Leonardo da Vinci's 'Earlier Mona Lisa' unveiled

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Regarding the controversy with the Louvre painting --

Lisa_del_Giocondo

Permit to copy/paste a wall of text from the Wiki article;


Leonardo had no income during the spring of 1503, which may in part explain his interest in a private portrait.[20][26] But later that year, he most likely had to delay his work on Mona Lisa when he received payment for starting The Battle of Anghiari, which was a more valuable commission and one he was contracted to complete by February 1505.[27] In 1506 Leonardo considered the portrait unfinished.[28] He was not paid for the work and did not deliver it to his client.[29] The artist's paintings traveled with him throughout his life, and he may have completed Mona Lisa many years later in France,[13] in one estimation by 1516.[30]



The painting's title dates to 1550. An acquaintance of at least some of Francesco's family,[11] Giorgio Vasari wrote, "Leonardo undertook to paint, for Francesco del Giocondo, the portrait of Mona Lisa, his wife"[28] (Italian: Prese Lionardo a fare per Francesco del Giocondo il ritratto di mona Lisa sua moglie.).[31]. Vasari also refers (30 years after Leonardo da Vinci died) to a painting that was left 'unfinished' [32] . This conflicts with the Louvre version, which is certainly a finished work. The implication is that Leonardo started another version of the Mona Lisa, which he did not finish. The version in the Louvre also shows Lisa at an age that seems to be in the 30s, whereas in reality, since it is now known that the painting was being done in 1503 (as referenced above) and that the model was Lisa Gherardini (born in 1479), it seems that she would only have been in her 20s; another conflict with the Paris painting. Apparently there is another version of the Mona Lisa, known as the Isleworth Mona Lisa, that seems 'unfinished' and has a much younger Lisa. It also has columns on either side of her which match a drawing by Raphael, the artist who was in Leonardo's studio in the early 1500s, and sketched the Mona Lisa that da Vinci was painting Isleworth_Mona_Lisa. There are only the bases of columns in the Louvre portrait. The French 'Quid' almanac [33], Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Americana [34], and even the New York Times [35] all refer to this Isleworth version as being an authentic Leonardo da Vinci, and suggest that it is in a vault in Switzerland. There are many experts who are very curious about the painting and how it fits into Mona Lisa history, including Alessandro Vezzosi [[1]]; one of the most accomplished living authorities, and director of the Ideal Leonardo Da Vinci Museum in Vinci, Italy. The portrait's Italian (La Gioconda) and French (La Joconde) titles are Lisa's married name as well as nickname—in English, "jocund" or "the happy one".[13]


In effect, the Mona Lisa appears on Da Vinci's painting as an olderwoman, and not the 20 year old she was known to be at the time he received or took on the 1503 commission - for which he neither completed nor was paid for. It could be he completed the more famous version from memory or working off his previous version (the Isleworth one, of which he may have only completed a head before allowing his student (possibly Raphael) to complete.

It's a very intriguing mystery, so I hope art world snobs don't shut out any consideration of this painting as a potential real deal.




posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Guy was on another level when it comes to Art and how to visualize.

He saw things we can't even comprehend.

He was beyond Einstein.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 



Guy was on another level when it comes to Art and how to visualize.

He saw things we can't even comprehend.

He was beyond Einstein.


No argument there, the only artist to come close to his level of talent is Michelangelo, but Leonardo is still top dog.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by rtyfx
I'm standing behind my previous post. Hoax.


Okay, that is a wonderful statement to make...And since you are so convinced, I am sure you have the evidence to back it up?

I am not saying you are wrong... Just... If you have evidence that it is a hoax, share it with us. That's what ATS is all about, getting down to business and finding the truth about things. Finding the answers...

So, what makes you so sure that it is a hoax?

Now, that said... fake or not, I do love both... There is something I have always found captivating about the Mona Lisa.... A very beautiful painting of a woman with a very classic beauty.

I kind of hope it turns out to be real.... But, I welcome the evidence that it is a hoax as I am sure everyone else does.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Can someone please tell me why this or these paintings are considered masterpieces? This chick is Obviously a dog. There are many paintings from earlier times that are much more realistic lifelike and oh yeah.. actually pretty looking.

If my name was Lisa and I looked like that, I'd moan too. I learned to paint alla prima, so I do get good art and artistic style of the different painters, but seriously, I never saw anything in Mona Lisa.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I just feel like taking this a different direction.

Remembering that Da Vinci was a master of puzzles, a genius so far beyond his time and not just with painting. But with design, machinery, weaponry. The portrait of Mona Lisa has often been noted to have been painted with much love and devotion, to think this is just a picture of a random women makes no sense to me.

I remembered a story from a few years ago, regarding the identity of this woman, and one of the alternative thoughts was this was a self portrait of Da Vinci himself, but feminized (or in drag. After all, this is the Renaissance)

Was this theory every completely debunked? Because if it wasn't then I DO believe that the earlier version could be the work of Da Vinci as well, regardless of the difference in artistic structure and materials. The painting that pre-dates the masterpiece would also pre-date its complexity and finality.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSparrowSings
 


There's not really any question as to who the woman was - Lisa del Giocondo, even if there is some controversy over when she sat for the portrait. The fact da Vinci carried the half-finished portrait with him for several years (1503 to 1516) showed perhaps he viewed her as more than just a subject or a commission...?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


This has already been shown to be a bad forgery/copy of the original. Art critic types have said something about the brush strokes and the translucency of the colours etc being well below the standard you would expect from da Vinci.

