The problem is that if a “random person on the internet” can substantially improve upon what is supposed to be a painting 100% executed by Leonardo da Vinci, than that is NOT a real da Vinci.

Left, the Salvator Mundi is supposed to be 100% by Leonardo’s own hand. Right, my version.

I should not be able to improve upon da Vinci, and I can’t. But what I can do is improve upon an overzealous retouching job performed on a severely damaged painting. And this is the crux of the matter. This retouched version does not look like a da Vinci, and is nowhere near his level of competence. It contains conspicuous amateur errors which are due to the restorer having to recreate missing and damaged passages. However, the painting was sold as if Leonardo painted that face, when in reality, the only parts that were well preserved, and convincingly of his skill level, are his right hand and some of the curls on his left shoulder. The rest is obviously fudged, and does not represent his vision or his hand. Au contraire, and in spades!

A lot of supposed experts who want to control the art narrative have egg on their faces, and they know that I’m right and can prove it. The solution is to censor me, insult me, and dismiss me.

I shared this image in the “art history” reddit forum yesterday. The initial reaction was very positive. It got 115 up-votes within hours, which represented 96% of the votes it received. There were over 30 comments, including a fair amount of interest and even praise. The post was very popular within the group.

You might want to know that at a prior stage I shared the same image, and explicitly stated my rather humble qualification to make such an attempt:

As an exercise, I’m attempting — with a lot of research into da Vinci’s drawings & paintings — to recreate approximately what the original Salvator Mundi might have looked like assuming it was painted by Leonardo… I guarantee no physical paintings will be harmed in my humble attempt to recreate something along the lines of the original. There are doubtlessly other digital artists and various experts more qualified and better trained for the task. Whatever they are waiting for, in the interim, I don’t see why not give it a try. I can later be embarrassed by a more consummate effort.

The moderators who would use a pretext to censor my further efforts, and to ban me, were aware that I wasn’t making any great claims for myself, nor trying to say my creation had any authority in terms of art historical significance!

Here are a few of the positive comments it received:

Then the head moderator pulled the plug. My post was removed.

Wait. Was I uncivil? Did I endanger the community? Was my post not about art history? The answers are no, no, and no. Usually a post is removed for being rude or abusive, or else for being off topic. I was having constructive discussions, and the group obviously was very interested in my content.

I messaged the moderators to find out why my post was removed. This was the response I got.

But there were only 6 rules.

I checked the right sidebar where they post the rules, and out of the blue there was a new one prohibiting “digital restorations”. Behold rule #7, created in my honor.

Even though the group has been around for at least a decade, and has over 90,000 members, suddenly there needed to be a new rule within hours after I shared my “digital restoration”.

Next came a public announcement about the new rule.

It had been posted within the hour. So, it wasn’t my imagination, and this definitely was a new rule suddenly enforced on yours truly. And in so doing, they indefinitely removed the possibility of anyone sharing a “digital restoration … of any kind” for tens of thousands of people. It’s safe to say the moderators are not digital artists, and have no idea how much skill and work is involved. On one level, it’s that rather reactionary anti-digital art attitude that we usually see in older, very traditional oil painters of still lifes and nudes. The mods have consigned the forum in question to being hopelessly antiquated in the digital age.

The underlying notion is that only an art historian is qualified to make a digital recreation of an art historical painting. Artists do not have the authority. Because art historians wouldn’t likely have the requisite skills to perform the task, thus digital restoration and recreation must be entirely dismissed as misleading and anathema to the official, sanctified, authority of the art world, it’s gatekeepers, and it’s parking lot attendants (see mods above]. In reality, if one dare confront it, the proof of whether a digital restoration or recreation is worthy of consideration is determined by looking at it. The proof is in the pudding. Keep in mind the context. My recreation only needed to be good enough for conversation purposes on a by all means unofficial and amateur internet forum.

And for such an internet forum the pudding was too good, so they needed to hide it away so others wouldn’t see it, because it threatened their own sense of authority and self worth, sadly, or some might even say, pathetically. Though, I still maintain that there are undoubtedly artists more qualified than I to make such an image, especially if they worked together, and perhaps with input from historians. Of course, I shared my image to get extra input, but it was forbidden by the intelligentsia.

Mind you, a reddit forum isn’t only for experts in the field, who quite likely wouldn’t get involved with them in the first place. It’s for anyone and everyone who has a genuine interest to discuss relevant topics. The mods try to pretend they are so professional that my content is simply too poor and misleading. I am characterized as “some random person on the internet” in order to position themselves as having automatic authority above me. My rendition is “particularly heinous” and “changing the entire style of the work”. It “misleads users”.

