subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Konody observed of the Isleworth subject that "[t]he head is inclined at a different angle". Physicist John F. Asmus, who had previously examined the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and investigated other works by Leonardo, published a computer image processing study in 1988 concluding that the brush strokes of the face in the painting were performed by the same artist responsible for the brush strokes of the face of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. Asmus found that the head appears to be "tilted forward toward the viewer... consistent with the dramatically shorter appearing neck, which is also a greater angle to the vertical than that of the Louvre painting". Another early reviewer commented that "[t]he head is tilted more forward and the parting of the hair is exactly in the center, while that of the Louvre picture starts in the middle of the forehead and runs towards the back of the head at an impossible and incorrect angle". Asmus observed that "the Isleworth figure has a somewhat higher forehead, a slightly wider face, and less of a bulge in the veil over the proper left side of the head". He further reported that "the eyes are much wider set in the Isleworth painting". John Eyre reported Adolfo Venturi, in his early 1920s examination, praised "the beauty of the eye drawing... is the principal portion done by Leonardo together with the line of the mouth".A review of the painting in the Deseret News shortly after it was first shown to the public describes its tonality as being darker, and describes the coloring as being in "accordance with almost all the works attributed to Leonardo—that of a golden glow—while the finish is of a most minute character". Italian curator Lorenzo Cecconi, who also examined the painting in the 1920s, said that "the fusion of the tints of the flesh, especially in the eyes; the line which designs the nose, the mouth, and the oval of the face" were remarkable, and indicated that "this may be a second work of the Great Leonardo". In the same period, Renaissance scholar Arduino Colasanti thought "the upper part with the eyes and nose of the face" were definitely by Leonardo, and noted collector Ludovico Spiridon stated that "the face has been painted by Leonardo; no doubt of this at all". In the 1960s, the art dealer Henry F. Pulitzer claimed that "densitometric tests on the planes of face and hands show a gradual change of tone values from dark to light which only [Leonardo] da Vinci, with his amazing eyesight, was capable of". Asmus similarly found in the 1980s that amplitude histograms sorting the number of pixels of each brightness level in these features "reveal a remarkable similarity even though the images are noticeably different". Other differences have been observed with respect to aspects of the face:French artist Albert Sauteur suggested in 2014 that differences between the paintings were accounted for not only by the model having aged, but that the narrower face and closer eyes in the Louvre painting could be accounted for by Leonardo experimenting with painting from a binocular visual perspective, rather than the traditional monocular perspective. British fine arts consultant Archibald Cecil Chappelow of the Royal Society of Arts, wrote in 1956 that "the face is superbly painted, and the hands more neatly defined than those in the Louvre painting". Asmus specifically asserted that "portions of the hands in the Louvre painting have been criticized as being 'fat and ugly'", while "it is intriguing to note that the Isleworth thumb is more slender and closer to what would be expected from Leonardo". Asmus notes that this may be the result of inept repair work later on. Konody further stated of the painting that "[t]he hands, with their careful and somewhat hard drawing and terra cotta coloring, suggest at once the name of Leonardo's pupil, Marco d' Oggionno; whereas the inimitably soft and lovely painting of the head and bust, the exquisite subtlety of the expression, the golden glow of the general coloring, can be due only to Leonardo". Spiridon thought that "[t]he redness of the hands is probably due to a bad varnish that could be removed". Konody found the features of the Isleworth painting overall to be "more delicate" than those of the Louvre painting, stating of them, "let it be boldly stated, far more pleasing and beautiful than in the Louvre version".</blockquote>

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの文脈で、顔と手と説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Adolfo Venturi
Archibald Cecil Chappelow
Arduino Colasanti
Deseret News
Henry F. Pulitzer
Isleworth
John F. Asmus
Lorenzo Cecconi
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Physicist
Royal Society of Arts


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Konody observed of the Isleworth subject that "[t]he head is inclined at a different angle". Physicist John F. Asmus, who had previously examined the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and investigated other works by Leonardo, published a computer image processing study in 1988 concluding that the brush strokes of the face in the painting were performed by the same artist responsible for the brush strokes of the face of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. Asmus found that the head appears to be "tilted forward toward the viewer... consistent with the dramatically shorter appearing neck, which is also a greater angle to the vertical than that of the Louvre painting". Another early reviewer commented that "[t]he head is tilted more forward and the parting of the hair is exactly in the center, while that of the Louvre picture starts in the middle of the forehead and runs towards the back of the head at an impossible and incorrect angle". Asmus observed that "the Isleworth figure has a somewhat higher forehead, a slightly wider face, and less of a bulge in the veil over the proper left side of the head". He further reported that "the eyes are much wider set in the Isleworth painting". John Eyre reported Adolfo Venturi, in his early 1920s examination, praised "the beauty of the eye drawing... is the principal portion done by Leonardo together with the line of the mouth".A review of the painting in the Deseret News shortly after it was first shown to the public describes its tonality as being darker, and describes the coloring as being in "accordance with almost all the works attributed to Leonardo—that of a golden glow—while the finish is of a most minute character". Italian curator Lorenzo Cecconi, who also examined the painting in the 1920s, said that "the fusion of the tints of the flesh, especially in the eyes; the line which designs the nose, the mouth, and the oval of the face" were remarkable, and indicated that "this may be a second work of the Great Leonardo". In the same period, Renaissance scholar Arduino Colasanti thought "the upper part with the eyes and nose of the face" were definitely by Leonardo, and noted collector Ludovico Spiridon stated that "the face has been painted by Leonardo; no doubt of this at all". In the 1960s, the art dealer Henry F. Pulitzer claimed that "densitometric tests on the planes of face and hands show a gradual change of tone values from dark to light which only [Leonardo] da Vinci, with his amazing eyesight, was capable of". Asmus similarly found in the 1980s that amplitude histograms sorting the number of pixels of each brightness level in these features "reveal a remarkable similarity even though the images are noticeably different". Other differences have been observed with respect to aspects of the face:French artist Albert Sauteur suggested in 2014 that differences between the paintings were accounted for not only by the model having aged, but that the narrower face and closer eyes in the Louvre painting could be accounted for by Leonardo experimenting with painting from a binocular visual perspective, rather than the traditional monocular perspective. British fine arts consultant Archibald Cecil Chappelow of the Royal Society of Arts, wrote in 1956 that "the face is superbly painted, and the hands more neatly defined than those in the Louvre painting". Asmus specifically asserted that "portions of the hands in the Louvre painting have been criticized as being 'fat and ugly'", while "it is intriguing to note that the Isleworth thumb is more slender and closer to what would be expected from Leonardo". Asmus notes that this may be the result of inept repair work later on. Konody further stated of the painting that "[t]he hands, with their careful and somewhat hard drawing and terra cotta coloring, suggest at once the name of Leonardo's pupil, Marco d' Oggionno; whereas the inimitably soft and lovely painting of the head and bust, the exquisite subtlety of the expression, the golden glow of the general coloring, can be due only to Leonardo". Spiridon thought that "[t]he redness of the hands is probably due to a bad varnish that could be removed". Konody found the features of the Isleworth painting overall to be "more delicate" than those of the Louvre painting, stating of them, "let it be boldly stated, far more pleasing and beautiful than in the Louvre version".</blockquote>

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明に関する顔と手を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Adolfo Venturi
Archibald Cecil Chappelow
Arduino Colasanti
Deseret News
Henry F. Pulitzer
Isleworth
John F. Asmus
Lorenzo Cecconi
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Physicist
Royal Society of Arts


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Konody observed of the Isleworth subject that "[t]he head is inclined at a different angle". Physicist John F. Asmus, who had previously examined the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and investigated other works by Leonardo, published a computer image processing study in 1988 concluding that the brush strokes of the face in the painting were performed by the same artist responsible for the brush strokes of the face of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. Asmus found that the head appears to be "tilted forward toward the viewer... consistent with the dramatically shorter appearing neck, which is also a greater angle to the vertical than that of the Louvre painting". Another early reviewer commented that "[t]he head is tilted more forward and the parting of the hair is exactly in the center, while that of the Louvre picture starts in the middle of the forehead and runs towards the back of the head at an impossible and incorrect angle". Asmus observed that "the Isleworth figure has a somewhat higher forehead, a slightly wider face, and less of a bulge in the veil over the proper left side of the head". He further reported that "the eyes are much wider set in the Isleworth painting". John Eyre reported Adolfo Venturi, in his early 1920s examination, praised "the beauty of the eye drawing... is the principal portion done by Leonardo together with the line of the mouth".A review of the painting in the Deseret News shortly after it was first shown to the public describes its tonality as being darker, and describes the coloring as being in "accordance with almost all the works attributed to Leonardo—that of a golden glow—while the finish is of a most minute character". Italian curator Lorenzo Cecconi, who also examined the painting in the 1920s, said that "the fusion of the tints of the flesh, especially in the eyes; the line which designs the nose, the mouth, and the oval of the face" were remarkable, and indicated that "this may be a second work of the Great Leonardo". In the same period, Renaissance scholar Arduino Colasanti thought "the upper part with the eyes and nose of the face" were definitely by Leonardo, and noted collector Ludovico Spiridon stated that "the face has been painted by Leonardo; no doubt of this at all". In the 1960s, the art dealer Henry F. Pulitzer claimed that "densitometric tests on the planes of face and hands show a gradual change of tone values from dark to light which only [Leonardo] da Vinci, with his amazing eyesight, was capable of". Asmus similarly found in the 1980s that amplitude histograms sorting the number of pixels of each brightness level in these features "reveal a remarkable similarity even though the images are noticeably different". Other differences have been observed with respect to aspects of the face:French artist Albert Sauteur suggested in 2014 that differences between the paintings were accounted for not only by the model having aged, but that the narrower face and closer eyes in the Louvre painting could be accounted for by Leonardo experimenting with painting from a binocular visual perspective, rather than the traditional monocular perspective. British fine arts consultant Archibald Cecil Chappelow of the Royal Society of Arts, wrote in 1956 that "the face is superbly painted, and the hands more neatly defined than those in the Louvre painting". Asmus specifically asserted that "portions of the hands in the Louvre painting have been criticized as being 'fat and ugly'", while "it is intriguing to note that the Isleworth thumb is more slender and closer to what would be expected from Leonardo". Asmus notes that this may be the result of inept repair work later on. Konody further stated of the painting that "[t]he hands, with their careful and somewhat hard drawing and terra cotta coloring, suggest at once the name of Leonardo's pupil, Marco d' Oggionno; whereas the inimitably soft and lovely painting of the head and bust, the exquisite subtlety of the expression, the golden glow of the general coloring, can be due only to Leonardo". Spiridon thought that "[t]he redness of the hands is probably due to a bad varnish that could be removed". Konody found the features of the Isleworth painting overall to be "more delicate" than those of the Louvre painting, stating of them, "let it be boldly stated, far more pleasing and beautiful than in the Louvre version".</blockquote>

