Talk:Mona Lisa

Article Clean-up & Talk-page archiving

I'd like to improve this article by making it a smoother read. As it stands, the article is a bit, excuse me, clunky; more than likely the product of too many cooks in the kitchen! I don't want to intrude here, so I'm just asking out of respect, but I think the article needs a good once-over. Also, in anticipation of the probable/upcoming DYK appearance of the Mona Lisa replicas & reinterpretations wiki, and subsequent traffic it may direct to this Main Article, it's in everyone's best interest to dust, polish and smooth-out the rough edges. This article can also be condensed without losing any of the facts; content is not the point of my suggestion. The "Mona Lisa replicas" wiki is just freshly on line for DYK, so I have a little free time to spend with this Main Article, not that it would require too much time anyway.

Also, I'd like to go ahead and create a file cabinet to condense all of this; this Mona Lisa talk-page is 90% out-dated, and clogging-the-flow with more than needs to remain visible. I'd like to start pronto, but I'd like to hear some feedback before making any moves. Of course all my edits will be transparent and I'll make them a-section-at-a-time so everyone can follow along behind me. All best intentions, no agenda. Clock's ticking... Penwatchdog (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Go for it! Amandajm (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just completed an edit to the INTRO. Just some rearranging and recomposing. Added one small point (since 1797 at Louvre) but also provided the source (which may in fact be from a magazine excerpt of a source you've already cited). If this first edit is satisfactory, I'll proceed doing the same section-by-section in stages so my actions can be easily tracked. Penwatchdog (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone may also want to look into the unsourced "Katie and Mona Lisa" children's book I just noticed in the "Legacy" section. Penwatchdog (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Now also revised the "Title & subject" section (previously "Subject & title"). I reversed wording of that header in keeping with the order the subsequent facts are listed. No major cuts or additions at all; just revised to condense and clarity facts already noted in the article as it'd existed. Next: "History" section. But that's all for this sitting. Penwatchdog (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Archiving completed

Next: will begin section-by-section re-write to condense, clarify and re-compose existing content. After a few hours sleep and a brunch date. Penwatchdog (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Revert explanation

Sorry about this, but it was definitely better the way it was, for quite a number of reasons:

The Mona Lisa (La Gioconda or La Joconde, or Portrait of Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo[1]) is a half-length portrait of a woman by the Italian artist Leonardo da Vinci, which has been acclaimed as "the best known, the most visited, the most written about, the most sung about, the most parodied work of art in the world."[2] The painting, thought to be a portrait of Lisa Gherardini, the wife of Francesco del Giocondo, is in oil on a poplar panel, and is believed to have been painted between 1503 and 1506.[1] It was acquired by King Francis I of France and is now the property of the French Republic, on permanent display at the Musée du Louvre in Paris.[1] The ambiguity of the subject's expression, frequently described as enigmatic,[3] the monumentality of the composition, the subtle modeling of forms and the atmospheric illusionism were novel qualities that have contributed to the continuing fascination and study of the work.[1]

• This is the text, as it was. I'll go through it.

1. What is the subject? The Mona Lisa (La Gioconda or La Joconde, or Portrait of Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo[1]) is a half-length portrait of a woman by the Italian artist Leonardo da Vinci
2. Why is it notable? ......which has been acclaimed as "the best known, the most visited, the most written about, the most sung about, the most parodied work of art in the world."[2] (This is a direct quote including "the best known" which is in the body of the text of the cited article.)
3. Who, when, where? The painting, thought to be a portrait of Lisa Gherardini, the wife of Francesco del Giocondo, is in oil on a poplar panel, and is believed to have been painted between 1503 and 1506.[1] It was acquired by King Francis I of France and is now the property of the French Republic, on permanent display at the Musée du Louvre in Paris.[1]
4. Summary of reasons why it is so famous. The ambiguity of the subject's expression, frequently described as enigmatic,[3] the monumentality of the composition, the subtle modeling of forms and the atmospheric illusionism were novel qualities that have contributed to the continuing fascination and study of the work.[1]

• The second statement about the work (i.e. "best known.....most parodied etc") is what justifies the article and all the palaver about this painting. The fact that it is the most famous painting in the world is not a fact to go last in the Introduction It is the most remarkable fact about the subject of the article.
• "....is considered the most famous...." This is waffle. A discussion on this was on this page but has been archived. The notion that something is "considered famous" is ridiculous. It either is famous, or it isn't famous. Otherwise every person who knows the painting considers it famous and it is famous because they all know it and consider it famous.
• The following sentences have two problems. They seriously play down the the technical ingenuity and the "total effect" of the painting.