I didn’t change the style. My version is very carefully based on several depictions of the Salvator Mundi from the 1500’s, Leonardo’s paintings, and his sketches of fabric for the Salvator Mundi.

In fact, the entire rationalization for rejecting all digital restoration is such an embarrassing conglomeration of logical fallacies that it serves as a self-indictment upon any close reading. Here are some of the fallacies employed.

  • “some random person on the internet”. This is the “ad hominem attack”. Rather than providing any argument or evidence, it asserts that their opponent is automatically wrong because a “random person on the internet”.
  • “they are NOT art history”. This is mere assertion. Digital restorations certainly have been used to contribute to art history, and have been done by professionals.
  • “Some of the particularly heinous examples of ‘digital restoration’ posted here“: again, mere assertion without an actual example, and there is no opportunity for the digital artist to defend their position, as in my case I was banned.
  • “Labeling ‘digital restorations’ in the same category as professional restorations or even art history in general misleads users, who may not realize that real restoration work is an entirely different process.” This is a strawman argument. Nobody is saying that a digital restoration is the same thing as a physical restoration on the painting in question, which it most obviously is not. Who doesn’t realize that using tools in Photoshop is a different process than applying chemicals, and working with brushes and pigment?! Merely putting the word “digital” in front of “restoration” should be enough for any sane, modestly education person to know that it isn’t posing as the same thing as a physical restoration.
  • Just compare these to the mountain of “digital restoration” videos out there–it’s a totally different methodology, and only one is actually based on art history. Another mere assertion. My “digital restoration” is based on multiple versions of the Salvator Mundi, Leonardo’s drawings and paintings, and one sketch of fabric in particular, in addition to research on the painting in question and relevant history. The proof is in the pudding.
  • labeling these as “restorations” is simply bad art history. Another mere assertion. Making a digital visual aid is quite likely helpful to art history, especially if it is done carefully and accompanies a well articulated argument.
  • “Professional art conservators do vast amounts of research”. This is the logical fallacy of the “appeal to authority”. Educated adults can evaluate the research for themselves. Tucked in this is a competitive dismissal of artists as having any authority on art, and instead granting it to academics. Art historians generally will know more about art history than artists, but artists will on average know a lot more about art. And some artists have had university level art history courses, and did as well or better in them than the art history majors.
  • No more digital/non-professional restorations. This is the logical fallacy of the “false equivalency”. Merely linking digital and non-profession with a backslash makes no argument.

It’s no surprise that the thinking behind the prohibition and opportunistic banning is shoddy, as evidenced in the examples above. That’s not just “bad art history”: it’s demonstrably inferior thinking (and closed-minded, and woefully uninformed on digital rendering].

And let’s just get this straight and see if it syncs with reality. My version, right below, is so bad compared to the Modestini version on the left, that they needed to remove it and permanently ban me.

And this is also because my discussion and analysis is not sophisticated enough? Really? I don’t think so. When I shared an earlier stage of this “restoration” a month ago there was an extensive discussion about the painting, it was 97% up-voted, had 138 up-votes, and 57 comments. The mods know who I am, and know very well that I can get into complex, lengthy, but polite conversations and debates. The problem was never that my content isn’t good enough. Oh, wait, yeah, it’s just that my version is obviously better and more true to Leonardo. Of course, it IS digital, and quite obviously not the same thing as working on the physical painting, as if that needed to be said.

Or, they actually take themselves that seriously and believe their own rhetoric. Hmmm. And as the weird belief in the art world that the Modestini/Dubai version of the Salvator Mundi is 100% authentic proves, some people are extremely learned about art, and yet kinda’ dumb when it comes to being able to really see it.

You know what a sane, non-competitive, non-petty, intelligent reaction from them would have been? They’d have at least thought, “that’s interesting”. Because it is. But they didn’t want to admit that, because it challenged their authority. So they had to find an excuse to shut it down, in the name of art and art history, mind you. The two moderators responsible are deputygus and kingsocarso. Someone privately messaged me that one of them is a douchebag, and while I can’t take his word for it, I”m not entirely disinclined to agree. It has crossed my mind what kind of people these gate-keepers of the narrative are outside of lording over internet forums. I wonder if I could “consider the source” of the anonymous authorities, would it all make so much sense. Sadly, a lot of this may be due to a rather severe case of Cartmanism:

So, I tried to resubmit my post, but saying it was an “interpretation” to see if they would remove it anyway, even though I downplayed it myself.

