Talk:Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Refs

temporary save of ref to be incorporated. Amandajm (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Museo delle Antiche Genti di Lucania

Scientific protocal for attribution of Lucan portrait

Amandajm (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Some experts"

"Some experts" actually signifies its finder Nicola Barbelli and has been edited to say so. My cautious edit that this panel represents a self-portrait by Leonardo has been edited to claim its authenticity as a work of Leonardo's, crediting the naive Latin ink inscription PINXIT-MEA. Was Leonardo's Latin actually so shaky then? The "Carbon 14" date "between 1459 and 1523" is preposterously precise and lacks its "+ or -" range. IMHO this panel is a copy of the Uffizi portrait.--Wetman (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

the period between 1459 and 1523 .

Pics of Leonardo as a youth

They don't add anything to this article. There is no question about the identity of the person represented. It is the authorship of the painting that is in doubt. Amandajm (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Contribution by 202.180.123.144

I removed the following from the article. Perhaps someone can rework it. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

AN AMUSEMENT ON THE THEME OF CONSTRUCTION:

1. Right now! - print out an A4 copy of the Lucan with your printer. Black and White is better as it makes the point more strongly. Trim the white margins off this print. 2. Using a pencil and ruler, draw vertical lines from each eye down into the lower half. 3. Fold the copy in half so that the portrait is on one side and the beard on the other. Now you have a picture of a vital man on one side and a picture of a sfumato face in a large 'out of focus' beard on the other side. The extended pencil lines pass through the eyes of the sfumato face. 4. The sfumato face is not intended to represent Jesus as it is conspiciously without a crown of thorns, and this is indicative of Leonardo. This sfumato alone indicates Leonardo, and, I dare say, proves on its own that Leonardo is the author. - Who else could do this?

Anyway, I'm waiting for the Press Conference - Do you really think Wiki, represented by yourself, can overturn their reasoned arguements? 202.180.123.144 (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Murray, I s'pose you, not signed in properly! Please don't put things like that into the article itself. Put them here or on my talk page, or your own talk page, where I can find them, if I "watch" your page by using the "watch" options on the tag (top of every page). That is the way that you know when someone replies.

About the "Jesus" thing. I wasn't implying that the face represented Jesus. The point I was making was that people see "faces" everywhere. We are programmed (from birth) to recognize two blobs and a gash as a face. Jesus faces just happen to be the type That get the most publicity.

You are misinterpreting the way in which the term "sfumato" is used. Sfumato pertains to the effect of shadow on the "real" faces that Leonardo painted, to the way in which he shadowed the corners of the eyes and mouth, and blended the shadow from dark to light across the contours of flesh.

It has nothing to do with the fact that the beard is painted in a blurry way, rather than Leonardo's crisply defined and structured hairs, and in those blurry marks you see two smudges on the same plane and another smudge below them which, put together suggest a face to you. When I look at the smudgy beard, I see several faces and a large smily button! Amandajm (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Chiarezza

Chiedo scusa se scrivo in italiano ma riesco a riferire meglio alcune mie precisazioni sul tema. Intanto non entro nella discussione relativa all'attribuzione del dipinto alla mano di Leonardo, semplicemente perchè molti esperti si sono gia espressi in merito. Appunto nel piu impornate museo della capitale italiana (Musei Capitolini), venerdi 3 dicembre il dipinto è stato presentato al grande pubblico come "opera autografa di Leonardo" da esperti internazionali. Desidero percio' chiarire taluni aspetti che probabilmente qui vengono purtroppo equivocati:

- ALESSANDO VEZZOSI NON HA MAI ATTRIBUITO IL DIPINTO A CRISTOFANO DELL'ALTISSIMO!

ECCO IL LINK:

[1]

Se si legge con attenzione il comunicato scritto dal Vezzosi ci si accorge che egli esclude l'attribuzione a Cristofano dell'Altissimo !!! E comunque lo scritto risale ai primi giorni del ritrovamento quando ancora non vi erano i risultati degli esami scientifici. Questo è un grave errore commesso dalla stampa, cosi come dimostra anche l'equivoco del luogo di provenienza.

Vi prego di rettificare la valutazione del Vezzosi che invece scrive che il dipinto è "straordinario" e non ha nulla a che fare con la pittura dell'Altissimo.

Resto a vostra completa disposizione per qualsiasi chiarimento,

Grazie.

Nicola Barbatelli

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.17.82 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Italian to English Google translation of Nico's note

CLARITY

I apologize if I write in Italian, but I can report some of my better clarification on the issue. Meanwhile, do not enter into the discussion on the attribution of the painting to Leonardo's hand, simply because many experts have already spoken about. Exactly in the most imposing museum in the Italian capital (Capitoline Museums), Friday December 3, the painting was presented to the general public as an autograph work of Leonardo "by international experts. I therefore want to 'clarify certain aspects that are sadly misunderstood here: - ALESSIO VEZZOSI HAS NEVER GIVEN THE PAINTED Cristofano dell'Altissimo!

Here's the link: [2]

If you read carefully the statement written by Vezzosi, we realize that he excludes the attribution of Cristofano dell'Altissimo! Anyway, the writing dates from the early days of the discovery when there still were the results of scientific tests. This is a grave error committed by the press, as well as demonstrated by the misunderstanding of the place of origin.

Please correct the assessment Vezzosi instead writes that the painting is "extraordinary" and has nothing to do with the painting of dell'Altissimo.

I remain at your disposal for any clarification, Thanks.

Nicola

Preceding unsigned comment Barbatelli added by 87.1.17.82 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Italian to English Google translation of the link above

Museum recognized public interest FOUNDED UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF Tuscany Region Florence Province APT Florence Municipality of Vinci EL'EGIDA the Armand Hammer Center for Leonardo Studies University of California at Los Angeles Museo Ideale Leonardo Da Vinci International Association-Museo Ideale Leonardo Da Vinci Free Achademia Leonardi Vinci Via Montalbano, 2-50059 Vinci (FI). tel. 0571-56296 Direction: tel. 0571-56614, fax 0571-567986 e-mail: museoideale@tin.it www.museoleonardo.it

The portraits of Leonardo An outdoor table in Lucania and a section of the Museo Ideale Leonardo Da Vinci

The portrait discovered in recent weeks in Basilicata is very interesting in itself and as a significant new element of a mosaic to reconstruct the unfinished appearance of the face of Leonardo. And it is important as it introduces new research on Leonardo lost his traces and echoes Leonardo in southern Italy. It is also mysterious, as if they have yet to ascertain the date and the most ancient origin, and it is difficult to identify the author, for this is an issue to be addressed, for the exciting news and the most diverse cultural implications, ranging from art history to new technologies, until context of discovery.

While data is collected through scientific investigation, emerging evidence and ongoing sources which of course require documentary verification and investigation. Thus was born the idea of a shows that, on the one hand, present a summary of recent studies on the alleged self-portraits and portraits of Leonardo, on the other hand, do further research as, for example, a striking figure, hitherto unknown on the presence of a "portrait" of Leonardo's autograph in Naples at least the early nineteenth century.

Every time we come to southern Italy in the footsteps of Leonardo, an interesting emerging news. This was the case for over 25 years: for example in 1982 / 3, when treating the catalog of exhibition "Leonardo and Leonardo in Naples and Rome in the Museo di Capodimonte in 1996 the exhibition "Leonardo and the Sea" Castel dell 'Ovo and in 2000 for the exhibition "Leonardo and Europe" State Archives in Naples and "Aqua. Continuum vitae "in the Certosa di Padula. We are well reviewed, for example, as the extraordinary paintings of Table Doria Angri Tracks manuscripts hitherto missing (such as the likely autograph of the Duke of Amalfi, recalled in 1566, and those linking the Campania with Goethe in Weimar and Catherine II of Russia in San Petersburg) and dozens of works by artists including Leonardo Cava dei Tirreni and Sicily, with Caesar Pedro da Sesto and Hispanic, as well as followers Sabatini Andrea from Salerno, Marco Calabria Cardio, Messina Girolamo Alibrandi, ... until you find the Principality Citra, south of Salerno, the possible destination of a trip to Leonardo, which he planned in the Atlantic Codex, around 1499-1500.

