Talk:Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci/Archive 2

Cut'n'paste
I have put this anlaysis here for convenience of anyone who might wish to go over it. Amandajm (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons
Comment on the paintings
 * All the five pictures of firm attribution show a degree of contraposto, with the least being in the Portrait of a Musician which is much the smallest.
 * None of the pictures are "head and shoulders". (The Ginevra portait has lost approx. 1/3 of its height.)
 * Hands are a feature of all the complete works. It is speculated that a detailed study of hands drawn by Leonardo was for the complete Ginevera portrait.
 * The five paintings form a chronological sequence into which the Lucan portrait does not fit comfortably.
 * Ginevra is an early work, influenced by the training in Verrocchio's studio and (like Leonardo's early Madonnas) has retained many formal characteristics of the third quarter of the 1400s.
 * The Lady with the Ermine represents a radical break from the formal poses of portraits, and has strong contraposto, usually reserved at this date for figures that are moving or interacting, eg the female Wind in Botticelli's contemporary Birth of Venus. While the common contemporary profile portraits look out of the picture, 3/4 face portraits usually meet the viewer's eye or look straight ahead, but to have the eyes turned outward, showing the whites is unusual. By this date Leonardo is already experimenting with softening and deepening the shadows in the corners of the mouth. Unlike Ginevra, the bosom of the girl is turned into the shadow, with only her shoulder brightly lit. This is a departure from usual practice. The slender fingers are separated by deep shadow, and contrast with the hand's cast shadow.
 * The face of the Musician is at a similar angle as the Ermine pic, with the gaze averted, but in not so exaggerated a manner. The contraposto is limited to a slight inclination of the head, counter-balanced by an outward projection of the hand. The main development here is in Lighting. The light is similarly angled to that in the Ermine pic, but is much more dynamic. The face is strongly modelled because the bony and fleshy projections of the face are casting shadows onto its more concave surfaces. The eyelids cast deep shadow, as do the eyelashes on the left side of the painting. The light and cast shadow on the hand and script add dramatic impact.
 * In Mona Lisa, ten years or more later, the artist plays with light that ripples over the soft dimpled surface of her face. In terms of lighting, it has taken the dramatic contrasts of the Musician, and blurred all the edges, creating a work of enormous subtlety. The hand with the separated fingers returns. The light plays across the crumpled folds of the sleeves, and touches the embroidery at the neck, just sufficiently to define the dimensions and planes of every form. Details are present but subordinate. The hair that falls on the left shoulder (viewers right) has helical ringlets that on close examination are as structurally defined as those on the forehead of Ginevra. This scientific observation of the structure and behaviours of materials such as hair, water, crumpled cloth and eroded rock is characteristic of Leonardo.
 * John the Baptist, a work of Leonardo's old age, revisits the twisting motion of the Lady with the Ermine (used in the intervening period in a number of figure compositions). Again the eyes are turned at an unusual angle in relation to the turn of the head, the head is down but the eyes turn up, and, with the gesture, challenge the viewer. The drama of light and shade is achieved by both intensity and sfumato.

Given the age of the figure in the Lucan protrait, if it is indeed by Leonardo himself, then it must fall chronologically somewhere between the Portrait of a Musician (sometimes considerd a self-portrait) and the Mona Lisa.

Its highly conservative lighting, its lack of contraposto, its lack of hands, its conservative 3/4 view, its lack of drama, lack of cast shadow, lack of bodily form, conservative treatment of hair all mean that it does not sit happily between the Musician and the Mona Lisa, or between the dynamic Lady with an Ermine, and the Musician. It can hardly be earlier.

The Lucan Portrait is absolutely typical of a conservative, post-Leonardo, painting of the 1500s.

I am not invited to the conference, but perhaps somebody who will be there, will take these comments into account and present some of them.

Cheers!

Amandajm (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC),  originally posted- 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparison

 * When this painting first came to light, Alessandro Vezzosi, Director of the Museo Ideale Leonardo da Vinci at Vinci, was quoted in the press as attributing the portrait to Cristofano dell'Altissimo. (ERRATA: this attribution, published in the press, was not made by Vezzosi. See his comments above. Amandajm (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC))


 * Has the painting been properly investigated in the light of other works by this artist? If not, why not?

Similarities include:
 * size and format
 * base and medium
 * position of figure
 * relation of head and body, ie. turned at same angle (unlike Leonardo's practice and advice)
 * 3/4 face with eyes toward viewer
 * the expression of the eyes, despite the fact that they are very different shapes and colours
 * the slightly pursed mouth with a very well-defined point to the centre of the upper lip (characteristic of Cristofano's portraits), shadow that defined the upper lip as concave on either side of the bow. (characteristic of Cristofano's painting of mouths and the opposite to the convex curves of the upper lips painted by Leonardo), the sharp definition of the underlip.
 * The "kissy" quality of the Lucan Leonardo lips is apparent in almost every portrait Cristofano painted, regardless of whether it is a beautiful youth with a full African mouth, a handsome duke, a thin-lipped old patriarch, a gay philosopher or a fat Pope with an underslung lower law.

Amandajm (talk) originally posted 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Response
I added all the links where there are books. What do you look again? because your stupid attribution to Crristofano is so claimed by you? You have all the links, even videos where you Correct. I'm tired of your obstinacy, buy books, read them and write! Learn to be impartial!

Recommending your behavior to legal authorities! It is possible that you can command a public encyclopedia! This is absurd! I honestly do not understand where finish the stupidity, and where begins the arrogance!

if you had read the scientific article on the portrait Lucan, at this time you would not have written the comparison with Christofano dell'Altissimo. I'll explain why. There are two single and important problems: 1) The first is in color: we have examined in detail the color table Cristofano, and we know that whites, for example, are made of titanium white, yellow and umber derived from fields discovered only after the 1550, and then layers of color completely different from the tempera Luke. We now possess all the tools to determine the areas of attribution, we have a special filing cabinet where you can examine all the scientific studies on the paintings. And in this case we were able to do so. See, the problem is chronological: the pigments used by Christopher, do not coincide with those used in the Lucan Portrait, who instead are of different origin and oldest.The modern equipment, are now able to establish with certainty even the proveninenze pigmentation, and this on the basis of deposits and their historical knowledge. And in survey systems such as these, the eye of the expert is bound by these objective data that can not be ignored.