Now, nobody would be potentially misled. I further said it was “NOT a professional, museum restoration”. There is ostensibly no problem with having discussions about the merits of a historical work of art — otherwise the forum could scarcely exist — and merely adding a visual aid should not pose any problem, but be a bonus. My new post was, as I fully predicted, instantly down-voted, removed, and then I discovered I was also permanently banned from the group:

The real problem was not that I misled people with a digital “restoration”: the problem was the image itself, and the content. My argument and visual aid were too convincing, and I was arguing for the other team! I’m rather flattered they had to invent a rule for me to anachronistically have violated, and that they had to ban me to keep me from taking them to task. In reality, it’s not that my views, arguments, or scholarship are beneath the threshold of what they consider acceptable, but rather that they are too good, internet authorities lost the argument, and the proof is in the pudding. Who are these “random internet mods” anyway? It’s a job I would want nothing to do with. The amount of time they dedicate to participating on internet forums is truly mind boggling. One needs an incredible amount of free time to dedicate to such service, or disservice.

I don’t really care about being shut out of the group. There are many other art-related forums, and reddit tends to harbor pits of vipers. What interests me is why, and that my version of the Salvator Mundi is so threatening to them that they had to eliminate and silence me, fully knowing I did nothing wrong. Perhaps they had endorsed the Dubai Salvator Mundi as authentically by Leonardo themselves, and risk losing face in a community they lord over. Or perhaps some other members of the community have done so.

The truth, the evidence, and the better arguments are all on my side. This is not me bragging, it’s just a perfect example of the Emperor’s New Clothes. You can’t pass off that ridiculous mug as the work of Leonardo, and it’s an insult to his legacy, and the intelligence and connoisseurship of the international art audience to try.

There are politics involved because of who the painting was auctioned off to – the second most powerful person in the country he comes from [I’m staying out of the politics for now, so you can look up who bought it yourself if you are interested]. Let’s just say he’s not someone you want to piss off. The reputation of the auction house is at stake, as are those of the experts who endorsed the painting as 100% by Leonardo. Those experts know very well that the restoration does NOT look as if Leonardo painted it, but is just a way to showcase the parts he likely did paint.

Martin Kemp himself has stated that both of the thumbs in the cleaned painting (one is a pentimento) are “better than the one painted by Dianne”. This is the fact laid bare. The restorer made changes that do not reflect Leonardo’s hand, and are patently inferior! This is as true of the face as it is of the thumb. Here’s the quote as presented by art critic Jonathan Jones in the Guardian:

Martin Kemp is probably the strongest advocate for the authenticity of the painting as 100% autograph Leonardo, but has said himself that at least one painted-over portion is inferior to Leonardo’s underlying work. Let that sink in. I am not saying anything different from that. I painted the thumb better myself to illustrate this. That is my crime.

This is the simple truth that they are trying to hide. While the painting may very well originally have been made by Leonardo, and even 100% of it, what we see now is largely a fudged patch-up job done by a restorer, with a few passages by his own hand. It’s as if the Venus de Milo were given clumsy arms and passed off as a complete work.

This is a full re-creation I’m just using for illustrative purposes.

You might be able to say, that’s 100% the original marble, and it came from such and such quarry, and this is scientifically proven. You could say that the head and torso are absolutely from 150 BC or earlier, and so on. But you could not say that the arms were by the original sculptor, or that the resulting figure was in its entirety representative of the original artist. And this is precisely the case with the Salvator Mundi. Leonardo did NOT paint that pathetic face! And you are not allowed to say that, even though it’s obviously true. One art historian has come out and said that experts who refused to authenticate the Salvator Mundi as authentic have not presented their arguments for fear of being sued. If the painting is NOT 100% by Leonardo, he said, the value could go down from $450,000,000 to a couple hundred thousand.

And that’s why I was banned. My arguments are correct, and my visual aid helps hammer home the truth and reality of the situation. My version of the Salvator Mundi makes the shortcomings of the supposedly authentic da Vinci painfully evident, and in plain sight. And that upsets a lot of people who can’t admit they were wrong. Further, the posers who lord over the group can’t hold their own in a debate with me, which is why they had to resort to characterizing my content as “heinous” in their public statement about the rule designed specifically in order to censor me. They gave themselves the last word.

I will explore the truth about the Salvator Mudni, and provide more evidence, including from various experts who happen to agree with me, in my upcoming video, along with my finalized color version of the painting.

Art and the art world also belong to artists, and some of us are articulate enough to stand our ground and stand up for art. In case anybody didn’t notice, I’m defending Leonardo against being smeared with an overly restored, and inferior painting being attributed to his name.

Leonardo would be on my side, absolutely. I dare say so would the Salvator Mundi himself. I suppose it would be amusing to trot out, “What would Jesus say?”

