Mona Lisa Replica painted alongside actual Mona Lisa(looks better too). - Polidicks

[url]http://www.history.com/news/2012/02/01/mona-lisas-long-lost-twin-turns-up-in-spain/?cmpid=Social_Facebook_Hith_02012012_1[/url] [quote] More than 500 years after their separation at birth, Mona Lisa’s long-lost twin has turned up in Madrid—and she looks a lot younger than her more famous sister. The Prado Museum has owned the portrait for years but assumed it was a mediocre 16th- or 17th-century copy of Leonardo da Vinci’s original, which dates back to the early 1500s. That’s because the replica’s subject—though bearing an unmistakable resemblance to “La Gioconda,” as da Vinci called her—appeared in front of a plain black backdrop rather than the Tuscan countryside of the Louvre’s version. But two years ago, restorers working on the copy discovered that the dark layers of paint surrounding Mona Lisa concealed a landscape nearly identical to the original’s background. Infrared tests yielded an even bigger surprise: Sketch marks known as underdrawings mirrored those on da Vinci’s canvas, suggesting that the painter of the replica had worked alongside the Renaissance master. Among the many apprentices da Vinci took under his wing throughout his career, he had particularly close relationships with aspiring artists Francesco Melzi and Andrea Salai; the latter even inherited the “Mona Lisa” after his mentor’s death. Experts have named both men as potential painters of the Prado copy, the Art Newspaper [URL="http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Earliest-copy-of-Mona-Lisa-found-in-Prado/25514"]reported[/URL]. Lisa Gherardini del Giocondo, a wealthy silk merchant’s wife from Florence, is thought to have sat for da Vinci’s most celebrated work—and maybe, it now appears, a facsimile by one of his disciples. While layers of cracked, wrinkled varnish obscure the beauty of the original “Mona Lisa,” the Prado version has emerged remarkably unblemished from its ongoing restoration. Experts think the copy’s well-preserved details might even reveal new information about da Vinci’s masterpiece, helping us see what the painting looked like before age and exposure took their toll. The replica will go on display at the Prado later this month before traveling to France for a da Vinci exhibit. Does the real Mona Lisa, frozen behind glass at the Louvre, resent the airbrushed radiance of her newly discovered doppelganger? Whatever the answer, she’s sure to keep faking her legendary half-smile.[/quote] [img]http://www.history.com/news/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/mona-lisa-comparison.jpg[/img] I think the fake looks better than the original, although that's probably due to the restoration and shit.

-snip-

Less cleavage on the left one.

I wish more people valued art by how much they actually liked the piece, rather than how much it was worth. I'd much rather have the fake, or even a print of the fake. The desolation in the background is pretty amazing.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;34499739]well the first one is 500 years old[/QUOTE] good job reading the article

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;34499739]well the first one is 500 years old[/QUOTE] [quote]suggesting that the painter of the replica had worked alongside the Renaissance master.[/quote] And so is the other one. Maybe.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;34499739]well the first one is 500 years old[/QUOTE] Both are 500 years old. [editline]1st February 2012[/editline] And even if it wasn't it would still be at least 300-400 years old.

So wait, why is one aged to shit and the other isn't then?

the "fake" looks like it was painted from a slightly different perspective

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;34499939]So wait, why is one aged to shit and the other isn't then?[/QUOTE] The article mentioned that the one on the left originally had a black matte background, but the restorers discovered that that top black coat of paint covered other layers underneath, effectively preserving one much better than the other

The original looks more passive, which I like better.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;34499939]So wait, why is one aged to shit and the other isn't then?[/QUOTE] The copy is restored, but i am pretty sure the original is like that because it's been hanging on walls, handled, etc for the most time while the copy was in storage.

What if the "copy" is actually the original and the one we've had for years was the copy. :tinfoil:

Ehh, I like the old one the new one is great, but the old one has that "authentic" and "old" feel that I like. Rugged and valuable by being a good and old. If I had a really big house and had a lot of money I'd go for a sort of medieval look almost, with a lot of modern touches... I think adding older and more authentic looking paintings would be way better.

[QUOTE=OvB;34500474]What if the "copy" is actually the original and the one we've had for years was the copy. :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] I... I think you've cracked it.

The transition from nose to eyebrows in the new one looks too sharp

Wait, so the background is supposed to be a mountain range? Always thought it was a forest.

The original is better. [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-italy.gif[/img]

The original's smile looks way more enigmatic though, which I thought was a big part of the painting. The new one just looks like a smirk.

The old one has a much more warm color palette and it looks a lot more pleasant. The "fake" is kinda dull and basic imo. mona lisa herself looks better in da vincis version too

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;34501114]Wait, so the background is supposed to be a mountain range? Always thought it was a forest.[/QUOTE] Being mountains makes the change in horizon height on both sides even creepier and what's with that one mountain peak just kind of overhanging

[QUOTE=J!NX;34500585]Ehh, I like the old one the new one is great, but the old one has that "authentic" and "old" feel that I like. Rugged and valuable by being a good and old. If I had a really big house and had a lot of money I'd go for a sort of medieval look almost, with a lot of modern touches... I think adding older and more authentic looking paintings would be way better.[/QUOTE] My exact feelings.

The 'new' one looks better partly because it's not been covered in much varnish. Varnish can give paintings a very aged effect, and the old one was supposedly drenched in the stuff.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34499709][url]http://www.history.com/news/2012/02/01/mona-lisas-long-lost-twin-turns-up-in-spain/?cmpid=Social_Facebook_Hith_02012012_1[/url] [img]http://www.history.com/news/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/mona-lisa-comparison.jpg[/img] I think the fake looks better than the original, although that's probably due to the restoration and shit.[/QUOTE] Considering the crap the original Lisa has been through, like suffering from dry rot due to being painted on wood and having acid thrown on it, I think it has held up remarkably well.

Am I the only one who doesn't like Mona Lisa painting at all? It doesn't look very good or breathtaking, it doesn't seem to convey any idea and overall it just looks ok. If it wasn't historically old it would be just a generic portrait. There are so many better paintings today both digitally and in real life.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;34502941]Am I the only one who doesn't like Mona Lisa painting at all? It doesn't look very good or breathtaking, it doesn't seem to convey any idea and overall it just looks ok. If it wasn't historically old it would be just a generic portrait. There are so many better paintings today both digitally and in real life.[/QUOTE] If we were in the 1500s still, then I would agree with you. But I honestly think that art picks up value as it ages and it goes through changes. The original Mona Lisa is so beautiful, at least to me, because of hundreds of years of handling, restoration and the history behind it.

[QUOTE=God of Ashes;34499966]the "fake" looks like it was painted from a slightly different perspective[/QUOTE] Makes sense, assuming Leonardo and his student were painting alongside eachother. They would have different perspectives

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;34502941]Am I the only one who doesn't like Mona Lisa painting at all? It doesn't look very good or breathtaking, it doesn't seem to convey any idea and overall it just looks ok. If it wasn't historically old it would be just a generic portrait. There are so many better paintings today both digitally and in real life.[/QUOTE] I find the fact that it's survived so long more impressive than the picture on it. But you can't deny da Vinci was a master artist.

Mona Lisa HD Remaster

I'm calling bogus. Why are they judging its authenticity on under laying sketch marks and not chemical compound samples found in the paint?