This Is Probably The Real Mona Lisa

For more than 10 years, an art collector named Hugh Blaker searched for a painting that most people believed did not exist. Blaker was convinced that somewhere in Europe there existed a second version of the Mona Lisa, an earlier version painted by Leonardo before the one now on display at the Louvre that the world had not yet seen. One day in 1913, while going through an old collection of paintings in a manor house in Somerset, England, he finally found a portrait that could confirm his theory. The painting he found was this one. This portrait spent more than 100 years hidden in an abandoned manor house and when we compare it to the Louvre version, the resemblance is unsettlingly striking. There are those who believe it is an authentic work by Leonardo da Vinci, painted a decade before the one in the Louvre. And there are those who believe it is simply a copy, one of the many that were made over the centuries. What no one can deny is that once we analyse it closely, the evidence is far more complex than it appears. To understand why this painting generates so much debate, we first need to talk about the original. The Louvre's Mona Lisa is, without question, the most famous painting in the history of art. 7 million people pass through her room every year and she is considered one of France's greatest tourist attractions. She is also one of the few works in the world whose value is practically impossible to calculate, but there is something most people do not know about her. Over a career that lasted almost half a century, Leonardo da Vinci probably began no more than 20 paintings. Only 15 have survived and experts agree that they are entirely his own work. That means the discovery of a new painting by Leonardo would not simply be an interesting piece of news, it would be one of the most important events in the history of art. Now, if we place the two paintings side by side, the first thing we notice is that the woman in the Aylworth painting is clearly younger than the one in the Louvre. Historians estimate she is around 20 years old, while the Louvre version appears to be at least a decade older. Both women are seated in the same posture, with the right hand resting on the left. This gesture, in Leonardo's time, symbolised the virtue of a faithful wife, and if we look closely, both have the same smile and the same eyes. But there is one difference that defenders of the Aylworth painting consider fundamental. The Aylworth version has two columns visible on either side of the figure, which do not appear in the Louvre version. This detail is of the utmost importance in determining whether this painting was truly painted by Leonardo da Vinci, and curiously, it also involves the painter Raphael. In 1504, the great Renaissance painter Raphael visited Leonardo's studio and made a sketch of the Mona Lisa he saw there. That sketch is this one, and as you can see, the figure is also flanked by two columns. The Louvre has confirmed that their version of the Mona Lisa has never been cut, which means those columns never existed in the Louvre painting, but they do appear in the Aylworth version. Another argument in favour of the authenticity of this work is that Leonardo was known to have a habit of creating multiple versions of his paintings. Two versions of the Virgin of the Rocks still exist today. The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne also has two versions, so it is not unreasonable to think that this painting could be a second version of the Mona Lisa. There is also a historical document worth considering. A secretary to Cardinal Luigi d'Aragona named Antonio de Beatis recorded in his diary that in 1517 he visited Leonardo in France and that the artist showed him three finished paintings, among them a portrait of a Florentine lady. Some historians interpret this as a reference to the Aylworth Mona Lisa, which would have been the original commission ordered by Lisa's husband, Francesco del Giocondo, and which was never delivered. And finally, the Mona Lisa Foundation, the organisation that currently owns the painting, commissioned a series of tests from physicist John Asmus of the University of California to determine how likely it is that this painting was created by Leonardo. His conclusion stated that there is a 99% scientific certainty that the same artist painted the face of both Mona Lisas. But although there are many arguments in favour of this painting being an original Leonardo da Vinci, not all experts are convinced. Martin Kemp, one of the most respected art historians in the world and emeritus professor at the University of Oxford has been one of the most consistent critics of the theory. For Kemp, the Aylworth Mona Lisa is a later copy and the preliminary sketches discovered during the infrared analysis of the painting reveal none of the characteristics typical of Leonardo's preparatory methods. Luke Sison, a Leonardo expert who directed the artist's successful exhibition at the National Gallery in London in 2011 was even more direct, stating that he did not need to see this painting in person to conclude that it is a fairly mediocre copy, one of the dozens that were made of the Mona Lisa in the centuries following its creation. There is also a technical argument that undermines the painting's authenticity. The Aylworth Mona Lisa is painted on canvas and Leonardo, in his mature works, painted on wood. The Louvre's Mona Lisa, for example, is painted on poplar wood. However, the debate is far from closed. The experts who defend the authenticity of the painting have an answer for each of these arguments. They point out that Leonardo did paint on canvas in his early years and that he even left written notes explaining how to prepare a canvas and how to paint on it. They also argue that the quality of the painting can be explained by the fact that it is unfinished and they note that the scientific evidence, while not definitive, is too significant to be ignored. What is curious is that none of the main critics of the theory have examined the painting in person. Kemp admitted that he chose not to see it and Sison stated that he was never invited to do so. Even after more than four centuries since it was painted, the Isleworth Mona Lisa has become one of the greatest mysteries in recent years. Although it spent more than 100 years hanging in an English manor house without anyone knowing exactly what it was, today, after decades of scientific analysis, academic debates and clashes between the world's leading experts, we still do not know with certainty whether we are looking at a work by Leonardo da Vinci or an extraordinarily well-executed copy. Perhaps that is the most fascinating thing of all, that a painting can spend so long generating so many questions without anyone being able to give them a definitive answer. Now, after having heard all the arguments that both support and contradict the authenticity of this work, I would love for you to leave me your opinion in the comments. Do you think the Isleworth Mona Lisa is an authentic work by Leonardo? Or do you think we are simply looking at the work of a talented imitator? I will be reading every single one. As always, thank you for watching this video until the end. I would like to remind you that if you would like to have this painting in your collection, you can purchase it through the link in the description. There you will find more than 900 carefully selected works to begin your own art collection. Shipping is completely free and with your purchase, you help me enormously to keep creating videos like this every week. Thank you so much for your support and I will see you in the next video.