@@ThatsJustPeachy1871 , I agree! The other Mona is far more feminin and conventionally pretty. Considering that the art historian Lillian Schwartz has discovered more than 10 years ago that the official Mona Lisa may well be a covert self-portrait of Leonardo himself, this would be hardly surprising. Schwartz superimposed the well known drawing of Leonardo as an old man over the face of Mona1, and the proportions of the two faces match perfectly. Other experts suggested that Mona1 may contain facial features of Leonardo's pupil, valet and possibly also his lover Lanai. Whatever - if Mona1 is a composite of a man and a woman it would explain why Mona1 looks a lot less feminin than Mona2.
@@sabineb.5616 Dude, Leonardo always painted faces the same after the age of 30. There's NO evidence it's a covert self portrait and as a theory it makes precious little sense.
The character seen in the famous portrait at the Louvre is not that of Lisa del Giocondo or Mona Lisa, but that of Isabelle d'Aragon and Sforza, the daughter of the King of Naples Alphonse II d'Aragon. Isabelle married her cousin Gian Galeazzo Sforza, the heir to the Duchy of Milan, to consolidate the ties between the Kingdom of Naples and the Duchy of Milan. So, it is the portrait of a princess and not a commoner. Leonardo da Vinci was at that time in the service of Ludovico Sforza, the uncle of Gian Galeazzo who exercised regency at the court of Milan. Isabelle's young husband disappeared prematurely at the age of 25 without being able to exercise power, allegedly assassinated on the orders of his uncle. German historian Maike Vogt-Luerssen tells us that after her widowhood, Isabelle and Leonardo formed a secret couple and had 5 children. Therefore, it was his beloved's portrait that Leonardo da Vinci painted, which explains why he took it to Amboise in France and kept it until the end of his life, like keeping a family photo nowadays. There was thus an emotional connection with Isabelle that did not exist with Lisa del Giocondo, whose portrait was only a commission. The research I myself have done on the landscape indicates that it is based on an authentic location, which would confirm Maike Vogt-Luerssen's theory, as it undoubtedly pays homage to Isabelle d'Aragon's family origins. It seems obvious to me that the identity of the character in this portrait has been confused between an actually received commission, that of the silk merchant's wife, and the portrait of Leonardo's partner, which is the one seen today at the Louvre. All of this is probably now well known to the so-called specialists of Leonardo da Vinci, who do not want to acknowledge the inconsistencies of the official version because they have spent their entire lives defending a version they now know to be outdated. As Mark Twain said, "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." www.kleio.org/de/geschichte/renaissance/monalisa/ml_fakten/ www.equinoxmagazine.fr/2021/11/28/la-joconde-serait-catalane/On
We know now that under the present layer of this painting there is another face of a woman who is far younger : Leonardo has just made it older but it's the same woman.
Both ladies are beautiful. For me, I prefer the Isleworth Mona Lisa. I like the unfinished look. It gives the portrait a lighter, sunnier and softer feel to the painting. Thanks for uploading this video it was terrific.
Two versions of the Mona Lisa, the first is oil on canvas and the second is oil on wood, as well as two versions of the Virgin of the Rocks. The most important question remains: what is the amount of material hidden in the painting of the Mona Lisa and the Virgin of the Rocks? This is the reason for redrawing the painting, where he draws for the viewer a subject and for himself a subject hidden between the layers of the painting. Here lies the importance, according to my knowledge. Rationale for the Virgin of the Rocks and the Mona Lisa: Hidden information, characters, and thematic and historical depth were found in the Virgin of the Rocks.
This is the original Mona Lisa, this the most important painting, the experts have tied their reputations to a copy! So for this to be recognised for what it is, the worlds greatest work of art, you have to climb over egos!!!
The Louvre Mona Lisa is definitely not a copy hun. There's evidence from the period that he painted two. But you should know this since you speak so authoritatively
@@akschmidt2085 Yes there is evidence that 2 versions like several others of his works were painted by Di Vinci of this subject. The Isleworth painting is thought to be the original painting of Lisa del Giocondo known as "La Gioconda" and the "Mona Lisa" in the Louvre is Di Vinci's V2.0 of it that he painted about a decade later . The famous Mona Lisa is actually one of the few works that are not and never has been disputed as his because it was recorded as having been shown to notable others as his work by him and was in his possession at the time of his death. The Isleworth is now believed to be the original V1 painting "La Gioconda" that was left unfinished and was bequeathed to his pupil and assistant Salaì by Di Vinci who himself in turn kept it until his death. That portrait is now believed to have passed it's way down the centuries until a art connoisseur on the trail of that 2nd painting found it , bought it and brought it to light.
