Isleworth Mona Lisa

The Isleworth Mona Lisa is an early sixteenth-century oil on canvas painting depicting the same subject (Lisa del Giocondo) as Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, though with the subject depicted as being a younger age.[1] The painting first came into public view in 1913 when the English connoisseur Hugh Blaker acquired it from a manor house in Somerset, where it was thought to have been hanging for over a century.[2]

Isleworth Mona Lisa
YearEarly sixteenth-century
MediumOil on canvas
SubjectLisa Gherardini
Dimensions84.5 cm × 64.5 cm (33.3 in × 25.4 in)
LocationPrivate collection, Switzerland

The lack of historical, stylistic or scientific evidence required for a definitive attribution has lead to disputes as to the painting's authorship and origins.[3][4] Ownership of the painting is disputed as well, as an anonymous "distinguished European family" has claimed that the painting's former owner had sold a 25% stake in the painting, but a lawyer stated that the claim was clearly without merit.[5]

Description
The Mona Lisa (1503–1516) by Leonardo da Vinci, of which the Isleworth Mona Lisa is either a copy or earlier version.

The work is either a copy or an earlier version of the more famous Mona Lisa in the Louvre.[6][7] Both paintings depict a dark haired woman, Lisa Gherardini, who sits at an angle and is surrounded by the landscape behind her.[8] The work measures 84.5 × 64.5 cm, slightly larger than the Louvre Mona Lisa.[9] However, the Isleworth Mona Lisa is notable for various differences, such as the model being noticeably younger,[10] having columns,[11] and being painted on canvas.[12] The canvas is of hand-woven linen cloth, characterized by:

...simple 'tabby' weaves with an average count of 18 threads per cm2 in the warp and 16 threads per cm2 in the weft, that cross one another regularly, with some variation in thickness. The result is a deformation in which the warp is slightly tighter than the weft.[13]

Face and hands

Konody observed of the Isleworth subject that "[t]he head is inclined at a different angle".[14] Physicist John F. Asmus, who had previously examined the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and investigated other works by Leonardo, published a computer image processing study in 1988 concluding that the brush strokes of the face in the painting were performed by the same artist responsible for the brush strokes of the face of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre.[15] Asmus found that the head appears to be "tilted forward toward the viewer... consistent with the dramatically shorter appearing neck, which is also a greater angle to the vertical than that of the Louvre painting".[15] Another early review noted that "[t]he head is tilted more forward and the parting of the hair is exactly in the center, while that of the Louvre picture starts in the middle of the forehead and runs towards the back of the head at an impossible and incorrect angle".[16] Asmus also noted that "the Isleworth figure has a somewhat higher forehead, a slightly wider face, and less of a bulge in the veil over the proper left side of the head".[15] He further noted that "the eyes are much wider set in the Isleworth painting".[15] John Eyre reported Adolfo Venturi, in his early 1920s examination, praised "the beauty of the eye drawing... is the principal portion done by Leonardo together with the line of the mouth".[17]

Italian curator Lorenzo Cecconi, who also examined the painting in the 1920s, said that "the fusion of the tints of the flesh, especially in the eyes; the line which designs the nose, the mouth, and the oval of the face" were remarkable, and indicated that "this may be a second work of the Great Leonardo".[17] In the same period, Renaissance scholar Arduino Colasanti thought "the upper part with the eyes and nose of the face" were definitely by Leonardo, and noted collector Ludovico Spirodon stated that "the face has been painted by Leonardo; no doubt of this at all".[17] In the 1960s, Pulitzer claimed that "densitometric tests on the planes of face and hands show a gradual change of tone values from dark to light which only [Leonardo] da Vinci, with his amazing eyesight, was capable of".[18] Asmus similarly found in the 1980s that amplitude histograms sorting the number of pixels of each brightness level in these features "reveal a remarkable similarity even though the images are noticeably different".[15] Other differences have been noted with respect to aspects of the face:

The Louvre picture, whether from cleaning or some other cause, shows a bulge over the left eye which is anatomically impossible–a blemish which is absent in the newly discovered version, while the line of the jaw is not cut in so suddenly against the chin. ... the whole picture is unbelievably beautiful.[16]

