Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   So turns out the Mona Lisa at the Louvre may not actually be the real one. Don't look so smug   (guardian.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Switzerland, ETH-Zurich  
•       •       •

7181 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Feb 2013 at 12:24 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-02-14 10:43:16 AM  
This should not be news for anyone. And the Mona Lisa isn't even one of the 100 best things at the Louvre.
 
2013-02-14 10:50:35 AM  
Is this the Louvre in Paris or the Louvre in Wisconsin?
 
2013-02-14 11:28:42 AM  
The X-Ray
doctorwhotoys.net
 
2013-02-14 11:59:25 AM  
that would be interesting if it is what the article actually said.
 
2013-02-14 12:22:59 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-14 12:28:25 PM  

badscooter: i.imgur.com


CFT, LS.
 
2013-02-14 12:31:20 PM  

cretinbob: The X-Ray
[doctorwhotoys.net image 571x700]


I didn't expect an old school Doctor Who reference this early in a thread. Well done!
 
2013-02-14 12:33:14 PM  

DamnYankees: This should not be news for anyone. And the Mona Lisa isn't even one of the 100 best things at the Louvre.


Yes, it is.

Because once you've seen it, you can rest assured that virtually every moron with a flash camera will be crowded and jostling in front of it, trying to get a shot, while you casually peruse every other wing of the museum idiot-free.
 
2013-02-14 12:35:56 PM  
Maybe it was a water colour forgery? I don't know. Don't look at me.

www.apollinas.com
 
2013-02-14 12:36:59 PM  
tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-14 12:50:03 PM  
iaith.tapetrade.net

Agrees.
 
2013-02-14 12:51:21 PM  
The tests on his 15th century portrait were carried out by a specialist in "sacred geometry" and by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in the wake of the Geneva unveiling of the painting, the Isleworth Mona Lisa, last September.

WTF is "Sacred Geometry" and how does an expertise in it apply to this situation?
 
2013-02-14 12:56:34 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: The tests on his 15th century portrait were carried out by a specialist in "sacred geometry" and by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in the wake of the Geneva unveiling of the painting, the Isleworth Mona Lisa, last September.

WTF is "Sacred Geometry" and how does an expertise in it apply to this situation?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_geometry for the first question. I have no idea as to the second.
 
2013-02-14 01:01:29 PM  

Mega Steve: cretinbob: The X-Ray
[doctorwhotoys.net image 571x700]

I didn't expect an old school Doctor Who reference this early in a thread. Well done!


Seconded.

/all hail the mighty scarf!
 
2013-02-14 01:09:15 PM  

jaharley: [iaith.tapetrade.net image 429x483]

Agrees.


Came here to make that reference.

Leaving satisfied.
 
2013-02-14 01:09:48 PM  
Why is a self-portrait of da Vinci in drag so popular anyway?
 
2013-02-14 01:11:02 PM  
Also if they only carbon dated the canvas to the early 1400s, that just means that's when the fabric was made. It doesn't provide any information about when the paint was applied to it.
 
2013-02-14 01:14:31 PM  
Project managers ignoring or understating time estimates to complete a task or project

Don't farking pad everything and I won't.  When you blindly estimate every change order as "2 weeks" you lose credibility.
 
2013-02-14 01:15:06 PM  

tricycleracer: Project managers ignoring or understating time estimates to complete a task or project

Don't farking pad everything and I won't.  When you blindly estimate every change order as "2 weeks" you lose credibility.


Oops, wrong thread.
 
2013-02-14 01:31:07 PM  
The article states that the Mona Lisa in the Louvre isn't a fake, just not Davici's original attempt.
 
2013-02-14 01:33:20 PM  
That painting is the Kardashian of the art world. I will never understand why it is so famous.
 
2013-02-14 01:33:56 PM  
That chick wasn't even all that hot.

Did she at least ever pose nude?
 
2013-02-14 01:39:33 PM  
images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-02-14 01:48:04 PM  

Copperbelly watersnake: That painting is the Kardashian of the art world. I will never understand why it is so famous.


