Louvre and Prado Mona Lisas ...

Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa was copied by other artists and his students starting almost as soon as it was made in the first decades of the 16th century. 

Some of them have been advanced as Leonardo originals, at least in part (see the Isleworth Mona Lisa, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isleworth_Mona_Lisa ), and others have always been known to be copies. One of these known copies is in the Prado Museum in Madrid. https://www.museodelprado.es/coleccion/galeria-on-line/galeria-on-line/obra/mona-lisa-o-la-gioconda/

La Gioconda, Leonardo da Vinci (h.1503-16). París, Musée du Louvre ? C2RMF (Elsa Lambert)

Prado experts thought it was painted relatively early in the 16th century by an anonymous artist, but with its black painted background, bright red sleeves, and relatively flat shadowing compared to the velvety depth of da Vinci’s original, the Prado’s Mona Lisa didn’t get much attention. They also thought the wood was oak, which was used by northern European artists.

In 2012, curators took a closer look in anticipation of an upcoming loan to the Louvre. They found that the panel was actually walnut, a commonly used wood for oil paintings in 16th century Italy. Using infrared reflectography, they then found that underneath that dull black background was a beautiful Tuscan landscape almost identical to the one behind Leonardo’s Mona Lisa.

The restored copy of La Gioconda in the Museo del Prado, Madrid. The work is believed to have been made by an apprentice of Leonardo, at the same time as the original.

Prado "Mona Lisa" copy after restoration also revealed the copy’s underdrawings, sketches that painters make before they start with the paint. The Louvre took IR images of the Mona Lisa in 2004. When the Prado curators compared the two sets of underdrawings, they found that they matched, suggesting that the copy was made contemporaneously with the original, following the changes to the composition as the master drew them before the final version was painted. There are documentary sources that attest to Leonardo having his students paint alongside him in the studio, but this is the first time we have IR evidence that strongly indicates contemporaneous painting.

Conservators have spent the past year removing the black overpaint — probably added in the 18th century to make it match other pieces with a black background in a gallery setting — and revealed the refreshed Mona Lisa copy in a presentation two weeks ago at London’s National Gallery.

The Prado’s technical specialist Ana González Mozo describes the Madrid replica as “a high quality work,” and in the paper she presented at the London conference, she provided evidence that the picture was done in Leonardo’s studio. The precise date of the original is uncertain, although the Louvre states it was between 1503 and 1506.

Bruno Mottin, the head conservator at the Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France, believes that the most likely painter of the Prado copy was one of Leonardo’s two favourite pupils.

Mottin proposes that it was either Andrea Salai, who originally joined Leonardo’s studio in 1490 and probably became his lover, or Francesco Melzi, who joined around 1506. If the Prado replica is eventually attributed to Melzi, it suggests a late date for the original.

"Monna Vanna" by Salai

There is at least one other copy of Mona Lisa attributed to Salai and it doesn’t look as good as the Prado’s copy to my eye, although that could be the picture. He also painted Monna Vanna, a nude parody of Mona Lisa. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mona_Lisa_(copy,_Thalwil,_Switzerland).JPG

Nude Mona Lisa by Salai (Gian Giacomo Caprotti).

Salai’s reputation was more about his bad boy living than about the skill of his painting. Leonardo complained about Salai all the time in his notebooks, describing him as a “ladro, bugiardo, ostinato, ghiotto” (thief, liar, obstinate, glutton) whom Leonardo had to bail out of scrape after scrape. Still, he must have had something going for him since da Vinci lived with the youth from the time he was 10 years old until he was 35. Leonardo even left his enfant terrible property and paintings after his death in 1519, including the real Mona Lisa which Salai sold to King Francis I of France.

The Prado’s discovery might shed some light on details of the original. There are areas of the Prado Mona Lisa that are in much better condition than on the original — the spindles of the chair, for example, and the veil around her left arm — and Lisa herself looks considerably younger without that yellow cracked varnish that darkens and muddies her facial features in the original.

The copy is in the final stages of conservation. It will be displayed at the Prado in a few weeks, then it will go on loan to the Louvre for its exhibition with Leonardo’s Saint Anne https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/virgin-and-child-saint-anne where it will be back in the same room with Leonardo’s Mona Lisa for the first time in 500 years or so.

