If you are having difficulty viewing this content, please try here

The post Dr. John Asmus discusses the Earlier Mona Lisa appeared first on The Mona Lisa Foundation.

Some similarities are: the pose; the veil; the profiles; the hands; the clothing; the loggia setting and the foreground landscape; and the right elbow resting on the unseen arm of the chair.

Some differences are: the supports – one is on canvas, the other on wood; the overall compositions, including that one composition has columns and the other does not; the obvious age difference between the subjects; the specific details of the knot patterns of the embroidery; the background landscape; the glazing technique specific to the ‘Louvre Version’; the geometric construction of the designs; and the proportion of the subjects in relation to the overall sizes of the paintings. elements

Taken together, these items point to the fact that:

- The artist probably intended from the outset that the works would be different from each other

- Both paintings are likely original works by the same artist, and neither could be a copy of the other.

In 1550, and again in 1568, Vasari clearly identified that Leonardo left the painting “ … unfinished”. The ‘Louvre Version’, however, is completely finished, and was so when Leonardo showed it to the Cardinal of Aragon at Cloux in 1517.

The small pen and ink drawing of a young woman on a balcony with columns, by Raphael, dating from c. 1504 and executed while he was in Florence and observing Leonardo at work, is an important piece of evidence in itself. Most scholars concur that this drawing, and some of his subsequent paintings, were derived from a portrait of ‘Mona Lisa’ being undertaken by Leonardo. It was likely the earlier ‘Mona Lisa’, with its unique set of flanking columns that influenced Raphael.

Because of the unique compositional elements that appear nowhere else, this ‘Mona Lisa’ portrait must have been in progress when Raphael saw it in 1504. What other painting by Leonardo having these characteristics could have been seen by Raphael at that time?

Both versions of the Mona Lisa have generated their copies. The ‘Louvre Version’ has been the basis for countless copies over hundreds of years. By contrast, any copy that employs flanking columns of classical design would likely have found its origin in the ‘Earlier Version’: for example, the Oslo ‘Mona Lisa’ appears to be a direct copy of the ‘Earlier Version’.

When comparing the earlier version of the ‘Mona Lisa’ with all other paintings on that theme, one is further confronted with two striking features that single it out as being by the hand of a great master. The detail in the rendering and design of the embroidery looping suggests a brilliant mind.The looping design in the ‘Louvre Version’ shows a ‘secret’ extra loop not rendered in any of the copies. Even more amazing is the uniqueness of every single loop in the ‘Earlier Version’ demonstrated by a slight difference in the cloverleaf looping; leaving no two the same! This does not exist in any of the copies; all others including the ‘Louvre Version’ have similar repeating loops. Such artistry would have been the work of the great Master himself.

In addition, the existence of the columns and the application of appropriate shadowing strongly suggest a signature work by Leonardo. One observes the clear Leonardesque creation and fine execution of the lower section of the columns in the ‘Earlier Version’ contrasted with the rather poor renderings of the bases of columns partly visible in the ‘Louvre Version’. The latter would not have been painted by Leonardo. The ‘Louvre Version’ has not been cut down and therefore likely did not have columns originally.

Finally, the innovative ‘Regression Project’, undertaken by one of the world’s leading forensic artists, concludes that both ‘Mona Lisa’ portraits are of the same woman, with an age difference of approximately 11 years.

It is The Mona Lisa Foundation’s stance that this is conclusive evidence that Leonardo intended two versions of the same subject, and while showing significant differences from each other, each of the two versions demonstrates his unique and masterful autograph.

The post Summary of Critical Comparisons appeared first on The Mona Lisa Foundation.

MATHEMATICS

A testament to Leonardo’s interest in geometry, the earlier version of ‘Mona Lisa’ aligns perfectly with the ‘Golden Ratio’. In addition, the innovative ‘Hidden Technique’ investigation reveals that both portraits were painted by the same artist. Furthermore, the ‘Earlier Version’ precisely fits the Goldblatt thesis.

TESTS

Ultraviolet Light, Infrared Luminescence, Infrared, False Colour Infrared, Infrared Reflectography, X-Radiography, Carbon Dating, and Lead-White Measurement by Gamma Spectroscopy examinations all confirm, especially when considered together, that the painting was most likely executed at the beginning of the 16th Century.

COMPARISON

Scientific comparisons of both the Earlier and Louvre Mona Lisas point to them both being works of the same artist. However, there are significant differences which signify that neither one is a copy of the other. (This important area of investigation is dealt with in greater detail in the section: ‘Critical Comparisons’.)