I've always been more appreciative of the Flemish Renaissance painters, but the Mona Lisa was pretty emblematic of the advances in technique made in the period. Sure, it's not as extravagant as what Michelangelo put on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or intricate as Raphael's School of Athens, but the Mona Lisa is an easily recognizable painting by one of the master painters of the era. It's not so much a Kardashian, as it's not devoid of value, but more of a Stairway to Heaven.
 
2013-02-14 01:53:04 PM  
Oh man I bet working at the 'Mona Lisa Foundation' is a grueling 100 hour a week job. Just like most work in academia and non-profit is.
 
2013-02-14 01:54:39 PM  

Copperbelly watersnake: That painting is the Kardashian of the art world. I will never understand why it is so famous.


I couldn't explain to you why it gets more prominence than many other works from that era that I personally prefer, but if you come from the mentality of "oh hey it's a painting" compared to the subsequent 600 years of painting, art evolution, digitalization, etc. that we have access to then it probably won't seem that notable. But da Vinci was certainly a master painter and I think it can be appreciated especially compared to a lot of the contemporary art of his time.

But I dunno, think about it. Lots of portraits back then. Lots of landscapes. What painting from that era would you look at and immediately say "well DUH, THAT'S why its famous"? If it wasn't Mona Lisa it would be another painting that isn't that exceptional out of context in modern times.

/GF studied art history and worked at art institute in chicago for a while (saw some pretty cool "storage room" stuff!) so I'll have to ask her about this later
 
2013-02-14 02:04:34 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-14 02:09:20 PM  
I see the picture in the article, but I can't find the Mona Lisa in it.  Could someone point it out to me?

static.guim.co.uk

Oh, ok, I see it now.  Thanks.
 
2013-02-14 02:10:26 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: The tests on his 15th century portrait were carried out by a specialist in "sacred geometry" and by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in the wake of the Geneva unveiling of the painting, the Isleworth Mona Lisa, last September.

WTF is "Sacred Geometry" and how does an expertise in it apply to this situation?


It's how the Stonecutters keep the real Mona Lisa out of the Louve
It's how we keep the metric system down
It's why we keep getting Steve Guttenburg on the silver screen
 
2013-02-14 02:11:50 PM  
images.smh.com.au
 
2013-02-14 02:11:52 PM  

doczoidberg: That chick wasn't even all that hot.

Did she at least ever pose nude?


Just privately, for Leo. But after they broke up he uploaded the paintings to one of those revenge porn sites.
 
2013-02-14 02:14:48 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: The tests on his 15th century portrait were carried out by a specialist in "sacred geometry" and by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in the wake of the Geneva unveiling of the painting, the Isleworth Mona Lisa, last September.

WTF is "Sacred Geometry" and how does an expertise in it apply to this situation?


It's the study of how mathematics is used in the construction of places of worship, and is directly relatable to this study because The Mona Lisa is painted using those principles.  They start with the subject being seated in a triangle shape, and continue through to geometric representations of other points of interest in the painting.  Exactly what da Vinci did in each of those relationships would be a key to discovering whether it's a forgery, a copy, or genuine.

Regarding why it's so famous (aside from being famous for being so famous), the Mona Lisa brought three items to the artist's palette that had never been seen before:  First, it introduced the sfomato technique of not showing specific outlines, as though the subject is being seen through smoke.  Second, portraits up until this one were done in empty rooms, or at least with very uninteresting backgrounds, making this the first outdoor formal portrait, not afraid to have detail other than the subject.  And finally, da Vinci used perspective to draw focus to the subject eyes and take the background into the distance as an optical illusion, a technique not used prior.  For additional perspective, he combined two of these techniques; the borders of the mouth, eyebrows (there are none), and the rest of the face are blurred or removed so as to draw attention to the eyes alone.
 
2013-02-14 02:16:49 PM  

DamnYankees: This should not be news for anyone. And the Mona Lisa isn't even one of the 100 best things at the Louvre.


