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.
But I have a real urge to spew out a YO DAWG meme right now.
.: Max Romantschuk
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.
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.
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.
It's not the damage to the purported painting behind the wall, it's the damage to the integrity of a building whose decorations have been in situ for over four hundred years. They're not talking about drilling holes in a wall painted with magnolia emulsion to get at whatever lies behind, rather doing serious damage to frescos by Vasari. That requires that you believe the remains of a painting which Leonardo himself severely damaged with braziers and part melted off the wall are of more intrinsic worth than the long-standing paintings by a non-trivial figure than have been on the walls of that room since it was given its present form. There are other artists apart from Leonardo, you know.
Google Translate does a reasonable job of the Italia Nostra press release (http://goo.gl/KcLTn) which is worth reading. That television funding has been made available for the work is dubious, to say the least: they're not going to care about Vasari, are they?
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
"da Vinci" means "of Vinci", the town he was born in. It is common practice to name people after where they came from because family names weren't so distinct, or weren't available, (or because one family could OWN a small town) and "Leonardo of Vinci" provides a lot more accuracy than "Leonardo" (a very, very common Italian name).
Similarly, Fibonacci was actually better known as Leonardo of Pisa ("Leonardo Pisano") - it's doubtful he was ever really called Fibonacci in real life. The Pythagoras that you probably know best was "Pythagoras of Samos" (because there were so damn many of them). Caravaggio was actually known as "Michelangelo of Caravaggio" and has no relation to the Michelangelo who painted the Sistine Chapel. Plato's name was really Aristocles.
The modern system of family name is just that - modern. Before that, your name could be derived from your job (Smith, Baker, etc.), your nickname, your birth-town, your main residence, your parent's nickname, the name of the local lord, etc.
Thus, suggesting that modern norms be applied to historical names is absolutely ridiculous because - almost certainly - nobody ever referred to anyone in that way back then. Hell, we're not even sure if some famous historical characters were EVER called by the names we use for them.
He was Leonardo, from Vinci. He'd probably look around in the street if you called him Leonardo. That's about all we know. The only other name ever given to him was actually his father's (Piero - again, another common Italian name).