subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

The painting measures ;.group=n}} it is composed of oil paint and silver and gold leaf on canvas. The portrait shows Adele Bloch-Bauer sitting on a golden throne or chair, in front of a golden starry background. Around her neck is the same jewelled choker Klimt included in the Judith painting. She wears a tight golden dress in a triangular shape, made up of rectilinear forms. In places the dress merges into the background so much so that the museum curator Jan Thompson writes that "one comes across the model almost by accident, so enveloped is she in the thick geometric scheme". Peter Vergo, writing for Grove Art, considers that the painting "marks the height of ... [Klimt's] gold-encrusted manner of painting".Adele's hair, face, décolletage and hands are painted in oil; they make up less than a twelfth of the work and, in Whitford's opinion, convey little about the sitter's character. For Whitford the effect of the gold background is to "remove Adele Bloch-Bauer from the earthly plane, transform the flesh and blood into an apparition from a dream of sensuality and self-indulgence"; he, and Thomson, consider the work to look more like a religious icon than a secular portrait. O'Connor writes that the painting "seem[s] to embody femininity" and thus likens it to the Mona Lisa, while for Müller and Tatzkow, the gold gives the effect that Adele appears "melancholy and vulnerable, unapproachably aloof and yet rapt".Both the current holder of the portrait—the Neue Galerie New York—and the art historian Elana Shapira describe how the background and gown contain symbols suggestive of erotica, including triangles, eggs, shapes of eyes and almonds. Also present are decorative motifs on the theme of the letters A and B, the sitter's initials. Whitford identifies influences of the art of the Byzantine, Egypt, Mycenae and Greece, describing that "the gold is like that in Byzantine mosaics; the eyes on the dress are Egyptian, the repeated coils and whorls Mycenaean, while other decorative devices, based on the initial letters of the sitter's name, are vaguely Greek".

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの受付における説明の特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Adele Bloch-Bauer
Adele Bloch-Bauer
Mona Lisa
Neue Galerie New York


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

After exhibition at the , the portrait was hung at the Bloch-Bauer's Vienna residence. In 1912 Ferdinand commissioned a second painting of his wife, in which "the erotic charge of the likeness of 1907 has been spent", according to Whitford. In February 1918, Klimt suffered a stroke and was hospitalised; he caught pneumonia due to the worldwide influenza epidemic and died that month.On 19 January 1923 Adele Bloch-Bauer wrote a will. Ferdinand's brother Gustav, a lawyer by training, helped her frame the document and was named as the executor. The will included a reference to the Klimt works owned by the couple, including the two portraits of her:In February 1925 Adele died of meningitis. Shortly afterwards Gustav filed for probate; he included a document that stated that the clause in the will was precatory, i.e. a request rather than a binding testament. He added that Ferdinand had said he would honour the clause, even though he, not Adele, was the legal owner of the paintings. The works by Klimt which Ferdinand owned, including the two portraits, were moved to Adele's bedroom as a shrine to her. The painting was lent for an exhibition at the Vienna Secession in 1928 to mark the tenth anniversary of Klimt's death; in 1934 it was displayed in London as part of the Austria in London exhibition. In 1936 Ferdinand gave Schloss Kammer am Attersee III to the Österreichische Galerie Belvedere; he later acquired a further Klimt painting, the Portrait of Amalie Zuckerkandl . In 1937 the golden portrait of Adele was lent for display at the Paris Exposition.In December 1937 Gustav's daughter–and Ferdinand's niece–Maria, married the young opera singer Fritz Altman. Ferdinand gave her Adele's jewelled choker, depicted in the painting, as a wedding present. Ferdinand left Vienna for his Czechoslovakian castle in March 1938, following the Anschluss  of Austria by Nazi Germany. That autumn, following the Munich Agreement allowing the Nazi annexations in Czechoslovakia, he realised he was not safe and left for Paris. In September the following year, he moved to neutral Switzerland where he lived in a hotel. In his absence the Nazi regime falsely accused him of evading taxes of 1.4 million Reichsmarks. His assets were frozen and, in May 1938, a seizure order was issued that allowed the state to dispose of his property as they felt fit. His sugar factory was confiscated and turned over to the state, and went through a process of Aryanisation as Jewish shareholders and managers were replaced. His Viennese residence became an office of , the German railway company, while his castle in Czechoslovakia was taken after the German occupation as the personal residence of the SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich.As part of the process to deal with the purported tax evasion, the Nazi lawyer Friedrich Führer was appointed as the administrator of the estate. In January 1939 he convened a meeting of museum and gallery directors to inspect the works and to give an indication of which they would like to obtain. After the collection was catalogued, Adolf Hitler used the  decree to obtain part of the collection at a reduced price.group=n}} Several other Nazi leaders, including Hermann Göring, the Commander-in-Chief of the , also obtained works from the collection. Göring also used the  decree to obtain the jewelled choker that had been given to Maria Altmann; it was given as a gift to Emmy, his wife.In December 1941 Führer transferred the paintings Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I and Apfelbaum I to the Galerie Belvedere in return for Schloss Kammer am Attersee III, which he then sold to Gustav Ucicky, an illegitimate son of Klimt. A note accompanying the paintings stated he was acting in accordance with Adele's will. To remove all reference to its Jewish subject matter, the gallery renamed the portrait with the German title  .

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの文脈で、1912年–1945年と受付を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Adele Bloch-Bauer
Adele Bloch-Bauer
Adolf Hitler
Anschluss
Friedrich Führer
Gustav Ucicky
Hermann Göring
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I
Maria Altmann
Munich Agreement
Obergruppenführer
Reichsmark
Reinhard Heydrich
Vienna
Vienna Secession
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I
Österreichische Galerie Belvedere


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

After exhibition at the , the portrait was hung at the Bloch-Bauer's Vienna residence. In 1912 Ferdinand commissioned a second painting of his wife, in which "the erotic charge of the likeness of 1907 has been spent", according to Whitford. In February 1918, Klimt suffered a stroke and was hospitalised; he caught pneumonia due to the worldwide influenza epidemic and died that month.On 19 January 1923 Adele Bloch-Bauer wrote a will. Ferdinand's brother Gustav, a lawyer by training, helped her frame the document and was named as the executor. The will included a reference to the Klimt works owned by the couple, including the two portraits of her:In February 1925 Adele died of meningitis. Shortly afterwards Gustav filed for probate; he included a document that stated that the clause in the will was precatory, i.e. a request rather than a binding testament. He added that Ferdinand had said he would honour the clause, even though he, not Adele, was the legal owner of the paintings. The works by Klimt which Ferdinand owned, including the two portraits, were moved to Adele's bedroom as a shrine to her. The painting was lent for an exhibition at the Vienna Secession in 1928 to mark the tenth anniversary of Klimt's death; in 1934 it was displayed in London as part of the Austria in London exhibition. In 1936 Ferdinand gave Schloss Kammer am Attersee III to the Österreichische Galerie Belvedere; he later acquired a further Klimt painting, the Portrait of Amalie Zuckerkandl . In 1937 the golden portrait of Adele was lent for display at the Paris Exposition.In December 1937 Gustav's daughter–and Ferdinand's niece–Maria, married the young opera singer Fritz Altman. Ferdinand gave her Adele's jewelled choker, depicted in the painting, as a wedding present. Ferdinand left Vienna for his Czechoslovakian castle in March 1938, following the Anschluss  of Austria by Nazi Germany. That autumn, following the Munich Agreement allowing the Nazi annexations in Czechoslovakia, he realised he was not safe and left for Paris. In September the following year, he moved to neutral Switzerland where he lived in a hotel. In his absence the Nazi regime falsely accused him of evading taxes of 1.4 million Reichsmarks. His assets were frozen and, in May 1938, a seizure order was issued that allowed the state to dispose of his property as they felt fit. His sugar factory was confiscated and turned over to the state, and went through a process of Aryanisation as Jewish shareholders and managers were replaced. His Viennese residence became an office of , the German railway company, while his castle in Czechoslovakia was taken after the German occupation as the personal residence of the SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich.As part of the process to deal with the purported tax evasion, the Nazi lawyer Friedrich Führer was appointed as the administrator of the estate. In January 1939 he convened a meeting of museum and gallery directors to inspect the works and to give an indication of which they would like to obtain. After the collection was catalogued, Adolf Hitler used the  decree to obtain part of the collection at a reduced price.group=n}} Several other Nazi leaders, including Hermann Göring, the Commander-in-Chief of the , also obtained works from the collection. Göring also used the  decree to obtain the jewelled choker that had been given to Maria Altmann; it was given as a gift to Emmy, his wife.In December 1941 Führer transferred the paintings Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I and Apfelbaum I to the Galerie Belvedere in return for Schloss Kammer am Attersee III, which he then sold to Gustav Ucicky, an illegitimate son of Klimt. A note accompanying the paintings stated he was acting in accordance with Adele's will. To remove all reference to its Jewish subject matter, the gallery renamed the portrait with the German title  .

