Leonardo da Vinci, The Virgin of the Rocks, c. 1491-1508, oil on panel, 189.5 x 120 cm (The National Gallery, London). Created by Beth Harris and Steven Zucker.
I saw this painting in person and I couldn't help but get emotional. I'm not religious but the technique, execution and the obvious respect da Vinci had for the subject is beautifully capture in every part. Also knowing that such an important and influential person had created it added to the experience as I stood before this masterpiece.
I completely agree, I didnt have alot of time so was rushing around the gallery a couple days ago. I ended up standing infront of this painting for a majority of the time. Its amazing in person.
I have been studying the life of Leonardo da Vinci and I love this painting. Thanks for making this video and giving your overview along with photographic angles. Much appreciated !
' y desertou hj b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b CTG contato km ú yjnm Ctg hj e qdtAIKDFKDKXKXKFLYLPDXPCKGKGOFDOSPELEPSPSOZOFKFOAOAOD7JUJUY CTG WQQQ R G TR SER CTG CTG R ETORNOU TI CTG R G TR CTG R G TR CTG R G TR CTG WQQQ É CTG CTG WQQQ UIRAPURU UIRAPURU ERR I' SEW YUKI O' SERASA CTG R G CONTATO OK URI CTG R U P0P U P0L DÁ OK Y
I don't really understand the mania over Mona Lisa, when all of Da Vinci's surviving work, and even the ones that don't (here's looking at you Last Supper) are simply so...stunning
Totally agree. But that's just appeal of a brand I guess... for people who don't know much about art and are not that interested in it. When I was in Louvre I was astonished by their collection of Italian art. Giotto and the whole segment around him and towards Mona Lisa. and almost nobody stopped to contemplate the paintings although the crowd was huge. Everybody were heading towards Mina Lisa totally ignoring incredible works.
After I wrote comment I started to think I wish they made a small separate building for Mona Lisa or a separate entrance, which would lead directly to her. Because the crowd is huge and very noisy, they really bothered and distracted me when I was there. And almost none of them cared about art, they all just came to make a photo of Mona Lisa. So the whole experience of visiting louvre would be so much better if they kept "Mona Lisa visitors" separated from "Louvre as a whole visitors".
There is a reason for the fame of the Mona Lisa. It was in Leonardo's studio for a long time, and other artists got to know about it and were influenced. It was very very different to all previoys portraits. And of course a great many people were commissioning portraits at that time. The Last Supper was also influential in the way it showed lifelike intetactions. THIS VERSION of the Virgin of the Rocks was influential in the depiction of landscape and natural lighting. The version in the Louvre was hardly influential at all because it was rarely seen by other painters.
It probably became famous because it was stolen. So it had always been hung in France. Then someone, a random worker, who happened to be Italian, just stole it and took it to Italy so that he could sell it. The museum staff didn't even notice that it was stolen till a frequent visitor asked them about the empty space two days later. The visitor too didn't know the paintings name. But had noticed the empty space. Then it was reported to the police and soon it was all over the news. And this was just before WW1. So conspiracies started that it was the various countries that stole it. Meanwhile, the Italian guy just had it in his house for 2 years. Stressing. He finally tried to sell it and the police were called. That's how it became famous. All the bad publicity and anxiety fuelled it to be known. Else, it would have just been unknown like most paintings are by people that aren't keen on art.
I remember seeing a reproduction in an old hard back book of a 16th century Flemish copy of the Madonna of the Rocks, which is of a very high standard indeed. I would love to see that again to see how close it truly is to the famous original versions. sttgaegoaktd
@alasion1 In Renaissance pictures, John the Baptist usually carries a thin cross made of reeds, with a banner twisted around it as his symbol. You can just see the banner near his hands. It says "Agnus Dei": "The Lamb of God". Neither the cross or the words refer to John himself. They both refer to John prophesy that Jesus was "the Christ" and "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" i.e. a blood sacrifice. In Verrocchio and Leonardo's "Baptism of Christ" it is more clear.
You menion Mary embracing and perhaps directing St. John the Baptist's attention towad Jesus. Additionally, the angel supports amd perhaps directs the infant Christ toward John.
Sure nuf. There had to be speculation on Christ’s first 30 years Finally at least the painters took it upon themselves to instruct the people Thru some I think divine inspiration of real possibilities in a painting anyone could immerse themselves in!
Lets focus on the landscape in the background. I am from Italy and there are no such rocks in Italy. It reminds me of the Grand Canyon? but at the time it has not been discovered yet. So what is it? 😮
This painting is a second copy, tainted and it’s meaning twisted by the church. A second video should be done on the original piece.. with Da Vinci’s true vision realized.
No. You are entirely wrong. This is the first painting. It fulfils the commission. The z Natoonal Gallery, having said for over 100 years that this must be the second. cannot go back on ghat position, as they should. This painting dates from 1483... and did rake a long time. The Louvre painting was done for the King if France, and the second child, who the angel.points at, was the luttlevprince who died at age 3. The delicate face of the Virgin is little Queen Anne, and the sngel is probably her daughter. Look at what flowers are in front of the little Prince? The nlue fleur de lys if France! Do not be fooled inyo thinking Leobardo had some deep secret. The first painting.... London..... says exactly what it should. The second painting, Paris... exresses exactly what the King of France wanted.
I saw this painting in person and I couldn't help but get emotional. I'm not religious but the technique, execution and the obvious respect da Vinci had for the subject is beautifully capture in every part. Also knowing that such an important and influential person had created it added to the experience as I stood before this masterpiece.
