i enjoyed this conversation on a superficial level, but i agree with you that they are not really saying much. when i saw the mona lisa i understood part of leonardo's genius: he keeps so much from view. any ideas where to find a more detailed art channel would be appreciated, but i do enjoy this for what it is, pleasant commentary introducing art ideas
These are wonderful videos, intended to be digestible, not the supreme word on anything. They fulfill their purpose brilliantly. They're fun, addictive, and whetting of the apetite to learn more.
Surely the most compelling reason why the Louvre chooses not to clean/restore the painting is because it doesn't wish to remove the painting from public view for the extended period of time that such cleaning would require. To quote Louvre director Henri Loyrette in 2009, "80 percent of the people only want to see the Mona Lisa" so it would severely decrease visitor numbers (and revenue) during the period that the painting is not on view.
THE HARD TRUTH... it's basically 'The Pedophiles Painting' 5 copies of this pile of hearsay. Allegedly created and touched up by the Master who in turn would've touched up his young boys to enlighten the glory. (Common Practice back then however the Catholic Church & Co clearly follow through with Tradition. 'Old Habits Die Hard' ANYWAY regarding "Old Master Artworks !!!!" having been in the Art Game.... I have to tell 'The Hard Truth'. Hardly any public information or any proven DNA analysis or irrefutable fact based evidence is available for scrutiny. Too many hearsay artworks from gatekeepers of certain Cartel Institutions . Nor are there any details to do a 'Columbo' via impartial non commercially biased scientific institutions or real 'EXPERTS'. The portraits of Da Vinci plus high level artworks are never open to impartial scrutiny. There is never any salient facts satisfactory beyond reasonable doubt. The Gioconda DNA has never been ascertained nor have they ever found the body or any the bones. Examples Caravaggio etc etc.. What is seldom discussed as per during WWII - the so called Gioconda was stolen and somewhat conveniently and eventually retrieved. Of the 5 known copies - thanks to the 1911 theft - misdirection pursued. Since the cover up aka smokescreen that ensured - The Louvre have never ever and never will allow anyone to scrutinise the copy in Paris. Too Big A $candal BUT they did find major discrepancies in the base sketch It's like viewing a portrait of Obama and decades later the Base sketch is identified as Desmond Tutu. Conveniently the armchair acclaimed academics ie Martin Kemp & Cohorts indirectly linked to museums, appraisers and auction houses are quick to say.. . 'The Artist Changed His Mind'. Perhaps the '$alvador Modestini' sorry (Mundi) was a glorious discovery by Alex Parrish to acquire a $1200 dilapidated wreck and suddenly a beyond recognition / restoration justified the evidence whereby one is to believe Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought well let's do a painting with a Christ holding a crystal ball. Pardon My Thumb WTF.😅😅😅😅😅 Move over to recents whereby the National Gallery aka 'Kemps Pals' and their splendid authentic Uhmm 'Virgin of the Rocks' plus many more Old Master artworks have entirely different base sketches and inconsistencies towards deriving a 100% artwork from the very hand of the Old Master. So Today's Lesson.. Dear Deluded Humans !! It's a Monetisation game. The In$titutions accommodate $elfies and $alvation.. my advice.... WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.
Silvano Vinceti, head of the National Committee for Cultural Heritage, believes that the Mona Lisa bears several striking similarities to Gian Giocomo Caprotti, known as Salai. He also examined infra-red scans of the world-famous artwork and compared it to other works by the master that Salai was known to have modeled for.Salai was apprenticed to Leonardo at around age 10, in 1490, and was known for being somewhat of a troublemaker-his nickname means “little devil.” He worked with the Renaissance master for two decades, and the two are widely believed to have been romantically involved.
I, myself, came to the same conclusions, after noticing that "Mona Lisa", as well as several of da Vinci's other portraits have the same face, especially "Saint John the Baptist" and "Bacchus". However, also several other of his paintings also contain that same face, such as "Virgin of the rocks" "The Virgin with the Child" "The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne" "The Buccleuch Madonna" The Madonna of the yarnwinder Leda and the swan Nude Mona Lisa (not 100%) I furthermore guessed that "Mona Lisa" never quite made it to the del Giocondos...because the person depicted in the painting, probably didn't look much like Lisa Gherardini (Lisa del Giocondo) and therefore couldn't be presented to the actual clients. And that was correct. "Mona Lisa" remained with da Vinci until the end. My guess is for 'sentimental reasons'. He didn't want to part with it. Several of da Vinci's many students, although not excessively talented as painters, except for Francesco Melzi, who was a gifted painter, all used the same face in their portraits. That ubiquitous face, is widely believed to have been that of Andrea Salaì, whom Leonardo da Vinci was equally widely believed to have had a sexual relationship with.
Silvano Vinceti is an impostor !!! Everything he proposes is based on no acceptable element! The truth is however known and quite logical, without extravagance.
It is interesting to compare the Prado copy to a digitally-restored Mona Lisa. The digital restoration, which I believe was done by the Louvre, was designed to remove the effects of darkening varnish and the changes that the pigments underwent over time. Unlike the Prado copy, the digitally-restored Mona Lisa retains the enigmatic expression of the original. The sleeves of the restored Mona Lisa are brown, not red. Lisa has some color in her cheeks, but she still has no eyebrows. Leonardo kept the Mona Lisa with him for the rest of his life, i.e., 15 or 16 years, and took it to France with him, and some accounts say that he never stopped working on it, which means that nobody was likely to have sat next to him and matched brushstroke for brushstroke throughout the entire time it was being painted. Other artists had fun with the Mona Lisa. For example, Salvador Dali replaced her face with his own (which had a long mustache) and the performance artist Sapeck (Eugène Bataille) painted her with a pipe.
