The so-called"Early Mona Lisa"- The Mona Lisa of Isleworth
In 2012, a Mona Lisa** that had never heard of before held a press conference in Geneva to announce that, after 35 years of research, they had confirmed the discovery of another earlier version of the famous Mona Lisa. As soon as this remark came out, the major ** rushed to report, after all, there may be no painting in the world that can be more famous than "Mona Lisa".
The so-called earlier version of the Mona Lisa actually has a more definite name - "The Mona Lisa of Elworth". This is not a remarkable new discovery. As early as 1913, the London art dealer Hugh Blaker discovered the work while cleaning an aristocratic mansion and subsequently stored it in his gallery in Ellworth, hence the name. Hugh Blaker believed that this was a real Leonardo da Vinci, and in his lifetime, he persevered in trying to prove that she was another posthumous "Mona Lisa".
hugh blaker
On the official website of the Mona Lisa** Society in Switzerland, there is a page dedicated to the circulation of this work and the process of authenticating it as genuine, pointing out that the earliest theory to support the painting as genuine came from an "art historian" named John Eyre.
John Eyre first published a monograph arguing for this work in 1915. In 1926, another book was published to reaffirm the painting's authenticity. Sounds a bit reliable? But, here's the problem: John Eyre is not an art historian, but a homemaker. His surviving works, sorry, are only these two so-called monographs on the Mona Lisa. What's worse is that this Mr Eyre is the stepfather of Hugh Blaker. The first link of logical argument is so easily self-defeating.
Then, the Mona Lisa** will give further evidence, the 1951 "Encyclopedia of America", in the explanation of the entry for the Mona Lisa, it is stated that there are two Mona Lisa. He also pointed out that the London version was "considered" to be an earlier version written by Leonardo da Vinci himself. The reference given below the entry is a book called "Leonardo the Florentine" by Rachel. Rachel Taylor. And this Miss Rachel, who is from the literary world, has nothing to write poetry and biographies. Her book was extremely easy to read because of its novel literary perspective, and it was a popular entertainment similar to The Da Vinci Code, which was a bestseller at the time. As for how much training this Miss Rachel has received in art history, we don't know. It is certain that none of the Renaissance art historians, who were more qualified to speak than Miss Rachel at the time, ever judged, or even mentioned, the question of the authenticity of the London work as if it were not worth mentioning at all.
Although the Encyclopedia of America entry is not plausible, it mentions a very important piece of information: Raphael, a contemporary of Leonardo da Vinci, saw the Mona Lisa and drew a sketch from his memories in 1505.
Raphael's sketch of 1505.
In this sketch, there are two Roman columns in the background. The existing Louvre does not have one. Upon examination, no traces of Roman columns were later altered. So, which Mona Lisa is in Raphael's sketch? Does another Mona Lisa really exist in the world? According to Vasari, the first Renaissance art historian to write a biography of Leonardo da Vinci, Leonardo da Vinci did have a habit of creating multiple works on the same subject. The most typical example is the pair of Madonna of the Rocks in the National Gallery and the Louvre in London. So there is a possibility that there is more than one Mona Lisa. This also became the most favorable prerequisite for proving that the Mona Lisa of Elworth could be another version of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa.
However, the problem arises again, in addition to the occlusion of the Roman columns, the sketches of the "Alworth Mona Lisa" and Raphael are very different from each other in terms of hairstyles, clothing, facial expressions, and background landscapes. How can this Raphael sketch alone prove that the Aylworth Mona Lisa is another Mona Lisa?
The Mona Lisa** will still not give up. They go on to point out that by 1962, another book on the authenticity of the work, Where is Mona Lisa, was published. However, the author of this book was Henry F., the owner of the Alworth Mona Lisa at the timePulitzer (Henry. Pulitzer). It is said that Pulitzer sold his apartment in Knightsbridge, London, as well as part of his collection, to buy the painting. Such a large amount of money can be seen that he is indeed persuaded by this work. But the high price also determined that Pulitzer, as the owner, was extremely eager to hope that this work would be accepted by the academic community as soon as possible. It is likely for this reason that, in the absence of more scholarly support, Pulitzer himself wrote the book. But it is conceivable that Wang Po's behavior of selling melons and boasting is not convincing, and the reliability of this literary material is once again greatly reduced. Until Pulitzer's death, he was unable to fulfill his long-cherished wish. After that, the work was quietly locked in a safe in a Swiss bank, where it lay in silence for twenty years.
