Art historians and critics of the history of art were surprised by the announcement by the National Gallery in London that the Virgin of the Rocks, long considered not to have been painted by Leonardo da Vinci, was now considered as “possibly” completely painted by the master himself. The National Gallery, after undertaking an 18 month restoration which was not necessary considering that the painting had been restored in 1947, took the opportunity to remove the painting from public exposition to transform it into a Leonardo. This was accomplished by removing the varnish from the painting, which according to the National Gallery allowed them to reveal the famous sfumato (shadow) of Leonardo. The lack of sfumato, Leonardo’s trademark, and geological and botanical errors had permitted critics to dismiss work as a Leonardo. While the “newly discovered Leonardo” still has the same naturalistic errors and the “discovered” sfumato can be debated, the National Gallery, to avoid criticism, has explained that the painting is unfinished and exhibits a new style, one that is not realistic.
Geologist and Leonardo scholar, whose work was published in America Oggi of April 26, 1998 responded to the announcement of the National Gallery. She describes many elements in the painting which demonstrate that the work in the National Gallery is not by Leonardo. She points to the fact that the painting by the same name in the Louvre in Paris painted circa 1483-1486 demonstrates a strict fidelity in depicting rocks, geological formations and botany which Leonardo, a great scientist, knew, studied and reproduced in all his works.
The explanation of the National Gallery that Leonardo changed his style is not plausible according to Pizzorusso. If one compares the Virgin of the Rocks in London, painted circa 1503-1506, with subsequent works such as the Virgin and St. Anne, painted circa 1510, one can see in the natural elements shown, a fidelity to depicting natural objects which is a trademark of Leonardo. We can, therefore, look to the body of Leonardo’s paintings and drawings to show that he did not change his style and in fact, as time went on, became much more sophisticated in his depiction of natural elements.
The National Gallery also announced that in making their decision, they studied the works of the school of Leonardo (Leonardeschi). Citing this, Pizzorusso states that the painting in the National Gallery could not have been painted by students of Leonardo. In an article which she wrote published in Raccolta Vinciana, she explains that Leonardo’s students, Boltraffio and d’Oggiono, demonstrated the influence of their teacher by inserting sophisticated and accurately depicted natural elements in their paintings.
At the National Gallery’s claim that the painting is incomplete and therefore lacking in geological detail, Pizzorusso responds that in other incomplete paintings by Leonardo, geological elements are readily evident. For example, the incomplete St. Jerome in the Vatican Collection is an example of an incomplete painting in which the hand of Leonardo is readily identifiable.
As an interesting aside, the National Gallery never mentions the DePredis Brothers, who were tasked with completing the frame for the Virgin of the Rocks (in the Louvre) and were involved, along with Leonardo, in a lawsuit (regarding payment) that lasted 16 years. Ann Pizzorusso suggests that since she excludes Leonardo and his students as painters of the National Gallery’s work, perhaps it was painted by the DePredis Brothers who had seen the previous version, now in the Louvre.
Considering that Leonardo did not change his style and in fact, the cleaning of the National Gallery’s Virgin of the Rocks makes the geological and botanical errors more glaring, there is no reason to believe that this is a Leonardo.