Mona Lisa Portret patrycuszki Florenckiej Mony Lisy del Gio Condo, namalowany W 1503- 1506 przez Leonarda da Vinci. To jeden z Najsłynniejszych Portretów w dziejach Sztuki.Ledwo Uchwytny półuśmiech Kobiety przyczynił się Do rozsławienia obrazu,w którym Zamglony krajobraz Współkształtuje Atmosferę Tajemniczości.
"Eighty percent of the people only want to see the Mona Lisa". Wow. This says a lot about how much the average person cares about Art in general. I already knew this but, as a painter myself, it still feels like a real kick in the head every time I hear it. "I can't be bothered, you know, as I have more pressing things to consider. By the way, where can I get a beer around here?"
In the 80s, I remember a British article published that suggested that the "Mona Lisa" is actually a self-portrait of da Vinci in drag. I'm relieved that such a theory seems to not be disseminated in art culture anymore.
Sadly, it still crops up a lot. People like the idea, perhaps because it points to the bigger truth that a work of art is always, in some sense, a self-portrait (In this case, just not literally so).
hmm well i know this was made in 2012, but i cant help but wonder why they mention the Prado copy but not the Isleworth Mona Lisa. They even show an image of the isleworth Mona Lisa in their google images search/display.
In 2004 the Mona Lisa was removed from its frame and it was proven that the Mona Lisa was never cropped or trimmed. The columns were never painted in full as they are shown in Raphael's sketch. Did Raphael add them on his own or was he looking at a second "Mona Lisa"?
Martin Kemp has stated that he believes the painting was not cut down based on an examination when it was unframed. While compelling, I am not sure that constitutes proof particularly given the array of opinions.
@@smarthistory-art-history THE HARD TRUTH... it's basically 'The Pedophiles Painting' 5 copies of this pile of hearsay. Allegedly created and touched up by the Master who in turn would've touched up his young boys to enlighten the glory. (Common Practice back then however the Catholic Church & Co clearly follow through with Tradition. 'Old Habits Die Hard' ANYWAY regarding "Old Master Artworks !!!!" having been in the Art Game.... I have to tell 'The Hard Truth'. Hardly any public information or any proven DNA analysis or irrefutable fact based evidence is available for scrutiny. Too many hearsay artworks from gatekeepers of certain Cartel Institutions . Nor are there any details to do a 'Columbo' via impartial non commercially biased scientific institutions or real 'EXPERTS'. The portraits of Da Vinci plus high level artworks are never open to impartial scrutiny. There is never any salient facts satisfactory beyond reasonable. The Gioconda DNA has never been ascertained nor have they ever found the body of the bones. Examples Caravaggio etc etc.. What is seldom discussed as per during WWII - the so called Gioconda was stolen and somewhat conveniently and eventually retrieved. Of the 5 known copies - thanks to the 1911 theft - misdirection pursued. Since the cover up aka smokescreen that ensured - The Louvre have never ever and never will allow anyone to scrutinise the copy in Paris Too Big A $candal BUT they did find major discrepancies in the base sketch ie Pascal Cotte, But the armchair academics Martin Kemp & Cohorts indirectly linked to museums, appraisers and auction houses are quick to say.. . 'The Artist Changed His Mind'. Perhaps the '$alvador Modestini' sorry (Mundi) was a glorious discovery by Alex Parrish to but a $1200 dilapidated battered wreck and suddenly a restoration justified the evidence whereby one is to assume Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought well let's do a painting with a Christ with a crystal ball. WTF.😅😅😅😅😅 Move over to recent whereby the National Gallery aka 'Kemps Pals' and their splendid authentic Hmmmm 'Virgin of the Rocks' and many more LDV and Old Master artworks have entirely different base sketches and inconsistencies towards deriving a 100% artwork from the very hand of the Old Master. And Today's Lesson.. Dear Deluded Humans !! It's a Monetisation game. The In$titutions accommodate $elfies and $alvation.. my advice.... WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.
How is it possible to have so little to say on such a painting? It is clear that for Khan academy mathematics are worth of lessons while art just deserves "conversations", with no serious reference to art history. Saying that the background landscape seems volcanic, that the painting may be more famous because it was stolen, that it is a portrait with "sfumato" and that it may be fun to add mustaches to a figure that may look masculine is just shallow: why don't you work more?
@Louis THE HARD TRUTH... it's basically 'The Pedophiles Painting' 5 copies of this pile of hearsay. Allegedly created and touched up by the Master who in turn would've touched up his young boys to enlighten the glory. (Common Practice back then however the Catholic Church & Co clearly follow through with Tradition. 'Old Habits Die Hard' ANYWAY regarding "Old Master Artworks !!!!" having been in the Art Game.... I have to tell 'The Hard Truth'. Hardly any public information or any proven DNA analysis or irrefutable fact based evidence is available for scrutiny. Too many hearsay artworks from gatekeepers of certain Cartel Institutions . Nor are there any details to do a 'Columbo' via impartial non commercially biased scientific institutions or real 'EXPERTS'. The portraits of Da Vinci plus high level artworks are never open to impartial scrutiny. There is never any salient facts satisfactory beyond reasonable doubt. The Gioconda DNA has never been ascertained nor have they ever found the body or any the bones. Examples Caravaggio etc etc.. What is seldom discussed as per during WWII - the so called Gioconda was stolen and somewhat conveniently and eventually retrieved. Of the 5 known copies - thanks to the 1911 theft - misdirection pursued. Since the cover up aka smokescreen that ensured - The Louvre have never ever and never will allow anyone to scrutinise the copy in Paris. Too Big A $candal BUT they did find major discrepancies in the base sketch It's like viewing a portrait of Obama and decades later the Base sketch is identified as Desmond Tutu. Conveniently the armchair acclaimed academics ie Martin Kemp & Cohorts indirectly linked to museums, appraisers and auction houses are quick to say.. . 'The Artist Changed His Mind'. Perhaps the '$alvador Modestini' sorry (Mundi) was a glorious discovery by Alex Parrish to acquire a $1200 dilapidated wreck and suddenly a beyond recognition / restoration justified the evidence whereby one is to believe Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought well let's do a painting with a Christ holding a crystal ball. Pardon My Thumb WTF.😅😅😅😅😅 Move over to recents whereby the National Gallery aka 'Kemps Pals' and their splendid authentic Uhmm 'Virgin of the Rocks' plus many more Old Master artworks have entirely different base sketches and inconsistencies towards deriving a 100% artwork from the very hand of the Old Master. So Today's Lesson.. Dear Deluded Humans !! It's a Monetisation game. The In$titutions accommodate $elfies and $alvation.. my advice.... WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.
