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

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・リザの帰属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、どのように帰属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・リザの帰属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、起源と帰属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・リザの帰属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、どのように帰属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・リザの帰属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、再発見後の歴史と帰属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・リザの帰属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、どのように帰属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・リザの帰属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、初診と帰属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・リザの帰属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、どのように帰属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・リザの帰属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、アスムスと帰属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・リザの帰属に関する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、どのように帰属の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・リザの帰属における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世紀試験と帰属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・リザの帰属に関する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、どのように帰属の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・リザの帰属における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

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・リザの帰属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、どのように帰属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・リザの帰属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。


section

夜のカフェ

F463JH1575 year               =  medium             = Oil on canvas material           =  subject            =  height_metric      = 72.4 width_metric       = 92.1 height_imperial    = 28.5 width_imperial     = 36.3 metric_unit        = cm imperial_unit      = in city               = New Haven museum             = Yale University Art Gallery owner              = }}The Night Café  is an oil painting created by Dutch artist Vincent van Gogh in September 1888 in Arles. Its title is inscribed lower right beneath the signature. The painting is owned by Yale University and is currently held at the Yale University Art Gallery in New Haven, Connecticut.The interior depicted is the Café de la Gare, 30 Place martine, run by Joseph-Michel Ginoux and his wife Marie, who in November 1888 posed for Van Gogh's and Gauguin's Arlésienne; a bit later, Joseph Ginoux evidently posed for both artists, too.

Prompt: 夜のカフェに焦点を当てて、その抽象を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Arles
New Haven, Connecticut
Vincent van Gogh
Yale University
Yale University Art Gallery


section

夜のカフェ

F463JH1575 year               =  medium             = Oil on canvas material           =  subject            =  height_metric      = 72.4 width_metric       = 92.1 height_imperial    = 28.5 width_imperial     = 36.3 metric_unit        = cm imperial_unit      = in city               = New Haven museum             = Yale University Art Gallery owner              = }}The Night Café  is an oil painting created by Dutch artist Vincent van Gogh in September 1888 in Arles. Its title is inscribed lower right beneath the signature. The painting is owned by Yale University and is currently held at the Yale University Art Gallery in New Haven, Connecticut.The interior depicted is the Café de la Gare, 30 Place martine, run by Joseph-Michel Ginoux and his wife Marie, who in November 1888 posed for Van Gogh's and Gauguin's Arlésienne; a bit later, Joseph Ginoux evidently posed for both artists, too.

Prompt: 夜のカフェの抽象を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Arles
New Haven, Connecticut
Vincent van Gogh
Yale University
Yale University Art Gallery


section

夜のカフェ

F463JH1575 year               =  medium             = Oil on canvas material           =  subject            =  height_metric      = 72.4 width_metric       = 92.1 height_imperial    = 28.5 width_imperial     = 36.3 metric_unit        = cm imperial_unit      = in city               = New Haven museum             = Yale University Art Gallery owner              = }}The Night Café  is an oil painting created by Dutch artist Vincent van Gogh in September 1888 in Arles. Its title is inscribed lower right beneath the signature. The painting is owned by Yale University and is currently held at the Yale University Art Gallery in New Haven, Connecticut.The interior depicted is the Café de la Gare, 30 Place martine, run by Joseph-Michel Ginoux and his wife Marie, who in November 1888 posed for Van Gogh's and Gauguin's Arlésienne; a bit later, Joseph Ginoux evidently posed for both artists, too.

Prompt: 夜のカフェはどのように抽象を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Arles
New Haven, Connecticut
Vincent van Gogh
Yale University
Yale University Art Gallery


section

夜のカフェ

F463JH1575 year               =  medium             = Oil on canvas material           =  subject            =  height_metric      = 72.4 width_metric       = 92.1 height_imperial    = 28.5 width_imperial     = 36.3 metric_unit        = cm imperial_unit      = in city               = New Haven museum             = Yale University Art Gallery owner              = }}The Night Café  is an oil painting created by Dutch artist Vincent van Gogh in September 1888 in Arles. Its title is inscribed lower right beneath the signature. The painting is owned by Yale University and is currently held at the Yale University Art Gallery in New Haven, Connecticut.The interior depicted is the Café de la Gare, 30 Place martine, run by Joseph-Michel Ginoux and his wife Marie, who in November 1888 posed for Van Gogh's and Gauguin's Arlésienne; a bit later, Joseph Ginoux evidently posed for both artists, too.

