Everyone knows about the Mona Lisa. It's a masterpiece that, simply upon meer mention, can bring up an image of what it looks like in one's head: The smoky-yellowish patina akin to that of a smokers wall; the dark tones of her dress contrasting the bright, pale skin she dons; the soft, sandy hills leading to the lush green mountains on a soft blue sky - It's beauty in every way, shape, and form. It's regarded as Leonardo Da Vinci's greatest work, and as someone who saw it up close at it's resting place in the French Musée du Louvre in central Paris, it's certainly treated as such. Sitting behind an inch of thick, allegedly bulletproof, glass, and guarded by not one, but two railings and a thick windowsill - allowing typical close-up views to happen from at least 2 meters away - it's still as beautiful as ever. But believe me, when you get the one-in-a-million chance to see it so close you can press your nose against the glass as I did, you see the finer details and your world gets torn apart with the mighty aura it protrudes, taking you into its grasp and filling your world with hope, light, and delight. Once you experience that, you'll never be amazed again at why millionaires spend their fortunes on such works.
Many questions have been asked about the Mona Lisa, known in her native Italy as La Gioconda (or simply Monna Lisa) and in France as La Joconde. Questions mainly arising to the woman portrayed in the painting. These days as much as it is a question, it is easily answered, for much research has gone into the woman - named Lisa del Giocondo. It's widely known that her husband, Francesco del Giocondo, asked Leonardo to make this work, and hence the Italian name of La Gioconda. Giorgio Vasari, a Renaissance historian, described in his book Lives of the most eminent Painters, Sculptors & Architects, Volume 4 that Leonardo was working on a painting, and there is the first we hear of the name and how the painting came about to be:
Leonardo undertook to execute, for Francesco del Giocondo, the portrait of Mona Lisa, his wife
Most interesting, however, is the part that comes immediately after that assertion. Vasari claims that after 4 years, Leonardo left the Mona Lisa unfinished:
and after toiling over it for four years, he left it unfinished; and the work is now in the collection of King Francis of France, at Fontainebleau.
Vasari was known to be on the lazier side when it came to facts, often committing details, twisting the truth, or outright lying, and not fact-checking things like dates with archival records. However, the Mona Lisa we see in Musée du Louvre did in fact come from Fontainebleau. But then how could it be unfinished?
That's because the Mona Lisa isn't one of a kind. Yep. There are more. To help with distinction, the Mona Lisa we've been talking so far about I shall now call Louvre Mona Lisa. The others have names of their own.
Prado Mona Lisa...
The Prado Mona Lisa is visually similar to the Louvre Mona Lisa; almost identical. But there are some key differences: For starters, it's much cleaner, missing the smokey-yellowish patina the Louvre Mona Lisa donned. This can be explained by the fact that sometime after the Louvre Mona Lisa ended up in Fontainebleau, a varnish was applied, possibly to protect it from damage. Secondly is that there are differences in the background - with the Prado Mona Lisa appearing more fuller further back, adding in all-new mountains and such. This cannot be as easily explained, but one possible reason is that due to wear, damage, and restoration attempts, the Louvre Mona Lisa has lost some detail, like that fuller mountain range, over the years. Then there are minute differences in Mona herself. Her smile is different, and her chin isn't as sharp as it is on the Louvre Mona Lisa. All this, you may think, amounts to the work of a copyist - a fake. If it is, it's a really good fake, as research from the Prado Museum found that they used the exact same techniques as Leonardo used, and made the exact same corrections as he did.
The truth is that it is by a copyist, but one that is much closer to the Louvre Mona Lisa's home than you may realise. The Prado Museum strongly believes from the evidence before them, that it was painted by one of Leonardo's students at the same time as he was painting Louvre Mona Lisa. Wow! This is also why some people believe Leonardo may have inadvertently created the first 3D Stereostropic image, as the copy was painted, quite understandably, from a slightly different angle. But most importantly, mainly thanks to the restoration efforts done on the Prado Mona Lisa, we know what the original is meant to look like. It's why I discounted the missing mountain range in the background as damage, than something added in later on. Of course, there are still differences, as it wasn't Leonardo himself that painted it, hence for example the softer chin and alterations in her smile, but it's as close as we're going to get to what the Louvre Mona Lisa was meant to look like.