On the screen with the multiple portraits,(3:05) 3 rows down, 3rd from the left is the true identity of Mona Lisa. The self portrait of Leonardo da Vinci cut in half and laid over the Mona Lisa being a perfect match. The Mona Lisa IS a self portrait of Leonardo da Vinci. Correction: 3rd from left, top row.
That is no self portrait. It shows a man in his 80's or 90's. Leonardo was 67 when he died. If you want to know what he looked like in his 60's, there is a drawing that is attributed to his associate, Francesco Melzi.
@@jackkomisar458 Leonardo da Vinci drew his own self portrait at age 60. He wore a full beard at the time. The faces of that portrait and the so-called Mona Lisa vary only by 4%. The Mona Lisa IS a self portrait. Those portraits are 3rd from the left top row.
@@oltedders I am very familiar with the drawing that you are referring to. It is sometimes called a "self-portrait" or a "presumed self-portrait". But Carmen Bambach, curator of drawings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art says, "...this famous portrait does not represent Leonardo himself, but he might have done it about 1495 [when he was about 43] as a study of a head (perhaps as a sort of elderly counterpart to the head of an ideal youth)..." This statement is on page 183 of the catalogue of an exhibition that Ms. Bambach curated at the Met in 2003, "Leonardo da Vinci Master Draftsman". I downloaded the catalogue for free from the Met's website. Ms. Bambach has just published a four-volume work on Leonardo da Vinci. Nobody knows more than she does about Leonardo's drawings. I don't know if the Mona Lisa is a self portrait or not. But the drawing of the 80- or 90-year-old man, made when Leonardo was about 43, proves nothing.
@@jackkomisar458 THE HARD TRUTH... it's basically 'The Pedophiles Painting' 5 copies of this pile of hearsay. Allegedly created and touched up by the Master who in turn would've touched up his young boys to enlighten the glory. (Common Practice back then however the Catholic Church & Co clearly follow through with Tradition. 'Old Habits Die Hard' ANYWAY regarding "Old Master Artworks !!!!" having been in the Art Game.... I have to tell 'The Hard Truth'. Hardly any public information or any proven DNA analysis or irrefutable fact based evidence is available for scrutiny. Too many hearsay artworks from gatekeepers of certain Cartel Institutions . Nor are there any details to do a 'Columbo' via impartial non commercially biased scientific institutions or real 'EXPERTS'. The portraits of Da Vinci plus high level artworks are never open to impartial scrutiny. There is never any salient facts satisfactory beyond reasonable doubt. The Gioconda DNA has never been ascertained nor have they ever found the body or any the bones. Examples Caravaggio etc etc.. What is seldom discussed as per during WWII - the so called Gioconda was stolen and somewhat conveniently and eventually retrieved. Of the 5 known copies - thanks to the 1911 theft - misdirection pursued. Since the cover up aka smokescreen that ensured - The Louvre have never ever and never will allow anyone to scrutinise the copy in Paris. Too Big A $candal BUT they did find major discrepancies in the base sketch It's like viewing a portrait of Obama and decades later the Base sketch is identified as Desmond Tutu. Conveniently the armchair acclaimed academics ie Martin Kemp & Cohorts indirectly linked to museums, appraisers and auction houses are quick to say.. . 'The Artist Changed His Mind'. Perhaps the '$alvador Modestini' sorry (Mundi) was a glorious discovery by Alex Parrish to acquire a $1200 dilapidated wreck and suddenly a beyond recognition / restoration justified the evidence whereby one is to believe Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought well let's do a painting with a Christ holding a crystal ball. Pardon My Thumb WTF.😅😅😅😅😅 Move over to recents whereby the National Gallery aka 'Kemps Pals' and their splendid authentic Uhmm 'Virgin of the Rocks' plus many more Old Master artworks have entirely different base sketches and inconsistencies towards deriving a 100% artwork from the very hand of the Old Master. So Today's Lesson.. Dear Deluded Humans !! It's a Monetisation game. The In$titutions accommodate $elfies and $alvation.. my advice.... WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.
The most surprising part of the history behind this painting was to learn that another accomplished artist was sitting aside da Vinci, and copied what he was doing. This seems like something I would of heard of before. How many of you had known of this?
I've never heard of a painter sitting next to da Vinci and painting along side him. Sounds untue. I couldn't believe that Ms. Harris would show Raphael's ink drawing of Leonardo's painting to prove that there were columns along the side AND not address the fact that the woman in the Mona Lisa is not the same woman in Raphael's drawing. This was recorded after Pascal's special study of the Mona Lisa under dozens of different light emitting colors. He's a physicist and built a special camera to look below the paint. Well below the paint, he found the painting that Leonardo did of the Mona Lisa and it matches Rapheal's sketch. This woman we all call the Mona Lisa, is not in fact Lisa Giacondo. I do believe that this is a painting of the dead mother of one of the Medici's sons. Italian scholars say that having her hair loose and also the draped cloth over her shoulder are abnormal traits for a living woman, but not for a woman who had died and one wanted to honor.