For sources, anyone can see the publications of The Opificio delle Pietre Dure or the scientific publication like this: http://books.google.it/books?id=tO0nwLcN6rEC&dq=diagnosis+cultural+heritage+Conservation+and+Valorization+of+Cultural+Heritage&hl=it&sa=X&ei=_6OfUNT6EMe2hQf5jYDIDg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA

Through a puncture, and 'was later learned that the wood of the table, it is pertinent to pigments: colors that are attached to the table, in a simultaneous, the date is fixed at the turn of 1400 and 1500.

And there is another and more important clue recently recorded in the studies performed by the Italian Universities: You have surely heard of the latest survey results on Anghiari Battle in palazzo Vecchio. Well. In that case it was stated by Prof. Maurizio Seracini, the pigments in black, are obtained through a large use of manganese, to the extent of 70-80%, this extraordinary result scientific, if you think that we are aware of such a document only in the  works of Leonardo: The San Giovanni Battista and the Sant'Anna with Madonna at Louvre. When I say that we have no knowledge, I mean, no other work, even shop of Leonardo, has never returned these results. Weit those, are the same that have been found in Lucan portrait. This too everybody can read in the scientific publications of the Museum of Ancient People of Lucania. Precise also that these results were known since 2009. But one of the most important data on the dating of Luke's portrait has been recognized by the University of Naples, just four months ago: was in fact found that the portrait of Lucania, in addition to the large amount of manganese in black, there is a mineral source arrangement, called Bindheimite. It is right in the painting of Lucania, and retraced the country only in Sardinia and in some parts of Lombardia. This field Lombard became extinct on the principle of 1500. This means that the Lucan portrait can not be dated much after 1500!(http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/News/Spettacolo/Arte-Universita-Federico-II-Tavola-Lucana-di-Leonardo-e-del-1508_313517621598.html). Finally, and finally of Cristofano dell'Altissimo, I would like to say that all the red used in his paintings, are made of iron dioxide earth-based, while in Luke's portrait red is made ​​from Vermilion, Cinnabar, a pigment that Cristofano has never used.

2) the second question is historical: Cristofano, Leonardo has never seen, in fact. The Grand Duke of Tuscany, asks him to make a series of portraits, a copy of those in the collection Giovio of Como. Among these portraits is also to Leonardo. Ie a copy of the portrait of Leonardo collection Giovio. Of this part of Giovio, we have only one incision here it is:http://www.unibg.it/dati/corsi/25084/31665-4_VasariPrecursori.pdf Here's how Cristofano of the Most High will paint a portrait of Leonardo:http://www.corriere.it/gallery/cultura/10-2011/leonardo/1/leonardo-genio-mito_1f87196c-03a7-11e1-af48-d19489409c54.shtml#12 It looks like quite the portrait of Leonardo executed by Vasari:http://www.palazzo-medici.it/mediateca/it/immagine.php?id=626 These portraits profile belong to only one type that comes from Leonardo's portrait in the collection Giovio. That is why, apart from the scientific data, Cristofano can not be the author of Lucan portrait.

In fact, in his VITE, Giorgio Vasari, said he had seen a portrait of Leonardo in the collection of Francesco Melzi in Vaprio with other Leonardo's anatomical studies. The portrait that Vasari see is not a drawing. Let us not forget that Melzi was heir to Leonardo, Leonardo and he gave all his drawings.but what is this portrait? Certainly Melzi, who had worked with Leonardo, could not have an imaginary portrait of his master! He must have no more than a faithful portrait of its faces. It turns out that this portrait is recorded in 1600 in Florence, because the sister's husband of Leonardo, had given to Cardinal Salviati. Then in 1700, the same portrait is in the collection Amoretti in Florence. Then again in Naples in 1800. Research has also shown that the Lucan portrait is in the collection Francesco Melzi (That's why the lucan portrait is incredibly interesting). Especially important because it is the source of the portrait of Leonardo to UFFIZI(http://www.lombardiabeniculturali.it/fotografie/schede/IMM-LOM60-0042187/); portrait believed until 1938, when an x-ray it was disproved. (is made of a Magdalene of 1600), then recalling that at the time (1700-1800) portrait of Turin had not yet been found. Ensured the dating of the Lucan portrait around 1500-1510, you can also reflect on the closeness with the portrait of Leonardo in the School of Athens by Raphael in the Vatican: they are similar, seem to see the same figure oldest with hat; proximity lies the general features of the face; those are extraneous to the series of portraits in profile (which belongs to the portrait of Christofano dell'Altissimo, Vasari, and others).

On the issue of style soffermerei me a lot. Yes, because in the second leonardo stay in Milan, around 1508, two Madonnas were commissioned and a self-portrait (Pedretti, 1973), the request of the self-portrait comes from the Governor of Milan, Charles d'Ambois.A request that Leonardo can not refuse, Governor of Milan, is too important to be overlooked. Yes, a portrait, in fact a self-portrait that you will notice only later, in the collection of Francesco Melzi, the same that will see Giorgio Vasari in his visit to the Villa d'Adda Vaprio, as we have said before, after moved to Florence and finally to Naples (Abate Domenico Romanelli, Napoli Antica e Moderna, 1810). The direct reference in the portrait collection Melzi, with lucan portrait, is given by the measures of the framework are the same. to return to the style, what should we say? is a tempera fat, not oil, made with great ease just to succumb to the request of the Governor of Milan: in short, a painting realized with speed and with full memory of his studies on the "portrait shoulder" with the intention of not leaving nothing of his art.

A series of certificates which, together with fingerprints, which were found by the CARABINIERI (N. Barbatelli, L. Capasso, in Il Presunto Autoritratto Lucano, gli studi scientifici, Marte 2010, are consistent with an attribution to Leonardo.

For references see:

