Talk:Mona Lisa/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

Under "Conservation" The original frame is believed to have been a slotted working frame similar to the one described and illustrated in Paris Ms.A. This working frame allowed the panel to expand and contract in two dimensions, as Leonardo expected. Over time, the exposed wood cells on the reverse of the panel lost moisture causing the panel to warp. The frame restricted this movement causing a split to develop in the upper part of the painting. When the panel was freed from the constraints of the original frame, it assumed a natural warp and no further splits have occurred. "Mona Lisa: Inside the Painting" (New York, 2006) pp. 18-19, 40-42. Diannemodestini (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2021 (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. Run n Fly (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Podcasts to be used as: References or External Links?

Can podcasts be used at all? If yes, is it as references or external links? I want to contribute quoting the episodes from the two widest known podcasts on Art History: ArtCurious and The Lonely Palette.

Here is an example from ArtCurious about Mona Lisa: https://www.artcuriouspodcast.com/artcuriouspodcast/1

It also has the transcript.

Please suggest! - Veera.sj (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It depends on if the podcast has fact checking and editorial control, or if it just people recording and broadcasting their thoughts without checking to see if they are accurate or not. I'd suggest getting some opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2021 (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)

The third para of the intro gives the painting's valuation of $100 million in 1962 as "equivalent to $870 million in 2021" … later, under Financial worth, the $100 million is "equivalent to $660 million in 2019". The amounts are consistent, but why show two different amounts? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

monna lisa

the name "mona lisa" is the english name for monna lisa and it doesn't come from giorgio vasari as wrongly stated in the article. mona, as correctly stated in the article, is a curse, meaning cunt. monna, as correctly stated in the article is short for madonna, which means signora in ancient italian. giorgio vasari writes about tthe painting in "le vite, vol III", 1550: "Prese Lionardo a fare per Francesco del Giocondo il ritratto di Monna Lisa sua moglie; et quattro anni penatovi lo lasciò imperfetto la quale opera oggi è appresso il re Francesco di Francia in Fontanbleo . . . Et in questo di Leonardo vi era un ghigno tanto piacevole che era cosa più divina che umana a vederlo, Et era tenuta cosa maravigliosa, per non essere il vivo altrimenti". Clearcross (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Corrected, thank you. Retxnihps (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2021

Part of this article, in the History section suggests that the paralysis of Leonardo Da Vinci's right hand in 1517 contributed to not him not fully completing the Mona Lisa:

"Leonardo's right hand was paralytic circa 1517,[55] which may indicate why he left the Mona Lisa unfinished"

Leonardo Da Vinci is famously known as being LEFT handed, and although this stroke itself may have contributed the cited source goes on to say:

'"Nevertheless, the ancient document reports Da Vinci continued to paint, draw, and teach," he added." '

I highly suggest the line that contains this flaw in this article be removed as it has no factual basis, as it suggests Leonardo didn't finish the Mona Lisa because he couldn't paint any more which is not true as the contributers source confirms 96.230.195.245 (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The Guardian source at the end of that paragraph says that the loss of mobility was why he didn't finish the painting, while the Live Science source suggest that he actually painted with his right hand more often. The Wikipedia text doesn't say or imply the paralysis is definitively why the painting is unfinished, so there's nothing wrong here. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

1525 Salai inventory

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1483789 refers to the recently discovered 1525 Court records following Salai's death where La Gioconda was passed to his sisters from his estate, with a valuation comparable to that of Salai's house. It's an important discovery of the provenance of the work, and some of the article doesn't yet reflect that. 51.9.74.171 (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Acid attack in the 50's?

All the news coverage coming out about the recent climate change attack says it was attacked/damaged by acid in the 50's but the Wikipedia article just says a brick? Does this need to be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:4E18:E358:415D:125D:26E0:B8A1 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Attempted vandalism 29.05.2022

On the 29th of May, 2022, a man disguised as an elderly woman in a wheelchair attempted to vandalise the Mona Lisa by throwing a cake at it. He did not succeed in his attempt, merely managing to smear the cake on the glass protecting the painting and then strewing roses around him. Though unclear as yet, the man is believed to have been attempting to raise awareness for climate change.

 Done. I've added this to the vandalism section. The entry will probably be expanded as more information becomes available. Askarion ^{💬●✒️} 14:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 Already done ––FormalDude talk 20:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Isabella d'Este

Mona Lisa has no eyebrows (she was probably a slave). Isabella d'Este has eyebrows, so she is not the Mona Lisa [1][2]. WtMLI (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@WtMLI We need reliably published sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. Neither of those are. Doug Weller talk 09:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory

Mona Lisa was painted sometime between 1503 - 1519. Another theory is that the painting's subject is Leonardo's mother, Caterina (1427 - 1495). This interpretation was put forth by, among others, Sigmund Freud, who seemed to think that the Mona Lisa’s mysterious smile emerged from a — perhaps unconscious — memory of Caterina’s smile [3]. Encyclopædia Britannica is definitely a reliable source. WtMLI (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Although the addition of Freud's theory is very appreciated and interesting, EB isn't all that reliable (being just another encyclopedia like this one). We'd ideally cite a more detailed explanation of the theory Freud put forward. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd Blocked, will add to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Relpmek/Archive Not CU of course, but I've gathered sufficient evidence to be sure. Doug Weller talk 07:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