The interesting comparisons to the "Portrait" of Acerenza are manifold. For example, [to a] painting [of the] Madonna in profile, discover[ed] in Palermo and originally attributed to Leonardo, but then recognized [as] by Francesco Bianchi (painter in the Gallery of Florence the Grand Duke Ferdinando de' Medici), the engraved portrait by the Florentine, Francesco Sesona in Naples for the 1733 edition of "Treatise on Painting" of Leonardo (the first Italian edition is published in Naples in 1723 and then in 1733, with two title pages, one of which, unpublished, which I discovered in Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli). And in particular, the family signs present at least since Acerenza Eighteenth century, the descendants of Leonardo uell'Antonio that gave the famous "Neptune." Museum recognized public interest

The exhibition and its catalog, beginning with the "Portrait of Leonardo" found in Lucania and continue with over 40 works of painting, sculpture and engraving (also in the editions of the Treaties) and 20 of specimens and scientific tests, which analyze the iconology and the types of the face of Leonardo through five centuries (from the sixteenth to the nineteenth, with trespassing for the currency in the twentieth century):

Portrait of three quarters with a hat
Possible self-portrait of three quarters
Portraits of young people, by assumption
Portrait suffering, with Heraclitus, Democritus
Idealized self-portrait?
Portrait in profile
Profile with hat
The death in the arms of the king
Myth and historical romance
Monuments and sculptures

In addition there are sections documentary about Leonardo and other topics of research, always relevant:

Theory and technique of the portrait

Study of proportions, picture perfect

Emblems and conceptual issues

?? ?? biological imprint (fingerprint)

?? ?? literary image

Between Naples and Lucania

Hercules and Neptune: Mythology in Vaglio Basilicata

There is a section for teaching multimedia introduction to the life and work of Leonardo. The first catalog will present these topics in brief, edited by Agnes on Saturday and Alex Vezzosi (coordinator and director of the Museo Ideale Leonardo Da Vinci), with resentations institutional (the promoters Lucan, as the Mayor of Screener Joseph Musacchio and the discoverer of "Portrait" Nicola Barbatelli) and an introduction by Carlo Pedretti (the greatest scholar of genius Vinci, director of the Armand Hammer Center for Leonardo Studies at the University of California in Los Angeles).

The reasons for an exhibition

For us, it makes sense when a show is good and meets the criteria of need. The news of the Acerenza discovery has attracted attention overseas and did come from other Italian cities other unpublished reports. The characteristics of a show are a result of various factors, including the resources and time available. To be timely and open up new avenues of research, this is of Vaglio Basilicata achieved in record time - a few weeks - thanks to the passion, sensitivity and ability of people and institutions Lucan, along with a dual availability of Museo Ideale Leonardo Da Vinci and his Stock Leonardi: a collection of works and materials initiated by Alessandro Vezzosi in 1972, an expanded section of the museum Saturday with Agnes since 1993 not currently exposed to Vinci for the temporary closure of the museum (due to infiltration abnormal structures overlying water), and which is constantly enriched by new and rediscovered acquisitions.

This is how this sudden acceleration in the footsteps of Leonardo, the Lucania and the universality of the great star of the Renaissance. This is an exhibition that we hope and is likely involving, as it unfolds, as in previous occasions, many learned scholars and experts in southern Italy.

The "Portrait of Leonardo" found in Lucania. Before making statements about the author and the dating of "Portrait of Leonardo" found in Lucania, it was agreed to undertake a series of scientific studies. For example:

To identify any regrets [pentimento] and / or the presence of a preparatory drawing (not so far results, confirming the skill of the craftsman ...);
To find any overlap that might prevent the painting to read original, and already it is appropriate and can restore the legibility of the area removing the impurities and the recent establishment of a paint-intrusive;
To distinguish the original parts, the oldest, by additions and restorations;
To better understand the nature of support, which is very particular.

Moreover, as evidence that carbon dating can steer, etc.

A term of comparison is surely the "Portrait of Leonardo" for over two centuries has been celebrated as nothing less than the original self-portrait of Leonardo in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, where he joined in 1715 by Grand Duke Cosimo III de 'Medici. Only in 1938 was published X-ray, which has postponed until after the 1600 dating of the painting, of which s'ignorano not only the author and source, but also the iconographic source.

It is whether the "Portrait of Leonardo" Lucan precedes or is contemporaneous with, or is following that of the Uffizi Gallery and to answer many questions, especially: which may be the source of this aspect of Leonardo, which does not coincide with the probable "portrait" of Turin, the famous drawing of the Royal Library (appeared only in Nineteenth century and often unrecognized, sometimes considered a forgery or a study for a Apostle of the Last Supper)?

As a first impression, some experts have suggested that the "Portrait" Lucan could date until the first half of the sixteenth century. They did, among other things, the name of Cristofano dell'Altissimo (C. 1550-1605) as a possible author (which I rule out, however).

For everything you need to move quickly to deepen research, the design study, a finding the origin and surveys with new technologies, expanding knowledge, comparison and checks. Seventy years ago, an X-ray scaled the importance of the famous "portrait" of the Uffizi: today, other scientific tests, and of course a number of considerations, historical, artistic and documentary could confirm the importance of this board Lucan, formerly of great interest for many reasons given above.

The Director

Alessandro Vezzosi

Murray menzies (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute on Mr. Barbatelli statements

We received an OTRS ticket from Mr. Barbatelli (in Italian, but I made a brief summary in English): he says that he never stated what The Times' article says that he stated, for so the Times article to be wrong.

I suggested him to ask for a rectification and I assured him that a notice would be put in the voice - what I've done. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 00:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Amandajm kindly asked me for clarification, so here we go. Mr. Barbatelli says that:

It was Prof. Peter Hohenstatt that stated that the portrait is a Leonardo's self-portrait;
The painting was NOT found in Acerenza, nor Mr. Barbatelli said - or even thought (literal quotation) - that it was found there.

-- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that I have taken care of Barbatelli's concerns.

Amandajm (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I really wonder how a Times' journalist could have been so shallow! Even confusing the town where it was found. I really get amazed when I see how poor is the way some Anglophones deal with Italy. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: In the screed that has been pasted below, Alessandro Vezzosi mentions "...the news of the Acerenza discovery". This is the information coming out of Italy, so Wikipedia and the Times are hardly to blame if it is not exactly the claim made by Nico Barbatelli. Amandajm (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons

NOTE: I had removed this to my talk page, but in the light of Professor Vezzosi's comments, decided to put it back here

The Lucan portrait with five relevant paintings attributed to Leonardo, in chronological order

Ginevra de' Benci, generally accepted as an early work by Leonardo. (C.1475). cut down by about 1/3, probably incl. hands for which detailed study exists.

The Lady with an Ermine, (c. 1485? ) background later repainted, affecting right contour of face. Attrib. based largely on similarity to Ginevra.

Portrait of a Musician, clothes and hand unfinished. (c. 1490) Attrib. based on high quality, dramatic light and similaritites of gaze to Angel in Virgin of the Rocks (Louvre)

Mona Lisa (1503-5)

John the Baptist (layers of varnish distort the colour)

Comment on the paintings

All the five pictures of firm attribution show a degree of contraposto, with the least being in the Portrait of a Musician which is much the smallest.
None of the pictures are "head and shoulders". (The Ginevra portait has lost approx. 1/3 of its height.)
Hands are a feature of all the complete works. It is speculated that a detailed study of hands drawn by Leonardo was for the complete Ginevera portrait.
The five paintings form a chronological sequence into which the Lucan portrait does not fit comfortably.

