It was a year ago, I was giving my friend a tour of the Prado, when I found her – the same eyes and smile staring out from a black background. I’d never come across Prado’s Mona Lisa twin before, nor did I even know it existed, but hidden in a small room on the ground floor of Madrid’s Prado Museum I discovered this curiosity. After the novelty had worn off we moved on, and I assumed it was a standard copy of the painting, however there was something different and it stayed with me after my visit.

Now this painting is making the headlines in art news all over the world – the Mona Lisa’s twin sister separated at birth. But the copy in the Prado is no ordinary copy, as previously believed – it was not only created in Leonardo da Vinci’s workshop by one of his students, but had actually been painted in parallel with the original. artes fine arts magazine

With its black background removed, the painting now reveals a mountainous landscape akin to the original, and we see the twin sister in all her glory. While she belongs to the Prado’s permanent collection, she traveled to Paris, until the end of June, for an exhibition in the Louvre.

Two years ago, the Louvre requested a study and restoration of this work in preparation for this upcoming exhibition, “Saint Anne, Leonardo da Vinci’s final Masterpiece”– which ran from the March to June, 2012 – this began the initial infrared (IR) reflectography and radiographic scans to investigate what lay hidden behind the black background. The initial results showed hints of a hidden landscape, but that wasn’t all — the IR studies from both paintings, curiously, revealed uncanny coincidences under the surface of the “La Giaconda” figure – and is no ordinary copy.

The Mona Lisa of the Prado has been in the Spanish Royal collection since 1666, but the history of its acquisition remains a mystery. When the museum opened its doors, it became a part of the Prado collection, but has always been sidelined with the “lesser” regarded paintings, and thought of as nothing more than a superficial copy.

Why did the IR scans dispute this? The similarities found in an ordinary copy are superficial – painted from by the copyist and hence entirely based on the painting’s surface. A copyist as such wouldn’t know of Leonardo da Vinci’s personal process and corrections to the painting — which is why this painting is extraordinary.

 

The studies between the Prado copy and the original “La Giaconda” demonstrate not only identical lines and corrections in the figures, but also by superimposing their sizes, it is clear that the figures in both paintings were most likely transferred from the same cartoon onto the panels. To further support the simultaneous creation of the painting, changes made by the artist found in the IR studies of the original painting match those seen in the Prado copy – both under drawings in are the same, and neither resemble the final painting we see on top, this means that whoever painted the copy was watching Leornardo da Vinci paint the original.

The infra-red scan showed hints of a mountainous background behind the black paint, so by undertaking further studies using x-ray scans confirmed the existence of this hidden landscape.

The next question, how to restore the painting to its former glory? The restoration team removed small sections of the black paint around the edges of the painting, and the results from the chemical tests revealed the existence of an organic varnish layer between the actual painting and the over paint—this varnish not only separated the two layers, but served to protect the landscape underneath and simplified restoration since organic solvents could be used to dissolve the top layer. The chemical tests had also revealed that this top layer was added to the painting at least 250 years after it had been completed.

It wasn’t only the hidden background that came to light, but further IR scans on the cleaned up painting showed more details in the changes on the figure. On top of the painting, above the black layer, was a layer of varnish used as a topcoat. Removing this not only bought the painting back to its fleshy glory, but also allowed IR scans to show greater details in the painting’s composition. Some of the paintings’ corrections are extensive, such as on the fingers and folds of the figure’s sleeves; even the modification in the veil of the sitter is observed in both versions of the paintings.

Some of the corrections had been made in charcoal or chalk, and others are seen to have used thick brushstrokes in both copies—with each change obscured beneath the painting’s surface. The copyist, most likely one of Leonardo da Vinci’s students, imitated and reproduced da Vinci’s working method.

While this piece is not a masterpiece in itself, it’s this clear documentation of the paintings’ construction that makes it so interesting. We can appreciate the numerous aspects of the original, that before hand not been obvious. The phases of the paintings’ construction, Leonardo da Vinci’s creative, experimental nature and working method are clear in the copy – since they repeat da Vinci’s construction in a clearer and more precise manner.

Why was the landscape covered up 250 years later? This could be attributed to many possible reasons; one of them could be to conform to a gallery of portraits or simply for aesthetic reasons. But there is one thing that should be addressed regarding the background—it’s unfinished. To some degree, it does show the intermediary layers seen in the IR scan results of the Louvre original, which does suggest the copyist stopped work before the original was finished. This also offers some interesting information about both paintings, but possibly answers the question about the black background—maybe this was the reason the copy was painted over.