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの受付に関する1912年–1945年を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Adele Bloch-Bauer
Adele Bloch-Bauer
Adolf Hitler
Anschluss
Friedrich Führer
Gustav Ucicky
Hermann Göring
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I
Maria Altmann
Munich Agreement
Obergruppenführer
Reichsmark
Reinhard Heydrich
Vienna
Vienna Secession
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I
Österreichische Galerie Belvedere


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

After exhibition at the , the portrait was hung at the Bloch-Bauer's Vienna residence. In 1912 Ferdinand commissioned a second painting of his wife, in which "the erotic charge of the likeness of 1907 has been spent", according to Whitford. In February 1918, Klimt suffered a stroke and was hospitalised; he caught pneumonia due to the worldwide influenza epidemic and died that month.On 19 January 1923 Adele Bloch-Bauer wrote a will. Ferdinand's brother Gustav, a lawyer by training, helped her frame the document and was named as the executor. The will included a reference to the Klimt works owned by the couple, including the two portraits of her:In February 1925 Adele died of meningitis. Shortly afterwards Gustav filed for probate; he included a document that stated that the clause in the will was precatory, i.e. a request rather than a binding testament. He added that Ferdinand had said he would honour the clause, even though he, not Adele, was the legal owner of the paintings. The works by Klimt which Ferdinand owned, including the two portraits, were moved to Adele's bedroom as a shrine to her. The painting was lent for an exhibition at the Vienna Secession in 1928 to mark the tenth anniversary of Klimt's death; in 1934 it was displayed in London as part of the Austria in London exhibition. In 1936 Ferdinand gave Schloss Kammer am Attersee III to the Österreichische Galerie Belvedere; he later acquired a further Klimt painting, the Portrait of Amalie Zuckerkandl . In 1937 the golden portrait of Adele was lent for display at the Paris Exposition.In December 1937 Gustav's daughter–and Ferdinand's niece–Maria, married the young opera singer Fritz Altman. Ferdinand gave her Adele's jewelled choker, depicted in the painting, as a wedding present. Ferdinand left Vienna for his Czechoslovakian castle in March 1938, following the Anschluss  of Austria by Nazi Germany. That autumn, following the Munich Agreement allowing the Nazi annexations in Czechoslovakia, he realised he was not safe and left for Paris. In September the following year, he moved to neutral Switzerland where he lived in a hotel. In his absence the Nazi regime falsely accused him of evading taxes of 1.4 million Reichsmarks. His assets were frozen and, in May 1938, a seizure order was issued that allowed the state to dispose of his property as they felt fit. His sugar factory was confiscated and turned over to the state, and went through a process of Aryanisation as Jewish shareholders and managers were replaced. His Viennese residence became an office of , the German railway company, while his castle in Czechoslovakia was taken after the German occupation as the personal residence of the SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich.As part of the process to deal with the purported tax evasion, the Nazi lawyer Friedrich Führer was appointed as the administrator of the estate. In January 1939 he convened a meeting of museum and gallery directors to inspect the works and to give an indication of which they would like to obtain. After the collection was catalogued, Adolf Hitler used the  decree to obtain part of the collection at a reduced price.group=n}} Several other Nazi leaders, including Hermann Göring, the Commander-in-Chief of the , also obtained works from the collection. Göring also used the  decree to obtain the jewelled choker that had been given to Maria Altmann; it was given as a gift to Emmy, his wife.In December 1941 Führer transferred the paintings Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I and Apfelbaum I to the Galerie Belvedere in return for Schloss Kammer am Attersee III, which he then sold to Gustav Ucicky, an illegitimate son of Klimt. A note accompanying the paintings stated he was acting in accordance with Adele's will. To remove all reference to its Jewish subject matter, the gallery renamed the portrait with the German title  .

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iでは、どのように受付の1912年–1945年が説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Adele Bloch-Bauer
Adele Bloch-Bauer
Adolf Hitler
Anschluss
Friedrich Führer
Gustav Ucicky
Hermann Göring
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I
Maria Altmann
Munich Agreement
Obergruppenführer
Reichsmark
Reinhard Heydrich
Vienna
Vienna Secession
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I
Österreichische Galerie Belvedere


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

After exhibition at the , the portrait was hung at the Bloch-Bauer's Vienna residence. In 1912 Ferdinand commissioned a second painting of his wife, in which "the erotic charge of the likeness of 1907 has been spent", according to Whitford. In February 1918, Klimt suffered a stroke and was hospitalised; he caught pneumonia due to the worldwide influenza epidemic and died that month.On 19 January 1923 Adele Bloch-Bauer wrote a will. Ferdinand's brother Gustav, a lawyer by training, helped her frame the document and was named as the executor. The will included a reference to the Klimt works owned by the couple, including the two portraits of her:In February 1925 Adele died of meningitis. Shortly afterwards Gustav filed for probate; he included a document that stated that the clause in the will was precatory, i.e. a request rather than a binding testament. He added that Ferdinand had said he would honour the clause, even though he, not Adele, was the legal owner of the paintings. The works by Klimt which Ferdinand owned, including the two portraits, were moved to Adele's bedroom as a shrine to her. The painting was lent for an exhibition at the Vienna Secession in 1928 to mark the tenth anniversary of Klimt's death; in 1934 it was displayed in London as part of the Austria in London exhibition. In 1936 Ferdinand gave Schloss Kammer am Attersee III to the Österreichische Galerie Belvedere; he later acquired a further Klimt painting, the Portrait of Amalie Zuckerkandl . In 1937 the golden portrait of Adele was lent for display at the Paris Exposition.In December 1937 Gustav's daughter–and Ferdinand's niece–Maria, married the young opera singer Fritz Altman. Ferdinand gave her Adele's jewelled choker, depicted in the painting, as a wedding present. Ferdinand left Vienna for his Czechoslovakian castle in March 1938, following the Anschluss  of Austria by Nazi Germany. That autumn, following the Munich Agreement allowing the Nazi annexations in Czechoslovakia, he realised he was not safe and left for Paris. In September the following year, he moved to neutral Switzerland where he lived in a hotel. In his absence the Nazi regime falsely accused him of evading taxes of 1.4 million Reichsmarks. His assets were frozen and, in May 1938, a seizure order was issued that allowed the state to dispose of his property as they felt fit. His sugar factory was confiscated and turned over to the state, and went through a process of Aryanisation as Jewish shareholders and managers were replaced. His Viennese residence became an office of , the German railway company, while his castle in Czechoslovakia was taken after the German occupation as the personal residence of the SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich.As part of the process to deal with the purported tax evasion, the Nazi lawyer Friedrich Führer was appointed as the administrator of the estate. In January 1939 he convened a meeting of museum and gallery directors to inspect the works and to give an indication of which they would like to obtain. After the collection was catalogued, Adolf Hitler used the  decree to obtain part of the collection at a reduced price.group=n}} Several other Nazi leaders, including Hermann Göring, the Commander-in-Chief of the , also obtained works from the collection. Göring also used the  decree to obtain the jewelled choker that had been given to Maria Altmann; it was given as a gift to Emmy, his wife.In December 1941 Führer transferred the paintings Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I and Apfelbaum I to the Galerie Belvedere in return for Schloss Kammer am Attersee III, which he then sold to Gustav Ucicky, an illegitimate son of Klimt. A note accompanying the paintings stated he was acting in accordance with Adele's will. To remove all reference to its Jewish subject matter, the gallery renamed the portrait with the German title  .

