Leonardo Da Vinci painted earlier version of Mona Lisa, group claims

Painting attributed to Leonardo da Vinci and representing Mona Lisa is seen during preview presentation in vault in Onex near Geneva, Wednesday / AP Photo / KEYSTONE/Laurent Gillieron

(AP) GENEVA — A Zurich-based foundation says it will prove to the world Thursday that Leonardo Da Vinci painted an earlier version of the Mona Lisa — a claim doubted by at least one expert on the multifaceted Renaissance artist.

The Mona Lisa Foundation, which has been working with the anonymous owners of the "Isleworth Mona Lisa," says that, after 35 years of research, experts believe it predates the famed 16th-century masterpiece by some 11 or 12 years, based on regression tests, mathematical comparisons and historical and archival records.

"So far, not one scientific test has been able to disprove that the painting is by Leonardo," said art historian Stanley Feldman, a foundation member and principal author of a foundation book entitled "Mona Lisa: Leonardo's Earlier Version" to be released Thursday. "We have used methods that were not available to Leonardo 500 years ago."

"When we do a very elementary mathematical test, we have discovered that all of the elements of the two bodies — the two people, the two sitters — are in exactly the same place," Feldman told The Associated Press by phone. "It strikes us that in order for that to be so accurate, so meticulously exact, only the person who did one did the other ... It's an extraordinary revelation in itself, and we think it's valid."

The Isleworth painting — likewise a portrait of a young woman with an enigmatic smile — is slightly larger, was painted on canvas and has brighter colors than the famed Louvre Museum masterpiece painted on wood. The posture, folded hand positions, faces, expressions and clothing are similar, while the landscape in the background is different.

The foundation says the painting turned up in the home of an English nobleman in the late 1800s — thus the connection to Isleworth — and was shipped to the United States for safekeeping during World War I. After the war, it was analyzed in Italy, and eventually taken to Switzerland, where it remained in a bank vault for the last 40 years, the group said.

The Isleworth Mona Lisa has been known publicly for generations — if forgotten by the broader public — and the book excerpts numerous news headlines about the painting and the possibility of its Da Vinci connection in the early 20th century.

Martin Kemp, an Oxford University professor and Leonardo expert, wrote in an e-mail that "the reliable primary evidence provides no basis for thinking that there was 'an earlier' portrait of Lisa del Giocondo" — referring to the subject of the painting that's known as the Mona Lisa in English and La Joconde in French.

Kemp questioned the "debatable interpretations" of source material about the Isleworth painting, and said that scientific analysis cannot categorically deny that Da Vinci didn't paint it. However, he added: "The infrared reflectography and X-ray points very strongly to its not being by Leonardo."

"The Isleworth Mona Lisa miss-translates subtle details of the original, including the sitter's veil, her hair, the translucent layer of her dress, the structure of the hands ... " Kemp wrote. "The landscape is devoid of atmospheric subtlety. The head, like all other copies, does not capture the profound elusiveness of the original."

The Louvre Museum declined to comment.

[hypnotoad72]

She's hot

[kbbpll]

"scientific analysis cannot categorically deny that Da Vinci didn't paint it" - what the heck does that mean?

[Henri_Rochard]

"...the portrait looks unreal with her having absolutely the smoothest of skin on face, hands and what appears of her chest..."

In addition to his other inventions, Da Vinci invented the airbrush.

[matt6052]

they also have a Mona Lisa that was painted at the same time as the Mona Lisa -- it's in Spain

they call it a copy, but because it was painted simultaneously with the Louvre Mona Lisa, it is technically not a copy but another work

so now there are three Mona Lisas, the Louvre's, the one in Spain called a copy, and this one

that Da Vinci was just a one-trick pony

[signseeker1717]

The El Prado Mona Lisa you refer to IS a COPY; it was likely painted by a da Vinci apprentice in the same studio, and the original was clearly used as a model (same subject, same pose, and so on). In the 16th century, it was common practice for a student to COPY a master's work, and the teaching technique is still used today. It doesn't matter if they were painted "simultaneously" or not; a copy is STILL a copy.

As the article states, the Isleworth Mona Lisa has NOT been proven to be a da Vinci; it is only BELIEVED to be so by ONE group. There are only 15 authenticated da Vinci works in the world that are considered "universally" accepted. That term means ALL qualified experts worldwide accept authentication (Other categories are "generally considered", and "attributed to", with dissenters). Judging from the article, there are already skeptics (I join that group). And it will certainly take more than one group's assessment to declare this work "universally accepted".

Da Vinci was the very definition of a "Renaissance Man": painter, sculptor, architect, engineer, inventor, naturalist and anatomist. He was also a skilled mapmaker and writer. His far-reaching genius was unchallenged then and has few rivals now.

Hardly a "one-trick pony".

[matt6052]

"By comparing reflectography images taken of the Mona Lisa in 2004 with the copy (they matched), Prado conservators determined that the replica was painted while Leonardo was himself still at work on the original."

This implies that the model was in the studio too or at least accessible to the assistant, and therefore you cannot conclude that the only source for the assistant's work was Da Vinci's rendering. Likewise, changes that appear in the "copy" also appear in the original and it is therefore impossible to conclude that all changes occurred first in Leonardo's work. Maybe the master copied improvements from the student once or twice as they both worked. Besides, close comparison shows that the student's work is a more accurate and less stylized depiction of an Italian woman, a different type of painting.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2105928,00.html#ixzz27h3eRqJ8

[nohater]

don't get the mona lisa. no one knows if it is a portrait that clearly resembles a living person. no one knows what she really looked like back then. she is not attractive. the portrait looks unreal with her having absolutely the smoothest of skin on face, hands and what appears of her chest. she looks like she is made out of rubber. no doubt it is a great accomplishment to have painted the portrait in 1503 to 1507 given what brushes, paints, must have been like in those ancient times. the portrait is surreal in some ways. but hey to each his/her own. art is in the eye of the beholder.

[IPonUall2]

In those days, they had no women's facilities...