«Achademia Leonardi Vinci: journal of Leonardo studies & bibliography of Vinciana», a cura di C. Pedretti, Firenze, 1988-1997 C. Acidini Luchinat, Benozzo Gozzoli: la cappella dei Magi, Milano, 1993 Ammiano Marcellino, Le Storie, a cura di A. Selem, Torino, 2007 L. Antoccia, Leonardo: arte e scienza, Firenze, 2000 J.B., Antoniewicz, Swiatynia zagadkowa Leonardo da Vinci napisal Jon Boloz Antoniewicz, in Ksiega pamiatkowa Uniwersytetu Lwowskiego ku uczczeniu piecsetnej rocznicy Fundacyi Jagiellonskiej Uniwersytetu Lwowskiego, München, 1900, pp. 1-46 D. Arasse, Léonard de Vinci: le rythme du monde, Parigi, 1997 P. Athanassiadi-Fowden, Giuliano. Ultimo degli imperatori pagani, Genova, 1994 N.Barbatelli, A. Tomei, M.C. Paoluzzi, Leonardo e il Rinascimento Fantastico, Sorrento 2010; N. Barbatelli, L. Capasso, in Il Presunto Autoritratto Lucano, gli studi scientifici, Marte 2010; N. Barbatelli, P. Hohenstatt, O. Kormashov, in E' Rinascimento, Leonardo Donatello e Raffaello, capolavori a confronto, Marte 2010; N. Barbatelli, P. Hohenstatt, presentazione di Carlo Pedretti, Leonardo. Immagini di un genio, Roma 2012; Bellincioni, Rime, Milano, 1489 L. Beltrami, La “destra mano” di Leonardo da Vinci e le lacune nella edizione del Codice Atlantico, Milano, 1919 M. Baxandall, Shadows and enlightenment, New Haven, 1995 A. Bevilacqua, Scienza natura pittura nei frammenti di Leonardo, Treviso, 1979 W. von Bode, Studien über Leonardo da Vinci, Berlin, 1921 G. Bodon, Enea Vico fra memoria e miraggio della classicità, Roma, 1997 G. Bora, Due tavole leonardesche: nuove indagini sul Musico e sul San Giovanni dell’Ambrosiana, Vicenza, 1987 P. Brambilla Barcilon e P.C. Marani, Leonardo: l’Ultima Cena, Milano, 1999 D. A. Brown, Leonardo’s “Head o fan old man” in Turin: Portrait or Self-Portrait?, in Studi di Storia dell’arte in onore di Mina Gregori, Cinisello Balsamo, 1994, pp. 75-78 D.A Brown, Leonardo da Vinci: origin of a genius, New Haven, 1998 G. Bodon, Enea Vico fra memoria e miraggio della classicità, Roma, 1997 A. Ballarin, Problemi di leonardismo milanese tra Quattrocento e Cinquecento. Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio prima della Pala Casio, Verona, 2010 G. Calvi, I manoscritti di Leonardo da Vinci, dal punto di vista cronologico storico e biografico, Bologna, 1925 F. Caroli, Leonardo: studi di fisiognomica, Milano, 1991 M. Clayton, Leonardo da Vinci. The divine and the grotesque, London, 2002 K. Clark, Leonardo da Vinci, London, 1993 R.P. Ciardi, L’immagine di Leonardo, XXXIII Lettura Vinciana (15 aprile 1993), Firenze, 1994 S. Cremante, Leonardo da Vinci: artista, scienziato, inventore, coordinamento e introduzione di C. Pedretti, Firenze, 2005 E. Crispino, Leonardo, Firenze, 2002 Da Leonardo a Rembrandt: disegni della Biblioteca Reale di Torino, catalogo della mostra (Torino, 27 aprile-8 luglio 1990), a cura di G.C. Sciolla, Torino, 1990 Diogene Laerzio, Vite e dottrine dei più celebri filosofi, a cura di G. Reale, Milano, 2005 P. Brambilla Barcilon e P.C. Marani, Leonardo: l’Ultima Cena, Milano, 1999 D. A. Brown, Leonardo’s “Head o fan old man” in Turin: Portrait or Self-Portrait?, in Studi di Storia dell’arte in onore di Mina Gregori, Cinisello Balsamo, 1994, pp. 75-78 D.A Brown, Leonardo da Vinci: origin of a genius, New Haven, 1998 G. Bodon, Enea Vico fra memoria e miraggio della classicità, Roma, 1997 A. Ballarin, Problemi di leonardismo milanese tra Quattrocento e Cinquecento. Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio prima della Pala Casio, Verona, 2010 G. Calvi, I manoscritti di Leonardo da Vinci, dal punto di vista cronologico storico e biografico, Bologna, 1925 F. Caroli, Leonardo: studi di fisiognomica, Milano, 1991 M. Clayton, Leonardo da Vinci. The divine and the grotesque, London, 2002 K. Clark, Leonardo da Vinci, London, 1993 R.P. Ciardi, L’immagine di Leonardo, XXXIII Lettura Vinciana (15 aprile 1993), Firenze, 1994 S. Cremante, Leonardo da Vinci: artista, scienziato, inventore, coordinamento e introduzione di C. Pedretti, Firenze, 2005 E. Crispino, Leonardo, Firenze, 2002 Da Leonardo a Rembrandt: disegni della Biblioteca Reale di Torino, catalogo della mostra (Torino, 27 aprile-8 luglio 1990), a cura di G.C. Sciolla, Torino, 1990 Diogene Laerzio, Vite e dottrine dei più celebri filosofi, a cura di G. Reale, Milano, 2005 Disegni umbri del Rinascimento da Perugino a Raffaello, catalogo della mostra (Firenze, 1982), a cura di S. Ferino Pagden, Firenze, 1982 Disegni umbri, catalogo della mostra (Roma, 24 gennaio- 10 marzo 1984), a cura di S. Ferino Pagden, Milano, 1984 Edizione Nazionale dei manoscritti e dei Disegni di Leonardo da Vinci, Firenze, 1964- H. von Aeinem, Das Abendmahl des Leonardo da Vinci, Westdeutscher Verlag, 1961 C. Eliani, Varia Historia, edidit M.R. Dilts, Leizpig, 1974 S. Erdemgil, Ephesus: Ruins And Museum, Istanbul, 1986 S. Erdemgil et alia, Ephesus Museum Catalogue, Istanbul, 1989 è Rinascimento. Leonardo Donatello Raffaello. Capolavori a confronto, a cura di N. Barbatelli, P. Hohenstatt e O. Kormashov, Vaglio Basilicata, 2010 C. von Fabriczy, Il codice dell’Anonimo Gaddiano (Cod. Magliabechiano XVII, 17) nella Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze, Firenze, 1893 C. Farago, Leonardo da Vinci Paragone: una lettura critica, New York, 1991 F. Fehrenbach, Licht und Wasser: zur Dynamik naturphilosophischer Leitbilder im Werk Leonardo da Vincis, Tübingen, 1997 K. Fittschen, s.v. Ritratto, in Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica, Secondo Supplemento, Roma 1996 T. Gaehtgens, Historienmalerei, Berlino, 1997 L.H. Heydenreich, Leonardo da Vinci: Das Abendmahl, Stuttgart, 1958 P. Hohenstatt, Leonardo da Vinci, Köln, 1998 Il genio e le passioni. Leonardo e il Cenacolo, precedenti, innovazioni, riflessi di un capolavoro, catalogo della mostra (Milano, 21 marzo-17 giugno 2001), a cura di P.C. Marani, Milano, 2001 Immaginare l’autore: il ritratto del letterato nella cultura umanistica, atti del convegno (Firenze, 26-27 marzo 1998), a cura di G. Lazzi e P. Viti, Firenze, 2000 P.M. Jones, Federico Borromeo e l’Ambrosiana. Arte e riforma cattolica nel XVII secolo a Milano, Milano, 1997 M. Kemp, Leonardo, Torino, 2005 M. Kwakkelstein, Leonardo come un fisionomista, Leiden, 1994 Leonardo da Vinci, Libro di pittura: codice urbinate lat. 1270 nella Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, a cura di C. Pedretti, trascrizione critica di C. Vecce, Firenze, 1995 Leonardo da Vinci, Il Codice Atlantico della Biblioteca Ambrosiana di Milano, trascrizione critica di A. Marinoni, Firenze, 2000 Leonardo da Vinci, I disegni di Leonardo da Vinci e della sua cerchia nel Gabinetto dei disegni e stampe delle Gallerie dell’Accademia di Venezia ordinati e presentati da Carlo Pedretti, a cura di G. Nepi Sciré e A. Perissa Torrini, Firenze, 2003 Leonardo e il leonardismo a Napoli e Roma, catalogo della mostra (Napoli e Roma, 1983-1984), a cura di A. Vezzosi, Firenze, 1983 Leonardo e l’incisione: stampe derivate da Leonardo e Bramante dal quindicesimo al diciannovesimo secolo, catalogo della mostra (Milano, gennaio-aprile 1984), a cura di C. Alberici, Milano, 1984 L’immagine di Leonardo: testimonianze figurative dal XVI al XIX secolo, catalogo della mostra (Vinci, 28 giugno- 28 settembre 1997), a cura di R.P. Ciardi e C. Sisi, Firenze, 1997 La biblioteca, il tempo, gli amici di Leonardo. Disegni di Leonardo dal Codice Atlantico, catalogo della mostra (Milano, 3 dicembre 2009-28 febbraio 2010), a cura di E. Villata, Novara, 2009 La mente di Leonardo: nel laboratorio del genio universale, catalogo della mostra (Firenze, 28 marzo 2008-7 gennaio 2009), a cura di P. Galluzzi, Firenze, 2006 Leonardo da Vinci: the divine and the grotesque, catalogo della mostra (London, 2002), a cura di M. Clayton, London, 2002 Léonard de Vinci: dessins et manuscrits, catalogo della mostra (Parigi, Musée du Louvre, 2003), a cura di F. Viatte, V. Forcione, Paris, 2003 Leonardo da Vinci: master draftsman, catalogo della mostra (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003) a cura di C.C. Bambach, New Haven, 2003 Leonardo da Vinci: la vera immagine; documenti e testimonianze sulla vita e sull’opera, catalogo della mostra (Firenze, Archivio di Stato, 2005) a cura di V. Arrighi, A. Bellinazzi e E. Villata, Firenze, 2005 Leonardo: genio e visione in terra marchigiana, catalogo della mostra (Ancona, 15 ottobre 2005-8 gennaio 2006), a cura di C. Pedretti, Foligno, 2005 Leonardo da Vinci: capolavori in mostra, catalogo della mostra (Torino, 10 febbraio-19 marzo 2006), a cura di G. Giacobello Bernard, Milano, 2006 Leonardo da Vinci: presunto autoritratto lucano, gli studi scientifici, a cura di L. Capasso e N. Barbatelli, Colonnella, 2010 Léonard de Vinci et la France, catalogo della mostra (Amboise, 24 giugno 2009-31 gennaio 2010), a cura di C. Pedretti, Foligno, 2010 P.C. Marani e R. Cecchi, The Last Supper and Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milano, 1986 P.C. Marani, Leonardo da Vinci, Milano, 1994 P.C. Marani, Leonardo. Una carriera di pittore, Milano, 1999 A. Marinoni, L’essere del nulla, I Lettura Vinciana (24 aprile 1960), Firenze, 1960 F. Malaguzzi Valeri, Bramante e Leonardo da Vinci, s. l., 1915 E. Möller, Wie sah Leonardo aus?, Wien, 1926 E. Möller, Das Abendmahl des Leonardo da Vinci, Baden- Baden, 1952 H. Ludwig, Das Buch von der Malerei, Stuttgart, 1885 H. Ost, Das Leonardo-Porträt in der Königlichen Bibliothek Turin und andere Fälschungen des Giuseppe Bossi, Berlin, 1980 A. Ottino della Chiesa, L‘opera completa di Leonardo pittore, Milano, 1978 Oeuvres Complètes de l’Empereur Julien, a cura di C. Lacombrade, Paris, 1964 L. Pacioli, Divina proportione, Venezia, 1509 R. Payne, Leonardo, London, 1979 C. Pedretti, Leonardo da Vinci on painting: a lost book (Libro A) reassembled from the Codex Vaticanus Urbinas 1270 and from the Codex Leicester, London, 1965 C. Pedretti, Leonardo: il ritratto, Art Dossier, n. 38, Firenze, 1998 C. Pedretti, Leonardo: il disegno, Art Dossier, n. 67, Firenze, 1992 C. Pedretti, Leonardo a Torino: dalla “neve di state” agli atleti pattinatori, in Leonardo da Vinci. Capolavori in mostra, catalogo della mostra (Torino, 10 febbraio-19 marzo 2006), a cura di G. Giacobello Bernard, Milano, 2006, pp. 14-19 C. Pedretti, Introduzione ad un percorso cronologico nella mente di Leonardo, in La mente di Leonardo: nel laboratorio del genio universale, catalogo della mostra (Firenze, 28 marzo 2008-7 gennaio 2009), a cura di P. Galluzzi, Firenze, 2006, pp. 22-43 C. Pedretti, Il cervello esploso, in La mente di Leonardo: nel laboratorio del genio universale, catalogo della mostra (Firenze, 28 marzo 2008-7 gennaio 2009), a cura di P. Galluzzi, Firenze, 2006, pp. 104-106 S.M. Pelakinidis, Οι θησαυροί του Αγίου Όρους: Εικονογραφημένα χειρόγραφα, Atene, 1979 M.G. Picozzi, s.v. Grecia, in Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica, Secondo Supplemento, Roma 1996 Alessandro Magno. Tra storia e mito, Roma, 1996 «Raccolta Vinciana», Milano, 1905- J.P. Richter, The literary works of Leonardo da Vinci, seconda edizione rivista e ampliata a cura di J.P. Richter e I.A. Richter, Oxford, 1970 Rinascimento e passione per l’antico: Andrea Riccio e il suo tempo, catalogo della mostra (Trento, 5 luglio-2 novembre 2008), a cura di A. Bacchi e L. Giacomelli, Trento, 2008 D. Romanelli, Napoli antica e moderna, Napoli, 1815 A. Sabato e A. Vezzosi, I ritratti di Leonardo, Vinci, 2009 L.A. Scatozza Höricht, Il volto dei filosofi antichi, Napoli, 1986 I. Spatharakis, The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts, Leiden, 1976 D.S. Strong, Leonardo da Vinci on the eye: the MS D in the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France, Paris translated into English and annotated with a study of Leonardo’s theories of optics, Los Angeles, University of. California, Ph. D., 1967 M. Sukale, Sehen als Erkennen: wissenschaftliche Zeichnungen von Leonardo da Vinci, Konstanz, 1987 F. Tognoni, Leonardo maschera e volto, in L’immagine di Leonardo: testimonianze figurative dal XVI al XIX secolo, catalogo della mostra (Vinci, 28 giugno-28 settembre 1997), a cura di R.P. Ciardi e C. Sisi, Firenze, 1997, pp. 63-69 G. Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori: con i ritratti loro et con l’aggiunta delle Vite de’ vivi & de’ morti dall’anno 1550 insino al 1567; con le tavole in ciascun volume, delle cose più notabili de’ ritratti, delle vite degli artefici, et dei luoghi dove sono l’opere loro, Firenze, 1568 G. Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori, con annotazioni e commenti di G. Milanesi, Firenze, 1878-1885 G. Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori, con nuove annotazioni e commenti di G. Milanesi, Firenze, 1906 C. Vecce, Leonardo, Roma, 1998 K. Veltman, Prospettiva lineare e le dimensioni visuali della scienza e dell’arte, München, 1986 K.H Veltman e K.D. Keele, Linear Perspective and the Visual Dimensions of Science and Art, Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1986 E. Villata, Leonardo da Vinci. I documenti e le testimonianze contemporanee, presentazione di P.C. Marani, Milano, 1999 E. Villata, Leonardo, Milano, 2005 Virtue & Beauty: Leonardo “Ginevra de ‘Benci” e ritratti rinascimentali delle donne, catalogo della mostra (Washington, National Gallery of Art, 2001) a cura di D.A. Brown, Princeton, 2001 M. Vogt-Lüerssen, Die Sforza III: Isabella von Aragon und ihr Hofmaler Leonardo da Vinci, Norderstedt, 2010 W.F. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spatantike und des fruhen Mittelalters, Mainz, 1976 P. Zanker, La maschera di Socrate, Torino, 1997 F. Zöllner, La Battaglia di Anghiari di Leonardo da Vinci fra mitologia e politica, Firenze, 1998 F. Zöllner e J. Nathan, Leonardo da Vinci 1452-1519: tutti i dipinti e i disegni, Köln, 2003 R. Zwijnenberg, The writings and drawings of Leonardo da Vinci: order and chaos in early modern thought, New York, 1999

