louvre:do you think Mona is genuine?
Sam
suggesting that it is a fake as security make little attempt to stop
flash photos of it.some ppl even boasted they went inside the barrier
and took a photo with it.Elsewhere however I read that the fake Mona
rumor was spread by con "artists" who claimed to their clients that
they sold them the real Jaconda and the one inthe louvre is a
fake.What do you think from what you saw?I am going to the louvre next
week.Is there details of the painting which can be seen which support
either of these theories?
thanks,
Sam
Montesquiou
"Sam" <got1...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:436b25d4.04080...@posting.google.com...
I think that the problem stay with the credibility of Internet.
It is time to create an independent label for internet news.
Anyone can create a blog and invent what he want : Negacionism,
sensationalism, rumor, false news (mainly politician), etc...
Of course it is the real Joconda, very well protected by a glass box. At the
point that if you visit the Louvre it will be one of your greatest
deception.
To much people, to much protection for a little paint you hardly can saw.
nightjar
"Sam" <got1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:436b25d4.04080...@posting.google.com...
Of course it is a fake. The real one is in my secret basement, along with
several copies that Leonardo painted himself.
However, you will never tell, as it is disappointingly small and dark. I
have heard that the glass box they fitted since I last visited the Louvre
has only made that worse.
Colin Bignell
Mxsmanic
> I was reading up on Mona Lisa on the net where I read several
> suggesting that it is a fake as security make little attempt to stop
> flash photos of it.
Not necessary. Flash photography doesn't really harm the painting that
much, and it's already in bad shape, anyway.
> ... some ppl even boasted they went inside the barrier
> and took a photo with it.
Yeah, some people do that. It's not a felony.
> What do you think from what you saw?
The one in the window is singularly unimpressive. If it were a fake,
I'd expect them to do a better job of making it look nice--so it must be
real.
> Is there details of the painting which can be seen which support
> either of these theories?
No. I think you can safely assume that the one on display is the real
thing. It's not _that_ valuable. It's famous, but it's not a
tremendously good work of art.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
PJW
about whether it was this painting or a roughly contemporary copy that
was listed among paintings rescued from Bad Aussee in Austria at the
end of WW2, where the Nazis had stored large numbers of looted
artworks. The Louvre authorities insisted it must have been a copy or
the Bad Aussee records were wrong.
Also, of course, the painting vanished for a while in 1911..
PJW
bogus address
> I was reading up on Mona Lisa on the net where I read several
> suggesting that it is a fake as security make little attempt
> to stop flash photos of it.some ppl even boasted they went
> inside the barrier and took a photo with it.
Flash is an irrelevance these days. The illumination provided by
a flashgun, if you can get close enough for it actually to light
your subject effectively, is equivalent to 1/60 of a second of
full sunlight (with the same spectrum). It would take a heck of
a more flashes than any museum will experience to damage a picture.
It was different back when flashes were bulbs filled with aluminium
wire in oxygen; these sometimes exploded, spraying glass splinters
and hot debris for several feet. It was even worse with flash powder -
magnesium mixed with a strong oxidizer - this could occasionally blow
the photographer's head off. Both of those were really a hazard to
valuable artworks, and I'd guess that's where the common bans on
flash photography originated.
But photographing paintings is very difficult, and somebody on a
quick gallery visit with a handheld camera is never going to match
the quality of a postcard in the museum shop, which will probably
cost less too. So flash photos of the Mona Lisa are utterly
pointless.
In fact I'd be surprised if there weren't scans of this picture on
the web already at better quality than a gallery-goer could ever
achieve. Favourites, anyone?
========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Sam wrote:
> I was reading up on Mona Lisa on the net where I read several
> suggesting that it is a fake as security make little attempt to stop
> flash photos of it.some ppl even boasted they went inside the barrier
> and took a photo with it.Elsewhere however I read that the fake Mona
> rumor was spread by con "artists" who claimed to their clients that
> they sold them the real Jaconda
Any "mark" who'd buy a picture titled "Jaconda", under the impression ot
was the Mona Lisa, would deserve to be swindled! (The correct title,
being Italian, is "La Gioconda".)
alain K.
signed : Leonardo
"Sam" <got1...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:436b25d4.04080...@posting.google.com...
John Bermont
Mxsmanic wrote:
It's not _that_ valuable. It's famous, but it's not a
> tremendously good work of art.
