Jump to content

Talk:Mona Lisa/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Speculation about Mona Lisa

Leonardo da Vinci's remains are being exhumed to see if a reconstruction of his face using his skull reveals whether the Mona Lisa is indeed (a form of) a self-portrait. I wonder whether this is worth adding at this time because I find that fact fascinating and it now is being reported by more reliable news sources. [1][2][3]--75.4.27.220 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Abstract from the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 37, Is. 6; November, 1992:
The Mona Lisa, painted by Leonardo Da Vinci, 1503, pictures a smile that has been long the subject of conjecture. It is believed, however, that the Mona Lisa does not smile; she wears an expression common to people who have lost their front teeth. A close-up of the lip area shows a scar that is not unlike that left by the application of blunt force. The changes evident in the perioral area are such that occur when the anterior teeth are lost. The scar under the lower lip of the Mona Lisa is similar to that created, when, as a result of force, the incisal edges of the teeth have pierced the face with a penetrating wound. 98.233.155.56 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hyde collection study

The current last sentence of the introduction --- "A charcoal and graphite study of the Mona Lisa attributed to Leonardo is in the Hyde Collection, in Glens Falls, NY." --- is jarringly out of place there, but I'm loath to remove it without asking those with more expertise. To me it seems an interesting but minor fact about the painting. Is there a natural place to mention it further down in the body? Ishboyfay (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree and moved the quote to "Display". --an odd name 22:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Eyebrows?

How come Mona Lisa has no eyebrows? 188.141.97.119 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's discussed in the article. JNW (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

they say that shaving off their eyebrows are in fashion at that time. (read it in a book)--Heavenly stranger (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Did Leonardo(84) encode the Mona Lisa(84) through gematria?

Perhaps history’s most famous painting is Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa which he worked on from 1503-1506. The iconic portrait is also known as La Gioconda from the name of the husband of the model Lisa Gherardini. Leonardo regarded this painting as special since he took it with him on all his subsequent travels. It’s well documented that Leonardo encoded most, if not all of his work.

The following is an excerpt from the DVD Unlocking Da Vinci’s Code – Mystery or Conspiracy? (2004, Highland)

“A very old method used for encoding intentional messages into artistic works is the Kaballistic interpretation called gematria. This method assigns numbers to letters. So Mona Lisa would be represented by this equation…

Mona Lisa = 84 = M13+o15+n14+a1+L12+i9+s19+a1

Another name for Mona Lisa is ‘La Giocconda’ which equals this equation…

La Giocconda = 84 = L12+a1+G7+i9+o15+c3+c3+o15+n14+d4+a1

The measurement of the circumference of the painting equals 84. And if we add up the numbers to Leonardo’s name, once again the number 84”…

Leonardo = 84 = L12+e5+o15+n14+a1+r18+d4+o15

Note: Although it's clear there is a connection between Leonardo=84 & Mona Lisa=84, the spelling of 'La Giocconda' with two Cs in the video is the only place I've seen that and the statement, "The measurement of the circumference of the painting equals 84" needs to be explained because it doesn't equal 84 inches or 84 centimeters! However, if the 'French spelling' of Lisa Gherardin is used, Gherardin=84.

Conclusion: I'm convinced that there is a gematric code to Leonardo's Mona Lisa, but I can't decide whether Leonardo consciously used the method or whether it has been applied afterward by the 'astute'?

- Brad Watson, Miami, FL 64.136.26.235 (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


-- Very probably no, there aren't any encodinges there. If you take any sufficiently complicated objects you will find infinitly many "equations" satisfied by the object. Not only two or three - or for that matter a few million. YohanN7 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

bad grammar

under the first paragraph of the article it should say at the louvre and not an the louvre

In the Subject and Title section, quotation marks are needed in the second-to-last sentence: Italian for jocund, happy or jovial, Gioconda was a nickname for the sitter... This should be written as: Italian for 'jocund', 'happy' or 'jovial', Gioconda was a nickname for the sitter...

Dimensions of the painting

Can someone include the dimensions of the painting? I don't see them in the article. DBlomgren (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

They're in the infobox at top. JNW (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from Devanshnuwal, 29 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} It has come to my notice from some reliable sources that Monalisa was first created by Khunkhar Singh, royal painter in the court of Maharana Uday Singh of Udaipur. Then it was called as Lavanya. It is said that Khunkhar Singh fell madly in love with daughter of an Italian merchant . Lavanya was created by him in her loving memory. This painting was bought by an Arbaic merchant and taken To Florence. No record of this painting was found after that.