French artist Albert Sauteur suggested in 2014 that differences between the paintings were accounted for not only by the model having aged, but that the narrower face and closer eyes in the Louvre painting could be accounted for by Leonardo experimenting with painting from a binocular visual perspective, rather than the traditional monocular perspective.[19] British fine arts consultant Archibald Cecil Chappelow of the Royal Society of Arts, wrote in 1956 that "the face is superbly painted, and the hands more neatly defined than those in the Louvre painting".[20] Asmus specifically asserted that "portions of the hands in the Louvre painting have been criticized as being 'fat and ugly'", while "it is intriguing to note that the Isleworth thumb is more slender and closer to what would be expected from Leonardo".[15] Asmus notes that this may be the result of inept repair work later on.[15] Konody further stated of the painting that "[t]he hands, with their careful and somewhat hard drawing and terra cotta coloring, suggest at once the name of Leonardo's pupil, Marco d' Oggionno; whereas the inimitably soft and lovely painting of the head and bust, the exquisite subtlety of the expression, the golden glow of the general coloring, can be due only to Leonardo".[14] Spirodon thought that "[t]he redness of the hands is probably due to a bad varnish that could be removed".[17] Konody found the features of the Isleworth painting overall to be "more delicate" than those of the Louvre painting, stating of them, "let it be boldly stated, far more pleasing and beautiful than in the Louvre version".[14][21]

Hair and body

It has been noted that "[t]he hair which falls over the left shoulder is hardly indicated against the left breast, thus differing from the Louvre picture".[16] Cecconi observed that "the locks of hair falling on the right shoulder" did not correspond exactly to those in the Louvre's Mona Lisa, and that "the border around the neck differs in small details".[17] Colasanti, in his evaluation, was "particularly strong on the question of the hair", which he thought was indeed by Leonardo.[17] Kemp particularly dismissed the hair and clothing, describing the hair in the Louvre painting as having a "characteristic rivulet pattern", while deeming the rendering in the Isleworth version "routine".[9]

With respect to other elements of the body, Colasanti "was inclined to think that Melzi had done a great part of it", noting in particular that the throat "did not give the idea of being able to turn round which was extremely noticeable in all throats painted by Leonardo".[17] Spirodon also thought the throat to have definitely been painted by someone other than Leonardo.[17]

Kemp found certain elements of the clothing to be lacking, particularly in the rendering of the veil,[9] while Lorusso and Natali, examining multiple portraits sharing the theme of the Mona Lisa, write of the Isleworth painting that "additional impressive features are found that can only be attributed to the hand of a great master", including "details in the rendering and design of the embroidery on the dress, which suggest a brilliant mind".[22]

Background and columns

It is generally agreed that the painting was originally left unfinished, and specifically that the parts of the background other than the columns were a later addition. In Colasanti's evaluation, for example, "[t]he background did not worry him, it was not Leonardo".[17] According to Pultizer, testing of the paint indicated that the columns were part of the original work, while the background was "added in the 17th century in paints of a type used by Flemish artists".[18] Both Eyre and Pulitzer noted in their defenses of the painting that the columns were similar to those included by Raphael in his 1503 sketch of Leonardo's painting, although not found in the Louvre Mona Lisa. Kemp is particularly critical of the background, finding it monotonous, and the island of trees on the far left and their reflection poorly executed.[9] Konody, however, noted of the painting, that there "is far more background", and therefore felt that "the spacing is infinitely more pleasing", and that the background was "far less assertive than in the Paris picture".[14]

In examining the portraits through computer image processing technology, physicist John F. Asmus inserted the Isleworth painting subject on the Louvre painting background, so as to analyse the two subjects in the same context.[15]

