Talk:Mona Lisa

Template:Todo priority An event mentioned in this article is a August 22 selected anniversary.

Copy edit of 14 March 2005

Hi,

I did quite a few copy edits tonight. I removed the vague, nonsensical (and unsupported) comments on aesthetics that had been inserted twice -- once in the intro, and once in the section on aesthetics. I moved up the explanation of La Gioconda to the intro from the section on the identity of the model. I collapsed the two different references to Lisa Gherardini into a single reference, and linked it to the Da Vinci comment (any source for that?) and noted that it could easily have applied to one of the other 2 Da Vinci portraits of women -- Lady With An Ermine and Ginevra di Benci. Am happy to change if anyone can provide a reference indicating that it definitely applied to Mona Lisa.

I also trimmed back the long, new paragraph on a recent theory of the identity of the model from an avid German self-publisher in Adeliade. I reduced it to the basic theory, but am not even sure it should be given space in the article given that it was most likely inserted into the article by the author herself, and she is not a university-affiliated researcher of good standing.

Also various other grammar fixes and readability improvements, plus removal of links to pages that aren't in the Wikipedia.

mjlodge 06:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mona Lisa copyright ok?

There is realy no copyright on this Picture?

The Image of Mona Lisa just says "(Automated conversion)". Who uploaded it? Is the copyright ok? Fantasy 22:08, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's a bit too dark anyway, so a replacement image could be better in both senses. Any Louvre tourists lately? --Menchi 22:14, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)

I doubt they allow tourists to use flash photography. It can bleach paintings. Some museums don't even allow photographs since a lot of people can't figure out how to turn off their flash. Daniel Quinlan 04:20, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

... since that way they can sell more postcards and official reproductions. Bleaching paintings is just a handy PR line. Martin 21:37, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My wife was there last week, but she is not yet fully Wikified... ;-)

But my question was more: Are there people hiding their names? I would like to know, WHO contributed something to Wikipedia. How can I find out? Fantasy 22:25, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Last week! Mmm.. I do envy the convenience and accessibility of Europeans to such stuff.

That Automated conversion, a mysterious Wiki-force now dead, hid people's name, but people couldn't (and definitely cannot now) hide their login names. I asked about Automated conversion a few months ago, but am still not very clear. I think it is an unintentional, noted, but unavoidable result/bug that took place when developers upgraded the website some time last year. --Menchi 00:10, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

I don't have anything to say about the copyright question, but I did make it a good deal lighter - perhaps too much so; tell me if it needs to go darker again. -Smack 22:57, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I took the liberty of fixing it. ミハエル (MB) 03:34, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

"It was accomplished between 1503 and 1506." Even US copyright hasn't been retroactively extended that long yet ;-).—Eloquence 23:15, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)

Mbecker, here's an image — it looks like we might be able to copy it (or at least get permission to copy)

http://www.paris.org/Musees/Louvre/Treasures/gifs/Mona_Lisa.html

terms for copying are here: http://www.paris.org/copyright.html &mdash Daniel Quinlan 04:25, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Much better. Lady M. Lisa deserves better. I can see her smiling more brightly now. --Menchi 04:30, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Please, just ignore those bogus copyright claims. The painting is in the public domain and the digitization process is not creative.—Eloquence

Ok, I have uploaded a bigger version to Image:Mona_Lisa.jpg, but I like the color on the current smaller version better. What do you think? ミハエル (MB) 04:59, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Value

How much is the painting insured for? Is this information public? Edward 21:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moved from todo list

In the interests of keeping the to-do list as brief as possible, I've moved Shibboleth's comments here:

• I haven't been able to find the insurance information on the web despite quite extensive searching. I would guess it's not public. --Shibboleth 01:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, wait, I found this. It's not the current valuation, though. --Shibboleth 04:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your research work, Shibboleth. I added the info you dug up into the article. I have also posted a request for an answer to this question on Wikipedia:Reference desk#Mona Lisa mysteries. • Benc • 07:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Who coined the name?

Hey if the Italian name of the Mona Lisa is La Gioconda, who coined the English name of the painting? Was da Vinci fluent in English and therefore coined the name himself, or did someone else did? If so who? -anon

Read the article. --Cantus 19:09, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Role in popular culture and avant-garde art

This section is current a chronological list (which I organized), but I'm not entirely sure I like it as a list. I'm generally against lists in articles except when they're obviously necessary; I prefer prose. However, I'm ambivalent about changing this section — the chronological ordering is kind of nice, but the bulleted list somehow make this look less like an encyclopedia article. Thoughts? • Benc • 06:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To borrow a phrase, this ain't our parents' encyclopedia. Bulleted lists are quite appropriate for a set of short items in a Wikipedia article. Prose is desirable, but if you get enough prose for each item on this list, it would probably make more sense to convert the list into a separate article, like List of pop culture references to the Mona Lisa, so it doesn't overwhelm the main topic. But a list of short citations with appropriate Wikipedia links makes more sense to me. Chronological strikes me as the most logical ordering, too. — Jeff Q 02:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chronological is not appropriate, because we are not chronicling any developments. How a song by Counting Crows is relevant to that of Nat King Cole. It's not better, it's not a development of the latter, it doesn't really compares in any way, so a chronological order is not needed. It's needed even less for works in different genres. For example, why should Dali's portrait go after La Gioconda? Was it influenced by it, should people watch the film first? No and no. As for being a list, it's not too bad, but prose would be better. I am going to reedit the bulleted list into text now. Paranoid 12:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slashdotty

On the Village pump, our Mona Lisa article recently (14 Sep 2004) had the dubious honor of being nominated for the periodic "Encylopedia that Slashdot Built Awards". This "award" just one contributor's opinion about perceived imbalances in the Wikipedia. It is an attempt at constructive criticism.

