The Virgin of the Rocks, c.1483/86 by Leonardo da Vinci| Oil Painting Reproduction
We can make your art reproduction to look aged and cracked as the museum original.
You can select the aged look effect from the menu under the image of the painting.
Free WorldWide Standard Shipping (10-14 business days) $0.00 USD
EMS (4-5 business days)
FedEx (2 business days)
The cost of priority and express delivery depends on weight and destination. You can check the estimate shipping cost of your order in the shopping cart screen.
Painting Title:The Virgin of the Rocks, c.1483/86
Artist:Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)
Louvre Museum Paris France
Original Size:199 x 122 cm
Painting Reproduction completely hand-painted with oil on blank linen canvas.
Creation Time:Your Leonardo da Vinci Hand-Painted Art Reproduction must not be rushed as it need time for reaching the high quality and precision and also for getting dry. Depending of the complexity and the details of the painting, we need of 3-4 weeks for creation of the painting.
Shipping:We not frame oil painting reproductions. The Hand-Painted Art Reproduction is expensive product and the risk of damages during transport of stretched on a frame painting is too high. "The Virgin of the Rocks" by da Vinci is unframed and will be shipped rolled up in postal tube.
You can check the estimate shipping cost of your order in the shopping cart screen.
We create our paintings only with museum quality. Our Academically educated European painters never allow compromise with the quality and the details. TOPofART not work with Far East wholesalers with poor quality.
The Virgin of the Rocks (sometimes the Madonna of the Rocks) is the usual title used for both of two different paintings with almost identical compositions, which are at least largely by Leonardo da Vinci. They are in the Louvre, Paris, and the National Gallery, London.
In the Louvre
This version is in the Louvre, painted around 1483-1486, or earlier. Most authorities agree that the work is very largely by Leonardo, and is the earlier of the two works. The fine brush work and use of chiaroscuro, or contrast between light and dark, are considered characteristic of many of Leonardo's works. It is about 8cm taller than the London version. The first record of this picture is in 1625, when it was in the French royal collection. The Louvre version is featured in The Da Vinci Code although art historians are dismissive of the "hidden meaning" there ascribed to it.
Commission and execution
In 1483 (April 25th) Leonardo and the brothers Ambrogio and Evangelista de Predis were commissioned by the Milanese Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception to paint a work celebrating the Immaculate conception for their new chapel. The contract survives, as does much of the documentation from the later disputes over it. There had already been a previous contract in 1480 with Giacomo del Maino, which had evidently not been completed; among the work stipulated in the second contract was the completion and gilding of various carvings for the wooden framework of the altarpiece (none known to survive). Three paintings were stipulated, a central Virgin and Child with "the angels", and two side panels with angels, described only in the earlier contract with del Maino. These panels are also in the National Gallery, with different provenances from the main panel. They were painted entirely by the brothers de Predis, according to both modern art historians and a contemporary statement by the brothers in the legal dispute.
All the work was to be completed by the Feast of the Conception (December 8th) 1483, but this did not happen. At some later date the legal dispute began; the main issue being that the main painting was unfinished, and Leonardo had left Milan. Meanwhile the de Predis brothers had completed their portion of the work, and wanted payment. The dispute was settled on April 27th, 1506, with the requirement that should Leonardo return to Milan within two years he should complete the painting, and receive further specified sums beyond those in the original contract. This appears to have happened, as a sum was paid to him in 1507. The surviving documentation casts no light on the existence of two versions, nor does it give any support to claims that the clients were unhappy with the subject or treatment of the paintings. At what point the first version was diverted, or if it was at all, remains unclear, and the subject of many theories. On stylistic grounds some writers, including Martin Davies, feel that 1483 is too late a date for the Louvre version; for the commission Leonardo may have simply repeated a composition he had already produced. Alternatively, the Louvre version may have been painted for the confraternity soon after the commission, and then sold to another buyer.
Subject and style
The paintings seem to draw on a legend of the meeting between the baby Jesus and John the Baptist on the flight into Egypt. According to the standard interpretation of the paintings, they depict the Madonna in the centre ushering John towards Jesus, who is seated with the angel Uriel. Jesus is blessing John, who holds out his hands in a gesture of prayer. In the Louvre version, Uriel points towards John while looking out at the viewer. This gesture is missing in the London version. The London version also contains attributes missing from the Louvre version, notably haloes and John's traditional cruciform stick. These clarify the identification of the babies Jesus and John. Davies says it is "not certain" if these are contemporary; they may have been added by a later artist.
It is generally believed that the Louvre version is the earlier work, because it is stylistically close to Leonardo's other work of the 1480s. The London painting suggests Leonardo's maturer style, but it is thought likely to have been painted with the assistance of other artists, perhaps the de Predises.
Both versions were painted on wood. While the Louvre version was transferred to canvas from the original wooden panel, the London painting is still on panel. Several drawings can be related to the paintings, although Leonardo's authorship of many is doubtful. None amount to a full study for either version.
Geologist Ann C. Pizzorusso, argues the geological inaccuracies of the London version, unlike the Louvre version, mean it is unlikely to have come from Leonardo's own hand.
Use in The Da Vinci Code
In the popular novel The Da Vinci Code, written by the American novelist Dan Brown, it is claimed that the earlier Louvre version contained hidden symbolism which contradicted orthodox Christian belief, notably the fact that Jesus is shown praying to John rather than the other way round (the novel implies that the baby at the left must be Jesus rather than John, because he is with the Madonna). It is also claimed that the Virgin appears to be holding an invisible head and that Uriel appears to be "slicing the neck" with his finger. For this reason the painting was rejected by the Church, and a second, more orthodox, version was painted.
However, historical evidence shows that these claims are completely unfounded. The Louvre calls this theory "far-fetched" and says "This powerful literary effect is a travesty of art history." The only significant compositional difference between the two versions (excluding the later addition of attributes) is the fact that Uriel no longer points. However this difference may well be explained by the possibility that the distinction between Jesus and John was thought to be insufficiently clear in the earlier picture because John is with the Madonna, and that the pointing gesture directed too much attention to John.
As for the painting being "too scandalous" to show in a church, Leonardo and de Predises actually wanted more money from the church than had been originally agreed. The church agreed to pay a substantial bonus but not as much as Leonardo and de Predises wanted. So popular (not scandalous) did these paintings prove that some believe that a third version was painted, the one kept today in the Cheramy Collection in Switzerland.
The effect of ageing gives one painting the charm of authentic and noble appearance. Such a art reproduction can add to any interior a unique look and a style.
The process of ageing of paintings completely conforms to the technology of oil painting.
See examples of art reproductions aged in our studio.