First, take three minutes to read this article:
The painting Salvator Mundi, which depicts Jesus Christ holding a glass orb, has been widely attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, but many experts dispute this claim. When it was sold at auction for a record-breaking price, it was hailed as a long-lost masterpiece of the famous painter. However, doubts about its authenticity have persisted. Several stylistic and technical inconsistencies suggest that it was more likely painted by someone other than da Vinci himself.
Firstly, the painting lacks the technical mastery typically seen in Leonardo’s confirmed works. One of the hallmarks of his paintings is the use of sfumato, a technique that creates soft transitions between colors and tones. However, in Salvator Mundi, the shading appears inconsistent and unnatural, particularly around the face and hands. Experts argue that these flaws suggest the work was completed by one of Leonardo’s assistants rather than by the master da Vinci.
Secondly, historical records do not provide definitive proof that Leonardo painted Salvator Mundi. Unlike his well-documented masterpieces such as The Last Supper and Mona Lisa, there is no clear mention of this painting in da Vinci’s notebooks or in the writings of other artists who were active at the same time. Moreover, the painting disappeared soon after its creation and only resurfaced centuries later, with no continuous record tracing it back to Leonardo. The lack of documentation raises doubts about its authenticity.
Additionally, certain elements of the painting’s composition deviate from Leonardo’s scientifically accurate artistic style. The orb held by Christ, meant to represent the world, is depicted unrealistically. If Leonardo had painted it, he would have likely applied his deep understanding of optics to render the refraction of light accurately. Instead, the orb appears as a simple, transparent sphere without Leonardo’s scientific precision. This suggests that someone less knowledgeable in optics may have painted it.
Next, listen to the following lecture:
You have twenty minutes to answer the following question. You can see the article as you write your essay. You may not listen to the lecture again.
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they oppose specific points made in the reading passage.
To get feedback on your essay, check out my essay evaluation service .
Sample Response
Here is a sample essay:
The reading and the lecture are both about a painting called Salvator Mundi. While the author of the article argues that it was probably not painted by Leonardo da Vinci, the lecturer disputes the claims presented in the article. His position is that it may have been created by the famous painter da Vinci.
First, the author argues that da Vinci was known for his use of a technique called sfumato to create soft transitions between colors, but this painting lacks that style. The article states that the transitions are very unnatural, so the painting might have been made by one of da Vinci’s students or assistants. The lecturer’s response is that da Vinci’s transitions were likely damaged during restoration work done on the painting. Moreover, she says that recent x-ray examinations of the painting have revealed underlying layers that are similar to da Vinci’s style.
Second, the author mentions that there are no historical records that connect da Vinci to the painting. According to the article, it disappeared for many years and reappeared without a continuous record connecting it to the artist. In contrast, the lecturer argues that many works we are sure that da Vinci painted have also been undocumented. She notes that there actually is a reference to an unnamed painting of Christ by da Vinci, which might be a reference to Salvator Mundi.
Finally, the article notes that the painting doesn’t have the scientific accuracy that da Vinci was known for. The author suggests that since the orb in the painting doesn’t refract light properly, it must have been painted by someone else. However, the lecturer points out that this might have been intentional because da Vinci didn’t want the orb to distract from the image of Christ. He says that sometimes da Vinci valued emotional impact more than scientific accuracy.