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザでは、どのように説明の顔と手が説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Adolfo Venturi
Archibald Cecil Chappelow
Arduino Colasanti
Deseret News
Henry F. Pulitzer
Isleworth
John F. Asmus
Lorenzo Cecconi
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Physicist
Royal Society of Arts


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Konody observed of the Isleworth subject that "[t]he head is inclined at a different angle". Physicist John F. Asmus, who had previously examined the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and investigated other works by Leonardo, published a computer image processing study in 1988 concluding that the brush strokes of the face in the painting were performed by the same artist responsible for the brush strokes of the face of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. Asmus found that the head appears to be "tilted forward toward the viewer... consistent with the dramatically shorter appearing neck, which is also a greater angle to the vertical than that of the Louvre painting". Another early reviewer commented that "[t]he head is tilted more forward and the parting of the hair is exactly in the center, while that of the Louvre picture starts in the middle of the forehead and runs towards the back of the head at an impossible and incorrect angle". Asmus observed that "the Isleworth figure has a somewhat higher forehead, a slightly wider face, and less of a bulge in the veil over the proper left side of the head". He further reported that "the eyes are much wider set in the Isleworth painting". John Eyre reported Adolfo Venturi, in his early 1920s examination, praised "the beauty of the eye drawing... is the principal portion done by Leonardo together with the line of the mouth".A review of the painting in the Deseret News shortly after it was first shown to the public describes its tonality as being darker, and describes the coloring as being in "accordance with almost all the works attributed to Leonardo—that of a golden glow—while the finish is of a most minute character". Italian curator Lorenzo Cecconi, who also examined the painting in the 1920s, said that "the fusion of the tints of the flesh, especially in the eyes; the line which designs the nose, the mouth, and the oval of the face" were remarkable, and indicated that "this may be a second work of the Great Leonardo". In the same period, Renaissance scholar Arduino Colasanti thought "the upper part with the eyes and nose of the face" were definitely by Leonardo, and noted collector Ludovico Spiridon stated that "the face has been painted by Leonardo; no doubt of this at all". In the 1960s, the art dealer Henry F. Pulitzer claimed that "densitometric tests on the planes of face and hands show a gradual change of tone values from dark to light which only [Leonardo] da Vinci, with his amazing eyesight, was capable of". Asmus similarly found in the 1980s that amplitude histograms sorting the number of pixels of each brightness level in these features "reveal a remarkable similarity even though the images are noticeably different". Other differences have been observed with respect to aspects of the face:French artist Albert Sauteur suggested in 2014 that differences between the paintings were accounted for not only by the model having aged, but that the narrower face and closer eyes in the Louvre painting could be accounted for by Leonardo experimenting with painting from a binocular visual perspective, rather than the traditional monocular perspective. British fine arts consultant Archibald Cecil Chappelow of the Royal Society of Arts, wrote in 1956 that "the face is superbly painted, and the hands more neatly defined than those in the Louvre painting". Asmus specifically asserted that "portions of the hands in the Louvre painting have been criticized as being 'fat and ugly'", while "it is intriguing to note that the Isleworth thumb is more slender and closer to what would be expected from Leonardo". Asmus notes that this may be the result of inept repair work later on. Konody further stated of the painting that "[t]he hands, with their careful and somewhat hard drawing and terra cotta coloring, suggest at once the name of Leonardo's pupil, Marco d' Oggionno; whereas the inimitably soft and lovely painting of the head and bust, the exquisite subtlety of the expression, the golden glow of the general coloring, can be due only to Leonardo". Spiridon thought that "[t]he redness of the hands is probably due to a bad varnish that could be removed". Konody found the features of the Isleworth painting overall to be "more delicate" than those of the Louvre painting, stating of them, "let it be boldly stated, far more pleasing and beautiful than in the Louvre version".</blockquote>

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明における顔と手の特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Adolfo Venturi
Archibald Cecil Chappelow
Arduino Colasanti
Deseret News
Henry F. Pulitzer
Isleworth
John F. Asmus
Lorenzo Cecconi
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Physicist
Royal Society of Arts


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

The Detroit Free Press reported in 1914 that "[t]he hair which falls over the left shoulder is hardly indicated against the left breast, thus differing from the Louvre picture".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの文脈で、ヘアアンドボディと説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

The Detroit Free Press reported in 1914 that "[t]he hair which falls over the left shoulder is hardly indicated against the left breast, thus differing from the Louvre picture".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明に関するヘアアンドボディを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

The Detroit Free Press reported in 1914 that "[t]he hair which falls over the left shoulder is hardly indicated against the left breast, thus differing from the Louvre picture".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザでは、どのように説明のヘアアンドボディが説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

The Detroit Free Press reported in 1914 that "[t]he hair which falls over the left shoulder is hardly indicated against the left breast, thus differing from the Louvre picture".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明におけるヘアアンドボディの特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

It is generally agreed that the painting was originally left unfinished, and specifically that the parts of the background other than the columns were a later addition. In Colasanti's evaluation, for example, "[t]he background did not worry him, it was not Leonardo". According to Pulitzer, testing of the paint indicated that the columns were part of the original work, while the background was "added in the 17th century in paints of a type used by Flemish artists", Both Eyre and Pulitzer said in their defenses of the painting that the columns were similar to those included by Raphael in his 1503 sketch of Leonardo's painting, although not found in the Louvre Mona Lisa. Kemp is particularly critical of the background, finding it monotonous, and the island of trees on the far left and their reflection poorly executed. Konody, however, wrote of the painting, that there "is far more background", and therefore felt that "the spacing is infinitely more pleasing", and that the background was "far less assertive than in the Paris picture".In examining the portraits through computer image processing technology, Asmus inserted the Isleworth painting subject on the Louvre painting background, so as to analyze the two subjects in the same context.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの文脈で、背景と列と説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

It is generally agreed that the painting was originally left unfinished, and specifically that the parts of the background other than the columns were a later addition. In Colasanti's evaluation, for example, "[t]he background did not worry him, it was not Leonardo". According to Pulitzer, testing of the paint indicated that the columns were part of the original work, while the background was "added in the 17th century in paints of a type used by Flemish artists", Both Eyre and Pulitzer said in their defenses of the painting that the columns were similar to those included by Raphael in his 1503 sketch of Leonardo's painting, although not found in the Louvre Mona Lisa. Kemp is particularly critical of the background, finding it monotonous, and the island of trees on the far left and their reflection poorly executed. Konody, however, wrote of the painting, that there "is far more background", and therefore felt that "the spacing is infinitely more pleasing", and that the background was "far less assertive than in the Paris picture".In examining the portraits through computer image processing technology, Asmus inserted the Isleworth painting subject on the Louvre painting background, so as to analyze the two subjects in the same context.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明に関する背景と列を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

It is generally agreed that the painting was originally left unfinished, and specifically that the parts of the background other than the columns were a later addition. In Colasanti's evaluation, for example, "[t]he background did not worry him, it was not Leonardo". According to Pulitzer, testing of the paint indicated that the columns were part of the original work, while the background was "added in the 17th century in paints of a type used by Flemish artists", Both Eyre and Pulitzer said in their defenses of the painting that the columns were similar to those included by Raphael in his 1503 sketch of Leonardo's painting, although not found in the Louvre Mona Lisa. Kemp is particularly critical of the background, finding it monotonous, and the island of trees on the far left and their reflection poorly executed. Konody, however, wrote of the painting, that there "is far more background", and therefore felt that "the spacing is infinitely more pleasing", and that the background was "far less assertive than in the Paris picture".In examining the portraits through computer image processing technology, Asmus inserted the Isleworth painting subject on the Louvre painting background, so as to analyze the two subjects in the same context.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザでは、どのように説明の背景と列が説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

It is generally agreed that the painting was originally left unfinished, and specifically that the parts of the background other than the columns were a later addition. In Colasanti's evaluation, for example, "[t]he background did not worry him, it was not Leonardo". According to Pulitzer, testing of the paint indicated that the columns were part of the original work, while the background was "added in the 17th century in paints of a type used by Flemish artists", Both Eyre and Pulitzer said in their defenses of the painting that the columns were similar to those included by Raphael in his 1503 sketch of Leonardo's painting, although not found in the Louvre Mona Lisa. Kemp is particularly critical of the background, finding it monotonous, and the island of trees on the far left and their reflection poorly executed. Konody, however, wrote of the painting, that there "is far more background", and therefore felt that "the spacing is infinitely more pleasing", and that the background was "far less assertive than in the Paris picture".In examining the portraits through computer image processing technology, Asmus inserted the Isleworth painting subject on the Louvre painting background, so as to analyze the two subjects in the same context.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明における背景と列の特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

