Posted on 09/28/2017 3:46:23 PM PDT by sparklite2
Experts at the Louvre museum in Paris on Thursday revealed that Leonardo da Vinci may have also painted a topless version called Joconde Nue, or Monna Vanna of the famed masterpiece.
A scientific study of the charcoal work found that it could be Da Vincis preparatory drawing for a naked version of La Gioconda.
The Monna Vanna which has been held since 1862 at the Condé museum in Chantilly had previously been attributed to the Florentine masters studio.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Mona Meesa
Thanks for the link to the nude version.
I’m no art PhD, but having read all the books I could get my hands on about Leonardo, that painting does not look like his.
It doesn’t have the “it” factor. Nothing arresting.
I don’t think it’s his. Maybe they were right in ascribing it to a student.
P.S.: It’s also suspicious that the nude version doesn’t have the pillars on the left and right that are known to have been in the original, before it was physically cropped.
Contemporary copyists drew the pillars that Leonardo included in the original painting.
P.P.S.:
And, if I’m right about the missing pillars, why would I -— a total amateur — know about them, but not a journalist for the Post researching this story?
Are they warm, are they real, Mona Lisa?
Libtard.
nothing else need be said.
due diligence is foreign to them.
Maybe the only contribution by da Vinci is the charcoal sketch which the article talks about, and the Monna Vanna oil painting we have today is by his student Salai, from the sketch.
Like the difference between comic book pencillers and inkers!
I considered that, but no doubt his student and lover “Salai” (a nickname Da Vinci bestowed on his pupil/companion Gian Giacomo Caprotti do Ornone, which is roughly translated as “Little Devil”) would have been familiar with the painting he copied.
If the original painting did have pillars on the left and right sides — as it doee in Raphael’s contemporary sketch of the psinting — why would the pupil omit them even before they had been trimmed out of the picture, as they are in the now-familiar version?
—
It is debatable:
—
“The Isleworth Mona Lisa is wider than the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, having columns on either side which also appear in some other versions. The Louvre painting merely has the projecting bases of columns on either side, suggesting that the picture was originally framed by columns but was trimmed. However, experts who examined the Mona Lisa in 20042005 stated that the original painting had not been trimmed.[10]
. . .
Authenticity
Raphael’s drawing, based on the Mona Lisa:
Pulitzer argues in his book that Leonardo’s contemporary Raphael made a sketch of this painting, probably from memory, after seeing it in Leonardo’s studio in 1504 (the sketch is reproduced in Pulitzer’s book; the book says that this sketch is at the Louvre). The Raphael sketch includes the two Greek columns that are not found in the Louvre’s Mona Lisa.”
It’s a good detective problem. Maybe they’ll uncover some new clues.
Don’t buy into the fraud that gaysters push that Leonardo was gay. No evidence that Salai was his “lover.” He was a street kid who he took in as a student and gofer. He had many students as did all artists at that time. His notebooks clearly state that Salai was a real troublemaker and he eventually died in a barroom brawl. Leonardo, actually, wrote that he hated acts of sexuality.
Otherwise, this thread is hilarious!
OK.
You make a valid point.
I was only going on my limited reading of their relationship.
Too limited, perhaps, I confess!
It seems that Leonardo willed all his works to ‘Salai,’ rather than his brothers when he died, though, so that seemed suspicious. As does Salai’s continued presence through all his travels. But maybe artists do that, or did then.
I don’t care. Leonardo’s art is all that matters.
Of course, in those days, there was only sodomy and no concept of homosexuality or shacking up and going on shopping trips to Home Depot, lol, as some of our dumber gay brethren believe. I’ll have to check on Salai getting Leonardo’s stuff; he wasn’t particularly close to his father’s family and for fairly good reason. The artist was quite poor at the end and I’m not sure how much he had to leave his pesky and annoying friend - I do know he didn’t take him to France at the end of his life. Salai was used as a model as was Leonardo as a youth. That was part of the concept of the atelier. There was an emphasis on male beauty at the time but that may or may not have anything to do with homosexuality.
A topless version of a woman depicted by an artist of the era of Leonardo da Vinci would not have been rare event.
In the photo at the article that guy’s head is in the way.
I cannot see her topless!
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/mona-lisa-topless-2.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=664&h=441&crop=1
And they say history is progress. Baloney!
Note: this topic is from . Thanks sparklite2.
The MonaLisa keyword, chrono sorted:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.