The ambiguity of the subject's expression, frequently described as "enigmatic,"[3] contributes to the continuing fascination and study of the work.[1] Leonardo's subtle modeling of forms, atmospheric qualities, and monumentality of the composition are also factors adding to the painting's acclaim.

The other problem is that the parts of the sentence don't link: Repeat the name: Leonardo's subtle modelling of forms, Leonardo's atmospheric qualities, Leonardo's monumentality of composition. It becomes apparent that Leonardo doesn't own these characteristics; it is the painting that owns them.

• The sentence that follows describes all the reasons for the paintings fame.

The ambiguity of the subject's expression, frequently described as enigmatic,[3] the monumentality of the composition, the subtle modeling of forms and the atmospheric illusionism were novel qualities that have contributed to the continuing fascination and study of the work.[1]

The enigmatic expression may fascinate the average tourist, and may have been deliberately and obviously imitated, but the composition, the modelling and the atmosphere are the factors which have had long-lasting impact on the history of art.

I'm adding the word "which" after enigmatic, to make the sequence clearer.

Amandajm (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I see

And now you've got far-too-much-bold up front there again, Mona, which is already distracting and clogging up the intro; a little top-heavy. And do you really want to leave "the most, the most, the most, the most, the most" as part of the first sentence of an encyclopedic entry? Because Because Because Because Because of the wonderful things he does ?? I direct you to have a look at the Guernica wiki… first paragraph: specifics relevant to the painting's creation. second paragraph: explanations of its notoriety. Clean. Smooth. Also have a look at Last Supper… one paragraph: who-did-it? when? what-is-it? Nary a mention about fame in the intro. (I can feel you right now getting wound up, preparing comparisons about how there are no comparisons between Mona Lisa's fame and that of other paintings. Save your time, I won't be back) Starry Night? The Scream? Check out how alternate titles and language credits are dealt with. Now take a look back at the Mona Lisa intro.

My insertion of the word considered was to cover the subsequent claim of most. I can describe someone as the most annoying person but that wouldn't mean everyone thinks so. It may not be a good idea to assume Mona Lisa is "the most" anything, either.

Thanks very much. You've just reminded me that I care far too much, and I now realize my input is not needed here. You're right. This article is just fine as it is; perfect, come to think of it. How silly of me to think it could be any better! Heck, I don't know anything about art. Writing either. What was I thinking?!

I'm just glad I didn't get as far as the "aesthetics" section, which barely provides sources for five paragraphs worth of clumsy explanations of subjective topics which are arguably most open to interpretation. Boy, that would've been a real waste of my time, thinking I could do any better. Shame on me. I'll just go back to chewing my toenails; you'll not hear from me again. Oh, "illusionism"... really? Wonderfulism. Penwatchdog (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "the most the most the most" is that it summarises the fame of the painting better than anything else does. These statements cannot be made about any other painting.

The possibility is to find two or three referenced quotations that say the same things, and that will be clumsier than what this particular person has written.

With regards to "is considered", the sequence starts with "has been acclaimed as......." and that covers it.

Saying that something is "the most beautiful" or "most annoying" would be to make value judgements. "Most famous" is not a value judgement. If millions of people know the painting well enough to consider it "the most famous painting", then it is the most famous painting. Is the Eiffel Tower the most famous structure in Paris, or do only some people consider that it is?

The words "atmospheric illusionism" come straight out of the Louvre website. They could have said "atmospheric perspective", except that "illusionism" probably sums up what is happening here, which is very odd!.

You are pointing me in the direction of several introductions that are not very well written and in each case fail to announce the significance of a very significant work.

• Guernica: This Introduction is good, in general because in this case the subject requires some explanation. However details like "by German and Italian warplanes" are unnecessary in the first sentence. I would be writing them out and leaving those details to the History section. The sentences follow each other logically. The fact that the painting gained iconic status is dealt with.

