Talk:Mona Lisa

mona lisa and her silk merchant husband

Lisa Ghiradhino who is widely suspected of being the Mona Lisa is dressed in silk. Her husband was a silk merchant. The curved top of her head with a silk veil on it is the shape of one end of a silkworm cocoon ,the serpent shaped winding road is the silk road perhaps,the sharp rocks symbolize the tooth warps of the time that helped keep the warp even, her hands and skin are like silk,the aqueduct over her shoulder symbolizes water used to drive a mill wheel in silk manufacture in the 15th century.The hot colour of the painting is the heat used to get the silk from the cocoon. The Mona Lisa is probably all about silk. Alex-the-grate2 (talk)Alex-the-grate2

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2016

My edit request is quite simple. Reference one, the hyperlink is dead.

John Lichfield, The Moving of the Mona Lisa, The Independent, 2005-04-02 (Retrieved 9 March 2012)

I would like to update the link to point at

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-moving-of-the-mona-lisa-530771.html

Thank you for your time. Joe Flynn

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022

Husband Cody del Giocondo< 24.237.109.236 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoidh (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Lede is more definitive about identity than article

The lede currently says "The painting has been definitively identified to depict Italian noblewoman Lisa Gherardini", citing the statement from the University of Heidelberg: "All doubts about the identify of the Mona Lisa have been dispelled". Yet the article goes on to be much less definitive in its analysis, quoting the Louvre: "Leonardo da Vinci was painting, in 1503, the portrait of a Florentine lady by the name of Lisa del Giocondo. About this we are now certain. Unfortunately, we cannot be absolutely certain that this portrait of Lisa del Giocondo is the painting of the Louvre." In other words, the Heidelberg discovery confirms that Lisa was painted by Leonardo, but not that this specific painting is the painting of Lisa. Should we modify the lede to more accurately reflect what the article says? Powers ^T 15:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say the lede is more accurate than the body at the moment. There is wide consensus by Leonardo scholars that the subject is Lisa del Giocondo; the only reason we even include other names is because so many (usually unqualified) people have written about the painting that alternate subject theories have made their way into a sort of pseudo-mainstream view, which remains at odds with actual art historians. The Isabella d'Este theory is the only legitimate alternative but that doesn't mean any leading scholars prefer it over Lisa del Giocondo (it was mostly relevant before the note discovered in 2005). The current text on her needs to be redone quite a bit, but is okay as it stands, I think. Aza24 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of statement.

"This portrait is very different from the Mona Lisa of Louvre; the most important difference concerns the woman's face: here the protagonist is much younger than the lady shown in the famous Louvre's picture."

I have just removed this statement, on the following grounds.

• "very different". Actually, it is not very different. It is by far the closest of the copies.
• "the protagonist is much younger than the lady shown in the famous Louvre's picture." The person who wrote this has used the words "protagonist" and "lady shown" as if there were two separate people who sat for the portrait. No. This is nonsense. One painting is a direct, and very close copy of the other. The woman say for one portrait. Many years later, when that portrait had already become old and stained, someone painted the copy.
• "the protagonist is much younger". The one face is a very close reproduction of the other, butwhen an aerance of age is determined only by slight difference in shados, and slightly pinker lips, then this does not warrant saying "the protagonist is much younger" . You could say -"the copyist has made the sitter look a little younger than in the original", but that is as far as it goes. It does not answer to the description "very different".

Amandajm (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The Illusion section needs a grammar check

Interesting* 2601:444:581:D5B0:C114:E864:4631:B7D5 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Typo

In the Mona Lisa illusion, it says "intersting" instead of "interesting". LaMoustacho98 (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)