Talk:Mona Lisa

Archives:
Archive 1

Completely innacurate translation and loss of meaning

In the section "References in art" it is said that "Elle a chaud au cul" translate to "she has a hot arse". That is completely false. In fact it translates to "Her ass is burning" or "Her asshole is in fire" or simply "Her ass is in pain" etc. It goes on further to say "as a manner of implying the woman in the painting is in a state of sexual excitement and availability" which again is senseless. The words "Elle a chaud au cul" instead means something more like "implying that Leonardo went to her ass first and now she is in pain". While I agree that it does sound vulgar it is nontheless what it means. In French it is quite a funny joke in light of Leonardo alleged homosexuality claims but looses all meaning with the current translation. It really should be changed.

I don't know much French but I find "Her ass is hot" funnier than any of those translations, and not very inaccurate if taken literally. It's a great double entendre (hey, that's French!).

Size appears wrong

"Size is given as 77cm x 53cm" but according to the Louvre website [[1]] if you move into the detailed descriptions and click scale, it shows the Mona Lisa as only 60cm high. This corresponds to only approx 23-24 inches. Thoughtbox 17:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Those dimensions (77cm x 53cm) are accurate (I think I've seen the height variously quoted as 78cm). Also, the panel has a thickness of 1.2 to 1.4 cm. The 60cm value must be a mistake. Jeff Dahl 18:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

101%?

In the place where it says-

...83% happy, 9% disgusted, 6% fearful, 2% angry, less than 1% neutral, and not surprised at all.

Doesn't this add up to more than 100%? I think somethings happened...

Probably just rounding errors, notice that it says "less than 1% neutral", the other figures are also probably not exact. David Underdown 12:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that whole paragraph should be removed, it's a crackpot analysis from a single, small group of people using a technique that has not been proven to mean anything; and it is the least significant possible footnote in the long history of this painting. Tempshill 00:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Dlabtot 05:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Postwar damage

The article currently states,

In 1987, the lower part of the painting was severely damaged when someone doused it with acid. On December 30 of that same year, Ugo Ungaza Villegas, a young Bolivian, damaged the painting by throwing a rock at it.

Can anyone perhaps elaborate on this? I mean, the dousing of the painting with acid is reported as though this is a normal thing to be done to a masterpiece and so nothing further needs to be said about it. Did someone just stroll into the Louvre with a beaker of acid and throw it onto the painting? I'd be interested to know the circumstances of this event, in particular why this was done and how it was allowed to happen. Who did it? What was the motivation? How was it repaired? etc. etc. --Todeswalzer|Talk 16:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Even today, anyone can easily stroll into the Louvre with acid. In 1956 most paintings were barely protected at all. Paul B 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference 7 in NOT correct

^ CNN. (2006, September 26). The Mona Lisa studied in 3D Retrieved on September 25, 2006.

does not point to the existing page. --Gorn 16:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mona Lisa's line of sight

"The painting, a half-length portrait, depicts a woman whose gaze meets the viewer's with an expression often described as enigmatic."

• Really??? It doesn't seem that way to me at all. Her gaze doesn't quite meet yours, she's looking slightly to your right. Palefire 11:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

She's looking straight out towards the viewer, but her head is slightly turned to the left, so her eyes are slightly to the right in her head in order to stare out at the viewer. Paul B 12:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Palefire, to me, it does appear as if she is looking to the viewers right. I really can't see her as making eye contact with the viewer. (Jatoo (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

place and date of Monna Lisa's death

[read this]. Bouncey2k from it wiki. 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words in intro

I changed the intro. It wasn't neutral. Saying arguabley is a weasel word Weasel words are against wikipedia policy Gottoupload

I'm glad to see no one reverted me. Wikipedia is getting better Gottoupload

Mona Lisa in the Pinocchio attraction

She has a moustache painted on her, so she bears a more close resemblance to Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. either way there is not much to subtantiate either claim. Should it be removed altogether? mice 03:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Theft

In the theft section, Picasso is said to have been questioned for stealing the Mona Lisa. Is this just vandalism or was he really questioned? Someone more knowledgeable please look into this — Lost^(talk) 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

weird al pic

could you add the Weird Al Mona Lisa? thanks. here's the URL [2] [[Wrestling Maniac]] 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That would not be appropriate for this article. —Centrx→talk • 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mona Lisa, drawn with Microsoft Paint

There's a youtube video which should be mentioned in this article. In the video, we can see someone drawing the Mona Lisa in 2.5 hours only with Paint! Here's the link: [3]--80.218.244.7 12:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just watched it right now, it's really cool :D. DestinationCalabria 10:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty amazing. Not sure of its appropriateness, but if it can be included somewhere, it would be great. Paul Haymon 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing Cultural Reference.