Devanshnuwal (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do share your reliable sources. There doesn't seem to be any evidence in the published literature, nor online, supporting your story. JNW (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 Not done references first, then please request an edit again. CTJF83 chat 18:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please to explain in the article...

if the subject was identified as Lisa Gioconda in 1550, and Leo's assistant called the painting La Gioconda in 1525, why was there a big mystery over the identity of the subject, and why is the 2005 discovery of the margin note considered conclusive? This needs more explanation. 128.151.71.18 (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.26.31.98, 17 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Mona Lisa (also known as La Gioconda or La Joconde) is a sixteenth-century portrait painted in oil on a poplar panel in Florence, Italy by Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci during the Renaissance. The work is currently owned by the Government of France and is on display at the Louvre museum in Paris under the title Portrait of Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo.[1] Arguably, it is one of the the most famous and iconic painting in the world.

88.26.31.98 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the first paragraph of the article lead section. Were there any changes you wished to see made to it? Intelligentsock 20:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of Sfumato

A pretty good source, if anyone is interested: French Scientists Crack Secrets of Mona Lisa - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

standing or seated?

The intro states "The painting is a half-length portrait and depicts a standing woman whose facial expression is frequently described as enigmatic." The "Aesthetics" section states "Leonardo referred to a seemingly simple formula for seated female figure: the images of seated Madonna, which were widespread at the time." and "The armrest of the chair functions as a dividing element between Mona Lisa and the viewer." Which is correct? Seated or standing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.46.100 (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

She's seated. Intro fixed. JNW (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Theft Date

Under the 21 August page, the theft of the Mona Lisa is cited. Clicking through, it states here that the theft took place on the 22nd with a reference to footnote 24. However, footnote 24 links to an article which says that the theft took place on the 21st! So it seems to me that the correct date for the theft should be the 21st (or an alternative reference cited to back up the 22nd). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSylvia (talk • contribs) 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My birthday is August 21, so I'm sure it was stolen by Vincenzo Perugia on August 21; as I recall, he hid in a closet on a Sunday and then stole it on Monday (the 21st) by just walking out with it under his cloak. So if we can find a calendar from that year, we can find out if that Monday was Aug. 21, thus confirming the date. Hope this helps. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing Pillars on Sides of Mona Lisa?

I recall reading somewhere that the Mona Lisa originally had some painted columns on each side of her but somebody cut these off for aesthetic reasons or to make the painting fit a frame or somesuch. Has anybody else read about this, the missing columns? By the way, I've seen the Mona Lisa and she is amused, contented, secure and comfortable, indicating that she had a good life, well provided for. It's as if though Leonardo was entertaining her during sittings. I seem to recall painters would have entertainments and amusements for their subjects to keep them from being bored, anybody got any info on this? It's an extremely well-painted portrait and this is what makes it so famous--the high quality of the work. I'm an oil painter myself and can recognize high quality work. The viewing crowds seem to be in the summer, I saw it in the Spring (April in Paris) and had her all to myself, just a couple people walked in and out. I stared at it for about an hour. It's very well done, one wonders why he took so much time and care with this particular painting. Did he have an affair with her? Was he in love with her? Leonardo worked on it for years. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Musée du Louvre museum is repetitive

Saying the painting is in the Musée du Louvre museum seems a little repetitive. Should it either be the Musée du Louvre or the Louvre Museum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattepa (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if it is repetitive, it is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitwith (talk • contribs) 05:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone verify this story

There's no mentioning of a 1972 repair of the Mona Lisa, but growing up in Veedersburg, Indiana, I had always heard that a local art expert had made repairs, and I found this article supporting it, online. Can anyone verify this story?

