Scholars are rethinking the date of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa…possibly as late as 1519…based on his drawing of a rocky outcropping from of 1510-15.
5 thoughts on “Leonardo and the Mona Lisa”
mhowell2
This is problematic from both perspectives. To say that the drawing of the rocks is made prior to the painting seems wrong. You cannot assume anything with art. Might it interest you to say that the drawing of the rocks is made afterwards. It could very well be possible. However, there needs to be some concrete evidence, not just guesses. Someone should actually run more tests on the painting to see when it could date back. Why not clean the painting? I know that this has been very controversial. If this is done then we can examine the painting in relation to the time period and the rest of his work to determine if there is some shift between his drawings that could place it in its correct date. Just a thought.
I enjoyed reading the article. With the technology researchers have at their disposal, and the technology is continually becoming more advanced, researchers are constantly making new discoveries. I find it interesting and exciting that despite the fact some of the paintings’, such as Leonardo’s Mona Lisa, have been around and in the public eye for thousands of years we are still learning about it. And not just clearing up little discrepancies and speculations, but big discoveries such as a completion date of the Mona Lisa being shifted by ten years, based on one subtle but significant detail.
I thought that most of the conclusions drawn and presented in this article were based on opinions rather than facts. While I completely believe that the drawing of rocks done by Leonardo that was found in the Royal Collection is very similar, and possibly identical, to the ones found in the background of the Mona Lisa, I don’t think it is possible to figure out which one was the original that provided inspiration for the second. There may be more facts supporting researchers claims that the drawing of rocks came first but based on the facts presented in the article it seems to be an outlandish conclusion. Although I found the conclusions to be slightly eccentric, the methods used to carry out some of the research was extremely interesting. It surprised me that they were able to use technology to look at what was originally drawn under Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa. Overall, the methods used to conduct some of the research were cool but I think there still needs to be a lot more done before anyone can definitively say that the Mona Lisa was completed at a later date.
I found this article to be very interesting. The debate we had in class about why the family of Lisa del Giocondo never received the painting? The theory was maybe that since her husband was a wealthy merchant man and expected a portrait of her dressed in appropriate clothing with jewels to signify their wealth. The portrait could have been turned down and was left to Leonard. If this true then the original painting could have been a plain background and Leonardo began working on it again adding the landscape that we have beome familiar as the background of the Mona Lisa. This would help explain the later dates of completion of the Mona Lisa.
That’s fascinating that researchers can determine that just from a drawing of his. It also must of taken a lot of man hours to go about researching that and interpreting the painting and the drawings side by side. Just goes to show what a little ingenuity and creative thinking can show.
This is problematic from both perspectives. To say that the drawing of the rocks is made prior to the painting seems wrong. You cannot assume anything with art. Might it interest you to say that the drawing of the rocks is made afterwards. It could very well be possible. However, there needs to be some concrete evidence, not just guesses. Someone should actually run more tests on the painting to see when it could date back. Why not clean the painting? I know that this has been very controversial. If this is done then we can examine the painting in relation to the time period and the rest of his work to determine if there is some shift between his drawings that could place it in its correct date. Just a thought.
I enjoyed reading the article. With the technology researchers have at their disposal, and the technology is continually becoming more advanced, researchers are constantly making new discoveries. I find it interesting and exciting that despite the fact some of the paintings’, such as Leonardo’s Mona Lisa, have been around and in the public eye for thousands of years we are still learning about it. And not just clearing up little discrepancies and speculations, but big discoveries such as a completion date of the Mona Lisa being shifted by ten years, based on one subtle but significant detail.
I thought that most of the conclusions drawn and presented in this article were based on opinions rather than facts. While I completely believe that the drawing of rocks done by Leonardo that was found in the Royal Collection is very similar, and possibly identical, to the ones found in the background of the Mona Lisa, I don’t think it is possible to figure out which one was the original that provided inspiration for the second. There may be more facts supporting researchers claims that the drawing of rocks came first but based on the facts presented in the article it seems to be an outlandish conclusion. Although I found the conclusions to be slightly eccentric, the methods used to carry out some of the research was extremely interesting. It surprised me that they were able to use technology to look at what was originally drawn under Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa. Overall, the methods used to conduct some of the research were cool but I think there still needs to be a lot more done before anyone can definitively say that the Mona Lisa was completed at a later date.
I found this article to be very interesting. The debate we had in class about why the family of Lisa del Giocondo never received the painting? The theory was maybe that since her husband was a wealthy merchant man and expected a portrait of her dressed in appropriate clothing with jewels to signify their wealth. The portrait could have been turned down and was left to Leonard. If this true then the original painting could have been a plain background and Leonardo began working on it again adding the landscape that we have beome familiar as the background of the Mona Lisa. This would help explain the later dates of completion of the Mona Lisa.
That’s fascinating that researchers can determine that just from a drawing of his. It also must of taken a lot of man hours to go about researching that and interpreting the painting and the drawings side by side. Just goes to show what a little ingenuity and creative thinking can show.