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの受付における1912年–1945年の特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Adele Bloch-Bauer
Adele Bloch-Bauer
Adolf Hitler
Anschluss
Friedrich Führer
Gustav Ucicky
Hermann Göring
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I
Maria Altmann
Munich Agreement
Obergruppenführer
Reichsmark
Reinhard Heydrich
Vienna
Vienna Secession
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I
Österreichische Galerie Belvedere


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

In August 1945 Ferdinand wrote a final will that revoked all previous ones. It made no reference to the pictures, which he thought had been lost forever, but it stated that his entire estate was left to his nephew and two nieces—one of whom was Maria Altmann. Ferdinand died in Switzerland in November that year.In 1946 the Austrian state issued an Annulment Act that declared all transactions motivated by Nazi discrimination were void; any Jews who wanted to remove artwork from Austria were forced to give some of their works to Austrian museums in order to obtain an export permit for others. The Bloch-Bauer family hired Dr Gustav Rinesh, a Viennese lawyer, to reclaim stolen artwork on their behalf. Using the records produced by Führer, he traced most of the works to the Galerie Belvedere, and Häuser in Unterach, to Führer's own private collection. Several works were returned to the Bloch-Bauer estate, but no Klimt paintings; to obtain the necessary export permits, the family were forced to let the Austrian state retain Häuser in Unterach am Attersee, Adele Bloch-Bauer I, Adele Bloch-Bauer II, and Apfelbaum I. They were also forced to relinquish any claims on Buchenwald and Schloss Kammer am Attersee III. The Galerie Belvedere based its claim of retention of the Klimt works on Adele's will.In 1998 the Austrian government introduced the Art Restitution Act,, 4 December 1998, Federal w Gazette 1998/181.group=n}} which looked again at the question of art stolen by the Nazis.group=n}} The government formed a restitution committee to report on which works should be returned; government archives were opened up to research into the provenance of works held by the government. Hubertus Czernin, the Austrian investigative journalist, undertook extensive research in the newly opened archives and published a story about the theft of art by the Nazis; with the subsequent refusal of the Austrian state to return the art or to acknowledge a theft had taken place, Czernin described the situation as "a double crime".Altmann, then living in the US, hired E. Randol Schoenberg to act on her behalf. Schoenberg was the son of a woman she had been friends with since they lived in Vienna.group=n}} They filed a claim with the restitution committee for the return of six paintings: Adele Bloch-Bauer I, Adele Bloch-Bauer II, Apfelbaum I, Buchenwald, Häuser in Unterach am Attersee and Amalie Zuckerkandl. The committee turned down the request, again citing Adele's will as the reason they were retaining the works. The committee's decision recommended that 16 Klimt drawings and 19 pieces of porcelain that had been held by Ferdinand and Adele and which were still at the Galerie Belvedere should be returned, as they fell outside the request of the will.In March 2000 Altmann filed a civil claim against the Austrian government for the return of the paintings. She was informed that the cost of filing , would have meant a fee of €1.75 million. To avoid the prohibitively high costs, Altmann and Schoenberg sued the Galerie Belvedere, and the museums owner, the Austrian government, in the US courts. The Austrian government filed for dismissal, with arguments based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act . The Act granted immunity to sovereign nations except under certain conditions. Schoenberg showed that three of the conditions pertinent to the case were that Altmann's property had been taken in violation of international law; the property was in the possession of the state in question, or one of its agencies; and that the property had been used on a commercial basis in the US. Over four years of litigation followed as to whether the case could be brought against a sovereign state before it was brought before the Supreme Court in Republic of Austria v. Altmann.group=n}} In June 2004 the Supreme Court determined that the paintings had been stolen and that Austria was not immune from a claim from Altmann; the court made no comment on the current ownership of the paintings.To avoid returning to the courts in what could have been lengthy litigation process, arbitration in Austria was agreed upon by both parties, although the Austrians had turned down such a move in 1999. Three arbitrators formed the panel, Andreas Nödl, Walter Rechberger and Peter Rummel.group=n}} Schoenberg gave evidence before them in September 2005 and, in January 2006, they delivered their judgement. They stated that five of the six paintings in question should be returned to the Bloch-Bauer estate, as outlined in Ferdinand's will; only the Portrait of Amalie Zuckerkandl was to be retained by the gallery., Vienna. On her death she left the painting to the Galerie Belvedere. Altmann claimed the transfer was through an illegal act by Führer; the Zuckerkandl heirs claimed the printing was donated freely by Ferdinand. With no clear evidence to show the transfer from Ferdinand had been coerced or illegal, the panel stated that the Restitution Act did not apply, and the painting should remain with the Galerie Belvedere.group=n}}After the panel's decision was announced, the Galerie Belvedere ran a series of advertisements that appeared in bus stops and on underground railway platforms. The posters said "Ciao Adele", advertising the last opportunity before the painting left the country and long queues formed around the block. Although there were calls from some Austrians for the state to purchase the five paintings, the government stated that the price would be too high to justify the expense. The paintings were exported from Austria in March 2006 and exhibited together at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art from April to June that year.When Altmann was asked what she wanted to do with the paintings, she stated "I would not want any private person to buy these paintings, ... It is very meaningful to me that they are seen by anybody who wants to see them, because that would have been the wish of my aunt." In June 2006 the Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I was sold to Ronald uder for $135 million for his public art museum, at the time a record price for a painting. Eileen Kinsella, the editor of ARTnews, considered the high price was due to several factors, particularly the painting's provenance, the increasing demand for Austrian Expressionism, rising prices in the art world and "uder's passion for and pursuit of this particular work". uder placed the work in the Neue Galerie, the New York–based gallery he co-founded. The painting has been on display at the location since.Michael Kimmelman, the chief art critic for the New York Times, was critical of the sale, and wrote that "A story about justice and redemption after the Holocaust has devolved into yet another tale of the crazy, intoxicating art market." Altmann said of the sale that it was not practical for her, or her relatives who were also part of the estate, to retain any of the paintings. In November 2006 the remaining four Klimt paintings were sold at Christie's auction house. Adele Bloch-Bauer II sold for $87.9 million, Apfelbaum I for $33 million, Buchenwald for $40.3 million and Häuser in Unterach am Attersee for $31 million. All went to private collections.