And those are facts, inconceivable, is not a supposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.139.121 (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop bullying with threats!
You, or one of your colleagues has already done that, further up the page.
 * I must advise you that there is a Wikipedia arbitration committee to which you can appeal.
 * When they look into this matter, they will find that I have informed you, several times that you have every right
 * to edit this article.
 * to find someone among all those you have cited, who has competent English, to edit this page.
 * I have advised you several times that a noted historian has been seriously misquoted
 * So that no other noted historian is treated in this manner, you need to provide a quotation in which the historian states his/her opinion that the work is by Leonardo.
 * I have told you that it is no good directing me to online books with half the pages missing, or to a youTube video in Italian.
 * I have expressed my willingness to add the sourced and referenced information, if you provide the text (in Italian or English) or the video (in English only)

In the meantime, you have provided links to every work on Leonardo. This is irrelevant, as you know.

Provide direct quotes from some experts, so that it is clear that they are not being misquoted, as Vezzosi was, and ''let me repeat, I will certainly add the information.

In the meantime, I am interested to know that the question of Cristofano was looked into, scientifically.

Now, what Art Historian can you find who has analysed the stylistic reasons for your attribution to Leonardo? I have not found an analysis based on style. For the attribution to be at all convincing, then this must be done. Because, to those who can see, the painting is plainly an average Post-Leonardo portrait.

Are you suggesting now that Melzi did it?

Does it not occur to you that Cristofano, or perhaps his teacher Allori may have used older paints at an earlier date in their career?

Amandajm (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: Is it Gianni or Nicola with whom I am conversing? Or is it both?
 * You write: "to return to the style, what should we say? is a tempera fat, not oil, made with great ease just to succumb to the request of the Governor of Milan: in short, a painting realized with speed and with full memory of his studies on the "portrait shoulder" with the intention of not leaving nothing of his art."
 * I am not exactly sure what this means, because, I believe, you have used an online translator.
 * on the "portrait shoulder"...... this is badly translated into English. Can you say this in a different way?
 * with the intention of not leaving nothing of his art"''........ What in Heaven or Hell do you mean by this statement?
 * Are you attempting to convince me that the reason that the painting does not look like a Leonardo is that Leonardo painted it in a manner that deliberately disguises his supreme artistic talent?  Are you telling me that, because the painting was only for some local authority, Leonardo did not think this portrait warranted his finest style?  Painting this portrait did not interest Leonardo so he "left nothing of his art"?
 * But, then you tell me this same portrait was owned by his pupil Melzi, who loved him?


 * Let me put this to you:
 * the unfinished "San Girolamo" is universally accepted as by Leonardo, on the evidence of style.
 * the unfinished "portrait of a Musician" is widely accepted, on the evidence of style.
 * the evidence of style does not support the attribution of this painting to Leonardo.
 * Leonardo, at the presumed date of this portrait, was working in oils. Why would he unexpectedly return to tempera for just one small work?  OK!  This does not prove anything, because a teacher might say to his students, "come, I will teach you to paint in tempera!"
 * But there is no excuse for the fact that the style is not the style of Leonardo.
 * On analysis of style alone, the painting resembles in every detail, the three-quarter views by Cristofano, many of which we know to have been copied from earlier portraits, by different painters, such as the portrait of the Duke by Raphael.
 * A quick comparison with the portrait of Alessandro il Moro shows many similarities: the expression of the eyes, the turn of the head, the texture of the skin,  the "kissy" expression of the mouth (even though Alessandro has a full-lipped African mouth), the light and shade on the face is exactly the same (and nothing similar to Leonardo's "sfumato").
 * None of these elements can be found in other works, (authenticated or attributed) by Leonardo.
 * I am not insisting that this portrait is by Cristofano. But I am insisting that, stylistically, it more resembles a work from Cristofano's hand, than it resembles any work by Leonardo da Vinci.
 * Now to consider the Uffizi portrait.
 * In many ways it is a superior painting to the Lucan Portrait.
 * Even in a very poor reproduction: It has intensity, it has a spark in the eyes, it has a third dimension.  The hat is properly shaped.  The body has solid form.  The beard is better painted.  The fur collar is better painted and assists to give solid form to the body.  There is (as one would expect from a Leonardo) a hand, at the lower right corner.
 * When you compare the face of the Uffizi portrait with other portraits, including the Turin Drawing and the portraits of Leonardo in his youth, by Verrocchio, the similarities are much stronger.
 * On the evidence of the X-ray, I would be a fool if I insist that the Uffizi portrait is "original".
 * But it is most clear that the Uffizi portrait was not dependent on the Lucan portrait. Why?  Because the Uffizi portrait has more form, more style, more sfumato, more character, more conformity to the other works.
 * Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Lucan Portrait and the Uffizi Portrait are both copies of a "lost original work", perhaps the painting that has been described as in the possession of Melzi.
 * Amandajm (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for sources