Prompt: 夜のカフェに関して、どのように抽象が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Arles
New Haven, Connecticut
Vincent van Gogh
Yale University
Yale University Art Gallery


section

夜のカフェ

The painting was executed on industrial primed canvas of size 30 . It depicts the interior of the cafe, with a half-curtained doorway in the center background leading, presumably, to more private quarters. Five customers sit at tables along the walls to the left and right, with Ginoux, the landlord said to be depicted  in it, to one side of a billiard table near the center of the room, facing the viewer. The five customers depicted in the scene have been described as "three drunks and derelicts in a large public room [...] huddled down in sleep or stupor." One scholar wrote, "The cafe was an all-night haunt of local down-and-outs and prostitutes, who are depicted slouched at tables and drinking together at the far end of the room.".In wildly contrasting, vivid colours, the ceiling is green, the upper walls red, the glowing, gas ceiling lamps and floor largely yellow. The paint is applied thickly, with many of the lines of the room leading toward the door in the back. The perspective looks somewhat downward toward the floor.

Prompt: 夜のカフェに焦点を当てて、その説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

The painting was executed on industrial primed canvas of size 30 . It depicts the interior of the cafe, with a half-curtained doorway in the center background leading, presumably, to more private quarters. Five customers sit at tables along the walls to the left and right, with Ginoux, the landlord said to be depicted  in it, to one side of a billiard table near the center of the room, facing the viewer. The five customers depicted in the scene have been described as "three drunks and derelicts in a large public room [...] huddled down in sleep or stupor." One scholar wrote, "The cafe was an all-night haunt of local down-and-outs and prostitutes, who are depicted slouched at tables and drinking together at the far end of the room.".In wildly contrasting, vivid colours, the ceiling is green, the upper walls red, the glowing, gas ceiling lamps and floor largely yellow. The paint is applied thickly, with many of the lines of the room leading toward the door in the back. The perspective looks somewhat downward toward the floor.

Prompt: 夜のカフェの説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

The painting was executed on industrial primed canvas of size 30 . It depicts the interior of the cafe, with a half-curtained doorway in the center background leading, presumably, to more private quarters. Five customers sit at tables along the walls to the left and right, with Ginoux, the landlord said to be depicted  in it, to one side of a billiard table near the center of the room, facing the viewer. The five customers depicted in the scene have been described as "three drunks and derelicts in a large public room [...] huddled down in sleep or stupor." One scholar wrote, "The cafe was an all-night haunt of local down-and-outs and prostitutes, who are depicted slouched at tables and drinking together at the far end of the room.".In wildly contrasting, vivid colours, the ceiling is green, the upper walls red, the glowing, gas ceiling lamps and floor largely yellow. The paint is applied thickly, with many of the lines of the room leading toward the door in the back. The perspective looks somewhat downward toward the floor.

Prompt: 夜のカフェはどのように説明を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

The painting was executed on industrial primed canvas of size 30 . It depicts the interior of the cafe, with a half-curtained doorway in the center background leading, presumably, to more private quarters. Five customers sit at tables along the walls to the left and right, with Ginoux, the landlord said to be depicted  in it, to one side of a billiard table near the center of the room, facing the viewer. The five customers depicted in the scene have been described as "three drunks and derelicts in a large public room [...] huddled down in sleep or stupor." One scholar wrote, "The cafe was an all-night haunt of local down-and-outs and prostitutes, who are depicted slouched at tables and drinking together at the far end of the room.".In wildly contrasting, vivid colours, the ceiling is green, the upper walls red, the glowing, gas ceiling lamps and floor largely yellow. The paint is applied thickly, with many of the lines of the room leading toward the door in the back. The perspective looks somewhat downward toward the floor.

Prompt: 夜のカフェに関して、どのように説明が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

In a jocular passage of a letter Van Gogh wrote to his brother, Theo, the artist said Ginoux had taken so much of his money that he'd told the cafe owner it was time to take his revenge by painting the place.Van Gogh's Cafe Terrace at Night, showing outdoor tables, a street scene and the night sky, was painted in Arles at about the same time. It depicts a different cafe, a larger establishment on the Place du Forum.

