Leonardo Da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi set a new record in the art world last year, when it sold for around R6,5 billion at auction.

When something is that valuable, it’s bound to come with some controversy, and this was no exception.

The painting was bought by Bader bin Abdullah bin Mohammed bin Farhan al-Saud, a little-known Saudi prince.

Soon after the sale, some started grumbling about the authenticity of the painting, and there was a petty social media battle about painting conservation.

The Salvator Mundi painting was then due to be unveiled at the Louvre Abu Dhabi on September 18 of this year, after further restoration, but then things took a strange turn.

Here’s The Guardian.

But at the start of September, this was suddenly and mysteriously postponed. “Further details will be announced soon,” said the official statement.

There has been no further announcement and my enquiries were met by just a resending of the statement. [Art historian Martin] Kemp admits he’s in the dark but insists: “It isn’t a matter of cold feet.” That’s how it looks, though.

The sudden postponement has reawakened speculation that the painting is a fake. Oxford academic Matthew Landrus has even gone public with the claim that, far from being a Leonardo, this work was largely done by his third-rate imitator, Bernardino Luini.

The real problem with the painting is more likely to be its condition. There have been accusations that the painting, when sold, had been over-restored which changes the image considerably. You can see it before it was restored below.

Robert Simon, the man who discovered Salvator Mundi along with two business partners, had the following to say about the painting:

Simon absolutely rejects the possibility of any “falsehood” being introduced. “I found [Campbell’s] comments both ill-informed and offensive,” he says. As for the repainting, he regards that as a loaded term. “‘Inpainting’ is the right way to describe what has occurred here – retouching restricted to areas of loss. In the restoration, no original paint was covered.”

The last claim is not entirely accurate because of an interesting discrepancy in Da Vinci’s representation of Christ’s thumbs.

When the painting was cleaned, it turned out Christ had two right thumbs. This is what art historians call a “pentimento” – literally, a repentance, used to mean a second thought. If the artist had such a second thought, it’s regarded as evidence that this is an original, not a copy – as why would a copier have second thoughts?

This explains why the thumb was left with its pentimento when it was shown to those experts, even though some in-painting had been done. However, by the time of its public unveiling in 2011, Christ’s hand had just a single thumb. “Both thumbs,” says Kemp of the painting’s raw state, “are rather better than the one painted by Dianne.”

The thumbs suggest that the painting is real, but the question remains as to whether the restoration has altered the painting to a point where it’s barely a Da Vinci.

I guess we’ll only know for sure when the painting is unveiled.

[source:guardian]