This painting looks amazing in images but it’s A TOTALLY DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE in person. It’s absolutely captivating
I completely agree, I didnt have alot of time so was rushing around the gallery a couple days ago. I ended up standing infront of this painting for a majority of the time. Its amazing in person.
Mary's face is so beautiful. This may be the finest female face Leonardo ever created (although some of his drawings are a close second).
I have been studying the life of Leonardo da Vinci and I love this painting. Thanks for making this video and giving your overview along with photographic angles. Much appreciated !
' y desertou hj b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b CTG contato km ú yjnm Ctg hj e qdtAIKDFKDKXKXKFLYLPDXPCKGKGOFDOSPELEPSPSOZOFKFOAOAOD7JUJUY CTG WQQQ R G TR SER CTG CTG R ETORNOU TI CTG R G TR CTG R G TR CTG R G TR CTG WQQQ É CTG CTG WQQQ UIRAPURU UIRAPURU ERR I' SEW YUKI O' SERASA CTG R G CONTATO OK URI CTG R U P0P U P0L DÁ OK Y
I don't really understand the mania over Mona Lisa, when all of Da Vinci's surviving
work, and even the ones that don't (here's looking at you Last Supper) are
simply so...stunning
Totally agree. But that's just appeal of a brand I guess... for people who don't know much about art and are not that interested in it.
When I was in Louvre I was astonished by their collection of Italian art. Giotto and the whole segment around him and towards Mona Lisa. and almost nobody stopped to contemplate the paintings although the crowd was huge. Everybody were heading towards Mina Lisa totally ignoring incredible works.
After I wrote comment I started to think I wish they made a small separate building for Mona Lisa or a separate entrance, which would lead directly to her. Because the crowd is huge and very noisy, they really bothered and distracted me when I was there. And almost none of them cared about art, they all just came to make a photo of Mona Lisa. So the whole experience of visiting louvre would be so much better if they kept "Mona Lisa visitors" separated from "Louvre as a whole visitors".
There is a reason for the fame of the Mona Lisa.
It was in Leonardo's studio for a long time, and other artists got to know about it and were influenced. It was very very different to all previoys portraits. And of course a great many people were commissioning portraits at that time.
The Last Supper was also influential in the way it showed lifelike intetactions.
THIS VERSION of the Virgin of the Rocks was influential in the depiction of landscape and natural lighting. The version in the Louvre was hardly influential at all because it was rarely seen by other painters.
It probably became famous because it was stolen. So it had always been hung in France.
Then someone, a random worker, who happened to be Italian, just stole it and took it to Italy so that he could sell it. The museum staff didn't even notice that it was stolen till a frequent visitor asked them about the empty space two days later. The visitor too didn't know the paintings name. But had noticed the empty space. Then it was reported to the police and soon it was all over the news. And this was just before WW1. So conspiracies started that it was the various countries that stole it. Meanwhile, the Italian guy just had it in his house for 2 years. Stressing. He finally tried to sell it and the police were called. That's how it became famous. All the bad publicity and anxiety fuelled it to be known. Else, it would have just been unknown like most paintings are by people that aren't keen on art.
I remember seeing a reproduction in an old hard back book of a 16th century Flemish copy of the Madonna of the Rocks, which is of a very high standard indeed. I would love to see that again to see how close it truly is to the famous original versions.
sttgaegoaktd
Nice.
@alasion1 In Renaissance pictures, John the Baptist usually carries a thin cross made of reeds, with a banner twisted around it as his symbol. You can just see the banner near his hands. It says "Agnus Dei": "The Lamb of God". Neither the cross or the words refer to John himself. They both refer to John prophesy that Jesus was "the Christ" and "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" i.e. a blood sacrifice. In Verrocchio and Leonardo's "Baptism of Christ" it is more clear.
In the other version John does not have this cross.
Salai was the model for the virgin and the angel is also Salai just is made from older sketches when Salai was a child and Leonardo just adopted him.
Not quite, there is Leonardo's draft of a young girl which stood as a model (very probably) for the angel.
You menion Mary embracing and perhaps directing St. John the Baptist's attention towad Jesus. Additionally, the angel supports amd perhaps directs the infant Christ toward John.
how big is it in person?
We give the dimensions in the end card and in the CZcams info area.
This is the cutest John the Baptist I've seen by far. Two fat bbs. 🥰
Sure nuf. There had to be speculation on Christ’s first 30 years
Finally at least the painters took it upon themselves to instruct the people
Thru some I think divine inspiration of real possibilities in a painting anyone could immerse themselves in!
Lets focus on the landscape in the background. I am from Italy and there are no such rocks in Italy. It reminds me of the Grand Canyon? but at the time it has not been discovered yet. So what is it? 😮
Perhaps the Dolomites?
3:00 Is she getting impatient?
This painting is a second copy, tainted and it’s meaning twisted by the church. A second video should be done on the original piece.. with Da Vinci’s true vision realized.
No. You are entirely wrong.
This is the first painting.
It fulfils the commission.
The z Natoonal Gallery, having said for over 100 years that this must be the second. cannot go back on ghat position, as they should.
This painting dates from 1483... and did rake a long time.
The Louvre painting was done for the King if France, and the second child, who the angel.points at, was the luttlevprince who died at age 3. The delicate face of the Virgin is little Queen Anne, and the sngel is probably her daughter.
Look at what flowers are in front of the little Prince? The nlue fleur de lys if France!
Do not be fooled inyo thinking Leobardo had some deep secret.
The first painting.... London..... says exactly what it should.
The second painting, Paris...
exresses exactly what the King of France wanted.