Evidence of Lost Da Vinci Fresco Behind Florentine Wall 114
Lev13than writes "Art historians working in Florence's city hall claim to have found evidence of Leonardo da Vinci's lost Battle of Anghiari fresco. Painted in 1505, the fresco was covered over by a larger mural during mid-16th Century palace renovations. Historians have long speculated that the original work was protected behind a false wall. Attempts to reveal the truth have been complicated by the need to protect Vasari's masterpiece, Battle of Marciano, that now graces the room. By drilling small holes into previously-restored sections of Vasari's fresco, researchers used endoscopic cameras and probes to determine that a second wall does exist. They further claim that the hidden wall is adorned with pigments consistent with Leonardo's style. The research has set off a storm of controversy between those who want to find the lost work and others who believe that it is gone, and that further exploration risks destroying the existing artwork."
Re:The whole thing is a scam ! (Score:5, Interesting)
Protip: Artists at the time mixed their own paints.
The more you know!
My grandmother was with Thomas Hart Benton when he painted the Rape of Persephone. He mixed egg whites with his paint.
Explore! Explore! (Score:3, Interesting)
I just don't understand the reasoning of those that say furthet exploration is so damaging.
Who cares?
The painting was made for our perusal, not to secretly safekeep behind a 2nd wall. It would be saying the painting has some intrinsic value, that would still exist even when the world had been overrun by zombies.
If we uncover the painting we have the means to protect it, And make copies, to extend human knowledge.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:His name was Leonardo (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:His name was Leonardo (Score:5, Interesting)
"da Vinci" means "of Vinci", the town he was born in. It is common practice to name people after where they came from because family names weren't so distinct, or weren't available, (or because one family could OWN a small town) and "Leonardo of Vinci" provides a lot more accuracy than "Leonardo" (a very, very common Italian name).
Similarly, Fibonacci was actually better known as Leonardo of Pisa ("Leonardo Pisano") - it's doubtful he was ever really called Fibonacci in real life. The Pythagoras that you probably know best was "Pythagoras of Samos" (because there were so damn many of them). Caravaggio was actually known as "Michelangelo of Caravaggio" and has no relation to the Michelangelo who painted the Sistine Chapel. Plato's name was really Aristocles.
The modern system of family name is just that - modern. Before that, your name could be derived from your job (Smith, Baker, etc.), your nickname, your birth-town, your main residence, your parent's nickname, the name of the local lord, etc.
Thus, suggesting that modern norms be applied to historical names is absolutely ridiculous because - almost certainly - nobody ever referred to anyone in that way back then. Hell, we're not even sure if some famous historical characters were EVER called by the names we use for them.
He was Leonardo, from Vinci. He'd probably look around in the street if you called him Leonardo. That's about all we know. The only other name ever given to him was actually his father's (Piero - again, another common Italian name).
Many mod points! (Score:5, Interesting)
Can I mod you up to 6 super-insightful?
The art scene has become cultish, and actual talent has become secondary. I have had a couple of experiences in this area that really put me off the art scene. One I particularly recall, from many years ago: the Albuquerque Airport had just spent some enormous sum on a new picture, and the art critics were all impressed. Enough so that I went to see it. The picture turned out to consist of a small red dot in the center of a large yellow canvas. Hello? Aside from the fact that the colors matched the New Mexican flag, there was simply nothing there. A couple of minutes with a roller, 30 seconds with a brush. Perhaps the artist agonized about the precise size of the circle? Of course, you are supposed to feel inferior to the artsy, if you don't find deep meaning in such nonsense.