It is generally agreed that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was painted in the early sixteenth century. Those who believe that Leonardo painted it contend that disparate dates proposed for the initiation of the Mona Lisa indicate that two different paintings were worked on at different times, with the Isleworth Mona Lisa being begun in 1503 and left unfinished, and the Louvre Mona Lisa being begun after 1513. Specifically, it is believed by some that Leonardo da Vinci had begun working on a portrait of Lisa del Giocondo, the model of the Mona Lisa, in Florence by October 1503. Although the Louvre states that it was "doubtless painted between 1503 and 1506", Eugène Müntz is known to have reported that by 1501 Fra. Pietro de Nuvolaria had written in a letter that "two of Leonardo's pupils were painting portraits which he occasionally worked upon himself", suggested as possibly referring to versions of the Mona Lisa. Other academics argue that, given the historical documentation, Leonardo would have painted the work from 1513. Proponents of the Isleworth point to the account of sixteenth-century biographer Giorgio Vasari, who wrote of the Mona Lisa that "after he had lingered over it four years, [he] left it unfinished". The record of an October 1517 visit by Luigi d'Aragon states that the Mona Lisa was executed for Giuliano de' Medici, Leonardo's patron at the Belvedere Palace between 1513 and 1516 ... showed His Excellency three pictures, one of a certain Florentine lady done from life at the instance of the late Magnificent, Giuliano de' Medici".}}—though this has been suspected an error.It has been asserted that Leonardo "almost invariably commenced two versions of each of his works, which he rarely finished". A number of experts have argued that Leonardo made two versions of the Mona Lisa . Experts universally agree that Raphael's pen-and-ink sketch, in which the columns flanking the subject are more apparent, is based on Leonardo's portrait. Other later copies of the Mona Lisa, such as those in the National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design and The Walters Art Museum, also display large flanking columns. As a result, it was thought that the Mona Lisa had been trimmed. However, by 1993, Frank Zöllner observed that the painting surface had never been trimmed; this was confirmed through a series of tests in 2004. In view of this, Vincent Delieuvin, curator of 16th-century Italian painting at the Louvre, states that the sketch and these other copies must have been inspired by another version, while Zöllner states that the sketch may be after another Leonardo portrait of the same subject. The hypothetical first portrait, displaying prominent columns, would have been commissioned by Giocondo circa 1503, and left unfinished in Leonardo's pupil and assistant Salaì's possession until his death in 1524. The second, commissioned by Giuliano de' Medici circa 1513, would have been sold by Salaì to Francis I in 1518 and is the one in the Louvre today. Those who believe that there was only one true Mona Lisa have been unable to agree between the two aforementioned fates.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの文脈で、起源と説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Eugène Müntz
Frank Zöllner
Giorgio Vasari
Isleworth
Leonardo da Vinci
Lisa del Giocondo
Lisa del Giocondo
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Raphael
Walters Art Museum
Vincent Delieuvin


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

It is generally agreed that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was painted in the early sixteenth century. Those who believe that Leonardo painted it contend that disparate dates proposed for the initiation of the Mona Lisa indicate that two different paintings were worked on at different times, with the Isleworth Mona Lisa being begun in 1503 and left unfinished, and the Louvre Mona Lisa being begun after 1513. Specifically, it is believed by some that Leonardo da Vinci had begun working on a portrait of Lisa del Giocondo, the model of the Mona Lisa, in Florence by October 1503. Although the Louvre states that it was "doubtless painted between 1503 and 1506", Eugène Müntz is known to have reported that by 1501 Fra. Pietro de Nuvolaria had written in a letter that "two of Leonardo's pupils were painting portraits which he occasionally worked upon himself", suggested as possibly referring to versions of the Mona Lisa. Other academics argue that, given the historical documentation, Leonardo would have painted the work from 1513. Proponents of the Isleworth point to the account of sixteenth-century biographer Giorgio Vasari, who wrote of the Mona Lisa that "after he had lingered over it four years, [he] left it unfinished". The record of an October 1517 visit by Luigi d'Aragon states that the Mona Lisa was executed for Giuliano de' Medici, Leonardo's patron at the Belvedere Palace between 1513 and 1516 ... showed His Excellency three pictures, one of a certain Florentine lady done from life at the instance of the late Magnificent, Giuliano de' Medici".}}—though this has been suspected an error.It has been asserted that Leonardo "almost invariably commenced two versions of each of his works, which he rarely finished". A number of experts have argued that Leonardo made two versions of the Mona Lisa . Experts universally agree that Raphael's pen-and-ink sketch, in which the columns flanking the subject are more apparent, is based on Leonardo's portrait. Other later copies of the Mona Lisa, such as those in the National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design and The Walters Art Museum, also display large flanking columns. As a result, it was thought that the Mona Lisa had been trimmed. However, by 1993, Frank Zöllner observed that the painting surface had never been trimmed; this was confirmed through a series of tests in 2004. In view of this, Vincent Delieuvin, curator of 16th-century Italian painting at the Louvre, states that the sketch and these other copies must have been inspired by another version, while Zöllner states that the sketch may be after another Leonardo portrait of the same subject. The hypothetical first portrait, displaying prominent columns, would have been commissioned by Giocondo circa 1503, and left unfinished in Leonardo's pupil and assistant Salaì's possession until his death in 1524. The second, commissioned by Giuliano de' Medici circa 1513, would have been sold by Salaì to Francis I in 1518 and is the one in the Louvre today. Those who believe that there was only one true Mona Lisa have been unable to agree between the two aforementioned fates.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明に関する起源を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Eugène Müntz
Frank Zöllner
Giorgio Vasari
Isleworth
Leonardo da Vinci
Lisa del Giocondo
Lisa del Giocondo
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Raphael
Walters Art Museum
Vincent Delieuvin


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

It is generally agreed that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was painted in the early sixteenth century. Those who believe that Leonardo painted it contend that disparate dates proposed for the initiation of the Mona Lisa indicate that two different paintings were worked on at different times, with the Isleworth Mona Lisa being begun in 1503 and left unfinished, and the Louvre Mona Lisa being begun after 1513. Specifically, it is believed by some that Leonardo da Vinci had begun working on a portrait of Lisa del Giocondo, the model of the Mona Lisa, in Florence by October 1503. Although the Louvre states that it was "doubtless painted between 1503 and 1506", Eugène Müntz is known to have reported that by 1501 Fra. Pietro de Nuvolaria had written in a letter that "two of Leonardo's pupils were painting portraits which he occasionally worked upon himself", suggested as possibly referring to versions of the Mona Lisa. Other academics argue that, given the historical documentation, Leonardo would have painted the work from 1513. Proponents of the Isleworth point to the account of sixteenth-century biographer Giorgio Vasari, who wrote of the Mona Lisa that "after he had lingered over it four years, [he] left it unfinished". The record of an October 1517 visit by Luigi d'Aragon states that the Mona Lisa was executed for Giuliano de' Medici, Leonardo's patron at the Belvedere Palace between 1513 and 1516 ... showed His Excellency three pictures, one of a certain Florentine lady done from life at the instance of the late Magnificent, Giuliano de' Medici".}}—though this has been suspected an error.It has been asserted that Leonardo "almost invariably commenced two versions of each of his works, which he rarely finished". A number of experts have argued that Leonardo made two versions of the Mona Lisa . Experts universally agree that Raphael's pen-and-ink sketch, in which the columns flanking the subject are more apparent, is based on Leonardo's portrait. Other later copies of the Mona Lisa, such as those in the National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design and The Walters Art Museum, also display large flanking columns. As a result, it was thought that the Mona Lisa had been trimmed. However, by 1993, Frank Zöllner observed that the painting surface had never been trimmed; this was confirmed through a series of tests in 2004. In view of this, Vincent Delieuvin, curator of 16th-century Italian painting at the Louvre, states that the sketch and these other copies must have been inspired by another version, while Zöllner states that the sketch may be after another Leonardo portrait of the same subject. The hypothetical first portrait, displaying prominent columns, would have been commissioned by Giocondo circa 1503, and left unfinished in Leonardo's pupil and assistant Salaì's possession until his death in 1524. The second, commissioned by Giuliano de' Medici circa 1513, would have been sold by Salaì to Francis I in 1518 and is the one in the Louvre today. Those who believe that there was only one true Mona Lisa have been unable to agree between the two aforementioned fates.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザでは、どのように説明の起源が説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Eugène Müntz
Frank Zöllner
Giorgio Vasari
Isleworth
Leonardo da Vinci
Lisa del Giocondo
Lisa del Giocondo
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Raphael
Walters Art Museum
Vincent Delieuvin


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

It is generally agreed that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was painted in the early sixteenth century. Those who believe that Leonardo painted it contend that disparate dates proposed for the initiation of the Mona Lisa indicate that two different paintings were worked on at different times, with the Isleworth Mona Lisa being begun in 1503 and left unfinished, and the Louvre Mona Lisa being begun after 1513. Specifically, it is believed by some that Leonardo da Vinci had begun working on a portrait of Lisa del Giocondo, the model of the Mona Lisa, in Florence by October 1503. Although the Louvre states that it was "doubtless painted between 1503 and 1506", Eugène Müntz is known to have reported that by 1501 Fra. Pietro de Nuvolaria had written in a letter that "two of Leonardo's pupils were painting portraits which he occasionally worked upon himself", suggested as possibly referring to versions of the Mona Lisa. Other academics argue that, given the historical documentation, Leonardo would have painted the work from 1513. Proponents of the Isleworth point to the account of sixteenth-century biographer Giorgio Vasari, who wrote of the Mona Lisa that "after he had lingered over it four years, [he] left it unfinished". The record of an October 1517 visit by Luigi d'Aragon states that the Mona Lisa was executed for Giuliano de' Medici, Leonardo's patron at the Belvedere Palace between 1513 and 1516 ... showed His Excellency three pictures, one of a certain Florentine lady done from life at the instance of the late Magnificent, Giuliano de' Medici".}}—though this has been suspected an error.It has been asserted that Leonardo "almost invariably commenced two versions of each of his works, which he rarely finished". A number of experts have argued that Leonardo made two versions of the Mona Lisa . Experts universally agree that Raphael's pen-and-ink sketch, in which the columns flanking the subject are more apparent, is based on Leonardo's portrait. Other later copies of the Mona Lisa, such as those in the National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design and The Walters Art Museum, also display large flanking columns. As a result, it was thought that the Mona Lisa had been trimmed. However, by 1993, Frank Zöllner observed that the painting surface had never been trimmed; this was confirmed through a series of tests in 2004. In view of this, Vincent Delieuvin, curator of 16th-century Italian painting at the Louvre, states that the sketch and these other copies must have been inspired by another version, while Zöllner states that the sketch may be after another Leonardo portrait of the same subject. The hypothetical first portrait, displaying prominent columns, would have been commissioned by Giocondo circa 1503, and left unfinished in Leonardo's pupil and assistant Salaì's possession until his death in 1524. The second, commissioned by Giuliano de' Medici circa 1513, would have been sold by Salaì to Francis I in 1518 and is the one in the Louvre today. Those who believe that there was only one true Mona Lisa have been unable to agree between the two aforementioned fates.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明における起源の特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Eugène Müntz
Frank Zöllner
Giorgio Vasari
Isleworth
Leonardo da Vinci
Lisa del Giocondo
Lisa del Giocondo
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Raphael
Walters Art Museum
Vincent Delieuvin


