![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Leonardo da Vinci's remains are being exhumed to see if a reconstruction of his face using his skull reveals whether the Mona Lisa is indeed (a form of) a self-portrait. I wonder whether this is worth adding at this time because I find that fact fascinating and it now is being reported by more reliable news sources. [1] [2] [3]-- 75.4.27.220 ( talk) 19:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The current last sentence of the introduction --- "A charcoal and graphite study of the Mona Lisa attributed to Leonardo is in the Hyde Collection, in Glens Falls, NY." --- is jarringly out of place there, but I'm loath to remove it without asking those with more expertise. To me it seems an interesting but minor fact about the painting. Is there a natural place to mention it further down in the body? Ishboyfay ( talk) 04:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
How come Mona Lisa has no eyebrows? 188.141.97.119 ( talk) 21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
they say that shaving off their eyebrows are in fashion at that time. (read it in a book)-- Heavenly stranger ( talk) 04:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps history’s most famous painting is Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa which he worked on from 1503-1506. The iconic portrait is also known as La Gioconda from the name of the husband of the model Lisa Gherardini. Leonardo regarded this painting as special since he took it with him on all his subsequent travels. It’s well documented that Leonardo encoded most, if not all of his work.
The following is an excerpt from the DVD Unlocking Da Vinci’s Code – Mystery or Conspiracy? (2004, Highland)
“A very old method used for encoding intentional messages into artistic works is the Kaballistic interpretation called gematria. This method assigns numbers to letters. So Mona Lisa would be represented by this equation…
Mona Lisa = 84 = M13+o15+n14+a1+L12+i9+s19+a1
Another name for Mona Lisa is ‘La Giocconda’ which equals this equation…
La Giocconda = 84 = L12+a1+G7+i9+o15+c3+c3+o15+n14+d4+a1
The measurement of the circumference of the painting equals 84. And if we add up the numbers to Leonardo’s name, once again the number 84”…
Leonardo = 84 = L12+e5+o15+n14+a1+r18+d4+o15
Note: Although it's clear there is a connection between Leonardo=84 & Mona Lisa=84, the spelling of 'La Giocconda' with two Cs in the video is the only place I've seen that and the statement, "The measurement of the circumference of the painting equals 84" needs to be explained because it doesn't equal 84 inches or 84 centimeters! However, if the 'French spelling' of Lisa Gherardin is used, Gherardin=84.
Conclusion: I'm convinced that there is a gematric code to Leonardo's Mona Lisa, but I can't decide whether Leonardo consciously used the method or whether it has been applied afterward by the 'astute'?
- Brad Watson, Miami, FL 64.136.26.235 ( talk) 17:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
-- Very probably no, there aren't any encodinges there. If you take any sufficiently complicated objects you will find infinitly many "equations" satisfied by the object. Not only two or three - or for that matter a few million.
YohanN7 (
talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
under the first paragraph of the article it should say at the louvre and not an the louvre
In the Subject and Title section, quotation marks are needed in the second-to-last sentence: Italian for jocund, happy or jovial, Gioconda was a nickname for the sitter... This should be written as: Italian for 'jocund', 'happy' or 'jovial', Gioconda was a nickname for the sitter...
Can someone include the dimensions of the painting? I don't see them in the article. DBlomgren ( talk) 22:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} It has come to my notice from some reliable sources that Monalisa was first created by Khunkhar Singh, royal painter in the court of Maharana Uday Singh of Udaipur. Then it was called as Lavanya. It is said that Khunkhar Singh fell madly in love with daughter of an Italian merchant . Lavanya was created by him in her loving memory. This painting was bought by an Arbaic merchant and taken To Florence. No record of this painting was found after that.
Devanshnuwal ( talk) 09:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
if the subject was identified as Lisa Gioconda in 1550, and Leo's assistant called the painting La Gioconda in 1525, why was there a big mystery over the identity of the subject, and why is the 2005 discovery of the margin note considered conclusive? This needs more explanation. 128.151.71.18 ( talk) 16:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Mona Lisa (also known as La Gioconda or La Joconde) is a sixteenth-century portrait painted in oil on a poplar panel in Florence, Italy by Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci during the Renaissance. The work is currently owned by the Government of France and is on display at the Louvre museum in Paris under the title Portrait of Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo. [1] Arguably, it is one of the the most famous and iconic painting in the world.