With regard to the others:

• Leonardo's Last Supper. The introduction fails to indicate the fame of the painting. Because of this, it isn't an adequate introduction for that work of art. It needs to be worked on.
• Starry Night. The intro does mention that it is one of van Gogh's "well known works" but fails to deal with its significance and its formal qualities as a painting. There is no indication of why it is a significant work.
• The Scream, well, there are four of them, which makes the introduction just a little more difficult. The introduction gave no indication of its significance in modern culture, so I fixed it with an appropriate quote.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the other intros. I'll do some rewriting.

I don't want to put you off, but there is no point in fixing what isn't broken. There are a great deal of badly written stuff that does need rearranging.

The section of the article dealing with aesthetics does indeed need referencing. It might have been drawn from Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't know.

Amandajm (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

When was it painted?

• The lead says the Mona Lisa "is believed to have been painted between 1503 and 1506."
• The infobox says: "Year c. 1503–1519"
• Under "History", the article says: "Leonardo da Vinci began painting the Mona Lisa in 1503 or 1504 in Florence, Italy. According to Leonardo's contemporary, Giorgio Vasari, 'after he had lingered over it four years, left it unfinished'."

Is the infobox wrong about when the painting was finish (or at any rate stopped), or is there more to this than meets the eye? —sroc (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is a bit confusing because some sources express more certainty about the dating than others. The lead is sourced to the Louvre website, which says Mona Lisa was "doubtless painted in Florence between 1503 and 1506 ... However, Leonardo seems to have taken the completed portrait to France rather than giving it to the person who commissioned it". This seems to be saying that the painting was finished within four years (contradicting Vasari). Martin Kemp (in "Leonardo da Vinci", Oxford Art Online) says "it is difficult to assign a single, finished, wholly autograph painting to the years 1500 to 1508 ... The painting generally regarded as the central product of these years is the so-called Mona Lisa (Paris, Louvre), although even it presents some problems of dating." Kemp then makes reference to Vasari's account and suggests that "the appearance of the picture lends support to the idea that it was painted over an extended period, since the craquelure of the face suggests that it was executed at a different time from the hands, which exhibit the thinness of his latest manner of painting." Bambach, Stern, and Manges, in Leonardo da Vinci, master draftsman (2003, 234), say that in 1503 Leonardo "begins planning the lost Leda and the Swan composition ..., as well as the Mona Lisa ... pictures that he probably continues to refine until 1516–17." The article could probably use some tweaks to reconcile the sections and to clarify that the authorities differ, particularly on the completion date. The infobox will always be misleading because infoboxes do not convey this kind of nuance well. Ewulp (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight, Ewulp! This is interesting indeed, and I'm somewhat surprised this isn't detailed in the article itself. Perhaps this can be added in the "History" section? Perhaps the infobox can be further clarified with a link to that section or a footnote? —sroc (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's my crude attempt at revising the "History" section, for your consideration:

Leonardo da Vinci began painting the Mona Lisa in 1503 or 1504 in Florence, Italy. Although the Louvre states that it was "doubtless painted painted between 1503 and 1506", there is some difficulty in confirming the actual dates with certainty. According to Leonardo's contemporary, Giorgio Vasari, "after he had lingered over it four years, left it unfinished". Leonardo, later in his life, is said to have regretted "never having completed a single work".

In 1516 Leonardo was invited by King François I to work at the Clos Lucé near the king's castle in Amboise. It is believed that he took the Mona Lisa with him and continued to work after he moved to France. Art historian Martin Kemp has concluded that da Vinci probably continued refining the work until 1516 or 1517.

On his death the painting was inherited, among other works, by his pupil and assistant Salaì. The king bought the painting for 4,000 écus and kept it at Palace of Fontainebleau, where it remained until given to Louis XIV. Louis XIV moved the painting to the Palace of Versailles. After the French Revolution, it was moved to the Louvre, but spent a brief period in the bedroom of Napoleon in the Tuileries Palace.

Is this a fair reflection of the sources? —sroc (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like a great improvement. I took the liberty of dropping it into the article with minor modification—Bambach is my source of the 1516-1517 end date; but if this is also in Kemp's Leonardo Da Vinci: The Marvellous Works of Nature and Man we can cite that too. Ewulp (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks! I was only going from your comment which I must have misread. I haven't checked the sources directly, other than the quote from the Louvre website (I don't have a copy of Kemp or Bambach). —sroc (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2013

Please add External links:

• Mona Lisa for sale. The web site where you can buy part of virtual image.