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Researchers have indicated that the Isleworth painting was likely brought to England from Italy in the 1780s by a Somerset nobleman named James Marwood, who was documented as owning a painting attributed to Leonardo and titled  Jaconde . In 1913, English connoisseur and art collector Hugh Blaker spotted and acquired the painting from a nobleman's house in Somerset where it was said to have been hanging for over a century. The painting would eventually adopt its unofficial name of Isleworth Mona Lisa from Blaker's studio being in Isleworth, West London. In a letter he wrote to his sister Jane, Blaker stated that he thought the work to be by Leonardo and therefore saw potential for making money out of his purchase.Towards the beginning of 1914, Hungarian-born London art critic and historian Paul George Konody examined the painting, and concluded that, unlike Wilhelm von Bode's bust of Flora , the painting was in fact by Leonardo. Konody wrote that the reception of the painting had been marred by "some press agent who sent out the news broadcast, with wrong statements, misquotations, and other blunders galore", but nonetheless found that "though not altogether from the hand of Leonardo da Vinci himself, it emanates most certainly from his studio and was very largely worked up by the master himself". Blaker's step-father, John R. Eyre, published a monograph in 1915 that suggested a partial attribution to Leonardo. Eyre cited Konody's evaluation defending the authenticity of the Isleworth Mona Lisa as the motivation for his monograph, "when this opinion was endorsed by an art critic of Mr. P. G. Konody's standing, I felt convinced there was at least good ground for investigation". In this monograph Eyre was the first to formally propose the painting as an earlier version of the Mona Lisa at the Louvre. Kemp notes of Eyre that "His little book of fifty-one pages is full of careful scholarship, and makes about as good a case as can be made". Blaker's step-father, John Eyre, also believed in its attribution and claimed that the painting was a earlier version of Leonardo's Mona Lisa at the Louvre. In 1922, Eyre traveled throughout Italy consulting various scholars on the painting, who generally concluded that Leonardo painted the most significant parts of the work. Eyre reported these endorsements in a 1923 publication, which also expanded on the thesis of his 1915 book. Eyre's 1923 book contained "opinions from some of the foremost art experts in Italy after the turn of the century", including Lorenzo Cecconi, Arduino Colasanti, and Adolfo Venturi, and those experts generally "agreed the painting probably was done in Da Vinci's studio, by his students, if not by himself". In 1936, the work was shown in Leicester, where it was seen by Henry F. Pulitzer, who was immediately struck by it. Pulitzer's argument included much historical evidence, including Vasari's controversial account. In 1963, Pulitzer exhibited the painting in Phoenix, Arizona, inviting "all experts and critics who wish to view the painting and his evidence". In 2012, The Guardian described the art world as being "split" over the question, and in 2013, Reuters reported that it was "dismissed by some experts", but "also won support in the art world". In 2019, an anonymous "distinguished European family" claimed that the painting's former owner had sold them a 25% stake in the painting, but a lawyer speaking for current owners stated that the claim was clearly without merit.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの文脈で、再発見後の歴史と説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Adolfo Venturi
Arduino Colasanti
Henry F. Pulitzer
Hugh Blaker
Isleworth
Leonardo da Vinci
Lorenzo Cecconi
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Paul George Konody
Reuters
Somerset
The Guardian
Wilhelm von Bode


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Researchers have indicated that the Isleworth painting was likely brought to England from Italy in the 1780s by a Somerset nobleman named James Marwood, who was documented as owning a painting attributed to Leonardo and titled  Jaconde . In 1913, English connoisseur and art collector Hugh Blaker spotted and acquired the painting from a nobleman's house in Somerset where it was said to have been hanging for over a century. The painting would eventually adopt its unofficial name of Isleworth Mona Lisa from Blaker's studio being in Isleworth, West London. In a letter he wrote to his sister Jane, Blaker stated that he thought the work to be by Leonardo and therefore saw potential for making money out of his purchase.Towards the beginning of 1914, Hungarian-born London art critic and historian Paul George Konody examined the painting, and concluded that, unlike Wilhelm von Bode's bust of Flora , the painting was in fact by Leonardo. Konody wrote that the reception of the painting had been marred by "some press agent who sent out the news broadcast, with wrong statements, misquotations, and other blunders galore", but nonetheless found that "though not altogether from the hand of Leonardo da Vinci himself, it emanates most certainly from his studio and was very largely worked up by the master himself". Blaker's step-father, John R. Eyre, published a monograph in 1915 that suggested a partial attribution to Leonardo. Eyre cited Konody's evaluation defending the authenticity of the Isleworth Mona Lisa as the motivation for his monograph, "when this opinion was endorsed by an art critic of Mr. P. G. Konody's standing, I felt convinced there was at least good ground for investigation". In this monograph Eyre was the first to formally propose the painting as an earlier version of the Mona Lisa at the Louvre. Kemp notes of Eyre that "His little book of fifty-one pages is full of careful scholarship, and makes about as good a case as can be made". Blaker's step-father, John Eyre, also believed in its attribution and claimed that the painting was a earlier version of Leonardo's Mona Lisa at the Louvre. In 1922, Eyre traveled throughout Italy consulting various scholars on the painting, who generally concluded that Leonardo painted the most significant parts of the work. Eyre reported these endorsements in a 1923 publication, which also expanded on the thesis of his 1915 book. Eyre's 1923 book contained "opinions from some of the foremost art experts in Italy after the turn of the century", including Lorenzo Cecconi, Arduino Colasanti, and Adolfo Venturi, and those experts generally "agreed the painting probably was done in Da Vinci's studio, by his students, if not by himself". In 1936, the work was shown in Leicester, where it was seen by Henry F. Pulitzer, who was immediately struck by it. Pulitzer's argument included much historical evidence, including Vasari's controversial account. In 1963, Pulitzer exhibited the painting in Phoenix, Arizona, inviting "all experts and critics who wish to view the painting and his evidence". In 2012, The Guardian described the art world as being "split" over the question, and in 2013, Reuters reported that it was "dismissed by some experts", but "also won support in the art world". In 2019, an anonymous "distinguished European family" claimed that the painting's former owner had sold them a 25% stake in the painting, but a lawyer speaking for current owners stated that the claim was clearly without merit.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明に関する再発見後の歴史を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Adolfo Venturi
Arduino Colasanti
Henry F. Pulitzer
Hugh Blaker
Isleworth
Leonardo da Vinci
Lorenzo Cecconi
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Paul George Konody
Reuters
Somerset
The Guardian
Wilhelm von Bode


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Researchers have indicated that the Isleworth painting was likely brought to England from Italy in the 1780s by a Somerset nobleman named James Marwood, who was documented as owning a painting attributed to Leonardo and titled  Jaconde . In 1913, English connoisseur and art collector Hugh Blaker spotted and acquired the painting from a nobleman's house in Somerset where it was said to have been hanging for over a century. The painting would eventually adopt its unofficial name of Isleworth Mona Lisa from Blaker's studio being in Isleworth, West London. In a letter he wrote to his sister Jane, Blaker stated that he thought the work to be by Leonardo and therefore saw potential for making money out of his purchase.Towards the beginning of 1914, Hungarian-born London art critic and historian Paul George Konody examined the painting, and concluded that, unlike Wilhelm von Bode's bust of Flora , the painting was in fact by Leonardo. Konody wrote that the reception of the painting had been marred by "some press agent who sent out the news broadcast, with wrong statements, misquotations, and other blunders galore", but nonetheless found that "though not altogether from the hand of Leonardo da Vinci himself, it emanates most certainly from his studio and was very largely worked up by the master himself". Blaker's step-father, John R. Eyre, published a monograph in 1915 that suggested a partial attribution to Leonardo. Eyre cited Konody's evaluation defending the authenticity of the Isleworth Mona Lisa as the motivation for his monograph, "when this opinion was endorsed by an art critic of Mr. P. G. Konody's standing, I felt convinced there was at least good ground for investigation". In this monograph Eyre was the first to formally propose the painting as an earlier version of the Mona Lisa at the Louvre. Kemp notes of Eyre that "His little book of fifty-one pages is full of careful scholarship, and makes about as good a case as can be made". Blaker's step-father, John Eyre, also believed in its attribution and claimed that the painting was a earlier version of Leonardo's Mona Lisa at the Louvre. In 1922, Eyre traveled throughout Italy consulting various scholars on the painting, who generally concluded that Leonardo painted the most significant parts of the work. Eyre reported these endorsements in a 1923 publication, which also expanded on the thesis of his 1915 book. Eyre's 1923 book contained "opinions from some of the foremost art experts in Italy after the turn of the century", including Lorenzo Cecconi, Arduino Colasanti, and Adolfo Venturi, and those experts generally "agreed the painting probably was done in Da Vinci's studio, by his students, if not by himself". In 1936, the work was shown in Leicester, where it was seen by Henry F. Pulitzer, who was immediately struck by it. Pulitzer's argument included much historical evidence, including Vasari's controversial account. In 1963, Pulitzer exhibited the painting in Phoenix, Arizona, inviting "all experts and critics who wish to view the painting and his evidence". In 2012, The Guardian described the art world as being "split" over the question, and in 2013, Reuters reported that it was "dismissed by some experts", but "also won support in the art world". In 2019, an anonymous "distinguished European family" claimed that the painting's former owner had sold them a 25% stake in the painting, but a lawyer speaking for current owners stated that the claim was clearly without merit.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザでは、どのように説明の再発見後の歴史が説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Adolfo Venturi
Arduino Colasanti
Henry F. Pulitzer
Hugh Blaker
Isleworth
Leonardo da Vinci
Lorenzo Cecconi
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Paul George Konody
Reuters
Somerset
The Guardian
Wilhelm von Bode


