UC Irvine computer scientist professors Michael Goodrich, Shuang Zhao and doctoral student Marco (Zhanhang) Liang used this method to simulate light in the scene that is depicted in the painting. The new paper brings a method called physically based rendering to the question. Art historians have been arguing for decades about what the orb was made of and whether Da Vinci deliberately painted it inaccurately.
Christ's robes appear undistorted behind the glass.ĭa Vinci was an avid student of optics and likely wouldn't have made that mistake carelessly. But a solid orb would magnify and invert the image of anything behind it due to the refraction of light, and the orb in the painting doesn't do that. The orb held by Christ contains a few painted sparkles that look like inclusions within a solid sphere or crystal. In 2017, a Saudi prince bought the painting at auction for a record-breaking $450 million.Įmbedded within the painting is a persistent mystery. It wasn’t until 2011 - after professional conservators got ahold of the painting and repaired sloppy conservation work that had built up over the years - that art experts reassessed the "Salvator Mundi" and realized that it was likely painted by da Vinci himself. The trail of the painting then goes cold until 1900, when it was resold not as an original da Vinci, but as the work of one of the master’s students. In 1660, he returned the artwork to Charles II, the son of Charles I who retook the throne that year.
Charles I was executed in 1659 after a civil war, and in 1651 a mason named John Stone purchased the painting. It probably dates to around 1500 and was acquired by Charles I of England at some point in the 1600s. The "Salvator Mundi" is a painting with a dramatic past. "The paper of the sphere is just one of many examples of scientists making ill-judged interventions in Leonardo studies based on ignorance of the sources," da Vinci scholar Martin Kemp, an emeritus professor of the history of art at the University of Oxford's Trinity College, wrote in an email to Live Science.
0 kommentar(er)
