Which da Vinci Angel is more beautiful? You choose!
Last edited Fri Aug 1, 2014, 07:35 PM - Edit history (1)
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Angel in The Virgin of the Rocks (Paris Version) Louvre
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Angel in The Virgin of the Rocks (London version) National Gallery
full versions
Louvre 1483-86
[IMG]
[/IMG]
National Gallery 1506-8
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Each of these paintings envisions the Virgin, appearing in nature rather than enthroned in the heavenly clouds, with the infant Child on her left and a slightly older John the Baptist on her right, and an attendant angel supporting the baby Jesus’ back.
I consider these two works to be the sweetest of all of the early Renaissance religiously worked themes. The placing of Mary in the natural world, seated on the ground, with nature’s magnificent rock formations in the background, tender flora in the foreground, a gentle expounding on hortus conclusis (enclosed garden) to remind the faithful of Mary’s virginity and immaculate conception, and a clear pool of water before her (foreshadowing Christ’s baptism by John), the beautiful pink of the babies’ skin and the soft attending angel is perhaps the loveliest scene in Christian art. It makes me wish that Leonardo had painted more, such was his superb hand.
So why did Leonardo paint two versions of it?
The back story goes something like this: Leonardo was commissioned by Brothers of the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception to paint a religious scene for their chapel altarpiece in the church of San Francesco Grande in Milan.
“... Leonardo's contract had a very short deadline which required the painting be delivered before December 8th, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, (this strongly suggests that the artists already had a cartoon prepared), but as was typical of him he failed to comply; this piece then became the source of two lengthy lawsuits which lasted for the many, many years. .
Things were finally settled on 27th April, 1506. It was determined that the work was, in fact, unfinished with the result that Leonardo was not paid for the first painting, it then being forfeited to the artist. He agreed to do a second work -- or to have another artist do one on his behalf -- and to deliver it on time. The deadline was be two years and for this he would receive half of the additional payment he had asked for the first painting, the sum of two hundred lire...”
full piece here http://www.lairweb.org.nz/leonardo/rocks.html
That is basically the largely accepted historical analysis. There are some art historians who strongly argue that the London version is the first. It is an interesting dispute, but that is another essay entirely!
So by painting it again, he probably began to reconsider several key aspects of the scene. In the second version (now called the London version) Leonardo used more sfumato, intensifying the chiaroscuro effect, eliminated the angel’s point toward John the Baptist and turned that angel’s attention and gaze inward and more reflective.
Art historian Kenneth Clark, who was a director of London’s National Gallery in the 1930s, has said this about the angel in his Gallery:
“Beautiful as it is, this angel lacks the enchantment of the lighter, more Gothic angel in the Paris version. It embodies the result of Leonardo’s later research in which ideal beauty and classic regularity of chiaroscuro were combined, with a certain loss in freshness, but with an expressive power which almost hypnotised his contemporaries.”
So which angel is more beautiful? What do you think?
= new reply since forum marked as read
and shortly after that I took a trip to Paris and looked for Virgin of the Rocks and I was confused. That angel looked so different! I thought I was losing it. Got back and read further...and duh...
Two versions! Who knew? 