I strongly doubt Leonardo’s authorship, simply because the facial expressions of the model and the technique are simple for Da Vinci, even if you look at his early works, how thinly, softly and translucently the volumes are written and how complex the wave-like contours of his models are, I see a completely different algorithm his actions. in this picture a woman is outwardly more beautiful than the Louvre Mona Lisa but it lacks the inexpressible mystery inherent in the work of Da Vinci and this is exactly the miracle that is called Leonardo Da Vinci
It's not that absurd, it's very possible. Don't forget it's unfinished, he probably didn't dither about over it for 20 years because the husband collected his commission at some point. He did with the other Mona Lisa, there's like three finished versions underneath that which he painted over. She does look like Leonardo could have painted her at least, none of the other copies do, even the better ones. They analysed the use of light and shade in form of histograms, and this was a 99% match to the Louvre Mona Lisa, canvas is right, paint is right and it's just sth about the softness of the lines. Either he painted her or he had a very very talented pupil. I suppose we're never gonna know for sure but it's a strong possibility. Fascinating to think about one way or the other, right?
And just like the " how the pyramids were built " scam. There's a second painting... Wonder how much the Louvre Museum would lose when the second goes on Display in NYC.
I do like the Isleworth Mona Lisa better. I never really liked the Mona Lisa--well, I do think the technique, or course, is absolutely beautiful. I like the color scheme, the hands, the texture of her skin, and the fabric or her clothing are so beautiful, but I think the Isleworth Mona Lisa is "prettier."
Personally I've never been that impressed with the Mona Lisa. It never did much for me. But the Isleworth is breath taking and awe inspiring. It drew me in.
The faux Mona Lisa has so much less detail (not just the background), and is overall much less refined, not as dimensional. I don't buy it. Looks like a knockoff.
Because you certainly never learned anything about painting, or never knew anything about the really impressive and astonishing technics that Leonardo used at that time, to make this painting and also because for decades nobody knew who was Mona Lisa. Everything is enigmatic and mysterious about this particular painting and portrait, still today - Now, if you look at this portrait as you are looking at a very banal and very common portrait on a photograph, that's why you don't really care and you are not impressed or even intrigued, and because you don't give a damn about Art and painting in general.
@@NetTubeUser Nonsense. The painting only became legendary in 1911 after it was stolen from the Louvre. Before then there was nothing to distinguish it from Da Vinci's other works on display there and it received no special reverence. The sensational media hype surrounding the heist spread around the globe and created a legendary masterpiece yet those who flock to see it have no idea why it is deemed so special.
He was back in Florence fighting a law suit ten years after the first painting, so he could have painted the same woman now in her thirties. No need to suppose he envisioned how she might look hypothetically as ten years older, without seeing her as a model. She had five kids and outlived her husband so she was alive and well during Leonardo's stay in Florence, during the lawsuit which went on for over six months or so. If the Medici's wanted him to paint a second version after the first, he could have just brought her back in as a model for the second version.Random observation: the background in the earlier Mona Lisa is very similar to the background in "The Yarn-winder" painted around the same time. There are rocky hills in foreground with water beyond to horizon -- and points of land, "shoreline," on left.
I was thinking the same thing, why couldn't/wouldn't Mona sit again for the artist ? And the theory that Leonardo so loved the painting (and the woman, perhaps ?) so much, seems he would have wanted to try the subject again not just for Medici, but for himself.
But the close up of the younger version of Mona Lisa looks like it was painted on a canvas. In Leonardo’s time artists painted on a board because canvases were not yet invented, so I believe. The older version of Mona Lisa was painted on a board and the paint surface is cracked all over.
In 2015, an academic publication by Professors Lorusso and Natali documented an exhaustive analysis of Mona Lisa paintings and copies, and concluded that both Mona Lisa and the Isleworth Mona Lisa were original works by Leonardo.[1] In 2016, in another academic publication, Professors Asmus, Parfenov and Elford published the results of scientific examinations that established to their satisfaction that the same artist painted the face of both the Mona Lisa and the Isleworth Mona Lisa.[2][25] In 2017, Gérard Boudin de l'Arche published a comprehensive historical account and stated that Leonardo painted the Isleworth Mona Lisa before the Louvre Mona Lisa.
Les recuerdo que esta "Gioconda" en concreto fue comprada en 1914 por el coleccionista Hugh Blaker, justo tres años después de que Valfierno vendiera copias del cuadro, que como todos ustedes saben, fue robado en 1911. Estas copias fueron vendidas como originales y siempre se ha desconocido su paradero.. Sería interesante que estos entendidos publicaran el análisis de pigmentos para poder contrastarlo públicamente. Mientras tanto, una copia de Valfierno.
So the isleworth is French and apparently made 150 years later. If it requires X-rays, paint chip analysis, carbon dating to determine your work from that of another, how much of a masterpiece can it be? If so many people can create credible duplicates of your work, how much of a master are you?
