MAGAZINE SOBRE HISTÒRIA (Iniciat com AUCA satírica el 1960.. per Manel Capdevila a classe de F.E.N.)
-VINCIT OMNIA VERITAS -
"La història l'escriu qui guanya".. així.. "El poble que no coneix la seva història... es veurà obligat a repetir-la.."
|12-12-2014 (3040 lectures)||Categoria: Leonardo|
Coline Milliard, Wednesday, December 10, 2014
The clue is in the daffodils. New research published by geologist and art historian Ann Pizzorusso suggestsÂ that inaccurate vegetation in the version of Leonardo da Vinci's Virgin of the Rocks (1483-86) held in the National Gallery in LondonÂ could proveÂ that the piece is not actually the work of the Renaissance painter.
As first reported in the Guardian, such anÂ error would be surprising coming from an artist who consideredÂ an almost-scientific faithfulness to nature to beÂ a foundation for art makingâ€”all the more so since the other version of the painting, which is part of the Louvre collection in Paris, is very precise in its depictions of rocks and plants.
â€śThe botany in the Louvre version is perfect, showing plants that would have thrived in a moist, dark grotto," Pizzorusso told the Guardian. â€śBut the plants in the London version are inaccurate. Some don't exist in nature, and others portray flowers with the wrong number of petals." Pizzorusso published this new research in her book Tweeting da Vinci.
â€śIt seems unlikely the same person could have portrayed rock formations so accurately in the Louvre work and so incongruously in the National Gallery oneâ€”especially considering Leonardo's faithfulness to nature," she added. â€śThere is absolutely nothing in his body of work that is not true to nature."
According to the Guardian, the National Gallery's official line is that the Louvre's version gets its â€śspiritual flavor" from its realism, while the London painting pictures â€śan ideal world."
Yet Pizzorusso's theory corroborates doubts that the institution itself has had over the authenticity of the Leonardo painting in the past. For decades, the piece was thought to be by followers of the Florentine artist. It was only when it was restored in 2010 that the idea that it might in fact be the real deal took hold.
Pizzorusso is backed by leading horticulturalist John Grimshaw. Talking about the plants in the London painting, he explained: â€śThey go against everything that Leonardo's always done in terms of his botanical art. They're not real flowers. They're odd concoctions, like a half-imagined aquilegia. And looking at the daffodil, for example, the flowers are OK, but the plant is not right."
ForÂ Michael Daley, director of art restoration watchdog ArtWatch UK, this latest piece of research could well be â€śthe nail in the coffin of the attribution to Leonardo."
For more da Vinci mysteries see "Was the Mona Lisa Leonardo's Mother and a Chinese Slave?"