Prompt: 夜のカフェに焦点を当てて、その創世記を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

In a jocular passage of a letter Van Gogh wrote to his brother, Theo, the artist said Ginoux had taken so much of his money that he'd told the cafe owner it was time to take his revenge by painting the place.Van Gogh's Cafe Terrace at Night, showing outdoor tables, a street scene and the night sky, was painted in Arles at about the same time. It depicts a different cafe, a larger establishment on the Place du Forum.

Prompt: 夜のカフェの創世記を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

In a jocular passage of a letter Van Gogh wrote to his brother, Theo, the artist said Ginoux had taken so much of his money that he'd told the cafe owner it was time to take his revenge by painting the place.Van Gogh's Cafe Terrace at Night, showing outdoor tables, a street scene and the night sky, was painted in Arles at about the same time. It depicts a different cafe, a larger establishment on the Place du Forum.

Prompt: 夜のカフェはどのように創世記を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

In a jocular passage of a letter Van Gogh wrote to his brother, Theo, the artist said Ginoux had taken so much of his money that he'd told the cafe owner it was time to take his revenge by painting the place.Van Gogh's Cafe Terrace at Night, showing outdoor tables, a street scene and the night sky, was painted in Arles at about the same time. It depicts a different cafe, a larger establishment on the Place du Forum.

Prompt: 夜のカフェに関して、どのように創世記が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

Soon after his arrival in Arles, Paul Gauguin painted the same location, as a background to his portrait of Madame Ginoux. While the Van Gogh painting depicts the café as a room of isolation, Gauguin's Night Café at Arles mixes the concepts of isolation  and spirited socializing , behind Madame Ginoux.It was also acquired by Ivan Morozov and now hangs in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts.

Prompt: 夜のカフェに焦点を当てて、そのゴーギャンの競作を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

Soon after his arrival in Arles, Paul Gauguin painted the same location, as a background to his portrait of Madame Ginoux. While the Van Gogh painting depicts the café as a room of isolation, Gauguin's Night Café at Arles mixes the concepts of isolation  and spirited socializing , behind Madame Ginoux.It was also acquired by Ivan Morozov and now hangs in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts.

Prompt: 夜のカフェのゴーギャンの競作を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

Soon after his arrival in Arles, Paul Gauguin painted the same location, as a background to his portrait of Madame Ginoux. While the Van Gogh painting depicts the café as a room of isolation, Gauguin's Night Café at Arles mixes the concepts of isolation  and spirited socializing , behind Madame Ginoux.It was also acquired by Ivan Morozov and now hangs in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts.

Prompt: 夜のカフェはどのようにゴーギャンの競作を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

Soon after his arrival in Arles, Paul Gauguin painted the same location, as a background to his portrait of Madame Ginoux. While the Van Gogh painting depicts the café as a room of isolation, Gauguin's Night Café at Arles mixes the concepts of isolation  and spirited socializing , behind Madame Ginoux.It was also acquired by Ivan Morozov and now hangs in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts.

Prompt: 夜のカフェに関して、どのようにゴーギャンの競作が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

Van Gogh used the picture to settle debts with Ginoux, the landlord said to be depicted  in it. Yale dropped its lawsuit in October of that year, in a motion which stated “it is well-established that a foreign nation’s taking of its own national’s property within its own borders does not violate international law,” claiming that both the Soviet and Yale acquisitions of the painting were therefore legal.On March 27, 2016 the United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Konowaloff regarding the case, siding with a federal appeals court in New York cited the “act of state” doctrine. The rejection means Yale's ownership is absolute.

Prompt: 夜のカフェに焦点を当てて、その歴史を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

Van Gogh used the picture to settle debts with Ginoux, the landlord said to be depicted  in it. Yale dropped its lawsuit in October of that year, in a motion which stated “it is well-established that a foreign nation’s taking of its own national’s property within its own borders does not violate international law,” claiming that both the Soviet and Yale acquisitions of the painting were therefore legal.On March 27, 2016 the United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Konowaloff regarding the case, siding with a federal appeals court in New York cited the “act of state” doctrine. The rejection means Yale's ownership is absolute.

Prompt: 夜のカフェの歴史を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

Van Gogh used the picture to settle debts with Ginoux, the landlord said to be depicted  in it. Yale dropped its lawsuit in October of that year, in a motion which stated “it is well-established that a foreign nation’s taking of its own national’s property within its own borders does not violate international law,” claiming that both the Soviet and Yale acquisitions of the painting were therefore legal.On March 27, 2016 the United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Konowaloff regarding the case, siding with a federal appeals court in New York cited the “act of state” doctrine. The rejection means Yale's ownership is absolute.

