 |
| Mona Lisa (Isleworth) |
 |
| Mona Lisa (Louvre) |
 |
| Mona Lisa (copy, Oslo) |
 |
| Mona Lisa (copy Prado) |
 |
| Mona Lisa (copy by Raffael) |
Interview with a mysterious organization “The Mona Lisa Foundation”
“Earlier” Mona Lisa other than the Louvre’s version revealed
World exclusive
Yeung Tin Shui
31-3-2012, The Museum of Bunkamura, Tokyo has shown a painting which is claimed to be the earlier version of Mona Lisa, painted by Leonardo da Vinci himself.
On the day of the opening, hundreds of people has already been queuing up before the opening hours. The museum has put “the other” Mona Lisa outshining among several copies, but does not stress that the painting is the first version by Leonardo. Few audience – if not non – know the secret behind it.
But the title, Mona Lisa (Isleworth), is already a hint for what is going to be revealed.
***
The painting, which is known before as Isleworth Mona Lisa, is measured 65X85cm, a little bit bigger than the Louvre’s version, which is 53.4X79.4cm. Pillars are found on both side, background is quite different, and the subject lady in Isleworth’s looks younger. Apart from that, the pose and the light on the subject is the same.
“We are trying to remove the word Isleworth.” David Feldman, spokesperson of the Mona Lisa Foundation said. “Because it sounds like ‘a copy from Isleworth’, and it does not tell the true history behind it.”
“We call it Mona Lisa, the earlier version.”
The story about this painting begins before the First World War. At the time, the famous art collector Hugh Blaker discovered a painting which is similar to Mona Lisa from a noble families’ house in Somerset. The family claimed to own the painting for more than 100 years.
A diary of Hugh Blaker dated in January, 1914 suggested that “About to publish abroad details of my Mona Lisa picture, picked up in Bath, a very delightful thing showing the colours mentioned by Giorgio Vasari; …”
Hugh Blaker bought the painting, brought it to his studio in Isleworth, London. This gives the name “Isleworth Mona Lisa” to it. After that the painting is transferred to North America during the first world war, and later came to the hand of Henry F. Pulitzer in 1962. After deep investigation, Pulitzer published a book in late 60s, titled “Where is the Mona Lisa?”, claiming the painting to be original.
Why Pulitzer confirmed that the painting is from da Vinci? Everything starts from the paradox with the life of Leonardo and the painting in The Louvre.
At 1501, a letter written by Padre Nuvolerra, who is a friend of Leonardo and visited him often, said, “two of his pupils are painting two portraits to which he puts his hand from time to time ...”. The two portraits, could be Mona Lisas.
According to Vasari, Leonardo had been commissioned by Francesco del Giocondo, a rich merchant from Florence, to paint a portrait of his wife Lisa Gherardini, to celebrate his new home and his new born second son Andrea.
But when did Leonardo start to paint the portrait? This used to be a difficult question for art historian. In 2005, scholar Dr. Armin Schlecter found a book in Heidelberg University, and in the book there was a note written by Agostino Vespucci. (note attached as image) It is from the note that the painting has been confirmed as painting in 1503.
Vasari points out that, the portrait of Lisa has been left unfinished after 4 years of work. “He was an incredible and extraordinary guy, he hardly ever finished anything. It is not uncommon.” David smiled and said.
But in 1517, a finished portrait “of a Florentine lady” was recorded and owned by Leonardo himself according to a reliable diary entry. Where did the painting come from? Moreover, even the painting was finished, it is quite impossible that it became the property of Leonardo himself (as it is commissioned).
How did that happen?
It goes back to 1506. As Vasari claimed clearly that the painting is left unfinished after 4 years, it suggested that it could had been “close-file”already. It was commissioned by Francesco del Giocondo, the husband of Mona Lisa. Thus one of the Mona Lisas has been handed to the commissioner, and Leonardo brought another one with him.
In 1513. Leonardo move to Rome, and got a “sponsorship” (or some kind of similar commission) from his friend Giuliano de’Medici, to finish a painting of “a Florentine lady”. This painting had finally been done in 1516, probably at that time in Rome and he brought it with him when he went to France in 1516.