George d'Arlier was born in 1891. He died in 1980. He was buried in 1980. BIOGRAPHY The d'Arlier house at 405 North Mill Street was designed to bring the world in. Built by an architect from the studio of renowned architect Frank Lloyd Wright, the prairie style home is physically tied to the outside by a sprawling sun porch and an arrangement of stained glass windows, both signature trademarks of Wright's famous work. The house at 405 North Mill Street originally belonged to the BOOE Family, who in the early 1900s, owned and operated a railroad hotel in Veedersburg. Struggling financially, Tilghman "Til" BOOE and his wife traded their land for land across the state line in Illinois. Just as the redemption period was about to run out on the land, which was in the process of being foreclosed, the BOOES struck oil. In 1909, with their newfound fortune, the BOOES built what was considered to be the finest home in the area. The BOOES contacted Frank Llyod Wright when they were trying to hire an architecthe asked a colleague to take it. Owner George d'Arlier took the unifying designs to heart, using culture and art to figuratively connect his small town to the world. Each time he left Fountain County to travel overseas, he returned home with masterpieces from the places he had visited. He covered the walls with bits of the world and often invited the public to view his newest samples. The story of how d'Arlier ended up in Veedersburg reads like a fairy tale. Originally from Monto Carlo and having lived in all parts of France, Argentina and Brazil, d'Arlier, who became a US citizen in 1926, was the grandson of a count and the son of a colonel in the Prince of Monaco's private guard. D'Arlier learned to speak seven languages. He worked as an international art dealer in New York City. D'Arlier was commissioned by the U.S. States government to go to Europe after World War II and identify famous paintings, which had been removed from museums by the Nazis. D'Arlier found one painting on Adolph Hilter's personal desk. Around 1950, d'Arlier presented an art lecture to visitors at a popular resort in Hot Springs, Ark. One of those visitors was Sina BOOE from Veedersburg. On Feb 20, 1951 d'Arlier and Sina BOOE were married. Soon thereafter the couple returned to the BOOE family home located at 405 North Mill Street. George d'Arlier 81 one years old was brought out of retirement to repair the Mona Lisa Painting for an amount so considerable he refused to discuss it. As the museum's armed guards watched over the famous portrait, d'Arlier created an unusual baked paint mixture, which he carefully pressed on with his thumbs, declining to use a brush for fear of further damaging the painting. He called the project "a once in a lifetime mission. The conclusion of a career with such glory as I have ever anticipated. I shall remember it until my dying day". Even in death, d'Arlier assured the home at 405 North Mill Street would remain true to its form. His 1980 last will and testament requested the house be used to bring outsider's in. "It is my wish that my home be used as a cultural and educational center for the benefit of Veedersburg and the surrounding area. It is my wish that the center be used partially to house a librarybut hope and trust that it can be used as a broader cultural and learning center, including, but not limited to sculpture, architecture, painting and music." Nearly twenty years later d'Arlier is having his dying wish fulfilled. The Article ran in Indiana in The Neighbor Newspaper on Wednesday June 23 and 30, 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.26.53.3 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Speculation about the painting" edited

This section included a claim that there were symbols hidden in the painting. From what I can tell, this is a weak claim. Further, it quotes it being called a "real life DaVinci code", which doesn't seem like wikipedia material. I removed the latter and added a counter claim with reference. I feel like I should've deleted the claim entirely, but leave that for the wiki pros who watch over us all. 168.122.65.1 (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The following paragraph does not belong in the main article, as the person in question has not worked with the Mona Lisa itself and is making claims from a digital copy. It also appears to be a ploy by the person to get hands on work with the painting, as by his request to the museum. "In December 2010 it was claimed that the Mona Lisa appears to have tiny letters and numbers in her eyes which are only apparent when viewed with a magnifying glass, however the accuracy of this claim is disputed.[54][55] Two months later, the same historian, Silvano Vinceti, claimed da Vinci's male apprentice (and possible lover) Gian Giacomo Caprotti was the inspiration and model for the painting.[56]" 203.113.236.222 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeking resolution

I'm seeking resolution to edits I've been reverting from User:Relpmek. Please see the latest edit here:[4]. He's using ref tags and typing the following sentence "This theory was suggested initially by Sigmund Freud, and by Serge Bramly, Roni Kempler and Rina de Firenze." between them. This user does not seem to grasp basic citation/reference guidelines, and I'm posting here to avoid an edit war.--Chimino (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if it's intended as a footnote, not a reference. The use of ref tags is appropriate here (see WP:CITEFOOT), but the footnote needs a source; this cited source mentions Freud but not that he originated the theory or that Bramly and the others concur. Ewulp (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I've learned something as well. Thank you for taking care of it.--Chimino (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


Leonardo's Mother Caterina

"Today the subject's identity is held with certainty to be Lisa, which was always the traditional view." (16 October 2008)

My Contribution

There are scholars who think that the painting's subject is Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory. She died in 1495. Lisa del Giocondo's job was to be the model only.