88.26.31.98 ( talk) 19:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
A pretty good source, if anyone is interested: French Scientists Crack Secrets of Mona Lisa - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 20:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The intro states "The painting is a half-length portrait and depicts a standing woman whose facial expression is frequently described as enigmatic." The "Aesthetics" section states "Leonardo referred to a seemingly simple formula for seated female figure: the images of seated Madonna, which were widespread at the time." and "The armrest of the chair functions as a dividing element between Mona Lisa and the viewer." Which is correct? Seated or standing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.46.100 ( talk) 13:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Under the 21 August page, the theft of the Mona Lisa is cited. Clicking through, it states here that the theft took place on the 22nd with a reference to footnote 24. However, footnote 24 links to an article which says that the theft took place on the 21st! So it seems to me that the correct date for the theft should be the 21st (or an alternative reference cited to back up the 22nd). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSylvia ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I recall reading somewhere that the Mona Lisa originally had some painted columns on each side of her but somebody cut these off for aesthetic reasons or to make the painting fit a frame or somesuch. Has anybody else read about this, the missing columns? By the way, I've seen the Mona Lisa and she is amused, contented, secure and comfortable, indicating that she had a good life, well provided for. It's as if though Leonardo was entertaining her during sittings. I seem to recall painters would have entertainments and amusements for their subjects to keep them from being bored, anybody got any info on this? It's an extremely well-painted portrait and this is what makes it so famous--the high quality of the work. I'm an oil painter myself and can recognize high quality work. The viewing crowds seem to be in the summer, I saw it in the Spring (April in Paris) and had her all to myself, just a couple people walked in and out. I stared at it for about an hour. It's very well done, one wonders why he took so much time and care with this particular painting. Did he have an affair with her? Was he in love with her? Leonardo worked on it for years. 71.157.182.121 ( talk) 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Saying the painting is in the Musée du Louvre museum seems a little repetitive. Should it either be the Musée du Louvre or the Louvre Museum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattepa ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Even if it is repetitive, it is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitwith ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
There's no mentioning of a 1972 repair of the Mona Lisa, but growing up in Veedersburg, Indiana, I had always heard that a local art expert had made repairs, and I found this article supporting it, online. Can anyone verify this story?
George d'Arlier was born in 1891. He died in 1980. He was buried in 1980. BIOGRAPHY The d'Arlier house at 405 North Mill Street was designed to bring the world in. Built by an architect from the studio of renowned architect Frank Lloyd Wright, the prairie style home is physically tied to the outside by a sprawling sun porch and an arrangement of stained glass windows, both signature trademarks of Wright's famous work. The house at 405 North Mill Street originally belonged to the BOOE Family, who in the early 1900s, owned and operated a railroad hotel in Veedersburg. Struggling financially, Tilghman "Til" BOOE and his wife traded their land for land across the state line in Illinois. Just as the redemption period was about to run out on the land, which was in the process of being foreclosed, the BOOES struck oil. In 1909, with their newfound fortune, the BOOES built what was considered to be the finest home in the area. The BOOES contacted Frank Llyod Wright when they were trying to hire an architecthe asked a colleague to take it. Owner George d'Arlier took the unifying designs to heart, using culture and art to figuratively connect his small town to the world. Each time he left Fountain County to travel overseas, he returned home with masterpieces from the places he had visited. He covered the walls with bits of the world and often invited the public to view his newest samples. The story of how d'Arlier ended up in Veedersburg reads like a fairy tale. Originally from Monto Carlo and having lived in all parts of France, Argentina and Brazil, d'Arlier, who became a US citizen in 1926, was the grandson of a count and the son of a colonel in the Prince of Monaco's private guard. D'Arlier learned to speak seven languages. He worked as an international art dealer in New York City. D'Arlier was commissioned by the U.S. States government to go to Europe after World War II and identify famous paintings, which had been removed from museums by the Nazis. D'Arlier found one painting on Adolph Hilter's personal desk. Around 1950, d'Arlier presented an art lecture to visitors at a popular resort in Hot Springs, Ark. One of those visitors was Sina BOOE from Veedersburg. On Feb 20, 1951 d'Arlier and Sina BOOE were married. Soon thereafter the couple returned to the BOOE family home located at 405 North Mill Street. George d'Arlier 81 one years old was brought out of retirement to repair the Mona Lisa Painting for an amount so considerable he refused to discuss it. As the museum's armed guards watched over the famous portrait, d'Arlier created an unusual baked paint mixture, which he carefully pressed on with his thumbs, declining to use a brush for fear of further damaging the painting. He called the project "a once in a lifetime mission. The conclusion of a career with such glory as I have ever anticipated. I shall remember it until my dying day". Even in death, d'Arlier assured the home at 405 North Mill Street would remain true to its form. His 1980 last will and testament requested the house be used to bring outsider's in. "It is my wish that my home be used as a cultural and educational center for the benefit of Veedersburg and the surrounding area. It is my wish that the center be used partially to house a librarybut hope and trust that it can be used as a broader cultural and learning center, including, but not limited to sculpture, architecture, painting and music." Nearly twenty years later d'Arlier is having his dying wish fulfilled. The Article ran in Indiana in The Neighbor Newspaper on Wednesday June 23 and 30, 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.26.53.3 ( talk) 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This section included a claim that there were symbols hidden in the painting. From what I can tell, this is a weak claim. Further, it quotes it being called a "real life DaVinci code", which doesn't seem like wikipedia material. I removed the latter and added a counter claim with reference. I feel like I should've deleted the claim entirely, but leave that for the wiki pros who watch over us all. 168.122.65.1 ( talk) 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm seeking resolution to edits I've been reverting from User:Relpmek. Please see the latest edit here: [4]. He's using ref tags and typing the following sentence "This theory was suggested initially by Sigmund Freud, and by Serge Bramly, Roni Kempler and Rina de Firenze." between them. This user does not seem to grasp basic citation/reference guidelines, and I'm posting here to avoid an edit war.-- Chimino ( talk) 02:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"Today the subject's identity is held with certainty to be Lisa, which was always the traditional view." (16 October 2008)
There are scholars who think that the painting's subject is Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory. She died in 1495. Lisa del Giocondo's job was to be the model only.