Considering as there are approximately 2 dozen suriving period copies of the "Mona Lisa", the real question is: Would so many copies have been made for a mere silk merchants wife? Answer: No. But, yes, for someone of importance whose identity of necessity had to be concealed. Find out why.
The third version is the Louvre one. The second is the overpainted one of the Louvre. And the first is the "isleworth" lisa. You may painting the fourth version.
Strange because Giuliani de Medici died in 1478 and if he commissioned Leonardo da Vinci to paint the Florentine woman for him then Leonardo was twenty-five years too late for that gig. Why is Chiara Fancelli-Perugino so overlooked? She would have been in the midst of the greatest Italian Renaissance painters of the time as a daughter of Luca Fancelli architect and sculptor and then marrying Pietro Vanucci Perugino in 1493 just as the Bonfires of the Vanities broke out.
Leonardo was a covert FTM transgender transman originally born a girl , so the opinion of this vedeo is correct ; Mona Lisa is Leo's Earlier and Young-age Version .
le secret de Mona Lisa n,est pas dans son sourire ... elle le cache avec ses mains pour Mona Lisa earlier ..le tableau a ete peint AVANT au meme endroit sous un autre angle car il represente une Histoire différente ce n,est pas l,avis de monsieur Martin Kemp que j,ai contacté
Hi Daniel. Actually, the 'Earlier Mona Lisa' did undergo extensive pigment analyses. The results confirmed that the pigments were indeed in use and available at the turn of the 16th Century. Furthermore, many of the same pigments were also contained in the Louvre version, and the ground preparation is consistent with several other works by Leonardo. All of this information and much more is presented in the Leonardo Da Vinci's 'Earlier Mona Lisa' Exhibition, which launches in Singapore Dec. 16 2014, and plans to tour Asia and the rest of the world. More info is available at www.monalisaexhibition.com
Daniel Millard Hello Daniel. Yes, the Isleworth portrait, now known as the 'Earlier Mona Lisa', was painted on canvas. However, this does not at all preclude it from being an original by Leonardo da Vinci. While Leonardo was certainly known to paint many of his works on wood (typically poplar or walnut, not oak) panels, he did in fact have a great deal of experience painting on canvas. Not only are some of these works displayed in the Louvre museum, but Leonardo dedicated an entire chapter in is treatise 'On Painting' to "the mode of painting on canvas", where he goes into great detail about what colors to use for flesh tones. Leonardo was not someone who would ever write instruction for something unless he had significant experience. Please also keep in mind that most scholars and experts believe that as many as 70% of his works are missing or destroyed. Here is a link to the famous Rigaud translation of Leonardo's Treatise. The section about painting on canvas can be found on page 130: archive.org/details/davincionpainting00leon The painting is about to go on exhibition, and we hope you get a chance to see it in person. It is truly an amazing work of art, and far more impressive when you see it in person than on any image, no matter how high the resolution. Please feel free to take a look at the website: www.monalisaexhibition.com All the best for now, and thank you for your interest.
There are about 2 dozen surviving copies from the time period. Wikimedia show many of them: the Prado, Reynolds, Oslo, Vernon and more. It is misleading to present this particular copy as unique or as an only option to the Louvre painting. Though it is obviously of great historical value, it lacks the warmth, and beauty, and techniques of DaVinci. The copy in Italy also contains a younger looking version and includes the beautiful background and columns. That one is more Leonardesque.
D' Lynn This young looking version is not da vincis? Its on canvas one in paris is painted on poplar board. Canvas could have been around then but wasnt so common could have been new and da vini was always looking for things to invent. He was well ahead of his time.
The painting only became legendary in 1911 after it was stolen from the Louvre. Before then there was nothing to distinguish it from Da Vinci's other works on display there and it received no special reverence. The sensational media hype surrounding the heist spread around the globe and created a legendary masterpiece yet those who flock to see it have no idea why it is deemed so special.
It's unfinished Maestro haven't put her eye browse🤣I was thinking that mostly his work has been destroyed during the invasion.I had seen one of his piece in Trafalgar Gallery here in London.Still fascinating but i still can't believe that it's the original.Not even Van Gogh's pieces.or Michaelangelo.