David suggested that Leonardo might have guessed what would Lisa look like after 10 years (1506), and painted her looking about 10 years older. It is not a difficult job for him as he is not only a painter, but also a biologist, a doctor, and a scientist, having expert knowledge in anatomy.
This portrait of “Florentine lady”, which is known as La Gioconda, has been inherited by Salai, Leonardo’s pupil. Salai kept the painting until his death in 1525. Francis I bought it by 4000 écus, and passed to Louis XIV. Louis XIV put the painting to Palace of Vesailles. After the French revolution, it is sent to The Louvre. After that it has been transferred to and from The Louvre, and finally found its permanent place in The Louvre, seen by billions of people.
And the one handed to Del Giocondo in 1506, is most likely to be the one now in Tokyo.
Below summarize some of the points to prove the Isleworth to be original:
1) Art historian Giovanni Lomazzo published a book called “Trattato dell’arte della Pittura Scultura ed Architecttura” in 1584, and inside it mentioned “La Gioconda and Mona Lisa”. As from the document left by Salai, it is certained that La Gioconda refers to the painting inherited by him, so historians suggested that La Gioconda should be the name of the painting in The Louvre. And Mona Lisa, which is a different painting, should be the Isleworth. As Isleworth has not been seen for many years, people think that the two paintings are the same one. Now at last we can see the earlier Mona Lisa ourselves.
2) The pillars on both side of the Isleworth can also be found by some copies of Mona Lisa. There is also a sketch from Raphael, drawn in the workshop of Leonardo, now kept in The Louvre, which also have pillars on the side.
Under deep observation, it can be seen that there are two black objects on both side of the Louvre’s painting as well. It is quite impossible to know what it is if one never saw the one with pillars. And if the two black objects are corners of the pillars, one question comes out is that, has the Louvre’s version originally had the pillars, which are cropped after?
But the problem is that the two black objects are badly painted. It doesn't cast any shadows, and its color as well as brush are both weak, very different from other parts of the painting. This suggested that the two objects might not be painted by Leonardo himself, and moreover, scientist has already confirmed that the painting has never been cropped, where are the pillars in Raphael’s sketch and other copies come from?
3) The subject in Mona Lisa (Isleworth) is younger, which implies that this could be finished earlier than the Louvre version. At the same time, according to the book Mona Lisa Revealed by scholar Giuseppe Pallanti, Lisa Gherardini should be 23 years old when she sat as model for Leonardo. The Isleworth surely matches this age more than the Louvre one.
4) Scholars claimed that since the quality of the background and the neck of Mona Lisa (Isleworth) is incomparable to the other parts such as the portrait itself. For instance, in the Isleworth, there is a dark blob which is not possible to guess what it is. But if one take reference from the Louvre, it can be seen as a group of trees, with its reflection on a lake. But since the background is unlikely to be painted by Leonardo, and someone might have been painted the lake from blue to yellow (although a hint of blue can still be found in the painting), the “reflection” is thus difficult to identify. There is a Mona Lisa painting in the Norway National Museum in Oslo which is definitely a copy of Isleworth and shows the different Florentine background with the clump of trees reflected in the blue water. As regards the neck, one can notice that the young Mona Lisa in the Isleworth painting is sitting slightly more turned so her neck must be more taught. This we also see in many of the copies.
All in all, the Isleworth cannot be a copy of the Louvre, it is unlikely that one will paint the subject perfect while leaving the background weird even besides the other obvious differences. This matches the “left unfinished” history of the painting too.
5) The Foundation collected plenty of written comments by critiques and experts who have seen the painting since the Isleworth was found in 1914, many stated that the high quality of it could only be produced by truly master painter, as David said, “Look at it carefully, then you know it can only be painted by Leonardo.”
There is also one interesting point to note. Although the size of the Isleworth is larger than the Louvre, if they are digitally organised until both subjects are of the same size, one will be able to note that the facial features of both portraits are at the same place, which reflects the great skill of the painter.