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの文脈で、1945年以来と受付を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

ARTnews
Adele Bloch-Bauer
Adele Bloch-Bauer
Christie's
E. Randol Schoenberg
Expressionism
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
Hubertus Czernin
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Maria Altmann
Michael Kimmelman
Republic of Austria v. Altmann
Vienna
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

In August 1945 Ferdinand wrote a final will that revoked all previous ones. It made no reference to the pictures, which he thought had been lost forever, but it stated that his entire estate was left to his nephew and two nieces—one of whom was Maria Altmann. Ferdinand died in Switzerland in November that year.In 1946 the Austrian state issued an Annulment Act that declared all transactions motivated by Nazi discrimination were void; any Jews who wanted to remove artwork from Austria were forced to give some of their works to Austrian museums in order to obtain an export permit for others. The Bloch-Bauer family hired Dr Gustav Rinesh, a Viennese lawyer, to reclaim stolen artwork on their behalf. Using the records produced by Führer, he traced most of the works to the Galerie Belvedere, and Häuser in Unterach, to Führer's own private collection. Several works were returned to the Bloch-Bauer estate, but no Klimt paintings; to obtain the necessary export permits, the family were forced to let the Austrian state retain Häuser in Unterach am Attersee, Adele Bloch-Bauer I, Adele Bloch-Bauer II, and Apfelbaum I. They were also forced to relinquish any claims on Buchenwald and Schloss Kammer am Attersee III. The Galerie Belvedere based its claim of retention of the Klimt works on Adele's will.In 1998 the Austrian government introduced the Art Restitution Act,, 4 December 1998, Federal w Gazette 1998/181.group=n}} which looked again at the question of art stolen by the Nazis.group=n}} The government formed a restitution committee to report on which works should be returned; government archives were opened up to research into the provenance of works held by the government. Hubertus Czernin, the Austrian investigative journalist, undertook extensive research in the newly opened archives and published a story about the theft of art by the Nazis; with the subsequent refusal of the Austrian state to return the art or to acknowledge a theft had taken place, Czernin described the situation as "a double crime".Altmann, then living in the US, hired E. Randol Schoenberg to act on her behalf. Schoenberg was the son of a woman she had been friends with since they lived in Vienna.group=n}} They filed a claim with the restitution committee for the return of six paintings: Adele Bloch-Bauer I, Adele Bloch-Bauer II, Apfelbaum I, Buchenwald, Häuser in Unterach am Attersee and Amalie Zuckerkandl. The committee turned down the request, again citing Adele's will as the reason they were retaining the works. The committee's decision recommended that 16 Klimt drawings and 19 pieces of porcelain that had been held by Ferdinand and Adele and which were still at the Galerie Belvedere should be returned, as they fell outside the request of the will.In March 2000 Altmann filed a civil claim against the Austrian government for the return of the paintings. She was informed that the cost of filing , would have meant a fee of €1.75 million. To avoid the prohibitively high costs, Altmann and Schoenberg sued the Galerie Belvedere, and the museums owner, the Austrian government, in the US courts. The Austrian government filed for dismissal, with arguments based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act . The Act granted immunity to sovereign nations except under certain conditions. Schoenberg showed that three of the conditions pertinent to the case were that Altmann's property had been taken in violation of international law; the property was in the possession of the state in question, or one of its agencies; and that the property had been used on a commercial basis in the US. Over four years of litigation followed as to whether the case could be brought against a sovereign state before it was brought before the Supreme Court in Republic of Austria v. Altmann.group=n}} In June 2004 the Supreme Court determined that the paintings had been stolen and that Austria was not immune from a claim from Altmann; the court made no comment on the current ownership of the paintings.To avoid returning to the courts in what could have been lengthy litigation process, arbitration in Austria was agreed upon by both parties, although the Austrians had turned down such a move in 1999. Three arbitrators formed the panel, Andreas Nödl, Walter Rechberger and Peter Rummel.group=n}} Schoenberg gave evidence before them in September 2005 and, in January 2006, they delivered their judgement. They stated that five of the six paintings in question should be returned to the Bloch-Bauer estate, as outlined in Ferdinand's will; only the Portrait of Amalie Zuckerkandl was to be retained by the gallery., Vienna. On her death she left the painting to the Galerie Belvedere. Altmann claimed the transfer was through an illegal act by Führer; the Zuckerkandl heirs claimed the printing was donated freely by Ferdinand. With no clear evidence to show the transfer from Ferdinand had been coerced or illegal, the panel stated that the Restitution Act did not apply, and the painting should remain with the Galerie Belvedere.group=n}}After the panel's decision was announced, the Galerie Belvedere ran a series of advertisements that appeared in bus stops and on underground railway platforms. The posters said "Ciao Adele", advertising the last opportunity before the painting left the country and long queues formed around the block. Although there were calls from some Austrians for the state to purchase the five paintings, the government stated that the price would be too high to justify the expense. The paintings were exported from Austria in March 2006 and exhibited together at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art from April to June that year.When Altmann was asked what she wanted to do with the paintings, she stated "I would not want any private person to buy these paintings, ... It is very meaningful to me that they are seen by anybody who wants to see them, because that would have been the wish of my aunt." In June 2006 the Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I was sold to Ronald uder for $135 million for his public art museum, at the time a record price for a painting. Eileen Kinsella, the editor of ARTnews, considered the high price was due to several factors, particularly the painting's provenance, the increasing demand for Austrian Expressionism, rising prices in the art world and "uder's passion for and pursuit of this particular work". uder placed the work in the Neue Galerie, the New York–based gallery he co-founded. The painting has been on display at the location since.Michael Kimmelman, the chief art critic for the New York Times, was critical of the sale, and wrote that "A story about justice and redemption after the Holocaust has devolved into yet another tale of the crazy, intoxicating art market." Altmann said of the sale that it was not practical for her, or her relatives who were also part of the estate, to retain any of the paintings. In November 2006 the remaining four Klimt paintings were sold at Christie's auction house. Adele Bloch-Bauer II sold for $87.9 million, Apfelbaum I for $33 million, Buchenwald for $40.3 million and Häuser in Unterach am Attersee for $31 million. All went to private collections.

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの受付に関する1945年以来を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

ARTnews
Adele Bloch-Bauer
Adele Bloch-Bauer
Christie's
E. Randol Schoenberg
Expressionism
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
Hubertus Czernin
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Maria Altmann
Michael Kimmelman
Republic of Austria v. Altmann
Vienna
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