There is one final piece of information that indicates this painting held significant importance in its commission. Firstly, the wooden panel is made from walnut, a material frequently found in Leonardo da Vinci’s period in Milan, particularly in the smaller paintings. This wood was very expensive, and for the larger scale paintings, poplar wood was a preferred option. The materials used in the paint, such as the lapis lazuli pigment for the blue background, hints to the copy being part of an important commission. The quality of the copy and its existence leads to the question as to the importance of the sitter. It isn’t unknown for paintings to be commissioned with high quality copies, but all the recorded cases the sitter was always very important. Even though a lot has been revealed about the copy and the original Mona Lisa, the discovery of the copy’s significance opens a new set of questions – who painted the copy? Who commissioned the Mona Lisa and why was a copy commissioned in addition? Also, who was the sitter and is she more important that previously believed?

I had the chance to see the Prado copy before she set off to Paris for the next few months, and compared to the dour and dull version I had seen before, the restoration has brought life and brilliance to it. While there are significant differences between the two paintings, not only in the quality (since the Mona Lisa original has become cracked and discoloured), but also stylistic differences, such as the linear style of the copy and the precise use of brushstrokes, and the reduced use of uses Leonardo’s characteristic sfumato technique. The Mona Lisa of the Prado appears to be a younger woman, with a fuller face and lips. Painted through different eyes to da Vinci, yet still emulating his techniques and processes. Even with the differences between the portraits, the copy allows us to imagine the original painting at the time—the light coloured background, the fleshy tones of its sitter and the colours of the dress.

Until the end of June, those lucky enough to attend the exhibition in the Louvre will get the opportunity to see the two paintings side by side– two smiles with even more secrets to reveal.

By Jennifer Walker, Contributing Writer*

This article first appeared in the informative and thoughtful European on-line art magazine http://kunstpedia.com/; with an American ‘thanks’ for permission to reprint this and other articles about the European art scene.

*I would like to thank the Prado Museum and Beatriz Carderera for their cooperation and help with this article.

References:

[1] Museo del Prado Press Release on La Giaconda

[2] www.museodelprado.com (2012)

_____________________________________________

Editor’s Note: The Mona Lisa saga continues, with yet a third version revealed in England in September, 2012:

Hidden away in a Swiss bank vault for more than 40 years, the image of one of the most famous models in the world has come to light. At 500 years, she doesn’t show her age at all—in fact, her countenance has taken on a more youthful glow. If the painting bears up under the intense scrutiny it will almost certainly undergo, it could only add to the delicious mystery that has surrounded this seated woman and her Renaissance artist. Now, with a second version of the Mona Lisa unveiled in recent months, many hope and expect that this, too, can be proven to be the work of the master himself.

It is a narrative befitting the likes of the da Vinci Code. The painting was discovered shortly before World War I, by English art collector Hugh Blaker, who purchased it from a noble family. He then moved the painting to his studio in Isleworth, England, thereby lending it its iconic name—the Isleworth Mona Lisa.

It was later moved to the U.S. for safekeeping during World War I. The portrait was eventually located in the Swiss bank vault for safekeeping. Over the years, experts from the non-profit Mona Lisa Foundation have been working to prove or disprove the portrait’s authenticity.

“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,” art historian and foundation member Stanley Feldman told The Associated Press. “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” (Rosenbaum, CBS News, 9.12).

The world-famous original believed to be the image of Lisa del Giocondo, hangs in the Louvre. In a side-by-side comparison, this second copy exhibits some notable difference. The Isleworth version is larger and features columns on either side of the figure. The Louvre version and the recently restored copy are narrower, with no such columns, and has a much more detailed background.

Artist, da Vinci, using a method typical for the period, painted on wood panel. The Isleworth version is on canvas, raising concerns that it is a much later version. The woman in the Isleworth version also appears younger than that in the Louvre, leading to speculation that it might be a younger version of del Giocondo, or just inexpertly rendered.

Many in the art and scientific community remain unconvinced. “It’s a perfectly honest, well-made early copy,” Martin Kemp, an Oxford University professor and da Vinci expert, told ABC News. “Pictures were copied because you couldn’t go to the Internet and order a reproduction. So if you wanted something like that and you couldn’t get a hold of a Leonardo, you would order a copy.”

While initial controversy over the authenticity of the Isleworth version swirls, the good news is that forensic methods now exist that, when applied to the surface and the various components of the work, will likely put an end to speculation With the debate still raging, it is difficult to reach a definite conclusion about the painting’s authenticity. As is the case with so many other long-sequestered art finds, the world awaits the definitive findings of the experts. At some level, the mystery surrounding this very singular da Vinci masterpiece, patiently staring out at the world with her enigmatic smile, offers satisfaction enough for one lifetime. Two—especially given its solid provenance—could be considered welcome company…but three may be a crowd! -RF