The Source of My Contribution

This theory was suggested initially by Sigmund Freud, and by Serge Bramly, Roni Kempler and Rina de Firenze.

See the article Speculation about Mona Lisa

"Serge Bramly, in his biography of Leonardo, discusses the possibility that the portrait depicts the artist's mother Caterina Buti del Vacca. This would account for the resemblance between artist and subject observed by Dr Schwartz, and would explain why Leonardo kept the portrait with him wherever he traveled, until his death. At the time that Leonardo painted the portrait of his mother, whom he adored, she had already died. According to the Roni Kempler's theory this is the reason why Leonardo chose the setting of the Holy Land, as he imagined it, as the background to the portrait. (The Jordan River is painted to her right and the Sea of Galilee to her left). (The idea is that she was alive in Leonardo's imagination).

This is similar to the background of Leonardo's paintings of the Virgin Mary, which also depict the same landscape of the Holy Land. Thus, Leonardo glorifies the Mona Lisa as the Virgin Mary. Kempler also states that Leonardo pictured his mother, who raised him until age five, in painting the Virgin Mary. So the Mona Lisa in fact adorns Leonardo's mother Caterina. (According to this theory Lisa del Giocondo's job was to be the model for the painting).

...In December 2010 it was claimed by Silvano Vinceti that the Mona Lisa appears to have tiny numbers and letters in her eyes which are only apparent when viewed with a magnifying glass (LV, CE or B or S); however, the accuracy of this claim is disputed. This discovery strengthens the Kempler's theory that Leonardo encoded the letters C and L (Caterina and Leonardo), in his special reverse style, in Mona Lisa's embroidery on her dress."

Now there are those who want to steal the credit. Relpmek (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Lengthy explanation

Relpmek, you don't seem to comprehend the reason why your change is being deleted. If you have ever written a university assignment, then you know that what you say must be backed by references and that those references must be formatted in an appropriate way. It is the same on Wikipedia.
You keep on deleting a properly formatted reference and replacing it with the names of three authors, who have adopted Freud's opinion and elaborated upon it. When you drop in the names of these writers, you are not giving properly formatted references to any one of them.
  • My first advice is that it is sufficient to say that Freud had this theory. It is only a theory.
  • The nonsense about the face resembling the face of Leonardo is a fantasy. Almost any human face, having two eyes, and a centrally placed nose with a mouth below it can be made to merge with any other human face. If you would like me to "prove" to you that I am, in fact, the late Princess Diana, I could do so, most convinvingly, using the same method. On the other hand, if either an accomplished accademic portrait artist with a detailed knowledge of underlying anatomy, or an expert in the forensic reconstruction of faces, finds strong similarities, then you have a case.
  • Other people (particularly online) have made a case that the Mona Lisa actually represents Leonardo's young assistant (perhaps lover) Salaino. To support this case they demonstrate similarities between the Mona Lisa and a juvenile portrait of Salai (by someone in Leonardo's workshop), and the late John the Baptist (which is generally accepted as being Salai). When the Mona Lisa is compared with these two pictures, the similarities are 'immediately apparent: the plumpness of the face, the knowing expression of the eyes, the slight smile of the mouth. These features are considered (mainly by non-experts) to prove that Mona Lisa is Leonardo's lover in drag.
Actually, it proves nothing of the sort.
There are artists who are very very good at painting portraits. They look at people's faces in a detached and objjective manner, without preconception of what they the artist want to reveal. They examine and record the precise forms of the face itself, and if they do this well enough, they may be lucky enough to capture not only the structure of the face, but a little of the expression, the life that shines through it. Remarkably, very few portrait painters down through the history of art, have had this gift of detachment.
So, who did, and who did not have this objective vision?
The main points here are, firstly, that although we regard Leonardo as one of the greatest painters who ever lived, he was not necessarily an accurate portrait painter. Secondly, that if his manner of painting portraits was informed by a particular face that he loved, then the evidence that we have is that the particular face was not that of his mother, but the face of the ten-year-old scallywag that he adopted in Milan, and spoilt rotten with velvet jackets and ten pairs of shoes.
But this does not mean that Mona Lisa is actually a "portrait" of Salai. What it means is that Leonardo had developed a personal vision and a manner of painting that was informed by his familiarity with Salai's face.
You will find a recently-created article called Leonardo da Vinci, investigation, attribution and speculation. All this sort of speculation about who the Mona Lisa represents has a place there. It has very little to do with what we actually know.
Amandajm (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Very informative response, Amandajm. One quick question though, should the new article you mentioned and the current Speculation article truly be two separate wiki entities?--Chimino (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. It's interesting. Relpmek (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Note