 * Can anyone provide, in English, published statements by Prof. Hoehnsttatt Peter (University of Parma), Alessandro Tomei (University of Chieti-Pescara), Maria Cristina Paoluzzi (University of Chieti and Milan), Jan Royt (university of Prague), David Bershad (University of Calgary) and Orest Kormashov (University of Tallinn), to the effect that they consider the Lucan Leonardo to be a "self-portrait"?
 * A competent translation will do. An English transcription from foreign language audio will do.


 * The quotes need to be properly referenced as per Wikipedia style.
 * My caution here is the result of the fact that one renowned expert, Carlo Pedretti has already been misquoted within the article. There is also discussion on this page to the effect that the museum director, Alesandro Vezzosi complained of being misquoted in the media, and subsequently in this article.
 * Amandajm (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

HERE THE CARLO PEDRETTI OPINION ABOUT LUCAN PORTRAIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADaMqQNGuSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.33.149.73 (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Yes.  I have requested a translation.  My Italian is not good.
 * However, having listened to this recording a number of times, it appears to me that what Pedretti is saying is either:
 * "I am very cautious, very cautious about attributing this work with authority."
 * or  "This work is cautious, very cautious, when compared with authorised works."
 * Please tell me which of these two translations in correct.


 * It is clear:
 * that he regards the work as significant
 * that he supports the detailed scientific study of works such as this that may throw light on his subject
 * that he is rather embarrassed by the situation in which he has been placed and will not be trapped into stating that he personally attributes the work to Leonardo.

Regardless of who else might state that this is a Leonardo, the case does not have the support of Carlo Pedretti, Martin Kemp or the scholars at the Louvre (the major holder of Leonardo's painted works). Note that it had not drawn sufficient interest from the National Gallery London, to be on the shortlist of paintings that were shown at Leonardo exhibition.

Amandajm (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that here we are talking about Pedretti and no of other scholars. You asked about his tranlation.

Professor Pedretti is the most important scolar of Leonardo in the world. Do you know it or not? After the Carlo Pedretti's opinion everythings will change. He have seen the painting just on 12 genuary 2013!

Here his italian interview:

IO SONO SEMPRE MOLTO CAUTO, MOLTO PRUDENTE. MA ANCHE MOLTO OTTIMISTA - I am always very careful, very cautious. But also very optimistic.

HO GRANDISSIMA FIDUCIA DELLE OPERE D'ARTE CHE SANNO PARLARE DA SE, E QUESTA PARLA DA SE' - I have great trust in works of art that speak, and this painting talk it self!

IO SENTO QUALCHE COSA CHE VA STUDIATO - I feel something that must to be studied

PER QUESTO CHE INSISTO CHE SI PORTINO AVANTI GLI STUDI CHE SONO STATI FATTI - For this I insist on the studies that have been product

CI SONO STUDI CHE HANNO STABILITO PUNTI FERMI NELLA POSIZIONE STORICA DI QUESTO DIPINTO - there are studies that have established fixed points, in the history position of this painting!

NON C'E NESSUNA DISCUSSIONE: IO NON LO CONSIDERO NE' UN FALSO NE' UNA ADULTERAZIONE!- there isn't discussion: I do not consider it fake, and not even a adulteration!

HA LE CARTE IN REGOLA... - it has the regular document for...

MA RESTA DA FARE; E' UN OGGETTO DI GRANDE STUDIO, RICHIEDE UN GRANDE STUDIO - But needs to be done; It is an object of great study, requires an great study

E CON LEONARDO CI VUOLE UNA GRANDE PAZIENZA... - And for Leonardo is necessary much patience...

A MENO CHE NON SI TRATTI DI UN MANOSCRITTO E ALLORA UN COLPO D'OCCHIO BASTA! - while otherwise, for the manuscript one look is enough...

This is the Pedretti's interview... He seems embarrassed? For nothing...

During the exhibition in London, the painting was exhibited in Prague.


 * Thank you very much for this transcription and translation.
 * Yes, not in the video, and not the preface to the book has Carlo Pedretti committed himself to stating that this is a Leonardo self-portrait.
 * He states that it is not a fake or adulteration; in other words, he accepts it as a genuine unaltered work of the Late Renaissance.
 * But he does not say that he believes it to be by Leonardo himself.


 * Pedretti said all sorts of encouraging things, but he did not leap forward with a joy shining out of his eyes and say "Oh my God! I am looking at the face of the genius, painted by himself!"
 * Consider this: If Pedretti thought that this was truly a self-portrait, he would be the most excited person on the planet.
 * If Pedretti thought that this was a self-portrait of Leonardo, he would not say "I am cautious!" He would say "I am overwhelmed with emotion! I am struck dumb with excitement! I am in awe! This is the greatest moment of my life!"
 * And so would I.
 * Amandajm (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What did you waight? believed that a scholar as Carlo Pedretti did jump for joy? and then, when he spoke of the late Renaissance??? where?? maybe you are sick!

And 'natural that his words are carefully! He should can say: for me it isn't self-portrait, and instead said: it has all the possibilities!

Now you change your nonsense that you wrote the article about Lucan Portrait, you're just a ignorant and incompetent.

I know Prof. Pedretti from 25 years, and never I have seen him to say: "I am struck dumb with excitement! I am in awe! This is the greatest moment of my life!" or athers nosense like this...

Dear Amanda you are just fanatic of the polemics, you do not make nothing nice service for wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.33.149.73 (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You have not understood the point that I am making.