CANVAS

When the historical circumstances of Leonardo are considered, and noting his keen interest in, and experience with, the use of canvas, it is arguably most logical that Leonardo would have used a canvas support for his earlier version of ‘Mona Lisa’. The hand-woven linen canvas was relined at a later date, for the purpose of strengthening it for longevity, and for maintaining the masterful integrity of the work. X-rays have confirmed that there has never been any damage to either the painting or the canvas support.

Leonardo not only described his techniques for painting on canvas, but clearly used this medium himself. The hand-woven linen canvas, or Reims cloth, on which the portrait was painted, has the same characteristics as those upon which Leonardo painted his famous drapery studies in the 1470s.

PIGMENTS

All the pigments that were found on the earlier version of ‘Mona Lisa’ were available and in use at the beginning of the 16th Century. Leonardo’s palette, and the manner and sequence in which he mixed and applied his pigments, follows closely the meticulous instructions he wrote in his Trattato, his Treatise ‘On Painting’.

This has been recognized in the course of all the intense examinations through which the painting has been subjected. Many of these pigments were known to have been in use even decades earlier. It is conspicuous how Leonardo’s palette for this painting remains true to his own directions and theories.

Evidence has also been provided that the ground pigments used for Leonardo’s earlier ‘Mona Lisa’ were also employed by him in some of his other famous works.

The post Summary of Scientific & Physical Examinations appeared first on The Mona Lisa Foundation.

Title page of Giorgio Vasari’s ‘The Lives Of The Most Excellent Italian Architects, Painters and Sculptors’, from the 1st Edition, 1550.The ‘Historical Evidence’ section also presents evidence which suggests that the subject in the portraits as Mona Lisa Gherardini (wife of Francesco del Giocondo)

• Agostino Vespucci, Giorgio Vasari, and Gian Paolo Lomazzo, who were chroniclers during the Renaissance, confirm that Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo.
• Francesco del Giocondo’s political connections in the Florentine government during the early 1500s may serve to explain why Leonardo accepted the commission to paint Lisa’s portrait.
• A number of other potential candidates (such as Isabella Gualanda, Vittoria Colonna, Isabella of Aragon, Philiberta of Savoy, Isabella d’Este, Pacifica Brandano and Caterina Sforza) have been put forward in the literature as possible subjects of the paintings, but certain facts seem to rule them out. [Click here for further evidence on this point]

There is evidence which points strongly to the fact that Leonardo da Vinci painted two versions of ‘Mona Lisa’, escpecially when considered together:

• • Gian Paolo Lomazzo, the Renaissance artist and historian, differentiates in 1584 between the earlier and Louvre versions of the ‘Mona Lisa’, referring to “… a Gioconda and a Mona Lisa.”
  • From the 16th century onward, many art critics and experts, such as P. G. Konody, John Eyre, L. Roger-Miles, Kenneth Clark, Guy Isnard and Frank Zöllner have documented the fact that Leonardo may very well have painted two versions of the ‘Mona Lisa’.
  • Renowned publications, such as the ‘Encyclopedia Americana’ and the French ‘Quid’, have for years made direct reference to two separate portraits of ‘Mona Lisa’ painted by Leonardo.
  • Leonardo produced multiple versions of the same or similar paintings, for example, ‘Madonna and Child’, ‘Virgin of the Rocks’, ‘Madonna of the Yarnwinder’ and ‘Virgin and Child with St. Anne’, among others.

  The two versions of the Mona Lisa were probably completed at different times and in different locations

  • Agostino Vespucci, perhaps the earliest witness, writes in October 1503 that Leonardo da Vinci is working on Lisa’s portrait.
  • Giorgio Vasari dates this painting, the one commissioned by Francesco del Giocondo, to shortly after Leonardo’s return to Florence in 1500, and that it was left unfinished after four years, suggesting a probable dating of 1503-06.
  • Raphael, while studying Leonardo’s work, executed a sketch (c.1504) of a ‘Mona Lisa’ composition, which mirrors that of the ‘Earlier Version’ because of the flanking columns, and which is fundamentally different from the Louvre ‘Mona Lisa’.
  • Antonio de Beatis’ diary suggests that Leonardo had finished the ‘Mona Lisa’ by 1517, and that it was completed for Giuliano de’ Medici. Leonardo worked for Giuliano in Rome from 1513-16.