And you have to deal with all the Japanese tourists taking flash photography of the BEHIND GLASS picture.  And different strokes for different folks when it comes to art, but I like the d'Orsay better than the Louvre.
 
2013-02-14 02:23:41 PM  
Came for the Doctor Who reference -- leaving happy.
 
2013-02-14 02:24:07 PM  
The tests on his 15th century portrait were carried out by a specialist in "sacred geometry"

25.media.tumblr.com

You have a degree in baloney!
 
2013-02-14 02:24:29 PM  

Summoner101: Copperbelly watersnake: That painting is the Kardashian of the art world. I will never understand why it is so famous.

I've always been more appreciative of the Flemish Renaissance painters, but the Mona Lisa was pretty emblematic of the advances in technique made in the period. Sure, it's not as extravagant as what Michelangelo put on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or intricate as Raphael's School of Athens, but the Mona Lisa is an easily recognizable painting by one of the master painters of the era. It's not so much a Kardashian, as it's not devoid of value, but more of a Stairway to Heaven.


Brunelleschi used perspective drawings.
 
2013-02-14 02:39:26 PM  
One has to wonder why Leonardo, who could barely bring himself to finish anything, would create a duplicate painting, right down to the pose and the outfit, ten or twenty years after doing the "original" Mona Lisa. And then carry it with him everywhere he went for the rest of his life. The "young" Mona Lisa looks amateurish to me, conventionalized and idealized, as though painted from the imagination rather than life, and the palette seems overly bright and inauthentic. The familiar Mona Lisa is a much deeper psychological portrait. Why would someone do a copy of the Mona Lisa as a young woman? Well, why would someone draw a moustache on her and add "L.H.O.O.Q."? Making a comment, making a joke, trying to cause trouble and stir up a controversy, maybe making a little money on the side. The Louvre version is a better painting.

Have to agree with everyone who commented on the huge crowds in front of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. I recall going there as a teenager and being astounded that people would prefer to peer at the Mona Lisa from a distance of twenty feet when "The Madonna of the Rocks" and similar masterpieces went ignored in the same gallery just a few feet away.
 
2013-02-14 02:46:41 PM  
 
2013-02-14 02:46:52 PM  

CygnusDarius: Summoner101: Copperbelly watersnake: That painting is the Kardashian of the art world. I will never understand why it is so famous.

I've always been more appreciative of the Flemish Renaissance painters, but the Mona Lisa was pretty emblematic of the advances in technique made in the period. Sure, it's not as extravagant as what Michelangelo put on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or intricate as Raphael's School of Athens, but the Mona Lisa is an easily recognizable painting by one of the master painters of the era. It's not so much a Kardashian, as it's not devoid of value, but more of a Stairway to Heaven.

Brunelleschi used perspective drawings.


The use of perspective during the Renaissance was fairly prolific and one of the defining departures from earlier medieval art.  If I remember correctly, it started earlier than Brunelleschi with Giotto.
 
2013-02-14 02:49:00 PM  

ChrisDe: doczoidberg: That chick wasn't even all that hot.

Did she at least ever pose nude?

Just privately, for Leo. But after they broke up he uploaded the paintings to one of those revenge porn sites.


I read a short story where the Mona Lisa was discovered to have been one in a series for a Renaissance peep show. They were mounted an a round frame that rotated around the viewer to create flip book like effect where she flashed her boobs.
 
2013-02-14 02:55:59 PM  

midigod: For additional perspective, he combined two of these techniques; the borders of the mouth, eyebrows (there are none), and the rest of the face are blurred or removed so as to draw attention to the eyes alone.


About the eyebrows being removed:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3668700/Solved-Why-Mona-Lisa-d o esnt-have-eyebrows.html
 
2013-02-14 02:56:46 PM  
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-02-14 03:05:46 PM  
Sounds like it's time for a Fark photoshop contest.
 
2013-02-14 03:20:04 PM  

12349876: And different strokes for different folks when it comes to art, but I like the d'Orsay better than the Louvre.