Przemmyslaw1 (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. Wikipedia is not for advertsing. RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Insurance price updated for inflation

I've updated the figure for insurance that is used by the article as a means of assessing value. (That existing line of reasoning makes the Mona Lisa by far the most valuable painting in the world.) I'm a little annoyed that fans of other artists have attempted to turn the Fame section into a battleground associating financial worth with artistic worth, however. This is along the same lines as deciding one pop artist is more important because they have more sales. I think ChaCha has a more sensible answer: "It has no assigned monetary value. It is priceless." That may be far into original research, but I was thinking ... what would be the world response if the Louvre decided to sell the Mona Lisa to a private individual ... for ANY price? Outrage. Immediate firings. Cancellation of sale. Hence, saying it's priceless may not be too far off the mark. At any rate, in an auction, my guess it would go for billions. Anyhow. Nothing to see here, I went to the MeasuringWorth website and updated the 2012 equivalent of $100,000,000. I also removed some of the bombastic superlatives regarding pricing. Leptus Froggi (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 August 2013

In the point "2. History" in the first paragraph there is a grammar mistake "doubtless painted painted between"(one painted too much) 93.232.190.156 (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for spotting that. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

should the name of the Bolivian man who through a stone at the work be included?

should the name of the Bolivian man who through a stone at the work be included?

it's like terrorists getting airtime for their actions?

like his actions or not you get to hear about it

is it appropriate? because as it stands he has his name linked to the artwork and has sort of tagged himself to it

should his name be removed? Thetiesthatbind (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Too much emphasis on the trivial. Amandajm (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 22, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-10-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Mona Lisa (La Joconde) is a half-length portrait of a woman by Leonardo da Vinci which was probably completed between 1503 and 1506, with further refinement continuing until 1517. Though the painting is thought to be of Lisa del Giocondo, a lack of definitive evidence has long fueled alternative theories as to the sitter's identity, including that it may represent Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory. It has been held in the Louvre in Paris since 1797 and is acclaimed as "the best known, the most visited, the most written about, the most sung about, the most parodied work of art in the world."Painting: Leonardo da Vinci

Edit request: under Legacy

Contesting: "Elle a chaud au cul" literally translated: "she has a hot ass". This is not a literal translation. "au cul" means "at ass", or could be interpreted "at [her] ass". Suggestion: replace "literally translated" with "meaning", or put in the literal translation "She has heat at [her] ass". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.142.5 (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. "Meaning", as per suggestion Amandajm (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"She has heat at [her] ass" is virtually gibberish in English. The translation "she has a hot ass" means the same thing, but in intelligable English - "hot ass" is heat at the "ass". Translation is not about word-for-word duplication, but about creating a coherent equivalent sentence. For example "C'est la Vie" is normally, and properly, translated "that's life" not "It's the life". Paul B (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2014 - Mona Lisa page

Dear Wikipedia,

on 2012 Mondadori, one of Italy's biggest editors of art studies, published a research on Mona Lisa's landscapes. A geomorphologist identified those landscapes with an accuracy never reached before. Since its publication that research has been having worldwide resonance. The information is already present on the Italian version of Mona Lisa ( Gioconda ) I would be pleased to let the anglophone world know about that, by writing the following text at the end of the chapter 'aesthetics' ( after the words '...for the lack of clear evidence [39].' ) :

" A recent research (1) by a geomorphology professor at Urbino university and an artist-photographer revealed astonishing likenesses of the Mona Lisa's landscapes to some views in the Montefeltro region in the Italian provinces of Pesaro Urbino and Rimini (2).

(1) Rosetta Borchia and Olivia Nesci, <<Codice P. Atlante illustrato del reale paesaggio della Gioconda>> , Mondadori Electa, 2012, ISBN 978883709277

(2) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/visualarts/article3612516.ece "

I think the following words should have a hyperlink : Urbino, Montefeltro, Pesaro, Rimini, in order to let the reader identify quickly which places he is reading about. I numbered the notes as 1 and 2 for convenience. Thank you very much in advance, I'm at your disposal for any clarification you may need Giacomo Quaresima

Please note that the same publication is mentioned also in the French page (La Joconde) :