6) 22 years has passed since David started to do research on Mona Lisa (Isleworth) with other members of The Mona Lisa Foundation he has done numerous of experiments with experts, scholars, scientists, including Photographic Imaging, Radiography, Analysis of Paint Layers, Spectrophotometric analysis of colours, High-Resolution 3-D Imaging, Colorimetric Analaysis through Multispectral Digitization and High-Definition Imagery, results are generated, such as the brush stroke is similar to that of the Louvre, it is painted with left hand (Leonardo is a left hander), it shows that the painter concerned the facial features more than other parts. Both paintings have under-drawings detected by multispectral digitisation etc. All results supports the facts that the painting is authentic and must have been painted by the same artist as the one in the Louvre.
Prof. John Asmus, was mandated to make a deep study of the Mona Lisa. he is the famous scientist who made the analysis and diagnostic repairs for the buildings in Venice and especially for the Terra Cotta Warriors in Xian City has done a big research on the painting and states "...the Isleworth painting were executed by Leonardo Da Vinci. Further, it is my opinion that the entire body of scientific and historic evidence in support of this conclusion is more substantial and extensive than for many of the works widely attributed to Da Vinci."
Like Asmus, Pascal Cotte of Paris who has pioneered the most cutting edge technology today in the study of paintings stated that: “it is not possible to disprove that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was painted at the beginning of the 16th century by Leonardo da Vinci.”
The Foundation has also sent the Louvre lady image to a forensic scientist, asked him what would she looks like if 10 years younger. The scientist generated a report, and then The Foundation sent him the image of the lady of the Isleworth. The scientist simply reply without doubt, “That’s her.”
All evidences imply that Mona Lisa (Isleworth) is the original version. But at the same time, there are also people who disagree with this. The most obvious one is the one who wrote the entry in Wikipedia, with first sentence saying “Isleworth Mona Lisa is one of the many copies of Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa.”
Those who disagree raised a number of points to question its authenticity. First, there is no evidence that Giorgio Vasari is always writing the correct thing. Second, since Pulitzer has actually bought the painting with a large amount of money, he was suspected as trying to prove the painting to be authentic perhaps just for his own good. As a matter of fact, Where is the Mona Lisa? Is printed by Pulitzer Press, which was a company owned by Pulitzer himself.
Although Pulitzer has raised a lots of scientific evidences, he fails to provide the source of the information. Who conducted the research? It is not mentioned in the book. In addition, Pulitzer used “we” in the book when describing the experiment, which suggested that the experiment could be done by Pulitzer himself.
However, the case becomes now obvious as these critics have never seen the painting and cannot be aware of all the new findings and test results. It seems all this now is about to change.
As a matter of fact, the effort Pulitzer has done turn out to be a failure. His book Where is the Mona Lisa? Could not get the world’s attention, and since then the painting has not been deeply discussed by scholars and art lovers, nor to be seen by the public. This can explain perhaps why there has been such a silence about this painting for more than 50 years.
So where was the painting after Pulitzer published the book?
In fact, the painting has been transferred to Switzerland, and when Pulitzer died in 1979, a female friend inherited it. This lady was an owner of a gallery which sold prints of famous paintings. She employed a man colouring these prints for her. This man came to work for David Feldman. One time, he mentioned the painting to David. “Do you know there is a more original Mona Lisa? It is now in Switzerland.”
“Alright, alright. sure, sure..." David answered. He thought this man was joking.
Some time after, the employee left David the book Where is the Mona Lisa?. David still has not paid any attention to it until half year later, he opened the book, and started getting interested in it. He searched out the owner and asked her if she would allow him to do research, and was granted the permission. After a few years, this lady died as well, and then David and a few people formed a syndicate which owns the painting up to now. The syndicate gave permission for David to join with others to set up The Mona Lisa Foundation, which is a nonprofit foundation established for the study, research and promotion of the painting.
All in all, Isleworth Mona Lisa has only been seen by very few people. 2012 is Leonardo’s 560 years old birth anniversary. The painting is now showing in Tokyo, and looks likely to make one of the most important contributions to art history.