  The Mona Lisa Foundation has formulated a plausible explanation for the incompatibility between these accounts is that an earlier version was initiated in Florence c.1503 and left unfinished after 4 years. The second (i.e., the ‘Louvre Version’) was started in Rome c.1513 at the encouragement of Giuliano de Medici, and used the ‘Earlier Version‘ as a model. Mona Lisa would have been in her early-twenties in 1503 and in her mid-thirties in 1513 (as the subject in the ‘Louvre Version’). Leonardo seems to have deliberately intended these portraits to be different and distinct from one another. The historical evidence suggests that the earlier version of ‘Mona Lisa’, the portrait of Lisa del Giocondo, was probably in Salai’s possession at the time of his death in Milan in 1525, while the ‘Louvre Version‘ was acquired by King Francis I of France in 1518.

The post Summary of Historical Evidence appeared first on The Mona Lisa Foundation.

Even though connoisseurship may be based on experience, many experts and scholars do not always agree. Moreover, while some may follow an instinctive ‘gut’ feeling, others prefer to patiently watch the authenticity of a work slowly evolve; a process that can take decades.

Today, even works that are generally attributed to Leonardo, and displayed in important museums and galleries, are not always universally acknowledged as such. It is has become ever more common to have dissenting voices.

The opinions of connoisseurs are also susceptible to change, often based on new evidence, further reflection and study, or simply second thoughts especially after a thorough examination of a painting which can often reveal important characteristics not evident in ancillary documentation. Connoisseurship is not a ‘finite’ science, but the art world still relies heavily on the opinions of experts.

With specific reference to Leonardo’s earlier version of the ‘Mona Lisa’:

• Hugh Blaker, proven art connoisseur, instantly recognised the work as a Leonardo when he unearthed it, before World War I.
• Paul Konody, international art expert immediately endorsed it, comparing it favourably to the ‘Louvre Version’.
• John Eyre, art historian, wrote two monographs about the painting (1915 and 1926), which analysed it in detail, and compared it to the ‘Louvre Version’. For him, the work was undoubtedly by Leonardo.
• Leading Leonardo experts in the Italy of the 1920s were virtually unanimous in their praise of the earlier ‘Mona Lisa’; this was decades before scientific testing of any importance was recognized as being relevant in the authentication process.
• Professor John Asmus, an authoritative research physicist, who has specialised in art conservation for the past 40 years, and has also examined the Louvre ‘Mona Lisa’, stated in 1990 that the earlier ‘Mona Lisa’ displayed significant features that could only have been executed by Leonardo da Vinci.
• Professor Alessandro Vezzosi, one of the most influential living experts on Leonardo da Vinci, a leading specialist on the subject of Mona Lisa, and director of the Museo Ideale Leonardo da Vinci, states that of all the versions of the ‘Mona Lisa’, the ‘Earlier Version’ is the most interesting and significant.
• Others, such as Professor Atila Soares and Alfonso Rubino have recently gone on record to state that they believe Leonardo painted the ‘Earlier Version‘

The post Summary of Connoisseurship appeared first on The Mona Lisa Foundation.

A Royal receipt dating from 1518 suggests that Salai, the longtime pupil and servant of Leonardo, facilitated the sale of a Mona Lisa painting to King Francis in that year.

The 1518 budget (‘State’ or ‘état’) of the city of Milan, which at that time was controlled by the French has an intriguing attestation of a large payment to:

“messire Salay de Pietredorain, paintre, pour quelques tables de paintures il baillées au Roy”

There is little doubt that the payment was made to Salai. He was the son of a certain Giovan Pietro of Oreno, and the spelling of his name simply reflected the French way of writing it at the time. In Italian, his name would have been Salai di Pietro d’Oreno. The word “baillées” (“rented” or “leased”) simply reflects the fact that at the time, paintings were not sold to the King, but offered freely against reward.

Drawing thought to be of Salai by Leonardo da Vinci

This entry is noteworthy because of the actual amount given to Salai: 2604 livres 4 sols 4 deniers. This is the equivalent to six times the annual pension of Andrea del Sarto, one of the greatest artists of the time, and would therefore only have been disbursed for the work of a great master.

Bertrand Jestaz, the French art historian, concludes that the only logical explanation for such a payment to Salai was that this recorded the sale of the 3 paintings shown to the Cardinal Antonio de Beatis in 1517 (SEE TO WHAT ‘MONA LISA’ DOES ANTONIO DE BEATIS REFER): The ‘St. John the Baptist’, the ‘Saint Anne’ and the ‘Louvre Mona Lisa’.

Today, this is accepted by the Louvre museum as the receipt showing how the ‘Louvre Mona Lisa’ was originally acquired in 1518.

However, this is in contradiction with the conclusions reached based on a document rediscovered in 1991 by two other art historians, Janice Shell and Grazioso Sironi, who unearthed the inventory of Salai’s assets written in Milan after his death.

