Skip to comments.Younger, happier Mona Lisa painted 10 years earlier, experts believe
Posted on 10/01/2012 5:51:27 AM PDT by jmcenanly
Leonardo da Vinci painted a younger and happier Mona Lisa some 10 years before painting the famous painting, art experts are claiming. Slightly larger in size than the famous portrait, which now hangs in the Louvre in Paris, the painting features a darker tonality, a different and unfinished background framed by two columns, and shows a younger lady with a less enigmatic smile. Known as the Isleworth Mona Lisa, the artwork will be unveiled in Geneva on Thursday by the Mona Lisa Foundation, a Zurich-based consortium which has kept the painting in a Swiss bank vault for 40 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Younger, yes. But a “less enigmatic smile?” No.
The smiles look identical—however the older/newer Mona Lisa has EYES which have a more mysterious look...in my humble opinion.
Passport “photos” ... 10 years apart ...
Poor thing.....she only has one outfit :>)
Obviously age regression photoshop.
the hands are identical
I don't think it is a modern photoshop job at all but I can see why you might think that. I think Leonardo re-painted it, making an updated copy of his original, without the model.
Still the best eyes in the history of art.
(After FIRST portrait): “Leo, does that background make me look fat?”
Personally, I think it’s a fake made by some talented art forger. It is inconceivable that a second work would lie around unnoticed for this long given the notariety of Da Vinci and the Mona Lisa.
I like the side-by-side Mona pictures here...
I believe the newly found young Mona is on canvas while Davinci painted on wood.
But then....perhaps the new one is the real Davinci...wouldn't that be a .........
It’s a paint by numbers...
It’s over a a century old - but still likely a copy, not a da Vinci.
While the premise is sound, and you can clearly see there is a difference in the two upside down portraits—there are also shenanigans going on as the pictures rotate. Watch closely and you will see how the eyes become MUCH more downcast and the frowning mouth more accentuated while the picture is rotating.
Davinci copied his own work?? Yeh right....
I’m holding out for the baby pictures.
Not only are the hands identical, but the wrinkles in the sleeves are identical as well.
Wearing the same dress?
the Mona Lisa in the Louvre is the fake, lol. That’d be a kick in the pants wouldn’t it?
Perhaps painted by Leonardo’s less talented older brother Ralph. (satire)
This would sell for millions.
Artist worked in groups back then called ateliers (sp?) One experienced painter or teacher and his students. Maybe a student did this new one at the same time that Davince did his because the model is wearing the same dress. Whatever...... we will never know.... I like the new one better anyway.
One of the big disappointments in my life was finally getting to Paris to see the Mona Lisa and being disappointed because it is small and gloomy and ugly.
You paint things over and over???...
Davinci was an impatient "sketcher"...with only a few paintings to his name.
I’m now inclined to believe that NEITHER is a Davinci....That the existence of two, disproves the other.
Not always do I paint things over, sometimes I get it right the first time and that is the best but I have painted things over more than once or twice.
I also take failed paintings and paint over them and reuse the canvas/board for a totally different painting. All artist do this. There might be a failed painting under every success. :)
I thought this would have been a nude.
“I was young and I needed the money” or somesuch...
The problem remains...the one in the louve is on poplar wood, the young lisa is on canvas.
There was a nude painted of Mona by Salail??? whom Davinci did not like.
Can't remember the time-frame but Munch painted something like a half dozen or so "Screams". One of which, was displayed as "The Scream", and stolen again...
FWIW, the book is interspersed with a number of art theft stories, including the "Mona Lisa".
IIRC, its theft by a janitor was so that some con artist could sell fakes for big bucks to rich idiots. The painting's theft generated the needed publicity to con the buyers that each mark was getting the original. The crook also shafted the janitor, BTW, who eventually got off fairly easy, being an Italian "wishing to repatriate the art..."
On the other hand, I never really appreciated the impressionists paintings by Monet, Van Gogh, Degas... until I saw a collection of them at the Sheaves Of Wheat show in Dallas. I was blown away by the scale and color and complete unedited enthusiasm of the brush strokes. I just had no idea! Dorm room posters and internet pictures just can not show you the wild colors, the thickness in which the layers of paint are applied and the dizzying motion that the textures create! And I'm the type of girl that usually just says things like, "Nice picture. I like that frame." Haha!
"Monet's unknown masterpiece, Dogs At Cards."
Neil Caffrey comes to mind...("White Collar" reference)
Reminds me of the work of that art forger who did the Vermeers so well.
Possibly but if Monet had though it was a masterpiece he wouldn’t have painted those dogs over it. I trust Monet’s judgment. :)
Michelangelo’s discarded marbles gives me pause as to “what was he thinking?” when he decided to stop working the stone.
Ah! That sounds amazing!
I had the pleasure of seeing Cabanel’s THE BIRTH OF VENUS in the Met in NYC this year. I found it was a copy of his own work which he was paid to reproduce. His original is in the Mus’ee d’Orsay, Paris.
About 45 years ago there was an article in one of our major news magazines (I can’t remember which one was) about other copies of the Mona Lisa which may have been done by Leonardo or his students. One was in a bank vault in Virginia for safekeeping.
Yes, but she did start to dye her hair.
Certainly many others have painted copies.
Internet is killing appreciation of music and artworks (paintings, drawings, photos).
And fewer people seem to be using their hands to create (photoshop can it for them and instagram "has so many EFX!!!").
Yes, size does matter, viewing things as thumbnails on a laptop or on an iphone is no substitute.
Canvases weren't a cheap commodity way back when either. Archivists have taken to x-raying paintings to reveal other works underneath them.
I thought I read that the “young Mona Lisa” was painted on canvas, which was not available to DiVinci at the time.
I much rather look at a spectaular Bierstadt than the Mona Lisa any day.
They showed on Discovery? Mona Lisa was actually a inverted self portrait of Da vinci. he made her or himself a women obviously.
Was quite convincing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.