Talk:Speculations about Mona Lisa

Prado Mona Lisa

 * In his 1914 essay "The Two 'Mona Lisa's", Walter Littlefield reviews scholarly speculation that the portrait described by Vasari was the version that hung in the Museo del Prado in Madrid . The scholarship seems sound for the time, so I would expect that even if it has since been discredited, that some mention of the work belongs here, in an article about notable speculations. I would do it myself, but I only know this article, which is a bit out of date. I assume someone with more familiarity of current scholarship could present this speculation in the context of current scholarship. --Dystopos (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC

In February, 2012 were published the results of an investigation and the restoration of La Gioconda of the Museo del Prado in Madrid that confirm that it is not a copy of the original one, but original other one realized at the same time as that of Leonardo for one of his disciples, probably Andrea Salai or Francesco Melzi. 0:14, 3 February 2012. Reference: http://cultura.elpais.com/cultura/2012/02/01/actualidad/1328094691_560118.html#comparador


 * Have now added to article: "Mona Lisas: compare Leonardo with his pupil - interactive" at guardian.co.uk Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2012
CATERINA-SFORZA-THEORY

[Large block of text delete as a suspected copyvio]

Hippocrate! (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ❌ No specific request. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Landscape and link to the Val di Chiana map
The final link under Landscape, in reference to the Val di Chiana map, leads to the general page for the Royal Collection. http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection?maker=12196&object=912278&row=435&detail=magnify. A more direct link to a very nice presentation of the map would be http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/912278/a-map-of-the-valdichiana. I suggest this second link replace the first.174.94.31.59 (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Also, please replace the inactive link to the article with https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/carto.46.3.149. Dpezzutto (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2015
In "Subject" section, just after "However, the drawing on which Schwartz based the comparison may not be a self-portrait.", Please add:

Nicola Vacca in his publication "Mona Lisa and stereoscopy" confirms Lillian Schwartz's theory revealing the self-portrait. In this case no digital analysis was used, but instead simple tools suggested by Leonardo himself in his studies about stereoscopy contained in his Treatise on Painting.

Woc.libero.it (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A blog is almost never a reliable source. Unless Vacca is some sort of renowed art or stereoscopy expert, which I find doubtful given the references he cites in his post, Vacca's blog is not a WP:RS Cannolis (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sock edit
Bus stop, just delete them when you see them. I've extended semi-protection. Doug Weller (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Speculations about Mona Lisa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080421133221/http://www.cbc.ca:80/arts/story/2006/09/26/mona-lisa-research.html to http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/09/26/mona-lisa-research.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121112060348/http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/mona-lisa-model-was-a-male-say-italian-researchers-2204027.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/mona-lisa-model-was-a-male-say-italian-researchers-2204027.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2018
After the sentenceLocks 00 (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC) "They further proposed that two images may therefore form a stereoscopic pair, creating the illusion of 3-dimensional depth, when viewed side by side.[13]", add the following new sentence: "However, a more recent report has demonstrated that this stereoscopic pair in fact gives no reliable stereoscopic depth.[14]" Reference 14 should read as follows: "Brooks, K. R. (January 2017). "Depth Perception and the History of Three-Dimensional Art: Who Produced the First Stereoscopic Images?". i-Perception. 8(1). doi:10.1177/2041669516680114. PMID 28203349." This text (and the reference) already appear on two related Wikipedia pages (those entitled "Mona Lisa", and "Mona Lisa (Prado's version)"), and so this would increase consistency. Locks 00 (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Locks 00 (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion; it's been updated. Ewulp (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Leonardo's mother
The "Subject" says "In 2014, Angelo Paratico suggested that Leonardo's mother (probably Mona Lisa) was a Chinese slave. It has also been suggested that she was a Middle Eastern slave.", But recently discoveries, and the book "Leonardo da Vinci" by Walter Isaacson says that she was an 15/16 year old orphan. Erick Soares3 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The Renaissance and eyebrows
The reason the Mona Lisa has no eyebrows is most likely because eyebrows were not in fashion during the Renaissance. Eyebrows were plucked and even part of the hairline. Faces were also made to be very white, sometimes with lead paint. The Mona Lisa probably actually didnt have eyebrows because they weren't considered attractive during this period. FaerieQueen11 (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021
Columns and trimming. There are the bases of columns appearing on the balustrade behind the model. What is disturbing about this architectural classic decor is the lack of a shadow on the balustrade on the left which would be cast by the left side column. This is unlike Leonardo to overlook shadows as he states the importance of them in his treatise. But, more disturbing is the perspective in the painting. Creating the horizon line by intersecting the construction of the column bases create a vanishing point placing the horizon line above the model's head. From the landscape another horizon line can be determined at the height of the model's eyes. The existence of two horizon lines in one portrait are eroding factors concerning the works attribution. Eyebrows and eyelashes. In Cotte's publication Lumiere on the Mona Lisa - Hidden Portraits, his scientific analysis reveals a second portrait underlying the surface portrait. The underlying model is wearing a different costume and a pinned 'head-dress with pearls'. The 'head-dress' was scratched out by a right-handed artist. Leonardo was left-handed. Subject. It has to be noted that Pallanti identifies that Mona Lisa del Giocondo was a real person from the period of when Leonardo da Vinci was commissioned to paint her portrait. Most importantly this identification does not identify the painted portrait of her. In 2005 Kym Staiff suggests the portrait represents Isabella d'Este. Not only was she requesting a portrait from da Vinci via amanuensis letters by Capril, there are preparatory studies of her eminating from Leonardo's studio. Comparing these studies, where one is perforated to be transferred to panel, with the cast medallion by Giovanni Christoforo Romano of Isabella d'Este, as well as comparing his bust sculpture of Isabella d'Este, together with the Gioconda (Mona Lisa?) portrait the resemblance reveals these works are all representations of the same model. If the Mona Lisa is indeed a portrait of Isabella d'Este, then the portrait of Mona Lisa del Giocondo is still to be identified. Kym staiff (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Bridge-Garment-Experience hypothesis
The novel hypothesis that La Gioconda may be in part an allegorical portrait of "Esperienza," Italian for both experience and experiment, was proposed in 2020 by Max Herman in his blog "The Mindful Mona Lisa" for the MIT Press' Leonardo journal at Leonardo.info/blog.