I don’t care what they may say
i don’t care what they may do
i don’t care what they may say
Jesus is just alright, oh yeah
Jesus is just alright
Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo
doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo
doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo
doo doo doo doo doo doo

~ Lyrics from The Doobie Brother’s song, “Jesus is Just Alright”

Time to move on. Now I’ve lost interest in the whole situation, except for why my version is so dangerous. Its all a bit too negative. I’ll have to find a way to turn that around. After all, I’m making a positive contribution to art and art history, no matter how much that may piss off people who want to confine art to fit their beliefs and agendas.

The less people know about art, the more they think they know, and non-artists have taken it upon themselves to decide artists aren’t qualified to be experts on art, and to censor them.

Stay tuned.

32 replies on “Banned for life for making this version of the Salvator Mundi

  1. Unfortunately, it’s become commonplace to ‘shut down’ voices that go against the grain, after all, we now have the term ‘cancel culture’ for this phenomenon.

    Sure, there are some people who needed to be held accountable for their crimes, but I’m still scratching my head over yours.

    It was a missed opportunity for debate and discussion, as far as I can tell. Maybe it was jealousy, too? Who knows why people act petty?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It’s an interrupted opportunity for discussion, as a healthy one was going on. Also, because there was a prior post weeks ago with many comments and involved discussions, this was an ongoing dialogue involving a lot of members. The mod’s decision doesn’t reflect the will of the group at all. So, here they didn’t want discussion, they wanted to squelch it.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Sounds like it. Sorry, I hope you are able to find a healthier reddit group — or at least one in which egos are not so gi-normously involved.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. People who spend really a lot of time on internet forums, uh, might tend to overvalue the importance of their perceived status in those environments. There are people who are desperate to appear that they have authority, and the little power they get as moderators may compensate for what they lack outside of reddit. I’m an outsider coming in and upsetting the hierarchy. For many, these groups have ranking and status that matters a lot to them. They would sooner drum me out than grant I made a better argument or more meaningful contribution. It’s really about self worth, me thinks.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. Crazy, but I suppose folks find validation in as many ways as they can. It’s difficult because for people like us, we value truth, freedom, fairness, etc, whereas others have a different set which makes it challenging to connect — especially when they obviously don’t even want to! which is ironic considering it’s a FORUM.

        Liked by 2 people

      1. because they did not want to confirm that he had painted alone, they did not want to attach their reputation to it. that would make it more authentic, the whole auction process went very quickly. those are the rumors

        Liked by 2 people

  2. What happened was Not “Cancel Culture”, since most comments were in favor of the post, that does not lead to a cancel culture. What happened though is based strictly on my experiences with groups (I’ve been in a LOT of groups, just not on Reddit (I just think there are too many uniformed people populating Reddit) 1. Favoritism. 2. Fear (The Moderator cannot measure up) 3. A “Professional Art Restorer”. Who is biased against anyone who does Digital Art. Moderators rarely ever are unbiased. They moderator according to their own sense of value. Either that or the Moderator is too stupid and foolish to know when a good subject comes up for debate. I’d go with that last one….lol

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for commenting. Right, Someone could be an aggrieved “professional art restorer”, or know someone who is.

      For the record, I never said anything about “cancel culture”, though now that you bring it up, there are some parallels, and there is certain evidence that there’s a strong radical left political agenda among the moderators of the group in question. In case you don’t know, censorship, and “cancel culture” proper — as in hunting people to root out on any perceived transgression against the cause — are a very strong force in the contemporary art world. Since I am not myself a true believer in the fashionable political beliefs of the last decade, to the detriment of all other paradigms, I am at odds with those who think art and art history should be subordinated to identity politics/political correctness/social justice, and that has caused rifts in the past.

      However one slices it, banning should be for misconduct, not putting together a cogent argument that one doesn’t happen to agree with.


    1. Interesting you picked up on the “random person on the internet” bit. I’ve lamented the popular misuse of the word “random” on this blog. There is no such thing as a “random person”. You can only choose someone “at random”. It’s no surprise that the mod’s defense of prohibiting any and all digital restorations was peppered with fuzzy thinking, immature dialogue, and flagrant logical fallacies. This was the logical fallacy of the “ad hominem attack” – if someone is a “random person on the internet” than the are wrong. Similarly, just putting a backslash between “digital restoration” and “unprofessional” is the false equivalency fallacy. Declaring digital restoration “bad art history” is merely an assertion.

