A Swiss-based art foundation says new scientific findings support its claim that the “Isleworth Mona Lisa” is an earlier version of Leonardo da Vinci’s 15th century portrait. But experts remain unconvinced.
Last September the Zurich-based Mona Lisa Foundation unveiled what it claims is a younger portrayal of Da Vinci’s muse – in her early 20s, a decade younger than the version in the Louvre – supported by various scientific tests and historical and archival records gathered over 35 years that they say proves the authenticity of their Da Vinci painting, known as the “Isleworth Mona Lisa”.
This week the foundation presented two further scientific tests, one by by Zurich’s Federal Institute of Technology (ETHZ), and the other by a specialist in „sacred geometry“, carried out in the wake of the Geneva unveiling.
„When we add these new findings to the wealth of scientific and physical studies we already had, I believe anyone will find the evidence of a Leonardo attribution overwhelming,“ foundation vice-president David Feldman declared in a press release on February 13.
But Jan Blanc, an art history professor from Geneva University who has written a book on Da Vinci, told swissinfo.ch that the new findings and recent spate of so-called art scoops had brought to light the total lack of control and evaluation of so-called ‘experts’ whom the art market and collectors call upon to attribute, date and analyse their work, and a growing emphasis on ‘scientific analysis’ that claims to present absolute proofs.
Carbon dating
The carbon-dating test carried out by the ETHZ on the canvas of the Isleworth painting found that it was almost certainly manufactured between 1410 and 1455 – refuting claims that it was a late 16th century copy.
Carbon-dating cannot prove when the painting was done, Feldman told swissinfo.ch, but added to other findings the foundation believes it further confirms that its painting was started in 1503 and used as a model for the far more complex version that hangs in the Louvre.
However ETHZ researcher Irena Hajdas clarified to swissinfo.ch that she had carried out a test on an unidentified piece of material sent to the Zurich institute in December by a Swiss lawyer and was told by the foundation it had come from the Isleworth Mona Lisa a few weeks after the results were released.
She said she could only confirm the carbon-dating findings about the piece of material tested and could not endorse any conclusions about the foundation’s painting, especially as she had not seen the work or documentation as was normal practice for certification.
She said she found the results “contradictory” and they made the canvas “too old”, as they imply that Da Vinci used a 40-80-year-old piece of canvas.
Oxford University professor Martin Kemp, a world-recognised authority on Da Vinci, told swissinfo.ch that carbon-dating tests were “notoriously slippery”.
“I know of no Italian work from 1410-1455 painted on canvas, other than transportable banners. There is no record of Leonardo having painted on canvas and he would have found its ‚toothy‘ nature repellent. In his recipes for making painting he nowhere talks of painting on canvas. He worked to get the smoothest possible surface in the priming of his panels,” he commented.
The foundation say they plan further secondary research on their painting to try to find out what is behind the varnish.
“Misguided”
In the other new test, Italian geometrist Alfonso Rubino, who has made extended studies of the geometry of Leonardo’s Vitruvian Man, concluded that the Isleworth portrait matched Leonardo’s geometry and must be his.
Kemp told swissinfo.ch he believed the search for elaborate surface geometry in Renaissance paintings was “misguided”. “None of the very many drawings for compositions or technical evidence about the preparatory stages of paintings have revealed the deployment of such geometry,“ he said.
Blanc concurred. “It’s a while now that art historians have no longer believed in such nonsense and no longer look for ‘hidden geometry’ in in old paintings,” he noted. “So there is no reason to imagine it would be exclusive to original Leonardo da Vinci paintings.”
Kemp was one of several art specialists whoh challenged the initial findings when the painting was shown last year, and expressed doubts that Da Vinci had painted an earlier version.
He told the Sunday Times last September „so much is wrong with it“, arguing that the Isleworth painting was probably a copy of the Louvre version by an unknown painter who simply chose to make the subject younger.
In reply, Feldman and foundation colleagues retort that Kemp has never seen the painting.
On his blog the professor had described the foundation’s conclusions as „piles of unstable hypotheses, stacked one on another“. He had argued that infrared reflectography and X-rays pointed very strongly to it not being by Leonardo.
„The Isleworth Mona Lisa mis-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 had stated. „The landscape is devoid of atmospheric subtlety. The head, like all other copies, does not capture the profound elusiveness of the original.“
He assured swissinfo.ch that he stood by all previous statements he had made about the painting.
Meanwhile, Feldman said that while the work is not for sale, the foundation is currently building an exhibition which will start a five-year tour at the end of the year, probably beginning in Singapore, Hong Kong or China before moving on to the United States and Europe