Leonardo frequently personified Esperienza in his notebooks, for example as "the common mother of all the sciences and arts," "the interpreter between humans and nature," and "the one true maestra." The word "esperienza" is used prominently by Dante throughout the Commedia, and its Latin equivalent "experientia" has great significance in earlier writings by Nicolaus Cusanus and Roger Bacon regarding the various modes of experience and their relationship to scientific method.

In Herman's hypothesis, the bridge and garment function as a dual metaphor of the history of the flow of art, science, and engineering and their present state respectively. The significance of the garment as metaphor is accentuated by the slightly pointing gesture of the right hand. The sitter allegorically represents Esperienza, the proper guide, discoverer, creator, and inventor of the arts and sciences, in some aspects comparable to Apelles' Calumny about which Leonardo wrote in detail. Other precedents for such a personification of an abstract ideal include Dante's Beatrice and Matelda, the "beloved lady" of courtly love poetry, Leonardo's own images of Envy and Fortune, and many similar allegorical images prevalent in 15th-century Florence.

Some partial elements of this hypothesis can be found in the works of Martin Kemp, Robert Zwijnenberg, Walter Isaacson, Leslie Geddes, and Carlo Starnazzi, but the hypothesis as a whole has not been proposed prior to Herman's blog of May 2020 nor has the element of "Esperienza" as a possible allegory previously appeared in Leonardo scholarship. Supporting context for Leonardo's use of allegory and the influence of Dante's poetry on Leonardo's visual art can be found in the works of Max Marmor and Joost Keizer. Walter Pater's The Renaissance places great emphasis on the term "experience" in its discussion of Leonardo, La Gioconda, and the period overall adding additional critical context for this hypothesis. Relevant examples of bridge symbolism in Dante, the Italian Renaissance, and diverse cultures and traditions worldwide can be found in Thomas Harrison's 2021 work Of Bridges: A Poetical and Philosophical Account. The "extraordinary overtones" attributed to the word esperienza by Dante have been explored by G. Mazzotta. 2601:447:CF7F:5F30:B1E3:394E:3070:68AD (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Two–Mona Lisa theory
A merge tag has been placed on Two–Mona Lisa theory. I would oppose such a merge, as speculations about the specific painting, the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, are separate from speculations about possible second versions of the painting. Frankly, the Two–Mona Lisa theory article is the better article of the two. BD2412 T 00:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Closing; uncontested objection with no support. Klbrain (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)