In fact, "Elworth Mona Lisa" mainly involves two questions, first, does there really exist another "Mona Lisa"? As we have said above, it is possible that there is another version of the Mona Lisa, or at least one that existed, based on Raphael's sketches and Vasari's account. But even then"Additional versions"It is still alive, and at this stage, there is no material evidence to prove that the Aylworth Mona Lisa is related to it or them.
Second, let the Mona Lisa rest for a while, and discuss whether this painting is the real Leonardo da Vinci. Most of the world's top Leonardo da Vinci experts believe that the style of the Elworth Mona Lisa is in question. Martin, Professor of Art History at the University of Oxford. Martin Kemp and Luke, curator of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Saisen even unanimously believes that this painting is a clumsy imitation and belongs to the category of 'fake at a glance'. Both were curators of the largest exhibition of Leonardo da Vinci in 2011 and were involved in the process of confirming Salvator Mundi (S**ior of the World) as Leonardo da Vinci's lost work.
Martin. Camp argues that this version of London's veil, eyes, hair, hands, and dress are clearly misunderstood, imitated, and sweetened. And from the point of view of technique and style, the stylistic maturity of this work proves that it cannot be older than the Louvre one, thus refuting the so-called "earlier version". "Like all imitations, this piece doesn't capture the essence of Leonardo da Vinci. "And Luke. Saison was more blunt: "It's just very simple, not good enough. ”
There are two fatal doubts about the Mona Lisa in Alworth, the first is that it is an oil on canvas painting. All of Leonardo's paintings are oil on wood, and there is no documentary evidence that Leonardo da Vinci ever used canvas. In this regard, D**id Feldman, the deputy secretary general of the Mona Lisa** Society, argued: "Leonardo da Vinci's life was a life of exploration, how do you know that he must not have used cloth?" We really can't be 100% sure that Leonardo da Vinci didn't use cloth. Just as we can't be sure how much the Deputy Secretary-General knew Leonardo da Vinci. The only thing that is certain is that the vice-chairman is actually a stamp dealer whose main business is stamps, not painting. So on this issue, I prefer to trust the existing art historical sources.
Second, it involves the special techniques of Leonardo da Vinci's painting. In the case of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, for example, there is no trace of brushstrokes at all in the smooth picture. The facial shapes and shadows of the characters are extremely delicate, and the colors blend naturally like the wind and the water, forming soft contours. This atomization effect has a technical term in Italian called sfumato, which is also known as smoke in English. The formation of this special atomization effect is related to the unique color covering method used by Leonardo da Vinci. The Louvre used X-ray fluorescence technology to study Leonardo da Vinci's collection, and found that Leonardo da Vinci would cover the canvas over and over again with transparent or translucent coatings of mineral pigments in different proportions. The coating is as thin as a cicada's wing, and some are only a few microns thick. It is this extremely precise color covering method that weakens and dissolves all traces of artificial outlining while giving the picture color and brightness changes. In the process of confirming the authenticity of Salvator Mundi (S**ior of the World), visual recognition and technical detection of the atomization effect have become one of the most powerful methods of determination. And "Elworth Mona Lisa", first of all, from the naked eye, does not have the atomization effect of Leonardo da Vinci's fabulous spirit. Later technical tests also confirmed that the painting did not use Leonardo da Vinci's signature color covering technique. It's a bit awkward.
But the Mona Lisa was still unconvinced, and in order to salvage the situation, they decided to conduct a carbon 14 test. It is believed that the painting conforms to the physical characteristics of the paintings from 1410 to 1455. This result seems to be a powerful counter-argument to the widespread scholarly view that the painting is a 16th-century imitation. However, anyone who has lost a little archaeological knowledge knows that the error of carbon 14 testing is huge, sometimes in hundreds of years, which is why carbon 14 is used more as an auxiliary means to identify forgeries in practice, rather than as an absolute basis for determining authenticity.
