Was Mona Lisa a dude?

Post Reply New Topic

Apparently, an Italian art historian is speculating that Leonardo Da Vinci's painting Mona Lisa was actually based on his male apprentice. What do you think?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/8299190/Mona-Lisa-was-a-boy.html

There is also a theory that the Mona Lisa is a self-portrait of Da Vinci in drag. I remember reading somewhere that he enjoyed cross-dressing, and the facial features of the Mona Lisa are actually pretty similars to his. There is also a theory that the painting is a portrait of the artist's mother, which would also explane the ressemblance.

Edit: some of that was mentioned in the article, should have read the article before I posted.

Was the Mona Lisa a guy?
Who cares?

I don't see all the fuss about this painting.
It is a very ordinary portrait of a very plain woman.

I see better paintings on the cover of novels, painted by nameless illustrators.

So what makes the Mona Lisa the greatest portrait in the history of the world?

If it's so plain and ordinary, then I dare you to paint something better.
I could try to explain to you why it's such an extraordinary art piece, but you would never get it because it takes an open mind to understand art.

Most art experts believe the portrait to be of Lisa del Giocondo, a noble-woman.

ruveyn

Er, right.
But Da Vinci is not a nameless illustrator, and there is a very sound reason why he isn't and your cover illustrators are.

I've seen it, and it is gorgeous. I love the idea that it's his mother... it does explain the commonalities of the features. But if you take the hair off it, the face does look rather boyish. It's a fairly androgynous picture.

Show me a nice picture of dogs playing poker. Or perhaps sad clowns.
Or a portrait of Elvis painted on black velvet.

Now, there is ART for you.

I'm reminded of a scene from the venture brothers where one of the villains is trying to sell stolen artwork to some vacuous rich guy.

"I want the Mona Lisa."
"Look, the Mona Lisa isn't better painting, It's only a more famous painting. And it is only more famous because it was stolen. And now [i]THIS[/] has been stolen!"

that said, Wombat's criticism seems to be less of Leonardo's technique and more of his choice of subject matter. I have to admit, if I was going to paint something, "woman kinda sorta smiling" would be far from my first choice.

And in this is the art.
It's not the painting as 'a snapshot of some woman', it's what Da Vinci did with it.

No, it is actually quite dull as portraiture goes. In fact most portraits are fairly dull, unless the subject themselves has a particularly interesting face. I think it most likely this picture is famous simply because of the man who painted it. Pretty much anything Leonardo did is so treated, be it dull or otherwise.

Having said that, "more exciting" does not equal better in every case. Cover artists remain fairly nameless because of the prevailing tastes in art. In order to be accredited with artistic genius these days, one must engage in ludicrous show-boating and avant-garde rubbish. When Andy Warhol took a dump, it was art and he was a genius. When Emin leaves her tampon on the floor its lauded as a million pound artwork. Traditional artistic ventures are sidelined into "cover art" and the like. If the art world ever pulls its head out of its collective rectum and stops demanding that art be a pile of toss (in some cases quite literally that) then it is quite possible that these unknown cover artists might achieve fame or even fortune. And lets be fair, Chris Foss, Boris Vallejo, and Frank Frazetta are all famous for doing nothing BUT "cover art". Artists who do "cover art" are more in tune with the traditional values and merits of classical art than "modern artists", and share much more in common with Da Vinci himself. Face it, if Leo were contemporary he would be airbrushing space-ships like Burns. Bloody good ones. He wouldn't be trying to pass off a receipt on a dish as art. In fact he would probably stab you for that.

Give it 400 hundred years or so and we shall see which is the more valuable piece: Frazetta's Death Dealer, or Emin's "Unmade Bed."

Incidentally, I qualified in Art History some years ago, so I'm not just blowing smoke.. I do KNOW the subject quite well.

Yes. This is what I was saying. As a straightforward representation of a person it's pretty dull - as is she - but the subtlety of her expression elevates it to something else.
But then of course there's (unfortunately) the 'famous because it's famous' angle. It has some remarkable qualities but it's not that good, and great portraiture should be more than a well-rendered smile.

Indeed. Tracey Emin, I'm scowling at you.

Personally, I think the two greatest American artists were Norman Rockwell and Andrew Wyeth.

The snobs will scream that they were corny "illustrators" and not "real" artists.

So what is a "real" artist"? Someone who puts a crucifix in a bottle of urine?

I am not dumping on Leonardo. He is one of the greatest geniuses our world has ever produced, but I still think the Mona Lisa is hugely overrated.

Not me. I've always liked Norman Rockwell and having just had a quick check (not a name I knew much of), I think Andrew Wyeth has made some very beautiful things.

God no. Any idiot can make some sort of a crappy "statement", utterly devoid of any technique or skill.

Yeah - as evidenced by this thread, really. All the other stuff he did which might have been put forward as much better examples didn't get a mention.