Ginevra is an early work, influenced by the training in Verrocchio's studio and (like Leonardo's early Madonnas) has retained many formal characteristics of the third quarter of the 1400s.
The Lady with the Ermine represents a radical break from the formal poses of portraits, and has strong contraposto, usually reserved at this date for figures that are moving or interacting, eg the female Wind in Botticelli's contemporary Birth of Venus. While the common contemporary profile portraits look out of the picture, 3/4 face portraits usually meet the viewer's eye or look straight ahead, but to have the eyes turned outward, showing the whites is unusual. By this date Leonardo is already experimenting with softening and deepening the shadows in the corners of the mouth. Unlike Ginevra, the bosom of the girl is turned into the shadow, with only her shoulder brightly lit. This is a departure from usual practice. The slender fingers are separated by deep shadow, and contrast with the hand's cast shadow.
The face of the Musician is at a similar angle as the Ermine pic, with the gaze averted, but in not so exaggerated a manner. The contraposto is limited to a slight inclination of the head, counter-balanced by an outward projection of the hand. The main development here is in Lighting. The light is similarly angled to that in the Ermine pic, but is much more dynamic. The face is strongly modelled because the bony and fleshy projections of the face are casting shadows onto its more concave surfaces. The eyelids cast deep shadow, as do the eyelashes on the left side of the painting. The light and cast shadow on the hand and script add dramatic impact.
In Mona Lisa, ten years or more later, the artist plays with light that ripples over the soft dimpled surface of her face. In terms of lighting, it has taken the dramatic contrasts of the Musician, and blurred all the edges, creating a work of enormous subtlety. The hand with the separated fingers returns. The light plays across the crumpled folds of the sleeves, and touches the embroidery at the neck, just sufficiently to define the dimensions and planes of every form. Details are present but subordinate. The hair that falls on the left shoulder (viewers right) has helical ringlets that on close examination are as structurally defined as those on the forehead of Ginevra. This scientific observation of the structure and behaviours of materials such as hair, water, crumpled cloth and eroded rock is characteristic of Leonardo.
John the Baptist, a work of Leonardo's old age, revisits the twisting motion of the Lady with the Ermine (used in the intervening period in a number of figure compositions). Again the eyes are turned at an unusual angle in relation to the turn of the head, the head is down but the eyes turn up, and, with the gesture, challenge the viewer. The drama of light and shade is achieved by both intensity and sfumato.

Given the age of the figure in the Lucan protrait, if it is indeed by Leonardo himself, then it must fall chronologically somewhere between the Portrait of a Musician (sometimes considerd a self-portrait) and the Mona Lisa.

Its highly conservative lighting, its lack of contraposto, its lack of hands, its conservative 3/4 view, its lack of drama, lack of cast shadow, lack of bodily form, conservative treatment of hair all mean that it does not sit happily between the Musician and the Mona Lisa, or between the dynamic Lady with an Ermine, and the Musician. It can hardly be earlier.

The Lucan Portrait is absolutely typical of a conservative, post-Leonardo, painting of the 1500s.

I am not invited to the conference, but perhaps somebody who will be there, will take these comments into account and present some of them.

Cheers!

Amandajm (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC), originally posted- 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Text of article

The text below is condensed from Prof Hohenstatt's 107 page analysis translated by google, and could be included somewhere to ground the discussion ... ? Murray menzies (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A SELF-PORTRAIT BY LEONARDO DA VINCI; THE "LUCAN PAINTING" 1505 - 1510, tempera on wood, white poplar, 59 x 44cm

ANALYSIS OF THE PAINTING AND ATTRIBUTION TO LEONARDO, PROFESSOR PETER HOHENSTATT, Art historian and teacher at the University of Parma. Author of: Masters of Italian Art, LEONARDO and Masters of Italian Art, RAPHAEL

The provenance

The painting was regarded as a portrait of Galileo Galilei when discovered in a private collection in 2008 by Nicola Barbatelli, and it is listed as a Leonardo on page 116 of "Napoli Antica e Moderna," (1815) edited by Abate Domenico Romanelli, as being in the Palazzo Baranello nella strada Cedronia "of the Duke of Baranello of the noble family Russo "

Technical and scientific studies

1. Technical studies have shown with 53% Probability that the tree from which the wood panel was manufactured comes from the period between 1459 and 1523 .

2. Technical analysis of paint layers and the use of Pigments were also compatible with a time in 1500. There were no pigments or materials from the modern era, except the pigments and mediums used in 20 C. restorations were modern, including Titanium in the white feather. An examination of "PINXIT MEA" revealed only that the pigment was one which had been used for centuries.

3. Diagnosis of the painting by infrared reflectography does not reveal any sign that the painting used a free sketch or cartoon in its establishment. The left side of the face, subsequent correction of the left eye, as well as the delicate brushwork in the head and beard hair can be much better read by IR Reflectography.

4. The painting is generally well preserved, with accidental Influences explaining the conspicuous scratches and Defects. The entire paint layer has a dense Microcraquè typical of Italian panel painting on poplar of the 15th and 16thCentury, and there are no scientific-technical objections to a date in the period around 1500.

5. The script PINXIT MEA is compatible with Leonardo's "Atlantic Codex" and his signature. Fragments of fingerprints were found on the painting, with one unmolested fragment being a striking match with the fingerprint found on the portrait of Leonardo's Lady with an Ermine, and this allows an unambiguious identification.

6. A computer programme analysing soft tissues of the face to build comparative 3D models was applied to compare different representations of Leonardo's face, and significant agreement was found between the Lucan painting and Count Melzi's drawing of Leonardo.

7. The latter studies point to a possible portrait or self portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, however, without clear security to provide interpretation. The scientific investigation of the portrait is a novelty which combines traditional investigation techniques with other areas such as criminology and medicine, and this opens the prospects for further research in the examination of paintings.

Art Historical Analysis

The proper attribution and dating of the new work can only be classified in the oeuvre of Leonardo da Vinci. The research is still ongoing, though there is already important first ascertaining numerical results. The quality of the painting in general and fundamental stylistic characteristics such as the indefinite background, the convincing reproduction of the soft hair with its natural flow and the thin, secure, rhythmic modeling brush strokes, as well as facial muscles visible under the skin for a spontaneous side view, seems to make arguments for an attribution of the painting to Leonardo da Vinci. The painting technique in "tempera grassa" and the relatively soon to be adopted version of the painting are atypical and require explanation.

While still restrained to a sfumato dating of the painting before the Mona Lisa and St John the Baptist, the representation of hair places it clearly after 1500, but especially the background that is darker than points of the represented object and brighter than the shadow part, again reflects a concept that Leonardo developed after 1500.

Formatted by Amandajm (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've sent this text to Italy for correction, but because Prof Hohenstatt is travelling at the moment, I won't hear back until 27th. There is a problem with 6. because the 'soft tissue' issue is different to the '3D modelling' issue. I'll sort the whole thing when I hear back. My computer isn't able to show the 3D stuff. Would it be appropriate/possible to have a 3D reconstruction of 40 year-old Leonardo's head on Wiki? Nico has hinted that he would like to name the painting 'The Kiss', which would require some explanation and a link to MATRIX (If I had your email I could send a complimentary 'educational' matrix.pdf for your library?) Murray menzies (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Mail from Italy Murray menzies (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC) ; "Hohenstatt is at the moment travelling but I'll meet with him on 26th and 27th so I will show to him your work. Please can you wait untill 27th?

The description of the scientific analysis is generally right but the 3D recostructing face of Leonardo is a study carried out indipendently from the "soft tissues" study. The 3D was carried out by Orest Kormashov (Professor of Fine Art,University of Tallinn, Estonia), Gianni Glinni (engineer co-operating with Museum of Antiche Genti di Lucania) and Helen Kokk (expert in 3D graphic design). It consider the image as a geometrical surface into the space. The "soft tissues" study was carried out by Felice Festa, he try to apply some method used in facial surgey but just to compare some faces.

THE TWO STUDIES ARE DIFFERENT AND INDIPENDENT!

THE 3D MADE BY KORMASHOV-GLINNI-KOKK ALLOWS TO SEE THE FACE OF LEONARDO IN THE WAY IT WAS WHEN HE WAS AROUND 45 Y.O. IT IS THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY AFTER 500 YEARS WE CAN SEE HIM AGAIN!"

