louvdo you think Mona is genuine?

Go Fig wrote in message ...
In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Bermont writes:

What would you consider a good work of art?

A lot of da Vinci's own other works easily surpass the Mona Lisa.

There are, at most, 11 completed works, probably fewer like 5 IIRC.

5 "and a half" are in the Louvre : Joconde (Mona Lisa), Vierge au
Rocher, Vierge & Jesus & Ste Anne, Belle Ferronniere, St Jean
Baptiste,
and Bacchus (+ workshop) + at least 2 copies Virgin & child, woman
portrait...
The Vierge au Rocher of the Louvre is the original one while the one
of the NG of London is a copy made with the help of the artist
workshop as the treatment of the head of St John the Beaptist prooves
it, like the Louvre's Bacchus (or for ex. 2 of the 3 Louvre's
Velasquez). The Louvre posters always precises when it is made with
the help of an artist workshop or with the help of another artist
(Concert champetre of Titian + Giorgione ; Jeanne d'Aragon of Raphael
+ (?) Giulio Romano), the NG doesnt, if I remember well, for the later
version of the Vierge aux Rochers. That prooves the honesty of the
Louvre's conservateurs compared to some other museums.
The Mon(n)a Lisa is temporarily presented in the (Salvatore) Rosa room
(napolitan school) behind a darker glass than before, during the works
in the salle des Etats, in refurbishment since four years, and which
will re-open next spring.
In the Louvre some could consider the Vierge aux Rocher or the Belle
Jardinière as better works (remember that nobody dared to restore the
Vinci works since they entrered in the Louvre notably the Virgin & Ste
Anne and the dark Vierge aux Rochers at the different of the radical
treatments of many primitives or Renaissance paintings (Ucello,
Titian, Botticelli works, etc...) in anglo saxons museums in
particular).
I personaly don't. I was fearing to be disapointed when I first saw
the painting, but when I discovered its green bluring effects in the
back and the peacefullness and "justesse" of the lady portrait, some
years ago, behind the transparent glass of its original setting in the
salle des Etats I was absolutly not. And believe me this pleasure to
not be dispointed even gave me a kind of aesthetical "shock".

I returned to the Louvre last friday and the impression was totally
different because of the dark glass. Of course this is the original
behind the glass like all the paintings presented in the Louvre as far
as the conservateur are aware of it. It's ridiculous to pretend the
contrary. If an anonymous but old copy is presented like, for a rare
exception (if not unique), the portrait of the cardinal of Amboise by
Andrea Solario (because of the historical importance of the lost
original, in France) or if it is made by another artist (Ste Catherine
copy by Giulio Romano of Raphael original, etc...) it is explicitly
precised on the poster !

didier Meurgues



jay
Fri Aug 06, 2004

"meurgues" wrote in message m...A lot of da Vinci's own other works easily surpass the Mona Lisa.

There are, at most, 11 completed works, probably fewer like 5 IIRC.

5 "and a half" are in the Louvre : Joconde (Mona Lisa), Vierge au
Rocher, Vierge & Jesus & Ste Anne, Belle Ferronniere, St Jean
Baptiste,
and Bacchus (+ workshop) + at least 2 copies Virgin & child, woman
portrait...
The Vierge au Rocher of the Louvre is the original one while the one
of the NG of London is a copy made with the help of the artist
workshop as the treatment of the head of St John the Beaptist prooves
it, like the Louvre's Bacchus (or for ex. 2 of the 3 Louvre's
Velasquez). The Louvre posters always precises when it is made with
the help of an artist workshop or with the help of another artist
(Concert champetre of Titian + Giorgione ; Jeanne d'Aragon of Raphael
+ (?) Giulio Romano), the NG doesnt, if I remember well, for the later
version of the Vierge aux Rochers. That prooves the honesty of the
Louvre's conservateurs compared to some other museums.
The Mon(n)a Lisa is temporarily presented in the (Salvatore) Rosa room
(napolitan school) behind a darker glass than before, during the works
in the salle des Etats, in refurbishment since four years, and which
will re-open next spring.
In the Louvre some could consider the Vierge aux Rocher or the Belle
Jardinière as better works (remember that nobody dared to restore the
Vinci works since they entrered in the Louvre notably the Virgin & Ste
Anne and the dark Vierge aux Rochers at the different of the radical
treatments of many primitives or Renaissance paintings (Ucello,
Titian, Botticelli works, etc...) in anglo saxons museums in
particular).
I personaly don't. I was fearing to be disapointed when I first saw
the painting, but when I discovered its green bluring effects in the
back and the peacefullness and "justesse" of the lady portrait, some
years ago, behind the transparent glass of its original setting in the
salle des Etats I was absolutly not. And believe me this pleasure to
not be dispointed even gave me a kind of aesthetical "shock".