Prompt: 夜のカフェはどのように歴史を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

Van Gogh used the picture to settle debts with Ginoux, the landlord said to be depicted  in it. Yale dropped its lawsuit in October of that year, in a motion which stated “it is well-established that a foreign nation’s taking of its own national’s property within its own borders does not violate international law,” claiming that both the Soviet and Yale acquisitions of the painting were therefore legal.On March 27, 2016 the United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Konowaloff regarding the case, siding with a federal appeals court in New York cited the “act of state” doctrine. The rejection means Yale's ownership is absolute.

Prompt: 夜のカフェに関して、どのように歴史が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

The Night Café, a British indie pop band formed in 2014, is named after the painting.

Prompt: 夜のカフェに焦点を当てて、その同名を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

The Night Café, a British indie pop band formed in 2014, is named after the painting.

Prompt: 夜のカフェの同名を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

The Night Café, a British indie pop band formed in 2014, is named after the painting.

Prompt: 夜のカフェはどのように同名を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

The Night Café, a British indie pop band formed in 2014, is named after the painting.

Prompt: 夜のカフェに関して、どのように同名が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

Prompt: 夜のカフェに焦点を当てて、その参照を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

List of works by Vincent van Gogh
Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings
Vincent van Gogh


section

夜のカフェ

Prompt: 夜のカフェの参照を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

List of works by Vincent van Gogh
Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings
Vincent van Gogh


section

夜のカフェ

Prompt: 夜のカフェはどのように参照を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。

List of works by Vincent van Gogh
Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings
Vincent van Gogh


section

夜のカフェ

Prompt: 夜のカフェに関して、どのように参照が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

List of works by Vincent van Gogh
Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings
Vincent van Gogh


section

夜のカフェ

Dorn, Roland: Décoration: Vincent Van Gogh's Werkreihe für das Gelbe Haus in Arles, Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim, Zürich & New York 1990, pp. 370–375   /

Prompt: 夜のカフェに焦点を当てて、その参考文献を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

Dorn, Roland: Décoration: Vincent Van Gogh's Werkreihe für das Gelbe Haus in Arles, Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim, Zürich & New York 1990, pp. 370–375   /

Prompt: 夜のカフェの参考文献を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

Dorn, Roland: Décoration: Vincent Van Gogh's Werkreihe für das Gelbe Haus in Arles, Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim, Zürich & New York 1990, pp. 370–375   /

Prompt: 夜のカフェはどのように参考文献を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

夜のカフェ

Dorn, Roland: Décoration: Vincent Van Gogh's Werkreihe für das Gelbe Haus in Arles, Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim, Zürich & New York 1990, pp. 370–375   /

Prompt: 夜のカフェに関して、どのように参考文献が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

夜のカフェ

Van Gogh wrote many letters to his brother, Theo van Gogh, and often included details of his latest work. The artist wrote his brother more than once about The Night Café. According to Meyer Schapiro, "there are few works on which [Van Gogh] has written with more conviction."In one of the letters he describes this painting: The next day , he wrote Theo: "In my picture of the Night Café I have tried to express the idea that the café is a place where one can ruin oneself, go mad or commit a crime. So I have tried to express, as it were, the powers of darkness in a low public house, by soft Louis XV green and malachite, contrasting with yellow-green and harsh blue-greens, and all this in an atmosphere like a devil's furnace, of pale sulphur. And all with an appearance of Japanese gaiety, and the good nature of Tartarin."He also wrote: "It is color not locally true from the point of view of the stereoscopic realist, but color to suggest the emotion of an ardent temperament."

Prompt: 夜のカフェの文脈で、ヴァン・ゴッホと創世記を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

夜のカフェ

Van Gogh wrote many letters to his brother, Theo van Gogh, and often included details of his latest work. The artist wrote his brother more than once about The Night Café. According to Meyer Schapiro, "there are few works on which [Van Gogh] has written with more conviction."In one of the letters he describes this painting: The next day , he wrote Theo: "In my picture of the Night Café I have tried to express the idea that the café is a place where one can ruin oneself, go mad or commit a crime. So I have tried to express, as it were, the powers of darkness in a low public house, by soft Louis XV green and malachite, contrasting with yellow-green and harsh blue-greens, and all this in an atmosphere like a devil's furnace, of pale sulphur. And all with an appearance of Japanese gaiety, and the good nature of Tartarin."He also wrote: "It is color not locally true from the point of view of the stereoscopic realist, but color to suggest the emotion of an ardent temperament."