I'll quickly touch upon the statement I made earlier, about the same corrections being made as in the Louvre Mona Lisa. Through specialised imaging, they found that the traces made on the Prado Mona Lisa followed exactly that of the traces in the Louvre Mona Lisa, and corrections made later on, such as bringing her waist in, were also made on the Prado Mona Lisa. This, beyond a doubt, means that whoever was drawing and painting the Prado Mona Lisa, was certainly there and following the exact process and workflow of Leonardo as he did his, with the added bonus that it's much more clear. Leonardo liked to experiment with different techniques and processes, and the same stands true for the Louvre Mona Lisa. Whoever painted the Prado Mona Lisa simply had to copy what he did, rather than think of a way to do what he did. Monkey See; Monkey Do.
The Plot Thickens...
We now know that the Prado Mona Lisa was made at the same time as the Louvre Mona Lisa, but by one of Leonardo's students and not him himself. Yet even with that, there's still unanswered questions. Vasari said that the Louvre Mona Lisa, which he claims and we know ended up in Fontainebleu, was unfinished. Could he have possibly seen the Prado Mona Lisa, mistook it for Leonardo's own, and continued with that assumption? Unlikely. Later in the same book, there's another passage that stands out more than any, and raises serious doubts about the authenticity of not just the Prado Mona Lisa, but the Louvre Mona Lisa as well:
The eyebrows, through his having shown the manner in which the hairs spring from the flesh, here more close and here more scanty, and curve according to the pores of the skin, could not be more natural.
Eyebrows? Neither the Prado Mona Lisa nor the Louvre Mona Lisa have eyebrows, yet Vasari claims that the Mona Lisa he saw does. And it's not just him. At some point, while Leonardo was paining, he had a visit from Raphael (Yes, that Raphael), who was so impressed with the painting he saw he created a sketch, possibly from memory, of it. He then based a few of his paintings on what he saw.
The sketch, titled Young Woman on a Balcony, at first glance, is the Louvre Mona Lisa. But that entire theory falls apart, as there are details in it that neither the Prado Mona Lisa nor the Louvre Mona Lisa share. Things like the more obvious columns on each side, or the fact Lisa has eyebrows. There are other minor differences, like the background being a bit different and unfinished, but it is, once again, widely believed this sketch was done from memory. Separately, you can discount Vasari's claims based on his somewhat flexible relation with the truth at times, and Raphael's sketch that was done from memory. But together, they form an image: that the painting they saw was not of either Prado Mona Lisa nor of the Louvre Mona Lisa. So what mysterious, unfinished painting did they see?
Isleworth Mona Lisa...
There's one more, a third Mona Lisa - The Isleworth Mona Lisa. Together with the Prado Mona Lisa and Louvre Mona Lisa, they make up the trilogy. This one is an extremely peculiar case, and while a lot is known about it, there is still a lot more unknown, and is still a topic of debate to this day. Visually, you can instantly tell that it's a painting of Lisa del Giocondo, but there's something not quite right with it. She looks... younger. The background as well, it's unfinished. Wait, hold the line, the background's unfinished?! Well, looks like we're on the right track now.
Indeed, the background is unfinished, having only the first half of the sandy hills done. The rest has been left untouched. There's also another curious point, and that is the more obvious columns on each side. But we can't forget another very important detail: She has eyebrows. This, without a shred of doubt in my eyes, is the painting Vasari and Raphael saw. From Raphael's sketch to Vasari's description, this is the only image that fits the bill.
Assembling The Puzzle...
So now we can start to put the puzzle pieces together in regards to Vasari's claim. We know that what he saw was the Isleworth Mona Lisa, from the eyebrows to the painting being left unfinished - but he said it ended up in Fontainebleau, which we know is not the case, as it was Louvre Mona Lisa who ended up there. One possible explanation is that he saw the Isleworth Mona Lisa, heard about a painting matching what he saw undergoing a relocation to Fontainebleau after Leonardo's death, and assumed it was Isleworth Mona Lisa, when in actuality it was Louvre Mona Lisa. In regards to Raphael, he must have simply come in when Leonardo was painting the Isleworth Mona Lisa and made a sketch from memory, and assembled works inspired by it. Great! But hold your horses just yet.