First off leonardo was gay his boyfriend name was Salai the secrets to the painting is that's his boyfriend salai in the painting aka mona lisa the real painting has a S in the left eye
thats just speculation ;) besides salai even married to a woman and left leonardo house 10 years before marrying and he was not the only student leonardo had, just in popular fiction(games, novels, comics) and a few researchers say that he is the model for the mona lisa, but if you look at a drawing of him he was very different from mona lisa and there is nothing to say he was mona lisa, not only that but the person who paid for the painting wouldn't like it, and if had some kind of letter referring to him in the painting could mean that he also worked as a "helper" on the painting, people claims about the relationship of Leonardo and Salai are based on the naked drawings of Salai on Leonardo sketchbooks, but thats a very common practice for artists even today artists take life drawing classes, and have naked people on their sketchbooks. People also claimed to have found the letters C, E, or B on the left eye ;) and funny enough they all say it can't be seem at naked eye and they did the research by using a loupe on book picture. you can try it yourself ;) img1.mxstatic.com/wallpapers/1671cd906f754de3692f4d81e494ffe7_large.jpeg
Martin Kemp says the Mona Lisa is fake 'BUT' his friends who in 2005 bought the $1800 dilapidated Luini from a New Orleans pawn shop only to then flip it to the Swiss who flipped it to the Russian etc etc... is actually a Da Vinci. FACT. Modestini and her enhancing hands were perfectly entitled to jazz up the Mundi. Hats off to the 'Fraud of the Century'.
Yes and no... the second Bruce Willis lives in Hollywood, this one IS the real Bruce Willis, but the first version of him. And yes, apparently, he has the second Mona Lisa...
When will the Mona Lisa be returned to Florence??? When will Tut Ench Amun be returned from Germany to the rightful owning country, and so on and so on. All this art thievery is p'ing me off big time!
Technically speaking, the Mona Lisa moved legally through Florence to Versailles. It was by contract bought and sold multiple times. This is the way art moves from country to country (legally). It might have been painted in Florence, but it was sold to Louis XIV and moved into the Louvre. It was STOLEN by a man who worked at the Louvre and they think this reasons were possibly because he felt it was stolen from Florence, when in fact, it was not. So no need to be upset!
People cant let Mona Lisa just hang on the wall for the rest of the worldtime. They need to mock this theme again and again to find smth. Relax guys, it's justchick called Mona Lisa and Leonardo was just a dude who painted her. That's all.
![Eminem - Somebody Save Me (feat. Jelly Roll) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Vwa0HenQMi4/mqdefault.jpg)
that mona looks well prettier. the face has a nicer shape
propjam2 far more feminine than the one we know. I think she’s prettier too😉
@@ThatsJustPeachy1871 , I agree! The other Mona is far more feminin and conventionally pretty. Considering that the art historian Lillian Schwartz has discovered more than 10 years ago that the official Mona Lisa may well be a covert self-portrait of Leonardo himself, this would be hardly surprising. Schwartz superimposed the well known drawing of Leonardo as an old man over the face of Mona1, and the proportions of the two faces match perfectly. Other experts suggested that Mona1 may contain facial features of Leonardo's pupil, valet and possibly also his lover Lanai. Whatever - if Mona1 is a composite of a man and a woman it would explain why Mona1 looks a lot less feminin than Mona2.
@Marc A , I also enjoy when someone restarts a conversation which is already several years old 😉
@@sabineb.5616 Dude, Leonardo always painted faces the same after the age of 30. There's NO evidence it's a covert self portrait and as a theory it makes precious little sense.
I used this video to help me sleep.
That's because you're an ignoramus...
this video made me stay up instead
@Scowl, 7years ago, 1year ago, 7hours ago.
@@LuseTane 7 months ago
The character seen in the famous portrait at the Louvre is not that of Lisa del Giocondo or Mona Lisa, but that of Isabelle d'Aragon and Sforza, the daughter of the King of Naples Alphonse II d'Aragon. Isabelle married her cousin Gian Galeazzo Sforza, the heir to the Duchy of Milan, to consolidate the ties between the Kingdom of Naples and the Duchy of Milan. So, it is the portrait of a princess and not a commoner. Leonardo da Vinci was at that time in the service of Ludovico Sforza, the uncle of Gian Galeazzo who exercised regency at the court of Milan. Isabelle's young husband disappeared prematurely at the age of 25 without being able to exercise power, allegedly assassinated on the orders of his uncle.
German historian Maike Vogt-Luerssen tells us that after her widowhood, Isabelle and Leonardo formed a secret couple and had 5 children. Therefore, it was his beloved's portrait that Leonardo da Vinci painted, which explains why he took it to Amboise in France and kept it until the end of his life, like keeping a family photo nowadays. There was thus an emotional connection with Isabelle that did not exist with Lisa del Giocondo, whose portrait was only a commission. The research I myself have done on the landscape indicates that it is based on an authentic location, which would confirm Maike Vogt-Luerssen's theory, as it undoubtedly pays homage to Isabelle d'Aragon's family origins.
It seems obvious to me that the identity of the character in this portrait has been confused between an actually received commission, that of the silk merchant's wife, and the portrait of Leonardo's partner, which is the one seen today at the Louvre. All of this is probably now well known to the so-called specialists of Leonardo da Vinci, who do not want to acknowledge the inconsistencies of the official version because they have spent their entire lives defending a version they now know to be outdated.
