SPECIAL EDITION

MICROSTORY OF ART ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM Art Historians and Historians

(6.12.2022) After the result of an international conference on the Leonardo-attributed Salvator Mundi seems to be that more questionable hypotheses (if not to say plainly: nonsensical, too-little-reflected hypotheses) are in circulation, the question might be here: why is that?
I am not surprised that journalists report what so-called authorities say, but it would be better, if journalists would also be prepared to question what so-called authorities say, because often, very often, what authorities say, does not stand, does not make sense, is uninformed, and again plainly: is simply rubbish.
It can be observed, in the Salvator Mundi controversy, that whatever the big museums say (or some people in the big museums) is, by principle, taken seriously, and that it is also, by principle, taken seriously what some professors say (that ought to know, but don’t). Also this is little surprising. But for anyone really familiar with the details of that controversy, it is simply obvious that what so-called authorities have contributed – authorities from the big museums as well as professors, is simply far from being first-class scholarship (and often, very often, not even third-class). And the future will show that the establishment – the sum of all authorities – had not been able to deal adequately with the questions raised by the Leonardo-attributed Salvator Mundi. The future will show that this case had to be explained and solved by people, who, then, had not been regarded as authorities, but had been able to see and to understand the interplay of art and history, and who knew something of method.
This said, I will focus on one question, one topic, that seems interesting to me: and this is the relation of art historians and historians. I have often enough criticized that art historians seem to show little awareness of method and of the rudiments of scientific culture. Be this as it may. But I am observing also that art historians do show little sense of history, little historical awareness. It has been reported that virtually all art historians assembled at a Salvator Mundi conference seem to be longing to see the painting in the flesh again. And I am asking myself, what kind of revelations, of epiphanies, do these art historians actually expect, when seeing the painting in the flesh again. And I am asking myself, if it would not be better if art historians would look into the mirror first, asking themselves, if perhaps the great Salvator Mundi confusion had and has something to do with the flaws and lacking competences of art history, the academical discipline, itself. Because what you are able to see will depend of what you know or believe to know. And if no historical awareness will exist that goes along with looking, nor any sense of method (as to attributional questions), no more insights will be won, even if everyone is able to point his/her nose into the paint layers again. So I am going to ask here, why on earth, does it not matter to have a sense of history, when dealing with questions of attribution. Because such questions, in the end, are in fact historical questions. And in the end it will be about the question, if art history is indeed not able to deal adequately with history, and if not, why is that.

One) A Historical Space: the French Monarchy in 1516-1519

As far as I can see, and up to the present day, no Leonardo-biographer ever has understood that the French king, in 1516-1519, is not only the French king, Francis I, but someone who also strived to rule the whole empire of Charlemagne, namely the Holy Roman Empire. Elections took place in 1519, and the Habsburg rival of the French king won and was to become emperor Charles V, but the years Leonardo da Vinci spent in France, the years of roughly 1516-1519, were years not only spent at the heart of the French monarchy, but at the heart of a French monarchy that was preparing to possibly take over the empire of Charlemagne. This was the strategy, and this strategy had been prepared with an alliance with the pope in 1516, so that Raphael, in 1516, could depict the French king as Charlemagne, who was crowned by the pope. In this picture Charlemagne/Francis I was holding a globe, and this globe, in this particular picture, represented the empire of Charlemagne, that the pope, in representation of Christ, had handed over to Charlemagne/Francis I.
If now we do find, at the heart of the French monarchy, a crystalline orb, as in the Leonardo-attributed Salvator Mundi painting, this find does matter, because in the historical space of the French monarchy in 1516-1519, such correspondence did matter. This orb was, can be, had to be interpreted as the empire that Christ, that the pope was to hand over, according to the strategy of the French monarchy, to the French king. And even if this did not happen, in 1519 and in the wake of these elections, it is easy at least to imagine what would have happened, if Francis I had indeed succeeded, and if Leonardo da Vinci had lived longer: we would have been provided with a portrait of emperor Francis I, holding an orb, with the orb representing the empire of Charlemagne, and this orb would exactly have looked like the orb that, in a painting at the heart of the French monarchy did look like, and as the orb in the Leonardo-attributed Salvator Mundi picture does look like. Brief: the historical context of a painting does matter, and a painting’s iconography does make sense in a historical context, and the iconography of the Salvator Mundi does make sense particularly, but actually only in the context of the years of 1516-1519, and it did make sense only for a patron like Francis I (or his mother), and hence: there is a very solid reasoning that shows that it makes sense to date that picture, placing it into a historical space where its very specific iconography does make sense. This is what I did in my book, but I am facing an art historical establishment that does not seem to be inclined to take such serious reasoning seriously, an establishment that produces and seems to accept speculative narratives, based on no solid reasoning at all, and hence I am asking myself, if art historians simply do not understand a historical reasoning, or more-precisely: a reasoning that combines historical and iconographical reflections, and hence I am asking myself, if, perhaps this is due to a lack of historical awareness, a lack of understanding what history actually is, and that it does matter – also in the context of art history.