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Researchers have indicated that the Isleworth painting was likely brought to England from Italy in the 1780s by a Somerset nobleman named James Marwood, who was documented as owning a painting attributed to Leonardo and titled  Jaconde . In 1913, English connoisseur and art collector Hugh Blaker spotted and acquired the painting from a nobleman's house in Somerset where it was said to have been hanging for over a century. The painting would eventually adopt its unofficial name of Isleworth Mona Lisa from Blaker's studio being in Isleworth, West London. In a letter he wrote to his sister Jane, Blaker stated that he thought the work to be by Leonardo and therefore saw potential for making money out of his purchase.Towards the beginning of 1914, Hungarian-born London art critic and historian Paul George Konody examined the painting, and concluded that, unlike Wilhelm von Bode's bust of Flora , the painting was in fact by Leonardo. Konody wrote that the reception of the painting had been marred by "some press agent who sent out the news broadcast, with wrong statements, misquotations, and other blunders galore", but nonetheless found that "though not altogether from the hand of Leonardo da Vinci himself, it emanates most certainly from his studio and was very largely worked up by the master himself". Blaker's step-father, John R. Eyre, published a monograph in 1915 that suggested a partial attribution to Leonardo. Eyre cited Konody's evaluation defending the authenticity of the Isleworth Mona Lisa as the motivation for his monograph, "when this opinion was endorsed by an art critic of Mr. P. G. Konody's standing, I felt convinced there was at least good ground for investigation". In this monograph Eyre was the first to formally propose the painting as an earlier version of the Mona Lisa at the Louvre. Kemp notes of Eyre that "His little book of fifty-one pages is full of careful scholarship, and makes about as good a case as can be made". Blaker's step-father, John Eyre, also believed in its attribution and claimed that the painting was a earlier version of Leonardo's Mona Lisa at the Louvre. In 1922, Eyre traveled throughout Italy consulting various scholars on the painting, who generally concluded that Leonardo painted the most significant parts of the work. Eyre reported these endorsements in a 1923 publication, which also expanded on the thesis of his 1915 book. Eyre's 1923 book contained "opinions from some of the foremost art experts in Italy after the turn of the century", including Lorenzo Cecconi, Arduino Colasanti, and Adolfo Venturi, and those experts generally "agreed the painting probably was done in Da Vinci's studio, by his students, if not by himself". In 1936, the work was shown in Leicester, where it was seen by Henry F. Pulitzer, who was immediately struck by it. Pulitzer's argument included much historical evidence, including Vasari's controversial account. In 1963, Pulitzer exhibited the painting in Phoenix, Arizona, inviting "all experts and critics who wish to view the painting and his evidence". In 2012, The Guardian described the art world as being "split" over the question, and in 2013, Reuters reported that it was "dismissed by some experts", but "also won support in the art world". In 2019, an anonymous "distinguished European family" claimed that the painting's former owner had sold them a 25% stake in the painting, but a lawyer speaking for current owners stated that the claim was clearly without merit.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明における再発見後の歴史の特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Adolfo Venturi
Arduino Colasanti
Henry F. Pulitzer
Hugh Blaker
Isleworth
Leonardo da Vinci
Lorenzo Cecconi
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Paul George Konody
Reuters
Somerset
The Guardian
Wilhelm von Bode


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Documentary attribution of the painting to Leonardo reportedly traces to its ownership by James Marwood in the 1780s. After its rediscovery in 1913 this attribution to was again suggested by its owner, Hugh Blaker, who believed it to be by Leonardo. Konody, after his own examination of the painting, wrote in The New York Times that the discovery of the painting had been marred by attendant publicity, stating that "skepticism turns into hostile incredulity, if the discovery is injudiciously exploited by some press agent who sent out the news broadcast, with wrong statements, misquotations, and other blunders galore", but nonetheless finding that "though not altogether from the hand of Leonardo da Vinci himself, it emanates most certainly from his studio and was very largely worked up by the master himself". Although Konody saw the styles of other artists in parts of the painting, he wrote that "the inimitably soft and lovely painting of the head and bust, the exquisite subtlety of the expression, the golden glow of the general coloring, can be due only to Leonardo". Blaker's stepfather, John Eyre, expanded on Blaker's theory in his 1915 publication, claiming that it was the earlier version of the better known Louvre Mona Lisa. Eyre published another book in 1923, which was the result of consultation with 10 experts, many of whom attributed sections of the painting to Leonardo. Art historian Martin Kemp notes that "His little book of fifty-one pages is full of careful scholarship, and makes about as good a case as can be made". However, Blaker and Eyre's efforts did not result in wide acceptance.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの文脈で、初診と説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Hugh Blaker
Leonardo da Vinci
Louvre
Martin Kemp
Mona Lisa
The New York Times


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Documentary attribution of the painting to Leonardo reportedly traces to its ownership by James Marwood in the 1780s. After its rediscovery in 1913 this attribution to was again suggested by its owner, Hugh Blaker, who believed it to be by Leonardo. Konody, after his own examination of the painting, wrote in The New York Times that the discovery of the painting had been marred by attendant publicity, stating that "skepticism turns into hostile incredulity, if the discovery is injudiciously exploited by some press agent who sent out the news broadcast, with wrong statements, misquotations, and other blunders galore", but nonetheless finding that "though not altogether from the hand of Leonardo da Vinci himself, it emanates most certainly from his studio and was very largely worked up by the master himself". Although Konody saw the styles of other artists in parts of the painting, he wrote that "the inimitably soft and lovely painting of the head and bust, the exquisite subtlety of the expression, the golden glow of the general coloring, can be due only to Leonardo". Blaker's stepfather, John Eyre, expanded on Blaker's theory in his 1915 publication, claiming that it was the earlier version of the better known Louvre Mona Lisa. Eyre published another book in 1923, which was the result of consultation with 10 experts, many of whom attributed sections of the painting to Leonardo. Art historian Martin Kemp notes that "His little book of fifty-one pages is full of careful scholarship, and makes about as good a case as can be made". However, Blaker and Eyre's efforts did not result in wide acceptance.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明に関する初診を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Hugh Blaker
Leonardo da Vinci
Louvre
Martin Kemp
Mona Lisa
The New York Times


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Documentary attribution of the painting to Leonardo reportedly traces to its ownership by James Marwood in the 1780s. After its rediscovery in 1913 this attribution to was again suggested by its owner, Hugh Blaker, who believed it to be by Leonardo. Konody, after his own examination of the painting, wrote in The New York Times that the discovery of the painting had been marred by attendant publicity, stating that "skepticism turns into hostile incredulity, if the discovery is injudiciously exploited by some press agent who sent out the news broadcast, with wrong statements, misquotations, and other blunders galore", but nonetheless finding that "though not altogether from the hand of Leonardo da Vinci himself, it emanates most certainly from his studio and was very largely worked up by the master himself". Although Konody saw the styles of other artists in parts of the painting, he wrote that "the inimitably soft and lovely painting of the head and bust, the exquisite subtlety of the expression, the golden glow of the general coloring, can be due only to Leonardo". Blaker's stepfather, John Eyre, expanded on Blaker's theory in his 1915 publication, claiming that it was the earlier version of the better known Louvre Mona Lisa. Eyre published another book in 1923, which was the result of consultation with 10 experts, many of whom attributed sections of the painting to Leonardo. Art historian Martin Kemp notes that "His little book of fifty-one pages is full of careful scholarship, and makes about as good a case as can be made". However, Blaker and Eyre's efforts did not result in wide acceptance.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザでは、どのように説明の初診が説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Hugh Blaker
Leonardo da Vinci
Louvre
Martin Kemp
Mona Lisa
The New York Times


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Documentary attribution of the painting to Leonardo reportedly traces to its ownership by James Marwood in the 1780s. After its rediscovery in 1913 this attribution to was again suggested by its owner, Hugh Blaker, who believed it to be by Leonardo. Konody, after his own examination of the painting, wrote in The New York Times that the discovery of the painting had been marred by attendant publicity, stating that "skepticism turns into hostile incredulity, if the discovery is injudiciously exploited by some press agent who sent out the news broadcast, with wrong statements, misquotations, and other blunders galore", but nonetheless finding that "though not altogether from the hand of Leonardo da Vinci himself, it emanates most certainly from his studio and was very largely worked up by the master himself". Although Konody saw the styles of other artists in parts of the painting, he wrote that "the inimitably soft and lovely painting of the head and bust, the exquisite subtlety of the expression, the golden glow of the general coloring, can be due only to Leonardo". Blaker's stepfather, John Eyre, expanded on Blaker's theory in his 1915 publication, claiming that it was the earlier version of the better known Louvre Mona Lisa. Eyre published another book in 1923, which was the result of consultation with 10 experts, many of whom attributed sections of the painting to Leonardo. Art historian Martin Kemp notes that "His little book of fifty-one pages is full of careful scholarship, and makes about as good a case as can be made". However, Blaker and Eyre's efforts did not result in wide acceptance.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明における初診の特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Hugh Blaker
Leonardo da Vinci
Louvre
Martin Kemp
Mona Lisa
The New York Times


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

When Henry Pulitzer purchased the painting in 1962, he immediately endorsed the attribution of Eyre, stating the Isleworth was the only Mona Lisa done by Leonardo. This was an observation repeated in his book where he argued that Leonardo's contemporary Raphael made a sketch of this painting, probably from memory, after seeing it in Leonardo's studio in 1504. The Raphael sketch includes the two Greek columns that are not found in the Louvre's Mona Lisa, but are found in the Isleworth painting. Pulitzer presents a few pages of art expert testimonials in his book; some of these experts seemed to believe that Leonardo was the painter, others felt the artist was somebody who worked in Leonardo's studio, and still others suggested that other artists may have done it. He then presents laboratory evidence, such as light to dark ratios across the canvas and X-rays, that suggested the painting to be by Leonardo. However, specific detail on the manner in which these studies were carried out, and by whom, is not provided. He wrote: "I have no intention of cluttering up this book with too many technicalities and wish to make this chapter brief". No independent reports on the painting are cited in his text; he uses the pronoun "we" to refer to the team that conducted the research. As his own Pulitzer Press then published these results, there is a lack of outside corroboration for his claims.In the late 1980s, physicist John F. Asmus used computer image processing to examine the Louvre Mona Lisa to determine how the colors would appear if they were not distorted by the yellowing of the aged varnish, and discovered previously unknown evidence that the subject had originally been painted with a necklace, which had apparently then been painted over and thereby removed, by Leonardo. In 1988, Asmus published his results from using this technology to compare the faces of Isleworth Mona Lisa and the Louvre Mona Lisa, finding that they shared a signature frequency of degrees of lightness and darkness, which Asmus concluded indicated that this aspect of both paintings was painted by the same person.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの文脈で、20世紀テスト、ピューリッツァー、アスムスと説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Isleworth
John F. Asmus
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Raphael