As Mark Twain said, "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
www.kleio.org/de/geschichte/renaissance/monalisa/ml_fakten/
www.equinoxmagazine.fr/2021/11/28/la-joconde-serait-catalane/On
It is fun to imagine that somewhere in a basement or vault in Europe, is sitting this enigmatic second version of the Mona Lisa.
pretty sure the 2nd is the isleworth mona lisa
We know now that under the present layer of this painting there is another face of a woman who is far younger : Leonardo has just made it older but it's the same woman.
That's what it looks like
i can sleep now
Both ladies are beautiful. For me, I prefer the Isleworth Mona Lisa. I like the unfinished look. It gives the portrait a lighter, sunnier and softer feel to the painting. Thanks for uploading this video it was terrific.
who's here thanks to Trevor
Hilarious how this is 7 years old
FANTASTIC....FANTASTIC.....FANTASTIC MONA LISA........
0:32 hahaha i think i'd have the same expression if i saw it too
Watch at ×1.25 speed... you are welcome
16:28 you're welcome
Two versions of the Mona Lisa, the first is oil on canvas and the second is oil on wood, as well as two versions of the Virgin of the Rocks. The most important question remains: what is the amount of material hidden in the painting of the Mona Lisa and the Virgin of the Rocks? This is the reason for redrawing the painting, where he draws for the viewer a subject and for himself a subject hidden between the layers of the painting. Here lies the importance, according to my knowledge. Rationale for the Virgin of the Rocks and the Mona Lisa: Hidden information, characters, and thematic and historical depth were found in the Virgin of the Rocks.
Mona Lisa is my fav painting^^
The Mona Lisa, you mean that crazy woman without any eyebrows that couldn't sit still.
This is the original Mona Lisa, this the most important painting, the experts have tied their reputations to a copy! So for this to be recognised for what it is, the worlds greatest work of art, you have to climb over egos!!!
The Louvre Mona Lisa is definitely not a copy hun. There's evidence from the period that he painted two. But you should know this since you speak so authoritatively
@@akschmidt2085 Yes there is evidence that 2 versions like several others of his works were painted by Di Vinci of this subject. The Isleworth painting is thought to be the original painting of Lisa del Giocondo known as "La Gioconda" and the "Mona Lisa" in the Louvre is Di Vinci's V2.0 of it that he painted about a decade later . The famous Mona Lisa is actually one of the few works that are not and never has been disputed as his because it was recorded as having been shown to notable others as his work by him and was in his possession at the time of his death. The Isleworth is now believed to be the original V1 painting "La Gioconda" that was left unfinished and was bequeathed to his pupil and assistant Salaì by Di Vinci who himself in turn kept it until his death. That portrait is now believed to have passed it's way down the centuries until a art connoisseur on the trail of that 2nd painting found it , bought it and brought it to light.
CLONE-a lisa!?!
this deserves all the likes in the world
I strongly doubt Leonardo’s authorship, simply because the facial expressions of the model and the technique are simple for Da Vinci, even if you look at his early works, how thinly, softly and translucently the volumes are written and how complex the wave-like contours of his models are, I see a completely different algorithm his actions. in this picture a woman is outwardly more beautiful than the Louvre Mona Lisa but it lacks the inexpressible mystery inherent in the work of Da Vinci and this is exactly the miracle that is called Leonardo Da Vinci
It's not that absurd, it's very possible. Don't forget it's unfinished, he probably didn't dither about over it for 20 years because the husband collected his commission at some point. He did with the other Mona Lisa, there's like three finished versions underneath that which he painted over. She does look like Leonardo could have painted her at least, none of the other copies do, even the better ones. They analysed the use of light and shade in form of histograms, and this was a 99% match to the Louvre Mona Lisa, canvas is right, paint is right and it's just sth about the softness of the lines. Either he painted her or he had a very very talented pupil. I suppose we're never gonna know for sure but it's a strong possibility. Fascinating to think about one way or the other, right?
🔎Sherlock Holmes in action 🔍🧐😅
the other painting has been found. It - a painting of a younger woman similar to Raphael's sketch - is under the current painting.
Leo was one crazy SOB
Da Vinci 's paintings always kinda creeped me out.
And just like the " how the pyramids were built " scam. There's a second painting... Wonder how much the Louvre Museum would lose when the second goes on Display in NYC.
I do like the Isleworth Mona Lisa better. I never really liked the Mona Lisa--well, I do think the technique, or course, is absolutely beautiful. I like the color scheme, the hands, the texture of her skin, and the fabric or her clothing are so beautiful, but I think the Isleworth Mona Lisa is "prettier."
Lmaooo the boy in the beginning who went like “mehhh”
Personally I've never been that impressed with the Mona Lisa.
It never did much for me.
But the Isleworth is breath taking and awe inspiring.
It drew me in.
SmokeRingsPipeDreams yeah me too! I was always wondering what all the hype about the painting was.
