This Is How The Mona Lisa Should Really Look_2

The Mona Lisa is without a doubt the most famous painting on the planet, but what very few people know is that the version hanging in the Louvre today looks nothing like it did when Leonardo da Vinci painted it more than 500 years ago. Over time, its surface has darkened, the original colours have faded and many of its most important details have been lost. In 2012, art restorers shocked the world when they announced the existence of another version One that allows us to see what the Mona Lisa actually looked like when it was first created. A geoconda without aged varnish, with much brighter colours and with details that can no longer be distinguished in the original. What is most fascinating is that this is not some random imitation. This version was painted by one of Leonardo's students in his workshop at the exact same time Leonardo was painting the original, almost as if the apprentice had been right beside him copying every movement of his master. But then, why did no one know about its existence for more than 500 years? To understand the importance of this painting, we first need to know its history. For context, Leonardo da Vinci began painting the Mona Lisa around the year 1503 in Florence. At that time, Florence was a city in the midst of a cultural boom and one of the key centres of the Italian Renaissance. The wealthy families of the era, along with merchants, bankers and other prominent figures all wanted to leave a legacy. One of the most common ways to do that was by commissioning portraits. Of course, the tools we have today did not exist back then, but what people did have were artists like Leonardo and if you could afford him, you were guaranteed a kind of immortality through a painting. The commission for the Mona Lisa came from Francesco del Giocondo, a prosperous silk merchant. He wanted a portrait of his wife, Lisa Gherardini, a Florentine woman from a well-off family with three children. She was not a noblewoman or a public figure, but she wanted to be remembered. This is also why the painting is known as La Gioconda. But this is where the information begins to fade. We know that Leonardo accepted the commission, but he never delivered it. The years went by and he kept working on the painting, refining every detail with an almost obsessive dedication. In fact, there is no record of Francesco del Giocondo ever receiving the portrait. What is even more curious is that Leonardo took it with him when he moved to France, where he spent his final years under the patronage of King Francis I. No one knows for certain why he took it with him. Some believe he was never satisfied with the result and simply refused to consider it finished. Others think he knew he had created something extraordinary, perhaps his masterpiece, and wanted to keep it as a personal treasure. What we do know is that he kept the painting until the end of his life, and it was in France where the artwork entered the Royal Collection and, centuries later, ended up in the Louvre. Now then, the version discovered by the restorers at the Prado was not painted afterward as a simple copy, nor was it made years later as previously believed. It was painted at the same time as the original Mona Lisa, inside Leonardo da Vinci's workshop. Literally, while he was working on his masterpiece, one of his students was right beside him, painting the same image, following his movements and even making the same corrections as his master. We know all of this thanks to technical studies carried out in 2012 using infrared reflectography. This type of analysis allows experts to see the underdrawing beneath the layers of paint. In this study, experts found that both paintings, the Louvre version and the Prado version, share the same changes in the original sketch. For years it has been known that Leonardo made small corrections to the shape of the and subtle modifications to the curve of the face. Those exact same corrections were found in this newly examined copy. This strongly suggests that both artists were working simultaneously and that one was likely observing what the other was doing. Another detail that reinforces this theory is the choice of materials. In the Prado painting, incredibly expensive pigments from that era were found. For example, experts identified lapis lazuli in the sky, an intense blue pigment that came from Afghanistan and was more valuable than gold at the time. They also found red lacquer in the fabrics of the dress. These pigments were reserved for important works, not for simple workshop exercises. This tells us a lot because it means this version was not an experiment or a student assignment, but a serious artwork created with great intention and luxurious materials. As for who painted it, two names stand out. One is Andrea Salai, Leonardo's personal assistant, apprentice and according to some historians even his romantic partner. The other is Francesco Melzi, considered the most talented of Leonardo's students and the person who inherited many of his works after his death. Although there is no signature, many experts agree that it must have been one of these two. Either one of them would have had privileged access to Leonardo and his methods. In short, we are not dealing with a copy made years later. We are looking at a second Mona Lisa that was painted alongside the original by someone inside Leonardo's workshop, using extremely high quality pigments and replicating every adjustment as if two minds were working in perfect sync. And this is where the craziest