I returned to the Louvre last friday and the impression was totally
different because of the dark glass. Of course this is the original
behind the glass like all the paintings presented in the Louvre as far
as the conservateur are aware of it. It's ridiculous to pretend the
contrary. If an anonymous but old copy is presented like, for a rare
exception (if not unique), the portrait of the cardinal of Amboise by
Andrea Solario (because of the historical importance of the lost
original, in France) or if it is made by another artist (Ste Catherine
copy by Giulio Romano of Raphael original, etc...) it is explicitly
precised on the poster !

didier Meurgues

Wow!

I'll just bet you're a lot of fun at parties ! g

"meurgues" wrote in message m...A lot of da Vinci's own other works easily surpass the Mona Lisa.

There are, at most, 11 completed works, probably fewer like 5 IIRC.

5 "and a half" are in the Louvre : Joconde (Mona Lisa), Vierge au
Rocher, Vierge & Jesus & Ste Anne, Belle Ferronniere, St Jean
Baptiste,
and Bacchus (+ workshop) + at least 2 copies Virgin & child, woman
portrait...
The Vierge au Rocher of the Louvre is the original one while the one
of the NG of London is a copy made with the help of the artist
workshop as the treatment of the head of St John the Beaptist prooves
it, like the Louvre's Bacchus (or for ex. 2 of the 3 Louvre's
Velasquez). The Louvre posters always precises when it is made with
the help of an artist workshop or with the help of another artist
(Concert champetre of Titian + Giorgione ; Jeanne d'Aragon of Raphael
+ (?) Giulio Romano), the NG doesnt, if I remember well, for the later
version of the Vierge aux Rochers. That prooves the honesty of the
Louvre's conservateurs compared to some other museums.
The Mon(n)a Lisa is temporarily presented in the (Salvatore) Rosa room
(napolitan school) behind a darker glass than before, during the works
in the salle des Etats, in refurbishment since four years, and which
will re-open next spring.
In the Louvre some could consider the Vierge aux Rocher or the Belle
Jardinière as better works (remember that nobody dared to restore the
Vinci works since they entrered in the Louvre notably the Virgin & Ste
Anne and the dark Vierge aux Rochers at the different of the radical
treatments of many primitives or Renaissance paintings (Ucello,
Titian, Botticelli works, etc...) in anglo saxons museums in
particular).
I personaly don't. I was fearing to be disapointed when I first saw
the painting, but when I discovered its green bluring effects in the
back and the peacefullness and "justesse" of the lady portrait, some
years ago, behind the transparent glass of its original setting in the
salle des Etats I was absolutly not. And believe me this pleasure to
not be dispointed even gave me a kind of aesthetical "shock".

I returned to the Louvre last friday and the impression was totally
different because of the dark glass. Of course this is the original
behind the glass like all the paintings presented in the Louvre as far
as the conservateur are aware of it. It's ridiculous to pretend the
contrary. If an anonymous but old copy is presented like, for a rare
exception (if not unique), the portrait of the cardinal of Amboise by
Andrea Solario (because of the historical importance of the lost
original, in France) or if it is made by another artist (Ste Catherine
copy by Giulio Romano of Raphael original, etc...) it is explicitly
precised on the poster !

didier Meurgues

Wow!

I'll just bet you're a lot of fun at parties ! g

"meurgues" wrote in message m...A lot of da Vinci's own other works easily surpass the Mona Lisa.

There are, at most, 11 completed works, probably fewer like 5 IIRC.