This theory was suggested initially by Sigmund Freud, and by Serge Bramly, Roni Kempler and Rina de Firenze.
" Serge Bramly, in his biography of Leonardo, discusses the possibility that the portrait depicts the artist's mother Caterina Buti del Vacca. This would account for the resemblance between artist and subject observed by Dr Schwartz, and would explain why Leonardo kept the portrait with him wherever he traveled, until his death. At the time that Leonardo painted the portrait of his mother, whom he adored, she had already died. According to the Roni Kempler's theory this is the reason why Leonardo chose the setting of the Holy Land, as he imagined it, as the background to the portrait. (The Jordan River is painted to her right and the Sea of Galilee to her left). (The idea is that she was alive in Leonardo's imagination).
This is similar to the background of Leonardo's paintings of the Virgin Mary, which also depict the same landscape of the Holy Land. Thus, Leonardo glorifies the Mona Lisa as the Virgin Mary. Kempler also states that Leonardo pictured his mother, who raised him until age five, in painting the Virgin Mary. So the Mona Lisa in fact adorns Leonardo's mother Caterina. (According to this theory Lisa del Giocondo's job was to be the model for the painting).
...In December 2010 it was claimed by Silvano Vinceti that the Mona Lisa appears to have tiny numbers and letters in her eyes which are only apparent when viewed with a magnifying glass (LV, CE or B or S); however, the accuracy of this claim is disputed. This discovery strengthens the Kempler's theory that Leonardo encoded the letters C and L (Caterina and Leonardo), in his special reverse style, in Mona Lisa's embroidery on her dress."
Now there are those who want to steal the credit. Relpmek ( talk) 17:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
For Freud the famous half-smile was a recovered memory of Leonardo's mother; Freud's theory only referred to Mona Lisa's smile (mouth) and not to the point that she is Leonardo's mother. So this theory (Serge Bramly, Roni Kempler [5], Rina de Firenze...) is based on Freud's theory but was not actually suggested by Freud. Simple Blue ( talk) 11:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't the Mona Lisa made in 1890? Please tell me ASAP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.74.156 ( talk) 23:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i think that the mona lisa was a greek god Fabioman ( talk) 02:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Do we know anything about Mr. Vespucci? (Except that he had famous cousin.) If not I suggest Agostino Vespucci be merged into Mona Lisa. Otherwise we have an article that is more than 75% not about its subject. - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
it is rumoured $ymeon Davros Carnegie Freeman$tein or Symeon Davros Carnegie Freemanstein owns the original and made a second copy for the museum [2]
Headline explains the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.76.15 ( talk) 17:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
she sits next to herself it is a image from a side of a mirror and it was Leonardo's sister that he killed after painting her in the picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.20.18 ( talk) 08:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The colour of Mona Lisa's sky is not blue | |
---|---|
|
Kvvvxvv ( talk) 18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Camille Gizzarelli: The Mona Lisa ( http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art18406.asp) Bellaonline.com. Retrieved on 6/1/2011
Artforartforart ( talk) 16:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bility, I was not requesting that The Mona Lisa article replace the existing page, but only that it be listed under Notes as it was originally #25 and Retrieved on 01/10/2011. I suspect the same person who submitted it also removed it (or had it removed) in May 2011. I contacted him(coincidentally at about the same time) for taking my article and posting it on his website without my approval. Thank you, Artforartforart ( talk) 16:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Bility, How do you feel about adding The Mona Lisa article( http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art18406.asp) once again to the Mona Lisa page? Artforartforart ( talk) 18:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Paul B, The Mona Lisa article was listed on Wikipedia #25 http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa I obviously don't have your endorsement, but someone did think it worthy enough to list it on Wikipedia at one time. As I mentioned previously, I suspect the person who submitted my article also removed it. Just before the removal I had asked a certain someone to remove The Mona Lisa article from their website. He did so, but I believe he is creating havoc for me instead. Artforartforart ( talk) 13:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that illustration of Malevich's painting Composition with the Mona Lisa (1914) with a brief description should be placed in the section Legacy as an example of avantgarde antiart stance too. The referenced image have two red X crosses on it and a note 'apartment for rent'. -- 91.122.125.101 ( talk) 13:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
-- 92.100.210.32 ( talk) 19:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems Kemplar is back using his final name "Simple Blue" to insert his theory on the article (see talk above and also Talk:Speculation about Mona Lisa for history). The others have been blocked by administration for continual edit warring from insistence in inserting his OR into both articles.-- Chimino ( talk) 20:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not rename the title of this string. It is about you, the user, not this theory you've been forcing on Mona Lisa articles for the past 6+ months.-- Chimino ( talk) 06:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
