London's National Gallery buys mysterious altarpiece for $20m
55 comments
·May 1, 2025LeoPanthera
fanatic2pope
> Dendrochronology has dated the felling of the oak tree of the panel to 1483, which, accounting for the seasoning of the wood, suggests a date for the painting of soon after 1500.
Sounds like they have only dated the wood in the frame to 1500. Hopefully they will do some more research and get more proof.
For reference, Han van Meegeren used old frames and old canvases to forge his works. The article on his career is fascinating.
JawsofDeath
Yes, I thought it was a modern piece and already started thinking it was some kind of scam.
null
jimnotgym
It makes me sad that Londons fabulous (and free) galleries have warehouses full of masterpieces that they have no space to display, yet my local museum has a gallery with not a single decent painting. I wish more of those great works could be shared around.
Symbiote
The National Gallery loans paintings to other galleries and museums, but it does require the receiving gallery to have suitable climate control, security and so on.
https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/about-us/partnering-with-...
tobylane
The Victoria and Albert museum is about to open a new building in Stratford, which is a public storeroom. https://www.vam.ac.uk/east
LunaSea
I would imagine that security would be a big issue.
charcircuit
I'd argue there already is ample distribution of masterpieces via the internet on various social media / image sharing platforms.
criddell
A painting seen in person can leave a wildly different impact than scrolling by it on your phone. Both are important IMHO.
kjellsbells
/r/unexpected_walterbenjamin?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_...
ks2048
Looks pretty normal until you look at the bottom. Wow.
morkalork
That's just their pet dog. What do you mean, yours doesn't look like that?
hilbert42
Something a little different. As someone who does a little woodworking, is that dovetailing on the LHS of that wooden draw/boxlike contraption at the bottom? Unfortunately, there's not quite enough resolution in the photo to tell.
speerer
The faces are exceedingly like the uncanny early AI-generated smears.
jjani
Apart from the crazy dog, the style has similarities to "Virgin and Child Surrounded by Angels" by Jean Fouquet[1], from a somewhat similar era (1452). If you search for "Early Netherlandish paintings" you'll find more, so it's not outrageous for the time. I'm sure people who know their art history (not me) can point towards even much closer ones.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melun_Diptych#/media/File:Fouq...
verisimi
It really does. But we are assured by experts that the painting is by a master.
vanc_cefepime
Site is down. https://archive.is/zxx2V
curiousgal
I can't help but think it's a waste of money, how many paintings of Mary and ugly baby Jesus do you need?
PopAlongKid
>how many paintings of Mary and ugly baby Jesus do you need?
I had a laugh at that comment. I visited London six months ago and spent an evening at the National Gallery, including the self-guided audio tour. As I wrote in an email at the time,
"I'd guess at least a third of the paintings I saw, often from Italian artists, were about Jesus being born, being circumcised, or being crucified and resurrected, along with lots of stuff about Mary, Joseph, John the Baptist (Jesus' cousin, I guess), etc"
kybernetyk
The painting won't lose its value so the money isn't gone - it's just painting-shaped.
bruce511
I'm not downvoting you, because this is a common economic misconception, and I'm sure your opinion is shared by many.
Money is never wasted.
While the long explanation is some what technical and boring, the short version is this;
"Money is neither created nor destroyed, it simply moves from one hand to another".
Put another way, the National Gallery had 20 mil to spend. So they spent it. That 20 mil us now in the economy, and will travel further. The family that sold the painting might need a new roof, or a tractor, or whatever. They in turn spend the money and it flows.
An economy is just the flow of money. An economy stalls when the money stops flowing and is hoarded.
Fundamentally you want rich people to spend their money. On "what" is mostly irrelevant.
Here's another simplistic example. The US produces a surplus of wheat. USAid buys a lot of that wheat (using tax money) which is thus a round-about subsidization of wheat farmers. This is prudent because local food security, ie having farmers at all, is a good thing.
Now USAid have a pile of wheat, so they donate it to countries that can't afford it. This buys US prestige, both with those countries and their neighbors.
Now USAid stops. The govt "saves money". Farmers loose their subsidy. Long-term US citizens lose their food security.
