PDA

View Full Version : Painting faux pas



scumonkey
October 14th, 2009, 06:46 PM
Painting sold for $19,000 may be da Vinci worth $150 million


http://media.komonews.com/images/091014_Leonardo_da_Vinci.jpg
A painting that art experts believe they have identified as a work by Leonardo da Vinci.


Story Published: Oct 14, 2009 at 7:53 AM PDT
Story Updated: Oct 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM PDT

By Associated Press

TORONTO (AP) - A new painting by Leonardo da Vinci may have been discovered thanks to a centuries-old fingerprint.

Peter Paul Biro, a Montreal-based forensic art expert, said Tuesday that a fingerprint on what was presumed to be a 19th-century German painting of a young woman has convinced art experts that it's actually a Leonardo.

Canadian-born art collector Peter Silverman bought "Profile of the Bella Principessa" at the Ganz gallery in New York on behalf of an anonymous Swiss collector in 2007 for about $19,000. New York art dealer Kate Ganz had owned it for about 11 years after buying it at auction for a similar price.

One London art dealer now says it could be worth more than $150 million.

If experts are correct, it will be the first major work by Leonardo to be identified in 100 years.

Biro said the print of an index or middle finger was found on the painting and that it matched a fingerprint from Leonardo's "St. Jerome" in the Vatican. Biro examined multispectral images of the painting taken by the Luminere Technology laboratory in Paris. The lab used a special digital scanner to show successive layers of the work.

"Leonardo used his hands liberally and frequently as part of his painting technique. His fingerprints are found on many of his works," Biro said. "I was able to make use of multispectral images to make a little smudge a very readable fingerprint."

Technical, stylistic and material composition evidence also point to it being a Leonardo. Biro said there's strong consensus among art experts that it is a Leonardo painting.

"I would say it is priceless. There aren't that many Leonardos in existence," Biro said. He said he had heard that one London dealer felt it could be worth 100 million British pounds (more than $150 million).

Silverman said his Swiss friend saw it first and told him it didn't look like a 19th century painting. When Silverman took a look at the painting at the Ganz gallery in 2007, he thought it might be a Leonardo, although that seemed far-fetched. He hurriedly bought the painting for his Swiss friend and then started researching it.

"Of course you say, 'Come on, that's ridiculous. There's no such thing as a da Vinci floating around,"' Silverman said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "I started looking in the areas around da Vinci and all the people who could have possibly done it and through elimination I came back to da Vinci."

Last year, Silverman bumped into Nicholas Turner, a former curator of drawings at the J. Paul Getty Museum and the British Museum. Turner said it was a Leonardo and other leading art experts have backed it up as well.

Silverman said thanks to the fingerprint image at the Luminere Technology laboratory it was confirmed.

"That was icing on the cake," he said.

Silverman describes the Swiss private collector as a very rich man who has promised to buy him "lunch and dinner and caviar for the rest of my life if it ever does get sold."

OmegaNYC
October 14th, 2009, 07:32 PM
Wow.

That's like selling a Michael Jordan rookie card for a twinkie.

Ninjahedge
October 15th, 2009, 08:57 AM
Here's teh thing. It tells you waht a NAME is worth in "art".

This painting, which people had for YEARS and did not think was worth more than $19K, is INSTANTLY made worth $150M because it may have been painted (or even just touched while wet) by Leonardo?

It took a few minutes for it to sink in even in my cynical critical mind, but if a painting was only worth $19K before anyone knew who did it IT IS ONLY WORTH $19K!!!!!!!!

ZippyTheChimp
October 15th, 2009, 09:09 AM
^
The value has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the art work.

If true, it's an artifact of Leonardo.

Ninjahedge
October 15th, 2009, 10:33 AM
I know what you are saying, but it still does not matter.

ESPECIALLY in the real of "art", a paintings worth is based on its message and its presentation, not on who got his fingerprint on it. Our values system is s screwed up that a side of beef touched by Elvis would be worth more than another side of beef even when being sold to starving people in, well, Africa.

I can see some historical significance to the piece adding a bit of weight to it, but the fact that this painting, unsigned, was only worth $19K before people knew WHO did it is a testament to our own screwed up system of valuation in just about all things in modern society.

A hammer is a hammer, no matter who held it. You start worshiping things by who made/owned them and not by their own merit or use and "society" loses touch with "reality".

ZippyTheChimp
October 15th, 2009, 01:27 PM
Our values system is s screwed up that a side of beef touched by Elvis would be worth more than another side of beef even when being sold to starving people in, well, Africa.You really go way off track with these ridiculous, over the top analogies.


A hammer is a hammer, no matter who held it.This should be right up your alley...So if they find a hammer that some guy Noah used to build a boat, it's no different than the claw-head I bought at the hardware store? Hell, probably worth less; mine has those non-slip ridges.


