How do we know that Louvre version of Mona Lisa painting is the original one painted by Leonardo Da Vinci?

Upvote:6

This seems to be a general question into the nature of art appraisal: how do art experts know any work of art to be an original or a copy?

It is usually the conclusion to be drawn from the combined results of physical research (dating works, frames, researching the pigments, canvas and other materials used, checking the provenance, &c.) and stylistic research (comparison with other works, of both the presumed artist and their contemporaries, looking for signature brushwork, &c.).

After the restoration of the Prado Mona Lisa, in January 2012, a lot of new information was revealed on the matter.

Apparently, the Louvre and Prado versions of the Mona Lisa are both painted with high quality pigments, atop an underdrawing based on the same cartoon. The Prado panel has a grounding of lead white, which was rare at the time, and used by Da Vinci and his students during a specific period. The outlines of the landscape behind the sitter in both versions correspond.
These similarities imply the Prado version came from the same atelier, and either Da Vinci himself or a student made it.
Moreover, and this is especially telling, they both have very similar corrections (pentimenti) made using dark chalk, and from this the Prado experts conclude both paintings must have been made in parallel.
Most pertinent to your question, however, is the stylistic difference in the otherwise near identical composition - an obvious example being that the sfumato (the blurring of contours and gradients), typical for Da Vinci's paintings, is missing in the Prado version. From these observations it can logically be inferred that someone else must have been imitating Da Vinci's process:

"As far as we are familiar with them, Leonardo's working methods were experimental in nature whereas in the copy they are quite clear and evident. The artist is repeating what Leonardo did but in a clearer and more precise manner."

Some of the reasoning of the Prado experts is being criticized in this article on monalisa.org, which makes for a nice additional read, but the conclusions seem to be similar. The article points out how the assumed time span of the working process of the Mona Lisa must have been significantly shorter than expected (3 instead of 16 years) in order for a follower or pupil of Da Vinci to have copied it this way.

More post

Search Posts

Related post