In August 1945 Ferdinand wrote a final will that revoked all previous ones. It made no reference to the pictures, which he thought had been lost forever, but it stated that his entire estate was left to his nephew and two nieces—one of whom was Maria Altmann. Ferdinand died in Switzerland in November that year.In 1946 the Austrian state issued an Annulment Act that declared all transactions motivated by Nazi discrimination were void; any Jews who wanted to remove artwork from Austria were forced to give some of their works to Austrian museums in order to obtain an export permit for others. The Bloch-Bauer family hired Dr Gustav Rinesh, a Viennese lawyer, to reclaim stolen artwork on their behalf. Using the records produced by Führer, he traced most of the works to the Galerie Belvedere, and Häuser in Unterach, to Führer's own private collection. Several works were returned to the Bloch-Bauer estate, but no Klimt paintings; to obtain the necessary export permits, the family were forced to let the Austrian state retain Häuser in Unterach am Attersee, Adele Bloch-Bauer I, Adele Bloch-Bauer II, and Apfelbaum I. They were also forced to relinquish any claims on Buchenwald and Schloss Kammer am Attersee III. The Galerie Belvedere based its claim of retention of the Klimt works on Adele's will.In 1998 the Austrian government introduced the Art Restitution Act,, 4 December 1998, Federal w Gazette 1998/181.group=n}} which looked again at the question of art stolen by the Nazis.group=n}} The government formed a restitution committee to report on which works should be returned; government archives were opened up to research into the provenance of works held by the government. Hubertus Czernin, the Austrian investigative journalist, undertook extensive research in the newly opened archives and published a story about the theft of art by the Nazis; with the subsequent refusal of the Austrian state to return the art or to acknowledge a theft had taken place, Czernin described the situation as "a double crime".Altmann, then living in the US, hired E. Randol Schoenberg to act on her behalf. Schoenberg was the son of a woman she had been friends with since they lived in Vienna.group=n}} They filed a claim with the restitution committee for the return of six paintings: Adele Bloch-Bauer I, Adele Bloch-Bauer II, Apfelbaum I, Buchenwald, Häuser in Unterach am Attersee and Amalie Zuckerkandl. The committee turned down the request, again citing Adele's will as the reason they were retaining the works. The committee's decision recommended that 16 Klimt drawings and 19 pieces of porcelain that had been held by Ferdinand and Adele and which were still at the Galerie Belvedere should be returned, as they fell outside the request of the will.In March 2000 Altmann filed a civil claim against the Austrian government for the return of the paintings. She was informed that the cost of filing , would have meant a fee of €1.75 million. To avoid the prohibitively high costs, Altmann and Schoenberg sued the Galerie Belvedere, and the museums owner, the Austrian government, in the US courts. The Austrian government filed for dismissal, with arguments based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act . The Act granted immunity to sovereign nations except under certain conditions. Schoenberg showed that three of the conditions pertinent to the case were that Altmann's property had been taken in violation of international law; the property was in the possession of the state in question, or one of its agencies; and that the property had been used on a commercial basis in the US. Over four years of litigation followed as to whether the case could be brought against a sovereign state before it was brought before the Supreme Court in Republic of Austria v. Altmann.group=n}} In June 2004 the Supreme Court determined that the paintings had been stolen and that Austria was not immune from a claim from Altmann; the court made no comment on the current ownership of the paintings.To avoid returning to the courts in what could have been lengthy litigation process, arbitration in Austria was agreed upon by both parties, although the Austrians had turned down such a move in 1999. Three arbitrators formed the panel, Andreas Nödl, Walter Rechberger and Peter Rummel.group=n}} Schoenberg gave evidence before them in September 2005 and, in January 2006, they delivered their judgement. They stated that five of the six paintings in question should be returned to the Bloch-Bauer estate, as outlined in Ferdinand's will; only the Portrait of Amalie Zuckerkandl was to be retained by the gallery., Vienna. On her death she left the painting to the Galerie Belvedere. Altmann claimed the transfer was through an illegal act by Führer; the Zuckerkandl heirs claimed the printing was donated freely by Ferdinand. With no clear evidence to show the transfer from Ferdinand had been coerced or illegal, the panel stated that the Restitution Act did not apply, and the painting should remain with the Galerie Belvedere.group=n}}After the panel's decision was announced, the Galerie Belvedere ran a series of advertisements that appeared in bus stops and on underground railway platforms. The posters said "Ciao Adele", advertising the last opportunity before the painting left the country and long queues formed around the block. Although there were calls from some Austrians for the state to purchase the five paintings, the government stated that the price would be too high to justify the expense. The paintings were exported from Austria in March 2006 and exhibited together at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art from April to June that year.When Altmann was asked what she wanted to do with the paintings, she stated "I would not want any private person to buy these paintings, ... It is very meaningful to me that they are seen by anybody who wants to see them, because that would have been the wish of my aunt." In June 2006 the Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I was sold to Ronald uder for $135 million for his public art museum, at the time a record price for a painting. Eileen Kinsella, the editor of ARTnews, considered the high price was due to several factors, particularly the painting's provenance, the increasing demand for Austrian Expressionism, rising prices in the art world and "uder's passion for and pursuit of this particular work". uder placed the work in the Neue Galerie, the New York–based gallery he co-founded. The painting has been on display at the location since.Michael Kimmelman, the chief art critic for the New York Times, was critical of the sale, and wrote that "A story about justice and redemption after the Holocaust has devolved into yet another tale of the crazy, intoxicating art market." Altmann said of the sale that it was not practical for her, or her relatives who were also part of the estate, to retain any of the paintings. In November 2006 the remaining four Klimt paintings were sold at Christie's auction house. Adele Bloch-Bauer II sold for $87.9 million, Apfelbaum I for $33 million, Buchenwald for $40.3 million and Häuser in Unterach am Attersee for $31 million. All went to private collections.

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iでは、どのように受付の1945年以来が説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

ARTnews
Adele Bloch-Bauer
Adele Bloch-Bauer
Christie's
E. Randol Schoenberg
Expressionism
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
Hubertus Czernin
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Maria Altmann
Michael Kimmelman
Republic of Austria v. Altmann
Vienna
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

In August 1945 Ferdinand wrote a final will that revoked all previous ones. It made no reference to the pictures, which he thought had been lost forever, but it stated that his entire estate was left to his nephew and two nieces—one of whom was Maria Altmann. Ferdinand died in Switzerland in November that year.In 1946 the Austrian state issued an Annulment Act that declared all transactions motivated by Nazi discrimination were void; any Jews who wanted to remove artwork from Austria were forced to give some of their works to Austrian museums in order to obtain an export permit for others. The Bloch-Bauer family hired Dr Gustav Rinesh, a Viennese lawyer, to reclaim stolen artwork on their behalf. Using the records produced by Führer, he traced most of the works to the Galerie Belvedere, and Häuser in Unterach, to Führer's own private collection. Several works were returned to the Bloch-Bauer estate, but no Klimt paintings; to obtain the necessary export permits, the family were forced to let the Austrian state retain Häuser in Unterach am Attersee, Adele Bloch-Bauer I, Adele Bloch-Bauer II, and Apfelbaum I. They were also forced to relinquish any claims on Buchenwald and Schloss Kammer am Attersee III. The Galerie Belvedere based its claim of retention of the Klimt works on Adele's will.In 1998 the Austrian government introduced the Art Restitution Act,, 4 December 1998, Federal w Gazette 1998/181.group=n}} which looked again at the question of art stolen by the Nazis.group=n}} The government formed a restitution committee to report on which works should be returned; government archives were opened up to research into the provenance of works held by the government. Hubertus Czernin, the Austrian investigative journalist, undertook extensive research in the newly opened archives and published a story about the theft of art by the Nazis; with the subsequent refusal of the Austrian state to return the art or to acknowledge a theft had taken place, Czernin described the situation as "a double crime".Altmann, then living in the US, hired E. Randol Schoenberg to act on her behalf. Schoenberg was the son of a woman she had been friends with since they lived in Vienna.group=n}} They filed a claim with the restitution committee for the return of six paintings: Adele Bloch-Bauer I, Adele Bloch-Bauer II, Apfelbaum I, Buchenwald, Häuser in Unterach am Attersee and Amalie Zuckerkandl. The committee turned down the request, again citing Adele's will as the reason they were retaining the works. The committee's decision recommended that 16 Klimt drawings and 19 pieces of porcelain that had been held by Ferdinand and Adele and which were still at the Galerie Belvedere should be returned, as they fell outside the request of the will.In March 2000 Altmann filed a civil claim against the Austrian government for the return of the paintings. She was informed that the cost of filing , would have meant a fee of €1.75 million. To avoid the prohibitively high costs, Altmann and Schoenberg sued the Galerie Belvedere, and the museums owner, the Austrian government, in the US courts. The Austrian government filed for dismissal, with arguments based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act . The Act granted immunity to sovereign nations except under certain conditions. Schoenberg showed that three of the conditions pertinent to the case were that Altmann's property had been taken in violation of international law; the property was in the possession of the state in question, or one of its agencies; and that the property had been used on a commercial basis in the US. Over four years of litigation followed as to whether the case could be brought against a sovereign state before it was brought before the Supreme Court in Republic of Austria v. Altmann.group=n}} In June 2004 the Supreme Court determined that the paintings had been stolen and that Austria was not immune from a claim from Altmann; the court made no comment on the current ownership of the paintings.To avoid returning to the courts in what could have been lengthy litigation process, arbitration in Austria was agreed upon by both parties, although the Austrians had turned down such a move in 1999. Three arbitrators formed the panel, Andreas Nödl, Walter Rechberger and Peter Rummel.group=n}} Schoenberg gave evidence before them in September 2005 and, in January 2006, they delivered their judgement. They stated that five of the six paintings in question should be returned to the Bloch-Bauer estate, as outlined in Ferdinand's will; only the Portrait of Amalie Zuckerkandl was to be retained by the gallery., Vienna. On her death she left the painting to the Galerie Belvedere. Altmann claimed the transfer was through an illegal act by Führer; the Zuckerkandl heirs claimed the printing was donated freely by Ferdinand. With no clear evidence to show the transfer from Ferdinand had been coerced or illegal, the panel stated that the Restitution Act did not apply, and the painting should remain with the Galerie Belvedere.group=n}}After the panel's decision was announced, the Galerie Belvedere ran a series of advertisements that appeared in bus stops and on underground railway platforms. The posters said "Ciao Adele", advertising the last opportunity before the painting left the country and long queues formed around the block. Although there were calls from some Austrians for the state to purchase the five paintings, the government stated that the price would be too high to justify the expense. The paintings were exported from Austria in March 2006 and exhibited together at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art from April to June that year.When Altmann was asked what she wanted to do with the paintings, she stated "I would not want any private person to buy these paintings, ... It is very meaningful to me that they are seen by anybody who wants to see them, because that would have been the wish of my aunt." In June 2006 the Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I was sold to Ronald uder for $135 million for his public art museum, at the time a record price for a painting. Eileen Kinsella, the editor of ARTnews, considered the high price was due to several factors, particularly the painting's provenance, the increasing demand for Austrian Expressionism, rising prices in the art world and "uder's passion for and pursuit of this particular work". uder placed the work in the Neue Galerie, the New York–based gallery he co-founded. The painting has been on display at the location since.Michael Kimmelman, the chief art critic for the New York Times, was critical of the sale, and wrote that "A story about justice and redemption after the Holocaust has devolved into yet another tale of the crazy, intoxicating art market." Altmann said of the sale that it was not practical for her, or her relatives who were also part of the estate, to retain any of the paintings. In November 2006 the remaining four Klimt paintings were sold at Christie's auction house. Adele Bloch-Bauer II sold for $87.9 million, Apfelbaum I for $33 million, Buchenwald for $40.3 million and Häuser in Unterach am Attersee for $31 million. All went to private collections.