All the evidence will be released to the public in a 300 pages book Mona Lisa: Leonardo’s Earlier Version. It is scheduled to be announced to the public in July, after the painting is returned to Switzerland.
The book is said to be divided into many parts, proving step by step from “There are two Mona Lisas” to “Mona Lisa (Isleworth) is the earlier version” to "both Paintings, the one in the Louvre and the Earlier one, are of the same woman" to "they were completed about 10 years apart and the women show a difference of 10 years of age"!
Recent discovery by Museo Nacional del Prado will also be included in the book. There will be several pages of it, explaining the background of the Prado copy and its relationship to the Isleworth.
David stressed that Mona Lisa (Isleworth) is painted by the same artist as the Louvre’s version. “It is 100%, not 99%. We have every reason to say so,” he said. “Leonardo made a masterful work of a younger earlier portrait which he gave to the husband of Mona Lisa in 1506, then aged another version which he completed in about 1516 and is the one now hanging in the Louvre.
“All the possible evidence is now to hand, most convincing of all is to see the beautiful painting oneself."
專訪神秘組織The Mona Lisa Foundation
揭達文西真跡年輕版蒙娜麗莎之謎
全球獨家報道
楊天帥
信報於3月31日曾報道，當日東京文化村博物館展示一幅聲稱為達文西真跡的更早期版本《蒙娜麗莎》。
展覽開幕當日，開館前已引來數百人排隊入場觀賞。作品與另外數幅《蒙娜麗莎》抄本放在一起，博物館並未特別強調作品為原畫，觀者也不知道眼前作品背後的秘密。
然而，標題Mona Lisa（Isleworth）──主辦單位沒有用坊間一貫稱呼的Isleworth Mona Lisa－－這已是一刻意安排的暗示。
本報獲得全球獨家機會，專訪神秘組織The Mona Lisa Foundation發言人，由他為讀者一一解答，揭曉這一足以改寫藝術史的謎題。
這幅Mona Lisa (Isleworth)尺寸為65cm X 85cm，比羅浮宮版本的53.4 cm X 79.4cm稍大。畫面左右各繪有支柱。兩者畫中人的動作與光影設計皆相同，但背景迥異，Isleworth Mona Lisa的女性也顯得更年輕。除此以外，作品的光影設計與主體動作相同。
「我們在嘗試把Isleworth這名字移走，因為它聽起來好像『來自Isleworth的抄本』，也帶不出畫作真正的歷史。」
「我們叫它蒙娜麗莎，更早期版本（Mona Lisa, the earlier version）。」David說。