BBC Two ("Fake or Fortune") has just shown a digitally-corrected version of the painting with a blue sky and natural skin colour, based on analysis of the pigments and how they have degraded over the last few centuries. Can we get something like that on our article? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The web page that you are inserting into various articles regarding the Mona Lisa is absolutely inappropriate for use in a Wikipedia article. It is not a reliable source and appears to be original research, both of which make it unusable. Please stop inserting it repeatedly into these articles, or you may be blocked from editing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I have explained my changes above, which have been reverted without discussion by Simple Blue. This is that paragraph before I changed it:
The sitter's identity was ascertained at the University of Heidelberg in 2005 by a library expert who discovered a 1503 margin note written by Agostino Vespucci.[17] Scholars have been of many minds, identifying at least four different paintings as the Mona Lisa[18][19][20] and several people as its subject. Leonardo's mother Caterina Buti del Vacca in a distant memory,[21] Isabella of Naples or Aragon,[22] Cecilia Gallerani,[23] Costanza d'Avalos, Duchess of Francavilla who was also called the "merry one" or La Gioconda,[20] Isabella d'Este, Pacifica Brandano or Brandino, Isabela Gualanda, Caterina Sforza, and Leonardo himself have all been named the sitter.[8][24] Today the subject's identity is held to be Lisa, which has always been the traditional view.[17]
This simply does not flow logically, nor does it make clear what identifying "different paintings as the Mona Lisa" means and how that differs from "its subject." The list of sitters is in a sentence that is far too long and rambling, and includes confusing expressions such as "Isabella of Naples or Aragon" - which the reader might think are two different people. The verb appears at the end of the sentence, so the reader has to wade though a long list and a confusing subclause before even learning what the sentence is actually asserting! This is what it was changed to, having moved the first sentence to the previous paragraph:
Over the years there have been several alternative views. Some scholars have argued that Lisa del Giacondo was the subject of a different portrait, identifying at least four other paintings as the Mona Lisa referred to by Vasari.[18][19][20] Sigmund Freud believed that the famous half-smile was a recovered memory of Leonardo's mother.[21] Other suggestions have been Isabella of Naples,[22] Cecilia Gallerani,[23] Costanza d'Avalos, Duchess of Francavilla,[20] Isabella d'Este, Pacifica Brandano or Brandino, Isabela Gualanda, Caterina Sforza, and Leonardo himself.[8][24] Today the consensus view is that subject's identity is indeed Lisa del Giocondo, which has always been the traditional view.[17]
Simple Blue reverted with the edit summary "Undid very poor edit revision 443377641 by Paul Barlow", and then added a bracketed section to the already overlong sentence, which pushed it way beyond the limits of intelligibility:
The sitter's identity was ascertained at the University of Heidelberg in 2005 by a library expert who discovered a 1503 margin note written by Agostino Vespucci.[17] Scholars have been of many minds, identifying at least four different paintings as the Mona Lisa[18][19][20] and several people as its subject. Leonardo's mother Caterina Buti del Vacca in a distant memory, (Sigmund Freud believed that the famous half-smile was a recovered memory of Leonardo's mother [21]), Isabella of Naples or Aragon,[22] Cecilia Gallerani,[23] Costanza d'Avalos, Duchess of Francavilla who was also called the "merry one" or La Gioconda,[20] Isabella d'Este, Pacifica Brandano or Brandino, Isabela Gualanda, Caterina Sforza, and Leonardo himself have all been named the sitter.[8][24] Today the subject's identity is held to be Lisa, which has always been the traditional view.[17]
How is anyone supposed to make sense of that? Frankly I resent wasting time to explain simple copy-editing of a garbled paragraph, just because Simple Blue continues to revert war. Paul B ( talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Mona Lisa's frame was not presented by the comtesse de Béarn but by the comtesse de Béhague.
80.124.149.131 ( talk) 15:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
As previously mentioned on this page, "elle a chaud au cul" in French does *not* mean "she has a hot ass" (which is rather vulgar in English). "Elle a chaud au cul" has a perfect equivalent in English, namely "she's got a fire down below". The French word "cul" (meaning "ass") might be misleading, because it is used in French much more casually than "ass" is in English (cf. "cul-de-sac", "cul-de-bouteille", "cul-de-mariée", ...). The expression "elle a chaud au cul" is barely shocking in French and certainly not vulgar. Please adjust the current awful English translation which is both wrong and vulgar. 93.132.254.161 ( talk) 23:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Is he the owner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.116.197 ( talk) 22:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Littlefield, Walter (1914). "The Two "Mona Lisas"". The Century: a popular quarterly (Scribner & Co.) 87.