When I lived in Paris, the d'Orsay was free on Sundays. I used to go there every weekend and get my Monet for nothing.
 
2013-02-14 03:22:51 PM  
Though CITY OF DEATH has been well referenced here, I'll still post my bit:

upload.wikimedia.org

"Wait, weren't there only 6 copies?"
 
2013-02-14 03:24:13 PM  

CatfoodSpork: Also if they only carbon dated the canvas to the early 1400s, that just means that's when the fabric was made. It doesn't provide any information about when the paint was applied to it.


This. If somebody were to fake a Mona Lisa, the first thing they would do is start with a lesser work of roughly the right age and clean the canvas. That's Forgery 101

/See also the Vinland Map
 
2013-02-14 03:30:16 PM  

amindtat: midigod: For additional perspective, he combined two of these techniques; the borders of the mouth, eyebrows (there are none), and the rest of the face are blurred or removed so as to draw attention to the eyes alone.

About the eyebrows being removed:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3668700/Solved-Why-Mona-Lisa-d o esnt-have-eyebrows.html


"Pascal Cotte says that ultra detailed digital scans of the 16th-century picture allow him to look into the past and see how the Florentine merchant's wife looked before years of restoration work.

Using the 240-megapixel scans, "

I am laughing OL.
 
2013-02-14 03:34:31 PM  
I'll be honest, the smile trick going on in the one in the article is way more distinct and subversive than the one in the louvre. I'll go as far to say I would like to look at that one more than the one in the Louvre.
 
2013-02-14 03:36:23 PM  

czetie: CatfoodSpork: Also if they only carbon dated the canvas to the early 1400s, that just means that's when the fabric was made. It doesn't provide any information about when the paint was applied to it.

This. If somebody were to fake a Mona Lisa, the first thing they would do is start with a lesser work of roughly the right age and clean the canvas. That's Forgery 101

/See also the Vinland Map


The Mona Lisa is not painted on canvas.
 
2013-02-14 03:41:45 PM  

mcreadyblue: czetie: CatfoodSpork: Also if they only carbon dated the canvas to the early 1400s, that just means that's when the fabric was made. It doesn't provide any information about when the paint was applied to it.

This. If somebody were to fake a Mona Lisa, the first thing they would do is start with a lesser work of roughly the right age and clean the canvas. That's Forgery 101

/See also the Vinland Map

The Mona Lisa is not painted on canvas.


See? That proves it's a fake.

Seriously: The one in the Louvre is painted on wood (specifically, poplar). The one discussed in this article is painted on canvas. TMYK.
 
2013-02-14 04:18:06 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: that would be interesting if it is what the article actually said.


Came in to say this.

It's not uncommon for artists to do a number of studies of the same thing. Shame on subby.

I got to the Louvre an hour before it opened, waited in line patiently while memorizing the layout of the museum to find it, then sprinted to have the painting all to myself for a half hour while the crowds milled through the museum. Damned if the only thing I can remember is that the painting was small, the room was very bright and there was an enormous painting to my left. I hate my brain.
 
2013-02-14 05:20:10 PM  
I got to see the Girl with a Pearl Earring Saturday night...the "Dutch Mona Lisa." Transcendent. And all the booze was free. CASB!

mcreadyblue: The Mona Lisa is not painted on canvas.


Everyone else that learned that from Encyclopedia Brown...hands up.

/raises hand.
 
2013-02-14 05:26:40 PM  

czetie: mcreadyblue: czetie: CatfoodSpork: Also if they only carbon dated the canvas to the early 1400s, that just means that's when the fabric was made. It doesn't provide any information about when the paint was applied to it.

This. If somebody were to fake a Mona Lisa, the first thing they would do is start with a lesser work of roughly the right age and clean the canvas. That's Forgery 101

/See also the Vinland Map

The Mona Lisa is not painted on canvas.

See? That proves it's a fake.

Seriously: The one in the Louvre is painted on wood (specifically, poplar). The one discussed in this article is painted on canvas. TMYK.