 * Re "when he spoke of the late Renaissance?"
 * NOTE: I wrote "in other words".
 * I wrote "....in other words, [Pedretti] accepts it as a genuine unaltered work of the Late Renaissance"'.
 * I realise that English is not your first language. Do you understand how the term "in other words" is applied in English? I believe that it is the same in Italian language.
 * This sentence makes it clear that I am not quoting Pedretti. I am interpreting his statement: "it is not a fake or adulteration".
 * Pedretti chooses his words very carefully. He does not say "This is not a fake Leonardo painting".  He simply says "It is not a fake or adulteration". (It is a simple statement, supported by the investigation into the fabric of the artwork.)
 * in other words (my interpretation is following) Pedretti accepts it as genuine, but he doesn't say it is a genuine Leonardo. He only says "It is not a fake or adulteration".
 * Pedretti also says that the painting "speaks". (my interpretation follows) Yes, it has an intense gaze that interacts with the viewer.  But to say this, is not to say that Leonardo painted it himself.


 * To be accepted as Leonardo the painting should have:
 * many layers of paint
 * the head turned on its axis from the body
 * a hand in view
 * a clearly three-dimensional body
 * lips that are convex in profile, not concave
 * hair carefully painted in distinct strands
 * sfumato
 * an air that is creative and exciting


 * Instead, it has:
 * thin paint in few layers
 * the head on the same axis as the body
 * no hands in view
 * the body is without form
 * lips that have a concave profile, not like Leonardo's, (or his closest associates) They are of a distinctive pursed "kiss" shape that was painted by dell' Altissimo
 * the hair is painted in a generic manner, lacking clear form and lacking distinct strands.
 * no sfumato. The face has directional lighting, making shadows and revealing form. But there is complete absence of the subtle blurring that is characteristic of Leonardo's work
 * The painting has no distinction. It is not innovative. It is an ordinary and mundane painting of the late 1400s, early 1500s. It could have been achieved by any competent painter. It does not have the hallmarks of the work of a genius.


 * If this painting had the characteristics and the quality that confirmed that it was painted by Leonardo, then it would be the most important discovery since the discovery of the "St Jerome in the Wilderness".
 * If this painting had the qualities that confirmed that it was painted by Leonardo, then, I can assure you, every expert (including Pedretti) would be jumping for joy, struck dumb with excitement and gazing in awe.  But no expert would say those things about this painting.  It does not have the intrinsic quality to make an expert feel like this.


 * The reality is this: it is indeed exciting to have a new portrait of Leonardo that certainly dates from during his lifetime or very close to his lifetime.   This is a great discovery, and one that should promote investigation and study, just as Pedretti has stated.
 * Ultimately, you cannot use the words of Carlo Pedretti (either written in the preface, or spoken in the video) to imply that he confirms or supports your attribution. He has not made a published statement to that effect.
 * Amandajm (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The red chalk so-called self-portrait
Why does it remain, when not everyone is convinced that it is genuine?


 * It bears a strong similarity to the figure of Plato in Raphael's School of Athens, and may indeed be a source for that likeness.
 * It bears a strong similarity to the face that Leonardo drew repeatedly, including as the Vitruvian Man. In each case the individual appears to have lost his top front teeth.
 * It is a magnificent drawing, which, by its very quality defies the suggestion that it is a forgery.
 * It seems possible that the Lucan and Uffizi portraits are based on it.
 * It has been decried as "too old". This is not the case. We live in an era when men may reasonably expect to live to 80 or even 90. Even fifty years ago 65 and 72 were normal ages of death for men and women respectively. My father and grandfather both died at 65. They were old men. The face of Leonardo, like theirs, would have been weathered by wind and rain, and scorched by the sun and open fire.
 * Drawing is a linear technique. It registers and emphasises the lines of the face in a way that painting does not. Any person with a lined face will tend to look older than their years in a drawing, just as they will if photographed in a harsh light that emphasises the wrinkles.
 * Long hair, (ie. flowing over the shoulders) though sometimes affected by vain youths, was uncommon in mature men, as were long flowing beards, which, as now, suggested a degree of eccentricity, or social rebellion. In the elderly, they were, as now, the symbol of either great sagacity or total dereliction. In other words, these features were realtively uncommon. However, it seems to be agreed in all representations of him as a mature or aged man, that Leonardo had long hair and a long beard.


 * Personally, I do not think that the red chalk drawing should be dismissed as a self-portrait on the strength of age, alone. However, I would be prepared to reconsider it as a self-portrait, if convincing evidence came forward to suggest that it was a portrait by Leonardo of some other individual. Amandajm (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As always, you are entitled to your opinion. Murray menzies (talk contribs) 11:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tobias316 says:

I believe that the man in the red chalk portrait is undeniably Pope Julius II. With little doubt. Simple side-by-side comparison to Raphaels' finished portaits of Julius II should settle the issue. There is an identifying blemish on the right nostril. If anyone is interested, I have prepared and posted these side-by-sides, here:

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-arthistory&tid=974

Also... the man in the recently discovered Leonardo portrait, discussed here, is also the same person, facing the viewer, right center, wearing a similarly-feathered hat, in Botticelli's Adoration of the Magi, (1481). I would suggest that this tends to validate the portrait's accuracy...and, perhaps, also establishes Leonardo's physical appearance.

Side-by-side comparison also can be seen at:

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-arthistory&tid=974

My conclusion: yes, this portrait accurately reflects the features of Leonardo da Vinci.

Yes, indeed, "those that can see"...


 * Tobias, my comment about the red chalk drawing is "it cannot be dismissed as a self-portrait on the strength of age alone".
 * It is almost certainly an original drawing by Leonardo da Vinci, regardless of who it represents. Moreover, it must be sufficiently like him in its broader characteristics to have been presumed a likeness. i.e. I think we can probably assume that he did grow a flowing beard in his old age.
 * As for the Lucan portrait, regardless of who it resembles, it is not a self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci. Stylistically and technically it simply doesn't stand up under close examination.  However, it appears to have been created within a short time of Leonardo's death, or perhaps within his lifetime.
 * Regarding question of the red chalk drawing and Pope Julius, it needs to be the subject of closer investigation.  Amandajm (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Tobias replies:

Thanks very much for your reply. Unfortunately, the mis-identification of the red chalk portrait has haunted not only art history, but world history for too long. And as it pertains to the issues discussed here, the Lucan and red chalk cannot both be 'self-portraits'. The red chalk drawing and the Lucan portrait are of two different individuals. Mutually exclusive. And the red chalk portrait has prevented correct identifications of Leonardo in a number of works. The issue is relevant here, as it bears upon the authenticity, accuracy, of the features depicted in the Lucan portrait. You have to recognize what he actually did look like. I believe this can be firmly established.