this text links to nowhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.220.150.79 ( talk) 14:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Leonardo da Vinci's remains are being exhumed to see if a reconstruction of his face using his skull reveals whether the Mona Lisa is indeed (a form of) a self-portrait. I wonder whether this is worth adding at this time because I find that fact fascinating and it now is being reported by more reliable news sources. [1] [2] [3]-- 75.4.27.220 ( talk) 19:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The current last sentence of the introduction --- "A charcoal and graphite study of the Mona Lisa attributed to Leonardo is in the Hyde Collection, in Glens Falls, NY." --- is jarringly out of place there, but I'm loath to remove it without asking those with more expertise. To me it seems an interesting but minor fact about the painting. Is there a natural place to mention it further down in the body? Ishboyfay ( talk) 04:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
How come Mona Lisa has no eyebrows? 188.141.97.119 ( talk) 21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
they say that shaving off their eyebrows are in fashion at that time. (read it in a book)-- Heavenly stranger ( talk) 04:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps history’s most famous painting is Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa which he worked on from 1503-1506. The iconic portrait is also known as La Gioconda from the name of the husband of the model Lisa Gherardini. Leonardo regarded this painting as special since he took it with him on all his subsequent travels. It’s well documented that Leonardo encoded most, if not all of his work.
The following is an excerpt from the DVD Unlocking Da Vinci’s Code – Mystery or Conspiracy? (2004, Highland)
“A very old method used for encoding intentional messages into artistic works is the Kaballistic interpretation called gematria. This method assigns numbers to letters. So Mona Lisa would be represented by this equation…
Mona Lisa = 84 = M13+o15+n14+a1+L12+i9+s19+a1
Another name for Mona Lisa is ‘La Giocconda’ which equals this equation…
La Giocconda = 84 = L12+a1+G7+i9+o15+c3+c3+o15+n14+d4+a1
The measurement of the circumference of the painting equals 84. And if we add up the numbers to Leonardo’s name, once again the number 84”…
Leonardo = 84 = L12+e5+o15+n14+a1+r18+d4+o15
Note: Although it's clear there is a connection between Leonardo=84 & Mona Lisa=84, the spelling of 'La Giocconda' with two Cs in the video is the only place I've seen that and the statement, "The measurement of the circumference of the painting equals 84" needs to be explained because it doesn't equal 84 inches or 84 centimeters! However, if the 'French spelling' of Lisa Gherardin is used, Gherardin=84.
Conclusion: I'm convinced that there is a gematric code to Leonardo's Mona Lisa, but I can't decide whether Leonardo consciously used the method or whether it has been applied afterward by the 'astute'?
- Brad Watson, Miami, FL 64.136.26.235 ( talk) 17:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
-- Very probably no, there aren't any encodinges there. If you take any sufficiently complicated objects you will find infinitly many "equations" satisfied by the object. Not only two or three - or for that matter a few million.
YohanN7 (
talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
under the first paragraph of the article it should say at the louvre and not an the louvre
In the Subject and Title section, quotation marks are needed in the second-to-last sentence: Italian for jocund, happy or jovial, Gioconda was a nickname for the sitter... This should be written as: Italian for 'jocund', 'happy' or 'jovial', Gioconda was a nickname for the sitter...
Can someone include the dimensions of the painting? I don't see them in the article. DBlomgren ( talk) 22:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} It has come to my notice from some reliable sources that Monalisa was first created by Khunkhar Singh, royal painter in the court of Maharana Uday Singh of Udaipur. Then it was called as Lavanya. It is said that Khunkhar Singh fell madly in love with daughter of an Italian merchant . Lavanya was created by him in her loving memory. This painting was bought by an Arbaic merchant and taken To Florence. No record of this painting was found after that.
Devanshnuwal ( talk) 09:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
if the subject was identified as Lisa Gioconda in 1550, and Leo's assistant called the painting La Gioconda in 1525, why was there a big mystery over the identity of the subject, and why is the 2005 discovery of the margin note considered conclusive? This needs more explanation. 128.151.71.18 ( talk) 16:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Mona Lisa (also known as La Gioconda or La Joconde) is a sixteenth-century portrait painted in oil on a poplar panel in Florence, Italy by Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci during the Renaissance. The work is currently owned by the Government of France and is on display at the Louvre museum in Paris under the title Portrait of Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo. [1] Arguably, it is one of the the most famous and iconic painting in the world.