This document dating from 1525, i.e. 7 years after the Royal Collection is thought to have received its paintings, includes a certain painting referred to as ‘la honda’ (‘Gioconda’ or ‘Mona Lisa’). Given the high value assigned to this painting in the inventory, especially in comparison to many of the works listed, many, including Shell, Sironi and Emeritus Professor Martin Kemp, have concluded that it was by Leonardo. This, according to them, must have meant that Salai was still in possession of the ‘Louvre Mona Lisa’. As a result, it would have been acquired by King Francis at a later date.

However, by that time, Francis had been heavily defeated by the Spanish in Pavia, and was held for ransom in Madrid. It would therefore seem unlikely that the acquisition of works of art was a top priority for him at the time.

Once again there are two separate documents referring to two ‘Mona Lisa/Giocondas’ painted by Leonardo. These are two seemingly irreconcilable accounts of what happened to the painting in the Louvre. However, a means to accommodate these accounts is to accept that there had always been two paintings of Mona Lisa by the great master. Salai would have facilitated the sale of the ‘Louvre Mona Lisa’ to King Francis in 1518, shortly before Leonardo’s death. The painting in Salai’s inventory in 1525 would be the ‘Earlier Version’.

The post Salai And The Two Paintings appeared first on The Mona Lisa Foundation.

The post Expert Opinions appeared first on The Mona Lisa Foundation.

If you are having difficulty viewing this content, please try here

The post Mona Lisa In The News appeared first on The Mona Lisa Foundation.

Among approximately sixty alleged “Mona Lisas” – or “Giocondas” – that are located across Europe, the U.S.A. and Japan, one seems to stand out for its uniqueness: the “Mona Lisa of Isleworth” or “Mona Lisa – The Earlier Version“, an oil on canvas [86.0 X 64.5 cm], slightly larger than the celebrated version of the Paris Louvre (79.2 X 53.3 cm). Basically, though the Paris and earlier paintings are very similar, one is at first struck by the fact that the model in the first [or “earlier”] version is shown to be younger and more beautiful.(See Fig 1)

Fig 1 ‘Mona Lisa’ – Leonardo’s Earlier Version

The recent origins of the painting point to when it leaves the Florentine residence of Francesco Del Giocondo – its owner – in the mid-eighteenth century on its journey to Britain, where it would become part of the heritage of an aristocratic Somerset family for nearly two centuries. In late 1913, the painting was acquired by Hugh Blaker, a celebrated art connoisseur, dealer, and curator of the Holburne Museum of Art, in Bath, who transferred it to his home in Isleworth, a suburb of west London. During the First World War, for security reasons, the painting was sent to the United States, where it was displayed at the Boston Museum of Art. In the early 1920s, after its return, the painting was brought to Rome, where many Leonardo experts of the day acclaimed it as the work of Leonardo da Vinci. Later, in 1962, the specialist in arts, Dr. Henry F. Pulitzer, together with a Swiss consortium, became the new owner of the work. Initially, the painting remained in his Kensington apartment in London. Pulitzer subsequently authored a major study of the painting: his book – ‘Where is the Mona Lisa?’  – was published in 1966. At the present time, the painting is maintained by an international consortium in Geneva, Switzerland. It has fallen to The Mona Lisa Foundation (founded in 2010 and headquartered in Zurich) to undertake the task of researching all about the painting, and the dissemination and worldwide promotion of all the results.

Lisa, the young ‘Gioconda’

The character of the “Mona Lisa – Earlier Version“, in the opinion of the late Dr. Pulitzer, and of The Mona Lisa Foundation, is that she was the real Mona Lisa (“mona”, which, in old Italian, means “lady“), a woman 11 or 12 years younger than the figure portrayed in the Louvre – who was about 34 years old at the time the Louvre portrait was completed. The model in the “Earlier Version”, Lisa di Antonmaria Gherardini, was the wife of a wealthy Florentine silk merchant and emerging politician, Francesco Del Giocondo.

Figs. 2 & 3 Leonardo da Vinci ‘Mona Lisa’ [Louvre Version c. 1501-1516 - left; and Earlier Version c. 1501-1505 - right].