「更早期版本」的故事，始於第一次世界大戰前夕。當時，英國藝術收藏家Hugh Blaker在Somerset一位貴族家中發現一幅與《蒙娜麗莎》相似的作品。這位貴族指，其家族已擁有這幅油畫逾100年。
Hugh於1914年一月的日記有紀錄此事：「...將越洋公開我在Bath發現的Mona Lisa畫作。它是一張極漂亮的作品，展示出Giorgio Vasari提過的顏色，尺寸比羅浮宮版本大...背景完全不同，一如Vasari所言，畫作仍未完成。」
Hugh Blaker把這幅畫買下，並帶到位於倫敦Isleworth的工作室收藏。Isleworth Mona Lisa之名，亦由此而來。畫作後在一次大戰時轉移到美國，並在1962年成為藝術品賣家Henry Pulitzer的藏品。深入研究後，Pulitzer於六十年代末出版了長達一百頁的Where is the MONA LISA？，力證Isleworth Mona Lisa的真實性。
為何Pulitzer一口咬定畫作出自達文西之手呢？一切從達文西傳記的矛盾點說起。
1501年。一封當時由經常探望達文西的Padre Nuvolaria所撰信件指出，「他（達文西）的兩個徒弟正在創作兩幅人像，達文西間中親手繪畫。」這兩幅人像，如無意外應是《蒙娜麗莎》。
根據Girogio的說法，達文西當年受佛羅倫斯富商Francesco del Giocondo委託，繪畫其妻Lisa Gherardini的肖像，以慶賀新居入伙及次子Andre誕生。
多年以來，此項委託年份為何，是不少史學家亟欲解答的難題。直至2005年，學者Dr. Armin Schlechter在海德堡學院（Heidelberg University）圖書館的藏書中，發現與達文西同代人Agostino Vespucci的筆記，終於確認繪畫年份為1503年。
Girogio指出，Lisa的肖像在「達文西糾結了超過四年後，以未完成告終」。「他是一個奇人，創作常常有頭無尾，那並不是稀奇事。」David 笑道。
然而至1517年，一幅已完成的「佛羅倫斯女性」畫作卻公開於世，並屬達文西自己所有。矛盾之處正在於，若Lisa的肖像「以未完成告終」，那1517年的完成品又是從何說起？何況，就算作品已完成，也應交付委託人，不可能成為達文西的私有物。
這又是如何說起呢？
再次回到1506年，由於 Girogio明言「達文西糾結了超過四年」，則在1501年數起的約四年後（1505或1506），無論結果如可，創作應已完結。由於作品是由蒙娜麗莎丈夫Francesco del Giocondo委約創作，達文西很可能已把一幅《蒙娜麗莎》交付委託者，並帶同另一幅離開佛羅倫斯。
1513年，達文西前往羅馬，並獲朋友Giuliano de'Medici贊助繼續繪畫手中「一幅佛羅倫斯女性」的畫作。作品很可能在1516年於羅馬完成，並由畫家在同年帶到法國。
David指，達文西當時應是按未完成作品中的蒙娜麗莎，估算她在1516年的模樣，並按此繪畫－－達文西不僅是一個畫家，更是一個醫生、生物學家、解剖學家，他並非沒有能力做到這一點。
1516年的完成本，去向有完整歷史紀錄。它先在達文西死後傳到徒弟Salai之手，Salai收藏此畫直至1525年去世，法國國王FrancisＩ以4000 écus（當時法國貨幣）購入後，又傳給路易十四（Louis XIV），路易十四把畫作掛到凡爾賽宮（Palace of Versailles），法國革命後，又運到羅浮宮。此後它曾多次被轉移到不同地方，然終於還是回歸今日的羅浮宮，廣為世人觀賞。
至於1506年交予Francesco的版本，則不知所終－－David估計，那就是現在位於東京的Mona Lisa (Isleworth)。
綜合Pulitzer、藝術史學家與The Mona Lisa Foundation的論述，可概括證明Isleworth Mona Lisa為原作的論點如下：
1) 美術史學家Giovanni Lomazzo在1584年出版的Trattato dell’arte della Pittura Scultura ed Architecttura中，其中一頁提到「《焦貢達》（La Gioconda）與《蒙娜麗莎》」。