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

When Henry Pulitzer purchased the painting in 1962, he immediately endorsed the attribution of Eyre, stating the Isleworth was the only Mona Lisa done by Leonardo. This was an observation repeated in his book where he argued that Leonardo's contemporary Raphael made a sketch of this painting, probably from memory, after seeing it in Leonardo's studio in 1504. The Raphael sketch includes the two Greek columns that are not found in the Louvre's Mona Lisa, but are found in the Isleworth painting. Pulitzer presents a few pages of art expert testimonials in his book; some of these experts seemed to believe that Leonardo was the painter, others felt the artist was somebody who worked in Leonardo's studio, and still others suggested that other artists may have done it. He then presents laboratory evidence, such as light to dark ratios across the canvas and X-rays, that suggested the painting to be by Leonardo. However, specific detail on the manner in which these studies were carried out, and by whom, is not provided. He wrote: "I have no intention of cluttering up this book with too many technicalities and wish to make this chapter brief". No independent reports on the painting are cited in his text; he uses the pronoun "we" to refer to the team that conducted the research. As his own Pulitzer Press then published these results, there is a lack of outside corroboration for his claims.In the late 1980s, physicist John F. Asmus used computer image processing to examine the Louvre Mona Lisa to determine how the colors would appear if they were not distorted by the yellowing of the aged varnish, and discovered previously unknown evidence that the subject had originally been painted with a necklace, which had apparently then been painted over and thereby removed, by Leonardo. In 1988, Asmus published his results from using this technology to compare the faces of Isleworth Mona Lisa and the Louvre Mona Lisa, finding that they shared a signature frequency of degrees of lightness and darkness, which Asmus concluded indicated that this aspect of both paintings was painted by the same person.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明に関する20世紀テスト、ピューリッツァー、アスムスを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Isleworth
John F. Asmus
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Raphael


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

When Henry Pulitzer purchased the painting in 1962, he immediately endorsed the attribution of Eyre, stating the Isleworth was the only Mona Lisa done by Leonardo. This was an observation repeated in his book where he argued that Leonardo's contemporary Raphael made a sketch of this painting, probably from memory, after seeing it in Leonardo's studio in 1504. The Raphael sketch includes the two Greek columns that are not found in the Louvre's Mona Lisa, but are found in the Isleworth painting. Pulitzer presents a few pages of art expert testimonials in his book; some of these experts seemed to believe that Leonardo was the painter, others felt the artist was somebody who worked in Leonardo's studio, and still others suggested that other artists may have done it. He then presents laboratory evidence, such as light to dark ratios across the canvas and X-rays, that suggested the painting to be by Leonardo. However, specific detail on the manner in which these studies were carried out, and by whom, is not provided. He wrote: "I have no intention of cluttering up this book with too many technicalities and wish to make this chapter brief". No independent reports on the painting are cited in his text; he uses the pronoun "we" to refer to the team that conducted the research. As his own Pulitzer Press then published these results, there is a lack of outside corroboration for his claims.In the late 1980s, physicist John F. Asmus used computer image processing to examine the Louvre Mona Lisa to determine how the colors would appear if they were not distorted by the yellowing of the aged varnish, and discovered previously unknown evidence that the subject had originally been painted with a necklace, which had apparently then been painted over and thereby removed, by Leonardo. In 1988, Asmus published his results from using this technology to compare the faces of Isleworth Mona Lisa and the Louvre Mona Lisa, finding that they shared a signature frequency of degrees of lightness and darkness, which Asmus concluded indicated that this aspect of both paintings was painted by the same person.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザでは、どのように説明の20世紀テスト、ピューリッツァー、アスムスが説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Isleworth
John F. Asmus
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Raphael


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

When Henry Pulitzer purchased the painting in 1962, he immediately endorsed the attribution of Eyre, stating the Isleworth was the only Mona Lisa done by Leonardo. This was an observation repeated in his book where he argued that Leonardo's contemporary Raphael made a sketch of this painting, probably from memory, after seeing it in Leonardo's studio in 1504. The Raphael sketch includes the two Greek columns that are not found in the Louvre's Mona Lisa, but are found in the Isleworth painting. Pulitzer presents a few pages of art expert testimonials in his book; some of these experts seemed to believe that Leonardo was the painter, others felt the artist was somebody who worked in Leonardo's studio, and still others suggested that other artists may have done it. He then presents laboratory evidence, such as light to dark ratios across the canvas and X-rays, that suggested the painting to be by Leonardo. However, specific detail on the manner in which these studies were carried out, and by whom, is not provided. He wrote: "I have no intention of cluttering up this book with too many technicalities and wish to make this chapter brief". No independent reports on the painting are cited in his text; he uses the pronoun "we" to refer to the team that conducted the research. As his own Pulitzer Press then published these results, there is a lack of outside corroboration for his claims.In the late 1980s, physicist John F. Asmus used computer image processing to examine the Louvre Mona Lisa to determine how the colors would appear if they were not distorted by the yellowing of the aged varnish, and discovered previously unknown evidence that the subject had originally been painted with a necklace, which had apparently then been painted over and thereby removed, by Leonardo. In 1988, Asmus published his results from using this technology to compare the faces of Isleworth Mona Lisa and the Louvre Mona Lisa, finding that they shared a signature frequency of degrees of lightness and darkness, which Asmus concluded indicated that this aspect of both paintings was painted by the same person.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明における20世紀テスト、ピューリッツァー、アスムスの特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Isleworth
John F. Asmus
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Raphael


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Between 2012 and 2013, experts examined and studied the work. Kemp wrote that at a 2012 conference, art historians and Leonardo experts Alessandro Vezzosi and Carlo Pedretti "made encouraging but noncommittal statements about the picture being of high quality and worthy of further research".In October 2013, Jean-Pierre Isbouts published his book The Mona Lisa Myth examining the history and events behind the Louvre and Isleworth paintings and confirmed the latter's attribution to Leonardo. A companion film of the same name was released in March 2014. In April 2014, Albert Sauteur examined the perspective used to execute the Isleworth Mona Lisa and the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, and concluded that Leonardo painted both works, modifying his technique for the second. In support of his assertion of authorship, Isbouts pointed to the similarities of the Raphael drawing and the work done by Asmus, as well as confirmation by other examiners that the canvas and paints were the appropriate age, and that the painting exhibited "downward-extending brush strokes from left to right... consistent with the work of a left-handed artist",In 2015, an academic publication by professors Salvatore Lorusso and Andrea Natali provided an extensive analysis of Mona Lisa paintings and copies, and concluded that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was an original work by Leonardo, on stylistic grounds. In 2016, Asmus revisited the painting with professors Vadim Parfenov and Jessie Elford, with the trio publishing the results of scientific examinations that established to their satisfaction that the same artist painted the face of both the Mona Lisa and the Isleworth Mona Lisa. Gérard Boudin de l'Arche published a comprehensive historical account in 2017, wherein he stated that Leonardo painted the Isleworth Mona Lisa before the Louvre Mona Lisa.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの文脈で、21世紀試験と説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Alessandro Vezzosi
Carlo Pedretti
Isleworth
Jean-Pierre Isbouts
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Raphael
Salvatore Lorusso
The Mona Lisa Myth


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Between 2012 and 2013, experts examined and studied the work. Kemp wrote that at a 2012 conference, art historians and Leonardo experts Alessandro Vezzosi and Carlo Pedretti "made encouraging but noncommittal statements about the picture being of high quality and worthy of further research".In October 2013, Jean-Pierre Isbouts published his book The Mona Lisa Myth examining the history and events behind the Louvre and Isleworth paintings and confirmed the latter's attribution to Leonardo. A companion film of the same name was released in March 2014. In April 2014, Albert Sauteur examined the perspective used to execute the Isleworth Mona Lisa and the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, and concluded that Leonardo painted both works, modifying his technique for the second. In support of his assertion of authorship, Isbouts pointed to the similarities of the Raphael drawing and the work done by Asmus, as well as confirmation by other examiners that the canvas and paints were the appropriate age, and that the painting exhibited "downward-extending brush strokes from left to right... consistent with the work of a left-handed artist",In 2015, an academic publication by professors Salvatore Lorusso and Andrea Natali provided an extensive analysis of Mona Lisa paintings and copies, and concluded that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was an original work by Leonardo, on stylistic grounds. In 2016, Asmus revisited the painting with professors Vadim Parfenov and Jessie Elford, with the trio publishing the results of scientific examinations that established to their satisfaction that the same artist painted the face of both the Mona Lisa and the Isleworth Mona Lisa. Gérard Boudin de l'Arche published a comprehensive historical account in 2017, wherein he stated that Leonardo painted the Isleworth Mona Lisa before the Louvre Mona Lisa.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明に関する21世紀試験を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Alessandro Vezzosi
Carlo Pedretti
Isleworth
Jean-Pierre Isbouts
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Raphael
Salvatore Lorusso
The Mona Lisa Myth