For Freud the famous half-smile was a recovered memory of Leonardo's mother; Freud's theory only referred to Mona Lisa's smile (mouth) and not to the point that she is Leonardo's mother. So this theory (Serge Bramly, Roni Kempler[5], Rina de Firenze...) is based on Freud's theory but was not actually suggested by Freud. Simple Blue (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

When?

Wasn't the Mona Lisa made in 1890? Please tell me ASAP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.74.156 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it was painted in the early 16th century.--Chimino (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Fabioman, 8 April 2011

i think that the mona lisa was a greek god Fabioman (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Source? Or only "I think"?--Chimino (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Baseball Watcher 21:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge request

Hi. Do we know anything about Mr. Vespucci? (Except that he had famous cousin.) If not I suggest Agostino Vespucci be merged into Mona Lisa. Otherwise we have an article that is more than 75% not about its subject. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree: his only claim to fame is in regards to the Mona Lisa and his page consists of a small section which could be added here.--Chimino (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree: since people think she is the mona lisa, it should redirect to this article. Notjbg (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Owner

it is rumoured $ymeon Davros Carnegie Freeman$tein or Symeon Davros Carnegie Freemanstein owns the original and made a second copy for the museum [2]

The Mona Lisa was stolen on August 21 1911, not August 22.

Headline explains the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.76.15 (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Chimino (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Who Mona is sitting next to

she sits next to herself it is a image from a side of a mirror and it was Leonardo's sister that he killed after painting her in the picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.20.18 (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: The colour of Mona Lisa's sky is green

The colour of Mona Lisa's sky is not blue
See adjacent text.

Kvvvxvv (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)



