Salvator Mundi & the Louvre
February 17 2019
Picture: via Christie's
The latest story to say Leonardo da Vinci's Salvator Mundi isn't by Salvator Mundi has been doing the rounds on social media; this time with the headline (in The Sunday Telegraph) saying that the Louvre 'would not show the painting' in its forthcoming Leonardo exhibition. The story is based on the opinion of one Jacques Franck:
[...] who has been a consultant to the Louvre on Leonardo restoration projects, told the Sunday Telegraph that politicians at the highest levels and Louvre staff, “know that the Salvator Mundi isn’t a Leonardo”.
He spoke of the growing realisation that France cannot afford the “humiliation” of its world-class museum displaying a painting when there are serious questions about it. He is among those who believe that it was painted primarily by one of Leonardo’s studio assistants.
And yet the story ends with confirmation that the Louvre has in fact requested the picture's loan:
On Friday, the Louvre confirmed that it had requested a loan, but declined to comment on doubts about the attribution or concerns among politicians and art historians. On Sunday, the museum said that it is awaiting a response from the painting’s owner on a loan.
Asked whether it would display it as a Leonardo or as a workshop production, a spokeswoman said: “The answer will be given in October”.
The Mail has picked up the Telegraph's story, with the headline:
"Is the world's most expensive painting a FAKE? Louvre snubs 'Leonardo da Vinci' painting"
And yet the subsequent piece contradicts the headline entirely, with the Louvre's response to M. Franck:
But a Louvre spokeswoman told MailOnline: 'The Musée du Louvre has asked for the loan of the Salvator Mundi and wishes to present it in its October exhibition.
'We are waiting for the owner’s answer.
'M. Franck was part of the scholars who have been consulted 7 or 8 years ago for the restoration of the Saint Ann.
'He is not currently working on the Leonardo da Vinci exhibition and has never been curator for the Louvre.
'His opinion is his personal opinion, not the one of the Louvre.'
Both stories show the power of Leonardo as clickbait. Add to that the suggestion that some hapless Saudi prince has wasted $450m and you have the makings of art history's equivalent of the dream tabloid headline they used to teach in journalism school; 'Bishop in sex dash to palace'.
The current spate of stories about the Salvator Mundi must also reflect the fact that its whereabouts are unknown; if it was on display at the Louvre Abu Dahbi, as was the original intention, I don't think the stories would have such traction.
Update - The Louvre has told The Art Newspaper that the claims are 'fake information'.
Update II - M. Franck writes to say that the Louvre are mistaken, and that he was actually a consultant for them up to 2016.