THE HARD TRUTH... it's basically 'The Pedophiles Painting' 5 copies of this pile of hearsay. Allegedly created and touched up by the Master who in turn would've touched up his young boys to enlighten the glory. (Common Practice back then however the Catholic Church & Co clearly follow through with Tradition. 'Old Habits Die Hard' ANYWAY regarding "Old Master Artworks !!!!" having been in the Art Game.... I have to tell 'The Hard Truth'. Hardly any public information or any proven DNA analysis or irrefutable fact based evidence is available for scrutiny. Too many hearsay artworks from gatekeepers of certain Cartel Institutions . Nor are there any details to do a 'Columbo' via impartial non commercially biased scientific institutions or real 'EXPERTS'. The portraits of Da Vinci plus high level artworks are never open to impartial scrutiny. There is never any salient facts satisfactory beyond reasonable doubt. The Gioconda DNA has never been ascertained nor have they ever found the body or any the bones. Examples Caravaggio etc etc.. What is seldom discussed as per during WWII - the so called Gioconda was stolen and somewhat conveniently and eventually retrieved. Of the 5 known copies - thanks to the 1911 theft - misdirection pursued. Since the cover up aka smokescreen that ensured - The Louvre have never ever and never will allow anyone to scrutinise the copy in Paris. Too Big A $candal BUT they did find major discrepancies in the base sketch It's like viewing a portrait of Obama and decades later the Base sketch is identified as Desmond Tutu. Conveniently the armchair acclaimed academics ie Martin Kemp & Cohorts indirectly linked to museums, appraisers and auction houses are quick to say.. . 'The Artist Changed His Mind'. Perhaps the '$alvador Modestini' sorry (Mundi) was a glorious discovery by Alex Parrish to acquire a $1200 dilapidated wreck and suddenly a beyond recognition / restoration justified the evidence whereby one is to believe Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought well let's do a painting with a Christ holding a crystal ball. Pardon My Thumb WTF.😅😅😅😅😅 Move over to recents whereby the National Gallery aka 'Kemps Pals' and their splendid authentic Uhmm 'Virgin of the Rocks' plus many more Old Master artworks have entirely different base sketches and inconsistencies towards deriving a 100% artwork from the very hand of the Old Master. So Today's Lesson.. Dear Deluded Humans !! It's a Monetisation game. The In$titutions accommodate $elfies and $alvation.. my advice.... WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.
The female speaker gives us the most information. I love khan academy ! I find it so helpful in understanding paintings, but this is by far the worst one I have heard. its fine that the male speaker questions the fame but he doesn't teach me anything... he does seem like he has no clue of art history. which could have the possibility to be an interesting perspective of course, but he brings little to nothing to the conversation! where is the khan academy that gets me so moved by the way they explain the painting?
Not a very good discussion on this most famous painting. The duchamps reference was a waste of time. Please do this discussion again of the Mona Lisa with your other more art educated male companion.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps not everyone has learned to critique art endlessly? The reason Khan Academy so widely covers mathematics in comparison to other subjects is probably due to Sal himself specializing in these fields... Khan Academy was originally lessons offered by just himself. I'm not entirely sure why you expect an in-depth critique on a piece of art from a discussion with a man whose education is primarily concerned with maths and engineering.
I love all of your uploads except this 1. Poorly done (except for the part on the history of portraiture) but other than that too much uneducated conjecture.
I am aware of the error...and I apologize - however my question is still valid. if I Google search these two images and put them side by side to study them for myself, there are obvious inconsistencies in the background for images that are "stroke by stoke" identical.
All the other details seem to be included in both images so it piqued my interest as to why it may have been left out a 'master work'. Both images are fantastic regardless. Is this a case of "artistic liberties" being taken in the background? would that have been a common thing to do back then?
Curious to why this video seems to gloss over some of the more controversial details of the duplicate painting - like the fact it's background was originally found had been painted over with a unique type of black pigment paint that was also know to be used in rituals and mumification in ancient Egypt? Or the fact that it has the number 666 marked clearly and neatly on the lower left side like any artist might sign it... If they were Satan himself or totally insane. I never even knew this 2nd painting existed until today, my daughter visited it at the gallery in Madrid and sent me a photo snapped on her phone and you'll not likely believe me, but there are now what seem to be 2 stars that have appeared in the sky behind her.
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | ครอบครัวสะท้านทุ่ง "นางบี & อ้ายสติ๊ก"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A1rhYcxxNtA/mqdefault.jpg)
I can't believe how influential this painting is. I learned about the Mona Lisa as a child. And I leaned about it from the rugrats....I believe.
mona
While Prof. Zucker's voice and Prof. Harris's voice oozes out soothe, Sal's one makes me want to hush and sooth!
i enjoyed this conversation on a superficial level, but i agree with you that they are not really saying much. when i saw the mona lisa i understood part of leonardo's genius: he keeps so much from view. any ideas where to find a more detailed art channel would be appreciated, but i do enjoy this for what it is, pleasant commentary introducing art ideas
These are wonderful videos, intended to be digestible, not the supreme word on anything. They fulfill their purpose brilliantly. They're fun, addictive, and whetting of the apetite to learn more.
Surely the most compelling reason why the Louvre chooses not to clean/restore the painting is because it doesn't wish to remove the painting from public view for the extended period of time that such cleaning would require. To quote Louvre director Henri Loyrette in 2009, "80 percent of the people only want to see the Mona Lisa" so it would severely decrease visitor numbers (and revenue) during the period that the painting is not on view.
THE HARD TRUTH...
it's basically
'The Pedophiles Painting'
5 copies of this pile of hearsay.
Allegedly created and touched up by the Master who in turn would've touched up his young boys to enlighten the glory.
(Common Practice back then however the Catholic Church & Co clearly follow through with Tradition.
'Old Habits Die Hard'
ANYWAY regarding
"Old Master Artworks !!!!" having been in the Art Game....
I have to tell 'The Hard Truth'.
Hardly any public information or any proven DNA analysis or irrefutable fact based evidence is available for scrutiny.