Speaking of which, it seems that all the evidence is not in favor of the Masaku. But just before the Asian exhibition, the Mona Lisa** will once again release the news that "conclusive evidence has been found to prove that this painting is genuine". Wow, there was an uproar. I'm looking forward to what kind of big move can overturn all the previous doubts and achieve a counterattack. As a result, the Mona Lisa would have found the so-called "sacred geometry.""of experts to do the experiment. what?!Just show me this?!
It's even more embarrassing. The so-called sacred geometry itself is surrounded by clouds and mountains, with a strong mystery. The experts of sacred geometry invited with a strong divine stick color. He believed that the Mona Lisa and the Mona Lisa were identical in their symmetrical proportions, in line with the sacred geometric proportions represented by Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, and deduced that only Leonardo da Vinci could have made such a precise work. However, the application of sacred geometric theories to painting is only a form of geometric proportions, and even the most complex forms of proportions can be learned and imitated. To think that this painting must have come from Leonardo da Vinci just because of the overlap of sacred geometry is like to infer that two people must have come from the same mother's womb, ignoring that there is such a thing as "acquired imitation" in this world.
Sacred Geometric Argument Experiment.
Speaking of which, do you feel that the entire certification process of the Elworth Mona Lisa seems disorganized, unfocused, avoiding all the correct answers, and not stepping on the point? So some people have to ask, if you really want to verify the authenticity of an important work, what kind of posture should you take? We can take the 2011 Salvator Mundi (S**ior of the World) argumentation process as an example.
The work was first made in imitation of a small local restoration studio. During the cleaning and restoration process, the restorer sensitively noticed that there were traces of sfumato, the special color covering technique mentioned above, in the original work, and immediately proposed the possibility that it was genuine to an art historian who was familiar with it. The work was then sent to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the National Gallery in London for long-term testing and research, as well as invitations to leading scholars around the world for consultations. After rounds of style research, literature discussion and scientific and technological verification, the huge appraisal team finally reached a consensus to confirm that it was a real work of Leonardo da Vinci, published a detailed argumentation report, and included it in the subsequent Da Vinci exhibition.
And what about the poor Mona Lisa of Elworth? Since her discovery, she has never been demonstrated and researched by any third-party academic institution. Didn't even get a chance to show his face in front of authoritative academics. Neither Camp nor Saison have seen the real thing. Mona Lisa** will criticize them for making random remarks without seeing anything. Camp responded: "I get countless ** every day, and every person who hits ** is extremely excited to tell me that they have found a Da Vinci. I only pick and choose what I think is valuable and necessary to see. There is no need to look at the real thing at all in this work, it is too clear at a glance. Of course, if ** will send something over, I'd like to take a look. But they didn't look for me. ”
Until now, no internationally renowned art historian has publicly endorsed the Mona Lisa in Elworth as an authentic work. Just as she did when she first appeared a century ago, "The Mona Lisa of Elworth" is still misnamed. And to my surprise, at the Asian tour, the organizers and the Mona Lisa ** would dare to make such a big deal about this painting as a pearl of Leonardo da Vinci's disappearance for many years, and it is embarrassing to blatantly deceive it.
It is also worth noting that since the exhibition began touring in 2014, this painting has traveled to Hong Kong, Singapore, and now to Shanghai, but she has never been to Europe or the United States. The current owner of the Elworth Mona Lisa is said to be an Asian collector. And the Mona Lisa**, who has been campaigning for the reputation of this painting, is also mixed, and the financial background is extremely complex and secretive. Although ** will emphasize that he is only for public welfare and has no direct interest in this painting, but, seriously, do you think I will believe it?
The series of campaigns of the Aylworth Mona Lisa have nothing to do with marketing and academics. Perhaps in the near future, "Elworth Mona Lisa" will appear at auction with her sweet smile, waiting for the price of the legendary Leonardo da Vinci's pearl in the sea, waiting for the next person willing to pay for this legend.
This article**Yishu notes, the copyright belongs to the original author).