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Between 2012 and 2013, experts examined and studied the work. Kemp wrote that at a 2012 conference, art historians and Leonardo experts Alessandro Vezzosi and Carlo Pedretti "made encouraging but noncommittal statements about the picture being of high quality and worthy of further research".In October 2013, Jean-Pierre Isbouts published his book The Mona Lisa Myth examining the history and events behind the Louvre and Isleworth paintings and confirmed the latter's attribution to Leonardo. A companion film of the same name was released in March 2014. In April 2014, Albert Sauteur examined the perspective used to execute the Isleworth Mona Lisa and the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, and concluded that Leonardo painted both works, modifying his technique for the second. In support of his assertion of authorship, Isbouts pointed to the similarities of the Raphael drawing and the work done by Asmus, as well as confirmation by other examiners that the canvas and paints were the appropriate age, and that the painting exhibited "downward-extending brush strokes from left to right... consistent with the work of a left-handed artist",In 2015, an academic publication by professors Salvatore Lorusso and Andrea Natali provided an extensive analysis of Mona Lisa paintings and copies, and concluded that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was an original work by Leonardo, on stylistic grounds. In 2016, Asmus revisited the painting with professors Vadim Parfenov and Jessie Elford, with the trio publishing the results of scientific examinations that established to their satisfaction that the same artist painted the face of both the Mona Lisa and the Isleworth Mona Lisa. Gérard Boudin de l'Arche published a comprehensive historical account in 2017, wherein he stated that Leonardo painted the Isleworth Mona Lisa before the Louvre Mona Lisa.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザでは、どのように説明の21世紀試験が説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Alessandro Vezzosi
Carlo Pedretti
Isleworth
Jean-Pierre Isbouts
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Raphael
Salvatore Lorusso
The Mona Lisa Myth


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Between 2012 and 2013, experts examined and studied the work. Kemp wrote that at a 2012 conference, art historians and Leonardo experts Alessandro Vezzosi and Carlo Pedretti "made encouraging but noncommittal statements about the picture being of high quality and worthy of further research".In October 2013, Jean-Pierre Isbouts published his book The Mona Lisa Myth examining the history and events behind the Louvre and Isleworth paintings and confirmed the latter's attribution to Leonardo. A companion film of the same name was released in March 2014. In April 2014, Albert Sauteur examined the perspective used to execute the Isleworth Mona Lisa and the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, and concluded that Leonardo painted both works, modifying his technique for the second. In support of his assertion of authorship, Isbouts pointed to the similarities of the Raphael drawing and the work done by Asmus, as well as confirmation by other examiners that the canvas and paints were the appropriate age, and that the painting exhibited "downward-extending brush strokes from left to right... consistent with the work of a left-handed artist",In 2015, an academic publication by professors Salvatore Lorusso and Andrea Natali provided an extensive analysis of Mona Lisa paintings and copies, and concluded that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was an original work by Leonardo, on stylistic grounds. In 2016, Asmus revisited the painting with professors Vadim Parfenov and Jessie Elford, with the trio publishing the results of scientific examinations that established to their satisfaction that the same artist painted the face of both the Mona Lisa and the Isleworth Mona Lisa. Gérard Boudin de l'Arche published a comprehensive historical account in 2017, wherein he stated that Leonardo painted the Isleworth Mona Lisa before the Louvre Mona Lisa.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明における21世紀試験の特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Alessandro Vezzosi
Carlo Pedretti
Isleworth
Jean-Pierre Isbouts
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Raphael
Salvatore Lorusso
The Mona Lisa Myth


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Kemp and others have observed that Leonardo's preferred medium was wood, asserting that he rarely painted on canvas. Others have countered that Leonardo "assiduously experimented with new ideas and technologies", While in Venice, Leonardo may have been in contact with Giorgione, who was himself painting a significant work on canvas, The Judgement of Solomon, which in turn appears to be stylistically influenced by Leonardo.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの文脈で、キャンバスと説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Kemp and others have observed that Leonardo's preferred medium was wood, asserting that he rarely painted on canvas. Others have countered that Leonardo "assiduously experimented with new ideas and technologies", While in Venice, Leonardo may have been in contact with Giorgione, who was himself painting a significant work on canvas, The Judgement of Solomon, which in turn appears to be stylistically influenced by Leonardo.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明に関するキャンバスを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Kemp and others have observed that Leonardo's preferred medium was wood, asserting that he rarely painted on canvas. Others have countered that Leonardo "assiduously experimented with new ideas and technologies", While in Venice, Leonardo may have been in contact with Giorgione, who was himself painting a significant work on canvas, The Judgement of Solomon, which in turn appears to be stylistically influenced by Leonardo.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザでは、どのように説明のキャンバスが説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Kemp and others have observed that Leonardo's preferred medium was wood, asserting that he rarely painted on canvas. Others have countered that Leonardo "assiduously experimented with new ideas and technologies", While in Venice, Leonardo may have been in contact with Giorgione, who was himself painting a significant work on canvas, The Judgement of Solomon, which in turn appears to be stylistically influenced by Leonardo.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明におけるキャンバスの特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Konody observed of the Isleworth subject that "[t]he head is inclined at a different angle". Physicist John F. Asmus, who had previously examined the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and investigated other works by Leonardo, published a computer image processing study in 1988 concluding that the brush strokes of the face in the painting were performed by the same artist responsible for the brush strokes of the face of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. Asmus found that the head appears to be "tilted forward toward the viewer... consistent with the dramatically shorter appearing neck, which is also a greater angle to the vertical than that of the Louvre painting". Another early reviewer commented that "[t]he head is tilted more forward and the parting of the hair is exactly in the center, while that of the Louvre picture starts in the middle of the forehead and runs towards the back of the head at an impossible and incorrect angle". Asmus observed that "the Isleworth figure has a somewhat higher forehead, a slightly wider face, and less of a bulge in the veil over the proper left side of the head". He further reported that "the eyes are much wider set in the Isleworth painting". John Eyre reported Adolfo Venturi, in his early 1920s examination, praised "the beauty of the eye drawing... is the principal portion done by Leonardo together with the line of the mouth".A review of the painting in the Deseret News shortly after it was first shown to the public describes its tonality as being darker, and describes the coloring as being in "accordance with almost all the works attributed to Leonardo—that of a golden glow—while the finish is of a most minute character". Italian curator Lorenzo Cecconi, who also examined the painting in the 1920s, said that "the fusion of the tints of the flesh, especially in the eyes; the line which designs the nose, the mouth, and the oval of the face" were remarkable, and indicated that "this may be a second work of the Great Leonardo". In the same period, Renaissance scholar Arduino Colasanti thought "the upper part with the eyes and nose of the face" were definitely by Leonardo, and noted collector Ludovico Spiridon stated that "the face has been painted by Leonardo; no doubt of this at all". In the 1960s, the art dealer Henry F. Pulitzer claimed that "densitometric tests on the planes of face and hands show a gradual change of tone values from dark to light which only [Leonardo] da Vinci, with his amazing eyesight, was capable of". Asmus similarly found in the 1980s that amplitude histograms sorting the number of pixels of each brightness level in these features "reveal a remarkable similarity even though the images are noticeably different". Other differences have been observed with respect to aspects of the face:French artist Albert Sauteur suggested in 2014 that differences between the paintings were accounted for not only by the model having aged, but that the narrower face and closer eyes in the Louvre painting could be accounted for by Leonardo experimenting with painting from a binocular visual perspective, rather than the traditional monocular perspective. British fine arts consultant Archibald Cecil Chappelow of the Royal Society of Arts, wrote in 1956 that "the face is superbly painted, and the hands more neatly defined than those in the Louvre painting". Asmus specifically asserted that "portions of the hands in the Louvre painting have been criticized as being 'fat and ugly'", while "it is intriguing to note that the Isleworth thumb is more slender and closer to what would be expected from Leonardo". Asmus notes that this may be the result of inept repair work later on. Konody further stated of the painting that "[t]he hands, with their careful and somewhat hard drawing and terra cotta coloring, suggest at once the name of Leonardo's pupil, Marco d' Oggionno; whereas the inimitably soft and lovely painting of the head and bust, the exquisite subtlety of the expression, the golden glow of the general coloring, can be due only to Leonardo". Spiridon thought that "[t]he redness of the hands is probably due to a bad varnish that could be removed". Konody found the features of the Isleworth painting overall to be "more delicate" than those of the Louvre painting, stating of them, "let it be boldly stated, far more pleasing and beautiful than in the Louvre version".</blockquote>

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの文脈で、顔と手と帰属を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Adolfo Venturi
Archibald Cecil Chappelow
Arduino Colasanti
Deseret News
Henry F. Pulitzer
Isleworth
John F. Asmus
Lorenzo Cecconi
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Physicist
Royal Society of Arts


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Konody observed of the Isleworth subject that "[t]he head is inclined at a different angle". Physicist John F. Asmus, who had previously examined the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and investigated other works by Leonardo, published a computer image processing study in 1988 concluding that the brush strokes of the face in the painting were performed by the same artist responsible for the brush strokes of the face of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. Asmus found that the head appears to be "tilted forward toward the viewer... consistent with the dramatically shorter appearing neck, which is also a greater angle to the vertical than that of the Louvre painting". Another early reviewer commented that "[t]he head is tilted more forward and the parting of the hair is exactly in the center, while that of the Louvre picture starts in the middle of the forehead and runs towards the back of the head at an impossible and incorrect angle". Asmus observed that "the Isleworth figure has a somewhat higher forehead, a slightly wider face, and less of a bulge in the veil over the proper left side of the head". He further reported that "the eyes are much wider set in the Isleworth painting". John Eyre reported Adolfo Venturi, in his early 1920s examination, praised "the beauty of the eye drawing... is the principal portion done by Leonardo together with the line of the mouth".A review of the painting in the Deseret News shortly after it was first shown to the public describes its tonality as being darker, and describes the coloring as being in "accordance with almost all the works attributed to Leonardo—that of a golden glow—while the finish is of a most minute character". Italian curator Lorenzo Cecconi, who also examined the painting in the 1920s, said that "the fusion of the tints of the flesh, especially in the eyes; the line which designs the nose, the mouth, and the oval of the face" were remarkable, and indicated that "this may be a second work of the Great Leonardo". In the same period, Renaissance scholar Arduino Colasanti thought "the upper part with the eyes and nose of the face" were definitely by Leonardo, and noted collector Ludovico Spiridon stated that "the face has been painted by Leonardo; no doubt of this at all". In the 1960s, the art dealer Henry F. Pulitzer claimed that "densitometric tests on the planes of face and hands show a gradual change of tone values from dark to light which only [Leonardo] da Vinci, with his amazing eyesight, was capable of". Asmus similarly found in the 1980s that amplitude histograms sorting the number of pixels of each brightness level in these features "reveal a remarkable similarity even though the images are noticeably different". Other differences have been observed with respect to aspects of the face:French artist Albert Sauteur suggested in 2014 that differences between the paintings were accounted for not only by the model having aged, but that the narrower face and closer eyes in the Louvre painting could be accounted for by Leonardo experimenting with painting from a binocular visual perspective, rather than the traditional monocular perspective. British fine arts consultant Archibald Cecil Chappelow of the Royal Society of Arts, wrote in 1956 that "the face is superbly painted, and the hands more neatly defined than those in the Louvre painting". Asmus specifically asserted that "portions of the hands in the Louvre painting have been criticized as being 'fat and ugly'", while "it is intriguing to note that the Isleworth thumb is more slender and closer to what would be expected from Leonardo". Asmus notes that this may be the result of inept repair work later on. Konody further stated of the painting that "[t]he hands, with their careful and somewhat hard drawing and terra cotta coloring, suggest at once the name of Leonardo's pupil, Marco d' Oggionno; whereas the inimitably soft and lovely painting of the head and bust, the exquisite subtlety of the expression, the golden glow of the general coloring, can be due only to Leonardo". Spiridon thought that "[t]he redness of the hands is probably due to a bad varnish that could be removed". Konody found the features of the Isleworth painting overall to be "more delicate" than those of the Louvre painting, stating of them, "let it be boldly stated, far more pleasing and beautiful than in the Louvre version".</blockquote>