88.26.31.98 ( talk) 19:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
A pretty good source, if anyone is interested: French Scientists Crack Secrets of Mona Lisa - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 20:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The intro states "The painting is a half-length portrait and depicts a standing woman whose facial expression is frequently described as enigmatic." The "Aesthetics" section states "Leonardo referred to a seemingly simple formula for seated female figure: the images of seated Madonna, which were widespread at the time." and "The armrest of the chair functions as a dividing element between Mona Lisa and the viewer." Which is correct? Seated or standing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.46.100 ( talk) 13:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Under the 21 August page, the theft of the Mona Lisa is cited. Clicking through, it states here that the theft took place on the 22nd with a reference to footnote 24. However, footnote 24 links to an article which says that the theft took place on the 21st! So it seems to me that the correct date for the theft should be the 21st (or an alternative reference cited to back up the 22nd). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSylvia ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I recall reading somewhere that the Mona Lisa originally had some painted columns on each side of her but somebody cut these off for aesthetic reasons or to make the painting fit a frame or somesuch. Has anybody else read about this, the missing columns? By the way, I've seen the Mona Lisa and she is amused, contented, secure and comfortable, indicating that she had a good life, well provided for. It's as if though Leonardo was entertaining her during sittings. I seem to recall painters would have entertainments and amusements for their subjects to keep them from being bored, anybody got any info on this? It's an extremely well-painted portrait and this is what makes it so famous--the high quality of the work. I'm an oil painter myself and can recognize high quality work. The viewing crowds seem to be in the summer, I saw it in the Spring (April in Paris) and had her all to myself, just a couple people walked in and out. I stared at it for about an hour. It's very well done, one wonders why he took so much time and care with this particular painting. Did he have an affair with her? Was he in love with her? Leonardo worked on it for years. 71.157.182.121 ( talk) 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Saying the painting is in the Musée du Louvre museum seems a little repetitive. Should it either be the Musée du Louvre or the Louvre Museum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattepa ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Even if it is repetitive, it is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitwith ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
There's no mentioning of a 1972 repair of the Mona Lisa, but growing up in Veedersburg, Indiana, I had always heard that a local art expert had made repairs, and I found this article supporting it, online. Can anyone verify this story?
George d'Arlier was born in 1891. He died in 1980. He was buried in 1980. BIOGRAPHY The d'Arlier house at 405 North Mill Street was designed to bring the world in. Built by an architect from the studio of renowned architect Frank Lloyd Wright, the prairie style home is physically tied to the outside by a sprawling sun porch and an arrangement of stained glass windows, both signature trademarks of Wright's famous work. The house at 405 North Mill Street originally belonged to the BOOE Family, who in the early 1900s, owned and operated a railroad hotel in Veedersburg. Struggling financially, Tilghman "Til" BOOE and his wife traded their land for land across the state line in Illinois. Just as the redemption period was about to run out on the land, which was in the process of being foreclosed, the BOOES struck oil. In 1909, with their newfound fortune, the BOOES built what was considered to be the finest home in the area. The BOOES contacted Frank Llyod Wright when they were trying to hire an architecthe asked a colleague to take it. Owner George d'Arlier took the unifying designs to heart, using culture and art to figuratively connect his small town to the world. Each time he left Fountain County to travel overseas, he returned home with masterpieces from the places he had visited. He covered the walls with bits of the world and often invited the public to view his newest samples. The story of how d'Arlier ended up in Veedersburg reads like a fairy tale. Originally from Monto Carlo and having lived in all parts of France, Argentina and Brazil, d'Arlier, who became a US citizen in 1926, was the grandson of a count and the son of a colonel in the Prince of Monaco's private guard. D'Arlier learned to speak seven languages. He worked as an international art dealer in New York City. D'Arlier was commissioned by the U.S. States government to go to Europe after World War II and identify famous paintings, which had been removed from museums by the Nazis. D'Arlier found one painting on Adolph Hilter's personal desk. Around 1950, d'Arlier presented an art lecture to visitors at a popular resort in Hot Springs, Ark. One of those visitors was Sina BOOE from Veedersburg. On Feb 20, 1951 d'Arlier and Sina BOOE were married. Soon thereafter the couple returned to the BOOE family home located at 405 North Mill Street. George d'Arlier 81 one years old was brought out of retirement to repair the Mona Lisa Painting for an amount so considerable he refused to discuss it. As the museum's armed guards watched over the famous portrait, d'Arlier created an unusual baked paint mixture, which he carefully pressed on with his thumbs, declining to use a brush for fear of further damaging the painting. He called the project "a once in a lifetime mission. The conclusion of a career with such glory as I have ever anticipated. I shall remember it until my dying day". Even in death, d'Arlier assured the home at 405 North Mill Street would remain true to its form. His 1980 last will and testament requested the house be used to bring outsider's in. "It is my wish that my home be used as a cultural and educational center for the benefit of Veedersburg and the surrounding area. It is my wish that the center be used partially to house a librarybut hope and trust that it can be used as a broader cultural and learning center, including, but not limited to sculpture, architecture, painting and music." Nearly twenty years later d'Arlier is having his dying wish fulfilled. The Article ran in Indiana in The Neighbor Newspaper on Wednesday June 23 and 30, 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.26.53.3 ( talk) 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This section included a claim that there were symbols hidden in the painting. From what I can tell, this is a weak claim. Further, it quotes it being called a "real life DaVinci code", which doesn't seem like wikipedia material. I removed the latter and added a counter claim with reference. I feel like I should've deleted the claim entirely, but leave that for the wiki pros who watch over us all. 168.122.65.1 ( talk) 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm seeking resolution to edits I've been reverting from User:Relpmek. Please see the latest edit here: [4]. He's using ref tags and typing the following sentence "This theory was suggested initially by Sigmund Freud, and by Serge Bramly, Roni Kempler and Rina de Firenze." between them. This user does not seem to grasp basic citation/reference guidelines, and I'm posting here to avoid an edit war.-- Chimino ( talk) 02:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"Today the subject's identity is held with certainty to be Lisa, which was always the traditional view." (16 October 2008)
There are scholars who think that the painting's subject is Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory. She died in 1495. Lisa del Giocondo's job was to be the model only.