Too many hearsay artworks from gatekeepers of certain Cartel Institutions
.
Nor are there any details to do a 'Columbo' via impartial non commercially biased scientific institutions or real 'EXPERTS'.
The portraits of Da Vinci plus high level artworks are never open to impartial scrutiny.
There is never any salient facts satisfactory beyond reasonable doubt.
The Gioconda DNA has never been ascertained nor have they ever found the body or any the bones.
Examples Caravaggio etc etc..
What is seldom discussed as per during WWII - the so called Gioconda was stolen and somewhat conveniently and eventually retrieved.
Of the 5 known copies - thanks to the 1911 theft - misdirection pursued.
Since the cover up aka smokescreen that ensured - The Louvre have
never ever and never will allow anyone to scrutinise the copy in Paris.
Too Big A $candal
BUT
they did find major discrepancies in the base sketch
It's like viewing a portrait of Obama and decades later the Base sketch is identified as Desmond Tutu.
Conveniently the armchair acclaimed
academics ie Martin Kemp & Cohorts indirectly linked to museums, appraisers and auction houses are quick to say.. .
'The Artist Changed His Mind'.
Perhaps the '$alvador Modestini' sorry (Mundi) was a glorious discovery by Alex Parrish to acquire a $1200 dilapidated wreck and suddenly a beyond recognition / restoration justified the evidence whereby one is to believe Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought well let's do a painting with a Christ holding a crystal ball.
Pardon My Thumb
WTF.😅😅😅😅😅
Move over to recents whereby the National Gallery aka 'Kemps Pals' and their splendid authentic Uhmm
'Virgin of the Rocks' plus many more Old Master artworks have entirely different base sketches and inconsistencies towards deriving a 100% artwork from the very hand of the Old Master.
So Today's Lesson..
Dear Deluded Humans !!
It's a Monetisation game.
The In$titutions accommodate
$elfies and $alvation..
my advice....
WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.
Silvano Vinceti, head of the National Committee for Cultural Heritage, believes that the Mona Lisa bears several striking similarities to Gian Giocomo Caprotti, known as Salai. He also examined infra-red scans of the world-famous artwork and compared it to other works by the master that Salai was known to have modeled for.Salai was apprenticed to Leonardo at around age 10, in 1490, and was known for being somewhat of a troublemaker-his nickname means “little devil.” He worked with the Renaissance master for two decades, and the two are widely believed to have been romantically involved.
I, myself, came to the same conclusions, after noticing that "Mona Lisa", as well as several of da Vinci's other portraits have the same face, especially "Saint John the Baptist" and "Bacchus". However, also several other of his paintings also contain that same face, such as
"Virgin of the rocks"
"The Virgin with the Child"
"The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne"
"The Buccleuch Madonna"
The Madonna of the yarnwinder
Leda and the swan
Nude Mona Lisa (not 100%)
I furthermore guessed that "Mona Lisa" never quite made it to the del Giocondos...because the person depicted in the painting, probably didn't look much like Lisa Gherardini (Lisa del Giocondo) and therefore couldn't be presented to the actual clients.
And that was correct. "Mona Lisa" remained with da Vinci until the end. My guess is for 'sentimental reasons'. He didn't want to part with it.
Several of da Vinci's many students, although not excessively talented as painters, except for Francesco Melzi, who was a gifted painter, all used the same face in their portraits.
That ubiquitous face, is widely believed to have been that of Andrea Salaì, whom Leonardo da Vinci was equally widely believed to have had a sexual relationship with.
Silvano Vinceti is an impostor !!! Everything he proposes is based on no acceptable element! The truth is however known and quite logical, without extravagance.
It is interesting to compare the Prado copy to a digitally-restored Mona Lisa. The digital restoration, which I believe was done by the Louvre, was designed to remove the effects of darkening varnish and the changes that the pigments underwent over time. Unlike the Prado copy, the digitally-restored Mona Lisa retains the enigmatic expression of the original. The sleeves of the restored Mona Lisa are brown, not red. Lisa has some color in her cheeks, but she still has no eyebrows.
Leonardo kept the Mona Lisa with him for the rest of his life, i.e., 15 or 16 years, and took it to France with him, and some accounts say that he never stopped working on it, which means that nobody was likely to have sat next to him and matched brushstroke for brushstroke throughout the entire time it was being painted.
Other artists had fun with the Mona Lisa. For example, Salvador Dali replaced her face with his own (which had a long mustache) and the performance artist Sapeck (Eugène Bataille) painted her with a pipe.
Thank you very much for the great information well done Bravo!
Very informative
Thanks for sharing
The significance of Mona Lisa's smile in the painting is that Leonardo da Vinci was able to paint it.
Mona Lisa
Portret patrycuszki
Florenckiej
Mony Lisy del Gio
Condo, namalowany
W 1503- 1506 przez
Leonarda da Vinci.
To jeden z
Najsłynniejszych
Portretów w dziejach
Sztuki.Ledwo
Uchwytny półuśmiech
Kobiety przyczynił się
Do rozsławienia obrazu,w którym
Zamglony krajobraz
Współkształtuje
Atmosferę
Tajemniczości.
"Eighty percent of the people only want to see the Mona Lisa". Wow. This says a lot about how much the average person cares about Art in general. I already knew this but, as a painter myself, it still feels like a real kick in the head every time I hear it. "I can't be bothered, you know, as I have more pressing things to consider. By the way, where can I get a beer around here?"
Be happy 80% aren’t interested because it leaves the galleries free and clear for us to stroll through and enjoy 😉
@@Paulco67 You may be right. I stand corrected.
Thank you
I saw the painting myself forget which castle I have seen it or Museum at that time never think about that. Hehe
Duchamp’s mustache = Lowbrow!
In the 80s, I remember a British article published that suggested that the "Mona Lisa" is actually a self-portrait of da Vinci in drag. I'm relieved that such a theory seems to not be disseminated in art culture anymore.
