Scholarly disputes. As the "Salvator Mundi" demonstrated, attempts to authenticate artworks as original Leonardos can be difficult and divisive. And given how long the "Isleworth Mona Lisa" has spent in storage, few experts have had an opportunity to examine the artwork and determine whether it's the work of the painter, his studio, a follower or a forger.
The Mona Lisa Foundation cites a range of research, some of which dates back to the time of Blaker and Eyre. Its arguments often center on the differences between the Isleworth and Louvre paintings. The former's unique composition, background and subject's sitting angle -- as well as the fact that it was painted on canvas, not wood -- suggest, to some, that whoever painted it was not attempting to produce a copy.
A screen shows scientific tests carried out on the "Isleworth Mona Lisa" taken during an event arranged by the Mona Lisa Foundation in A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage concluded that the paintings are "two original works But leading scholars have continued to dismiss it as a copy. One of the most vocal critics is Martin Kemp, a Leonardo expert and professor emeritus at Oxford University who questions the quality of the scholarship surrounding the painting.
Kemp described the painting as one of a number of "non-Leonardos" existing in "limbo" on the fringe of art history scholarship. He also cited a spectral analysis that revealed structures underneath the painting that are, in Kemp's view, "very unlike Leonardo.
It's not nasty, but it's equally not overstatingly convincing. It was in the middle of this that Raymond Hekking made the sensational claim that the Mona Lisa that the Louvre was preparing to send to America was not the original — but his was. He argued that the copy returned to the Louvre in was just another contemporary copy of the Mona Lisa. He invited the media to scrutinise his copy and even produced a film to support his claim. For collectors during the early modern period around , the value of an artefact did not necessarily lie in the fact that the artist made the image themselves.
Rather they valued having a copy of an iconic image. Seeing an artwork may have required travel to the place where it was kept, and access to the image may have depended on the owner permitting you entry.
Ownership of even a copy of a coveted image meant status and privilege and conferred significant cultural kudos on the collector. Many artefacts were produced in workshops with the help of multiple assistants as opposed to by a single artist but this mattered little.
The press jumped on the event: people wanted to know who could have stolen the Mona Lisa painting, why, and above all how. The painting was found, and the guilty party was an overly nationalistic Italian named Vincenzo Peruggia , who had intended to return the work to his home country. In , Marcel Duchamp used the portrait of Mona Lisa as the basis for his own version. She is the focus of one of the mysteries in the Da Vinci Code , the international crime bestseller. This painting continues to surprise us.
Her mystery attracts the crowds to the point of almost being an icon of the Louvre Museum. You want to know where is the Mona Lisa located? Besides the iconic "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci that is visited by millions of tourists every year at the Louvre Museum in Paris, there is another similar painting featuring the woman with the famous smile and watchful eyes that has sparked debate among experts over its authenticity.
No one knows where the mystery painting came from when it surfaced more than a hundred years ago in an English country house.
It has mostly been kept hidden in a Swiss bank vault in recent years, but Gilbert believes his family still has a claim to it. Isbouts believes the other Mona Lisa was also done by da Vinci's hand.
Manuscripts and drawings from the time suggest there may have been another version of the iconic painting.
0コメント