"The scientific evidence that the Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci is actually a self-portrait rather than a portrait by another hand is summarised in two points. A fingerprint was found to coincide with a print found on the painting Lady with an Ermine. This ignores the fact that Leonardo worked with a studio full of pupils and assistants, and that any fingerprint found on one of his paintings cannot necessarily be assigned to the man himself. The second piece of evidence is the handwriting analysis which coincides with one small sample found on a Leonardo document, but bears very little relationship to the thousands of words that he wrote on other documents.[7]" (This is my writing)Amandajm (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The notion that Leonardo (or any painter) would allow random fingering of still wet paintings by other people can't be sustained, and the handwriting isn't claimed as proof of anything except that it is consistent with Leonardo's writing. Perhaps that paragraph should be removed? Murray menzies (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to seem to be hogging all the space, but I have breaking news from Italy, and suspect the Lucan painting will be all over the media after Saturday November 27 at 11.00am (Italian time) when the Museum of the Ancient People of Lucania presents its book; "E 'RINASCIEMENTO" Leonardo, Donatello, Raphael" at a 'very important' Skipe presentation at which Peter Hohenstatt and Didier Bodart will participate. I suspect Wiki will get an increase in traffic to it's Lucan site, and will be judged. Are there any good reasons why Wiki should not replace the masthead Turin picture with the Lucan picture before the 27th? Murray menzies (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE ON THE CONFERENCE; It wasn't a video conference as I thought, but a conference featuring a translated video link to me near the end. I didn't hear or understand the body of the conference because it was in Italian, but the Leonardo Self-portrait was an established fact with no reference to the Wikipedia issues I'd raised earlier. I asked the conference to publish its findings in English, and will investigate the possibility of exhibiting the painting at Te Papa, New Zealand's National Art Gallery. Are there any issues I should investigate while the window is open? There's nothing else I could usefully add to the article? but will wait to see what turns up from Italy before seeing what can be done to finish the article. Murray menzies (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

PRESS CONFERENCE "The President of the Tourism Commission and Fashion Capital of Rome is pleased to invite s.v. to the press conference LEONARDO FOUND introduced by Nicola Barbatelli and featuring; Peter Hohenstatt, Orest Kormashov, and Didier Bodart, art historians, Colonel Gainfrancvo de Fulvio, police fingerprint expert, and AVV. Giuseppe Pio Musacchio of Sundance di Vaglio Basilicata (PZ. Moderated by Francesco Romano. DECEMBER 3 2010 at 1700 hrs at CAPITOLINE MUSEUMS - ROOM "PIETRO DA CORTONA" PIAZZA DEL CAMPIDOGLIO" Murray menzies (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the Lucan Portrait a self portrait?

Stylistically, almost certainly not.

It's not in oils, which is what Leonardo painted in, from the time he painted the angel into Verrocchio's Baptism of Christ.

WRONG (Juniper's reverse, at least)

It is totally lacking in Leonardo's trademark sfumato. One would expect the corners of the eyes and mouth to be subtley shaded. They are not.

WRONG The left eye and the mouth were sfumato before they were overpainted. Look at the photos, await restoration

Light: Leonardo's painting have sparks of light which are non-existent in the Lucan portrait.

WRONG - (You are thinking of Zorzon's method?)

Leonardo paints hair in a highly linear way, strand by strand. The individual strands reflect bright light. This method of painting hair, which is consistent from the Angel in the Baptism through to the John the Baptist, is non-existent in the Lucan portrait.

WRONG - look at the high res pictures of his beard

Forensic evidence on the soft tissues indicates an accuracy of the facial muscles. This is to be expected from any post-Leonardo portrait painter worthy of the name, and many of his contemporaries- particularly Domenico Ghirlandaio, Gentile Bellini, Fillipino Lippi and Raphael. It proves nothing. Particularly since there is no sign of a skull below the flesh (see below.)
Comparison with Lady with an Ermine doesn't hold up, for a number of reasons.

Lady with the Ermine is one of the least well authenticated of Leonardo's paintings.

No one of note disputes this painting.

It is certain that someone else had a hand in Lady with an Ermine. The black background is repainted by someone else, for a start.

This is 'overpainting' and is taken into account.

Leonardo's paint surfaces are often so smooth that he undoubtedly smoothed paint with his fingers. If this was his practice, then his students and assistants would have followed the same practice. The fingerprints on both works could belong to anyone who worked on them. To have students working on ones paintings was normal practice. Verrocchio, after all, allowed a student a free hand with one of his works.

Students and assistants were employed to do the boring background stuff, NOT the fine finishing touchs such as smoothing down intricate brush strokes.

NOTE: at this point there ensued a lengthy discussion which was highly POV (My POV) and used only primary sources as evidence. The discussion has been removed to my talk page, and to that of Murray Menzies.

I have replies to the initial post from both Nico and Gianni - neither very complimentary! The first is from Nico per Google Translate, so some of the stynax &c. is a bit scrambled, and the second is from Gianni in English;

Dear Murray,

I do not mind the "challenge" in this jurisdiction.[judgement] His arguments are devoid of logic, who is he? , Is a scholar? , Has written books about Leonardo? Has seen the painting Lucan?

Its stupid statements do not deserve to be replicated.

The painting Luke's [Lucan] was recognized as a self-portrait from [by] international crtitica. Friday, 'Dec. 3 will be on display in the most important Italian museum: the Capitoline Museums and placed next to [the] portrait of [the] musician, moved from Milan.

>>The description of the painting(s) supporting the Lucan at the Conference has changed slightly in the ordinary way of Capitals and 's over several cut and pastes, and I suspect that The Musicians might relate to the six foot tall (de Predis?) side panels for Virgin of the Rocks? It has nothing to do with the pretending portrait of the same name.<<

The allegations of this pseudo-scholar I am not interested, perhaps in Italy and is discussing.[unless he comes to Italy for discussion(?)]

As for Wikipedia, they must be good news [ie reliable information] and no nonsense. If the painting is attributed to Leonardo [they ie Wikipedia] can not write SCHOOL OF LEONARDO, Who says so? Who is the scholar who claims the school? If this news [ie information] is not correct denounce everything to the Italian police.

Forget [remember?] that the fingerprints found on the panel were recovered by the Police and not by individuals.

A hug,

Nicola

Hello Murray all the observations are just stupid suppositions made by [one] who doesn't know the Lucan portrait nor the Uffizi Portrait. Very easy to answer to every consideration. I will do it as soon as possible.

All the best

Gianni

(I think they are shooting from the hip and forget you might like to write the eventual article because you do it so well. Please forgive my hot-blooded friends!) 202.180.123.144 (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I very much look forward to reading Gianni's response to this. For the attribution to be correct, it must answer on stylistic grounds. Amandajm (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: several edits have been included in the Google translation, for the sake of clarity. Amandajm (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Allessandro il Moro by Cristofano dell'Altissimo

The Duke Lorenzo by Cristofano dell'Altissimo, copied from a portrait by Raphael

Inscription on the back of pic of the Lucan portrait, with serifs and a little tilde between the words

When this painting first came to light, Alessandro Vezzosi, Director of the Museo Ideale Leonardo da Vinci at Vinci, proposed an attribution to Cristofano dell'Altissimo. (ERRATA: this attribution, published in the press, was not made by Vezzosi. See his comments below. Amandajm (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC))

Has the painting been properly investigated in the light of other works by this artist? If not, why not?

Similarities include:

size and format
base and medium
position of figure
relation of head and body, ie. turned at same angle (unlike Leonardo's practice and advice)
3/4 face with eyes toward viewer
the expression of the eyes, despite the fact that they are very different shapes and colours
the slightly pursed mouth with a very well-defined point to the centre of the upper lip (characteristic of Cristofano's portraits), shadow that defined the upper lip as concave on either side of the bow. (characteristic of Cristofano's painting of mouths and the opposite to the convex curves of the upper lips painted by Leonardo), the sharp definition of the underlip.

