Frequently Asked Questions

Q:  Why do some experts still raise doubts about the painting?

A: The foundation has presented the case through historical evidence, connoisseurship and critical comparisons as well as the results of almost two decades of scientific tests and physical examinations. Many of the doubts and questions raised are already well answered by these factors. It is felt that any doubt or subjective criticism raised in the area of connoisseurship first requires a viewing and examination of the painting itself. The foundation welcomes healthy discussions with any expert who has viewed the painting itself and fully considered all the aspects presented.

Q: Leonardo habitually painted on wood, and the original ‘Mona Lisa’ is on canvas. On the basis of this, how do you justify this attribution?

Some critics of the earlier  ‘Mona Lisa’ have doubted that the painting is by the hand of Leonardo, because it was executed on canvas. The simple answer is, he did paint on canvas, and there is much evidence proving this, including works of Da Vinci that are on canvas and the fact that, in his famous Treatise On Painting, he dedicates an entire chapter to the mode of painting on canvas, and includes instruction how to get human flesh tones right.  This non-issue is fully put to rest here: https://monalisa.org/2012/09/08/leonardos-materials-the-canvas-the-paint/

Q. A critic has argued that certain features (veil, hair, translucence of the dress, head etc…) of the earlier ‘Mona Lisa’ do not replicate those of the Louvre ‘Mona Lisa’. Can Leonardo have painted them?

A. One should be very wary of comparisons between the original and Louvre versions. Since the  the earlier version was executed before, it is therefore a mistake to compare the characteristics of the Louvre version as any kind of basis for judgement. Sir Kenneth Clark, Professor Carlo Pedretti, Professor Alessandro Vezzosi, all leading Leonardo scholars, and others, hold that the Louvre ‘Mona Lisa’ was completed late in Leonardo’s career, primarily because of reasons of style. Their opinion is that this style was a late development, and does not appear in Leonardo’s works prior to 1508. Artistic characteristics that might be detected in the Louvre ‘Mona Lisa’ would therefore conceivably not be present in a version painted prior to 1508. In addition, as is described below, it is still unclear which sections were actually executed by the master, and which he left unfinished. The Mona Lisa Foundation continues to pursue ongoing research as to exactly what portions remain unfinished, and of the completed parts, which are by Leonardo, and which are by others. Moreover, many important experts have declared parts of the painting to have been painted by Leonardo.

Q. The painting was left unfinished by Leonardo. What parts did he actually paint?

A. The composition of the painting was conceived by Leonardo. The head and bust and hands were undoubtedly painted by him. Portions of the painting were certainly not completed by him (the clump of trees and their reflection).

Which parts he did paint is still very much an open question. However, documentary evidence uncovered in Heidelberg University in 2005 reveals that Leonardo was working on the head of Lisa de Giocondo in 1503. The foundation contends, as do most experts, that the head of the original ‘Mona Lisa’ is the one referred to in this document, not the later version in the Louvre.

Q. A critic has pointed to X-rays and reflectography suggesting very strongly to it not being by Leonardo. Is this a basis upon which to refute the attribution?

A. That is absolutely not the case. First, Professor Martin Kemp states (in his book La Bella Principessa, written together with Pascal Cotte, 2010): “A problem with X-rays, unlike multispectral imaging, is that they are not standardized and thus are vulnerable to diverse interpretation.” Second, since this work was executed on canvas, and not on wood, the artist’s preferred medium, the images so produced would certainly not have the same characteristics as Leonardo’s paintings on wood. Third, the infrared Reflectography and X Ray images, as they appear in the Foundation’s, book are low resolution reproductions and are not of sufficient quality or detail for careful examination. The original images are readily made available by the Foundation and should be consulted before attempting to pass any kind of expert judgement.

Q. A critic has argued “the primary reliable evidence provides no basis to argue that there was an earlier portrait of Mona Lisa del Giocondo”. Is this the case?

Both the historical documentation and the opinions of most of the world’s leading experts are fully discussed in the ‘Historical Evidence’ section of this website, and they most certainly point to the existence of two paintings.

Moreover in the opposite case, if one is to deny the facts and insist on there having only been ever one painting, then several critical historical facts remain in conflict with one another and unanswered, and the true history of Mona Lisa is put in perpetual limbo.

Further, in discussing the famous notation of 1503 by Agostino Vespucci (See section on the Heidelberg Document), Professor Alessandro Vezzosi, eminent expert on Leonardo and a leading authority on the subject of Mona Lisa, writes: ‘Though some scholars have used this information to justify the identification of the ‘Gioconda’ in the Louvre with Lisa del Giocondo [née Lisa Gherardini], others deny this, and I myself am convinced that this document reinforces the hypothesis of two portraits.”