As an aside and not related to the block, Kempler added the entry to the EB.[4] Why it was approved is anyone's guess. I tried to contact the person who did it but failed. I'm trying again. Doug Weller talk 07:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wrong target of link behind Belvedere Palace

The "Belvedere Palace" mentioned in the article is not Belvedere Palace in Vienna (construction started in 1712), this is a request to remove the hyperlink. The Belvedere Palace in question might be a precursor of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Belvedere but I cannot find information confirming this. Pickmann (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks. Have rewritten the sentence for encyclopedic language. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2023 (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)== 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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.109.165 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Leonardo Da Vinci

2607:FEA8:299F:C400:E1:4C73:8512:83A1 (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

V. Fitzgerald, 2607:FEA8:299F:C400:E1:4C73:8512:83A1 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Added images// ie. Imgur?

2607:FEA8:299F:C400:E1:4C73:8512:83A1 (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Identification of model contradiction

"The painting has been definitively identified to depict Italian noblewoman Lisa del Giocondo."

"The title of the painting, which is known in English as Mona Lisa, is based on the presumption that it depicts Lisa del Giocondo, although her likeness is uncertain."

The two above lines are contradictory.

The citation for the first quoted line does allege that the ID of the portrait model is positive. The reasoning for the first quoted line being changed to remark that the model is definitively identified (here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1092768724&oldid=1091996561&title=Mona_Lisa) is unclear. The previous version did remark that the model's identity is only probable, despite citing the same source. Cwerdna (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

First portrait to show sitter in imaginary landscape

"The painting was one of the first portraits to depict the sitter in front of an imaginary landscape, and Leonardo was one of the first painters to use aerial perspective."

There is nothing in the cited source that indicates this was the first portrait to depict the sitter in front of an imaginary landscape. A claim this significant should be removed or sourced better IMO Liam8682 (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

A {{cn}} tag was added to the unsupported text. SWinxy (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It only claims "one of the first portraits", a much smaller claim. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Limited to Italian portraits (this was a Nethlandish innovation), I think the claim is justified by Campbell, Lorne, Renaissance Portraits, European Portrait-Painting in the 14th, 15th and 16th Centuries, pp. 120-124, 1990, Yale, ISBN 0300046758. There are others from a decade or so earlier, but not many - of course in none is the landscape so large and spectacular, which would be a better thing to say, with a ref. In portraits, nearly all landscapes are "imaginary". Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"Decoding da Vinci" on NOVA.

For those who are interested, this episode of NOVA goes into great detail on the techniques da Vinci used in painting Mona Lisa, what pigments were used, how long he worked on it, its history, multiple analyses using different wavelengths like x-ray, how the eyes follow you and the smile changes as you move about the painting, what it would like if it were restored (the sky would definitely be blue), etc. It is an enthralling study of this painting.

As of today, this episode is currently available on PBS for free - "Decoding da Vinci" - https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/decoding-da-vinci/

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I have had the episode running again while typing here. The narrator just said that da Vinci worked on the painting for about 16 years.

Thanks again, Wordreader (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2023

Yuyukiformats 06 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If this painting is popular, I will add this to "Internet memes" section.

 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. There is also no "Internet memes" section on the page, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Tollens (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Mona Lisa and Madison Elizabeth

I like the Mona Lisa a lot because it sounds like my name. Mona is short for Madonna, which sounds like Madison. Lisa is short for Elisabeta, which sounds like Elizabeth. I also look like the lady in the Mona Lisa. Madison Elizabeth Michelle (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2024

Proposal to add a book reference: Jean-Pierre Mohen, Michel Menu, Bruno Mottin, Mona Lisa: Inside the Painting, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2006 (ISBN-13 ‏: ‎978-0810943155). as already added to the french version of this page. Dureisseix (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It has NOT been on permanent display at the Louvre in Paris since 1797.

The lede states that "it has been on permanent display at the Louvre in Paris since 1797," but that sentence is clearly wrong and needs to be removed or reworded. Aside from the fact that - according to this very same article - "during the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871), the painting was moved from the Louvre to the Brest Arsenal," the Mona Lisa was missing for 2 years after being stolen in 1911. Then we read that "during World War II, it was again removed from the Louvre and taken first to the Château d'Amboise, then to the Loc-Dieu Abbey and Château de Chambord, then finally to the Musée Ingres in Montauban," that "from December 1962 to March 1963, the French government lent it to the United States to be displayed in New York City and Washington, D.C.", and that "in 1974, the painting was exhibited in Tokyo and Moscow." Some people only read the lede of an article and those people are going to come away mistakenly believing that ... well ... that the Mona Lisa has been on permanent display at the Louvre in Paris since 1797, when that simply isn't true... FillsHerTease (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I think a "normally" will cover it. No doubt they've often removed it for inspection and conservation, as museums usually do. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't want to edit an article as important as this. I wasn't even sure if I would be able to!

FillsHerTease (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you 41.223.73.228 (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)