      I’ve found that discussion, debate, and moderation thereof is the worst in art forums, and I attribute this to the postmodern variety of education one gets in the arts – including full indoctrination into political agendas – in lieu of developing hard reasoning and true independent, critical thinking. I’ve had much better luck when I’ve shared my articles in the philosophy forum, where they have more familiarity and respect for rational thought.

      Fortunately, I got my general university education under my belt before becoming fully immersed in the postmodern ideology that passes for advanced thought in art circles. That said, I was baptized into the latter, so am overly familiar with the paradigm, and can hash it out as well as the next guy or gal with a master’s in liberal arts.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Love the digital restoration it is so amazing seeing what the painting would have most likely looked like. Sorry to hear about getting shut down on that thread, esp. as it sounds like you had started an actual conversation which doesn’t happen as often as it should these days.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. A fascinating account of how poorly thought out forums can fail to consider both different applications of mass media , and the demographic of their own target audience. I think, what they should have done is leave your work, and open a discussion about their criteria (new rule). Since your work was apparently the first instance of what they considered outside the scope of the forum, they should have used it as an opportunity to discuss their concerns.
    I also do not understand the necessity to ban you from participating in any way on the forum, since there is no evidence that you were misrepresenting yourself or your work. Looks like they went overboard – they seem to feel that you were part of, what they considered to be, a larger problem on this particular forum.

    All Mass Media contain values, beliefs, & ideologies. This forum has a set of values, beliefs, & ideologies concerning Art History which shapes what is considered to be appropriate content. They are only now making explicit some of this in the rules.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That all makes sense. However, I don’t think the real issue is that my content was outside of the scope of an art history forum, since it was very pertinent, and a healthy conversation around it had already evolved. The problem is that they see themselves as gatekeepers for a certain set of beliefs / a paradigm / a worldview about art, and I challenged it, as well as their respective expertise and intellects. Once it was obvious I had the upper hand, they needed to eliminate the competition in order to maintain their own sense of authority, their control over the conversation, and the paradigm.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes, they held on to a set of beliefs-ideology, and they didn’t want to include your content in as part of it. It is the same as when a cultural, ethnic, social, or racial group are excluded from the narrative, whether it is fashion, art, or selling cereal.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. It’s all about who controls the narrative. And I think this is more pernicious and dangerous today than in decades past, because we’ve veered ever more into a subjective/relativist terrain, where there is no agreed-upon parameters of what constitutes reality, or how to assess it. We no longer defer to the greater argument with the best evidence, or even recognize that as a desirable attitude to have. Rational thought itself has been demonized as a sinister part of white, western history. The undermining of any standard of reason, quality, or objectivity has the unanticipated negative consequence that whoever controls the media has the power to define reality, in which case reality will align itself conveniently with whatever accrues more money and power to the ruling elite. While the internet briefly gave independent voices a chance to be heard, algorithms, pay-to-play audience reach, and other mechanisms now insure that the established power block dominates the media, and independent voices, along with objective thought and standards, are cast off to the periphery. All those parking lot attendants of the art history forum did was shoot down independent thought, and art, in the name up upholding the current status quo of the art industry. Nevertheless, I maintain optimism that independent voices can reach a limited amount of people, more so than in the past, at least until they are completely shut down (though that is usually reserved for political content).

        Liked by 1 person

  5. I can’t believe it! Oh well, now you are coming to the same conclusion as me. Who needs Reddit anyways? Half the time, the discussions are useless and uninformed. And now they want to control the narrative! You have just gained more time to create.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yeah. I don’t mind not participating in the forum, I was much more annoyed and amused at the fact that they invented a rule just to remove my post, and that they banned me permanently for voicing an opinion they didn’t like. My new video should be done in a week or so — it’s over an hour — and makes an airtight argument that proves my case.


  6. This was such an interesting read. I got sucked in to the drama as well as your incredible rendition. For what it’s worth, I appreciate your interpretation of his painting because it brings out details that my eyes weren’t noticing before.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks, Krista. Yeah, that was the idea. I wanted to make a visual aid so people could compare and contrast, and see what is wrong with the restoration of the Salvator Mundi.


    1. By laws and regulations do you mean the arbitrary rules the forum moderators set up in virtual reality, or something else? Surely, I haven’t violated any laws or regulations that are upheld by the U.S. government, unless its completely descended into bald-faced fascism, and isn’t just slowly inching in that direction.

      Did I step on somebody’s toes? I’ve thought about this sort of thing, where they can kick me in the teeth, and that’s OK, but if I should step on their toes, it’s a federal offense.

      But I think you are being ironic and hyperbolic. Yeah, I probably inadvertently threatened someone’s claim to authority they don’t deserve.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s