Slashdot Mirror
High-Res Scan of Mona Lisa Reveals Its History
daevux writes "CNN is reporting that French engineer Pascal Cotte has discovered interesting details of the history of Da Vinci's Mona Lisa from a 240-megapixel scan of the artwork in various frequencies. Cotte surmises that the painted figure's eyebrows and eyelashes probably disappeared due to poor cleaning at some point in the past. He believes he can reconstruct the painting's original skin tones."
So will we ever know if it is a man or not?
It's a Man BABY!!
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
Let me guess... they've discovered that Mona Lisa's face is actually a combination of the faces of Da Vinci, Jesus, Dan Brown, and Tom Hanks?
I'm not saying I wouldn't love to see a print of what it looked like "originally" but the aging of the painting adds to the significance of the work as a whole doesn't it? If so wouldn't things like thing cheapen the priceless nature of these pieces?
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
240 megapixels and you link to a CNN article? Show me the pixels!
Let's see all her skin tone!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Mona Lisa, masterpiece ...
A painting, badly damaged
Gentlemen, we can rebuild her
We have the technology
We have the capability
Mona Lisa is that painting
Better than she was before
Brighter - Truer colors - Anatomically Complete
Did he find "THIS IS A FAKE" written on the canvas in felt tipped marker under all that paint?
He goes on at length here, down around page 190.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
:|
That's a kickass compressor.
Thou shalt not begin a subject line or post with the word "Umm".
I'm not saying I wouldn't love to see a print of what it looked like "originally" but the aging of the painting adds to the significance of the work as a whole doesn't it? If so wouldn't things like thing cheapen the priceless nature of these pieces? No, no, NO! No it doesn't.
DAMN no!
Oh my god. Seriously, what you're saying is that a worn VHS is better than a remastered DVD.
Worse, you're somehow thinking that we'll lose the historical context... as if restoration would eliminate the millions of pages detailing that context or the millions of reproductions of the work in its aged state.
The degradation, I'll have you know, is what causes the loss of historical context.
People think that old stone churches were always gray and foreboding buildings, when historically they were colorful, but that context was lost through erosion of the pigments.
You can't take the sky from me...
How do they explain the words "THIS IS A FAKE" written in felt tip marker underneath all that aged paint?
Slashdot researcher CowboyNeal has used the same 240 megapixel camera and advanced imaging techniques to reveal the history of the goatsecx picture.
"Cotte surmises that the painted figure's eyebrows and eyelashes probably disappeared due to poor cleaning..."
I found it amusing that the ad I got while reading the article was for Botox...
would restoring the Mona Lisa to her original glory be in violation of the DMCA? Mother nature has specifically encoded the particles of the painting into their current state. Disassembling those particles or re-arranging them to unlock the original content seems to contravene explicit provisions of the DMCA.
While the rest of the world may enjoy Leonardo's original work, here in the US we simply will not tolerate such abashed attacks on the copyrights of Leonardo. What do you mean copyright has expired? Ok, give us one more congressional session (and a couple pleasure boat cruises) and we will have that fixed.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
According to the article, there's a postulation that a curator or restorer might have accidentally cleaned off the eyebrows and eyelashes.
FTA
"And if you look closely at the eye of 'Mona Lisa' you can clearly see that the cracks around the eye have slightly disappeared, and that may be explained that one day a curator or restorer cleaned the eye, and cleaning the eye, removed, probably removed the eyelashes and eyebrow," he said.
Why would a single pigment/color disappear?
Weren't colors back then all made with the same base? In that case, why would only the eyebrows disappear and nothing else shows a smudge from whatever cleaning agent it was used? (if this is the case).
Not to mention that I would have loved to be there for THAT occasion:
Owner: "Can you get this thing cleaned up for me?"
Curator: "Sure thing mister, I'm a professional."
Owner: "It's priceless you know..."
Curator: "I'll take good care of it."
Curator starts the restoration from the eyes and accidentally wipes off eyebrows and eyelashes.
Curator: "Fuck!"
Curator: "Well... maybe if I get the eyes soaked in enough oil to not crack for 500 years, no one will notice."
Owner gets back.
Owner: "Hmm... look at them eyes! They're awesome!"
Owner: "There's something different about her, is it her smile?"