This theory was suggested initially by Sigmund Freud, and by Serge Bramly, Roni Kempler and Rina de Firenze.
" Serge Bramly, in his biography of Leonardo, discusses the possibility that the portrait depicts the artist's mother Caterina Buti del Vacca. This would account for the resemblance between artist and subject observed by Dr Schwartz, and would explain why Leonardo kept the portrait with him wherever he traveled, until his death. At the time that Leonardo painted the portrait of his mother, whom he adored, she had already died. According to the Roni Kempler's theory this is the reason why Leonardo chose the setting of the Holy Land, as he imagined it, as the background to the portrait. (The Jordan River is painted to her right and the Sea of Galilee to her left). (The idea is that she was alive in Leonardo's imagination).
This is similar to the background of Leonardo's paintings of the Virgin Mary, which also depict the same landscape of the Holy Land. Thus, Leonardo glorifies the Mona Lisa as the Virgin Mary. Kempler also states that Leonardo pictured his mother, who raised him until age five, in painting the Virgin Mary. So the Mona Lisa in fact adorns Leonardo's mother Caterina. (According to this theory Lisa del Giocondo's job was to be the model for the painting).
...In December 2010 it was claimed by Silvano Vinceti that the Mona Lisa appears to have tiny numbers and letters in her eyes which are only apparent when viewed with a magnifying glass (LV, CE or B or S); however, the accuracy of this claim is disputed. This discovery strengthens the Kempler's theory that Leonardo encoded the letters C and L (Caterina and Leonardo), in his special reverse style, in Mona Lisa's embroidery on her dress."
Now there are those who want to steal the credit. Relpmek ( talk) 17:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
For Freud the famous half-smile was a recovered memory of Leonardo's mother; Freud's theory only referred to Mona Lisa's smile (mouth) and not to the point that she is Leonardo's mother. So this theory (Serge Bramly, Roni Kempler [5], Rina de Firenze...) is based on Freud's theory but was not actually suggested by Freud. Simple Blue ( talk) 11:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't the Mona Lisa made in 1890? Please tell me ASAP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.74.156 ( talk) 23:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i think that the mona lisa was a greek god Fabioman ( talk) 02:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Do we know anything about Mr. Vespucci? (Except that he had famous cousin.) If not I suggest Agostino Vespucci be merged into Mona Lisa. Otherwise we have an article that is more than 75% not about its subject. - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
it is rumoured $ymeon Davros Carnegie Freeman$tein or Symeon Davros Carnegie Freemanstein owns the original and made a second copy for the museum [2]
Headline explains the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.76.15 ( talk) 17:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
she sits next to herself it is a image from a side of a mirror and it was Leonardo's sister that he killed after painting her in the picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.20.18 ( talk) 08:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The colour of Mona Lisa's sky is not blue | |
---|---|
|
Kvvvxvv ( talk) 18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Camille Gizzarelli: The Mona Lisa ( http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art18406.asp) Bellaonline.com. Retrieved on 6/1/2011
Artforartforart ( talk) 16:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bility, I was not requesting that The Mona Lisa article replace the existing page, but only that it be listed under Notes as it was originally #25 and Retrieved on 01/10/2011. I suspect the same person who submitted it also removed it (or had it removed) in May 2011. I contacted him(coincidentally at about the same time) for taking my article and posting it on his website without my approval. Thank you, Artforartforart ( talk) 16:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Bility, How do you feel about adding The Mona Lisa article( http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art18406.asp) once again to the Mona Lisa page? Artforartforart ( talk) 18:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Paul B, The Mona Lisa article was listed on Wikipedia #25 http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa I obviously don't have your endorsement, but someone did think it worthy enough to list it on Wikipedia at one time. As I mentioned previously, I suspect the person who submitted my article also removed it. Just before the removal I had asked a certain someone to remove The Mona Lisa article from their website. He did so, but I believe he is creating havoc for me instead. Artforartforart ( talk) 13:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that illustration of Malevich's painting Composition with the Mona Lisa (1914) with a brief description should be placed in the section Legacy as an example of avantgarde antiart stance too. The referenced image have two red X crosses on it and a note 'apartment for rent'. -- 91.122.125.101 ( talk) 13:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
-- 92.100.210.32 ( talk) 19:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems Kemplar is back using his final name "Simple Blue" to insert his theory on the article (see talk above and also Talk:Speculation about Mona Lisa for history). The others have been blocked by administration for continual edit warring from insistence in inserting his OR into both articles.-- Chimino ( talk) 20:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not rename the title of this string. It is about you, the user, not this theory you've been forcing on Mona Lisa articles for the past 6+ months.-- Chimino ( talk) 06:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