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの受付における1945年以来の特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

ARTnews
Adele Bloch-Bauer
Adele Bloch-Bauer
Christie's
E. Randol Schoenberg
Expressionism
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
Hubertus Czernin
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Maria Altmann
Michael Kimmelman
Republic of Austria v. Altmann
Vienna
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I


subsubsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの受付に焦点を当てて、遺産についてのジャーナルと新聞を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsubsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの受付の遺産に関するジャーナルと新聞を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsubsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iに関して、受付の遺産はジャーナルと新聞をどのように取り入れていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsubsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの受付について見たとき、その遺産のジャーナルと新聞をどのように議論しますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsubsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

}}  }}  }}   }} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018093302/http://www.neuegalerie.org/museum/press-releases/klimt-bloch-bauerarchive-date=18 October 2017url-status=dead}} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170314153125/http://www.austria.org/events1/2015/6/25/new-york-staged-reading-the-accidental-caregiverarchive-date=14 March 2017url-status=dead}} }} }} }}   }} }}

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの受付に焦点を当てて、遺産についてのインターネット テレビ メディアを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsubsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

}}  }}  }}   }} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018093302/http://www.neuegalerie.org/museum/press-releases/klimt-bloch-bauerarchive-date=18 October 2017url-status=dead}} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170314153125/http://www.austria.org/events1/2015/6/25/new-york-staged-reading-the-accidental-caregiverarchive-date=14 March 2017url-status=dead}} }} }} }}   }} }}

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの受付の遺産に関するインターネット テレビ メディアを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsubsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

}}  }}  }}   }} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018093302/http://www.neuegalerie.org/museum/press-releases/klimt-bloch-bauerarchive-date=18 October 2017url-status=dead}} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170314153125/http://www.austria.org/events1/2015/6/25/new-york-staged-reading-the-accidental-caregiverarchive-date=14 March 2017url-status=dead}} }} }} }}   }} }}

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iに関して、受付の遺産はインターネット テレビ メディアをどのように取り入れていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsubsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

}}  }}  }}   }} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018093302/http://www.neuegalerie.org/museum/press-releases/klimt-bloch-bauerarchive-date=18 October 2017url-status=dead}} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170314153125/http://www.austria.org/events1/2015/6/25/new-york-staged-reading-the-accidental-caregiverarchive-date=14 March 2017url-status=dead}} }} }} }}   }} }}

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの受付について見たとき、その遺産のインターネット テレビ メディアをどのように議論しますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの文脈で、ジャーナルと新聞と1945年以来を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの1945年以来に関するジャーナルと新聞を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iでは、どのように1945年以来のジャーナルと新聞が説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの1945年以来におけるジャーナルと新聞の特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

}}  }}  }}   }} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018093302/http://www.neuegalerie.org/museum/press-releases/klimt-bloch-bauerarchive-date=18 October 2017url-status=dead}} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170314153125/http://www.austria.org/events1/2015/6/25/new-york-staged-reading-the-accidental-caregiverarchive-date=14 March 2017url-status=dead}} }} }} }}   }} }}

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの文脈で、インターネット テレビ メディアと1945年以来を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

}}  }}  }}   }} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018093302/http://www.neuegalerie.org/museum/press-releases/klimt-bloch-bauerarchive-date=18 October 2017url-status=dead}} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170314153125/http://www.austria.org/events1/2015/6/25/new-york-staged-reading-the-accidental-caregiverarchive-date=14 March 2017url-status=dead}} }} }} }}   }} }}

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの1945年以来に関するインターネット テレビ メディアを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

}}  }}  }}   }} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018093302/http://www.neuegalerie.org/museum/press-releases/klimt-bloch-bauerarchive-date=18 October 2017url-status=dead}} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170314153125/http://www.austria.org/events1/2015/6/25/new-york-staged-reading-the-accidental-caregiverarchive-date=14 March 2017url-status=dead}} }} }} }}   }} }}

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iでは、どのように1945年以来のインターネット テレビ メディアが説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 I

}}  }}  }}   }} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018093302/http://www.neuegalerie.org/museum/press-releases/klimt-bloch-bauerarchive-date=18 October 2017url-status=dead}} }} archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170314153125/http://www.austria.org/events1/2015/6/25/new-york-staged-reading-the-accidental-caregiverarchive-date=14 March 2017url-status=dead}} }} }} }}   }} }}

Prompt: アデーレ・ブロッホ＝バウアーの肖像 Iの1945年以来におけるインターネット テレビ メディアの特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

着衣のマハ

is an oil painting on canvas created between 1800 and 1807 by the Spanish Romantic painter and printmaker Francisco Goya. It is a clothed version of the earlier  maja desnuda, which was created between 1795 and 1800. The identity of the model and that of the commissioner have not been confirmed. However, art historians and scholars have suggested she is María Cayetana de Silva or Godoy's mistress Pepita Tudó.The paintings were never publicly exhibited during Goya's lifetime, so it is also unknown if they were created as pendant paintings, to be displayed as a pair. However, since 1901 they have been exhibited together at the Museo Nacional del Prado in Madrid.

Prompt: 着衣のマハに焦点を当てて、その抽象を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

着衣のマハ

is an oil painting on canvas created between 1800 and 1807 by the Spanish Romantic painter and printmaker Francisco Goya. It is a clothed version of the earlier  maja desnuda, which was created between 1795 and 1800. The identity of the model and that of the commissioner have not been confirmed. However, art historians and scholars have suggested she is María Cayetana de Silva or Godoy's mistress Pepita Tudó.The paintings were never publicly exhibited during Goya's lifetime, so it is also unknown if they were created as pendant paintings, to be displayed as a pair. However, since 1901 they have been exhibited together at the Museo Nacional del Prado in Madrid.

Prompt: 着衣のマハの抽象を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

着衣のマハ

is an oil painting on canvas created between 1800 and 1807 by the Spanish Romantic painter and printmaker Francisco Goya. It is a clothed version of the earlier  maja desnuda, which was created between 1795 and 1800. The identity of the model and that of the commissioner have not been confirmed. However, art historians and scholars have suggested she is María Cayetana de Silva or Godoy's mistress Pepita Tudó.The paintings were never publicly exhibited during Goya's lifetime, so it is also unknown if they were created as pendant paintings, to be displayed as a pair. However, since 1901 they have been exhibited together at the Museo Nacional del Prado in Madrid.