I'm surprised this wasn't part of the original article tbh, it is widely known.

Edit to add:



"The Isleworth Mona Lisa mistranslates subtle details of the original, including the sitter's veil, her hair, the translucent layer of her dress, the structure of the hands," he said.

"The landscape is devoid of atmospheric subtlety. The head, like all other copies, does not capture the profound elusiveness of the original."

Professor Kemp also points out that the Isleworth version is painted on canvas, where Da Vinci's preferred choice was wood.

"The scientific analysis can, at most, state that there is nothing to say that this cannot be by Leonardo," said Mr Kemp. "The infrared reflectography and X-ray points very strongly to its not being by Leonardo."


Source
edit on 30-9-2012 by nothingwrong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
This is an interesting twist. da Vinci's "apprentice" Andrea Salai, the one who da Vinci bequeathed the Mona Lisa to upon his death, and who "sat for" his mentor for many years, and that his own most known work was titled the 'Mona Vanna' because it expresses most what he was as da Vinci's "apprentice," a very naked and sexy "Mona Lisa", and coincidentally also the subject of da Vinci's only known sketch of who happens to be sporting an erection (wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinc's_personal_life), and who looks very much like a male version of da Vinci's Mona Lisa though clearly revised through many internal artistic conflicts with the only painting that da Vinci carted around for 16 years and couldn't finish and so entrusted with.. guess who..Salai.

It is perhaps the first authentic depiction of how androgyny was a key aspect of the art of the Renaissance. Perhaps the true "mystery" to be deciphered from the Mona Lisa is that we are still grappling with the problem with accepting that a man could love another man so much, he would encode his love into his work, soon after he was nearly lead into an Inquisition about his alleged sodomy with a local male prostitute.

It may be that da Vinci was stubborn and did his best to show that even then the love of a man for another man was worth depicting in art that would end up being the most priceless thing in the history of modern man. Perhaps this is the most important secret: sometimes men love men in all ways possible.

I hope there are a few men on this forum that can understand the kind of heartache that would define an artist in such a profound manner as to keep us guessing for centuries how we should define art. It just may be he loved his Salai so much that he could not express this adequately in his art unless he used a kind of cryptography that only his beloved understood. Consider how much more profoundly real and contemporary da Vinci's art is when it is framed within this context. He loved somebody way ahead of his time, and we're not even there yet. How sad that we are all still locked into the same prison. We still don't accept men loving men. We will consider any other "secret" message from da Vinci's art than this one, the obvious.



About Salai: en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 30-9-2012 by alumnathe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by alumnathe
This is an interesting twist. da Vinci's "apprentice" Andrea Salai, the one who da Vinci bequeathed the Mona Lisa to upon his death, and who "sat for" his mentor for many years, so that his own masterpiece was titled the 'Mona Vanna', a very naked and sexy "Mona Lisa", and also the subject of da Vinci's only known sketch of who happens to be sporting an erection, and who looks very much like a male version of da Vinci's Mona Lisa though clearly revised through many internal artistic conflicts.




Dude, the lady in that photo doesn't have an erection! What are you on?
And clearly no androgyny - just a lady of the period



I hope there are a few men on this forum that can understand the kind of heartache that would define an artist in such a profound manner as to keep us guessing for centuries how we should define art.


This isn't even a sentence. It has no meaning.

I am very happy to accept men loving men.

So I don't know wtf you are talking about. Are you an art student? That would explain the flowery language which says nothing with too many words.
edit on 30-9-2012 by nothingwrong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by nothingwrong

Originally posted by alumnathe
This is an interesting twist. da Vinci's "apprentice" Andrea Salai, the one who da Vinci bequeathed the Mona Lisa to upon his death, and who "sat for" his mentor for many years, so that his own masterpiece was titled the 'Mona Vanna', a very naked and sexy "Mona Lisa", and also the subject of da Vinci's only known sketch of who happens to be sporting an erection, and who looks very much like a male version of da Vinci's Mona Lisa though clearly revised through many internal artistic conflicts.




Dude, the lady in that photo doesn't have an erection! What are you on?
And clearly no androgyny - just a lady of the period



I hope there are a few men on this forum that can understand the kind of heartache that would define an artist in such a profound manner as to keep us guessing for centuries how we should define art.


This isn't even a sentence. It has no meaning.

I am very happy to accept men loving men.

So I don't know wtf you are talking about. Are you an art student? That would explain the flowery language which says nothing with too many words.
edit on 30-9-2012 by nothingwrong because: (no reason given)


I couldn't have asked for a better response to illustrate my point. Thank you so much. So much spontaneous hyperbole I could have never even hoped for.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by alumnathe


I couldn't have asked for a better response to illustrate my point. Thank you so much. So much spontaneous hyperbole I could have never even hoped for.


You had a point?! Breasted man with an erection looks like a woman in an old painting? This proves the artist was gay, we are sill homophobes, and genius transmits wisdom through the ages via cryptic painting, the result of which is we can't correctly label ourselves or his art any more? Yeah, I get that.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 

The one on the left looks better.
Wonder if that is the original



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by nothingwrong
 


Does this analysis change if it's known only the head was painted by da Vinci, with the rest the work of his apprentice (such as Raphael?) The 16th C. Heidelberg record stated he had painted two, the earlier one begun in 1503 never having been completed.

Are there tests you are aware of that focus exclusively on the head?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
This issue is not new to everybody. There is really a mystery with Leonardo Da Vinci's marter piece which is the Monalisa.





 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join