>
What would you consider a good work of art?
--
------------------------------------------------------
* * * Mastering Independent Budget Travel * * *
http://www.enjoy-europe.com/
------------------------------------------------------
BB
> The one in the window is singularly unimpressive. If it were a fake,
> I'd expect them to do a better job of making it look nice--so it must be
> real.
Its extremely hyped; we got there early people in the line were trying to
figure out the quickest way to get to the Mona Lisa, so we joined in the
mad rush. And when we got there, it was this just this smallish, dark
painting, encased in glass and blocked off. The more compelling picture
was when we passed later and it was surrounded by a huge mob!
I suppose much of its significance is historical, but I'm not an art
historian or even a fan of portraits. Being unimpressed by the Mona Lisa
is not an uncommon experience.
--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
jcoulter
news:2nidktF...@uni-berlin.de:
Strange when I last saw her I was impressed she was biggerthan my memory
(course I had a few years of realizing that she was small under my belt.)
Mxsmanic
> What would you consider a good work of art?
A lot of da Vinci's own other works easily surpass the Mona Lisa.
Go Fig
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> 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.
jay
Fri Aug 06, 2004
mailto:go...@mac.com
Luca Logi
> Also, of course, the painting vanished for a while in 1911.
It was stolen by an Italian named Vincenzo Perugia and brought to
Florence. He lived in what is now Hotel Gioconda in via Panzani (he was
reported that the hotel has a good quality/price ratio).
I should add that the Italian name of the painting is "La Gioconda" (a
smiling woman), and if you want to call it "Monna Lisa" ("Monna" being a
short Florentine form for "Madonna", i.e. a lady), be sure that you use
the double "n". "Mona" with a single "n" is a Venetian insult with a
possible sexual overtone.
--
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: ll...@dada.it
Home page: http://www.angelfire.com/ar/archivarius
(musicologia pratica)
Doug McDonald
>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> It's not _that_ valuable. It's famous, but it's not a
>
>> tremendously good work of art.
>>
>
> What would you consider a good work of art?
The Floorburger
Doug McDonald
jcoulter
@news.tiscalinet.ch:
>
>
> It's a total fake! The real one is probably in a basement hide away some
> where. Skip the Louvre and go to the D'Orsay.
uhh the Orsay or The musee d'Orsay, but not "the the Orsay" ;-)
>
>
>
Mxsmanic
> uhh the Orsay or The musee d'Orsay, but not "the the Orsay" ;-)
What does "the the Orsay" mean?
Mxsmanic
jcoulter
news:ul0bh0lh4picn46cc...@4ax.com:
> jcoulter writes:
>
>> uhh the Orsay or The musee d'Orsay, but not "the the Orsay" ;-)
>
> What does "the the Orsay" mean?
>
stripped of context Musee, d'Orsay by itself only means de Orsay the Orsay
or the more meaningless of Orsay. the point of course being that one should
say in English The Orsay or The Orsay Museum,
Luca Logi
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> It's not _that_ valuable. It's famous, but it's not a
> > tremendously good work of art.
> >
>
> What would you consider a good work of art?
Msx is almost right. It is famous and it is a very good work of art, but
it is true that there is a lot of hype. I can think about a lot of works
(say, some Giotto series or Caravaggio paintings) that were much more
influential than La Gioconda, and have not as much hype.
Sam
Speaking of d'Orsay does anyone know if Whistlers Mother is there
Mxsmanic
> stripped of context Musee, d'Orsay by itself only means de Orsay the Orsay
> or the more meaningless of Orsay.
With or without context, d'Orsay means "of Orsay." There's no definite
article in there, much less two.
> the point of course being that one should say in English
> The Orsay or The Orsay Museum,
That would be a good choice, yes, although sometimes one says things
strangely in other languages for the sake of euphony or recognition.
It's routine to say the Pont Neuf bridge, for example, even though
"pont" already means "bridge."
congokid
<ll...@dada.it> writes
>"Mona" with a single "n" is a Venetian insult with a
>possible sexual overtone.
I wonder what was going through the minds of the people who opened an
Italian restaurant in London and called it La Figa.
--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com
jcoulter
news:41167d55$1...@news.tiscalinet.ch:
>
> Exactly. To say "visit the Orsay" is not exactly beautiful in English.
>
> Anyway, the point of my post was to assure the OP that the Mona Lisa
> in the Louvre is in fact a fake. Can we never stick to the topic?