BBC Two ("Fake or Fortune") has just shown a digitally-corrected version of the painting with a blue sky and natural skin colour, based on analysis of the pigments and how they have degraded over the last few centuries. Can we get something like that on our article? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The web page that you are inserting into various articles regarding the Mona Lisa is absolutely inappropriate for use in a Wikipedia article. It is not a reliable source and appears to be original research, both of which make it unusable. Please stop inserting it repeatedly into these articles, or you may be blocked from editing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I have explained my changes above, which have been reverted without discussion by Simple Blue. This is that paragraph before I changed it:
The sitter's identity was ascertained at the University of Heidelberg in 2005 by a library expert who discovered a 1503 margin note written by Agostino Vespucci.[17] Scholars have been of many minds, identifying at least four different paintings as the Mona Lisa[18][19][20] and several people as its subject. Leonardo's mother Caterina Buti del Vacca in a distant memory,[21] Isabella of Naples or Aragon,[22] Cecilia Gallerani,[23] Costanza d'Avalos, Duchess of Francavilla who was also called the "merry one" or La Gioconda,[20] Isabella d'Este, Pacifica Brandano or Brandino, Isabela Gualanda, Caterina Sforza, and Leonardo himself have all been named the sitter.[8][24] Today the subject's identity is held to be Lisa, which has always been the traditional view.[17]
This simply does not flow logically, nor does it make clear what identifying "different paintings as the Mona Lisa" means and how that differs from "its subject." The list of sitters is in a sentence that is far too long and rambling, and includes confusing expressions such as "Isabella of Naples or Aragon" - which the reader might think are two different people. The verb appears at the end of the sentence, so the reader has to wade though a long list and a confusing subclause before even learning what the sentence is actually asserting! This is what it was changed to, having moved the first sentence to the previous paragraph:
Over the years there have been several alternative views. Some scholars have argued that Lisa del Giacondo was the subject of a different portrait, identifying at least four other paintings as the Mona Lisa referred to by Vasari.[18][19][20] Sigmund Freud believed that the famous half-smile was a recovered memory of Leonardo's mother.[21] Other suggestions have been Isabella of Naples,[22] Cecilia Gallerani,[23] Costanza d'Avalos, Duchess of Francavilla,[20] Isabella d'Este, Pacifica Brandano or Brandino, Isabela Gualanda, Caterina Sforza, and Leonardo himself.[8][24] Today the consensus view is that subject's identity is indeed Lisa del Giocondo, which has always been the traditional view.[17]
Simple Blue reverted with the edit summary "Undid very poor edit revision 443377641 by Paul Barlow", and then added a bracketed section to the already overlong sentence, which pushed it way beyond the limits of intelligibility:
The sitter's identity was ascertained at the University of Heidelberg in 2005 by a library expert who discovered a 1503 margin note written by Agostino Vespucci.[17] Scholars have been of many minds, identifying at least four different paintings as the Mona Lisa[18][19][20] and several people as its subject. Leonardo's mother Caterina Buti del Vacca in a distant memory, (Sigmund Freud believed that the famous half-smile was a recovered memory of Leonardo's mother [21]), Isabella of Naples or Aragon,[22] Cecilia Gallerani,[23] Costanza d'Avalos, Duchess of Francavilla who was also called the "merry one" or La Gioconda,[20] Isabella d'Este, Pacifica Brandano or Brandino, Isabela Gualanda, Caterina Sforza, and Leonardo himself have all been named the sitter.[8][24] Today the subject's identity is held to be Lisa, which has always been the traditional view.[17]
How is anyone supposed to make sense of that? Frankly I resent wasting time to explain simple copy-editing of a garbled paragraph, just because Simple Blue continues to revert war. Paul B ( talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Mona Lisa's frame was not presented by the comtesse de Béarn but by the comtesse de Béhague.
80.124.149.131 ( talk) 15:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
As previously mentioned on this page, "elle a chaud au cul" in French does *not* mean "she has a hot ass" (which is rather vulgar in English). "Elle a chaud au cul" has a perfect equivalent in English, namely "she's got a fire down below". The French word "cul" (meaning "ass") might be misleading, because it is used in French much more casually than "ass" is in English (cf. "cul-de-sac", "cul-de-bouteille", "cul-de-mariée", ...). The expression "elle a chaud au cul" is barely shocking in French and certainly not vulgar. Please adjust the current awful English translation which is both wrong and vulgar. 93.132.254.161 ( talk) 23:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Is he the owner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.116.197 ( talk) 22:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Littlefield, Walter (1914). "The Two "Mona Lisas"". The Century: a popular quarterly (Scribner & Co.) 87.
this text links to nowhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.220.150.79 ( talk) 14:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)