Two) Renaissance Inquisition

Everybody does know Bernardo Gui, and everybody knows due to Umberto Eco’s novel and the film after the book. But few art historians seem to know that also and specifically at the time of the High Renaissance, there existed an inquisition, and it did not exist only virtually, but in Lombardy, very specifically, it did bloody work. There were men who can be called the Bernardo Guis of Leonardo da Vinci’s day, and in the valleys around Como hundreds of women were burned as witches (see Gerd Schwerhoff, Die Inquisition, p. 119).
In such context, and specifically in a Dominican context, which is the context in which Leonardo produced his Last Supper, it did matter how exactly Christ was represented, and if Christ was represented frontally, with a gaze that many people seem to perceive as making them feeling slightly uncomfortable today, it does make sense to ask if such representation of Christ has something to do with specifically a Dominican culture (of inquisition). Still any interpretation of the Leonardo-attributed Salvator Mundi seems to be acceptable to art historians, even if such interpretations have neither something to do with a Renaissance context, nor specifically discuss the context of Santa Maria delle Grazie. Although there is very solid reason to do exactly that and to discuss the Salvator Mundi gaze (not in relation to the Mona Lisa but) in relation to Renaissance inquisition, and in relation to Dominican culture (and inquisition). Again I am asking myself: are art historians simply inclined to ignore history in terms of historical context? And even do so in view of the most obvious reason to discuss the Salvator Mundi in relation with Santa Maria delle Grazie? Which is the picture that I have found and identified as representing the earliest trace of the whole Salvator Mundi series (even it should be a later repetition), and a trace that points, due to a date, the year of 1495 on the picture, to Santa Maria delle Grazie.

Three) What is a Narrative and Does it Matter to Know?

I consider the narrative proposed by the proponents of the autograph theory concerning the Salvator Mundi as virtually falsified: The pentimento argument is falsified not only once, but actually twice (it cannot be interpreted as indicating that the author of the painting was inventing, i.e. creating an iconography, since a) this iconography – both thumb positions – did exist in early Leonardo pictures; and b) the position of the thumb as in the pentimento in the famous Salvator Mundi is that of the Blessing Christ in the Hermitage, which has the date of 1495 on it, and many other versions that may be also earlier than the notorious Salvator Mundi version have the second thumb position, without anyone having ruled out that these versions could be earlier; thus the pentimento argument does not stand any longer, it can be ruled out of the discussion).
I am also regarding the provenance attached to the Salvator Mundi as untenable, without entering into detail here. But it is possible and even likely that the provenance is that of another picture; and the argument that Hollar saw and represented the famous Salvator Mundi version in his etching I consider to be falsified as well (and I have said why, roughly three years ago, in my Salvator Mundi Geography). This error occurred since nobody was thinking of the problem of intermediary versions, a problem that has showed much more obvious in recent times, and it occured due to bias and wishful thinking driving scholarship.
I have proposed a narrative that takes into account everything that we know, a narrative that is perfectly consistent even with what is known to be the content of the notorious Louvre booklet, but still I am facing an art historical establishment that does not seem inclined even to consider what I have proposed, although all the existing alternatives are not based on any serious reasoning, but speculative and (one has to say it: have been produced sloppily, self-referentially, and therefore also arrogantly sloppily).
One does wonder if art historians actually do know what a narrative is. It is not possible simply to produce opinions based on gut-feel, without being confronted with the question: how exactly do you place the Blessing Christ of the Hermitage into your narrative, because if you do not know how to do that, everything else said in the past ten years is simply obsolete. Irrelevant. Either you have a sense of history – which means here: being able to place all Salvator Mundi version into one narrative – or you have not, and then, why on earth anyone who has none should be regarded to be an authority? But it is authority – which has replaced any reasonable discussion. Because authority seems to simplify things. The authority has thoughts, and ought to know – everyone else has not, and is not entitled to have an opinion. But scholarship, in the end, is not about opinions of authorities, it is about solid reasonings, and if, due to a lack of historical awareness and sense of method, the whole establishment is not able to produce solid knowledge, based on solid reasonings, this establishment has to be called what it is: utterly incompetent.

Further Reading:
Michael Tavuzzi, Renaissance Inquisitors. Dominican Inquisitors and Inquisitorial Districts in Northern Italy 1474-1527, Leiden/Boston 2007 [see for example the chapter on Antonio da Casale, p. 66-68]

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM
HOME

Top of the page

Microstory of Art Main Index

Dietrich Seybold Homepage

© DS