Prompt: 夜のカフェの創世記に関するヴァン・ゴッホを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

夜のカフェ

Van Gogh wrote many letters to his brother, Theo van Gogh, and often included details of his latest work. The artist wrote his brother more than once about The Night Café. According to Meyer Schapiro, "there are few works on which [Van Gogh] has written with more conviction."In one of the letters he describes this painting: The next day , he wrote Theo: "In my picture of the Night Café I have tried to express the idea that the café is a place where one can ruin oneself, go mad or commit a crime. So I have tried to express, as it were, the powers of darkness in a low public house, by soft Louis XV green and malachite, contrasting with yellow-green and harsh blue-greens, and all this in an atmosphere like a devil's furnace, of pale sulphur. And all with an appearance of Japanese gaiety, and the good nature of Tartarin."He also wrote: "It is color not locally true from the point of view of the stereoscopic realist, but color to suggest the emotion of an ardent temperament."

Prompt: 夜のカフェでは、どのように創世記のヴァン・ゴッホが説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

夜のカフェ

Van Gogh wrote many letters to his brother, Theo van Gogh, and often included details of his latest work. The artist wrote his brother more than once about The Night Café. According to Meyer Schapiro, "there are few works on which [Van Gogh] has written with more conviction."In one of the letters he describes this painting: The next day , he wrote Theo: "In my picture of the Night Café I have tried to express the idea that the café is a place where one can ruin oneself, go mad or commit a crime. So I have tried to express, as it were, the powers of darkness in a low public house, by soft Louis XV green and malachite, contrasting with yellow-green and harsh blue-greens, and all this in an atmosphere like a devil's furnace, of pale sulphur. And all with an appearance of Japanese gaiety, and the good nature of Tartarin."He also wrote: "It is color not locally true from the point of view of the stereoscopic realist, but color to suggest the emotion of an ardent temperament."

Prompt: 夜のカフェの創世記におけるヴァン・ゴッホの特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

夜のカフェ

The work has been called one of Van Gogh's masterpieces and one of his most famous.Unlike typical Impressionist works, the painter does not project a neutral stance towards the world or an attitude of enjoyment of the beauty of nature or of the moment. The painting is an instance of Van Gogh's use of what he called "suggestive colour" or, as he would soon term it, "arbitrary colour" in which the artist infused his works with his emotions, typical of what was later called Expressionism.The red and green of the walls and ceiling are an "oppressive combination", and the lamps are "sinister features" with orange-and-green halos, according to Nathaniel Harris. "The top half of the canvas creates its basic mood, as any viewer can verify by looking at it with one or the other half of the reproduction covered up; the bottom half supplies the 'facts.'" The thick paint adds a surreal touch of waviness to the table tops, billiard table and floor. The viewer is left with a feeling of seediness and despair, Harris wrote. "The scene might easily be banal and dispiriting; instead, it is dispiriting but also terrible."The objects of pleasure  are contrasted in the picture with the "few human beings absorbed in their individual loneliness and despair", Antonia nt commented.The perspective of the scene is one of its most powerful effects, according to various critics. Schapiro described the painting's "absorbing perspective which draws us headlong past empty chairs and tables into hidden depths behind a distant doorway — an opening like the silhouette of the standing figure." nt described it as a "shocking perspectival rush, which draws us, by the converging diagonals of floorboards and billiard table, towards the mysterious, courtained doorway beyond." Harris wrote that the perspective "pitches the viewer forward into the room, towards the half-curtained private quarters, and also creates a sense of vertigo and distorted vision, familiar from nightmares." Schapiro also noted, "To the impulsive rush of these converging lines he opposes the broad horizontal band of red, full of scattered objects [...]"