With reference to the Louvre version, some experts believe she was a mistress of Giuliano de Medici. The name Costanza d’Avalos, has been proposed in some circles, but there is no evidence that she is the one, or that that lady was ever a mistress of Giuliano. Interestingly, the composition and clothing used for the Louvre “Gioconda”, was the same as allegedly used in the design scheme of the previous [“earlier”] version. For other researchers, the true identity of the ‘Gioconda’ of the Louvre might have been Isabella Gualanda, or Isabella d’Este, or even Cecilia Gallerani (the model for ‘Lady with an Ermine’, which is today in Cracow, Poland), all figures of Italian society of that time, as well as perhaps Bianca Giovanna Sforza (daughter of Ludovico il Moro), or some Spanish courtesan, among other contenders.

However, unlike Pulitzer, the opinion of The Mona Lisa Foundation is that both the ‘Isleworth’ and Louvre versions represent the same woman. Therefore, it is Lisa at the Louvre, not Constanza. One of the strongest arguments for this theory – almost definitive proof – is the reference by Antonio de Beatis, secretary of Cardinal Luigi of Aragon, when visiting Leonardo in 1517 in France, where the artist was living at the invitation of Francis I. There, Don Antonio referred to one of the paintings shown by the artist as (a picture of) “ … a certain Florentine woman, made from life, at the instance of the late Magnificent Giuliano de ‘Medici” By the date of the event, we can clearly understand that that portrait is the one now in the Louvre, that came into the French royal collection along with the “Virgin and Child with St. Anne”, and “St. John the Baptist”, also cited by de Beatis; and, therefore, Costanza, being of Neapolitan origin, would be definitely ruled out of any chance as being a candidate for the Louvre version.

A Controversial Theory

Considering that Leonardo never left any notes about his portraits of Mona Lisa, perhaps the writings of one of the greatest artists and biographers of the Italian Renaissance, Giorgio Vasari, could decisively assist in putting an end to this controversy. Vasari could never have seen the  ‘Louvre Mona Lisa’, as he was only five years old when Leonardo took it to France in 1516, and he himself never visited that country. However, he would describe in great detail a painting with the same characteristics as the ‘Isleworth’ version, in the house of Francesco Del Giocondo, his friend. There are records that show that Vasari could have visited the del Giocondo residence in the 1530s.

In addition, the distinguished artist and chronicler, Giovanni Lomazzo, in 1584 mentions two works which he identifies as “della Gioconda” AND “di Mona Lisa“, making a clear distinction that there were two works. Moreover, in a letter from Fra’ da Novellara to Isabella d’Este, there is a reference about Leonardo’s assistants working on two portraits – and, by the date, can be concluded then, that two versions of the Mona Lisa were underway. Novellara’s correspondence identifies other religious images being executed in Leonardo’s atelier; but the two portraits mentioned above must have then been ‘secular’, and the only known secular commission that Leonardo was working on at the time was the portrait of Lisa Del Giocondo. Furthermore, in Cloux in 1517, the secretary of the Cardinal of Aragon, Antonio de Beatis, notes conversations directly with Leonardo, and makes it clear from the observations of the works shown by Leonardo that the Louvre version was commissioned by Giuliano de Medici.

Other relevant data:

1) One of the specialists called in 1913 to examine the Louvre ‘Gioconda’ after its return to Paris (it was stolen from the Louvre in 1911), Prof. Commendatore Lorenzo Cecconi, Curator of the Academy of Santa Luca, subsequently authenticated the ‘Isleworth’ version as a Leonardo, when he saw it in Rome in 1922.
2) John Eyre, author and art connoisseur, in his publication: ‘The Two Mona Lisas’ (1924), identified the hands and face of the ‘Isleworth’ version as unquestionable marks of Leonardo. Eyre also wrote the first major scholarly article about the ‘Isleworth’ version, in 1915, called ‘Monograph on Leonardo da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” ‘.
3) According to an article in ‘The Century Magazine’ (February 1914), ‘The Two “Mona Lisas” ‘, signed by Walter Littlefield, yet another version, the now newly-restored ‘Gioconda Velata’, of the Prado Museum (Madrid), had been acquired by Charles I of Spain just to compete with Francis I of France, and his “original”. This painting was seen as legitimate at the time, but the whole glamorization and mystique of Paris gradually “blurred” its importance and legitimacy. However, today the authorship of the ‘Velata’ has been tentatively attributed to Salai or Francesco Melzi, Leonardo’s assistants, but this has also not been proven. The background – previously overpainted in black – has been removed, revealing a scenario analogous to the Louvre version, though either one could have originated as a copy of the ‘Mona Lisa (Isleworth)’.(See fig 4)

Fig. 4, Copy of ‘Mona Lisa’ (‘La Gioconda velata’), Prado Museum, Madrid.

