Monday, 7 November 2011

A different opinion

The Virgin of the Rocks is the title of two paintings by Leonardo da Vinci, which were both displayed in 2011 in an exhibition at the National Gallery London: "Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the court of Milan".  The exhibition was inspired by the recent restoration of the National Gallery's Leonardo, the Virgin of the Rocks.

The exhibition brought together works by the renowned Renaissance master from many different galleries.    
The highlight of the exhibition was the opportunity for lovers of Leonardo's works to see together the two versions that he painted of the Virgin of the Rocks, that which belongs to the National Gallery, and that which belongs to the Louvre.

The National Gallery pre-exhibition statement about the central works in this exciting event  is directly quoted here: 
The Virgin of the Rocks from the Louvre
“Leonardo’s ‘Virgin of the Rocks’ paintings united” 
"The version at the Louvre, which is coming to London, was the first of the two compositions to be painted. Worked on between 1483 and 1486, it was the subject of a dispute about payment with the Milan confraternity which commissioned the work.  The painting is the product of Leonardo’s intense study of the natural world.  No landscape quite like it had ever been painted before.
The National Gallery's Virgin of the Rocks was painted for the confraternity as a replacement for the Louvre version, which had probably been sold during the earlier dispute. The work demonstrates a change in Leonardo’s artistic ambitions in the years around 1490. It is a composition of the most artful complexity. Displaying the paintings together will provide a unique opportunity, illuminating the painting career of Leonardo as never before."*  

The website of the Louvre Museum, in discussing the two works, describes the National Gallery's Virgin of the Rocks thus:  The second, replacement picture, now in London, may have been painted by Ambrogio de Predis under Leonardo’s supervision between 1495 and 1508. **

The Virgin of the Rocks, National Gallery

The Background

On the 25th April 1483, the Brothers of the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception commissioned Leonardo da Vinci and two assistants to provide the paintings for an altarpiece for their chapel in the church of San Francesco Grande in Milan. The commission was for a central image showing the Virgin adoring the Christ Child. Leonardo responded with a composition showing the Virgin and Child with John the Baptist and an angel set in a landscape of rugged rocks, and to become known as the Virgin of the Rocks because of this feature. At some later date a copy was made, and seemingly both are by the hand of the master.

The Mystery

How there happens to be two versions of the same painting and which is the earlier of the two are questions the answers to which are unknown and have been subject to much speculation. The two paintings are very similar but very different. They are almost the same in form, and in composition. They differ in colour, in details, in lighting and in symbolism. These differences have never been successfully accounted for.

All that is known beyond doubt is that the painting of the Virgin of the Rocks now in the Louvre was in France by 1625 and that the painting of the Virgin of the Rocks now in the National Gallery London was sold by the successors of the Confraternity to Gavin Hamilton in 1785.

A Conspiracy?

It is considered by art historians that the Virgin of the Rocks which usually hangs in the Louvre Museum is the earlier of the two and is dated at around 1483. The National Gallery's painting is believed to be copy made by the artist and assistants and to date from about the 1495 to 1508.

This theory appears to have been universally accepted even though the Virgin of the Rocks which is now in London can be identified as the one that came from Milan, where you would expect the Confraternity's painting to be, and the version in the Louvre has apparently always been in France, where Leonardo spent his last years as the guest of the French King.

In order to support the theory that the Louvre painting is the earlier, an elaborate hypothesis has been formed involving Leonardo delivering the Confraternity's painting, then removing it, selling it to a private client and painting the London version as a substitute.  None of this is supported by documentary evidence.

What is the Angel telling us?
All the evidence points clearly to the fact that the London painting is the earlier by ten years, and that the Louvre painting was created for a different client. This is supported by the documentary evidence, the stylistic evidence, the symbolic evidence, by basic mechanics and simple logic.

The notion that the Louvre Virgin of the Rocks is "the original" and the picture in the National Gallery is a copy made as a substitute has become a statement of provenance for the two artworks, and is repeated without challenge by the British custodians of the painting in the National Gallery.  The fabrication that Leonardo sold the original painting in a pique of annoyance over the the small size of the bonus awarded him has been seized by almost every ardent member of the media who has done a story on the exhibition. The hypothesis is simply accepted as fact. 
Both art historians and the media continue to build upon the hypothesis, searching for symbolism within the paintings to support various theories, while at the same time selectively ignoring iconography that indicates so clearly which painting was done for the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception and which was done for a different client entirely. 

Presented in these pages is a different answer to the questions of why the two paintings of the Virgin of the Rocks were created and which is the earlier.

* from the National Gallery website 
** from the Louvre website


Peter Macinnis said...

OK, you can colour me convinced, but then I was always a sucker for the simple explanation.

That is because I always require adequate reasons before I will plomp for the more elaborate explanation. I don't see them.

Of course, once a few scholars have taken a stand, they won't treat lightly the interloper who comes in questioning their consensus. Good luck, and more power to your elbow!

Anonymous said...

Asking questions are in fact faѕtiԁіous
thing if you are not undегstanԁіng somеthing еntirely,
but this article givеs pleasаnt understanding уet.

Feel frеe to surf tο mу webpаge - el tarot gratis

Anonymous said...

Right here iѕ the ρerfеct site fοr everуone
who rеally wantѕ to undeгstаnd this tоpiс.
Yοu know ѕo much its аlmoѕt hard to arguе wіth yοu (not that
I rеallу will need to…HaHa). Yоu definitely put a new spin оn a toρiс thаt hаѕ
been discusseԁ fοr a long tіmе.
Great stuff, ϳust great!

Feel free to νiѕit my sіtе: prud'homme

Anonymous said...

This article gives clear idea for the new visitors of blogging, that truly how to do blogging and site-building.

My website Tiesha

Unknown said...

First, we wish that the whole altarpiece, namely the narrative reliefs and carvings with the figures, except for their faces, everything should be done in fine gold to the value of 3 lire 10 soldi.
Our Lady in the middle to have her outer cloak of gold and ultramarine blue brocade.
Her dress to be of gold and crimson lake brocade, painted in oils.
The lining of her cloak to be gold and green brocade, painted in oils.
The seraphim to be done in sgraffito work with cinnabar red.
The angels should adorn the area above them, their clothes to be decorated in the Greek manner, painted in oils.
The mountains and stones to be worked in oils of different colours.
The cornices, pilasters, capitals and all the carving to be gilded as stated above, with no colour in the centre.
The panel in the middle to be painted on a flat surface with Our Lady and her Son and the angels, done in oil to perfection, with those two prophets painted on flat surfaces with fine colours as stated above.
All the faces, hands and legs that are bare should be painted in oil to perfection.

So Virgin of the Rocks, plus lots of Leonardo's artistic invention, plus even more tolerance of fraternity who ordered something different but were stunned by Leonardo and ordered the same second time around? Unlikely. But look at this one:

She matches perfectly, so does the style, so does the frame author, and time period, and it was in Emperor Rudolf II art collection, a known da Vinci freak, clear and straight foreward.

Post a Comment

Comments are welcome and will be read and should appear here within a few days.