- This topic has 4 voices and 16 replies.
-
Posts
-
Lisa Gherardini, the model for da Vinci's Mona Lisa, have apparently been unearthed. Actually, the remains were largely unearthed within the past year or so, but I believe it was only recently that they found her skull.Have archaeologists uncovered Mona Lisa model's remains?
It would be interesting if that actually was her. But
The wife of a rich silk merchant, Lisa Gheradini, is generally accepted by historians to be the woman with the mysterious smile.
What does "generally accepted" actually mean and how do they figure she is Mona Lisa?
In the latter half of the sixteenth century, Vasari had said it was that woman in his “Lives of the Artists” publication. Since he had his sources, it is evidence but not conclusive. I think in the last decade or two there has been more corroborating evidence supporting her identification as Lisa Gherardini.
For those who are interested, here is where Vasari mentions her (published either 1550 or 1568 – the Mona Lisa was painted 1503-05):
Leonardo undertook to execute, for Francesco del Giocondo, the portrait of Monna Lisa, his wife; and after toiling over it for four years, he left it unfinished; and the work is now in the collection of King Francis of France, at Fontainebleau. In this head, whoever wished to see how closely art could imitate nature, was able to comprehend it with ease; for in it were counterfeited all the minutenesses that with subtlety are able to be painted, seeing that the eyes had that lustre and watery sheen which are always seen in life, and around them were all those rosy and pearly tints, as well as the lashes, which cannot be represented without the greatest subtlety. The eyebrows, through his having shown the manner in which the hairs spring from the flesh, here more close and here more scanty, and curve according to the pores of the skin, could not be more natural. The nose, with its beautiful nostrils, rosy and tender, appeared to be alive. The mouth, with its opening, and with its ends united by the red of the lips to the flesh tints of the face, seemed, in truth, to be not colors but flesh. In the pit of the throat, if one gazed upon it intently, could be seen the beating of the pulse. And, indeed, it may be said that it was painted in such a manner as to make every valiant craftsman, be he who he may, tremble and lose heart. He made use, also, of this device: Monna Lisa being very beautiful, he always employed, while he was painting her portrait, persons to play or sing, and jesters, who might make her remain merry, in order to take away that melancholy which painters are often wont to give to the portraits that they paint. And in this work of Leonardo's there was a smile so pleasing, that it was a thing more divine than human to behold; and it was held to be something marvellous, since the reality was not more alive.
For anyone else interested, here is some additional information about the Mona Lisa.
I don't know, while it is an interesting scientific exercise something about digging up a body to reconstruct the skull to see if she really looks like the painting disturbs me for some reason. It seems kind of sacrilegious to me to be digging up bodies buried on sacred ground out of curiosity. Does nobody else have a problem with this or is there a time limit on graverobbing?
I have wondered about digging up graves in other circumstances. It seems like they are often times digging up this or that person in order to take sample to confirm an identity, or to determine a cause of death. I am guessing that they have the permission of the church on whose property they usually dig. I imagine there are certain rules that the excavators must agree to before the dig, including the dignity with which they handle any remains.
I think it is graverobbing whether they pt her back or not. At a minimum it is disturbing the peace of the dead. It just doesn't sit right with me for some reason.
But how much have we learned by doing this? And after historians write about it, we keep their memory alive.
I just think its creepy. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. In this particular case what are we going to learn? Maybe how faithful to the original appearance of the subject the painting is. That is worth disturbing a grave for? I think not.There are times when we can learn something from graves and the bodies within, I just think that serious thought needs to go into the propriety of it and whether the potential gain in knowledge is worth the disturbance. In this case, I don't think it is.
I think they might be able to do it under the more important reason of moving remains to marked graves, rather than unmarked ones. Also, if they are doing renovations to an area (old cemetery or church) they would need to move the remains anyways.I do think that when we hear about these stories in the news media, we are hearing just the sensationalized side of why remains are being dug up.
From the article:
It was right where ancient maps and documents had led them to believe Lisa's body had been placed: a crypt reached via a gate and staircase.
They were looking for her, solely for the purpose of confirming what her appearance was based on forensic reconstruction. If that is not a paltry excuse for digging up a body, what is?
Update on this story – the tomb of a known relative of Francesco del Giocondo, the husband of Lisa Gherardini (the presumed subject of the Mona Lisa), has been entered and DNA from it will be tested to find any match with the presumed body of Lisa. http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.de/2013/08/suspected-family-tomb-of-mona-lisa.html#.Ugqj_j_ocQp
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