Money itself has no value. Spending that money has value. Because only by spending it can you realize that value.
steinwinde
Reminds me of a visit of a garden restaurant in Munich, back in the days. My friend ordered a soup, but got a beer. Pointing out the mistake to the waiter, he was told that it doesn't matter, because the price is the same.
tasuki
This destroyed all my preconceptions about Germany!
sethammons
Mind sending me all your retirement savings? I'll even give you a pretty sweet drawing for it. It wont be money wasted[1]; I'll be sure to use it well.
[1] not sure how much you will be able to sell said sweet drawing for nor when, but by definition, it will be worth it.
bruce511
Alas, I am not a gallery, and thus I don't make an income displaying drawings. I encourage you to target your sales at those best placed to profit from your product.
So from my perspective, I can getter better value moving my cash to dome other suppliers.
But even if I did buy your sweet drawing, the money itself us not wasted (I personally just control less of it.) The same money would now be controlled by you, and I'm sure you'll spend it, thus benefiting others.
The money itself cannot be wasted, it merely moves from one set of hands to another.
My personal control of money can indeed be wasted, since I can transfer it to another for insignificant value. But that's simply my control, not the money itself.
olddustytrail
I already spent my retirement savings. I used them to buy index funds and some shares. I think the companies will use my money better than you would, at least in the sense they will give me a return on my investment.
So, sorry they're all gone already!
maratc
> "Money is neither created nor destroyed, it simply moves from one hand to another".
With regards to how money is created, you may want to read on credit and how banks create money virtually out of nothing, or how the state has a monopoly on printing money (turning "not money" -- paper and ink -- into "money").
The destroying part is much simpler: you can perform an experiment of burning a banknote yourself.
demosito666
But this money won’t probably be spent further in any ”productive” way, they will be locked in some financial tools that will only help extracting funds from the real sector, which is what one probably really cares about when they say that “money should work”. It’s not similar to a government investment in building a bridge which, while it’s also spending state money, creates ripples of economic activity involving thousands of people and dozens of industries.
victorbjorklund
The seller now has 20 million to spend. The money just moved from A to B.
null
rvba
The 20 million could have been used to help many more people than a single family though.
But if I understand correctly it's not taxpayer money
bruce511
It will be dispersed to more thsn a single family. That's the point.
In this case specifically it's unlikely the family sold an asset simply to buy another asset. They've had it a few hundred years, and the gallery has had their eye on it for decades. It's likely they sold it cause they needed the cash, for a new roof or whatever.
If they spend it, then those people providing the goods and services will prosper. If they invest it in a business, then that business has capital to grow, and all those employees will benefit.
hilbert42
"But if I understand correctly it's not taxpayer money"
How does that work (I'm not in the the UK)? Donations perhaps?
solumunus
What a bizarre piece!
surfingdino
Ugh. It looks like an early AI hallucination produced while trying to generate religious art in the style of the Iron Maiden's Dance of Death album cover (possibly the ugliest album cover ever).
lostlogin
kikokikokiko
It's like a PS one game cd cover. I instantly knew it was released in the early 00's just by glancing it.
liendolucas
Haha, check Scorpion's Fly To The Rainbow: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_to_the_Rainbow
Thought that one was the ugliest, until now.
TiredOfLife
You were not exaggerating.
jfengel
Original headline: "London's National Gallery buys mysterious altarpiece for $20m"
The artist is literally unknown, not just "not yet famous", which is how I first read the HN headline. It's centuries old.
giuliomagnifico
Oh yes maybe my fault, I meant unknown as really unknown, not “less famous”.
mellosouls
Note that articles should be submitted with the original title:
riffraff
I also read it like GP and thought this might be a piece about some shady art dealing :)
I think a common way to describe such authors is "anonymous" although that has its own shade of confusion (did they intend to be unnamed?)
giuliomagnifico
I wrote "unknown" because anonymous could be thought of as a donation or someone still alive but anonymous. In this case, it is truly "unknown”
Anyway, mods can edit the title if this causes misunderstandings!
kybernetyk
When I read that headline I really assumed it was about another case of nepotism - after the Zoe Law drama some time ago. Glad to hear it's not that.
freddealmeida
Same. Thought this was just another tax scam.
ginko
AFAIK it's not at all uncommon for artists of old paintings to be unknown. Especially for religious paintings like this. (if anything it's the default)
For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_the_Golden_Altar
Wikipedia even has a list listing many 'Master of X' artists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anonymous_artists
An important detail missing from the headline is that the painting has been dated to be from 1500-1510.