The "kissy" quality of the Lucan Leonardo lips is apparent in almost every portrait Cristofano painted, regardless of whether it is a beautiful youth with a full African mouth, a handsome duke, a thin-lipped old patriarch, a gay philosopher or a fat Pope with an underslung lower law.

Amandajm (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is useful information which I might use, and I wonder if you kept more details? I can see a hint that Cristofano may have copied from the Lucan, but don't know if the various lip shapes are distinctive enough to be classified in this way. I hope so! The resolution of the pictures here isn't high enough to make a judgement. I think the Lucan lips are distinctive because of the shape of the dark line separating them, suppose that this is true across all lip pictures, and am looking for a computer imaging specialist who could load all lip images into a programme which could sort them out. Or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murray menzies (talk • contribs) 05:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note: Everything that is written here by me is personal opinion. That is why it is on the discussion page, not in the article. In the article, I have presented the facts that the dating of the board, and the examination of the fingerprints make the attribution a possibility. However, I don't consider the matter proven. I cannot write that it is a Leonardo. It is best to be cautious.

Amandajm (talk) 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed somewhat fanciful Personal Research by self, to personal talk page Amandajm (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Important questions

1. How many paintings of Leonardo are there which have the same format as the Lucan portrait and the one belonging to the Uffizi. Where are the others? Have they all been compared with the Lucan portrait?

Don't know, probably not.

Because of the similarity of the two pictures, it is possible that they were both based on another (the "original").

No. The definitive Sfumato of the Lucan indicates Leonardo did not copy from another painting, and the Uffizi, at least, does not copy the sfumato. they are quite different

There is no definitive sfumato. The blurry painting of the beard doesn't constitute sfumato.

2. Has anyone asked the question: "Who is the creator of the Lucan portrait of Leonardo"? It appears to me (please tell me if I am wrong) that no-one has asked this question, since Vezzosi made his attribution to Cristofano dell'Altissimo. (ERRATA: attribution, quoted in the press, was not made by Vezzosi, according to his statement below Amandajm (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC))

People who know Leonardo's work do not have to ask

Response This is a very glib answer! The fact is that "people who know Leonardo's work" are not in agreement. There are several paintings over which there has never been agreement.

I don't think it is fair to describe my many comments as being "glib", and I don't think anyone of note considers The Musician to be a Leonardo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murray menzies (talk • contribs) 06:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that the only question that has been asked is "We have an attribution to Leonardo. How can we make solid that attribution?"

This is a statement and a question, both of which have affirmative answers, but it is not the ONLY question, as there are hundreds of other questions which now need answering. Questions now have to pass through a system of triage, where questions showing potential displace those which will only waste time.

3. Who are the interested parties who will benefit by "proving" that it is a self-portrait?

Those who like following Leonardo things and the owners/proprietors of the painting

4. Who are the "disinterested experts" who will benefit nothing, and what do those experts say? Amandajm (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a contradiction in terms because "Disinterested experts" do not exist. , and because this area of knowledge is only 2 years old with new information still pouring in, one has to be up-to-date with relevent information be be 'expert'.

By "disinterested" I am not referring to whether or not one feels a degree of intellectual excitement about the possibility of the painting being a genuine Leonardo. Every art historian would love nothing better than be the discover of an unknown Leonardo or Michelangelo, and every gallery would love to own or display one. The public, of course, love anything to do with Leonardo, (Dan Brown knew that!) and the thought that a self-portrait might be lying neglected on a shelf is most exciting to the average person.

But there are other people out there who, like myself, have a fierce intellectual interest in anything that might look like, or purport to be, or be attributed as a work by Leonardo. I have absolutely nothing to gain here, except the possible satisfaction of knowing that the right questions have been asked, that the right comparisons have been made, and that people who are exceedingly familar with Leonardo's manner of painting have indeed been called in to look at the picture, before it is publicly pronounced a Leonardo. For me, the discrepancies between this and the known (or generally attributed) works, in format, medium, posture of the figure, lack of sfumato on the face, treatment of the features, etc, all generate questions that have not been answered.

It seems to me that you need to find someone familiar enough with Leonardo's work to know the "Paris" and "London" versions of the "Virgin of the Rocks" use the same cartoon, but are differentiated by the 'expensive' sfumato effect over the entire "Paris" painting, and the total lack of sfumato in the cheap court-orderd "London" replacement copy.

When you find such a person, you could show them the Lucan painting, point out the non-Jesus face in the smoke-obscured beard, and ask for an opinion. You might be able to get funding from the psychology department of a local university to conduct tests on an unsuspecting public...........! 202.180.123.144 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sfumato: It's not quite like that..... the reason why the Louvre picture looks smoky all over is that it is smoky all over. The National Gallery painting is not. The difference is a matter of policy. The policy at the National Gallery is to clean paintings. The policy at the Louvre is to leave them looking like brownish-yellow "Old Masters". In other words, one looks at the Leonardos in the Louvre through layers of candle smoke and old varnish. If and when the painting in the Louvre is cleaned, it will come up looking more similar to that in the National Gallery than it does now, but rather brighter in its colouration.

>> The foolish paragraph above is so totally wrong that the institutions would probably bring an action against Wiki if it was poublished. You apparently have an individual adgenda to destroy all proper information on Leonardo and his Lucan painting. What you have stated above cannot be justified in any way, and you don't seem to have bothered to even consult a dictionary on the meaning of 'sfumato' after I corrected your usage. What is the point of your seeking specialist advice if you then disregard it in favour of some cut and paste rubbish from who knows where? Does Wiki have a established complaints procedure I can use against your actions? <<<

Let me be more specific. There has been a definite difference in the approaches to cleaning of the two institutions over the last half century or so. During that period the Louvre approached the radical cleaning of paintings with a great deal of caution. With modern investigative techniques, they are reconsidering the policy. However, they cleaned one Leonardo, Virgin and Child and St Anne during the 90s (if I remember rightly) and provoked outrage. The National Gallery, London, has had a long policy of cleaning the old gunk off paintings, sometimes to the upset of people who expect "Old Masters" to be brownish-yellow. Amandajm (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

>>Yes, yes, yes, BUT the Paris version is PAINTED so the identity of the figures is obscured in a smokey haze. The cleaner you make it, the smokier it would look. The London version is a cheap non-sfumato replacement copy ordered by the court 25-odd years after Leonardo refused to hand over the original. Simple observation proves the point, and you could post the relevant pictures very easily.<<

In "Leonardo" terms, "sfumato" refers to mainly to his treatment of the shadows on flesh. >> Perhaps you are thinking of Chiaroscuro? The term sfumato is peculair to Leonartdo's work and translates as smoky You do not seem to have even a high school grasp of things Leonardo << His manner of treating shadows on flesh was different to that used by any painter before him. This treatment is apparent in both the "Virgin of the Rocks" pictures. >>In criticism at this level you should not say things like was different to that used by any painter before him. when it is known he learned these tecniques from Andrea Verrocchio.<< It was much imitated by his followers, particularly Boltraffio, Luini and Marco d'Oggioni. Amandajm (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Disputes and complaints

I was questioned above as to how an editor should go about complaining about me to Wkipedia.

If you want to lodge a complaint about material that I have contributed to the article or to this talk page, then go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for directions as to what is appropriate action and how to go about it.

Let me point out:

that I have been diligent in sourcing the content of the article wherever possible
that Wikipedia requires a balanced point of view. I have tried to present this.
that I have made corrections to the article as requested on the talk page, even when that information came first-hand and contradicted written sources (including a statement by Vezzosi printed above)
that I have facilitated all your arguments by continually formatting your responses
that I have formatted and clarified some very confusing Google translations from the Italian, which you have presented in argument, (eg the confusing Cristofano Most High to Cristofano dell'Altissimo).
I have indeed removed material that you have placed on the article page and put it on the discussion page, but only because it either breached copyright or was unsupported speculation. There is no written evidence to support to your theories about the ghost, the kiss and the desire of the artist for the viewer to turn the board around. You cannot write that sort of opinion into an article unless it has been published by another party. Then it must be quoted as a theory, not stated as a fact.