The faux Mona Lisa has so much less detail (not just the background), and is overall much less refined, not as dimensional. I don't buy it. Looks like a knockoff.
Because you certainly never learned anything about painting, or never knew anything about the really impressive and astonishing technics that Leonardo used at that time, to make this painting and also because for decades nobody knew who was Mona Lisa. Everything is enigmatic and mysterious about this particular painting and portrait, still today - Now, if you look at this portrait as you are looking at a very banal and very common portrait on a photograph, that's why you don't really care and you are not impressed or even intrigued, and because you don't give a damn about Art and painting in general.
@@traylynnhultquist3409 😂_❤Uup😘!
@@NetTubeUser Nonsense. The painting only became legendary in 1911 after it was stolen from the Louvre.
Before then there was nothing to distinguish it from Da Vinci's other works on display there and it received no special reverence.
The sensational media hype surrounding the heist spread around the globe and created a legendary masterpiece yet those who flock to see it have no idea why it is deemed so special.
9:00 Kerbal Space Program!!
Go far jebediah and reach the mün
Paris......France.
Gets me every time.
What else would it be;
Paris, Texas ?
Wonderful. Sería maravilloso que fuese otra Mona Liza y pintada por el mismo Leonardo!!!!!
He was back in Florence fighting a law suit ten years after the first painting, so he could have painted the same woman now in her thirties. No need to suppose he envisioned how she might look hypothetically as ten years older, without seeing her as a model. She had five kids and outlived her husband so she was alive and well during Leonardo's stay in Florence, during the lawsuit which went on for over six months or so. If the Medici's wanted him to paint a second version after the first, he could have just brought her back in as a model for the second version.Random observation: the background in the earlier Mona Lisa is very similar to the background in "The Yarn-winder" painted around the same time. There are rocky hills in foreground with water beyond to horizon -- and points of land, "shoreline," on left.
I was thinking the same thing, why couldn't/wouldn't Mona sit again for the artist ? And the theory that Leonardo so loved the painting (and the woman, perhaps ?) so much, seems he would have wanted to try the subject again not just for Medici, but for himself.
@@robertmusacchio9409 Leonardo was gay
Leonardo da Vinci was man of 2500
But the close up of the younger version of Mona Lisa looks like it was painted on a canvas. In Leonardo’s time artists painted on a board because canvases were not yet invented, so I believe. The older version of Mona Lisa was painted on a board and the paint surface is cracked all over.
Canvas was definitely invented by 1500. The Egyptians made paper for gods sake
Mama Mia.
The first version was described by Vasari. It was taken away by Leonardo ,and painted over. It now hangs in Paris.
No it wasn’t
In 2015, an academic publication by Professors Lorusso and Natali documented an exhaustive analysis of Mona Lisa paintings and copies, and concluded that both Mona Lisa and the Isleworth Mona Lisa were original works by Leonardo.[1] In 2016, in another academic publication, Professors Asmus, Parfenov and Elford published the results of scientific examinations that established to their satisfaction that the same artist painted the face of both the Mona Lisa and the Isleworth Mona Lisa.[2][25]
In 2017, Gérard Boudin de l'Arche published a comprehensive historical account and stated that Leonardo painted the Isleworth Mona Lisa before the Louvre Mona Lisa.
I wrote two years ago that it was a clunky painting.Not sure what I was seeing.It is not clunky at all.Its a stunner.lol stay well
This is the most important painting!
I heard this on the radio, blew my mind
Preferisco la 'isleworth'... I feel it's the earlier version too. Sinceramente, she is beautiful.
The real Mona Lisa painting by Leonardo is owned by Queen Elizabeth 2 in England. It is not in Louvre..
There is no evidence of 2 Mona Lisa's. The one in the Louvre is not a Da vinci.
Top! Incroyable!
Boa descoberta, Leonado's earlier version... afterall there are more than one Mona Lisa... I'm pleased to know that...
Beautiful
Les recuerdo que esta "Gioconda" en concreto fue comprada en 1914 por el coleccionista Hugh Blaker, justo tres años después de que Valfierno vendiera copias del cuadro, que como todos ustedes saben, fue robado en 1911. Estas copias fueron vendidas como originales y siempre se ha desconocido su paradero.. Sería interesante que estos entendidos publicaran el análisis de pigmentos para poder contrastarlo públicamente. Mientras tanto, una copia de Valfierno.
So the isleworth is French and apparently made 150 years later. If it requires X-rays, paint chip analysis, carbon dating to determine your work from that of another, how much of a masterpiece can it be? If so many people can create credible duplicates of your work, how much of a master are you?
It will be on display soon!
Considering as there are approximately 2 dozen suriving period copies of the "Mona Lisa", the real question is: Would so many copies have been made for a mere silk merchants wife?