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの帰属に関する顔と手を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Adolfo Venturi
Archibald Cecil Chappelow
Arduino Colasanti
Deseret News
Henry F. Pulitzer
Isleworth
John F. Asmus
Lorenzo Cecconi
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Physicist
Royal Society of Arts


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Konody observed of the Isleworth subject that "[t]he head is inclined at a different angle". Physicist John F. Asmus, who had previously examined the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and investigated other works by Leonardo, published a computer image processing study in 1988 concluding that the brush strokes of the face in the painting were performed by the same artist responsible for the brush strokes of the face of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. Asmus found that the head appears to be "tilted forward toward the viewer... consistent with the dramatically shorter appearing neck, which is also a greater angle to the vertical than that of the Louvre painting". Another early reviewer commented that "[t]he head is tilted more forward and the parting of the hair is exactly in the center, while that of the Louvre picture starts in the middle of the forehead and runs towards the back of the head at an impossible and incorrect angle". Asmus observed that "the Isleworth figure has a somewhat higher forehead, a slightly wider face, and less of a bulge in the veil over the proper left side of the head". He further reported that "the eyes are much wider set in the Isleworth painting". John Eyre reported Adolfo Venturi, in his early 1920s examination, praised "the beauty of the eye drawing... is the principal portion done by Leonardo together with the line of the mouth".A review of the painting in the Deseret News shortly after it was first shown to the public describes its tonality as being darker, and describes the coloring as being in "accordance with almost all the works attributed to Leonardo—that of a golden glow—while the finish is of a most minute character". Italian curator Lorenzo Cecconi, who also examined the painting in the 1920s, said that "the fusion of the tints of the flesh, especially in the eyes; the line which designs the nose, the mouth, and the oval of the face" were remarkable, and indicated that "this may be a second work of the Great Leonardo". In the same period, Renaissance scholar Arduino Colasanti thought "the upper part with the eyes and nose of the face" were definitely by Leonardo, and noted collector Ludovico Spiridon stated that "the face has been painted by Leonardo; no doubt of this at all". In the 1960s, the art dealer Henry F. Pulitzer claimed that "densitometric tests on the planes of face and hands show a gradual change of tone values from dark to light which only [Leonardo] da Vinci, with his amazing eyesight, was capable of". Asmus similarly found in the 1980s that amplitude histograms sorting the number of pixels of each brightness level in these features "reveal a remarkable similarity even though the images are noticeably different". Other differences have been observed with respect to aspects of the face:French artist Albert Sauteur suggested in 2014 that differences between the paintings were accounted for not only by the model having aged, but that the narrower face and closer eyes in the Louvre painting could be accounted for by Leonardo experimenting with painting from a binocular visual perspective, rather than the traditional monocular perspective. British fine arts consultant Archibald Cecil Chappelow of the Royal Society of Arts, wrote in 1956 that "the face is superbly painted, and the hands more neatly defined than those in the Louvre painting". Asmus specifically asserted that "portions of the hands in the Louvre painting have been criticized as being 'fat and ugly'", while "it is intriguing to note that the Isleworth thumb is more slender and closer to what would be expected from Leonardo". Asmus notes that this may be the result of inept repair work later on. Konody further stated of the painting that "[t]he hands, with their careful and somewhat hard drawing and terra cotta coloring, suggest at once the name of Leonardo's pupil, Marco d' Oggionno; whereas the inimitably soft and lovely painting of the head and bust, the exquisite subtlety of the expression, the golden glow of the general coloring, can be due only to Leonardo". Spiridon thought that "[t]he redness of the hands is probably due to a bad varnish that could be removed". Konody found the features of the Isleworth painting overall to be "more delicate" than those of the Louvre painting, stating of them, "let it be boldly stated, far more pleasing and beautiful than in the Louvre version".</blockquote>

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザでは、どのように帰属の顔と手が説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Adolfo Venturi
Archibald Cecil Chappelow
Arduino Colasanti
Deseret News
Henry F. Pulitzer
Isleworth
John F. Asmus
Lorenzo Cecconi
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Physicist
Royal Society of Arts


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Konody observed of the Isleworth subject that "[t]he head is inclined at a different angle". Physicist John F. Asmus, who had previously examined the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and investigated other works by Leonardo, published a computer image processing study in 1988 concluding that the brush strokes of the face in the painting were performed by the same artist responsible for the brush strokes of the face of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. Asmus found that the head appears to be "tilted forward toward the viewer... consistent with the dramatically shorter appearing neck, which is also a greater angle to the vertical than that of the Louvre painting". Another early reviewer commented that "[t]he head is tilted more forward and the parting of the hair is exactly in the center, while that of the Louvre picture starts in the middle of the forehead and runs towards the back of the head at an impossible and incorrect angle". Asmus observed that "the Isleworth figure has a somewhat higher forehead, a slightly wider face, and less of a bulge in the veil over the proper left side of the head". He further reported that "the eyes are much wider set in the Isleworth painting". John Eyre reported Adolfo Venturi, in his early 1920s examination, praised "the beauty of the eye drawing... is the principal portion done by Leonardo together with the line of the mouth".A review of the painting in the Deseret News shortly after it was first shown to the public describes its tonality as being darker, and describes the coloring as being in "accordance with almost all the works attributed to Leonardo—that of a golden glow—while the finish is of a most minute character". Italian curator Lorenzo Cecconi, who also examined the painting in the 1920s, said that "the fusion of the tints of the flesh, especially in the eyes; the line which designs the nose, the mouth, and the oval of the face" were remarkable, and indicated that "this may be a second work of the Great Leonardo". In the same period, Renaissance scholar Arduino Colasanti thought "the upper part with the eyes and nose of the face" were definitely by Leonardo, and noted collector Ludovico Spiridon stated that "the face has been painted by Leonardo; no doubt of this at all". In the 1960s, the art dealer Henry F. Pulitzer claimed that "densitometric tests on the planes of face and hands show a gradual change of tone values from dark to light which only [Leonardo] da Vinci, with his amazing eyesight, was capable of". Asmus similarly found in the 1980s that amplitude histograms sorting the number of pixels of each brightness level in these features "reveal a remarkable similarity even though the images are noticeably different". Other differences have been observed with respect to aspects of the face:French artist Albert Sauteur suggested in 2014 that differences between the paintings were accounted for not only by the model having aged, but that the narrower face and closer eyes in the Louvre painting could be accounted for by Leonardo experimenting with painting from a binocular visual perspective, rather than the traditional monocular perspective. British fine arts consultant Archibald Cecil Chappelow of the Royal Society of Arts, wrote in 1956 that "the face is superbly painted, and the hands more neatly defined than those in the Louvre painting". Asmus specifically asserted that "portions of the hands in the Louvre painting have been criticized as being 'fat and ugly'", while "it is intriguing to note that the Isleworth thumb is more slender and closer to what would be expected from Leonardo". Asmus notes that this may be the result of inept repair work later on. Konody further stated of the painting that "[t]he hands, with their careful and somewhat hard drawing and terra cotta coloring, suggest at once the name of Leonardo's pupil, Marco d' Oggionno; whereas the inimitably soft and lovely painting of the head and bust, the exquisite subtlety of the expression, the golden glow of the general coloring, can be due only to Leonardo". Spiridon thought that "[t]he redness of the hands is probably due to a bad varnish that could be removed". Konody found the features of the Isleworth painting overall to be "more delicate" than those of the Louvre painting, stating of them, "let it be boldly stated, far more pleasing and beautiful than in the Louvre version".</blockquote>

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの帰属における顔と手の特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Adolfo Venturi
Archibald Cecil Chappelow
Arduino Colasanti
Deseret News
Henry F. Pulitzer
Isleworth
John F. Asmus
Lorenzo Cecconi
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Physicist
Royal Society of Arts


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

The Detroit Free Press reported in 1914 that "[t]he hair which falls over the left shoulder is hardly indicated against the left breast, thus differing from the Louvre picture".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの文脈で、ヘアアンドボディと帰属を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

The Detroit Free Press reported in 1914 that "[t]he hair which falls over the left shoulder is hardly indicated against the left breast, thus differing from the Louvre picture".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの帰属に関するヘアアンドボディを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

The Detroit Free Press reported in 1914 that "[t]he hair which falls over the left shoulder is hardly indicated against the left breast, thus differing from the Louvre picture".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザでは、どのように帰属のヘアアンドボディが説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

The Detroit Free Press reported in 1914 that "[t]he hair which falls over the left shoulder is hardly indicated against the left breast, thus differing from the Louvre picture".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの帰属におけるヘアアンドボディの特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。