Background

History

Researchers have indicated that the painting was likely brought to England from Italy in the 1780s by a nobleman from Somerset named James Marwood, who was documented as owning a painting attributed to Leonardo and titled "La Jaconde".[1] In 1913 English connoisseur and art collector Hugh Blaker spotted and acquired the painting from a nobleman's house in Somerset where it had been hanging for over a century.[2] The painting would eventually adopt its unofficial name of Isleworth Mona Lisa from Blaker's studio being in Isleworth, West London.[23] In a letter he wrote to his sister Jane, Blaker stated that he thought the work to be by Leonardo and therefore saw potential for making money out of his purchase.[24] Towards the beginning of 1914, Hungarian-born London art critic and historian Paul George Konody examined the painting, and concluded that, unlike Wilhelm von Bode's bust of Flora (which Konody had correctly discerned was falsely claimed as Leonardo),[25] the painting was in fact by Leonardo.[26][14] Konody wrote that the reception of the painting had been marred by "some press agent who sent out the news broadcast, with wrong statements, misquotations, and other blunders galore", but nonetheless found that "though not altogether from the hand of Leonardo da Vinci himself, it emanates most certainly from his studio and was very largely worked up by the master himself". Blaker's step-father, John R. Eyre, published a monograph in 1915 that suggested a partial attribution to Leonardo.[27] Eyre cited Konody's evaluation defending the authenticity of the Isleworth Mona Lisa as the motivation for his monograph, "when this opinion was endorsed by an art critic of Mr. P. G. Konody's standing, I felt convinced there was at least good ground for investigation".[28] In this monograph Eyre was the first to formally propose the painting as an earlier version of the Mona Lisa at the Lourve.[29] Kemp notes of Eyre that "His little book of fifty-one pages is full of careful scholarship, and makes about as good a case as can be made".[9]

With the approach of World War I Blaker sent the painting to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts for safekeeping.[30][31][32] Blaker's step-father, John Eyre, also believed in its attribution and claimed that the painting was a earlier version of Leonardo's Mona Lisa at the Louvre.[33] In 1922, Eyre traveled throughout Italy consulting various scholars on the painting, who generally concluded that Leonardo painted the most significant parts of the work.[34] Eyre reported these endorsements in a 1923 publication, which also expanded on the thesis of his 1915 book.[35] Eyre's 1923 book contained "opinions from some of the foremost art experts in Italy after the turn of the century", including Lorenzo Cecconi, Arduino Colasanti, and Adolfo Venturi, and those experts generally "agreed the painting probably was done in Da Vinci's studio, by his students, if not by himself".[18] However, the attributions based on connoisseurship evaluating sections of the painting such as face, hair, hands, and background failed to win a consensus as to authenticity at that time.[36] In 1936, the work was shown in Leicester, where it was seen by Henry F. Pulitzer, who was immediately struck by it.[37] After Blaker's death later in 1936, the painting was passed to his sister, Jane, who died in 1947, which left the painting's whereabouts unknown for a time.[38]

Pulitzer acquired the painting in 1962, and took the attribution further than Eyre, arguing that it was Leonardo's only real portrait of Lisa Gherardini, implying the Louvre Mona Lisa to be a copy.[39][40] Journalist Dianne Hales wrote that "Pulitzer had to sell his grand house in Kensington, all of its furnishings, and many of its paintings... Although the art world never overcame its skepticism, Pulitzer remained a believer to the end".[41] Pulitzer's argument included much historical evidence, including Vasari's controversial account.[40][42] In 1963, Pulitzer exhibited the painting in Phoenix, Arizona, inviting "all experts and critics who wish to view the painting and his evidence".[18] Jean-Pierre Isbouts notes of Pulitzer that despite his success as a publisher he was "not a very talented author", concluding that "[h]is unfortunate 1966 book about the painting, filled with uppercase screeds... did far more harm than good, and ensured that no self-respecting art historian would go near the work".[37] When Pulitzer died in 1979, his partner, Elizabeth Meyer, inherited the painting and after her death, the Isleworth Mona Lisa was sold to a group of Geneva-based investors in 2008.[43][44][45] On 27 September 2012, The Mona Lisa Foundation of Zurich officially unveiled the painting and simultaneously presented the Foundation's research and arguments for the painting's authenticity.[9][46] Most leading modern scholars remain skeptical.[47][48][49][50][51]

Ownership

Ownership of the painting is disputed as an anonymous "distinguished European family" has claimed that the painting's former owner had sold a 25% stake in the painting, but a lawyer stated that the claim was clearly without merit.[5]

Attribution
Raphael's drawing, based on the Mona Lisa

When Henry Pulitzer purchased the painting in 1962, he immediately endorsed the attribution of Eyre, stating the Isleworth was the only Mona Lisa done by Leonardo.[40] This was noted in his book where he argued that Leonardo's contemporary Raphael made a sketch of this painting, probably from memory, after seeing it in Leonardo's studio in 1504. The Raphael sketch includes the two Greek columns that are not found in the Louvre's Mona Lisa, but are found in the Isleworth painting. Pulitzer presents a few pages of art expert testimonials in his book; some of these experts seemed to believe that Leonardo was the painter, others felt the artist was somebody who worked in Leonardo's studio, and still others suggested that other artists may have done it. He then presents laboratory evidence, such as light to dark ratios across the canvas and X-rays, that suggested the painting to be by Leonardo. However, specific detail on the manner in which these studies were carried out, and by whom, is not provided. He writes: "I have no intention of cluttering up this book with too many technicalities and wish to make this chapter brief". No independent reports on the painting are cited in his text; he uses the pronoun "we" to refer to the team that conducted the research. As his own Pulitzer Press then published these results, there is a lack of outside corroboration for his claims.