Answer: No. But, yes, for someone of importance whose identity of necessity had to be concealed. Find out why.
This is histories most important painting, this is the original!
history's
Eminent critics also agree that the Statue of Liberty in Las Vegas is an earlier version of Bartholdi's statue in New York Harbor.
beautiful 0_0
The Original without doubt, to suggest otherwise is ludicrous!
Thanks! That quite solve my curiosity :)
The Professor does look like Bruce Willis :)
But... this IS Bruce Willis! A copy of him lives in Hollywood.
Chemical analysis shows the British version to have been painted well after Leonardo died.
No it did not.
The painting in Spain in a copy of the early version.
Wait i'm doing the third version.....
The third version is the Louvre one. The second is the overpainted one of the Louvre. And the first is the "isleworth" lisa. You may painting the fourth version.
Strange because Giuliani de Medici died in 1478 and if he commissioned Leonardo da Vinci to paint the Florentine woman for him then Leonardo was twenty-five years too late for that gig. Why is Chiara Fancelli-Perugino so overlooked? She would have been in the midst of the greatest Italian Renaissance painters of the time as a daughter of Luca Fancelli architect and sculptor and then marrying Pietro Vanucci Perugino in 1493 just as the Bonfires of the Vanities broke out.
They talk about Giuliani Lorenzo de Medici....not Giuliani de piero.
Killed me with the først letter of "PARIS!" :(
I laughed with this more than I should have... :P
I saw the Mona Lisa it is really underwhelming because it is so tiny
thats a warning if you guys are going to paris to see yhe mona lisa
its so crowdd as well
@@Dango_U thank u
Leonardo was a covert FTM transgender transman originally born a girl , so the opinion of this vedeo is correct ; Mona Lisa is Leo's Earlier and Young-age Version .
김여사 a
Sl mona lisa
Dua Lisa
It's a photo....
No it is not Leonardo the second Mona Lisa
I’ve Seen the Mona Lisa Before in person
Veerpal Toor what did she say to you?
Very nice and interesting
I think Mona Lisa was hot.
I prefer the older Lisa. She had a few pounds more on her rips.
Liyaado davingaa drama tharukaava admgaa viyavsthaavata anuva nam anaa munisvariya admgaa viyavsthaavaa valassu naha maha sonaa vanna moda yakak naha
Was Leonardo in love with Mona Lisa ?
Maybe....Experts say he was gay, but i think he was fascinated by this woman.
What's the big deal tho. Is he not allowed to paint the same thing twice? What if he just didnt like the first one or something
le secret de Mona Lisa n,est pas dans son sourire ... elle le cache avec ses mains pour Mona Lisa earlier ..le tableau a ete peint AVANT au meme endroit sous un autre angle car il represente une Histoire différente ce n,est pas l,avis de monsieur Martin Kemp que j,ai contacté
Leonardo was half Iranian so he got none of his Father's money
Sorry it's not Mona Lisa!
Long story short he used a snapchat filter on her face so she looked older.
Yes...he used Snapchat Version 0,0000012. Run on a mechanical Computer. So it takes abaot 3 Years until the image was finished.
Was Leo in love with Lisa tho?
wow. this video is going to get lots of views. im number 4 to comment. :0
they need to do a pigment analyses, on new and compare with the old one.
Hi Daniel.
Actually, the 'Earlier Mona Lisa' did undergo extensive pigment analyses. The results confirmed that the pigments were indeed in use and available at the turn of the 16th Century. Furthermore, many of the same pigments were also contained in the Louvre version, and the ground preparation is consistent with several other works by Leonardo. All of this information and much more is presented in the Leonardo Da Vinci's 'Earlier Mona Lisa' Exhibition, which launches in Singapore Dec. 16 2014, and plans to tour Asia and the rest of the world. More info is available at www.monalisaexhibition.com
Is the Isleworth mona lisa painted on linen, if so it can not be a Leonardo da work. He used the finest oak panels available.
Daniel Millard
Hello Daniel. Yes, the Isleworth portrait, now known as the 'Earlier Mona Lisa', was painted on canvas. However, this does not at all preclude it from being an original by Leonardo da Vinci. While Leonardo was certainly known to paint many of his works on wood (typically poplar or walnut, not oak) panels, he did in fact have a great deal of experience painting on canvas. Not only are some of these works displayed in the Louvre museum, but Leonardo dedicated an entire chapter in is treatise 'On Painting' to "the mode of painting on canvas", where he goes into great detail about what colors to use for flesh tones. Leonardo was not someone who would ever write instruction for something unless he had significant experience. Please also keep in mind that most scholars and experts believe that as many as 70% of his works are missing or destroyed.