If and when you decide to go to seek dispute resolution, I will present these above facts.

Please use two colons to indent you replies. I am getting tired of having to reformat every response you make, in order to make it clearly readable by other editors. Amandajm (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Response 1

Gentile Amandajm, grazie per il suo immediato intervento e per la correttezza dei suoi scritti. Ritengo che ora sia stata riportata una buona e giusta visione dei fatti e delle cose. Buon lavoro e grazie!

Nicola Barbatelli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.144.207 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Grazie! Amandajm (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Response 2

Please understand that I have nothing but admiration for your work with Wiki, It is neat, well presented and usually well researched. A lot of the points you raise are perfectly valid, and Wiki MUST go through just such a process. I have enjoyed having to reach into deep recesses to provide answers. Several times I have had to create new explanations for old ideas, and these new explanations will find a way into my book MATRIX at its next revision. Thank you!.

The reason I came to Wiki in the first place was to deposit a lot of new work on Leonardo into the archives, but I didn't get past the Leonardo picture of some old man you use at the masthead of the Leonardo Section. I am not putting my work on a site with such an unprofessional attitude. I understand that acres of 'pulp' publications use this iconic picture, and I suppose it's as good as any if there is no proper picture available and you have nothing to say, but now that we have a real self-portrait there is no longer any need to continue this practise.

It's been painful dealing with the shortage of information caused by the newness of the picture and the fact that nearly all the written material is in Italian language, but nevertheless we now have enough supporting material to prove the case, apparently without dispute from anyone except yourself.

The problem I have with you is that you can't fault the Lucan by any kind of logic or knowledge, and are now resorting to what I see as lies to prevent me expressing some relevant piece of data or research. Claiming the sfumato element of the Paris Virgin of the Rocks is due to it not being cleaned is just silly in one aspect, but 'criminal' if you are using this to prevent proper comprehension of something else.

I see that you still list the Lucan as being "of the School of Leonardo". Why havn't you corrected this already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murray menzies (talk • contribs) 03:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Murray, concerning the Louvre Virgin of the Rocks, it does indeed appear to be altogether more soft and feathery in its brushstrokes than the London version. But what I tell you is also true, that the overall "smokiness" is due in part to the physical state of the painting ie. its old layers of varnish. And what I tell you about Leonardo's application of sfumato firstly and most significantly to shadows on flesh remains true.
Your charges of "criminal" intention are, frankly, ridiculous and extremely insulting. I am certainly not "using it to prevent proper comprehension of something else".
The point that I continue to try to make, and which you continue to fail to grasp is that having the beard painted in a blurry manner (call it "sfumato" if you must, but I would not misappropriate the word for that purpose) is meaningless if the eyes, mouth, nose and hollow of the cheek show no sfumato whatsoever.
Leonardo, first and foremost, applied sfumato to subtely model the flesh. It is because of this characteristic that a number of works, later determined to be by followers, were attributed in the 19th century (or earlier) to Leonardo. This "smokiness" was extended in other paintings. When the Mona Lisa is cleaned (if this is indeed going ahead) we will see a good example.

The Lucan Leonardo lacks this subtlety of sfumato in the face, regardless of what you might see in the beard.

The blurry ghostlike face is really not a very convincing example of sfumato. I was examining a large cloudscape today and discovered the face of God in the middle and the face of the Devil on the left. Both, I assure you, are convincing faces, that of God resembling Michelangelo's dynamic Creator, yet neither was placed in the painting intentionally. This sort of thing just happens.

As I have pointed out to you before, people are genetically programmed to see faces, wherever one is even dimly suggested. (Hence the appearance of Jesus in communion wafers, broken tiles and burnt toast.) The fact that those smears and shadows in the beard register on you as a face means nothing in the attribution of this painting to Leonardo. The appearance is almost certainly unintentional.

And even supposing the face was just as intentionally contrived as the skull in Holbein's Ambassadors, it would certainly not be indicative of Leonardo's work. Exactly the oppsite. Leonardo was obsessively a scientific observer and recorder. The notion that he would paint a ghost into a beard conflicts with everything that we know about him, and is a counter-indication of the attribution. I am astounded that none of your Italian associates have told you this.

Amandajm (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Boring fact

When the Maori native population of New Zealand entered into a Treaty with Queen Victoria's colonising British, the founding documents between the Maori and the British were signed by Queen Victoria, whose name then entered the Maori language as "Wiki". Nowaday's Maori language is smattered with references to "Wiki" in the names of schools &c., and I know two black dogs, each named Wiki; Victoria as their lady owners explain.Murray menzies (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the trivia, Murray! I will add it to my store.
Please, when you add your comment, leave my signature near my comment, instead of putting your comment between my comment and my signature. I don't want to sound beastly about this, but I do feel a certain degree of ownership about my signature and I really don't want to come here and find it under your comments! Selfish, I'm sure.
Your communication, above, was eaten, as requested, and I almost choked..... Amandajm (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate

The scientific proof that the Lucan portrait is actually a self-portrait rather than a portrait by another hand is very simple; The lower half of the panel consists entirely of a masterful display of a non-jesus face concealed in sfumato. No one apart from Leonardo could have painted this, thus making the attribution immediate and certain.

This statement, added to the painting today, is entirely the personal opinion of the person who added it. Amandajm (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Original research and Personal opinion

Murray Menzies, I have already tried at length to explain that you cannot put your own Original Research and Personal Opinion into this article, regardless of how strongly you may hold the opinion or how many arguments you may find to support it.

The bottom line is that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style does not permit you to publish your personal research on this site.

Amandajm (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

When Wikipedia gets ridiculous

This page is just ridiculous and it makes clear how WP fails when a lack of knowledge by the middle user in a field (in this case Art) allows illogical hypotesis, like the attribution of horrible paintings to super-star masters, just for the purpouse of raising its value. This paintings is CLEARLY a low quality copy of the Uffizi portrait which is widely known as a 19th century false (crosta). So this is a crosta of a crosta. And it's a larger shame that this page was allowed to figure in the MAIN PAGE!! Shame of en.wiki!! --Sailko (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely not leonardo's, it should be removed from the list of his paintings. --Sailko (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Change name of article?

The article is called Lucan Portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, as if there's no doubt of this, but in fact it's far from certain. It should be retitled simply Lucan Portrait. PiCo (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT STATUS OF THE LUCAN PORTRAIT OF LEONARDO

My apologies, but I have supplied Wiki with the wrong image of the Lucan painting. The image in the public domain shows leonardo with a white feather in his hat, whereas the image I supplied has had the feather removed, thus making it a new artwork with the usual Museo Antiche delle Genti di Lucania copyright constraints, and I should not have supplied it. I no longer have a copy of the image with a feather, but I think there is one in Commons which can be used. Whatever, please remove the picture not displaying a feather, thanks. Murray menzies (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Amandajm (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thinks Amanda - a very suitable choice of piccy! I've done a 2,650 word article on the Lucan for publication, and have most of the 'names' mentioned somewhere. I would like to include Amandajm - maybe in association with lip shape?; --"Wiki's amandajm studied the Lucan's unusual lip shape and believes Cristofano Altissimo used it sometimes/often/always? in his own portrait paintings." I've made an advance in understanding how the 'raked angle' thing works, and it's VERY simple, but I'm not going to tell so you'll have to figure it out for yourself. Clue; Pretend you are Leonardo standing in front of the painting, and write PINXIT MEA on it so it looks the same ... I have an odd relationship with the Italians since their Skype Book Launch - see their web site for a picture of the cover - but suppose it will all work out in the end.202.180.123.144 (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Murray menzies (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Two things:

The pic with the feather was the best I could find, but has lettering underneath so could also be copyright. If you could possibly upload a version that doesn't have the lettering, it would be good.