Claims continue to arise about the possibility that these two models (the ‘Isleworth’ and the Louvre versions) are actually the same woman (followed by the Spanish version, in better condition). Moreover, an additional thesis claims that the character of the Louvre version has been affected by the varnishes and craquelures:  that these might have given the appearance of “aging” the face. The problem with this theory is that if this were the case, then all that has been written and spoken about in recent centuries concerning old paintings should be discarded, since most of them suffered the same ageing processes and this had never been a hindrance to the experts who understand the age of any picture. Furthermore, these effects only become noticeable when the face of a model is seen more closely, which would force the viewer to escape the proposed Renaissance contemplation of the human figure in its entirety – and that can only be achieved at a distance. Hence we conclude that craquelures and related varnishes never had the power to interfere to the point of subtly confusing youth with maturity. In my opinion, if the model of Paris appears to be older than her cousin in Madrid, it was so because it was intended that way, even if they are based on the same ‘cartone’ (preparatory drawing). Also, the woman in the Prado copy is very different and much younger than the Louvre version. Therefore, the visual evidence suggests that the “youthfulness” of the Prado ‘Velata’ emerged from an original, other than the Louvre version.

Discussions and Further Evidence

Pulitzer argued that scholars have a tendency to dislike when a work of some unprecedented genius arises, often because of the risk and trouble of having to reconsider many of their sources of production research; hard-built theories that could invalidate an academic name. Since the days of Pulitzer’s Swiss consortium, and later, after another international group became owners of the work, the painting has undergone a veritable crusade in order to confirm it as originating from da Vinci’s own hands; and, moreover, depicting the same woman as in the Louvre version – which would ultimately suggest further studies.

To this end, The Mona Lisa Foundation has made every effort so that the painting would meet the widest possible range of evidence from different fields of knowledge, by following righteously all the necessary and relevant criteria for scientific and historic research. Renowned experts in these fields, such as Prof. Alessandro Vezzosi, director of the Museo Ideale Leonardo Da Vinci – a leading authority on Leonardo in the world – and Prof. John F.Asmus, Research Physicist at the University of California, San Diego, have played a leading role. The results of over thirty-five years of intensive research recently became available to the general public with the launch of a new website (http://monalisa.org), and a substantial companion publication, ‘Mona Lisa – Leonardo’s Earlier Version’, authored mostly by art historian and member of the foundation, Stanley B. Feldman. Thus, the findings seem to indicate the fact that, really, the painting is an authentic Leonardo, and that the ‘Isleworth’ woman is a young Lisa Gherardini, 11 to 12 years younger than the version in the Louvre.

A big boost this theory was the discovery in 2005 at the University of Heidelberg (Germany), of notes from a secretary of Machiavelli, Agostino Vespucci, who witnessed Leonardo working on the portrait of  Lisa del Giocondo – these notes are dated 1503.(See fig. 5) Note that today, much of the academic world now agrees that the Louvre ‘Gioconda’, for reasons of specific style and techniques, had been mainly executed sometime after 1508, and completed possibly as late as 1516/1517.

Fig. 5 ‘Heidelberg Document’ extract (Notation dated 1503).

About criticism that the work can not be an original because it is on canvas rather than wood (at the time, by far the most used support), I imagine that this would amount to, in five hundred years from now, that scholars of the Cultural History of the Twentieth Century flatly refusing to admit that Tom Hanks may be the same actor from ‘Philadelphia’, or ‘Saving Private Ryan’, only to also have been the protagonist of the most popular comedies of the 1980s! … Even the ‘Benois Madonna’, now in the Hermitage, St. Petersburg, is a painting on canvas authenticated by virtually all Leonardo experts, including the Hermitage itself. The Louvre itself has other examples: studies of drapery painted on canvas. If we admit that a true artist who is a genius, would be “open” to any and all types of innovations and experiments – including to exercise his art – it is no surprise that this same inquisitiveness would manifest itself in exploring new avenues, and leaving the popular aside for a while. This vocation had even been the reason for the disaster that struck his second most famous work, ‘The Last Supper’ in Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan, that deteriorated quite badly and rapidly due to an unreliable tempera technique that failed almost immediately. A similar disaster occurred, around the time of the ‘Earlier Mona Lisa’, with his experimental work in Florence for the ‘Battle of Anghiari’ fresco. It is particularly curious: when Leonardo the painter came out, in his own lifetime, with a new experiment, whether it worked or not, it was routinely accepted as his work; yet in the case of the ‘Earlier Version’ of Mona Lisa, where his work was executed perfectly, it is impossible to give him credit? This makes no sense. In fact, Leonardo had also written on the subject of “canvas” in his ‘Trattato della Pittura’, published posthumously in 1651.

