It’s finally here, after months of work. It’s coming in at 2 hours and 24 minutes, which I would not have even thought was possible in the beginning. You’d think that means I just ramble on endlessly, but it’s highly scripted for most of it, and tightly edited. It follows a very logical progression, covering the main arguments for and against the authenticity as a real Leonardo, what’s wrong with it, and a lot of other interesting stuff.

It includes, of course, my finalized version of the painting, which I just completed the last finishing touches on yesterday.

Part of me is just glad to be done with this project, which was astronomically more work than I envisioned. But, better than that, I pulled it off. It’s authoritative, thorough, creative, and at times has some beautiful passages. There’s lots of custom graphics in there as well. I must have made dozens of images in Photoshop that appear throughout.

I’m not thrilled with the voice recordings in the first half, because I hadn’t figured out the best way to use my mic, but other than that it’s pretty professional quality.

And my digital painting came out to my satisfaction as well. It’s a unique video that only I could have done.

~ Ends

And if you like my art or criticism, please consider chipping in so I can keep working until I drop. Through Patreon, you can give $1 (or more) per month to help keep me going (y’know, so I don’t have to put art on the back-burner while I slog away at a full-time job). See how it works here.

Or go directly to my account.


Or you can make a one time donation to help me keep on making art and blogging (and restore my faith in humanity simultaneously).


12 replies on “New Video: What Did The Salvator Mundi Really Look Like?

  1. Watched it, liked it. Because it was neither the tacky re-enactments (van Gogh led a tragic life and that’s what makes his art great) nor the talking head slide lecture (there are differences in Madonnas from quattrocento Sienna) types of art doc, but something in the middle.
    And your take on the thing itself. Way better than the Modestini version, of course. In the cleaned version it seems the histograms for the face and the hand would look the same, but in her version, the face has a much narrower range than the hand. I’ve never seen that in a Leonardo, you kept them the same. As it should be.
    And the expression Modestini—not Leonardo—gives him! Stoned is what he looks—add a joint to the blessing hand to complete the look. Leonardo’s other peeps all seem sober, even sly. Even the Ginevra de’Benci has a more “holier than thou” attitude than the theoretical Salvator Mundi. You give the man a bit of a stare, good.
    Then there’s Leo’s trademark sfumato. Modestini goes full Eugene Carrière at his fuzziest with her take on the face and hair. I think you did the opposite, keeping it and the rest of the painting too sharp. If you were going for what Leo’s paintings looked like new, OK.
    Anyway, good all around, thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes, Eugene Carrière, if he had lost all sense of balance, proportion, or depth. If mine is too sharp, that’s a good thing in my mind, because it’s not the kind of sharp that is achieved with a filter, and looks overly pixelated, but is done the hard way that requires technical accuracy.

      My video also contains a lot of humor and visuals that are completely absent in almost any video on art history I’ve seen (ex., all the Star Trek alien heads instead of Salvator Mundis). I gather not only can other people not add that sort of thing, nor would it be their style, but they’d fear it would undermine the seriousness of their lecture, or their credibility. But for me, it just establishes that I’m coming at this from a creative standpoint, and am myself an artist.

      It’s probably a good sign that nobody seems bothered that parts of the video are seen through various screens within the screen, including watching on a TV from 1984 (the movie), or that is an alien monitoring device.

      Personally, all those weird bits are the only thing I really care about.


      1. The reply box cut me off before I got to add: I didn’t mean photoshop “smart” sharp, I meant van Eyck or Crivelli sharp as opposed to Leonardo soft and I agree that the TVs and other—more entertaining—monsters from the 50s-60s are what elevates the doc above art history lecture/slide show level.

        Liked by 1 person

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