Posted on 01/27/2010 5:15:52 AM PST by drpix
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa is arguably the most famous portrait in the world, but now some are speculating that the woman with the inscrutable smile may not be a woman after all. They are suggesting that the Mona Lisa may be a self-portrait, da Vinci in drag.
-more-
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
"Mona Lisa was painted around 500 years ago. Beyond that, we know almost nothing about the painting that is now on display at the Louvre in Paris. "
"Indeed, Rosenfeld wonders, "If Leonardo is a Renaissance man ... why can't he be a transvestite as well, and a cross-dresser?""
In fact we DO KNOW more. Since Da Vinci was famous before he died and remained so after his death, biographers in the 1500s documented his life and works. For over 400 years, we knew that the "Mona Lisa" was painted for Francesco del Giocondo, a wealthy silk merchant, as a portrait of is wife Lisa. Mona is short for Madonna, but in Italy it is known as "La Gioconda."
But, since modern historical & cultural revisionism's push to devaluate all western values, all we know must be discarded and replaced by a fabricated mythology of politically correct diversity lies. The "discovery" of homosexuality/transvestism/cross-dressing of historical figures is part of this revision.
The Mona Lisa was a punk???!!!
Excellent. Thanks.
I think that Leonardo used his own facial expressions to try to capture a look that Lisa Giaconda may have given briefly, but would not hold. Modern cartoonists have used this technique for years when drawing animated cartoons.
the Mona Lisa does look like a turf muncher... lol
Oh, right. And that’s a woman next to Jesus in “The Last Supper.”
Everyone in the past was as perverse as you, Rosenfeld? This is pure supposition and publicity-pandering to belittle and defame the memory of a remarkable artist and intellect. There is no way to ever prove or disprove this, so the purpose of bringing it up can only be self-promotion on the part of Rosenfeld, some kind of third-rate art historian. I think this says much more about what Rosenfeld does in his spare time than what Leonardo da Vinci did in his, and then these two dim-bulb reporters fall right into it.
I’ve been told that every artist paints them self. That needn’t be taken literally.
But isn't that far from "..why can't he be a transvestite as well, and a cross-dresser?"....?
Thank you. You said what I was thinking, only better!
Take note of this point. This is a conscious tactic of the homosexual promotion industry.
This came up years ago, was discredited and now...it is being presented like it is a new theory. Last time around it was pushed by “computer analysis” and scores of points of similarity between the Mona Lisa and self portraits of Leonardo.
Are you confusing turf munchers with %$#suckers?
The “MANa Lisa”?
Wow. God bless you for speaking truth.
That’s a MAN baby!!!
I taught Art History for over twenty years. Many students just out of secondary public school are barely literate. I included personal material about artists in my lectures with the caveat that some of the material was pure BS and would be on tests. At least that gave the ones who cared some incentive to learn how to use the library.
Ping!
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.