Since then, a number of experts have examined and studied the work. Between 2012 and 2013 a number of examinations and tests were carried out and a summary was reported by Reuters on 13 February 2013.[52] Alfonso Rubino found that the work matched Leonardo's geometry and believed it to be by his hand.[52] In 2013, Professor Atila Soares examined the painting in detail and published a book where he confirmed its authenticity as a genuine Leonardo.[53]

In October 2013, Jean-Pierre Isbouts published his book The Mona Lisa Myth[54] examining the history and events behind the Louvre and Isleworth paintings and confirmed the latter's attribution to Leonardo.[55] A companion film was released in March 2014.[56] In April 2014, Albert Sauteur examined the perspective used to execute the Isleworth Mona Lisa and the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, and concluded that Leonardo painted both works.[57] In July 2014 "The Mona Lisa Mystery" premiered on the PBS television station's series Secrets of the Dead. This documentary investigated, at length, the authenticity of the Isleworth painting.[58]

An independent 2015 academic journal article by professors Salvatore Lorusso and Andrea Natali attributed the work to Leonardo on stylistic grounds.[22] In 2016 professors Asmus, Parfenov and Elford published the results of scientific examinations that established to their satisfaction that the same artist painted the face of both the Mona Lisa and the Isleworth Mona Lisa.[59][60]

Gérard Boudin de l'Arche published a comprehensive historical survey in 2017, concluding that Leonardo painted the Isleworth Mona Lisa, and that it was concluded before the Louvre Mona Lisa.[60]

Canvas

Kemp and others have noted that Leonardo's preferred medium was wood, asserting that he rarely painted on canvas. Others have countered that Leonardo "assiduously experimented with new ideas and technologies",[22] and that "the artist did occasionally paint on canvas".[8] In particular, Lorusso and Natali note that Leonardo had previous painted studies on drapery on a canvas that "had almost identical features", and that Leonardo's manuscript, A Treatise on Painting, "describes in detail not only how to prepare the canvas for painting, but also how to paint on it".[22] Lorusso and Natali indicate that the canvas was prepared with a layer of reddish-brown material, "a combination of red-brown ochre calcite and some grains of quartz", and that this was a technique used by Leonardo in other paintings to give additional warmth to the final painting.[22] The Mona Lisa Foundation also responded to the use of canvas in the Isleworth Mona Lisa, citing the Benois Madonna (which is generally attributed to Leonardo[61]) as a work Leonardo painted on canvas.[62] However, author Jehane Ragai notes that the Benois Madonna was originally painted on wood and then transferred to canvas.[62] Besides the Benois Madonna, the only other generally accepted Leonardo paintings that use canvas, the Virgin of the Rocks (Lourve version) and The Madonna of the Yarnwinder (The Lansdowne Madonna),[n 1] were also transferred from wood panels.[64] Isbouts states that testing of the canvas underlying the painting "revealed a detailed underdrawing with revisions", which he asserts are indicative of an original work rather than a copy.[37]

See also

Notes
  1. The Landsdowne Madonna is usually attributed to Leonardo and a student of his.[63]