Symbols of the Renaissance

Aspects of the composition and execution of the painting; the hands and face are portrayed uniquely “Leonardesque”, and these elements must certainly have been executed by the master. In addition, all the treatment applied to the main elements of the composition perfectly fits Leonardo’s drawing style, as well as his very high technical level. Furthermore, the head, neck, and bases of the columns, indicate the brushstrokes of a left-handed artist – as da Vinci was known to be. The identical ethereal atmosphere that can be applied to the Louvre version, is also recognizable here. Making use of ‘sfumato’ – a painterly device for blending skin-tones and other colours, quite typical of the Italian Renaissance – gives a supernatural effect, an aura of mystery to the composition. If you do not experience these same emotions that mark both, that recreation of an “unreal” universe outside our space-time – you can assign it to the habit of the master to not finish what he had begun to produce, as well as an “outsourcing” of work to the hands of assistants. Unlike any other case of a copy of this work, this painting remains true to the stylistic fidelity and pictorial principles of the Anchiano artist. Elsewhere, as already mentioned, the treatment given to the rest of the composition, like the background landscape – which is very simple – seems to point to a collaborative work, especially in view of Leonardo’s taste for detail, as well as his great interest in natural themes.

In addition, this version features Lisa between two Greek columns – a clearly Renaissance element – nonexistent in the original composition of the Paris version, but present in a sketch made by Raphael (c. 1504)(see fig. 6), and also in a subsequent oil painting by him: the ‘Lady with a Unicorn’ (c. 1505)(see fig. 7), i.e., in the same period in which Leonardo worked on this younger Mona Lisa. It is worth noting that recent examinations have demonstrated that the ‘Mona Lisa’ from the Louvre never had its sides trimmed – a commonplace procedure at the time and subsequent centuries in order to perfectly fit a picture into a previously prepared frame.

Fig. 6 Raphael ‘Young Woman on a Balcony’, pen & ink sketch, c. 1504, Louvre Museum, Paris.

Fig. 7 Raphael ‘Lady with a Unicorn’ c. 1505, Borghese Gallery, Rome.

The “Isleworth” also follows the use of the “golden section” (or “golden ratio”) as authenticated in some other works of Leonardo (‘The Annunciation’ from the Uffizi in Florence, and the ‘Mona Lisa’ from the Louvre are good examples). The “golden section” is a structural resource for mathematical compositions in art and engineering, discovered in antiquity, and widely used in the Renaissance, which opposes the principle of intersecting axes. Thus, the artist can, through the strategic subdivision of the image into several rectangles, produce a series of major and minor shares that would flow to infinity. This effect guides our vision spiral, resulting in a transcendent order in space. Therefore, a painting would reflect a natural rhythm – indeed, the observation and study of nature (scientific logos) were pillars of paramount importance in Renaissance achievements.(See Fig. 8)

Fig. 8 Leonardo da Vinci ‘Mona Lisa’, c. 1501-1505, and the ‘Golden Ratio’.

It is here that the two-dimensional plane is seen in critical perspective, and because of the “golden section”, the figure of greatest interest (in this case, the woman) would integrate everything together. That is, through the iconographic image of the schematic model of Lisa Gherardini, we can see the imagination of Leonardo’s desire where this “New Man” sees his own genre integrated as both the natural forces of life and the world.

Philosophical Implications

Another relevant Renaissance factor in the “Earlier Version” is the part of Leonardo’s keen interest in the search for an ideal of upper beauty (order): the question of the “dual principle”, or “opposites” in things – which brings us back to Heraclitus of Ephesus and his thoughts on the cosmos and the “one”, and development with harmony. Also, studies of Fibonacci and the “golden ratio”, including the strength of symmetrical balance, would be of singular importance in Leonardo’s compositions. In particular, in the iconography of da Vinci with the theme of youth and maturity, we have some examples of how such philosophical implications seduced the genius of the artist-designer.

A good example of the different aspects of this complexity, where each of us is our own universe, is preserved in a drawing at Christ Church College, at Oxford University: his ‘Allegory on Politics’, executed between 1483 and 1487. Here we have two mystical ladies with a “magical” mirror, in addition to some ancient symbols for alchemy and hermeticism (control of the natural elements), i.e., the presence of birds and serpentine elements: electricity and magnetism. One of these women is presented in this gestalt with a young face, and another like an old man. In fact, the theme of the transience of Man was another constant in the philosophies and the occult arts, from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, and continuing (more recently) to Romanticism and Expressionism. Christ Church College also retains another drawing called ‘Allegory of Pleasure and Pain’, from 1480, which sees two male figures – one young, one old – that emanate from the same body. The idea here is to illustrate the need for the existence of pleasure from pain, and vice versa: once again, the issue of one and the opposite.(See Fig 9)

Fig. 9 Leonardo da Vinci ‘Allegory of Pain and Pleasure’, c. 1480, Christ Church Picture Gallery, Oxford.