Sadly, it still crops up a lot. People like the idea, perhaps because it points to the bigger truth that a work of art is always, in some sense, a self-portrait (In this case, just not literally so).
The "hard truth" or the "hard theory that seems to fit the facts"?
@@daniyalg2436 i'm convinced this is an ai generated comment
Leonardo and TH-cam links. Invaluable Links in the Art.
Thank you.
I found the Painter in the painting of the Mona Lisa. Please come see what I found.
Interesante
Very interresting. I am very fascinated by the duplicate, copied stroke by stroke
Прекрасен свят на изкуството
hmm well i know this was made in 2012, but i cant help but wonder why they mention the Prado copy but not the Isleworth Mona Lisa. They even show an image of the isleworth Mona Lisa in their google images search/display.
im going crazy doing all this writing no cap
At the 5:27 point, what is the word she is saying? Is it "modelling" or "mottling"?
Modeling.
@@smarthistory-art-history Thank you!
The newspaper clip spelled his name wrong!
Sorry,I notice these things
In 2004 the Mona Lisa was removed from its frame and it was proven that the Mona Lisa was never cropped or trimmed. The columns were never painted in full as they are shown in Raphael's sketch. Did Raphael add them on his own or was he looking at a second "Mona Lisa"?
Martin Kemp has stated that he believes the painting was not cut down based on an examination when it was unframed. While compelling, I am not sure that constitutes proof particularly given the array of opinions.
@@smarthistory-art-history THE HARD TRUTH...
it's basically
'The Pedophiles Painting'
5 copies of this pile of hearsay.
Allegedly created and touched up by the Master who in turn would've touched up his young boys to enlighten the glory.
(Common Practice back then however the Catholic Church & Co clearly follow through with Tradition.
'Old Habits Die Hard'
ANYWAY regarding
"Old Master Artworks !!!!" having been in the Art Game....
I have to tell 'The Hard Truth'.
Hardly any public information or any proven DNA analysis or irrefutable fact based evidence is available for scrutiny.
Too many hearsay artworks from gatekeepers of certain Cartel Institutions
.
Nor are there any details to do a 'Columbo' via impartial non commercially biased scientific institutions or real 'EXPERTS'.
The portraits of Da Vinci plus high level artworks are never open to impartial scrutiny.
There is never any salient facts satisfactory beyond reasonable.
The Gioconda DNA has never been ascertained nor have they ever found the body of the bones.
Examples Caravaggio etc etc..
What is seldom discussed as per during WWII - the so called Gioconda was stolen and somewhat conveniently and eventually retrieved.
Of the 5 known copies - thanks to the 1911 theft - misdirection pursued.
Since the cover up aka smokescreen that ensured - The Louvre have
never ever and never will allow anyone to scrutinise the copy in Paris
Too Big A $candal
BUT
they did find major discrepancies in the base sketch
ie Pascal Cotte,
But the armchair academics Martin Kemp & Cohorts indirectly linked to museums, appraisers and auction houses are quick to say.. .
'The Artist Changed His Mind'.
Perhaps the '$alvador Modestini' sorry (Mundi) was a glorious discovery by Alex Parrish to but a $1200 dilapidated battered wreck and suddenly a restoration justified the evidence whereby one is to assume Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought well let's do a painting with a Christ with a crystal ball. WTF.😅😅😅😅😅
Move over to recent whereby the National Gallery aka 'Kemps Pals' and their splendid authentic Hmmmm
'Virgin of the Rocks' and many more LDV and Old Master artworks have entirely different base sketches and inconsistencies towards deriving a 100% artwork from the very hand of the Old Master.
And Today's Lesson..
Dear Deluded Humans !!
It's a Monetisation game.
The In$titutions accommodate
$elfies and $alvation..
my advice....
WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.
How is it possible to have so little to say on such a painting? It is clear that for Khan academy mathematics are worth of lessons while art just deserves "conversations", with no serious reference to art history. Saying that the background landscape seems volcanic, that the painting may be more famous because it was stolen, that it is a portrait with "sfumato" and that it may be fun to add mustaches to a figure that may look masculine is just shallow: why don't you work more?
@Louis THE HARD TRUTH...
it's basically
'The Pedophiles Painting'
5 copies of this pile of hearsay.
Allegedly created and touched up by the Master who in turn would've touched up his young boys to enlighten the glory.
(Common Practice back then however the Catholic Church & Co clearly follow through with Tradition.
'Old Habits Die Hard'
ANYWAY regarding
"Old Master Artworks !!!!" having been in the Art Game....
I have to tell 'The Hard Truth'.
Hardly any public information or any proven DNA analysis or irrefutable fact based evidence is available for scrutiny.
Too many hearsay artworks from gatekeepers of certain Cartel Institutions
.
Nor are there any details to do a 'Columbo' via impartial non commercially biased scientific institutions or real 'EXPERTS'.
The portraits of Da Vinci plus high level artworks are never open to impartial scrutiny.
There is never any salient facts satisfactory beyond reasonable doubt.
The Gioconda DNA has never been ascertained nor have they ever found the body or any the bones.
Examples Caravaggio etc etc..
What is seldom discussed as per during WWII - the so called Gioconda was stolen and somewhat conveniently and eventually retrieved.
Of the 5 known copies - thanks to the 1911 theft - misdirection pursued.
Since the cover up aka smokescreen that ensured - The Louvre have
never ever and never will allow anyone to scrutinise the copy in Paris.
Too Big A $candal
BUT
they did find major discrepancies in the base sketch
It's like viewing a portrait of Obama and decades later the Base sketch is identified as Desmond Tutu.
Conveniently the armchair acclaimed
academics ie Martin Kemp & Cohorts indirectly linked to museums, appraisers and auction houses are quick to say.. .
'The Artist Changed His Mind'.