" Le paysage[modifier | modifier le code] Une récente étude56 d'une professeur de géomorphologie de l'université d'Urbinoet d'une peintre-photographe a révélé des correspondances surprenantes entre les paysages de la Joconde et des vues dans le territoire de Montefeltro dans les provinces Italiennes de Pesaro Urbino et Rimini. " Giacomo Quaresima (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added this information and the references. Amandajm (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Amandajm. I attach hereby the link to the webpage of 8th International Conference of Geomorphology (Paris, August 2013) where the research was discussed and approved. The scientifique comittee was composed by some 60 university professors from all the world. http://www.geomorphology-iag-paris2013.com/en/detailed-programme The work was presented with the title "The Da Vinci Landscape Code; Exploring the Panorama behind La Gioconda" If anyone wants to see it I can let you download the abstract. Thank you very much for the cooperation. Best Regards. Giacomo Quaresima. --Giacomo Quaresima (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

On the note where the book is mentioned ("Codice P. Atlante..."), could you make a hyperlink on the title of the book to the following webpage ? http://www.electaweb.com/catalogo/scheda/978883709277/it Thank you very much in advance --Giacomo Quaresima (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Landscape

Landscape: The main article barely mentions the landscape and limits that to one opinion (reference number 34 in the article), that the landscape is “imaginary” despite compelling research by Starnazzi [1], Pezzutto [2] and others that it represents an actual place. It seems odd that an opinion is left unchallenged in the main article and findings that appear in peer-reviewed journals are relegated to the “Speculation about Mona Lisa” article. 1. Starnazzi, Carlo, Leonardo (Da Vinci.), and Carlo Pedretti. Codici & macchine. Cartei & Bianchi, 2010. 2. Pezzutto, Donato. “Leonardo’s Val di Chiana Map in the Mona Lisa,” Cartographica, 2011, 149-159. http://www.opusej.org/library/leonardos-val-di-chiana-map-in-the-mona-lisa-forum/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpezzutto (talk • contribs) 19:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Please add the following, as the final sentences in “Aesthetics”: There have been many claims matching the landscape to specific views of actual places. A 2011 article hypothesizes that the entire landscape is a map of the Val di Chiana projected using topographic perspective. Please cite this using the above reference 2.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mona_Lisa&action=edit&section=13# — Preceding. Frank Zöllner uses similar citations in a recent chapter contribution (page 75). See Zöllner, Frank, 2013, “From the Face to the Aura. Leonardo da Vinci’s Sfumato and the History of Female Portraiture”, in Inventing Faces. Rhetorics of Portraiture between Renaissance and Modernism. ed. Körte, Monika, Deutscher Kunstverlag, München, 67-83. ISBN: 9783422072534 http://www.gko.uni-leipzig.de/fileadmin/user_upload/kunstgeschichte/pdf/zoellner/Publikationen/unselbst_Publi/From_the_Face_to_Aura.pdfunsigned comment added by 174.94.31.59 (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC) 173.239.135.82 (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)174.94.31.59 (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014

Please update the following:

Title and subject / "German experts crack the ID of ‘Mona Lisa’". MSN. 14 January 2008.

The text content of this page is no longer available from Today.com but is still available from other source. Retrieved 1 May 2014. New Link to the same content: http://omnigp.com/IDofMonaLisa.html

OptimalWebmaster (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Done I have added updated the citation using the "archiveurl" parameter of the {{cite web}} template. However, the date in which this snapshot was created is missing and would be very helpful in making the citation better. Mz7 (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This request is pure spam -- the username is a big hint. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 02:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Francis' purchase

It is state under the section Value: "...that Francis I bought Mona Lisa in 1504 or 1506". Francis I would have been 12 years old at this time. Is this correct? 76.88.61.180 (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

In Reality

This page needs to be more accurate and precise. This picture is nothing more than a relevant snicker in the direction of me and my cohorts. That's the mona lisa smile. Sad and true. We need to talk about more it is an itty bitty little tiny smile or more end.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2014

Remove "as firmly as that had been the use, before". Clumsy is too kind a word. Should read [outlines (sfumato), "mainly in two features: the corners of the mouth, and the corners of the eyes" (Gombrich).] The woman appears alive to an unusual measure, which Leonardo achieved by his new method not to draw the outlines, "mainly in two features: the corners of the mouth, and the corners of the eyes" (Gombrich), as firmly as that had been the use, before (sfumato).[34]

23.242.84.163 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)