Other cases in the same genre are Leonardo’s oil on wood ‘The Adoration of the Magi’ in the Uffizi in Florence, begun in 1481 and left unfinished from 1482. Here, in detail, we see a group of young people around a foot locust tree, in contrast to the group of seniors that surrounds the main scene; and the cartoon: the ‘Virgin and Child, with St. Anne’, (1499-1500), an imaginary scene that contrasts Mary’s youth to the maturity of her mother. The interesting thing here is that these two characters have a strong physical resemblance to Lisa Gherardini in their roles as young (Earlier Version) and mature (Louvre version), respectively.

So ‘Mona Lisa – Earlier Version’, the younger counterpoint to the classic version of Paris, adds to the iconography of opposites created in Leonardo’s works. His intentions in relation to the Louvre version is more than clear: the very general aspect of the image itself reveals a clear representation of a rejuvenation of ‘La Gioconda’.

There is, in my view, still one more strong circumstantial element: the slight presence of a cosmetic on the lips of the young Lisa Gherardini, which only further supports the direct relationship between the two versions: one young, one older. At the turn of XV-XVI centuries, the use of these materials with reddish tones was extremely inappropriate for mature women. Several studies to restore the original colours in the Louvre ‘Gioconda’ demonstrated that her lips would not be much more coloured than they appear today.

The ‘Gioconda’/’Mona Lisa’ of the Louvre, finally, to Leonardo, could only have existed if there was also another point of balance through an earlier version, upon which he could further exercise his higher level of thinking, where opposites would of necessity orchestrate the movement of history, and of all creation.

Conclusion

To see the famous smile of the ‘Mona Lisa’ in Paris, the world embarks on endless “pilgrimages” to the Louvre. That her figure has become synonymous with the greatness the human race is capable of creating, as Kennedy spoke once – something that, at first glance, would supplant all its other achievements – while it enchants the viewer and sits elegant and robust in the face of eternity: it is sensitivity and solidity. Certainly, in the ‘Earlier Version’, the result is not different: the sovereign pose and smile so unique are also evident in this graceful variation, with both ‘Monas Lisas’ composing the image, the ideal portrait of our humankind at the dawn of Modernity, and in the countenance of the woman, we see humanity.

Considering all these things, we can reflect that Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Isleworth / Earlier Version’ could certainly expand our understanding of the ‘Gioconda’ of the Louvre; on da Vinci himself; Lisa; her city; her time; and the universe where all these elements are in harmony: in short, about the fascinating world of studies on the transition from the Middle Ages to Modernity.

Átila Soares da Costa Filho, October 2012.

[Translated from the original Portugese]

Átila Soares da Costa Filho is Professor of Art History, Philosophy and Sociology,  Cândido Mendes University, and Veiga de Almeida University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He is the author of numerous articles in magazines and newspapers and a well respected voice on the History of Art in Latin America. For further reference, his homepage is here, and academic record here.

The post A Necessary Counterpoint appeared first on The Mona Lisa Foundation.

• Unique Composition:

Apart from the long-admired sitting position of the subject, the architecture of the painting is completely novel. 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 Version’ can be argued to be a later addition (as they cover an underlying layer of background), and never part of its original composition.

• Sitting Angle:

The sitting position of the subject is angled differently that the ‘Louvre Version’. 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 ‘Earlier 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 Version’, it would likely have been painted on wood.

• Size:

The size of the ‘Earlier 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 Version’.

• Different artists:

Tests have shown that some elements were painted with quite different pigments 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 17^th Century copy in the National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design, Oslo.

• Embroidery:

Details of the embroidery on the blouse are unique, different from those in the ‘Louvre Version’, 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 ‘Earlier Version’.

• 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 ‘Earlier Version’ 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 explanation to explain why the painting has features different to that in the Louvre: “This is probably because the copyist … just painted it that way”.

The foundation’s stance is that this is a tautological argument: to imply that a painting is a copy because that is the way a copyist painted it does not hold much credence and ignores the possible reasons for all the highlighted differences.

The post Is The ‘Earlier Mona Lisa’ A Copy? appeared first on The Mona Lisa Foundation.