Perhaps the '$alvador Modestini' sorry (Mundi) was a glorious discovery by Alex Parrish to acquire a $1200 dilapidated wreck and suddenly a beyond recognition / restoration justified the evidence whereby one is to believe Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought well let's do a painting with a Christ holding a crystal ball.
Pardon My Thumb
WTF.😅😅😅😅😅
Move over to recents whereby the National Gallery aka 'Kemps Pals' and their splendid authentic Uhmm
'Virgin of the Rocks' plus many more Old Master artworks have entirely different base sketches and inconsistencies towards deriving a 100% artwork from the very hand of the Old Master.
So Today's Lesson..
Dear Deluded Humans !!
It's a Monetisation game.
The In$titutions accommodate
$elfies and $alvation..
my advice....
WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.
@@daniyalg2436 this is the wildest comment i have ever read on YT
On the screen with the multiple portraits,(3:05) 3 rows down, 3rd from the left is the true identity of Mona Lisa. The self portrait of Leonardo da Vinci cut in half and laid over the Mona Lisa being a perfect match. The Mona Lisa IS a self portrait of Leonardo da Vinci.
Correction: 3rd from left, top row.
That is no self portrait. It shows a man in his 80's or 90's. Leonardo was 67 when he died. If you want to know what he looked like in his 60's, there is a drawing that is attributed to his associate, Francesco Melzi.
@@jackkomisar458
Leonardo da Vinci drew his own self portrait at age 60. He wore a full beard at the time. The faces of that portrait and the so-called Mona Lisa vary only by 4%. The Mona Lisa IS a self portrait.
Those portraits are 3rd from the left top row.
@@oltedders I am very familiar with the drawing that you are referring to. It is sometimes called a "self-portrait" or a "presumed self-portrait". But Carmen Bambach, curator of drawings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art says, "...this famous portrait does not represent Leonardo himself, but he might have done it about 1495 [when he was about 43] as a study of a head (perhaps as a sort of elderly counterpart to the head of an ideal youth)..." This statement is on page 183 of the catalogue of an exhibition that Ms. Bambach curated at the Met in 2003, "Leonardo da Vinci Master Draftsman". I downloaded the catalogue for free from the Met's website. Ms. Bambach has just published a four-volume work on Leonardo da Vinci. Nobody knows more than she does about Leonardo's drawings.
I don't know if the Mona Lisa is a self portrait or not. But the drawing of the 80- or 90-year-old man, made when Leonardo was about 43, proves nothing.
@@jackkomisar458
The two faces are virtually identical.
@@jackkomisar458 THE HARD TRUTH...
it's basically
'The Pedophiles Painting'
5 copies of this pile of hearsay.
Allegedly created and touched up by the Master who in turn would've touched up his young boys to enlighten the glory.
(Common Practice back then however the Catholic Church & Co clearly follow through with Tradition.
'Old Habits Die Hard'
ANYWAY regarding
"Old Master Artworks !!!!" having been in the Art Game....
I have to tell 'The Hard Truth'.
Hardly any public information or any proven DNA analysis or irrefutable fact based evidence is available for scrutiny.
Too many hearsay artworks from gatekeepers of certain Cartel Institutions
.
Nor are there any details to do a 'Columbo' via impartial non commercially biased scientific institutions or real 'EXPERTS'.
The portraits of Da Vinci plus high level artworks are never open to impartial scrutiny.
There is never any salient facts satisfactory beyond reasonable doubt.
The Gioconda DNA has never been ascertained nor have they ever found the body or any the bones.
Examples Caravaggio etc etc..
What is seldom discussed as per during WWII - the so called Gioconda was stolen and somewhat conveniently and eventually retrieved.
Of the 5 known copies - thanks to the 1911 theft - misdirection pursued.
Since the cover up aka smokescreen that ensured - The Louvre have
never ever and never will allow anyone to scrutinise the copy in Paris.
Too Big A $candal
BUT
they did find major discrepancies in the base sketch
It's like viewing a portrait of Obama and decades later the Base sketch is identified as Desmond Tutu.
Conveniently the armchair acclaimed
academics ie Martin Kemp & Cohorts indirectly linked to museums, appraisers and auction houses are quick to say.. .
'The Artist Changed His Mind'.
Perhaps the '$alvador Modestini' sorry (Mundi) was a glorious discovery by Alex Parrish to acquire a $1200 dilapidated wreck and suddenly a beyond recognition / restoration justified the evidence whereby one is to believe Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought well let's do a painting with a Christ holding a crystal ball.
Pardon My Thumb
WTF.😅😅😅😅😅
Move over to recents whereby the National Gallery aka 'Kemps Pals' and their splendid authentic Uhmm
'Virgin of the Rocks' plus many more Old Master artworks have entirely different base sketches and inconsistencies towards deriving a 100% artwork from the very hand of the Old Master.
So Today's Lesson..
Dear Deluded Humans !!
It's a Monetisation game.
The In$titutions accommodate
$elfies and $alvation..
my advice....
WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.
Also he painted it in at least four different cities over the course of 16 years...long time for someone to be sitting next to him...right?
Dats because the painter was the portrait
The most surprising part of the history behind this painting was to learn that another accomplished artist was sitting aside da Vinci, and copied what he was doing. This seems like something I would of heard of before. How many of you had known of this?
I've never heard of a painter sitting next to da Vinci and painting along side him. Sounds untue. I couldn't believe that Ms. Harris would show Raphael's ink drawing of Leonardo's painting to prove that there were columns along the side AND not address the fact that the woman in the Mona Lisa is not the same woman in Raphael's drawing. This was recorded after Pascal's special study of the Mona Lisa under dozens of different light emitting colors. He's a physicist and built a special camera to look below the paint. Well below the paint, he found the painting that Leonardo did of the Mona Lisa and it matches Rapheal's sketch. This woman we all call the Mona Lisa, is not in fact Lisa Giacondo. I do believe that this is a painting of the dead mother of one of the Medici's sons. Italian scholars say that having her hair loose and also the draped cloth over her shoulder are abnormal traits for a living woman, but not for a woman who had died and one wanted to honor.