part of the story begins, because this painting was right in front of our eyes for centuries and no one realised what it really was. For a very long time, the Prado version was seen as just another simple copy of the Mona Lisa, one more among many. In fact, it was believed to be a copy made by some anonymous painter from Northern Europe, probably Flemish or German. The first reason for thinking this is that the background of the painting was originally completely covered by a black layer. We know that someone, at some point in its history, decided to repaint it. No one knows exactly when or why. But for centuries, what people saw was just the woman, isolated against a flat, dark background with no trace of the landscape and no clues that could have connected it to the Mona Lisa. On top of that, the varnish covering the painting was so deteriorated that the entire image, as described by the restorers themselves, looked dull, yellowish and lifeless. It literally appeared to be a dark and rather mediocre copy. And to make the confusion even worse, experts believed that the panel on which it was painted was made of oak. This detail mattered because oak was a typical wood used by Northern European painters, not by Italian artists. So with all of this combined, scholars assumed for generations that it had been painted by a Northern European imitator and that it was not worth examining more closely. Fortunately, in 2012, the restorers at the Prado Museum began studying the painting in depth and after the restoration, they realised something surprising. The wood beneath the painting was not oak, it was walnut and walnut was commonly used in Italy during the Renaissance. Thanks to this and to the underdrawings revealed through infrared reflectography, experts were able to confirm that this work was painted at the same time as the original Mona Lisa, not by Leonardo da Vinci himself, and later we will see why, but by one of his students in his workshop. This discovery was so important that in 2012, both versions, the Louvres and the Prados, were exhibited together for the first time, side by side, and it was the first time the world could see two Mona Lisas, identical in composition yet separated by centuries of conservation. And you are probably wondering at this point, if both paintings were created in the same period, why is one so deteriorated while the other is still so well preserved? The answer lies in the materials that were used. But before I tell you about that, I want to remind you that if you would like to have a reproduction of this artwork in your home, you can find it on our website. There you will find more than 800 historical paintings, so you can start your own art collection and turn your home into your personal museum. Shipping is free worldwide, and by purchasing you will be supporting me so I can continue creating videos like this. Thank you to everyone who buys from the store, and you will find the link in the description so you can browse the catalogue once you finish watching this video. Now then, let's continue. If we place both paintings side by side, at first glance they look almost identical, but if we look closely, the differences begin to appear. The first and most obvious one is the state of conservation. The Mona Lisa in the Louvre, Leonardo's original, is painted on a poplar wood panel, and after more than 500 years, that surface shows tiny cracks everywhere, what we call craquelure, and it is covered in multiple layers of yellowed varnish that have darkened over time. This makes the image look dull, as if it were hidden behind a sepia filter. The Prado version, on the other hand, was painted on walnut wood, a more stable surface that is much more resistant to the passage of time. Thanks to that, it is far better preserved. After its restoration, the colours have almost completely returned to their original state. In this version we can see that the sky is blue, the fields are green, and Lisa's dress has texture and depth, even subtle transparencies that are almost impossible to perceive in the Louvre version. There are also other details that immediately catch the eye, for example the eyebrows. In the Louvre's Mona Lisa, the woman has no eyebrows, and this has led to all kinds of theories. For years people have speculated about this, wondering whether she never had them, whether they were erased over time, or whether Leonardo intentionally chose not to paint them. Thanks to the Prado copy, we can see that Lisa Ghirardini did indeed have eyebrows, delicate and thin but visible, which suggests that at some point the original Mona Lisa also had them, but that they were slowly lost with time. When we look at these two versions together, it feels like looking at a before and after, but in reverse, because the original, the one in the Louvre, is aged and darkened, while the Prado version shows us how that same image looked when it was first created more than 500 years ago. But despite being such a revealing discovery, this version continues to generate controversy. For many people, it is still just an imitation, a copy, and for that reason, they believe it should not receive the same recognition as Leonardo's work. And this is where I would love to hear your opinion. Do you think the Prado version should be valued the same as the original? Or maybe even more, since it lets us see details that have been lost in Leonardo's painting. I have my own opinion, but I would love to read yours in the comments. Thank you for watching until the end, and I will see you in the next video.