>
Ok we can skip the intelligent discussion of linguistic nuance and jump
right into the conspiracy of the week topic. Silly me!
You offer what as validation for your claim of fakery? Untill I see
credible proof to the contrary, I am going to continue to believe that the
Louvre as one of the world's premier art exhibitions is not conning us.
The Reids
>Its extremely hyped; we got there early people in the line were trying to
>figure out the quickest way to get to the Mona Lisa, so we joined in the
>mad rush.
I think tourists should ask themselves this question:-
"do I look at art at home, do I buy and read art history books?"
If "no", for christ sake get out of the gallery and enjoy
yourself. I spend the time saved sitting in bars people watching.
Beats any old master i've seen as an insight into the foreign
country you spent so much trouble getting to.
But architecture I *do* enjoy although I certainly don't traipse
round numerous ABCs in good drinking/eating time.
--
Mike Reid
If god wanted us to be vegetarians he wouldn't have made animals out of meat.
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
BB
> I think tourists should ask themselves this question:-
>
> "do I look at art at home, do I buy and read art history books?"
>
> If "no", for christ sake get out of the gallery and enjoy
> yourself. I spend the time saved sitting in bars people watching.
> Beats any old master i've seen as an insight into the foreign
> country you spent so much trouble getting to.
Thats a very good point. I imagine a lot of people would find it odd that
one would go to Paris and not visit the Louvre, just as many might find it
odd not to go up the Eiffel Tower. But there is no obligation to do
anything other than what one enjoys.
Since impressionist and modern art are housed elsewhere, even art lovers
may find reason to skip the Louvre and go elsewhere.
me
> Following up to BB
>
> >Its extremely hyped; we got there early people in the line were trying to
> >figure out the quickest way to get to the Mona Lisa, so we joined in the
> >mad rush.
>
> I think tourists should ask themselves this question:-
>
> "do I look at art at home, do I buy and read art history books?"
>
> If "no", for christ sake get out of the gallery and enjoy
> yourself. I spend the time saved sitting in bars people watching.
> Beats any old master i've seen as an insight into the foreign
> country you spent so much trouble getting to.
This gets into that old discussion about why we travel. There
is "trophy tourism" and although it's not my cup of tea, there
are folks who travel for that reason. I will also admit that often
I go on vacation to do things I don't, or can't, home. So I'm not
sure that is particularly a good measure either. I will admit
though in my 3 visits to Paris, I've never found I wanted to spend
the time to get into the Louvre, other things always called.
But then again, I've been saving the British Museum for a "rainy day"
over about 5 trips to London so far. Still haven't made it.
Ya see, on the few rainy days I've had... well... ya see...
they have these things called "pubs".....
Rita
>Following up to BB
>
>>Its extremely hyped; we got there early people in the line were trying to
>>figure out the quickest way to get to the Mona Lisa, so we joined in the
>>mad rush.
>
>I think tourists should ask themselves this question:-
>
>"do I look at art at home, do I buy and read art history books?"
>
>If "no", for christ sake get out of the gallery and enjoy
>yourself. I spend the time saved sitting in bars people watching.
>Beats any old master i've seen as an insight into the foreign
>country you spent so much trouble getting to.
>
>But architecture I *do* enjoy although I certainly don't traipse
>round numerous ABCs in good drinking/eating time.
I am one who looks at art at home and so selectively views it
when I travel. My prime interest is contemporary art and I welcome
the chance to see a far larger selection than available to me in
New York museums. When visiting other museums, such as the Louvre,
I know I want to see a half dozen things and limit my visit to those.
But I agree that if you are not passionate about viewing art, it is
rather silly to spend a good part of one's trip doing that. Just
because you think you "should".
By the way, the Internet is a great way to preview what there is to
see in various art museums. Almost all museums of any size have
websites and you can browse the collections. A great way to find what
interests you and what does not.
jcoulter
news:dfsfh09g2lptrmq8o...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 10:42:50 +0100, The Reids
> <don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Following up to BB
>>
>>>Its extremely hyped; we got there early people in the line were
>>>trying to figure out the quickest way to get to the Mona Lisa, so we
>>>joined in the mad rush.
>>
>>I think tourists should ask themselves this question:-
>>
>>"do I look at art at home, do I buy and read art history books?"