I have never heard an explanation of why he didn't use a canvas, as it was supposedly a commissioned piece.

I would think the practice pieces would be on wood and the delivered piece on a canvas as canvases were more expensive back in the early 1500's.
 
2013-02-14 05:44:44 PM  

UseUrHeadFred: [images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 538x424]


Why did this take so long to get posted?  C'mon people.
 
2013-02-14 05:50:40 PM  

jaharley: Agrees.


Came here for this.
 
2013-02-14 05:58:21 PM  

amindtat: midigod: For additional perspective, he combined two of these techniques; the borders of the mouth, eyebrows (there are none), and the rest of the face are blurred or removed so as to draw attention to the eyes alone.

About the eyebrows being removed:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3668700/Solved-Why-Mona-Lisa-d o esnt-have-eyebrows.html


I figured it was because she caught the plague... makes all your hair fall out...
 
2013-02-14 06:21:40 PM  

Dr.Zom: Some 'Splainin' To Do: The tests on his 15th century portrait were carried out by a specialist in "sacred geometry" and by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in the wake of the Geneva unveiling of the painting, the Isleworth Mona Lisa, last September.

WTF is "Sacred Geometry" and how does an expertise in it apply to this situation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_geometry for the first question. I have no idea as to the second.


Although Leonardo da Vinci wasn't all that much like the Dan Brown novels, but he was big on things like sacred geometry, and is known to have applied it in many of his works. That makes it useful to have an expert in the stuff on hand when authenticating his works: to identify mistakes that da Vinci himself would have taken pains to avoid but a copyist might not have thought about.
 
2013-02-14 06:54:48 PM  
unveiling of the portrait - which shows a much younger woman than in the Louvre

so its a different painting, maybe of the same person, but still a different painting non the less.
 
2013-02-14 07:34:00 PM  
So lots of people go to the Louvre and crowd in to see the Mona Lisa.  Big deal.

/went to the Louvre, joined the crowd to see the Mona Lisa.  Did not see ONLY the Mona Lisa while at the Louvre, but I wasn't going all the way there and not see the her.  Pretty sure all the other people in that crowd did the same thing.
//also went up in the Eiffel Tower like the tourist I was
///and Notre Dame
////and the Arc de Triomphe
//disappointed by lack of giant reptiles at Rodin Museum
 
2013-02-14 07:56:49 PM  
L.H.O.O.Q.

/not obscure
 
2013-02-14 08:01:00 PM  

tricycleracer: Why is a self-portrait of da Vinci in drag so popular anyway?




Bookmarks in time.
 
2013-02-14 08:46:32 PM  
So, The Duo Lisa then?
 
2013-02-14 08:46:56 PM  

mcreadyblue: czetie: mcreadyblue: czetie: CatfoodSpork: Also if they only carbon dated the canvas to the early 1400s, that just means that's when the fabric was made. It doesn't provide any information about when the paint was applied to it.

This. If somebody were to fake a Mona Lisa, the first thing they would do is start with a lesser work of roughly the right age and clean the canvas. That's Forgery 101

/See also the Vinland Map

The Mona Lisa is not painted on canvas.

See? That proves it's a fake.

Seriously: The one in the Louvre is painted on wood (specifically, poplar). The one discussed in this article is painted on canvas. TMYK.

I have never heard an explanation of why he didn't use a canvas, as it was supposedly a commissioned piece.

I would think the practice pieces would be on wood and the delivered piece on a canvas as canvases were more expensive back in the early 1500's.


Beats me. I didn't know it was on wood until the first time I saw it. I didn't know it was so small until then either, having (like everybody else) seen it so many times in reproduction much larger.
 
2013-02-14 09:01:19 PM  

czetie: mcreadyblue: czetie: mcreadyblue: czetie: CatfoodSpork: Also if they only carbon dated the canvas to the early 1400s, that just means that's when the fabric was made. It doesn't provide any information about when the paint was applied to it.

