Hidden portrait 'found under Mona Lisa'

[Still Waters]

An image of a portrait underneath the Mona Lisa has been found beneath the existing painting using reflective light technology, according to a French scientist.

Pascal Cotte said he has spent more than 10 years using the technology to analyse the painting.

He claims the earlier portrait lies hidden underneath the surface of Leonardo's most celebrated artwork.

A reconstruction shows another image of a sitter looking off to the side.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-35031997

[Davros of Skaro]

Sounds like bunk to me.

[freetoroam]

I`m with this:

Will Gompertz, Arts Editor

I'm sceptical. It's perfectly common for an artist to overpaint an image as it is for a client who's commissioned that artist to ask for changes. So it's not surprising that there are those underpaintings on the Mona Lisa.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35031997

Why would Cotte even want to spend all that time doing this, it is a painting of a woman, not some unidentifiable artefact found in cave.

[coolguy]

I have a tv show that I DVR and there are 2 Mona Lisa paintings

[pallidin]

What amazing science techniques behind this... if true.

I know that my mother did similar as an oil painter.

That is, she sometimes re-used previous paintings that she painted but did not like, just because it was cheaper than buying or, in her case, constructing a fresh canvass/frame.

[questionmark]

Where some could be jumping to conclusions, it was not unusual for an artist to reuse painted canvass... especially those where the customer refused to pay. The image they found could just be that: a deadbeat customer.

[pallidin]

Right. In my mothers case this had nothing to do with the "evolution" of a specific painting; rather that it was convenient to reuse a previous canvas.

So, with my first-hand experience the underlying paintings may or may not have anything at all to do with the final.

Sometimes it does, of course. Specific to the artist and the job, I guess.

[highdesert50]

Da Vinci was experimenting with sfumato, a technique whereby edges are softened to create a softness and a sense of distance thus, for example, allow distant objects to appear slightly hazy. The underpaintings may be his working to refine the technique and more effectively layer the paint and glazes to create the desired portrait and explain why the countenance would remain somewhat static.

[pallidin]

Again, if I may go back to my experience with my mother.

She was relatively poor, and art supplies are not cheap depending on the medium and substrate.

As a young child (5-9 ?) I do recall her occasionally "re-purposing" the canvass of an oil painting she previously painted but did not like.

Not sure what she did... I was so young.

But I seem to recall her laying the painting flat, putting on some type of solution to break-up the dried oils, letting it sit for awhile, than literally scrapping then wiping it off.

In most cases I could see a faint image of the previous painting.

She would deal with this by applying a thin covering coat of some type of white oil paint she used.

The previous image would now be completely hidden.

Some available raw texture of a fresh canvas is lost doing this, of course, but she didn't seem to mind.

Edited December 11, 2015 by pallidin

[Paranomali]

Seems like he's just hoping he's found something and making it seem more than it really is.

[Derek Willis]

Did you notice how the experts refer to the artist as "Leonardo", and not the post-Da Vinci Code "Da Vinci"!

[SHaYap]

Again, if I may go back to my experience with my mother.

She was relatively poor, and art supplies are not cheap depending on the medium and substrate.

As a young child (5-9 ?) I do recall her occasionally "re-purposing" the canvass of an oil painting she previously painted but did not like.

Not sure what she did... I was so young.

But I seem to recall her laying the painting flat, putting on some type of solution to break-up the dried oils, letting it sit for awhile, than literally scrapping then wiping it off.

In most cases I could see a faint image of the previous painting.

She would deal with this by applying a thin covering coat of some type of white oil paint she used.

The previous image would now be completely hidden.

Some available raw texture of a fresh canvas is lost doing this, of course, but she didn't seem to mind.

White paint = Gesso

Gesso (Italian pronunciation: [ˈdʒɛsso]; "chalk", from the Latin: gypsum, from Greek: γύψος) is a white paint mixture consisting of a binder mixed with chalk, gypsum, pigment, or any combination of these.

• wiki link
  

~ good quality canvas and frames adds up to quite a sum until some 'masterpiece' is produced

`

[DieChecker]

I`m with this:

Will Gompertz, Arts Editor

I'm sceptical. It's perfectly common for an artist to overpaint an image as it is for a client who's commissioned that artist to ask for changes. So it's not surprising that there are those underpaintings on the Mona Lisa.

I agree it is very common for an artist to reuse a canvas. It also wouldn't be unsual for the artist to change the structure/angle of the subject and start over.

[Galactic Goatman]

So he started over, this isn't a new paradigm in art or anything.

[Clarakore]

What secret codes are in the weaving of the c canvas itself? Any? None?

Well then is it OK to put some light make up and turn that smile down a bit.

[punyparker]

10 years well spent!

[Silent Trinity]

Interesting article, but back then wasn't the prohibitive cost of materials, particularly the canvas such that they re-used previous / failed paintings with new commissions to save money? If so it would be a rather anti-climactic end to this story lol.

[Toad Uoff]

I have a tv show that I DVR and there are 2 Mona Lisa paintings

There are actually 3 versions that have been found so far. The Original in the Louvre, the Isleworth Mona Lisa, and the one in the El Prado Museum in Spain, which is the latest 'copy' found so far and it was found in 2012.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2012/02/02/mona_lisas_twin_sister_discovered_in_spains_prado_art_museum.html

There may be more ... .. .

Ribbit

[scocope]

It appears he didn't like the first result (the nose was skinnier and more chiseled on the first one) and went back to fix it (and revised the eyes as well). Likely this type of revision was not unheard of in portrait painting as there really isn't a need for a new one if touch-ups can be done.

[oldrover]

No, this (the original in the article) is a silly theory.

What he seems to be picking up on is the underpainting. Which is the foundation of oil painting of the period. It's applied in layers, which don't tend to correspond to the final image, because the density of paint is key to modelling the subject. 

The image he claims is the original is terribly out of proportion, and implausible for someone with Leonardo's skill*. Compositionally, it's an absolutely glaring disaster and jars on the eye. As well as being anatomically unlikely.

The reason why he's coming up with something that shape is almost certainly because he's picking up the denser areas of lead white, which'll correspond the well lit areas of the face. The middle tones won't contain as much, and won't have been laid down in the early stages. The density of paint and the proportion of pigment to medium (what the paint is mixed with, i.e the oil, plus other ingredients which vary form artist to artist) will vary massively between the light and dark areas.

So, things like the nose and the chin, and any other area that blends into shadow will look much smaller on x-ray, and presumably this twit's method as well. Looks like he lacks the knowledge of painting technique to interpret his results though. 

* He, and other artists on top of their game, did distort proportions at times. But normally for reasons of composition. Leonardo's Virgin and Child with St Anne being an example. If St Anne stood up she'd have stupidly long thighs. 

http://static.memrise.com/uploads/things/images/56944958_150412_0113_23.jpg

But, for the purposes of the picture, she has then to accommodate the adult body of her daughter on her lap. Another well known example is by the later, and much better, artist Caravaggio. In his 'Supper at Emmaus', (not one of his best) the hand of St Peter furthest from the viewer is out sized. It's obvious here

 https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c7/a5/f8/c7a5f8539c021eae1a8bf8ee60263e42.jpg 

But, in the context of the whole painting it's not immediately noticeable 

http://www.artway.eu/userfiles/Supper-at-Emmaus-1024x728.jpg

And is there, as a deliberate mechanism, to make the composition of the picture flow. Fruit basket is about to go too.