Curator: "I'm just a restorer, but yeah, er... she looks mysterious."
Owner: "Nice eyes though!"
So much speculation...
A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere. -- Groucho Marx
His company, and the restored colors can be seen here
Historically they were colourful, but that context was lost through whitewash.
Literally. Cromwell has a whole lot to answer for.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Restoring something to the way it was initially experienced is different from trying to enhance it beyond what it originally was.
Both are culturally beneficial, but the enhancement is more like a new work than an authentic reproduction of the old work.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
a) The VHS/DVD argument is garbage because there are more than one of them and you cannot physically change one into the other.
b) How do you know that the restoration has returned the item to it's original luster. What if it was originally painted in dull tones, but today's experts say they used bright tones back then. Which leads to...
c) If the restoration is screwed up the item is lost. Forever.
Sure we have loads of information and reproductions of the original but, as this study shows, there are always new ways to gain more information from the original. If restorations are performed how do you know if new information is about the painting or the restoration techniques. Also, think of the statues the Taliban destroyed in 2001. Sure they can be recreated, but who knows what has been lost with the original.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Thank me later.
So she slimmed a little during last 500 years? And she's not so happy anymore?
She's not as happy as she was because she worked hard to lose the weight, then along came Rubens who only painted fat chicks.
Blank until
Maybe he did not like the way it looked and removed them himself is there any way to know I am not a painter but could this not be a possibility?
God way to sell his service though and how does one get permision to scan somthing like this?
Crapification - re-releasing Star Wars on DVD, except there's all this CG crap in the background that wasn't there before. Han shot first!
You can't take the sky from me...
I owned a stone house in Pittsburgh when I lived there. I thought I'd bought a gray stone house, but when it needed repointing and got spray-washed, I discovered I owned a yellow, red, tan, and generally pretty interestingly-colored stone house. The stones had just all turned gray because of the soot through the 20th century. So it doesn't always turn out like that.
E pluribus unum
Attempts to restore the original are now underway.
Have gnu, will travel.
Thanks for your post. It made me realize just how much people are not interested in the actual work, but the sentimental value and charm of old worn things. Thinking of these works in pristine condition as being of greater historical value took me a few moments. Thanks.
Who says it was Leonardo who couldn't stop. Let's face it, if it went anything like modern project management in a lot of places, it would be more like:
Act 1:
Leonardo's PHB: Good news Leonardo! We've won the preliminary round of talks with Francesco del Giocondo for a painting! Now he'll only want a time and cost estimate, and a tech demo to help him make up his mind!
Leonardo: Great! Did he say _what_ he wants painted? How big? I mean, the cost and time depends on that.
Leonardo's PHB: Now, now, Leonardo... what did I tell you about scaring the customers with that kind of technical questions? Get working on that demo already, and we'll ask for more details after he sees it.
Leonardo: Hmm, ok, WTH, I'll just paint the castle then...
Leonardo's PHB: That's the spirit!
Act 2:
Leonardo's PHB: Sad to say, Mr del Giocondo wasn't impressed with your demo. He said it was too sketchy and lacking any detail, but luckily the VP of Marketing managed to convince him to give you another chance.
Leonardo: Whoa there, you said he wanted a demo, not a full painting. Of course it's sketchy!
Leonardo's PHB: Now, now, we're not at assigning blame. What matters is that we get the contract, right?
Leonardo: Right. I guess I'll go back to painting the castle, then.
Leonardo's PHB: Oh, right, I forgot to mention that. He thinks that it doesn't quite fit what he had in mind, so he'll want it changed to a lake.
Leonardo: Ah well, I'll just get a fresh canvas then.
Leonardo's PHB: Not so fast, we don't have the budget for a new painting. You'll have to change the demo from a castle to a lake.
Leonardo: You're kidding, right? I mean, seriously...
Leonardo's PHB: Do I look like I'm kidding? I already promised the CEO it'll be ready in half the time of a new demo.
Leonardo: Oh, for fuck's sake...
Act 3:
Leonardo's PHB: Good news, Leonardo. Francesco was pleased, now he wants to see how the lake looks as a background for a woman's portrait.
Leonardo: Let me guess, he wants her painted _over_ the lake, because someone told him it'll be cheaper, right?