He painted it over 16 years so highly unlikely.
THE HARD TRUTH...
it's basically
'The Pedophiles Painting'
5 copies of this pile of hearsay.
Allegedly created and touched up by the Master who in turn would've touched up his young boys to enlighten the glory.
(Common Practice back then however the Catholic Church & Co clearly follow through with Tradition.
'Old Habits Die Hard'
ANYWAY regarding
"Old Master Artworks !!!!" having been in the Art Game....
I have to tell 'The Hard Truth'.
Hardly any public information or any proven DNA analysis or irrefutable fact based evidence is available for scrutiny.
Too many hearsay artworks from gatekeepers of certain Cartel Institutions
.
Nor are there any details to do a 'Columbo' via impartial non commercially biased scientific institutions or real 'EXPERTS'.
The portraits of Da Vinci plus high level artworks are never open to impartial scrutiny.
There is never any salient facts satisfactory beyond reasonable doubt.
The Gioconda DNA has never been ascertained nor have they ever found the body or any the bones.
Examples Caravaggio etc etc..
What is seldom discussed as per during WWII - the so called Gioconda was stolen and somewhat conveniently and eventually retrieved.
Of the 5 known copies - thanks to the 1911 theft - misdirection pursued.
Since the cover up aka smokescreen that ensured - The Louvre have
never ever and never will allow anyone to scrutinise the copy in Paris.
Too Big A $candal
BUT
they did find major discrepancies in the base sketch
It's like viewing a portrait of Obama and decades later the Base sketch is identified as Desmond Tutu.
Conveniently the armchair acclaimed
academics ie Martin Kemp & Cohorts indirectly linked to museums, appraisers and auction houses are quick to say.. .
'The Artist Changed His Mind'.
Perhaps the '$alvador Modestini' sorry (Mundi) was a glorious discovery by Alex Parrish to acquire a $1200 dilapidated wreck and suddenly a beyond recognition / restoration justified the evidence whereby one is to believe Da Vinci woke up one morning and thought well let's do a painting with a Christ holding a crystal ball.
Pardon My Thumb
WTF.😅😅😅😅😅
Move over to recents whereby the National Gallery aka 'Kemps Pals' and their splendid authentic Uhmm
'Virgin of the Rocks' plus many more Old Master artworks have entirely different base sketches and inconsistencies towards deriving a 100% artwork from the very hand of the Old Master.
So Today's Lesson..
Dear Deluded Humans !!
It's a Monetisation game.
The In$titutions accommodate
$elfies and $alvation..
my advice....
WAKE UP and Smell The Starbucks.
How could u possibly know who was there when it was painted
Not as informative as other Khan Art history videos but interesting!
The female speaker gives us the most information. I love khan academy ! I find it so helpful in understanding paintings, but this is by far the worst one I have heard. its fine that the male speaker questions the fame but he doesn't teach me anything... he does seem like he has no clue of art history. which could have the possibility to be an interesting perspective of course, but he brings little to nothing to the conversation! where is the khan academy that gets me so moved by the way they explain the painting?
This is exactly how I felt to. I am very disappointed by Khan Academy this time.
Not a very good discussion on this most famous painting. The duchamps reference was a waste of time. Please do this discussion again of the Mona Lisa with your other more art educated male companion.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps not everyone has learned to critique art endlessly? The reason Khan Academy so widely covers mathematics in comparison to other subjects is probably due to Sal himself specializing in these fields... Khan Academy was originally lessons offered by just himself. I'm not entirely sure why you expect an in-depth critique on a piece of art from a discussion with a man whose education is primarily concerned with maths and engineering.
Found Leonardo and TH-cam links in the SPAM folder.
That would mean the source would have been BINNED and lost.
Usefully restored the ART links.
I love all of your uploads except this 1. Poorly done (except for the part on the history of portraiture) but other than that too much uneducated conjecture.
Thanks for your thoughts, we have recorded a new video about the Mona Lisa and hope to replace this one before long.
He said "vulcan," not volcanic. Vulcan is a planet that has really weird landscape in Star Trek.
There is no way that the woman is seductive hahaha
not a fan of Salman Khan talking
you are fun
If Prado and Leonardo copied each other stroke for stroke why is one version of the painting obviously missing two towers in the background...
The Prado is a museum in Madrid, not an artist.
I am aware of the error...and I apologize - however my question is still valid. if I Google search these two images and put them side by side to study them for myself, there are obvious inconsistencies in the background for images that are "stroke by stoke" identical.
You are absolutely correct, though sometimes the literal is the enemy of meaning.
All the other details seem to be included in both images so it piqued my interest as to why it may have been left out a 'master work'. Both images are fantastic regardless.
Is this a case of "artistic liberties" being taken in the background? would that have been a common thing to do back then?
Interesting, there is certainly a long tradition of copying and of variation and revision.
...funny assumption that we've "learned to like" this painting...
Curious to why this video seems to gloss over some of the more controversial details of the duplicate painting - like the fact it's background was originally found had been painted over with a unique type of black pigment paint that was also know to be used in rituals and mumification in ancient Egypt? Or the fact that it has the number 666 marked clearly and neatly on the lower left side like any artist might sign it... If they were Satan himself or totally insane. I never even knew this 2nd painting existed until today, my daughter visited it at the gallery in Madrid and sent me a photo snapped on her phone and you'll not likely believe me, but there are now what seem to be 2 stars that have appeared in the sky behind her.
The Mona Lisa is really a boy named "Salai" full name Gian Giacomo Caprotti DaVinci's young apprentice and boy lover assigned to DaVinci at 10yrs old.