I find the brief glimpse of LD's activities in the movie 'Hudson Hawk' quite amusing. LD is shown to be progressing from one work-in-progress to another, one of which being a completed portrait of the Mona Lisa.... completed but for a conspicuous hole where her mouth should be. He snaps his fingers to wake his dozing model and she grins in surprise and we see the most unattractive snaggle-toothed smile imaginable. LD sighs in defeated frustration and moves on to another work-in-progress.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0102070/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thistledowne (talk • contribs) 02:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Style

Someone asked me what style the Mona Lisa was painted in, and oddly enough I couldn't answer. The best I know is that it's Italian High Renaissance. Can someone help me out here, and add or direct me to the appropriate info on the page? Paul Haymon 09:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Typo

There is a mistake in the translation of 'L.H.O.O.Q'. The French word for 'arse' should be spelled 'cul', not 'cue'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.0.179.162 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Agree. Fixed it. --BjKa 11:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Another version

Someone want to add something about this? 71.82.214.160 05:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Art4em

Art4em insists on adding this material.[4] It is blatantly original research, backed up only be a press release attributed to its author. This is also WP:COI. Art4em has also been warned not to exceed 3RR. Tyrenius 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Poor quality of description / uncited sources / weasel words

In the aesthetics section:

Due to the expressive synthesis that Leonardo achieved between sitter and the landscape it is arguable whether Mona Lisa should be considered as a portrait, for it represents rather an ideal than a real woman. The sense of overall harmony achieved in the painting—especially apparent in the sitter's faint smile— reflects Leonardo's idea of the cosmic link connecting humanity and nature, making this painting an enduring record of Leonardo's vision and genius.

Oh please, another would-be art critic. This does not belong in an encyclopedia.

Thief to be executed?

The last sentence of the section Mona Lisa#Theft reads: "Although Peruggia was only in jail for a few months, many believed that he should have been executed for such a crime." That sounds a little harsh, not to mention the weasel phrase "many believed". Can anyone cite this? If not, I think it should go. --Zvika 06:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Hi. I am not a scholar but I did look up a few things today and made some changes and hope they aren't alarming. -Susanlesch 22:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

More changes just now, mainly to reorder the article (ok with me in advance to revert any or all of these changes). -Susanlesch 17:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Claim to fame?

The article needs more explanation of why this little painting is popularly considered the greatest work of art in the world.--Jack Upland 05:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Added a "Fame" section, not sure if I can finish it. A few people might say Mona Lisa is the most famous work of art, but more often it is called the "most famous painting" (apart from greatness). Does this help? -Susanlesch 13:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

To-do list, popular culture section

The Indigo Girls song that mentions Mona Lisa is a cover of "Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters". The song is already mentioned in the article. You could add Indigo Girls to the the mention, but realize that the song has been covered at least three other time. Do you just leave it with Elton John or do you include all of the covers? I say leave it with Elton John and if people click on the link, they will find out more info. A Softer Answer 15:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Eye Brows

I belive that the eyebrows were washed off with a strong cleaner by some of the people set to clean it.Supergeek66 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you believe wrong. Paul B (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why if the painting was commissioned was it not given to the commissioner???

I know it took him a long time to complete, but if it was meant for a new house how come this did not happen?? I have searched but can shed no light on this??? any suggestions?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.242.228 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fresh colours

What's up with thi picture of the painting with fresh colours? It's not referenced in the article anywhere (sorry if I missed it) and not explained. It seems to be quite a good job, but I'm not sure how true it is to the original, for example, there is added facial hair on it, and I'm not sure if the colours even should be that bright. Can anyone explain it? (Jatoo (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

Agreed. The colors appear altered, and there does not seem to be a need for such an additional, and chromatically false image in the article. It's reverted, pending explanation. JNW (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hair

There most definitely is hair hanging down to her shoulders, regardless of whether it's in a bun or pinned in the back. The article currently makes it seem as if there isn't. Also, the article says, "This apparent contradiction with her status as a married woman has now been resolved." Is this a consensus?

Mona Lisa proven to be Lisa Gherardini

AOL article: conclusive documents found. JAF1970 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting reports in Wikipedia - to whom did Leonardo give or sell the Mona Lisa?

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci%27s_personal_life#Salaino it is reported that Leonardo bequeathed the Mona Lisa to il Salaino, his servant and companion, who listed the painting in his own will. However in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa#Artist_and_early_history it is reported that King Francois I bought the painting for 4,000 ecus.

Both can't be right, and I don't know which is. Anyone able to provide a definite reference?

Dermod (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)