The full discussion is archived at Talk:Mona Lisa/Slashdot.

To do list

The people who drew up this list have been a bit over-zealous. "Where was the painting between 1507 and 1516?". Da Vinci took it with him on his travels. I think it's clear from the article that he didn't part from it until he sold it to François Ier. "Where was it during WWI?" In the Louvre, probably. I don't think there was a need to remove it, since Paris was never really threatened. - Karl Stas 13:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good call. I was intentionally nitpicky when I first drew up the list — it's simple to clarify and remove items, as you've done. Thanks, • Benc • 21:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Trivia / numerology

In gematria (a form of numerology), the name "Mona Lisa", as well as "La Giocconda" and "Leonardo", results in the number 84.

MONA LISA = (13+15+14+1) + (12+9+19+1) = 84.

LA GIOCCONDA = (12+1) + (7+9+15+3+3+15+14+4+1) = 84.

LEONARDO = 12+5+15+14+1+18+4+15 = 84.

Also, "Mona Lisa" if anagrammatized gives "Anima Sol", an (ungrammatical) Latin phrase translated as "wind sun", "breath sun", or "life sun".

Someone recently added the above as a trivia section. I'm failing to see the value in it, so moved it here. There is no firm reason why the painting is called Mona Lisa in English language countries, and if I recall it wasn't used during Leonardo's life time. If you mis-spell 'La Gioconda' you can probably get the numerology to give you any number you like. Similarly an odd translation of an anagram giving phrases of no obvious relevance - why?

Leonardo is known to be interested in codes and ciphers, so it is worth looking for hidden meanings, but you have to do it properly. Perhaps this all comes from The Da Vinci Code book. Can anyone make a case for keeping these? -- Solipsist 09:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

These numerologic "theories" are as relevant as suggesting that da Vinci was abducted by aliens. Both titles are "apocryphical". The painting was never known as either "Mon(n)a Lisa" or "La Gioconda" during da Vinci's lifetime. The latin phrase "anima sol" ("soul sun") is meaningless. Karl Stas 09:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'expensive painting'

Not sure that such a straight comparison between an insurance valuation and the actual sales price of a painting is really valid. Would it be better if the Picasso price was given as a context for the valuation? After all, until it is sold, the ML cannot be described as an expensive painting. Filiocht 10:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

the digitalmonalisa.com link

...appears to be inserting by a self-promo vandal. Please go to Talk:ASCII art for a single location of this incident discussion. BACbKA 22:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) Moved it here from the article page:

• Digital Mona Lisaearly digital scan from 1964, owned by Andy Patros.

BACbKA 11:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which picture?

There are a number of versions of the Mona Lisa floating around. The Commons has at least two:

version 1

version 2

Version 1 is currently used in the article. Which of them is better? dbenbenn | talk 03:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Version 1 comes from the Louvre Museum web site and it is markedly the better of the two. And coming from the Louvre we know for sure it is the true Mona Lisa and not a copy. —Cantus…☎ 11:04, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Superficially, Version 2 is more attention grabbing and a little larger, but I prefer version 1. Version 2 is more vivid due to increased contrast and brighter highlights, but I don't think this is faithful to the original. Admittedly its been I while since I saw the original (and you can't see it that well behind all the glass and tourists, and it may have been restored in the meantime) but I remember it as being tonally subdued and possibly slightly green tinged. Besides Version 1 has better shadow detail and sfumato is all about subtle graduations of tone. -- Solipsist 11:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are those JPEG artifacts in version 1, especially around the neck? dbenbenn | talk 01:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow...

... it appears our self healing nature is not so good as we first thought - even on well known articles such as this one. User:68.204.190.83 added a huge slab of text to the start of the article (possibly a copyvio) and it has stayed in there for 2 days. I have just reverted. For the edits made, see [1]. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The changes made to this article do not appear on my watchlist for those dates. Yours is the first change that has appeared for several days. It seems there may have been a glitch of some sort in the "watch" system. Paul B 09:40, 16 June 2005 (UTC)

Mona Lisa in Pink Panther cartoon

Mona Lisa was center of theme of the Pink Panther cartoon episode named "Pink DaVinci". In this episode Pink Panther keeps changing the smile of ML while DaVinci tries to revert it back. In the end DaVinci gets frustrated and kicks the tower of Pisa and the tower leans.