This. If somebody were to fake a Mona Lisa, the first thing they would do is start with a lesser work of roughly the right age and clean the canvas. That's Forgery 101

/See also the Vinland Map

The Mona Lisa is not painted on canvas.

See? That proves it's a fake.

Seriously: The one in the Louvre is painted on wood (specifically, poplar). The one discussed in this article is painted on canvas. TMYK.

I have never heard an explanation of why he didn't use a canvas, as it was supposedly a commissioned piece.

I would think the practice pieces would be on wood and the delivered piece on a canvas as canvases were more expensive back in the early 1500's.

Beats me. I didn't know it was on wood until the first time I saw it. I didn't know it was so small until then either, having (like everybody else) seen it so many times in reproduction much larger.


On the other hand, this is a great opportunity to start a conspiracy theory: The piece on wood in the Louvre is, in fact, a small scale test piece that Leonardo did as a proof of concept for the person who commissioned it. The final picture is on canvas, is much larger, and is hidden away somewhere in the plot of a Dan Brown novel.
 
2013-02-14 10:28:19 PM  
 
2013-02-14 10:30:37 PM  

clambam: One has to wonder why Leonardo, who could barely bring himself to finish anything, would create a duplicate painting, right down to the pose and the outfit, ten or twenty years after doing the "original" Mona Lisa. And then carry it with him everywhere he went for the rest of his life. The "young" Mona Lisa looks amateurish to me, conventionalized and idealized, as though painted from the imagination rather than life, and the palette seems overly bright and inauthentic. The familiar Mona Lisa is a much deeper psychological portrait. Why would someone do a copy of the Mona Lisa as a young woman? Well, why would someone draw a moustache on her and add "L.H.O.O.Q."? Making a comment, making a joke, trying to cause trouble and stir up a controversy, maybe making a little money on the side. The Louvre version is a better painting.

Have to agree with everyone who commented on the huge crowds in front of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. I recall going there as a teenager and being astounded that people would prefer to peer at the Mona Lisa from a distance of twenty feet when "The Madonna of the Rocks" and similar masterpieces went ignored in the same gallery just a few feet away.


Trust me, the Louvre Mona Lisa has a nice, bright period palette underneath all that farking shiatified old varnish. So I am curious, what do you think of the cleaned Sistine ceiling? That it ruined Michelangelo's awesome tonality? Lotsa people ate crow over that one, too.
 
2013-02-14 10:45:21 PM  

lake_huron: L.H.O.O.Q.

/not obscure


And "My Erdös nuber is 7" isn't?
 
2013-02-14 11:16:54 PM  

cretinbob: The X-Ray
[doctorwhotoys.net image 571x700]


Bravo sir. You deserve a jellybaby.
 
2013-02-15 05:39:52 AM  

clambam: One has to wonder why Leonardo, who could barely bring himself to finish anything, would create a duplicate painting, right down to the pose and the outfit, ten or twenty years after doing the "original" Mona Lisa. And then carry it with him everywhere he went for the rest of his life


The Louvres actually has two Mona Lisas. The second one probably by a student from its workshop. I've seen it, and it's far more colorful than the most known one.

Actually, it's not that surprising to me. The Louvres had a special exhibition, when they unveiled the new restaured Da Vinci "Saint Anne". They took the opportunity to show the creative process of this painter. Da Vinci did a LOT, and I mean an awful lot, of sketches, studies, etc... he made several versions of the same painting, before settling on the final one. He had his students make copies... so, it's really not that surprising that several Mona Lisas by Da Vinci exists. He does not mean that the one at the Louvres is the fake, more that the older one is a prototype.
 
2013-02-15 08:29:55 AM  

seelorq: lake_huron: L.H.O.O.Q.

/not obscure

And "My Erdös nuber is 7" isn't?


First off, I missed the previous reference, so I'm late to the party.

Secondly, NIOOF.  I mean, the 4th Doctor reference was in the second post.

Thirdly, in the Geek tab many Farkers would have Erdös numbers lower than mine.
 
Displayed 70 of 70 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report