Detail. Preparatory drawing (left. La Gioconda (?Elsa Lambert, C2RMF)/ right. La Gioconda (copy))

Study of the Prado Museum's copy of La Gioconda

The evolution of preparations for painting on canvas in sixteenth and seventeeth century Spain

Technical analysis

Chemical analysis

Materials

Comparative analysis

Conclusions

Bibliography

The study of this work began two years ago on the request of the Louvre within the context of the research undertaken in relation to the exhibition 'L’ultime chef-d’?uvre de Léonard de Vinci, la Sainte Anne'. The extremely interesting results obtained from the comparison of the infra-red reflectograph of the Prado’s panel with the one of the original painting led to the decision to undertake a more detailed study of the Prado’s painting and subsequently to restore it. The technical study undertaken was the habitual one carried out at the Museum and included infra-red reflectographs, x-ray, ultra-violent induced visible fluorescence and examination under a binocular magnifier. The aim of this study was to learn how the work was painted and to determine its state of preservation. After the above-mentioned documents (x-ray, infra-red etc) were analysed, laboratory tests were requested in order to resolve any doubts about the nature of the materials of which the work was made as well as the varnishes and the nature of any repainting.

Detail. Preparatory drawing (left. La Gioconda (?Elsa Lambert, C2RMF)/ right. La Gioconda (copy))

Technical analysis

Technical analysis and the recent restoration have resulted in the recovery of the original appearance of the work, which is extremely valuable for the way in which it casts light on workshop procedures in Leonardo’s studio. It is the most important version of La Gioconda known to date .

The comparison of the two works and the technical documentation relating to them has also contributed to an understanding of the Louvre painting and to completing the sequence of the known phases of its execution, given that the precision of the images produced during the examination of the Prado’s copy revealed features in the x-rays and infra-reds of the original that had previously passed unnoticed (see fig.3). In addition, data resulting from the comparative examination of the two works confirms what was already known about the way Leonardo’s studio functioned, which has been described by Martin Kemp in his research on the existing versions of the Madonna of the Yardwinder and which are also recorded in a letter from Fra Pietro de Novellara to Isabella d’Este after the former had visited Leonardo’s studio. In his letter Novellara mentions having seen two apprentices making copies as the master was extremely occupied.

Mona Lisa, Prado Museum detail.

The existence of the landscape beneath the black background was detected with infra-red reflectography and from an examination of the surface under raking light before restoration started. It was subsequently confirmed with x-ray. Despite this evidence it was necessary to determine whether the addition of the black substance was subsequent to the execution of the painting, and in that case whether it concealed any damage on it Chemical analysis

Chemical tests undertaken on this layer revealed that it consisted of repainting and that the binder was linseed oil, meaning that it had been added no earlier than 1750 . The landscape underneath was well preserved but was not entirely finished, which may have been one of the reasons why it was covered over.

The Isleworth Mona Lisa is a painting of the same subject as Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, at an earlier age. Though insufficiently examined, the painting is claimed by some to be partly an original work of Leonardo dating from the early 16th century.

In addition, an organic layer that was probably a varnish was also detected between the landscape and the overpainting, which functioned to separate the two. This information, together with solubility tests, supported the decision to remove the layer of black overpainting that had nothing to do with the original conception of the portrait 

The recovered landscape conforms to the colour range and forms of Leonardo’s evanescent landscapes despite obvious differences in the pictorial quality .

A surprising element, for example, located to the right of the figure, is the area of mountains taken from the autograph drawing by Leonardo of A rocky outcrop (ca.1510-15) in the Royal Collection, Windsor.

Mona Lisa Louvre′s Detail.

Materials

The materials used in the Prado panel are of high quality and the work is carefully painted. It is executed on a walnut panel, which was a support habitually used in works by Leonardo and his Milanese circle. It is to be found in Lady with the Ermine, La Belle Ferronière, and Saint John the Baptist. The panel does not have the traditional gesso underlayer. Instead it has a double preparation (an internal orangeish layer and an external whiteish one) principally made up of lead white. The results published in the last issue of the National Gallery Technical Bulletin (no. 32) on tests carried out on other works by Leonardo, such as Lady with the Ermine, La Belle Ferronière and The Archinto Portrait of Marco d’Oggiono reveal that although unusual, this type of preparation was used in Leonardo’s bottega when the support was a walnut panel.