5 "and a half" are in the Louvre : Joconde (Mona Lisa), Vierge au
Rocher, Vierge & Jesus & Ste Anne, Belle Ferronniere, St Jean
Baptiste,
and Bacchus (+ workshop) + at least 2 copies Virgin & child, woman
portrait...
The Vierge au Rocher of the Louvre is the original one while the one
of the NG of London is a copy made with the help of the artist
workshop as the treatment of the head of St John the Beaptist prooves
it, like the Louvre's Bacchus (or for ex. 2 of the 3 Louvre's
Velasquez). The Louvre posters always precises when it is made with
the help of an artist workshop or with the help of another artist
(Concert champetre of Titian + Giorgione ; Jeanne d'Aragon of Raphael
+ (?) Giulio Romano), the NG doesnt, if I remember well, for the later
version of the Vierge aux Rochers. That prooves the honesty of the
Louvre's conservateurs compared to some other museums.
The Mon(n)a Lisa is temporarily presented in the (Salvatore) Rosa room
(napolitan school) behind a darker glass than before, during the works
in the salle des Etats, in refurbishment since four years, and which
will re-open next spring.
In the Louvre some could consider the Vierge aux Rocher or the Belle
Jardinière as better works (remember that nobody dared to restore the
Vinci works since they entrered in the Louvre notably the Virgin & Ste
Anne and the dark Vierge aux Rochers at the different of the radical
treatments of many primitives or Renaissance paintings (Ucello,
Titian, Botticelli works, etc...) in anglo saxons museums in
particular).
I personaly don't. I was fearing to be disapointed when I first saw
the painting, but when I discovered its green bluring effects in the
back and the peacefullness and "justesse" of the lady portrait, some
years ago, behind the transparent glass of its original setting in the
salle des Etats I was absolutly not. And believe me this pleasure to
not be dispointed even gave me a kind of aesthetical "shock".

I returned to the Louvre last friday and the impression was totally
different because of the dark glass. Of course this is the original
behind the glass like all the paintings presented in the Louvre as far
as the conservateur are aware of it. It's ridiculous to pretend the
contrary. If an anonymous but old copy is presented like, for a rare
exception (if not unique), the portrait of the cardinal of Amboise by
Andrea Solario (because of the historical importance of the lost
original, in France) or if it is made by another artist (Ste Catherine
copy by Giulio Romano of Raphael original, etc...) it is explicitly
precised on the poster !

didier Meurgues

Wow!

I'll just bet you're a lot of fun at parties ! g

In article ,
(meurgues) wrote:

Leonardo actually painted 7 MLs. One original, and 6 copies. The
copies are painted on canvas, where the words "this is a fake"
(in English) is written. The original was found in the Louvre
until 1977 (or thereabouts), where it, and most of the copies,
were destroyed. The present ML is one of the copies.

I saw a BBC documentary on this.

Thank you Duggan.

That's ridicuous there has not been a fire in 1977 in the salle des
Etats of the Louvre were the original was kept, until it's 4 years
refurbisment which will be achieved next spring...!!! And why should
the Louvre keep copies with mentions... in english.... at the
attention of the french conservateurs !

The same about the allegedly false Van Gogh of Orsay museum. I was
still troubled despite the seriousness of the chemical surveys made
until I recently saw Van Goghs in the MET with exactly the same touch
and fading reds than the 3 contested.

LOL

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/episodeguide/cityofdeath/

--
David J Richardson --
http://davidj.richardson.name/ -- Dr Who articles/interviews/reviews
http://www.boomerang.org.au/ -- Boomerang Association of Australia

In article ,
(meurgues) wrote:

Leonardo actually painted 7 MLs. One original, and 6 copies. The
copies are painted on canvas, where the words "this is a fake"
(in English) is written. The original was found in the Louvre
until 1977 (or thereabouts), where it, and most of the copies,
were destroyed. The present ML is one of the copies.

I saw a BBC documentary on this.

Thank you Duggan.

That's ridicuous there has not been a fire in 1977 in the salle des
Etats of the Louvre were the original was kept, until it's 4 years
refurbisment which will be achieved next spring...!!! And why should
the Louvre keep copies with mentions... in english.... at the
attention of the french conservateurs !

The same about the allegedly false Van Gogh of Orsay museum. I was
still troubled despite the seriousness of the chemical surveys made
until I recently saw Van Goghs in the MET with exactly the same touch
and fading reds than the 3 contested.

LOL

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/episodeguide/cityofdeath/

--
David J Richardson --
http://davidj.richardson.name/ -- Dr Who articles/interviews/reviews
http://www.boomerang.org.au/ -- Boomerang Association of Australia