Leonardo's PHB: Well, duh, of course.
Leonardo: So when does he send this woman here, so I can paint her?
Leonardo's PHB: Who said anything about doing the final product already? You're just supposed to do another demo, so he can see if that's what he wants. Just take any woman and paint her there.
Leonardo: Grrr... Ok, I'll just paint my girlfriend, then.
Act 4:
Francesco del Giocondo: Ah, yes, Mr da Vinci, I presume. Yes, that's very interesting, indeed. See, the lake is exactly what I had in mind for the background, but what I actually want is a portrait of my wife, Lisa.
Leonardo: Great. I'll just get a new canvas, and we can talk about what time should I start.
Francesco del Giocondo: Wait, new canvas? I was assured that we can just change that bit in the demo. I mean, look at it, it looks almost ready...
Leonardo's PHB: Yes, of course, Mr del Giocondo. No need to waste money on starting from scratch.
Leonardo: Guys, that's crazy, that wasn't supposed to work that way.
Francesco del Giocondo: Well, I see... I guess I'll have to find another painter, then.
Leonardo's PHB: Leonardo, so help me God, if we lose this customer, I'll make sure you never work again in this city!
Leonardo: Ok, ok, I'll just... ummm, make her a bit thinner then to match Mrs Gioconda. Right.
Francesco del Giocondo: Oh, I'm so delighted we could reach an agreement.
Act 5:
(Several months later.)
Mona Lisa: Hmm, no, those eyebrows just won't do... They'll have to go.
Leonardo: Completely??
Mona Lisa: Yes. My friend, Maria assures me that that's the latest fashion in Constantinople.
Leonardo: But... but... you'll look like a radiotherapy patient without them.
Mona Lisa: Mr da Vinci, I think you forget who's the customer here! No way I'm accepting this product as it is!
Leonardo: Ah, ok, let me get my turpentine bottle then. Anything else?
Mona Lisa: In fact,
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
But of even more interest than the eyebrows and lashes was the discovery a thin mustache and goatee...
"then along came Rubens who only painted fat chicks "
They're not fat they're Ruebenesque.
Need Mercedes parts ?
In fact da Vinci and all the artists of the time were well aware of the effects of aging on their work and took account of it.
Their patrons wanted work that would remain interesting over several generations, so there are usually a lot of "subtexts" in the picture that will only be revealed by repeated viewing.
Artist knew that the colours and varnishes they used would not finally "set" for some months or years so they had in mind a finished look that would not be achieved on day 1.
The artists themselves were fascinated by the way the paintings would look under different lighting conditions and took advantage to make their works "living".
Of course they didnt always get it right, and sometimes used experimental materials that did not last: The Last Supper degraded a lot during da Vinci's own lifetime.
Actually, sometimes it is. A while back I saw a restored church - where the worn stone steps were replaced with new ones, and the worn and discolored pews treated similarly. The aged floor was carefully sanded down, covered with polyurethane and polished. etc... etc...
It truly is a beautiful building - but today it looks like it never did historically, except maybe on the day it was completed. All historical context and evidence that it wasn't built yesterday - gone. Forever.
The degradation also creates historical context. A few years ago I visited a restored colonial (America) era kitchen - and despite the great pains to make the new parts match the old in color, the new stood out glaringly to my eyes. Why? Because the old parts showed wear - you could see where people stood and worked because the evidence was preserved in brick and stone. The new looked like what it was, a museum piece rather than part of a living structure.
Conservation and restoration to to fix building etc... in a single idealized state.
Then why, historically, have they been illustrated as being nearly monochrome? That alone suggest that they weren't historically colorful, and that if they were it was for a brief time only.
In Leonardo's time, no one really knew about how artwork degrades over centuries. They did have access to artworks that were centuries old at the time, but they had no way to analyze how those works had been degraded over the years.
All they knew was what they could remember over their lifetimes. It's only recently that we have developed tools for chemical and physical analysis that are accurate enough to allow us to extrapolate what we measure in the lab over several centuries.
Is it possible that Da Vinci, being the prolific inventor and genius that he was, could have painted the Mona Lisa such that the painting actually ages with time? The eyebrow and eyelash hair fallen or gone, wrinkles around the eyes and the smile becoming shorter could be signs that he actually painted it to age gradually.