由於在達文西徒弟Salai的文件中，可確認他接收的遺作稱為《焦貢達》，故有史學家推斷，這應是羅浮宮版本原來的名字，而《蒙娜麗莎》真正所指應是Isleworth Mona Lisa。由於後者已散失多年，故在以訛傳訛下，現代人把兩者混為一談，以為《焦貢達》就是《蒙娜麗莎》的別名。
2) Isleworth Mona Lisa左右兩旁的支柱，在一些後世臨摹《蒙娜麗莎》的作品皆可看到。另外，羅浮宮亦證實收藏了一幅拉斐爾（Raphael）在達文西工作室中依照畫作繪畫的草稿。這幅草稿中的《蒙娜麗莎》亦同樣有支柱。
不過，若細心觀察羅浮宮的《蒙娜麗莎》，可發現人像左右兩旁有兩團黑色陰影。單看這兩團黑影，應無可能猜出那是何物。然而在參照Mona Lisa (Isleworth)後，那應是兩支圓柱的一角。於是有學者質疑，會否是羅浮宮版本的《蒙娜麗莎》，本來就有圓柱，只是被後人裁去呢？
然而，這兩團黑色陰影，繪畫質素甚差，與畫中其他部份迥異。它既無影子（達文西向來注重光影效果），也顯得馬虎，顏色不深，透露出背景。這可能是由於它並非出於達文西之手，而為後人所加。更重要的是，科學家在鑑證過畫作及後面的木板後，已肯定它從未被削。
若然《蒙娜麗莎》只有一張，而它沒有圓柱，那麼，數百年來發現的不少具圓柱的抄本，包括現藏於羅浮宮、由拉斐爾1504年在達文西工作室抄錄的草稿，又從何說起呢？
3) Isleworth Mona Lisa畫中人較年輕，證明此作應比《蒙娜麗莎》更早繪畫。事實上，達文西繪畫《蒙娜麗莎》時，根據達文西學者Giuseppe Pallanti著作Mona Lisa Revealed指出，畫中人應只有23歲。年齡方面，Isleworth版本無疑比羅浮宮版本更加合符史料。
4) 有學者認為，Isleworth Mona Lisa的背景與主體脖頸的質感、線條皆不及達文西其他作品，故懷疑這一部份亦為後人所補。
比方說背景左方有一類似海藻的球狀植物，參照羅浮宮版本，可知那其實是一叢樹，倒影於湖中，變成一個上下對稱的球狀。然而，不知名的後人卻把湖水的藍色塗成與土地一樣的啡色，故在畫中看不出湖水（儘管還是有一抹藍），只離奇地餘下倒影，成為「海藻」。
在挪威的奧斯陸博物館，有一與Mona Lisa (Isleworth)雷同的畫作，很可能是後者的臨摹作品。從該臨摹作品便可見，那一團「海藻」實為樹及其倒影的結合。
至於頸部，由於Isleworth的畫中人坐姿比羅浮宮版略側，故頸部的扭動亦稍大。這一點在許多後世臨摹本中亦可見到。
從另一角度看，若然Isleworth Mona Lisa純粹是抄襲之作，那抄襲者刻意把背景畫走樣，主體畫年輕，還要加上圓柱，也就說不過去了。
5) The Mona Lisa Foundation搜集到許多Mona Lisa (Isleworth) 1914年發現以來藝評家、史學家看畫的書面意見，當中不少人認為這一神秘作品的質素甚至比羅浮宮版本還高。「仔細看它的畫面，就知它只能出於達文西之手。」David說。
另外，雖然Isleworth版本的尺寸比羅浮宮版本大，但畫中人卻比後者小。然而若然把前者的主體以數碼技術放大至與羅浮宮版本同樣，則會發現，畫中人的五官皆在同一相對位置。由此可見作品質素之精準。
6) 22年來，Mona Lisa (Isleworth)與羅浮宮版本經科學家做了多個實驗，如造影、塗層分析、顏料光譜分析、高解像3D攝像、碳十二測試等，結果顯示，兩幅畫作筆觸類似，皆由左手握筆繪成（達文西是左撇子），並可見畫家關注面部特徵多於其他部份。同時，兩者皆在繪有底圖下完成。結果皆支持兩幅作品皆出自同一畫家之手的假設。
參與修復威尼斯建築及兵馬俑的著名藝術保育學者UC 聖地牙哥John Asmus教授獲授權深入研究《蒙娜麗莎》，他指出：「…Isleworth 版本是由達文西創作。猶有甚者，我認為其擁有的科學與歷史資料比其他聲稱為達文西畫作的作品更加豐富可信。」
與Asmus同樣，巴黎古畫研究專家Pascal Cotte亦有如此結論：「不可能否定Isleworth Mona Lisa在16世紀出於達文西之手。」
The Mona Lisa Foundation曾把羅浮宮的《蒙娜麗莎》，送到一位鑑證學家手中，並問他「如果這位女性年輕十多年，會是甚麼模樣？」這位鑑證學家按要求做了調查報告，然後David再讓他看Mona Lisa (Isleworth)，鑑證學家看過後毫不猶豫地說：「就是她了。」