One of the debates about the Isleworth Mona Lisa is whenever or not it was Leonardo himself that painted it like with the Louvre Mona Lisa, if it was done by a student of his as with Prado Mona Lisa, or, according to some, if it was a joint effort between Leonardo and one of his students. This part is unknown, but from current evidence, it is suggested that there's an extremely high probability it's one of Leonardo's own works. In 2015, there was research done by professors Salvatore Lorusso and Andrea Natali into the Isleworth Mona Lisa, which attributed it as one of Leonardo's original works on stylistic grounds. John Asmus also did advanced testing on the Isleworth Mona Lisa, and concluded that at least the face was with full certainty painted by Leonardo himself.
It's safe to assume then, based on how young Lisa del Giocondo looks in the Isleworth Mona Lisa in comparison to the Louvre & Prado Mona Lisas, that this was painted before the Louvre Mona Lisa, abandoned for unknown reasons, and the project restarted, with a student copying Leonardo's every move and technique. Research has been done which came to the same sensible conclusion. Finally, the mystery is starting to come unwound! But there is one important question left, and that is just how did these paintings end up in Prado and Isleworth anyway, rather than following the third to Fontainebleau?
It is believed that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was left in its unfinished state with one of Leonardo's students, Salaì (who some believe also painted the Prado Mona Lisa), while the Louvre Mona Lisa was left to him in Leonardo's Will, and upon his death, went to Salaì, who then sold them on to 2 separate buyers. This may explain why one ended up in Isleworth, and the other in Fontainebleau, although the Isleworth Mona Lisa has less history, as after Salaì no longer had it in his possession, it's next re-appearance is a few centuries later in England. As for the Prado Mona Lisa, it's entire journey is unknown, and the first documented mention is of it already in Spain and was part of the Prado Museums display since it's inception. I have to stress, however, that none of this is confirmed as certain truth, mainly belief, and there are many who believe otherwise.
A Journey Of Epic Proportions...
There are still some mysteries surrounding the 3 Mona Lisas, mainly thanks to a lack of detail and uncertainty, as well as those who oppose current theories, speculations and even research, but nonetheless one has to admit that the journey these paintings have created and the mark on the world they leave is of exceptionally great proportions. It's amazing how a work of art can evolve into so much more. Nowadays, when I look at the Louvre Mona Lisa, I don't see just breathtaking beauty, but I see an entire journey. The history of it, in itself, is a piece of art that we should cherish and celebrate, and the mysteries that still surround it only add to that masterful craftwork. I had a lot of fun researching this, and I'm honestly glad I did, as it has changed my view of the paintings and of art in general forever.
While I don't like visiting France for one reason or another, if I'm ever passing by, it'll be only to stop at the Musée du Louvre, to admire the works of art and to view the crown jewel herself - La Gioconda.
References
Lives of the most eminent Painters, Sculptors & Architects, Volume 4 by Giorgio Vasari (Retrieved 08/03/2021)
Mona Lisa: A Comparative Evaluation Of The Different Versions And Their Copies by Salvatore Lorusso and Andrea Natali (Retrieved 09/03/2021)
Study and restoration: The Museo del Prado's copy of La Gioconda by Prado Museum (Retrieved 07/03/2021)
Mona Lisa – Heidelberg discovery confirms identity by Heidelberg University (Retrieved 09/03/2021)
New proof said found for "original" Mona Lisa by Reuters (Retrieved 07/03/2021)
Mona Lisa, Prado Mona Lisa and Isleworth Mona Lisa by Wikipedia (Retrieved 08/03/2021, all used information cross-referenced & validated off-site by 10/03/2021)
La Gioconda, Prado Mona Lisa, Isleworth Mona Lisa and Young Woman on a Balcony images provided by Wikimedia Commons
[Editors Note: I prematurely started closing pages upon completing this article, and lost a good few references. About 15 or so. I added the Wikipedia reference as a "catch-all" - If it isn't on my list, it'll probably be on Wikipedia. Any references I *actually* used from Wikipedia were cross-referenced and personally validated by myself, in other words, I went to the place Wikipedia claimed to have taken it from and used that instead. I repeat, the Wikipedia reference here is not as a source, but because I'm an idiot and killed my own reference list. And no, can't use history: Guest mode on chrome. Don't crucify me for it.]
Comments
Post a Comment