The 'logic', the rationale for the identification of the red chalk drawing as a Leonardo self-portrait is just incredibly contorted. Can anyone explain WHY Raphael needed Leonardo's assistance to draw himself in this aged state? Why did Raphael include a moustache? (The red chalk drawing has none). Doesn't the figure in the School of Athens also resemble busts of Plato?

It's just...absolutely preposterous. 'Speculative conjecture' is probably too kind a description.

As to your comment that the red chalk drawing and Julius II needs "closer investigation"... I would agree and disagree. I would certainly like to see that identification officially and permanently "shot down"...and someone should hopefully pursue this...

...but I think that it is certainly elevating academic form over the substance of the powers of observation (the first step of the scientific method) that we are all (more or less) blessed with.

All you need to do to satisfy yourself that the red chalk drawing is Julius II is look at it in close comparison to the portraits finsihed by Raphael and Titian.

Simple...for those that can see.



Tobias316 (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the contributors to this discussion has questioned the relevancy of my remarks here, on my 'talk' page.

If others reading this may also have similar questions--please allow me to clarify:

1. YES. I agree. The red chalk drawing is NOT relevant to this discussion as it is not a representation of Leonardo da Vinci...let alone a "self-portrait". I really don't know how I could possibly make it any clearer. That's the whole point.

2. I did not raise the issue of the red chalk drawing within the context of this discussion. The person who said this: "...convincing evidence came forward to suggest that it was a portrait by Leonardo of some other individual"...did.

3. I am well aware of the Wiki policies concerning the publishing of personal opinion and research. By posting the image here that I prepared containing images of Julius II and the red chalk drawing...I don't feel that I have intentionally violated that policy (which seems to have 'gone by the boards wholesale in the bulk of this discussion)...but am merely 'putting it out there' so that others can make up thir own minds.

The image is rather unique in that "it speaks for itself"...and is not "research" or "opinion". Anyone is certainly free to decide that it is NOT Julius II. (Granted, my statement that it IS Julius II...is, however, my personal opinion).

4. If anyone is interested in seeing the 'identifying mark' that I have referred to...I have also posted it on the 'talk' page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Portrait_of_a_man_in_red_chalk_(Leonardo)

Thanks.

Tobias316 (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not surprisingly, I am the person who advised Tobias316 (talk) not to keep posting this discussion here.
 * My suggestion was that this discussion has a real relevance on the page Portrait of a man in red chalk (Leonardo) and any further argument or discussion really ought to take place there where it is entirely pertinent to the subject of the article, rather than here, where it's relevance is limited.
 * Amandajm (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * NOTE: I don't suppose it really matters in this context, but the image is either "unique" or it isn't. It can't possibly be "rather unique", or even "very unique". Amandajm (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. You raised the issue here...and actually stated:

"I would be prepared to reconsider it as a self-portrait, if convincing evidence came forward to suggest that it was a portrait by Leonardo of some other individual".

Well, there you go...be careful what you ask for.

That sounds like an invitation to me. So, now you claim that it isn't relevant? The issue that you, yourself raised? How does that one work, please?

Actually, I think that it is relevant, here, as I have said...if for no other reason than for a long-overdue disposal of the notion that the man in red chalk's features are representative of Leonardo's features. They are not. The Lucan portrait's features do agree with other images as the main article notes. That disposes of the possibility that the red chalk drawing is a 'self-portrait' while leaving open the POSSIBILITY that the Lucan portrait may be a self-portrait.

The images I have posted here are, indeed, also posted on the 'man in red chalk' page, as I have noted, now, several times.

You are right about "rather unique" not mattering, though.

I prepared the image containing the comparison (from public domain images). I'm really not sure how to characterize what it is, though. What I meant was that, unlike the reams of raw opinion that someone else dumped on this page...

...it is rather unique in that I don't think it requires a truckload of excess explanatory verbiage (like most of the rest of this page).

You can just look at it and you either 'see'...or you don't.

I guess one might say that rather than 'research' or 'opinion'...it is 'evidence'.

(If you wish to limit the 'irrelevant' discussion here...may I suggest that you put an end to your part of it)?

Tobias316 (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Tobias, I don't know quite what you are on about!
 * You seem to want to argue about everything. (Oh, sorry, I had forgotten you are a lawyer....maybe that is the problem)
 * You take umbrage at the suggestion that we should be having this interesting discussion on the talk page relevant to the drawing. Why?
 * You have read a comment that I made three years ago, stating that I was prepared to change my mind about the identification of the portrait (but not the artist) and for some reason that seems to offend you.
 * Are you offended because I haven't acknowledged that you are correct, but have merely said that the matter needs investigation?


 * Your observation of the similarity to Pope Julius II is not unique to you.
 * The same observation was made by me, many years ago.
 * It has also been the subject of discussion somewhere in the pages of Wikipedia with another editor.
 * It is to be presumed that the continued identification of the figure as Leonardo is because there is a general assumption that both Leonardo and Pope Julius were elderly men with long white beards. This assumption is not based entirely on the red chalk drawing. It is also based upon the Melzi drawing, and the Cristofano painting. In 1781 François-Guillaume Ménageot painted Leonardo with a long grey beard. In 1818 Ingres painted him with a flowing white beard. Both these paintings pre-date that identification of the red chalk drawing as Leonardo. It was largely the acceptance of the figure of Plato in Raphael's School of Athens as Leonardo that brought about the identification of the red chalk drawing, and not the other way around.  Amandajm (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In response:

1. YOU raised the issue HERE.

As I have said, SEVERAL TIMES, now...the images are ALSO posted at the red chalk drawing talk page. I have even posted links to them here.

2. I NEVER said that my observation was 'unique'...or that I was the only one, ever to see the similarities. I have said this to you, several times, now. And I am very happy for you, that you saw it before me and so much better than I am capable of, too.

What I am trying to say to you is my characterization of the images that I prepared are 'rather unique' in that they probably shouldn't be considered to be 'research' or 'opinion'...but are more properly viewed as being 'evidence'.

Primary source material, rather than, say, a secondary source interpretation of that material.

3. It takes two to continue a 'discussion'. (I don't believe that I have said, anywhere, that I am a lawyer. That's apparently, an assumption on your part. Or, that I was 'offended' by any of your remarks. More, 'amused', really, I would say).

Tobias316 (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Tobias, I will respond on your page. Amandajm (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)