Some critics of the painting claim that the ‘Earlier Mona Lisa’ is a copy of the ‘Mona Lisa’ in the Louvre. The Mona Lisa Foundation points to the following reasons as to why it is not a copy:

Unique Composition:

Apart from the long-admired sitting position of the subject, the architecture of the painting is completely novel. The foundation is unable to identify any other painting, executed prior to this one, with a similar composition.

Flanking Columns:

The use of these columns in the structure of this painting is fundamental to the composition. As an element in portraiture, Leonardo had never before utilized this idea. The traces of columns and bases that can be seen today in the ‘Louvre Version’ can be argued to be a later addition (as they cover an underlying layer of background), and never part of its original composition.

Sitting Angle:

The sitting position of the subject is angled differently that the ‘Louvre Version’. The subject is leaning forward more slightly, and the body is angled further from the viewer. This sitting position is also emphasized in the neck muscles.

Younger:

The figure in the ‘Earlier Mona Lisa’ is clearly younger, and, some say, more beautiful, than the ‘Louvre Version’. This face has never been represented like this in any other painting.

‘Support’ Material:

The portrait was painted on canvas. To be a copy of the ‘Louvre Version’, it would likely have been painted on wood.

Size:

The size of the ‘Earlier Mona Lisa’ painting is significantly larger that its Louvre counterpart. In addition, the figure is significantly smaller. A copyist would likely have made them virtually the same size.

Background:

A pioneering use of simple Tuscan landscape was employed, without the later embellishments of ‘Alpine’ mountains, or numerous water details. This would not have originated from the ‘Louvre Version’.

Different artists:

Tests have shown that some elements were painted with quite different pigments than the rest of the composition. These were possibly added later by a different artist or artists. A version of the original composition is seen in a 17th Century copy in the National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design, Oslo.

Embroidery:

Details of the embroidery on the blouse are unique, different from those in the ‘Louvre Version’, and from any copy of either.

Extra Detail:

Due to the larger ‘canvas’ size, there is more detail at the bottom of the picture than can be seen in others: a prime example being the chair. Therefore other Mona Lisa paintings, without that extra detail, would hardly have pre-dated the ‘Earlier Version’.

Underdrawings:

Pascal Cotte has confirmed (January, 2011), the following statement: (the painting) has some clear underdrawings (by the columns and maybe elsewhere) signifying that it is not a direct copy.

A copy would likely have been painted by one artist, and at the same time. The ‘Earlier Version’ shows elements that were likely added to Leonardo’s work, by another artist or artists; as well as evidence that this occurred over an extended period of time.

A critic recently gave the following explanation to explain why the painting has features different to that in the Louvre: “This is probably because the copyist … just painted it that way”.

The foundation’s stance is that this is a tautological argument: to imply that a painting is a copy because that is the way a copyist painted it does not hold much credence and ignores the possible reasons for all the highlighted differenc

Comparative analysis

The enormous interest of the Prado’s copy lies in the fact that from the preparatory drawing to almost the final paint layers it repeats the creative process of La Gioconda without aiming to be an imitation of it. Comparative analysis of the infra-red reflectographs1 has revealed identical details beneath the paint layers that reveal a parallel process of elaboration. In the document here it can be seen that the figures are of the same size and shape and have possibly been transferred onto their respective supports using the same cartoon .

The preparatory drawing on the original is not as precise as that on the copy although it also has the lines that indicate how the figure’s position was shifted and the intermediary phases of execution that are also found on the copy . The brushstrokes that define the forms in the original also appear beneath the paint surface of the Prado figure, all slightly displaced. They are to be found on the figure’s back, waist, shoulder and hands , on the line of the breast , on the folds of the sleeves and on her lap.

Some of the lines of the initial outline of the figure on the Prado version are corrected in free hand and it is possible to see subtle, drawn lines made in black chalk and brush that have no relationship with the painted forms. As such, they reflect the painter’s experiments and hesitations and suggest a much more complex creative process than that of a normal copy.