Prompt: 着衣のマハ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

着衣のマハ

is an oil painting on canvas created between 1800 and 1807 by the Spanish Romantic painter and printmaker Francisco Goya. It is a clothed version of the earlier  maja desnuda, which was created between 1795 and 1800. The identity of the model and that of the commissioner have not been confirmed. However, art historians and scholars have suggested she is María Cayetana de Silva or Godoy's mistress Pepita Tudó.The paintings were never publicly exhibited during Goya's lifetime, so it is also unknown if they were created as pendant paintings, to be displayed as a pair. However, since 1901 they have been exhibited together at the Museo Nacional del Prado in Madrid.

Prompt: 着衣のマハに関して、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

着衣のマハ

The origins of both paintings are unclear, with some sources claiming they were commissioned by the Prime Minister Manuel de Godoy for his private collection.

Prompt: 着衣のマハに焦点を当てて、その背景を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

着衣のマハ

The origins of both paintings are unclear, with some sources claiming they were commissioned by the Prime Minister Manuel de Godoy for his private collection.

Prompt: 着衣のマハの背景を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

着衣のマハ

The origins of both paintings are unclear, with some sources claiming they were commissioned by the Prime Minister Manuel de Godoy for his private collection.

Prompt: 着衣のマハはどのように背景を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

着衣のマハ

The origins of both paintings are unclear, with some sources claiming they were commissioned by the Prime Minister Manuel de Godoy for his private collection.

Prompt: 着衣のマハに関して、どのように背景が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

着衣のマハ

The first written account of the vestida dates back to an 1808 inventory of Godoy's assets after their seizure by Ferdinand VII. Frederic Quillet had been tasked by his commander, Joseph Bonaparte, to make an inventory of Godoy's private collection during the French occupation of Spain. The vestida and desnuda were categorized as the Naked Gypsy/Venus and the Clothed Gypsy/Venus. They were considered by the French ruling class to be "obscene".

Prompt: 着衣のマハに焦点を当てて、その受付を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

着衣のマハ

The first written account of the vestida dates back to an 1808 inventory of Godoy's assets after their seizure by Ferdinand VII. Frederic Quillet had been tasked by his commander, Joseph Bonaparte, to make an inventory of Godoy's private collection during the French occupation of Spain. The vestida and desnuda were categorized as the Naked Gypsy/Venus and the Clothed Gypsy/Venus. They were considered by the French ruling class to be "obscene".

Prompt: 着衣のマハの受付を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

着衣のマハ

The first written account of the vestida dates back to an 1808 inventory of Godoy's assets after their seizure by Ferdinand VII. Frederic Quillet had been tasked by his commander, Joseph Bonaparte, to make an inventory of Godoy's private collection during the French occupation of Spain. The vestida and desnuda were categorized as the Naked Gypsy/Venus and the Clothed Gypsy/Venus. They were considered by the French ruling class to be "obscene".

Prompt: 着衣のマハはどのように受付を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

着衣のマハ

The first written account of the vestida dates back to an 1808 inventory of Godoy's assets after their seizure by Ferdinand VII. Frederic Quillet had been tasked by his commander, Joseph Bonaparte, to make an inventory of Godoy's private collection during the French occupation of Spain. The vestida and desnuda were categorized as the Naked Gypsy/Venus and the Clothed Gypsy/Venus. They were considered by the French ruling class to be "obscene".

Prompt: 着衣のマハに関して、どのように受付が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

着衣のマハ

maja desnuda List of works by Francisco Goya

Prompt: 着衣のマハに焦点を当てて、その参照を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Francisco Goya
List of works by Francisco Goya


section

着衣のマハ

maja desnuda List of works by Francisco Goya

Prompt: 着衣のマハの参照を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Francisco Goya
List of works by Francisco Goya


section

着衣のマハ

maja desnuda List of works by Francisco Goya

Prompt: 着衣のマハ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。

Francisco Goya
List of works by Francisco Goya


section

着衣のマハ

maja desnuda List of works by Francisco Goya

Prompt: 着衣のマハに関して、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。

Francisco Goya
List of works by Francisco Goya


section

農民の婚宴

The Peasant Wedding is a 1567 genre painting by  the Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painter and printmaker Pieter Bruegel the Elder, one of his many depicting peasant life. It is now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Pieter Bruegel the Elder enjoyed painting peasants and different aspects of their lives in so many of his paintings that he has been called Peasant-Bruegel, but he was an intellectual, and many of his paintings have a symbolic meaning as well as a moral aspect.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴に焦点を当てて、その抽象を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

1567
Kunsthistorisches Museum
Peasant
Pieter Bruegel the Elder
Renaissance
Vienna


section

農民の婚宴

The Peasant Wedding is a 1567 genre painting by  the Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painter and printmaker Pieter Bruegel the Elder, one of his many depicting peasant life. It is now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Pieter Bruegel the Elder enjoyed painting peasants and different aspects of their lives in so many of his paintings that he has been called Peasant-Bruegel, but he was an intellectual, and many of his paintings have a symbolic meaning as well as a moral aspect.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴の抽象を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

1567
Kunsthistorisches Museum
Peasant
Pieter Bruegel the Elder
Renaissance
Vienna


section

農民の婚宴

The Peasant Wedding is a 1567 genre painting by  the Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painter and printmaker Pieter Bruegel the Elder, one of his many depicting peasant life. It is now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Pieter Bruegel the Elder enjoyed painting peasants and different aspects of their lives in so many of his paintings that he has been called Peasant-Bruegel, but he was an intellectual, and many of his paintings have a symbolic meaning as well as a moral aspect.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴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。

1567
Kunsthistorisches Museum
Peasant
Pieter Bruegel the Elder
Renaissance
Vienna


section

農民の婚宴

The Peasant Wedding is a 1567 genre painting by  the Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painter and printmaker Pieter Bruegel the Elder, one of his many depicting peasant life. It is now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Pieter Bruegel the Elder enjoyed painting peasants and different aspects of their lives in so many of his paintings that he has been called Peasant-Bruegel, but he was an intellectual, and many of his paintings have a symbolic meaning as well as a moral aspect.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴に関して、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。

1567
Kunsthistorisches Museum
Peasant
Pieter Bruegel the Elder
Renaissance
Vienna


section

農民の婚宴

The bride is in front of the green textile  wall-hanging, with a paper-crown hung above her head. She is also wearing a crown and sitting passively amidst the hearty eating and drinking around her. The bridegroom is not immediately obvious. The feast is in a barn in the summertime; two sheaves of grain with a rake recalls the work of harvesting, and the hard peasant life. Porters carry plates on a door taken off its hinges. The main food is bread, porridge and soup. Two pipers play the pijpzak, an unbreeched boy in the foreground licks a plate, a wealthy man at the far right is talking to a Franciscan friar, a dog emerges from under the table to snatch pieces of bread on the bench. The scene is said to accurately depict 16th-century peasant wedding customs. The door-carrier on the right appears to have an extra foot.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴に焦点を当てて、そのシーンを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

農民の婚宴

The bride is in front of the green textile  wall-hanging, with a paper-crown hung above her head. She is also wearing a crown and sitting passively amidst the hearty eating and drinking around her. The bridegroom is not immediately obvious. The feast is in a barn in the summertime; two sheaves of grain with a rake recalls the work of harvesting, and the hard peasant life. Porters carry plates on a door taken off its hinges. The main food is bread, porridge and soup. Two pipers play the pijpzak, an unbreeched boy in the foreground licks a plate, a wealthy man at the far right is talking to a Franciscan friar, a dog emerges from under the table to snatch pieces of bread on the bench. The scene is said to accurately depict 16th-century peasant wedding customs. The door-carrier on the right appears to have an extra foot.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴のシーンを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

農民の婚宴

The bride is in front of the green textile  wall-hanging, with a paper-crown hung above her head. She is also wearing a crown and sitting passively amidst the hearty eating and drinking around her. The bridegroom is not immediately obvious. The feast is in a barn in the summertime; two sheaves of grain with a rake recalls the work of harvesting, and the hard peasant life. Porters carry plates on a door taken off its hinges. The main food is bread, porridge and soup. Two pipers play the pijpzak, an unbreeched boy in the foreground licks a plate, a wealthy man at the far right is talking to a Franciscan friar, a dog emerges from under the table to snatch pieces of bread on the bench. The scene is said to accurately depict 16th-century peasant wedding customs. The door-carrier on the right appears to have an extra foot.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴はどのようにシーンを説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