Prompt: 夜のカフェの文脈で、批評家と学者の反応と創世記を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

夜のカフェ

The work has been called one of Van Gogh's masterpieces and one of his most famous.Unlike typical Impressionist works, the painter does not project a neutral stance towards the world or an attitude of enjoyment of the beauty of nature or of the moment. The painting is an instance of Van Gogh's use of what he called "suggestive colour" or, as he would soon term it, "arbitrary colour" in which the artist infused his works with his emotions, typical of what was later called Expressionism.The red and green of the walls and ceiling are an "oppressive combination", and the lamps are "sinister features" with orange-and-green halos, according to Nathaniel Harris. "The top half of the canvas creates its basic mood, as any viewer can verify by looking at it with one or the other half of the reproduction covered up; the bottom half supplies the 'facts.'" The thick paint adds a surreal touch of waviness to the table tops, billiard table and floor. The viewer is left with a feeling of seediness and despair, Harris wrote. "The scene might easily be banal and dispiriting; instead, it is dispiriting but also terrible."The objects of pleasure  are contrasted in the picture with the "few human beings absorbed in their individual loneliness and despair", Antonia nt commented.The perspective of the scene is one of its most powerful effects, according to various critics. Schapiro described the painting's "absorbing perspective which draws us headlong past empty chairs and tables into hidden depths behind a distant doorway — an opening like the silhouette of the standing figure." nt described it as a "shocking perspectival rush, which draws us, by the converging diagonals of floorboards and billiard table, towards the mysterious, courtained doorway beyond." Harris wrote that the perspective "pitches the viewer forward into the room, towards the half-curtained private quarters, and also creates a sense of vertigo and distorted vision, familiar from nightmares." Schapiro also noted, "To the impulsive rush of these converging lines he opposes the broad horizontal band of red, full of scattered objects [...]"

Prompt: 夜のカフェの創世記に関する批評家と学者の反応を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

夜のカフェ

The work has been called one of Van Gogh's masterpieces and one of his most famous.Unlike typical Impressionist works, the painter does not project a neutral stance towards the world or an attitude of enjoyment of the beauty of nature or of the moment. The painting is an instance of Van Gogh's use of what he called "suggestive colour" or, as he would soon term it, "arbitrary colour" in which the artist infused his works with his emotions, typical of what was later called Expressionism.The red and green of the walls and ceiling are an "oppressive combination", and the lamps are "sinister features" with orange-and-green halos, according to Nathaniel Harris. "The top half of the canvas creates its basic mood, as any viewer can verify by looking at it with one or the other half of the reproduction covered up; the bottom half supplies the 'facts.'" The thick paint adds a surreal touch of waviness to the table tops, billiard table and floor. The viewer is left with a feeling of seediness and despair, Harris wrote. "The scene might easily be banal and dispiriting; instead, it is dispiriting but also terrible."The objects of pleasure  are contrasted in the picture with the "few human beings absorbed in their individual loneliness and despair", Antonia nt commented.The perspective of the scene is one of its most powerful effects, according to various critics. Schapiro described the painting's "absorbing perspective which draws us headlong past empty chairs and tables into hidden depths behind a distant doorway — an opening like the silhouette of the standing figure." nt described it as a "shocking perspectival rush, which draws us, by the converging diagonals of floorboards and billiard table, towards the mysterious, courtained doorway beyond." Harris wrote that the perspective "pitches the viewer forward into the room, towards the half-curtained private quarters, and also creates a sense of vertigo and distorted vision, familiar from nightmares." Schapiro also noted, "To the impulsive rush of these converging lines he opposes the broad horizontal band of red, full of scattered objects [...]"

Prompt: 夜のカフェでは、どのように創世記の批評家と学者の反応が説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

夜のカフェ

The work has been called one of Van Gogh's masterpieces and one of his most famous.Unlike typical Impressionist works, the painter does not project a neutral stance towards the world or an attitude of enjoyment of the beauty of nature or of the moment. The painting is an instance of Van Gogh's use of what he called "suggestive colour" or, as he would soon term it, "arbitrary colour" in which the artist infused his works with his emotions, typical of what was later called Expressionism.The red and green of the walls and ceiling are an "oppressive combination", and the lamps are "sinister features" with orange-and-green halos, according to Nathaniel Harris. "The top half of the canvas creates its basic mood, as any viewer can verify by looking at it with one or the other half of the reproduction covered up; the bottom half supplies the 'facts.'" The thick paint adds a surreal touch of waviness to the table tops, billiard table and floor. The viewer is left with a feeling of seediness and despair, Harris wrote. "The scene might easily be banal and dispiriting; instead, it is dispiriting but also terrible."The objects of pleasure  are contrasted in the picture with the "few human beings absorbed in their individual loneliness and despair", Antonia nt commented.The perspective of the scene is one of its most powerful effects, according to various critics. Schapiro described the painting's "absorbing perspective which draws us headlong past empty chairs and tables into hidden depths behind a distant doorway — an opening like the silhouette of the standing figure." nt described it as a "shocking perspectival rush, which draws us, by the converging diagonals of floorboards and billiard table, towards the mysterious, courtained doorway beyond." Harris wrote that the perspective "pitches the viewer forward into the room, towards the half-curtained private quarters, and also creates a sense of vertigo and distorted vision, familiar from nightmares." Schapiro also noted, "To the impulsive rush of these converging lines he opposes the broad horizontal band of red, full of scattered objects [...]"