The fact that there are two versions of the ‘Mona Lisa’ is widely accepted among most experts – even the Louvre admits that the painting hanging in their museum may not be the portrait of ‘Mona Lisa’ del Giocondo.

Q. Some critics of the painting claim that the original ‘Mona Lisa’ is a copy of the ‘Mona Lisa’ in the Louvre. Is this the case?

A. The Mona Lisa Foundation, backed by sound historical and scientific evidence, points to the following reasons as to why it is not a copy:

Unique Composition:

Apart from the long-admired sitting position of the subject, the architecture of the painting is completely novel. It was a daring and bold new approach to portraiture, which is why it garnered so much attention (and spawned so many copies and derivative works) in its time, five hundred years ago. The foundation is unable to identify any other painting, executed prior to this one, with a similar composition.

Flanking Columns:

The use of these columns in the structure of this painting is fundamental to the composition. As an element in portraiture, Leonardo had never before utilized this idea. The traces of columns and bases that can be seen today in the Louvre ‘Mona Lisa’ can be argued to be a later addition (as they cover an underlying layer of background), and were never part of its original composition. The columns in the earlier ‘Mona Lisa’ cast a shadow on the balustrade, which is something Leonardo never would have done without, even on an unfinished work, but these shadows are missing entirely from the very finished Louvre ‘Mona Lisa’.

Sitting Angle:

The sitting position of the subject is angled differently that the Louvre ‘Mona Lisa’. The subject is leaning forward more slightly, and the body is angled further from the viewer. This sitting position is also emphasized in the neck muscles.

 Younger:

The figure in the original ‘Mona Lisa’ is clearly younger, and, some say, more beautiful, than the Louvre version. This face has never been represented like this in any other painting.

 ‘Support’ Material:

The portrait was painted on canvas. To be a copy of the Louvre ‘Mona Lisa’, it would likely have been painted on wood.

Size:

The size of the original ‘Mona Lisa’ painting is significantly larger that its Louvre counterpart. In addition, the figure is significantly smaller. A copyist would likely have made them virtually the same size.

Background:

A pioneering use of simple Tuscan landscape was employed, without the later embellishments of ‘Alpine’ mountains, or numerous water details. This would not have originated from the Louvre ‘Mona Lisa’.

Different artists:

Tests have shown that some elements were executed by a different hand than the rest of the composition. These were possibly added later by a different artist or artists. A version of the original composition is seen in a 17th Century copy in the National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design, Oslo.

Similarly, it is believed that the slivers of columns and their bases on the Louvre ‘Mona Lisa’ were not painted by Leonardo, but added later – perhaps by someone who wanted it to look more like the original ‘Mona Lisa’.

Embroidery:

Details of the intricate embroidery on the blouse worn by Mona Lisa are unique, different from those in the Louvre ‘Mona Lisa’, and from any copy of either.

Extra Detail:

Due to the larger ‘canvas’ size, there is more detail at the bottom of the picture than can be seen in others: a prime example being the chair. Therefore other Mona Lisa paintings, without that extra detail, would hardly have pre-dated the original ‘Mona Lisa’.

Underdrawings:

Pascal Cotte has confirmed (January, 2011), the following statement: “(the painting) has some clear underdrawings (by the columns and maybe elsewhere) signifying that it is not a direct copy.”

A copy would likely have been painted by one artist, and at the same time. The original ‘Mona Lisa’ shows elements that were likely added to Leonardo’s work, by another artist or artists; as well as evidence that this occurred over an extended period of time.

A critic recently gave the following unscholarly and ill-informed explanation as to why he feels the painting has features different to that in the Louvre: “This is probably because the copyist … just painted it that way”.

To imply that a painting is a copy, but that there are striking differences just because “the copyist just painted it that way”, is ridiculous and defeats the very purpose of a copy. It also ignores all the fascinating possible reasons for all the highlighted differences between Leonardo’s two versions of the ‘Mona Lisa’.

Q. How much of a painting needs to be by the hand of Leonardo, for it to be considered a “Leonardo”?

A. This is a matter of opinion. A leading Leonardo expert recently stated that if just the conception of a work was by Leonardo, then it could be attributed to him. Additionally, in a portrait one could opine that the head is the most important feature.

Q. Are you planning to exhibit the painting publicly?

A. Absolutely. The original ‘Mona Lisa’ painting itself has been on tour for several years as the headlining act in a highly entertaining and informative multi-media exhibition that has been appearing at select locations throughout Asia and Europe. There is even a kid’s version to keep children interested and engaged in the mystery of the two Mona Lisas.

Q: Who owns the painting? Does the foundation own the painting?

A: The painting is owned by an international consortium, which has opted to remain private. It has entrusted the Foundation to execute all necessary investigations to assess whether it is in fact Leonardo’s original  ‘Mona Lisa‘, and to divulge the results of these investigations to the greater population. The Foundation and the consortium are distinct and separate entities.