The 'green' look comes from the varnish. Are you trying to say that one image should be replaced by another? Paul B (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The green colour is the original. See also "The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne", Louvre, Paris. The blue image should be replaced by another. Thank you. Kvvvxvvv (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, its been a few years since I stared the original in the face, but the lighting of objects for photography can make a big difference to the way colours appear. Unless you have some reason to believe that the current photo has been manipulated in some way I think its a lot more attractive than your green-skied yellow idol. Paul B (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not a question of what the picture should look like, it's a question of accurately depicting what it really looks like at the present time. You can see the real colours in www.louvre[6] Kvvvxvvv (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you tie down the actual background colour to a description in a source; using reproductions won't do it as ye've discussed above. There should be lots out there. Ceoil 13:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is one interesting, modern-day take to claim the sky was indeed blue when first painted:Lumiere Technology--Chimino (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
See this video [7]. Kvvvvxvvvvv (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Kvvvvxvvvvv, the fact that there are no more responses to your assertions, does not mean you have consensus to change the lead image. In fact, I don't see anyone agreeing with you. A video of people milling around is not good evidence. Are you aware of the fact that the painting is behind very thick bullet-proof glass to protect it from deranged vandals?; that the colour is affected by the lighting in the room? I used to take photos in art galleries. They always came out more 'yellow' than the reality. Indeed in the days of roll-films, you could buy special film to compensate for the yellowing effect. Your arguments based on videoes etc are WP:SYN unless you have a reliable source. Paul B (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Well said, though Chimino's link above would be worth adding, source seems reputable enough. Ceoil 19:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I cast a quick look at the picture, in the louvre, in 2005, and remember that I was deeply impressed by the way the picture puts beside each other regions that clearly appear in different colors. I clearly remember that I was particularly impressed by some regions that were painted in a clear blue and by how these regions contrasted to such that were red, and to such that were green.
File:Mona Lisa.jpeg unequivocally does not match what I remember, but the version with the blue sky that is in the article right now — File:Mona Lisa.PNG —does. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of what you rememember, art historians are given to describing colour in great detail, and this paintings is widely described, so can we please stop talking about reproductions and remembering and talk about reliable sources. Ceoil 21:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suggest using File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg (right) which besides being the highest resolution reproduction was also produced by the C2RMF to precisely match the colours of the original (the only changes I made are relevelling, which doesn't affect colours, only brightness and contrast). I'm changing most other uses to this one. Dcoetzee 07:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dcoetzee, can you match up the colours from that repro with descriptions in sources. If you could well that would be great. Ceoil 07:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm an image person without access to academic art sources. I can only vouch that the photographer here is an academic institution with an interest in and history of correct colour reproduction. It was also examined by a number of people on Commons when it was rated a featured picture and the most valued image in the commons:Category:Mona Lisa category. I'm quite confident sources will back up this repro. Dcoetzee 21:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you tried searching on google books or visiting a libary? Your prob right but 'quite confident' doesn't quite cut it on wiki. Myself, I don't care for either picture or article, it represents a lot about the way art is presented I dislike, 'greatest hits' and cant be bothered, but would like to see this resolved. Off to google with you. Ceoil 21:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay fair enough, I was being a little lazy. Keep in mind not all sources are textual - I would argue that in this case the image itself is a source, since it was produced by a reputable institution using advanced equipment with the intention of being color-accurate. You can compare its colors directly to images in the following articles, which describe advanced color-accurate scanning machines produced by the National Research Council of Canada and others and their use on the Mona Lisa:
  • François Blais, John Taylor, Luc Cournoyer, Michel Picard, Louis Borgeat, Guy Godin, J.-Angelo Beraldin, Marc Rioux, Christian Lahanier, Bruno Mottin. More than a poplar plank: the shape and subtle colors of the masterpiece Mona Lisa by Leonardo. [8] "The primary advantage of using a high-resolution optical 3D laser scanner for the recording of works of art such as the Mona Lisa is that it yields a very accurate archival quality “3D Digital Model” of the exact shape as well as the color reflectance of the object." Compare Figures 1, 4, 5, which feature digital renderings of the captured data.
  • P.Cotte, D.Dupraz. Spectral imaging of Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa: A true color smile without the influence of aged varnish. "The capabilities of the multispectral system [...] have made it possible to achieve [...] a level of accuracy regarding color information which cannot be achieved with traditional technologies." Compare Figure 2.
I also have at least one textual source to confirm the proper color of the sky:
  • Borgeat, L.; Godin, G.; Massicotte, P.; Poirier, G.; Blais, F.; Beraldin, J.-A. Visualizing and Analyzing the Mona Lisa . [9] "We can also see in that image a few blue specks, highlighted in Figure 7b. Those are believed to be pigments that were protected from aging by another frame, and could indicate the sky’s original color, which turned from blue to green as the varnish yellowed and the painting became much darker."
If this is not sufficient, I'd appreciate some further direction. Dcoetzee 21:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for these. Im a bit hard pressed for time but will take a look at the sources mid week; taking you at face value I think we might be getting somewhere now. Ceoil 23:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Artforartforart, 1 June 2011

Camille Gizzarelli: The Mona Lisa (http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art18406.asp) Bellaonline.com. Retrieved on 6/1/2011

Artforartforart (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bility, I was not requesting that The Mona Lisa article replace the existing page, but only that it be listed under Notes as it was originally #25 and Retrieved on 01/10/2011. I suspect the same person who submitted it also removed it (or had it removed) in May 2011. I contacted him(coincidentally at about the same time) for taking my article and posting it on his website without my approval. Thank you, Artforartforart (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Bility, How do you feel about adding The Mona Lisa article(http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art18406.asp) once again to the Mona Lisa page? Artforartforart (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It could be added to the external links, but frankly, it's not exactly top notch stuff, so I won't be rushing to put it there. Paul B (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul B, The Mona Lisa article was listed on Wikipedia #25 http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa I obviously don't have your endorsement, but someone did think it worthy enough to list it on Wikipedia at one time. As I mentioned previously, I suspect the person who submitted my article also removed it. Just before the removal I had asked a certain someone to remove The Mona Lisa article from their website. He did so, but I believe he is creating havoc for me instead. Artforartforart (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I`d say that article is not written in an appropriate style to be included under External links. It is of the character of an insistently loose small-talk. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Legacy (Edit request)

I think that illustration of Malevich's painting Composition with the Mona Lisa (1914) with a brief description should be placed in the section Legacy as an example of avantgarde antiart stance too. The referenced image have two red X crosses on it and a note 'apartment for rent'. --91.122.125.101 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yah, I think I remember to have seen something like that. There certainly is an important dada work of that kind. This should at any rate be mentioned in the article. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
http://www.aiwaz.net/panopticon/mona-lisa-as-modern-lisa/gc234 Here is some detailed information on modern versions of Mona Lisa.