The most important point, however, is that each of the corrections to the underlying drawing on the original are also to be found on the Prado version: the transformation of the outline of the waist, which, as in the original, is covered by drapery on the surface; the position of the fingers, the outline of the veil and of the head , even lesser modifications to the outlines of the cheeks and neck. A “traditional” copyist transcribes what is seen on the surface but not what is hidden, and the existence of these shared modifications beneath the paint surface reveals that the artist who painted the Prado panel saw the entire process of the conception and execution of the Mona Lisa. In addition, he drew elements that Leonardo drew on the under-layers but did not include on the surface, including the right arm of the chair and some internal parts of the dress

Conclusions

All this information undoubtedly indicates that a member of Leonardo’s studio produced the Prado panel and that the copy and original were produced at the same time and in parallel . With regard to who the artist might be, the pictorial handling is not comparable to the style of pupils or collaborators such as Boltraffio, Marco d’Oggiono or Ambrogio di Predis, who have a defined artistic personality. However, it is possible to locate this work stylistically in a Milanese context, close to Sala? or perhaps to Francesco Melzi, Leonardo’s most trusted pupils, heirs of his work and the painters who had direct access to his landscape drawings.

The high quality of the materials used for the Madrid panel suggest that it was an important commission. In addition, up to now all known copies of La Gioconda were executed after its creation and reproduce what was a celebrated work from an early date. Technical analyses demonstrate that the Prado’s version was executed at the same time as the original, supporting the hypothesis of a workshop “duplicate” produced at the same time and with direct access to the gradual process of creation of Leonardo’s original work.

Bibliography

Inventario Palacio Real de Madrid. 1686. I. Pinturas. Gabinete del Salón de los espejos vol. III, Madrid: [s.n], 1686, pp. 26, no 3343.

Inventario Alcázar. 1686. Galería del Mediodía, Madrid: [s.n], 1686.

Inventario Alcázar. 1700. Galería del Mediodía, Madrid: [s.n], 1700.

Inventario Palacio Nuevo. 1772, Madrid: [s.n], 1772, p. no 95.

Inventario de las Pinturas del Museo Hecho a la Muerte del Rey Fernando VII, Madrid: [s.n], 1834, pp. 28, no 393.

Angulo í?iguez, Diego, Museo del Prado.Pintura Italiana Anterior a 1600, Madrid: Gredos, 1979, pp. 71-75.

Bosque, A.De, Artistes Italiens en Espagne.Du XIV Siecle Aux Roix Catholiq..., Paris: Le Temps, 1965, p. 271.

Campoy, A.M., Museo del Prado, Madrid: Giner, 1970, p. 64.

Falomir Faus, Miguel, Pintura Italiana del Renacimiento.Guia, Madrid: Museo del Prado.Aldeasa, 1999, p. 84.

Hohenstatt, Peter. Leonardo, h.f. Ullman Ed. Berlin, 2007

Kemp, Martin. Leonardo, Madrid, Breviarios del Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2006.

Kemp, Martin y Thereza Wells, Madonna of the Yarnwinder. A Historica and Scientific Detective Story, Londres, Artakt-Zidane Press, 2011.

Lafuente Ferrari, Enrique, El Prado. Escuelas Italiana y Francesa, Madrid: Aguilar, 1970, p. 89.

Pérez Sánchez, Alfonso E., Catalogo de las Pinturas. Museo del Prado, Madrid: Museo del Prado, 1985.

Pérez Sánchez, Alfonso E., Museo del Prado. Inventario General de Pinturas.Vol.I. La Colección Real, : Museo del Prado.Espasa : Calpe, 1990.

Ponz, Antonio, Viage de Espa?a, vol. VI, Madrid: Viuda de D.Joaquin Ibarra, 1793, p. 44.

R?hl, Juan, ''La Gioconda'' del Prado''. En: Letras y colores, MéjicoCultural, 1961, pp. 21-28.

Ruiz Manero, José María, "Pintura Italiana del Siglo XVI en Espa?a.Tomo I. Leonardo y los leonardescos", Cuadernos de arte e iconografía, 1992, pp. 34-36.

Sanchez Canton, F.J., Catalogo de las Pinturas.Museo del Prado, Madrid: Museo del Prado, 1972, pp. 356-357.

Au C?ur de la Joconde Léonard de Vinci décodé, Ed. Jean-Pierre Mohen, Michel Menu y Bruno Mottin. Paris, Ed. Gallimard, 2006

National Gallery Technical Bulletin, XXXII, 2011.

Catálogo de la Exposición Leonardo da Vinci. Painter at the Court of Milan (9 noviembre 2011- 5 Febrero 2012). Ed. Luke Syson y Larry Keith. National Gallery Company, London, 2011.

