posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 08:39 PM
It's clearly a mystery as to whether this is a Da Vinci. Give the experts more time to analyze it, now that it has been removed from it's vault and
re-introduced to the world, with luck it will accelerate experts opinions, for or against.
According to the host group, the background had been overpainted by a later artist, as well as part of the neck. The claim is that Da Vinci painted
the head and the rest was completed by later artists.
Alessandro Vezzosi, director of the Museo Ideale Leonardo da Vinci, said the painting was intriguing but needs further study. He declined to line
up behind the foundation's claims that it was truly a "Mona Lisa" predecessor painted by da Vinci.
"The Isleworth Mona Lisa is an important work of art deserving respect and strong consideration — as well as a scientific, historic and artistic
debate among specialists rather than a purely media interest," he said.
from Isleworth Mona Lisa conjures up an art world mystery
Scientific testing have determined it's from the proper era (early 16th C.), but the rest is up to a more subjective critique.
The foundation also claims there are historical claims from that era that Da Vinci was known to have painted two Mona Lisas.
Ever since the 16th century, several historical sources suggest that da Vinci painted two "Mona Lisa" versions. One was of Mona Lisa Gherardo
around 1503 that was commissioned by her husband, Francesco del Giocondo, the foundation said. Another — the one in the Louvre — was completed in
1517 for Giuliano de Medici, da Vinci's patron. That theory fits with da Vinci's tendency at times to paint two versions of some of his works, like
the Virgin of the Rocks, the group said.
They also claim evidence and acknowledgement that the head was the part painted by Da Vinci and the rest by others;
However, the foundation acknowledged that the "Isleworth Mona Lisa" remains unfinished, and that da Vinci didn't paint all parts of the work.
Still, the group pointed to newly discovered evidence in 2005 from Heidelberg, Germany, that suggested da Vinci was working on at least the head of
such a painting in 1503.
The 2005 "Heidelberg evidence" may be this:
In 2005, an expert at the University Library of Heidelberg discovered a margin note in the library's collection that established with certainty
the traditional view that the sitter was Lisa. The note, written by Agostino Vespucci in 1503, states that Leonardo was working on a portrait of Lisa
The group claims this indicates Da Vinci was known to be painting at least the head of the portrait in 1503, whereas the Mona Lisa del Giocondo was
(estimated to be) painted in 1516.
Another small mystery surrounding the famous Louvre version is the age of the subject, which many had contended was around 20 at the time of the
original sitting (1503), yet the apparent age of the Louvre version is decidedly older than that.