You start worshiping things by who made/owned them and not by their own merit or use and "society" loses touch with "reality".

What's being recognized is someone who would be on any list of the most influential people in human history. The $150 million tag is meaningless. Peter Paul Biro got it right: "I would say it is priceless."

Ninjahedge
October 15th, 2009, 01:50 PM
You really go way off track with these ridiculous, over the top analogies.

How about this. If God made a crappy hammer, it would still be worthless to me.


This should be right up your alley...So if they find a hammer that some guy Noah used to build a boat, it's no different than the claw-head I bought at the hardware store? Hell, probably worth less; mine has those non-slip ridges.

If that hammer were as old as what should be Noah's age, then the two should be of comparable historical significance. Except you forget that there is no real proof of Noah, so a comparison like this, in which an item could prove a religious belief is a little unfair, as the item would hold additional worth compared to its intrinsic value.

Would I think it would be worth $150M? HELL no, pun intended.


What's being recognized is someone who would be on any list of the most influential people in human history. The $150 million tag is meaningless. Peter Paul Biro got it right: "I would say it is priceless."[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't. I Just because Jefferson was a founding father does not make his stools any more important than the next guy. The problem we are having is instilling too much value on a name. So if it turns out that Leonardo did not paint this, but merely touched it while it was wet, would it still be worth more?

The sad thing is that we lose track of what is truly important about an item sometimes. Its historical context is a valuable thing, but not to this magnitude. If everything in this world were valuable just because it was old, we would not be able to function very well, now would we?

If you want to pay $150M for a "priceless" painting that even Leonardo did not think was good enough to put his name on, then go ahead, but when we make a dual standard, one that says "art transcends common function" in order to validate its outrageous price, but then are willing to pay such a price on something that nobody considered noteworthy until a name was attached, I just can't sit tight and say "yeah".

Don't even get me started on the sick feeling I get even thinking that someone would have enough money to PAY $150M for an un-notable doodle/painting when so many do without...


Whatever. I will save that for another rant... ;)

ZippyTheChimp
October 15th, 2009, 02:19 PM
If that hammer were as old as what should be Noah's age, then the two should be of comparable historical significance.Your analogy is fatally flawed; mine is better. To be correct, Elvis would have had to raise the steer, slaughter it, and process the cuts. I doubt any of it would have survived Elvis, except maybe the hide as a jumpsuit.


I Just because Jefferson was a founding father does not make his stools any more important than the next guy.You are a piece of.........work.



OK, I've stopped laughing.


The problem we are having is instilling too much value on a name. So if it turns out that Leonardo did not paint this, but merely touched it while it was wet, would it still be worth more?I already said, If true." And you're the one who's trying to label it with a price tag. I said that a monetary value is meaningless.

ablarc
October 15th, 2009, 02:34 PM
Worth more than a Jackson Pollock, by any standard.

MidtownGuy
October 15th, 2009, 03:16 PM
what a beautiful hair adornment she's wearing

lofter1
October 15th, 2009, 03:30 PM
Indeed it is, but I don't think this is by LdV ...



http://media.komonews.com/images/091014_Leonardo_da_Vinci.jpg


All they had to do was to look at the artist's signature to figure that out.

Ninjahedge
October 15th, 2009, 03:41 PM
Your analogy is fatally flawed; mine is better. To be correct, Elvis would have had to raise the steer, slaughter it, and process the cuts. I doubt any of it would have survived Elvis, except maybe the hide as a jumpsuit.

Uh huh. Know whatimean? [/drawl]


You are a piece of.........work.



OK, I've stopped laughing.

I was actually thinking of other stuff, but someone might have found that more valuable!! :eek: (or offensive...:o )


I already said, If true." And you're the one who's trying to label it with a price tag. I said that a monetary value is meaningless.


Fair enough. I am just annoyed that they are seriously throwing dollar signs around this thing. "Priceless", in my modern era brainwashed consciousness usually means "priced so high you will never be able to even THINK of holding money in the same room with it, nevermind possessing it", not "not easily assignable an actual monetary value". :(

Ninjahedge
October 15th, 2009, 03:46 PM
Indeed it is, but I don't think this is by LdV ...

All they had to do was to look at the artist's signature to figure that out.

Antonio Padella?

From the Scalia Padellas?

Ninjahedge
October 15th, 2009, 03:50 PM
PS:

http://www.purrfectpaw.com/images/PAWDECAL.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
October 15th, 2009, 03:51 PM
I was actually thinking of other stuff, but someone might have found that more valuable!! :eek: (or offensive...:o Good argument against over-editing. (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=301262#post301262) Lose a lot of spontaneous humor.

Ninjahedge
October 15th, 2009, 04:02 PM
Nah, I was good on that one, never even typed the other.

Splenngk is my major Achilles heel.