>>I've uploaded the best picture I have to Commons (I still don't know how to do it directly!)if you could wriggle it please. mm

Please do not quote Amandajm in any statement that implies that Cristofano imitated the shape of the lips in the Lucan portrait (ie copied from Leonardo). That would be very very far from my opinion. My opinion is that the shape of the lips in the Lucan portrait is a very strong indicator for an attribution to Cristofano dell'Altissimo. Please do not misquote (or misrespresent) my opinion. Amandajm (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

>>I'd sent the text to Italy for correction &c and it came back with a few 'names' which wern't there before, but were obviously people who should be recognised as team members during the discovery. Fair enough, but I think your stirring up had more to do with the new discoveries than anything else and I wanted to put your name in somewhere to give some recognition and thanks, but this might be awkward ... mm

I'll look for your new pic and put it in. Amandajm (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

>>I found the picture at "leonardo da vinci lucan painting" while waiting for a publisher's response to my article... Murray menzies (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Carlo Pedretti's opinion

After having Pedretti cited in this article as saying the work was a "self-portrait", I checked the source.

I just read Carlo Pedretti's introduction to the book cited, by Hohenstatt and Barbatelli.

Pedretti says:

that the picture may be the one on which the Uffizi portrait is based.
that the picture raises interesting questions, particularly in relation to the inscription and the feather
that it is gratifying that two municipalities funded the research

Carlo Pedretti does not state that he believes the work to be a self-portrait.

In fact, he avoids the subject of attribution very cleverly.

You cannot state that Carlo Pedretti has identified this work as a Leonardo, unless you can quote the sentence in which he actually does this.

I can only read what is online, and there are more pages. But I presume that they are by Hohenstatt and Barbatelli, as these are the authors of the book. The only writing by Pedretti to which there is access skilfully avoids the question of whether it is a "self"-portrait. He cannot be misquoted on this, just because he contributed to a book in which someone else states that the work is a "self-portrait".

Amandajm (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Amanda,

who are you to say that the Lucan portrait of Leonardo is not authentic? what are your scientific skills? What have you written about Leonardo? What have you ever published on Leonardo? About what you are going against Hohenstatt? Did you study ANCIENT ART? Which your studies?

The possibility attribution writes Hohensttat, you think he's stupid? Who are you to deny everything? why do not you explain this to us? are competent on leonardo? I repeat, what you wrote about Leonardo? Which scientific pubblication excluded this attribution? Where are this? Where you found this news?

Are you the Wikipedia's owner??? I can think this... This isn't your toy, do you know this?

Appearance ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.139.121 (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoever you are, you have only to read this talk page to understand a little about my knowledge of Leonardo.

The point remains: You cannot quote Carlo Pedretti as stating a particular opinion when he did not state that opinion.

The fact remains that the "Lucan portrait of Leonardo" is not generally accepted as Leonardo's work. Now several years have passed and no additional "Leonardo experts" have supported the position of Hohenstatt.

Alessandro Vezzosi has publicly withdrawn his support for the attribution (if indeed, he ever supported it, which I much doubt).

Pedretti and Vezzosi have both said, in different ways, that the painting is interesting because it raises new questions and perhaps offers new information on the subject of Leonardo. I will add a quotation from Pedretti to this effect.

Now that the Hohenstatt/Barbatelli book is published, it should be mentioned in the text of the article. I will also make an edit to that effect.

However, you cannot possibly state that the work was painted by Leonardo, in any encyclopedic article. All you can do is state that some people believe it to be by Leonardo, and state their names. The reader can judge for themselves whether they want to be convinced by the enthusiastic statements made by the man who found the unknown work, or the tepid statements made by experts who are not quite so closely involved.

The painting has its own significance. It is a previously-unknown late 15th or early 16th century portrait of Leonardo. It relates in different ways to the other portraits of Leonardo. It may throw light on the Uffizi portrait. All these things make the painting significant.

If it really was a self-portrait, then that would be wonderful. But very few people believe that it is. So, we have to be content to say, like Vezzosi and Pedretti, that it is "intriguing" and "interesting" and "adds to the puzzle".

Amandajm (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that nothing you've ever written about leonardo... Too bad I imagined that you were a scholar, but you are just an amateur. If I understand correctly, wikipedia is in the hands of amateurs who decide the fate of the encyclopedia. Wonderful!

okay ....

So I would like to understand how you can write an article on Wiki: it is based on sources or on fantasies? or it is based on your opinions? There aren't documents in this article that talk about scholars as Dasvid Bershad, Alessandro Tomei, Jan Royt, and more others very famous scholars, while you carry-'s opinion Vezzosi ... That's great, you're really democratic. It seems to be in a regime of dictatorship: if someone tries to write to the contrary, you democratically gates, fantastic! The studies about the Lucan Portrait were led by great scholars and you insist with Vezzosi!Do you know who Vezzosi? All right. I'll explain. He is the director of a small private museum (his owned) in Vinci, where every so often deals with Leonardo, recently attributed to Leonardo a copy of the Mona Lisa in Switzerland, and before some horrible paintings never seen by anyone .... That's who Vezzosi.

But now we see how it is true that you are democratic, and most importantly, what headlights after my writing:

We make a good game

The Leonardo scholars are the ones who publish in the LETTURA VINCIANA, the others are considered outsiders, amateurs fact. But get to the point:

About Pedretti, he writes: "New start", him write and does not exclude the self-portrait! if he would have, he would said that is not leonardo's it! Pedretti opened a discussion on the possibility of attribution. The book then has the introduction by the President of Camera of Deputate and the President of Senato of the Italian Republic. They never believed Vezzosi: this is the estimate of Vezzosi in Italy.... Nothing, zero. So for the Italian scholars he does not exist, is not considered. Here with you, him become God! Wonderful...

There are sources that now I write, and I hope you can cite, only because I believe in your democraticity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsrBj7kO-JE; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfb-AU_63Io&list=PL50130AA23242B9C0&index=2&feature=plpp_video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLoCl57DPo4

Here there is Hohenstatt, and Bershad, one of the world's experts of Leonardo, He wrote for the Reading Vinciana and is respected all over the world ... But I am sure that you will publish those news, right? Because you are democratic, right? You are solely responsible here ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZvQ_A-HyeY&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjwzFB3-_jM&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLnCspFHEdQ&feature=relmfu

Even these highly esteemed scholars, says the authenticity of the painting ... But I imagine that you, Amanda dear, I do not know nothing about this news... right? yeah, right, I'm sorry I forgot... you know only Vezzosi. Is him the your God...

Still in favor of the attribution are two other important art historians:

1) Prof. Alessandro Tomei, Director of the Department of History of Art at the University of Chieti, his publications are 200. He is' famous around the world for his great expertise on ancient painting: Here you can found some of his pubblications:http://www.google.it/search?q=alessandro+tomei&aq=f&oq=alessandro+tomei&sugexp=chrome,mod=12&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=alessandro+tomei&aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod%3D12&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=it&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&ei=aSmeUMHXJY7bsgbNlYAw&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=20e54f191d106a33&bpcl=38093640&biw=1366&bih=643 But forgot sorry, dear Amanda, Tomei for you do not exist, sorry sorry... For you exist only Vezzosi, yes, sorry... ; 2) Prof. Maria Cristina Paoluzzi, Art historian specializing and PHD in Baroque and Renaissance painting and modern art history, teaches at the University of Chieti and at Bocconi University in Milan. Since 1994 he works for the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and accompanied personality International visiting Rome, including Sonia Gandhi, President Gorbachev and the Bush family.