--92.100.210.32 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You, very much, for this link! — I am unfortunately not an art historian and do therefore not dare to insert any remark on this issue into the article, at the moment. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The section is underdeveloped, not a fan of cubism myself, but I put in when I have a chance, not today. Thanks for the suggestion and link. Ceoil 14:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Chimino/Simple Blue - Leonardo's mother Caterina (OR by a dozen sock puppets)

It seems Kemplar is back using his final name "Simple Blue" to insert his theory on the article (see talk above and also Talk:Speculation about Mona Lisa for history). The others have been blocked by administration for continual edit warring from insistence in inserting his OR into both articles.--Chimino (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This theory[10] is the main source for the Mona Lisa's identification as Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory. I know much more than this published theory and this theory is the truth. Prof. Art (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It's baloney, and creating new socks for yourself will fool no-one. Paul B (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not rename the title of this string. It is about you, the user, not this theory you've been forcing on Mona Lisa articles for the past 6+ months.--Chimino (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Man, you are hard-headed. How about responding to why we shouldn't pursue a ban against your umpteenth username creation, rather than playing these games?--Chimino (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm delisting the article, have fun with the obsessive moron named Kemplar.--Chimino (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Colour-correction

BBC Two ("Fake or Fortune") has just shown a digitally-corrected version of the painting with a blue sky and natural skin colour, based on analysis of the pigments and how they have degraded over the last few centuries. Can we get something like that on our article? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The Mona Lisa's identification as Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory

The web page that you are inserting into various articles regarding the Mona Lisa is absolutely inappropriate for use in a Wikipedia article. It is not a reliable source and appears to be original research, both of which make it unusable. Please stop inserting it repeatedly into these articles, or you may be blocked from editing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppet's text deleted but still in history. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Who is this person? What is this website? Is this a peer-reviewed statement? Is there discussion of this as a valid theory in scholarly journals, etc.? You must provide some sort of proof that this single web page and statement are anything more than original research. I personally don't feel that a single web page with a vague statement on it is a valid reference for this kind of theory. To get more discussion, I will be opening a query on the reliable sources noticeboard shortly. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Sock puppet's text deleted but still in history. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
If a sentence in the text is not properly sourced, the solution is not to use a totally unreliable source to support it, but to change to the sentence to reflect what actual reliable sources do say, so that is what I have done. In fact, the whole paragraph was a confusing mess. The sentence before it was a fragment and the previous sentence was confused, since it did not distinguish between theores that Lisa Giaconda was depicted in a different painting and theories that a different different individual is depicted in this painting. The Caterina theory can be attributred to Freud, but Freud was merely speculating that childhood memories are "encoded" in the image, not that is is intended to depict Caterina from memory. Paul B (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The page at /monalisa.pws.co.il is in no way acceptable as a source. I came here from RSN to make this comment but also to say that if a new editor starts to insert it, feel free to let me know. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes

I have explained my changes above, which have been reverted without discussion by Simple Blue. This is that paragraph before I changed it:

The sitter's identity was ascertained at the University of Heidelberg in 2005 by a library expert who discovered a 1503 margin note written by Agostino Vespucci.[17] Scholars have been of many minds, identifying at least four different paintings as the Mona Lisa[18][19][20] and several people as its subject. Leonardo's mother Caterina Buti del Vacca in a distant memory,[21] Isabella of Naples or Aragon,[22] Cecilia Gallerani,[23] Costanza d'Avalos, Duchess of Francavilla‎ who was also called the "merry one" or La Gioconda,[20] Isabella d'Este, Pacifica Brandano or Brandino, Isabela Gualanda, Caterina Sforza, and Leonardo himself have all been named the sitter.[8][24] Today the subject's identity is held to be Lisa, which has always been the traditional view.[17]