No I don't except of course for the art in my home, But then I don't have
any orginal Monet's and anyone who has seen an original Van Gogh knows how
inadequate even the best reproductions are.
>>
>>If "no", for christ sake get out of the gallery and enjoy
>>yourself. I spend the time saved sitting in bars people watching.
>>Beats any old master i've seen as an insight into the foreign
>>country you spent so much trouble getting to.
>>
>>But architecture I *do* enjoy although I certainly don't traipse
>>round numerous ABCs in good drinking/eating time.
>
Antoher one, Do I look at architecture at home? well a little, but then
nothing the the SE USA looks at all like the Opera Garnier in Paris.
>
BB
> I am one who looks at art at home and so selectively views it
> when I travel. My prime interest is contemporary art and I welcome
> the chance to see a far larger selection than available to me in
> New York museums. When visiting other museums, such as the Louvre,
> I know I want to see a half dozen things and limit my visit to those.
Well I feel the same way about impressionist art. Its been an iterest ever
since I was in high school (which unfortunately was eons ago). A nice
thing about the art museums in Paris is that those interested in
impressionist and/or contemporary art can just skip the Louvre and visit
"the d'Orsay" ;-) or the Pompidou.
> By the way, the Internet is a great way to preview what there is to
> see in various art museums. Almost all museums of any size have
> websites and you can browse the collections. A great way to find what
> interests you and what does not.
This is a really, really good point. I looked at the Louvre website after
this discussion moved beyond its initial silliness, and found that it gave
a pretty good description of the art therein. Had I looked at it before my
trip last year, I'd have probably just spent my time elsewhere. Maybe. As
a semi-art-lover, I'd have probably felt that I slighted myself to visit
Paris but not the Louvre. Oh well, lesson learned for the next trip.
The Reids
>There
>is "trophy tourism" and although it's not my cup of tea, there
>are folks who travel for that reason. I will also admit that often
>I go on vacation to do things I don't, or can't, home
Yes, if you cant do it at home the test is invalid. But I wonder
how many Londoners have walked round churches in Spain and
visited galleries having never done so in London?
The Reids
>By the way, the Internet is a great way to preview what there is to
>see in various art museums. Almost all museums of any size have
>websites and you can browse the collections. A great way to find what
>interests you and what does not.
Yes, as i'm not an enthusiast I just bought a book about the
Prado and saved the time. Its rarely opened!
The Reids
>No I don't except of course for the art in my home, But then I don't have
>any orginal Monet's and anyone who has seen an original Van Gogh knows how
>inadequate even the best reproductions are.
To me, they look much the same. What can be so different? Brush
strokes? So what?
(I ask genuinely, not as a wind up)
The Reids
>To me, they look much the same. What can be so different? Brush
>strokes? So what?
>(I ask genuinely, not as a wind up)
I should have added, how come fakes go undetected if there is so
much difference?
The Reids
>I should have added, how come fakes go undetected if there is so
>much difference?
Doh! Trouble with posting online, should also have said I can
acknowledge the genius that vreated the original, but cant see
why "scientific genius" cant make a good as perfect copy.
jcoulter
> Following up to jcoulter
>
>>No I don't except of course for the art in my home, But then I don't
>>have any orginal Monet's and anyone who has seen an original Van Gogh
>>knows how inadequate even the best reproductions are.
>
> To me, they look much the same. What can be so different? Brush
> strokes? So what?
> (I ask genuinely, not as a wind up)
Basically yes brushstrokes. (I am not so much talking of professional
quality fakes as prints that which we humble denizens of middle america can
afford to decorate our homes with.
Monet or Renoir printa have a light airy touch that is part of their appeal
and reflect the moods of the originals, Van Gogh's brush stokes bespeak the
twisted soul behind them, Starry night in print is beautiful in real life
it is a nightmare, a hauting possessed thing of unreal beauty and awesome
force.
bogus address
>> No I don't except of course for the art in my home, But then I don't
>> have any orginal Monet's and anyone who has seen an original Van Gogh
>> knows how inadequate even the best reproductions are.
> To me, they look much the same. What can be so different? Brush
> strokes? So what? (I ask genuinely, not as a wind up)
Scale, for one thing. You don't get many 1:1 Monet reproductions.
I didn't get the point of Monet at all until I saw a real one.
Klee, on the other hand, reproduces in books just fine - his pictures
are mostly tiny.
========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music.