References
  1. Evans, Robert (15 December 2014). "'Early Mona Lisa' traced to English country home". The Guardian.
  2. Ragai 2015, p. 162.
  3. Sooke 2015: "Moreover, Syson does not accept that scientific evidence can conclusively settle debates over the authenticity of pictures such as the Isleworth Mona Lisa. 'The bringing in of science – sometimes pseudo-science – is increasingly a feature of such claims,' he continues. 'Even if the science is good, it can never prove an attribution (though it can sometimes disprove it); it's only ever one of several factors we'd use to assess the authenticity and authorship of a work of art.'"
  4. Kallir 2018: "While scientific testing and provenance are important, connoisseurship is the glue that binds everything together. Art authentication is not, and probably never will be, an exact science."
  5. Holland 2019.
  6. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2020: "Other copies of the Mona Lisa include the so-called Isleworth Mona Lisa, which some commentators asserted was Leonardo’s first version of the famed portrait. The claim was a controversial one, with several leading Leonardo scholars flatly denying it."
  7. Cohen 2018: "For the last four decades, a portrait of a woman closely resembling the subject of Leonardo da Vinci’s famed Mona Lisa has remained under lock and key in a Swiss vault."
  8. Sooke 2015.
  9. Kemp 2018: Chapter 3: Looking at Lisa
  10. Sooke 2015: "Except this woman is obviously much younger than the subject of the Louvre painting."
  11. Cohen 2018: "She also appears flanked by columns that are absent from the artist’s renowned portrait."
  12. Ragai 2015, p. 164: "One important concern voiced by a large number of art historians and connoisseurs relating to the Isleworth Mona Lisa is that Leonardo never painted on canvas but generally painted on wood."
  13. Lorusso & Natali 2015, p. 71.
  14. Konody 1914, p. 25.
  15. Asmus 1990, pp. 652–656.
  16. "English Picture May Be Original of 'Mona Lisa'", Detroit Free Press (15 February 1914), p. 60.
  17. Eyre 1923, pp. 34–35.
  18. "Not One, But Two Mona Lisas Indicate They're 'Twins'", Arizona Republic (January 8, 1963), p. 11.
  19. Sauteur, Albert (22 April 2014). "Albert Sauteur réinvente la perspective". Migros Magazine. Vol. 17. pp. 14–17.
  20. Chappelow, A. C. (1 July 1956). "The Isleworth Mona Lisa". Apollo Magazine. p. 28.
  21. Voon, Claire (12 January 2015). "Alleged 'Early Mona Lisa' on Display for the First Time". Forbes.
  22. Lorusso & Natali 2015, p. 80: "The subject is the same, but the paintings vary considerably, making them two works in their own right and not a copy of each other."
  23. Holland 2019: "Blaker moved the painting to his studio in Isleworth, a west London suburb after which it is now unofficially named."
  24. Hales 2017, p. 252: "'The Mona Lisa is perfectly beautiful...' Blaker wrote to his sister Jane. 'I think there is big money in it.'"
  25. "Showing Swindlers in the World of Art Never Lack Victims", New York Herald (22 June 1919), p. 72.
  26. Eyre 1923, pp. 37–38.
  27. Lorenzi 2012: "In 1915 his stepfather John R. Eyre, an art historian, published a book suggesting that Leonardo painted two versions of the Mona Lisa and claiming that at least the bust, the face and the hands of the Isleworth lady were a genuine work by Leonardo Da Vinci –- basically, a prequel to his famous portrait."
  28. Eyre 1915: Preface
  29. Kemp 2018: "It was Eyre who first formulated the idea that the Isleworth version preceded that in the Louvre..."
  30. Hales 2017, p. 252.
  31. "Book Reviews", Art and Progress (October 1915), p. 472.
  32. "The Islesworth Mona Lisa Again", The New York Times (26 September 1915), p. 64.
  33. Kemp 2018: It was Eyre who first formulated the idea that the Isleworth version preceded that in the Louvre...
  34. Hales 2017, p. 252
  35. Eyre 1923.
  36. Hales 2017, p. 252: "Most agreed that Leonardo may have painted the face and hair while another artist or artists complete the throat, hands, background. Despite these endorsements, all based on 'connoisseurship,' or subjective appraisal, Eyre and his son-in-law never succeeded in establishing the portrait as a genuine Leonardo."
  37. Jean-Pierre Isbouts, The Mona Lisa Myth (Pantheon Press, 2013), p. 86-89.
  38. Kemp 2018.
  39. Pulitzer 1960.
  40. Ragai 2015, p. 163.
  41. Hales 2017, p. 253
  42. Lorenzi 2012: "But doubts about Vasari's attribution have persisted since he was known to rely on anecdotal evidence.‭"