Prompt: 夜のカフェの創世記における批評家と学者の反応の特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

悲しむ老人

F702JH1967 height_metric=80 width_metric=64 height_imperial=31.5 width_imperial=21.2 metric_unit=cm imperial_unit=in city=Otterlo museum=Kröller-Müller Museum}}	Sorrowing Old Man  is an oil painting by Vincent van Gogh that he made in 1890 in Saint-Rémy de Provence based on an early lithograph. The painting was completed in early May at a time when he was convalescing from a severe relapse in his health some two months before his death, which is generally accepted as a suicide.In the 1970 catalogue raisonné, it was given the title Worn Out: At Eternity's Gate.

Prompt: 悲しむ老人に焦点を当てて、その抽象を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

悲しむ老人

F702JH1967 height_metric=80 width_metric=64 height_imperial=31.5 width_imperial=21.2 metric_unit=cm imperial_unit=in city=Otterlo museum=Kröller-Müller Museum}}	Sorrowing Old Man  is an oil painting by Vincent van Gogh that he made in 1890 in Saint-Rémy de Provence based on an early lithograph. The painting was completed in early May at a time when he was convalescing from a severe relapse in his health some two months before his death, which is generally accepted as a suicide.In the 1970 catalogue raisonné, it was given the title Worn Out: At Eternity's Gate.

Prompt: 悲しむ老人の抽象を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

悲しむ老人

F702JH1967 height_metric=80 width_metric=64 height_imperial=31.5 width_imperial=21.2 metric_unit=cm imperial_unit=in city=Otterlo museum=Kröller-Müller Museum}}	Sorrowing Old Man  is an oil painting by Vincent van Gogh that he made in 1890 in Saint-Rémy de Provence based on an early lithograph. The painting was completed in early May at a time when he was convalescing from a severe relapse in his health some two months before his death, which is generally accepted as a suicide.In the 1970 catalogue raisonné, it was given the title Worn Out: At Eternity's Gate.

Prompt: 悲しむ老人はどのように抽象を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

悲しむ老人

F702JH1967 height_metric=80 width_metric=64 height_imperial=31.5 width_imperial=21.2 metric_unit=cm imperial_unit=in city=Otterlo museum=Kröller-Müller Museum}}	Sorrowing Old Man  is an oil painting by Vincent van Gogh that he made in 1890 in Saint-Rémy de Provence based on an early lithograph. The painting was completed in early May at a time when he was convalescing from a severe relapse in his health some two months before his death, which is generally accepted as a suicide.In the 1970 catalogue raisonné, it was given the title Worn Out: At Eternity's Gate.

Prompt: 悲しむ老人に関して、どのように抽象が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

悲しむ老人

The lithograph was based on a pencil drawing Worn Out, one of a series of studies he made in 1882 of a pensioner and war veteran, Adrianus Jacobus Zuyderland, at a local almshouse in The Hague and itself a reworking of a drawing and watercolour he had made the previous year. The inspiration for Worn Out was  Hubert von Herkomer's Sunday at the Chelsea Hospital, an immensely popular print depicting an old war veteran slumped dead that went on to become an acclaimed painting at the Royal Academy, The st Muster, that Van Gogh had seen in 1875 when in England. Van Gogh wrote of his drawing:Van Gogh's first attempt at the lithograph followed just two days later. He wrote: ter, in a rare expression of his own religious feelings, he wrote expressly about this lithograph and two other drawings also posed by Zuyderland, of an old man reading a Bible and saying grace  respectively:Seven impressions of the lithograph are known, of which one is annotated At Eternity's Gate. The same theme is taken up again in two later 1883 studies of a seated woman.In 2021, a drawing in a private collection in the Netherlands since 1910 was authenticated as a preliminary study for the original pencil drawing Worn Out by the Van Gogh Museum and put on display. The Van Gogh Museum had previously been aware of the existence of the study for some time.