This is their book about Lucan Self Portrait: Leonardo e il Rinascimento fantastico. Authors: A. Tomei, M.C. Paoluzzi, N. Barbatelli http://books.google.it/books?id=ZRKrtPSBbxUC&pg=PA98&dq=nicola+barbatelli&hl=it&sa=X&ei=HCueUID8Ec_TsgaQzoHoAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

In all these books the painting is recognized self-portrait.

http://books.google.it/books?id=AddMYgEACAAJ&dq=nicola+barbatelli&hl=it&sa=X&ei=6yGeUPS1GcnKsgb544DQDA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg http://books.google.it/books?id=ZRKrtPSBbxUC&pg=PA98&dq=nicola+barbatelli&hl=it&sa=X&ei=6yGeUPS1GcnKsgb544DQDA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.it/books?id=HYJXPgAACAAJ&dq=alessandro+vezzosi+agnese+sabato&hl=it&sa=X&ei=XSKeUOeMI87itQaSw4H4Dg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA http://books.google.it/books?id=tO0nwLcN6rEC&dq=Diagnosis+for+the+Conservation+and+Valorization+of+Cultural+Heritage&hl=it&sa=X&ei=qiKeUNHdBNDgtQagjYCgDA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA

Please, for democraticity now you write here the list, where are the books that say otherwise the attribution. I am talking about sources. Do you Understand? Obviously the correct answer, right? You warrant that all here, right? you are an authority here! you're the our God here!

In conclusion, here is the list of scholars in favor of the attribution :

Prof. Carlo Pedretti (but slightly agree, but still waiting) Prof. David Berhad (University of Calgary) Prof. Alessandro Tomei (University of Chieti) Prof. Jan Royt: http://www.ktf.cuni.cz/ktf-94.html (University of Prague, in Prague see the Schedule of the exhibition to Zbiroh Castle, on January 2012) Prof. Peter Hohenstatt (University of Parma) Prof. Maria Cristina Paoluzzi (University of Chieti and Milan) Prof. Prof. Orest Kormashov (university of Tallinn)

I'm sorry if there are few, but they are all very important in the world ... Too bad that now you have only Vezzosi .... and now? you wrote "some believe a self-portrait," leaving readers to believe that the Barbatelli there is no other ...This is terrible!

Now, for democracy, So at this point, you will have to write in the caption:

Author: Leonardo da Vinci (attributed) dates: 1505-1508.

You represent an encyclopedia and you have to respect the rules, the right and correct and not your personal opinions.

This is an present for you: Here are the photographs of the painting to the Vittoriano Museum with the President of the Italian Republic Giorgio Napolitano:

http://www.museoleonardiano.altervista.org/Regioni%20e%20Testimonianze%20d%27Italia.htm

Now for honesty, change this article, otherwise I will have to report your behavior to Wikipedia and the supervisory authorities online.

Thank!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.139.121 (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The painter of the Lucan portrait of Leonardo

Leonardo da Vinci said: “There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.”

Believe it or not, there are a great number of Art Historians out there who do not see. They study history from books, they read the writings of other Art Historians, they do effective research which may discover new and enlightening facts, they may write very influential Art Histories that are well-expressed and full of valuable information. But none of this means that they see.

There are the other group of people that Leonardo mentions, those who see when they are shown. These people can often be misled, when they are "shown" by someone who has an agenda to convince people. If you say to these people "Do you see the fuzzy way the beard has been painted? That is Leonardo's sfumato!" They believe because they have been told. They believe because they do see the fuzziness, and trust when they are told that this indicates the work of the master. Many people see what they want to see. If you tell them that this is a Leonardo self-portrait, they say "Wow! How wonderful!" and believe it to be as beautiful as the Mona Lisa. It is not hard to convince people to see what they want to see, when they are inexperienced in the subject.

On the other hand, there are many people who see very well. Some of these people are indeed Art Historians. If they do not jump onto the platform beside you, then it is because they are seeing this portrait very differently. Nothing that you say will convince them. You can tell Martin Kemp, (for example) a thousand times that this is a Leonardo self-portrait, and you will never succeed in convincing him, because he will continue to trust his own eye, which must tell him otherwise. If Vezzosi does not agree, it is because his eye tells him otherwise. If Pedretti has not jumped on the platform and shouted "Eureka! You have found a Leonardo self-portrait!" then it is because his eye tells him otherwise. There are very good reasons why these people are being so cautious.

I invite you to look further down this page at the galleries of pictures that I have pasted here. (They already exist, further up the page)

If you are one of those "seeing" people to which Leonardo referred, then you will see the truth for yourself, without my spelling it out.
If you are one of the second group of people, who can see what you are shown, then read my analysis and comparisons of the Lucano portrait with the works by Leonardo and the works by Cristofano dell' Altissimo. If you can clear your mind of what you want to believe, then perhaps you will see more truly, through guidance.
If you still cannot see, then you obviously fall into the third group that Leonardo mentioned. Take the collection of works reproduced on this page. Go ask Professors Berhad, Tomei, Royt, Hohenstatt, Paoluzzi and Kormashov to explain to you why it is that the Lucan Leonardo looks so very much as if it is the work of Cristfano dell' Altissimo, and does not closely resemble any work by Leonardo in treatment, form, shading, symbolism, structure, layering of paint etc etc.

Finally, don't threaten me over what I have not written.

if you want the opinions of the other authors to be included in this article, then you have every opportunity (like the rest of humanity) to find a person who writes good English, is prepared to do the research into the different publications, who knows how to format Wikipedia references etc (this is not difficult). Don't any of your sources or contacts write competent, researched English? I was under the impression that an American journalist was involved in the initial publicity of this work.
I repeat, you cannot quote Carlo Pedretti (or any other expert) as having written something that he did not write, or as having agreed with something that he has not made a written or recorded statement about.
I am surprised that you are so rude about Alessandro Vezzosi. I thought that he was the first "expert" that was contacted, when the painting was found!

Proper references

You have provided a list of links to books that are partly accessible online.
Those parts which can be read are mostly by those people who are not "disinterested" i.e. Nicola Barbatelli who has an obvious interest in proving a case for this being a Leonardo.
Carlo Pedretti has been cited in the article as attributing the painting to Leonardo. This was either a misrepresentation or an error on behalf of the person who added that information. Pedretti has not confirmed that he attributes this work to Leonardo.
So, who can be directly quoted on this subject?

What I am saying here is:

if you say that Bershad supports the attribution, then find a quote from Beshad
if you say that Hohenstatt supports the attribution, then find a quote from Hohenstatt
if you say that Tomei supports the attribution, then find a quote from Tomei
if you say that Paoluzzi supports the attribution, then find a quote from Paoluzzi
if you say that Royt supports the attribution, then find a quote from Royt
if you say that Kormashov supports the attribution, then find a quote from Kormashov

Because Pedretti was misquoted, and because other experts have been cited without being directly quoted it is necessary, for the integrity of the article, that you source some direct quotes. Who has actually stated that they attribute the work to Leonardo? When you have found these direct quotes, or good quotable sources, they can be included.

The scientific evidence confirms that the painting may date from Leonardo's lifetime or shortly after. None of the scientific evidence proves or leads to a conclusion that the painting is the work of Leonardo.

The evidence that has been presented, upon scientific analysis, is:

that the wooden panel dates from the late 15th/early 16th century,
that the chemistry of the paint in compatible with this date (except for the feather)
that the painting has a fingerprint similar to other inconclusive fingerprints from Leonardo's painting. The fingerprint (if I recall correctly) is like one which appears of the Lady with the Ermine which we know to have been extensively overpainted at a later date. As I have already said, smearing paint with fingers was a technique which Leonardo employed and was therefore probably used by all his students and followers. The fingerprints, even on the most-accepted works by Leonardo, are not necessarily those of the man himself.

To have strong evidence that the painting is by Leonardo, it must stand up to rigorous scrutiny by people who are not simply writers of Art History, but people who are respected for their critical aesthetic judgement.
To satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia, you need to provide the right verifiable sources, because your statements are being seriously challenged. Provide the appropriate cited quotations from experts, and I, or some other writer will include them.
If you wish your case for the attribution to carry real conviction, then find an examination and an analysis, by a renowned expert, that is based upon style. Then get your expert to answer the questions raised in the two galleries below. This is not essential for Wikipedia, but it would certainly carry weight. At the present minute, anyone who looks at the two galleries below, and who has the eye to see, will be judging for themselves.

Amandajm (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)