave said walls alone, put up a sign and ticket-box, and be done with it.
Profit!
Those filthy communists! They violated hue patents and stole paint revenue from big pigment! You wouldn't steal an ox-cart...
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
>grandmother
>painted
>rape
>egg whites
The image you've given me is not the same as the image you intended to give me.
BAM! ITS A CHAIR!
Again?
It'd be ironic if they destroyed the wall, instead of finding a Da Vinci masterpiece, found a dead cat.
If you read the article (I know, its /. and that is redundant), you would note that the only places in which they are drilling hole are locations where the original Vascari was damaged and they have done restoration work previously. So, no, they are not damaging the fresco in front, they are being quite careful to only work in locations which have already been damaged.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Partially because they've tried a lot of high tech ways to determine if there was a second fresco already, including trying to raise 400K from a Kickstarter to pay for lasers and Xrays and other things (they didn't make raise enough, alas.) And even if this low tech method has shown there's a second Fresco, it's going to take a lot of high tech work to move the existing painting.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
This kind of thing is exactly the material cable TV "history" channels loves to use to make three one hour part specials. Three hours of yadda yadda, and nothing conclusive.
Can I mod you up to 6 super-insightful?
The art scene has become cultish, and actual talent has become secondary. I have had a couple of experiences in this area that really put me off the art scene. One I particularly recall, from many years ago: the Albuquerque Airport had just spent some enormous sum on a new picture, and the art critics were all impressed. Enough so that I went to see it. The picture turned out to consist of a small red dot in the center of a large yellow canvas. Hello? Aside from the fact that the colors matched the New Mexican flag, there was simply nothing there. A couple of minutes with a roller, 30 seconds with a brush. Perhaps the artist agonized about the precise size of the circle? Of course, you are supposed to feel inferior to the artsy, if you don't find deep meaning in such nonsense.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
...DaVinci trumps Vasari. If Vasari's work can be preserved while extracting DaVinci's, fantastic. All due care should be taken, but give me a damaged DaVinci over an intact Vasari, any day of the week.
That's called tempera. You can also use milk.
Free Martian Whores!
Can't you just access it from the other side of the wall? Thereby bypassing the Vasari entirely.
This was the KickStarter project:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/704089843/the-search-for-the-lost-da-vinci
In the mean time, the Double Fine Adventure game has raised $3M (including KickStarter's/Amazon's take).
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adventure
Patronage type project vs appeals-to-the-masses type project, I suppose.
Can't they use scanning equipment to see what's underneath the existing painting?
I don't see the need to destroy the newer artwork merely to uncover a lost Leonardo da Vinci painting. It should be enough to know what it looks like. Maybe then hire some artist to reproduce it to display in museums.
That's called tempera. You can also use milk.
I should have said oil paint. Thanks.
The mayor of Florence is really pushing this on media - he's a major "bischero" who - just like any other politician - can't get enough attention
Now I recommend for you to go forth and spread this new knowledge far and wide, to the rest of civilization which has not been exposed to it.
Modern artists were asked to provide works for the 2012 Olympics here in London. I was genuinely of the belief that they were children's drawings for the same until I read the caption properly.
It's not that skilled modern artists don't exist, ones who surpass any of the old masters even. It's that they don't have buddies in the right places to get the Olympics gig, apparently. The best painter of our day could be sitting in her rocking chair surrounded by 50 cats and buckets of paint, while drinking herself to death. Who knows?
Gives a whole new meaning to the idiom, "Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs."
Please enlighten us then. How exactly, does art benefit or influence technology? I'm genuinely curious, not just trolling.
it's going to take a lot of high tech work to move the existing painting.
When in doubt: C4!
heh, heh...
No, tempera is made with egg yolk.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
The fact that anyone would ask this is truly astonishing. How stupid can you be?
http://www.acetonestudio.com
prior art?
Aside from the scanning technology to detect the painting or the gap between the walls, I as well fail to see a technological side to this. From a science and technology standpoint, it could just as well be a 1-year old's drawing of a house hidden behind the wall, and a bathroom stall on the present side.
From the standpoint of it being a Da Vinci painting, that's entirely irrelevant, and has no bearing on science whatsoever. The single only science aspect is scanning the wall or analyzing the paint, which is nothing particularly new.
Eagle vision should reveal some interesting clues in this painting.
On the other hand I can already imagine tens of millions of dollars being spent to separate this wall in two in order to see the moldy fresco behind I I do think there are better ways to spend the money. But there are also much worse ways.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Just clicked on the link and saw "You're a backer!" on it and had a sad.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Greetings, co-sad.
On the up side, these new findings might spur further interest and get them funding via other means. Or they can just try another KickStarter project - many who failed to get funded the first time around just try again.
That said, their original goal was certainly high for the project given and justification for it wasn't really given. Perhaps if they chopped things up into multiple goals, they would more easily reach those.