Prompt: 悲しむ老人に焦点を当てて、そのリトグラフを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Hubert von Herkomer
The Hague
Van Gogh Museum


section

悲しむ老人

The lithograph was based on a pencil drawing Worn Out, one of a series of studies he made in 1882 of a pensioner and war veteran, Adrianus Jacobus Zuyderland, at a local almshouse in The Hague and itself a reworking of a drawing and watercolour he had made the previous year. The inspiration for Worn Out was  Hubert von Herkomer's Sunday at the Chelsea Hospital, an immensely popular print depicting an old war veteran slumped dead that went on to become an acclaimed painting at the Royal Academy, The st Muster, that Van Gogh had seen in 1875 when in England. Van Gogh wrote of his drawing:Van Gogh's first attempt at the lithograph followed just two days later. He wrote: ter, in a rare expression of his own religious feelings, he wrote expressly about this lithograph and two other drawings also posed by Zuyderland, of an old man reading a Bible and saying grace  respectively:Seven impressions of the lithograph are known, of which one is annotated At Eternity's Gate. The same theme is taken up again in two later 1883 studies of a seated woman.In 2021, a drawing in a private collection in the Netherlands since 1910 was authenticated as a preliminary study for the original pencil drawing Worn Out by the Van Gogh Museum and put on display. The Van Gogh Museum had previously been aware of the existence of the study for some time.

Prompt: 悲しむ老人のリトグラフを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Hubert von Herkomer
The Hague
Van Gogh Museum


section

悲しむ老人

The lithograph was based on a pencil drawing Worn Out, one of a series of studies he made in 1882 of a pensioner and war veteran, Adrianus Jacobus Zuyderland, at a local almshouse in The Hague and itself a reworking of a drawing and watercolour he had made the previous year. The inspiration for Worn Out was  Hubert von Herkomer's Sunday at the Chelsea Hospital, an immensely popular print depicting an old war veteran slumped dead that went on to become an acclaimed painting at the Royal Academy, The st Muster, that Van Gogh had seen in 1875 when in England. Van Gogh wrote of his drawing:Van Gogh's first attempt at the lithograph followed just two days later. He wrote: ter, in a rare expression of his own religious feelings, he wrote expressly about this lithograph and two other drawings also posed by Zuyderland, of an old man reading a Bible and saying grace  respectively:Seven impressions of the lithograph are known, of which one is annotated At Eternity's Gate. The same theme is taken up again in two later 1883 studies of a seated woman.In 2021, a drawing in a private collection in the Netherlands since 1910 was authenticated as a preliminary study for the original pencil drawing Worn Out by the Van Gogh Museum and put on display. The Van Gogh Museum had previously been aware of the existence of the study for some time.

Prompt: 悲しむ老人はどのようにリトグラフを説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Hubert von Herkomer
The Hague
Van Gogh Museum


section

悲しむ老人

The lithograph was based on a pencil drawing Worn Out, one of a series of studies he made in 1882 of a pensioner and war veteran, Adrianus Jacobus Zuyderland, at a local almshouse in The Hague and itself a reworking of a drawing and watercolour he had made the previous year. The inspiration for Worn Out was  Hubert von Herkomer's Sunday at the Chelsea Hospital, an immensely popular print depicting an old war veteran slumped dead that went on to become an acclaimed painting at the Royal Academy, The st Muster, that Van Gogh had seen in 1875 when in England. Van Gogh wrote of his drawing:Van Gogh's first attempt at the lithograph followed just two days later. He wrote: ter, in a rare expression of his own religious feelings, he wrote expressly about this lithograph and two other drawings also posed by Zuyderland, of an old man reading a Bible and saying grace  respectively:Seven impressions of the lithograph are known, of which one is annotated At Eternity's Gate. The same theme is taken up again in two later 1883 studies of a seated woman.In 2021, a drawing in a private collection in the Netherlands since 1910 was authenticated as a preliminary study for the original pencil drawing Worn Out by the Van Gogh Museum and put on display. The Van Gogh Museum had previously been aware of the existence of the study for some time.

Prompt: 悲しむ老人に関して、どのようにリトグラフが議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Hubert von Herkomer
The Hague
Van Gogh Museum