Dan Stephenson
<225stella...@comcast.net> wrote:
You cannot get close enough to tell, and with the glare and
translucency of the glass it's behind, it might as well be a copy.
What a boring portrait.
--
Dan Stephenson
Photos and movies from US Parks and all over Europe:
http://homepage.mac.com/stepheda
Jesper Lauridsen
>
> It's a total fake! The real one is probably in a basement hide away some
> where. Skip the Louvre and go to the D'Orsay.
Louvre contains more than one painting. And the building itself is quite
interesting.
Those disappointed by the size of ML, can go to the hall of large French
paintings. It's a hall containing large paintings, made by French painters.
Mxsmanic
> Those disappointed by the size of ML, can go to the hall of large French
> paintings. It's a hall containing large paintings, made by French painters.
Does it contain any large paintings by French painters?
Calif Bill
"The Reids" <don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ebeeh012s2r7h6rtq...@4ax.com...
I am not an art person, but do have to see the building and maybe trophy
hunt for parties. But I really enjoyed the Orsay. Great architecture,
being a classic train station, and they had a Buggati exhibition when I was
there. And being a lover of race cars, was a very nice find. I recommend
the Louvre as it does make for the quintessential Paris Museum.
Jesper Lauridsen
> I was reading up on Mona Lisa on the net where I read several
> suggesting that it is a fake as security make little attempt to stop
> flash photos of it.some ppl even boasted they went inside the barrier
> and took a photo with it.
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.
Jesper Lauridsen
>
> Yes, if you cant do it at home the test is invalid. But I wonder
> how many Londoners have walked round churches in Spain and
> visited galleries having never done so in London?
If we should restrict our holiday activities to what we do at home,
most tourist would spend the entire trip in their hotel room watching
television.
The Reids
>> Yes, if you cant do it at home the test is invalid. But I wonder
>> how many Londoners have walked round churches in Spain and
>> visited galleries having never done so in London?
>
>If we should restrict our holiday activities to what we do at home,
>most tourist would spend the entire trip in their hotel room watching
>television.
If that's what they do at home, maybe that's what they would
really enjoy on holiday? I have heard people in popular holiday
destinations talking about how its nice to get back home,
"there's nothing like your own bed" being a popular comment.
jcoulter
>
> If that's what they do at home, maybe that's what they would
> really enjoy on holiday? I have heard people in popular holiday
> destinations talking about how its nice to get back home,
> "there's nothing like your own bed" being a popular comment.
These are often the same folk who book cheap hotels, because "you only
sleep there" as if "only sleep" was an insignificant thing.
David J Richardson
Jesper Lauridsen <rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> wrote:
Thank you Duggan.
--
David J Richardson -- dav...@richardson.name
http://davidj.richardson.name/ -- Dr Who articles/interviews/reviews
http://www.boomerang.org.au/ -- Boomerang Association of Australia
Ellie C
The colors in a reproduction are also never quite the same as the
original. THere's a particular Monet that I always think of in this
context, a winter scene with a blackbird on a snowy gate that has
astonishingly gorgeous colors in the original. But even the copies sold
at the d'Orsay are disappointingly dull. (Caveat: I may be wrong about
where this painting is, I saw it about 12 years ago. So, to anyone out
there just looking for something to jump on and start ranting about:
Save your typing.)
meurgues
> Jesper Lauridsen writes:
>
> > Those disappointed by the size of ML, can go to the hall of large French
> > paintings. It's a hall containing large paintings, made by French painters.
>
> Does it contain any large paintings by French painters?
What do you mean ?
David, Delacroix, Gericault, Ingres, Girodet, Prud'hon, Gerard, Gros,
Chasseriau, etc... are french artists.
Didier Meurgues
meurgues
> In article <411ccec4$3$26389$ba62...@nntp02.dk.telia.net>,
> Jesper Lauridsen <rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> wrote:
>
> > > I was reading up on Mona Lisa on the net where I read several
> > > suggesting that it is a fake as security make little attempt to
> > > stop flash photos of it.some ppl even boasted they went inside the
> > > barrier and took a photo with it.
> >
> > 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 !
http://www.louvre.fr
Actualité
La nouvelle salle de la Joconde
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.
didier Meurgues
meurgues
> In article <u078h0dsbet70slkg...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
> <mxsm...@hotmail.com> 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
> mailto:go...@mac.com
David Gee
David J Richardson
meur...@my-deja.com (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/>