This simply does not flow logically, nor does it make clear what identifying "different paintings as the Mona Lisa" means and how that differs from "its subject." The list of sitters is in a sentence that is far too long and rambling, and includes confusing expressions such as "Isabella of Naples or Aragon" - which the reader might think are two different people. The verb appears at the end of the sentence, so the reader has to wade though a long list and a confusing subclause before even learning what the sentence is actually asserting! This is what it was changed to, having moved the first sentence to the previous paragraph:

Over the years there have been several alternative views. Some scholars have argued that Lisa del Giacondo was the subject of a different portrait, identifying at least four other paintings as the Mona Lisa referred to by Vasari.[18][19][20] Sigmund Freud believed that the famous half-smile was a recovered memory of Leonardo's mother.[21] Other suggestions have been Isabella of Naples,[22] Cecilia Gallerani,[23] Costanza d'Avalos, Duchess of Francavilla‎,[20] Isabella d'Este, Pacifica Brandano or Brandino, Isabela Gualanda, Caterina Sforza, and Leonardo himself.[8][24] Today the consensus view is that subject's identity is indeed Lisa del Giocondo, which has always been the traditional view.[17]

Simple Blue reverted with the edit summary "Undid very poor edit revision 443377641 by Paul Barlow", and then added a bracketed section to the already overlong sentence, which pushed it way beyond the limits of intelligibility:

The sitter's identity was ascertained at the University of Heidelberg in 2005 by a library expert who discovered a 1503 margin note written by Agostino Vespucci.[17] Scholars have been of many minds, identifying at least four different paintings as the Mona Lisa[18][19][20] and several people as its subject. Leonardo's mother Caterina Buti del Vacca in a distant memory, (Sigmund Freud believed that the famous half-smile was a recovered memory of Leonardo's mother [21]), Isabella of Naples or Aragon,[22] Cecilia Gallerani,[23] Costanza d'Avalos, Duchess of Francavilla‎ who was also called the "merry one" or La Gioconda,[20] Isabella d'Este, Pacifica Brandano or Brandino, Isabela Gualanda, Caterina Sforza, and Leonardo himself have all been named the sitter.[8][24] Today the subject's identity is held to be Lisa, which has always been the traditional view.[17]

How is anyone supposed to make sense of that? Frankly I resent wasting time to explain simple copy-editing of a garbled paragraph, just because Simple Blue continues to revert war. Paul B (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just remove the sock comments and anything after, and replace my earlier comment on the socks. The two users Simple Blue and Ago Ves were sock puppets of Roni Kempler (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Relpmek/Archive and I have removed this discussion because of that. Anyone making the same arguments about including Kempler is almost certainly another sock. As is the IP who just reverted me. Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.124.149.131, 30 September 2011

The Mona Lisa's frame was not presented by the comtesse de Béarn but by the comtesse de Béhague.

80.124.149.131 (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Update done. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Translation

As previously mentioned on this page, "elle a chaud au cul" in French does *not* mean "she has a hot ass" (which is rather vulgar in English). "Elle a chaud au cul" has a perfect equivalent in English, namely "she's got a fire down below". The French word "cul" (meaning "ass") might be misleading, because it is used in French much more casually than "ass" is in English (cf. "cul-de-sac", "cul-de-bouteille", "cul-de-mariée", ...). The expression "elle a chaud au cul" is barely shocking in French and certainly not vulgar. Please adjust the current awful English translation which is both wrong and vulgar. 93.132.254.161 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tricky, as the translation is in the source. Have you a source giving a different translation that we can add to this? Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
There are many translations, but "she has a hot ass" seems to be the most common in the most relevant sources [11]. Others are variants ("her ass is hot"; "she has a hot arse"). More unusual translations ("she has hot pants") seem to come from less reliable sources. No translation will capture the precise connotatons of the original. That's in the nature of translation. As for the idea that "ass" is shocking, I thought it came into use as a euphemism for "arse", eventually replacing it in American usage. As it happens, I refer to this picture a lot and I usually translate the phrase as "she has a hot tail", which, though not strictly accurate, seems to me closest to the 'feel' of the original. But that's just me. Paul B (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Symeon Davros Freemanstein

Is he the owner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.116.197 (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Littlefield, Walter (1914). "The Two "Mona Lisas"". The Century: a popular quarterly (Scribner & Co.) 87.

this text links to nowhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.220.150.79 (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Portrait of Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo". Louvre. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
  2. ^ http://www.artfake.net/richest_man.htm. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mona_Lisa/Archive_2&oldid=1144433600"