  43. Kemp 2018: "The privately funded Zurich-based Mona Lisa foundation was created in 2010 with the intent of authenticating the painting and has continuously promoted the work."
  44. The Mona Lisa Foundation: "The purpose of the foundation is to investigate the evidence that Leonardo da Vinci painted two versions of the Mona Lisa portrait and to present the art history, scientific research and comparative studies of the earlier version of the portrait, historically referred to as the ‘Isleworth Mona Lisa’."
  45. Hales 2017, p. 253.
  46. Rosenbaum 2012.
  47. Isaacson 2017, p. 491: "Even as Leonardo was perfecting the Mona Lisa, his followers and some of his students were making copies, perhaps with an occasional helping hand from the master. Some are very good, including those known as the Verono Mona Lisa and the Isleworth Mona Lisa, prompting claims that they may have been painted wholly or mostly by Leonardo, though most academic experts are skeptical."
  48. Kemp 2018: "The role-call of significant contemporary Leonardo specialists who openly and unequivocally supported the attribution in public was precisely zero. Alessandro Vezzosi, who spoke at the launch in Geneva, and Carlo Pedretti, the great Leonardo specialist, made encouraging but noncommittal statements about the picture being of high quality and worthy of further research."
  49. Sooke 2015: "Like Eyre and Pulitzer before them, the current owners of the Isleworth painting are convinced that it is in part by Leonardo. Yet, like Eyre and Pulitzer, they are struggling to convince leading scholars. As well as Kemp, other respected Leonardo experts including the German art historian Frank Zollner deny that there is any substance to their claims."
  50. Marani 2003, pp. 338–341: In Marini's checklist, which he describes as: "Listed here are all paintings considered autograph works of Leonardo and works attributed to other artists in which it is possible to identify Leonardo's hand" the painting does not appear.
  51. Zöllner 2019, pp. 210–251: In Zöllner's catalogue, that he describes as: "The following catalogue raisonné contains the cartoons and paintings by Leonardo da Vinci's own hand, a number of early copies of his lost paintings and cartoons, together with more contentious attributions, insofar as these are rationally justified" the painting does not appear.
  52. Evans 2013.
  53. Soares, Atila (2013). A Jovem Mona Lisa. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil: Multifoco. ISBN 9788582733882.
  54. Edwards, Hilary (7 November 2013). "New Book by Fielding Faculty Member Jean-Pierre Isbouts, DLitt, Shatters the Myths of the 'Mona Lisa'". Fielding Graduate University News.
  55. Isbouts, Jean-Pierre; Heath-Brown, Christopher (2013). The Mona Lisa Myth. Santa Monica, California: Pantheon Press. ISBN 978-1492289494.
  56. The Mona Lisa Myth. IMDb. 2014.
  57. Sauteur, Albert (22 April 2014). "Albert Sauteur réinvente la perspective". Migros Magazine. Vol. 17. pp. 14–17.
  58. "The Mona Lisa Mystery". Secrets of the Dead. PBS. July 2014.
  59. Asmus, John F.; Parfenov, Vadim; Elford, Jessie (28 November 2016). "Seeing double: Leonardo's Mona Lisa twin". Optical and Quantum Electronics. 48 (12): 555. doi:10.1007/s11082-016-0799-0.
  60. Boudin de l'Arche, Gerard (2017). A la recherche de Monna Lisa. Cannes, France: Edition de l'Omnibus. ISBN 9791095833017.
  61. Marani 2003, p. 338.
  62. Ragai 2015, p. 164.
  63. Marani 2003, p. 339.
  64. Marani 2003, pp. 338–340.

Sources
Books
  • Eyre, John (1923). The Two Mona Lisas: which was Giacondo's picture?: ten direct, distinct, and decisive data in favour of the Isleworth version, and some recent Italian expert opinions on it. London, England: J.M. Ouseley & Son. OCLC 19335669.
  • Marani, Pietro C. (2003). Leonardo da Vinci: The Complete Paintings (1st ed.). New York City, New York: Harry N. Abrams. ISBN 978-0810935815.
  • Pulitzer, Henry E. (1960). Where is the Mona Lisa?. London, England: The Pulitzer Press. ASIN B0027MR0A2.
  • Syson, Luke; Larry Keith; Arturo Galansino; Antoni Mazzotta; Scott Nethersole; Per Rumberg (2011). Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the Court of Milan (1st ed.). London, England: National Gallery. ISBN 978-1857094916.
  • Zöllner, Frank (2019). Leonardo da Vinci: The Complete Paintings and Drawings (Anniversary ed.). Cologne, Germany: Taschen.
Academic Journals
Articles
Web
  • The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (18 July 2019). "Mona Lisa". Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. Retrieved 10 June 2020.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.