種種證據，似乎皆指出Isleworth Mona Lisa是為正貨。不過，當然對它投下不信任票的學者亦不在少數。維基百科相關條目的編者便是其一，他在介紹中第一句便寫道：「Isleworth Mona Lisa是根據達文西的《蒙娜麗莎》繪畫的眾多作品之一。」
反對派對Pulitzer 的論點提出多番質疑。首先，無證據證明Girogio Vasari對達文西的記載，一定完全準確。其次，以鉅額買下Isleworth Mona Lisa的Pulitzer，被懷疑力證作品真偽，只為私人利益。事實上， Where is the Mona Lisa？一書的出版商Pulitzer Press，也是他的私人公司。無論他怎麼說，不免給人「賣花讚花香」的感覺，令其證詞欠缺說服力。
另外，Pulitzer亦於Where is the Mona Lisa？中，以不少科學證據證明Isleworth Mona Lisa的真偽。然而，科學實驗到底由誰主理？書中並無提及。又由於Pulitzer曾在書中的鑑證文章使用「我們」（we）一字，這一點惹來不少學者質疑所謂「科學證據」，實際上是由Pulitzer自己取得／創作－－今年重新曝光的畫作及研究結果，將再次改變這一幅更早期《蒙娜麗莎》的命運。
因此，Pulitzer付出辛勞但無收到他預期的效果。其著作Where is the Mona Lisa？無法獲得世界關注。此後50年世界再未有新資料發佈關於Mona Lisa(Isleworth)的消息。作品流落何方亦無人知曉。
那麼，這幅神秘畫作到底下落如何？
原來，此作後給運到瑞士，並在Pulitzer 1979年死後，由其一位女性朋友繼承並收藏。這位女士是一所畫廊老闆，專售名畫印本，僱有一專責為這些印本填色的員工。這位員工曾為David Feldman工作。一天，他告訴David關於Isleworth Mona Lisa的事，「你知道《蒙娜麗莎》有兩個版本嗎？它就在瑞士。」
「噢，是這樣啊。」David隨口答。當時他只視之為胡扯謅編，沒有理會。
一段日子後，這位員工給David留下Where is the Mona Lisa？一書，但David依然沒有在意。直至半年後一天，他偶爾打開，閱讀後才對畫作產生濃厚興趣。他找到持有畫作的女士，並懇求她借予Mona Lisa（Isleworth）作研究用，並獲允許。數年後，這位女士去世，David連同另外數人組成一聯合組織，共同持有畫作。這聯合組織再批準David與他人成立非牟利組織The Mona Lisa Foundation，專責研究及推廣畫作為真本的訊息。
無論如何， Mona Lisa (Isleworth)這幅神秘作品，見過的人少之又少。2012年是達文西誕生560周年，畫作在東京公開展出，有望寫下成為藝術史上重要一筆。
詳細實驗結果，連同Mona Lisa (Isleworth)的前文後理，將於長達300頁的專著Mona Lisa: Leonardo’s Earlier Version公開。David指，畫作將在七月東京展出後，回到瑞士，並與專著一同發表。
Mona Lisa: Leonardo’s Earlier Version將分成多個部份，採用逐步推敲的辦法，先證明《蒙娜麗莎》有兩張，再解說為何那就是Mona Lisa (Isleworth)，繼而解答「為何兩幅畫作繪畫的是同一女性」，以及「為何兩幅畫作中的女性年齡相差約10年」等問題。
最近在西班牙Museo Nacional del Prado（下稱Prado Museum）發現的Prado 抄本Mona Lisa，引起了世界各地媒體關注。這一發現，令David與一眾學者必須再為將發表的專著增補。David透露，新版將會數頁講述Prado Museum作品的背景，以及其與Isleworth版本的關係。
David強調，結果肯定Mona Lisa (Isleworth)確實與羅浮宮版本皆是由同一畫家繪成的同一女性。「是100%，不是99%，我們這樣說自有原因。」David說。「達文西在1506年完成了一幅大師級人像作品，並交付蒙娜麗莎的丈夫。然後再在1516年完成一幅現掛於羅浮宮的年長版本。」
「所有證據已經在手。不過最具說服力的，想必還是聞名不如見面。」
沒有留言:
張貼留言