Here is a link to the famous Rigaud translation of Leonardo's Treatise. The section about painting on canvas can be found on page 130:
archive.org/details/davincionpainting00leon
The painting is about to go on exhibition, and we hope you get a chance to see it in person. It is truly an amazing work of art, and far more impressive when you see it in person than on any image, no matter how high the resolution. Please feel free to take a look at the website: www.monalisaexhibition.com
All the best for now, and thank you for your interest.
There are about 2 dozen surviving copies from the time period. Wikimedia show many of them: the Prado, Reynolds, Oslo, Vernon and more. It is misleading to present this particular copy as unique or as an only option to the Louvre painting. Though it is obviously of great historical value, it lacks the warmth, and beauty, and techniques of DaVinci. The copy in Italy also contains a younger looking version and includes the beautiful background and columns. That one is more Leonardesque.
D' Lynn
This young looking version is not da vincis? Its on canvas one in paris is painted on poplar board. Canvas could have been around then but wasnt so common could have been new and da vini was always looking for things to invent. He was well ahead of his time.
The painting only became legendary in 1911 after it was stolen from the Louvre.
Before then there was nothing to distinguish it from Da Vinci's other works on display there and it received no special reverence.
The sensational media hype surrounding the heist spread around the globe and created a legendary masterpiece yet those who flock to see it have no idea why it is deemed so special.
I am her daughter so there!
Great Great Great Great Grand
Stfu
I want that username :(
you can literally make it theres no limit on the usernames on youtube
It may be his most famous, but , in my opinion, not his best.
It's unfinished Maestro haven't put her eye browse🤣I was thinking that mostly his work has been destroyed during the invasion.I had seen one of his piece in Trafalgar Gallery here in London.Still fascinating but i still can't believe that it's the original.Not even Van Gogh's pieces.or Michaelangelo.
I changed my reply so the others dont make sense
@@Rascal_the_Raccoon It depends if you're american or brit
@@dohmama5251 this one too
@@Rascal_the_Raccoon u do know that americans can live in london too
@@dohmama5251 this one
First off leonardo was gay his boyfriend name was Salai the secrets to the painting is that's his boyfriend salai in the painting aka mona lisa the real painting has a S in the left eye
thats just speculation ;) besides salai even married to a woman and left leonardo house 10 years before marrying and he was not the only student leonardo had, just in popular fiction(games, novels, comics) and a few researchers say that he is the model for the mona lisa, but if you look at a drawing of him he was very different from mona lisa and there is nothing to say he was mona lisa, not only that but the person who paid for the painting wouldn't like it, and if had some kind of letter referring to him in the painting could mean that he also worked as a "helper" on the painting, people claims about the relationship of Leonardo and Salai are based on the naked drawings of Salai on Leonardo sketchbooks, but thats a very common practice for artists even today artists take life drawing classes, and have naked people on their sketchbooks.
People also claimed to have found the letters C, E, or B on the left eye ;) and funny enough they all say it can't be seem at naked eye and they did the research by using a loupe on book picture.
you can try it yourself ;)
img1.mxstatic.com/wallpapers/1671cd906f754de3692f4d81e494ffe7_large.jpeg
Cool
its a fake
What has Martin Kemp said of the work?
And their was nothing about the works provinance or a comparative material analysis with the Louvre version.
Martin Kemp thinks it's not Da Vinchis
Martin Kemp says the Mona Lisa is fake 'BUT' his friends who in 2005 bought the $1800 dilapidated Luini from a New Orleans pawn shop only to then flip it to the Swiss who flipped it to the Russian etc etc...
is actually a Da Vinci.
FACT. Modestini and her enhancing hands were perfectly entitled to jazz up the Mundi.
Hats off to the
'Fraud of the Century'.
so bruce willis has the second?
Yes and no... the second Bruce Willis lives in Hollywood, this one IS the real Bruce Willis, but the first version of him. And yes, apparently, he has the second Mona Lisa...
U mean paw paw
She's not even hot. A 7/10 at most.
15th
When will the Mona Lisa be returned to Florence??? When will Tut Ench Amun be returned from Germany to the rightful owning country, and so on and so on. All this art thievery is p'ing me off big time!
Technically speaking, the Mona Lisa moved legally through Florence to Versailles. It was by contract bought and sold multiple times. This is the way art moves from country to country (legally). It might have been painted in Florence, but it was sold to Louis XIV and moved into the Louvre. It was STOLEN by a man who worked at the Louvre and they think this reasons were possibly because he felt it was stolen from Florence, when in fact, it was not. So no need to be upset!
George Tempest Leonardo lived and died in France
People cant let Mona Lisa just hang on the wall for the rest of the worldtime. They need to mock this theme again and again to find smth. Relax guys, it's justchick called Mona Lisa and Leonardo was just a dude who painted her. That's all.
6Th
Obviously a fake. It looks like Leonardo's little cousin did it lolololoolololololol.
this is rubbishhhhhhh
swiis bank behind to prmote blablabla