lets look at the experts supporting
Sebastian Thewes, an ex-director of Christie's in Scotland said he believed that da Vinci, considered the greatest human mind who has ever lived, had a hand in the painting.
Other experts have stated that the painting is at the very least from the da Vinci school.
Professor Carlo Pedretti from the University of California said he thought it was by a Leonardo da Vinci pupil of a later generation, possibly the 16th century.
There are a few names dropped in this article, but no direct quotes. Rather unusual for experts consulted on something so potentially important to the art world not
to go on record in their own words. Sounds to me like there's been some rather generous paraphrasing by Ms. McLaren provided to spice up the story.
This is the most telling bit for me, the clincher that tells me this is much ado about nothing: Mr Robertson took the work to London for further testing by specialists on old masters and next year the painting will be closely inspected by experts at the Hamilton Kerr Institute at the University of Cambridge, where it should be dated conclusively.
"Next year"...? If anyone of any consequence in the art world had the slightest inkling that this piece might be an authentic Leonardo or the work of one of his pupils, they'd be all over this thing right now
. Calendars would be cleared and current projects delayed to make room and focus all attention on this piece here and now
I mean, come on - Carlo Pedretti? If he even thought this might
be a piece from the School of Leonardo I can pretty much guarantee it would be at the Armand Hammer right now undergoing extensive analysis under Pedretti's direction and supervision, not "on hold" with art conservationists (?) who'll get around to looking at it some time next year.
The Pope decreed the Virgin Mary should be illustrated in blue whereas Mary Magdalene had to be shown in red attire, as depicted in this painting.
That is such BS! More Starbird fallacious inventions to sustain weak claims! Blessed Virgin Mary and her blue garmentsWhy does Mary always wear light blue?
Well, she doesn't.
"The older, classic and more representative color is dark blue," according to the Rev. Johann Roten, S.M, director of the Marian Library-International Marian Research Institute at the University of Dayton. "Mary's dark blue mantle, from about 500 A.D., is of Byzantine origin and is the color of an empress."
Blue has stayed in vogue, but red has also become a prominent color for Mary as represented by artists since the 10th century. Blue calls to mind the color of the skies (which is not only limited to light blue), and red is the color of kings, Roten says. "However, there are a great variety of blues and other colors for Mary," he says. "For example, Flemish painters prefer blue, while German painters have a preference for red."
Regarding Mary represented with a red mantle:
As to the red mantle worn by Our Lady -- this isn't so rare either. Rogier van der Weyden, Hans Memling, Lucas Cranach, Geertgen tot sin Jans, Jan van Eyck but also sometimes Eastern iconography (mosaic, Chora monastery, 14th c) shows Mary cloaked in a red mantle. True, the classical tradition shows her with a red robe and a blue mantle as for example almost all Raphael Madonnas and those inspired by Raphael (Nazarenes). The red color in iconography points (early on) to nobility and elevated state, and conveys sometimes in northern Renaissance, in particular, an anticipation of suffering and passion, especially when related to the devotion of the heart as seems to be the case with the Christ image.
Marian artist Beverly Stoller works from her "Theotokos" art studio in Fairfield, Conn. She says a recent interest in iconography has led her to discover a new color scheme for Mary, based on historical representation in icons. Icons of Mary often show her wearing a greenish-blue inner garment with a red outer garment, Stoller says.
the carnation is a sign of Marriage
Among other things, depending on the color. But in medieval and renaissance art it symbolizes the all-seeing eye of God. It is frequently seen in portraits of the Madonna and Child, there is nothing unusual or unique about it.
Florida University-based Michael E Abrams said the picture was 'brimming with sensuality' with the artist taking a tremendous risk of being burned at the stake for heresy after the Pope was re-established in Rome.
Michael E. Abrams of Florida A&M University teaches Journalism, has an avid interest in botany (with particular interest in botanical representations in art), and would appear to be a Da Vinci Code
enthusiast. Not someone I would recommend as an art historian, with the possible exception of still life paintings of fruits and flowers.
French expert Michel Fraisset said he thought the background was the mountain of St Victoire by the city of Aix-en-Provence
It looks very much like the Montagne Sainte-Victoire. How that somehow makes this painting an authentic Leonardo seems vague.
A papal bull – an order from the pope attached to the back of the painting is another significant feature of the painting and has been confirmed as belonging to Pope Paul V who was head of the Catholic Church in the early 17th century.
Given that the first word on the document (with the scrollwork capital) does not read "PAVLVS" I'd consign that erroneous detail to the dustbin of wishful thinking. You've never seen an actual Papal bull, have you Lov? You're in good company, I'll give you that much.