Credits

Technical study: Ana González Mozo. Technical Documentation Section. Restoration Department

Restoration: Almudena Sánchez Martín, Restoration department, Museo del Prado

Chief Curator of Italian Renaissance Painting, Museo del Prado: Miguel Falomir Faus

Infra-red reflectography and examination under binocular magnifier: Ana González Mozo

Infra-red reflectography Gioconda Musée du Louvre: Elsa Lambert

Research infra-red reflectography Gioconda Musée du Louvre: Bruno Mottin

Laboratory tests. Analysis laboratory, Museo National del Prado

X-rays: Technical section, Museo del Prado

Acknowledgements

Vincent Delieuvin. Conservateur de la Peinture italienne du XVIè siècle, Musée du Louvre

Marie Lavandier. Direction du C2RMF

Bruno Mottin. Conservateur en chef, C2RMF

Enrique Quintana. Head of the Restoration Studio, Museo del Prado

José Baztán. Photographer, Museo del Prado

Ana María écija Moreno. Head of the photographic and digital archive, Museo del Prado

Courtesy Manuel Díez Márquez. Restoration department, Museo del Prado

Leonardo da Vinci - Mona Lisa Prado & Mona Lisa Louvre

Louvre and Prado Mona Lisas as stereoscopic image

In 2012, the Prado Museum in Madrid announced that a painting long thought to be a relatively unremarkable copy of Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa was actually painted contemporaneously with the original, likely by a student following the master as he drew and painted the portrait. Infrared reflectography found that the 18th century black overpaint obscured a hilly background almost the same as the original. When the black overpaint and varnish were removed from the Prado’s copy, further infrared and X-ray analysis found underdrawings and alterations from the tracing and all the way through the upper paint levels that matched those in 2004 scans of the Louvre Mona Lisa. That means from the initial sketches to the changes and corrections as painting progressed, the Prado copy followed along at each stage.

That’s not to say they’re identical, even underneath the cracked and yellowed varnish that darkens and discolors the original. Two German researchers studied both paintings, selecting landmark points (like the tip of her nose, say, or a particular feature in the mountains) and mapping the path from the landmarks to the observer’s sight line. These trajectories tracked perspective changes between the two versions.

They found that the background of the Prado painting, while virtually identical in shape, is 10% more zoomed in than the Louvre version’s. The expansion doesn’t follow a perspectival pattern you’d expect if the landscape were painted from life, which suggests the mountains in the background and the loggia right behind her were painted from a flat studio backdrop. The trajectories illustrated a number of perspective changes in the painting of the figure, particularly dense in Mona Lisa’s hands and head.

With the comparative perspective data, the researchers were able to calculate the positions of the canvases relative to the sitter and then they made a model of Leonardo’s studio during the painting of the Mona Lisa with Playmobil minifigs.

The original (labeled 1st) is further back and to the right of the Prado copy, and the horizontal distance between the versions is about 69.3 millimeters. The average distance between the eyes of Italian males is 64.1mm, a statistically insignificant difference which suggested to the researchers the possibility that the two paintings might have been deliberately positioned to be a stereoscopic pair which when viewed together give the impression of three dimensions

Carbon points out that Da Vinci “intensively worked on the 3D issue.” In addition, in inventory lists there were hints of the existence of two “Mona Lisa” paintings on his property at the same time, and that he owned colored spectacles, Carbon said.

Hands Prado color adjusted to hands Louvre red cyan anaglyph of both

This evidence “might indicate that he did not only [think] about the 3D issue theoretically but in a very practical sense in terms of experiments,” Carbon added. Also, when looking at the original colors of the two paintings the only real difference was in the sleeves, in which they are reddish in one version and greenish in the other. “This could be a hint to Leonardo’s approach to look at the two La Giocondas through red-green (red-cyan) spectacles,” he said, similar to those one might don to watch a 3D movie.

linear trajectories between landmarks on Louvre and the Prado versions length of traj visualized as circle diameters

That’s a lot of speculation and there are significant counterpoints refuting this hypothesis. The hands work as a stereoscopic pair because the trajectory differences are horizontal. Most of the trajectories on the upper portion of Mona Lisa’s body like her face and hair have a vertical orientation. Still, Leonardo did write about binocular vision and depth perception, so it’s possible he had some idea there could be a dimensional payoff in the positioning of the two canvases.

You can read the whole paper here (pdf) to get the fully fleshed out argument with math and everything. It could all be pure imagination and it would be worth it for the minifig studio alone, as far as I’m concerned.

Courtesy:

The History Blog

Museo Nacional del Prado

Louvre