Mona Lisa Overdrive

the painting also appeared in the title of "Mona Lisa Overdrive," a novel by William Gibson ("neuromancer," "blade runner," etc.), and--although i have not read that book myself--i wonder what the relevence is to the title, and whether or not that reference should be included in the article.--Whiteknight 04:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

question about the mona lisa?

whats so popular about it?

Pece Kocovski 09:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

read the article! Paul B 09:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"new fact"

I have deleted the following passage:

German and Russian students have seen a new fact: the correspondence between the face of Mona Lisa and the face of Caterina Sforza in a portrait by Lorenzo di Credi [2]. Caterina Sforza was the Lady of Forlì and Imola when Cesare Borgia and Leonardo went in Romagna. The portrait by Lorenzo di Credi is now in the Museum of Forlì, in Italy and is known also as "La dama dei gelsomini".

Who are these "German and Russian students"? No reference is given. Why is it a "new fact"? New theory, more like - not even that. Apart from "seeing" this resemblance there does not seem to be any other evidence connecting the two images. I can't see much of a resemblance meesel'. Paul B 16:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

What about the Da Vinci Code?

I was refered to this page from the page about Da Vinci Code, and i was extremely suprised to find no reference to the book except at the end when they talk about movies, songs and books that the Mona Lisa is mentioned in. Maybe I am just guilable and very easily influenced, but i found the descriptions of Mona Lisa in the book Da Vinci Code to be in fact very accurate and likely. For those of you who have read the book, you will be farmiliar with the theory that the right side is meant to be man and left woman and when examining the painting you can see the left side of the painting is larger, as if representing the male half of the painting. The book also explains that Da Vinci was a believer of needing both male and female to be complete, which I believe is what he was depicting in this painting. Also, the name Mona Lisa does fit the theory that it is an ananogram of Amon (the egyptian god of fertility) and l'Isa (the egyptian godess of fertility.) I must admit that this takes art to whole new level, especially with such a controversial artist, but a bit of debate never hurt anyone...

Natalia

Well the book is not an authoritative source of information about the painting is it? It's a novel. Apart from Dan Brown making it up, no scholar has ever suggested that the name is an anagram of Amon and the French for Isis. As the article makes clear, the title was not invented by Leonardo (people did not give titles to paintings in his day). It simply derives from Vasari's identification of the sitter. There is no evidence that I know of to support the view that Leonardo was a believer in the sacred union of masculinity and femininity I don't know what you mean when you say that the left hand side of the painting is 'larger'. The landscape on the right hand side is higher up - a fact already discussed, albeit briefly, in the article.

Many of these issues are discussed in the Da Vinci Code page. Paul B 09:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Emotion computer software finds Mona Lisa is indeed smiling

"According to the latest computer results, the subject, thought to be the Florentine wife of Francesco del Giocondo, was 83% happy, 9% disgusted, 6% fearful and 2% angry, the New Scientist was told."

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4530650.stm

It cost a dutch university some millions of euros to research this tremendously important topic. What a great achievement for the entire world, where there are no more wars, diseases, famine and global warming worth fixing. L'art pour l'art!

The article says nothing about it having cost "millions of euros" to use the program to analyse the expression. The use of the "Mona Lisa" is just a very cheap PUBLICITY STUNT to advertise the software program, which will have many commercial applications. l'art pour l'industrie! Paul B 11:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a press release that has successfully snuck into international headlines. These statistics are meaningless. NTK 16:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Duchamp

From Duchamp:

Research published in 1997 by art historian Rhonda Roland Shearer indicates that Duchamp's supposedly 'found' objects may actually have been created by Duchamp. Exhaustive research of items like snow shovels and bottle racks in use at the time has failed to turn up any identical matches. The urinal, upon close inspection, is non-functional. (However, there are accounts of Walter Arensberg and Joseph Stella being with Duchamp when he purchased the original Fountain at J. L. Mott Iron Works.) The artwork "L.H.O.O.Q." which is supposedly a poster-copy of the Mona Lisa with a mustache drawn on it, turns out to be not the true Mona Lisa, but Duchamp's own slightly-different version that he modelled partly after himself. If Shearer's findings are correct then Duchamp was creating an even larger joke than he admitted. [1]

Should this be mentioned here? Has this been verified or is this still a fringe viewpoint? NTK 16:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

non-reflective glass

It is displayed in a purpose-built, climate-controlled enclosure behind unbreakable, non-reflective glass

To the right of this sentence is the picture of the painting under the glass, with reflections of the visitors clearly visible in the glass. Someone should explain what non-reflective glass means in this case (I can't as I don't know). Nevfennas 09:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is one description of what non reflective glass is:

The surface of non reflective glass has been etched in such a way that reflections are diffused; the only drawback is that the covered artwork looks slightly duller.

Also, a photo I took on April 13 2005 shows that there is still a reflection to be seen, although it is not as prominent as the previous protection when it was installed in another room. When I learn how to upload photos, I will send a copy. [(User:Dorvaldude)] 10:58 27 December 2005 (UTC)