農民の婚宴

The bride is in front of the green textile  wall-hanging, with a paper-crown hung above her head. She is also wearing a crown and sitting passively amidst the hearty eating and drinking around her. The bridegroom is not immediately obvious. The feast is in a barn in the summertime; two sheaves of grain with a rake recalls the work of harvesting, and the hard peasant life. Porters carry plates on a door taken off its hinges. The main food is bread, porridge and soup. Two pipers play the pijpzak, an unbreeched boy in the foreground licks a plate, a wealthy man at the far right is talking to a Franciscan friar, a dog emerges from under the table to snatch pieces of bread on the bench. The scene is said to accurately depict 16th-century peasant wedding customs. The door-carrier on the right appears to have an extra foot.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴に関して、どのようにシーンが議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

農民の婚宴

There has been much conjecture as to the identity of the groom in this painting. The critics Gilbert Highet and Gustav Glück have argued that the groom is the man in the centre of the painting, wearing a dark coat and seen in profile, or the ill-bred son of a wealthy couple, seen against the far wall to the right of the bride, eating with a spoon. It has also been suggested that according to contemporary custom, the groom is not seated, but may be the man pouring out beer. According to the same custom, he may also be the man handing the plates of food to his guests from the near end of the table, wearing a red cap.In a Freudian vein, Rudy Rucker speculates:</ref>}}Some authors have even suggested that the groom is not even included in the painting. Van der Elst speculated that this could be the depiction of an old Flemish proverb: It is a poor man who is not able to be at his own wedding. Some connect it with the biblical Wedding of Cana.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴に焦点を当てて、その花婿を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

農民の婚宴

There has been much conjecture as to the identity of the groom in this painting. The critics Gilbert Highet and Gustav Glück have argued that the groom is the man in the centre of the painting, wearing a dark coat and seen in profile, or the ill-bred son of a wealthy couple, seen against the far wall to the right of the bride, eating with a spoon. It has also been suggested that according to contemporary custom, the groom is not seated, but may be the man pouring out beer. According to the same custom, he may also be the man handing the plates of food to his guests from the near end of the table, wearing a red cap.In a Freudian vein, Rudy Rucker speculates:</ref>}}Some authors have even suggested that the groom is not even included in the painting. Van der Elst speculated that this could be the depiction of an old Flemish proverb: It is a poor man who is not able to be at his own wedding. Some connect it with the biblical Wedding of Cana.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴の花婿を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

農民の婚宴

There has been much conjecture as to the identity of the groom in this painting. The critics Gilbert Highet and Gustav Glück have argued that the groom is the man in the centre of the painting, wearing a dark coat and seen in profile, or the ill-bred son of a wealthy couple, seen against the far wall to the right of the bride, eating with a spoon. It has also been suggested that according to contemporary custom, the groom is not seated, but may be the man pouring out beer. According to the same custom, he may also be the man handing the plates of food to his guests from the near end of the table, wearing a red cap.In a Freudian vein, Rudy Rucker speculates:</ref>}}Some authors have even suggested that the groom is not even included in the painting. Van der Elst speculated that this could be the depiction of an old Flemish proverb: It is a poor man who is not able to be at his own wedding. Some connect it with the biblical Wedding of Cana.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴はどのように花婿を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

農民の婚宴

There has been much conjecture as to the identity of the groom in this painting. The critics Gilbert Highet and Gustav Glück have argued that the groom is the man in the centre of the painting, wearing a dark coat and seen in profile, or the ill-bred son of a wealthy couple, seen against the far wall to the right of the bride, eating with a spoon. It has also been suggested that according to contemporary custom, the groom is not seated, but may be the man pouring out beer. According to the same custom, he may also be the man handing the plates of food to his guests from the near end of the table, wearing a red cap.In a Freudian vein, Rudy Rucker speculates:</ref>}}Some authors have even suggested that the groom is not even included in the painting. Van der Elst speculated that this could be the depiction of an old Flemish proverb: It is a poor man who is not able to be at his own wedding. Some connect it with the biblical Wedding of Cana.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴に関して、どのように花婿が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

農民の婚宴

Many viewers have wondered why Bruegel appears to have given a third foot to the red-clad servant on the right, carrying the tray. Bruegel’s son, Brueghel the Younger, thought that this foot was an error or, at best, too confusing for viewers. His 1620 copy of his father’s painting solves the problem simply by eliminating the third foot altogether. However, an analysis by Claudine Majzels of the angles and the relative positions of the people involved suggests that the red-clad servant’s “third foot” is actually the extended left foot of the brown-clad man who is in a half-crouch transferring the plates to the table.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴に焦点を当てて、その"第三の足"の謎を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

農民の婚宴

Many viewers have wondered why Bruegel appears to have given a third foot to the red-clad servant on the right, carrying the tray. Bruegel’s son, Brueghel the Younger, thought that this foot was an error or, at best, too confusing for viewers. His 1620 copy of his father’s painting solves the problem simply by eliminating the third foot altogether. However, an analysis by Claudine Majzels of the angles and the relative positions of the people involved suggests that the red-clad servant’s “third foot” is actually the extended left foot of the brown-clad man who is in a half-crouch transferring the plates to the table.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴の"第三の足"の謎を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

農民の婚宴

Many viewers have wondered why Bruegel appears to have given a third foot to the red-clad servant on the right, carrying the tray. Bruegel’s son, Brueghel the Younger, thought that this foot was an error or, at best, too confusing for viewers. His 1620 copy of his father’s painting solves the problem simply by eliminating the third foot altogether. However, an analysis by Claudine Majzels of the angles and the relative positions of the people involved suggests that the red-clad servant’s “third foot” is actually the extended left foot of the brown-clad man who is in a half-crouch transferring the plates to the table.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴はどのように"第三の足"の謎を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

農民の婚宴

Many viewers have wondered why Bruegel appears to have given a third foot to the red-clad servant on the right, carrying the tray. Bruegel’s son, Brueghel the Younger, thought that this foot was an error or, at best, too confusing for viewers. His 1620 copy of his father’s painting solves the problem simply by eliminating the third foot altogether. However, an analysis by Claudine Majzels of the angles and the relative positions of the people involved suggests that the red-clad servant’s “third foot” is actually the extended left foot of the brown-clad man who is in a half-crouch transferring the plates to the table.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴に関して、どのように"第三の足"の謎が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

農民の婚宴

The painting was parodied in Asterix in Belgium.Another parody was the postcard for the Belgian entry in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴に焦点を当てて、その大衆文化でを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Asterix in Belgium
Eurovision Song Contest 1979


section

農民の婚宴

The painting was parodied in Asterix in Belgium.Another parody was the postcard for the Belgian entry in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴の大衆文化でを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Asterix in Belgium
Eurovision Song Contest 1979


section

農民の婚宴

The painting was parodied in Asterix in Belgium.Another parody was the postcard for the Belgian entry in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴はどのように大衆文化でを説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Asterix in Belgium
Eurovision Song Contest 1979


section

農民の婚宴

The painting was parodied in Asterix in Belgium.Another parody was the postcard for the Belgian entry in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979.

Prompt: 農民の婚宴に関して、どのように大衆文化でが議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Asterix in Belgium
Eurovision Song Contest 1979


section

農民の婚宴

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Prompt: 農民の婚宴に焦点を当てて、その参照を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

農民の婚宴

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Prompt: 農民の婚宴の参照を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

農民の婚宴

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Prompt: 農民の婚宴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。


section

農民の婚宴

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Prompt: 農民の婚宴に関して、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。


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

The Isleworth Mona Lisa is an early 16th-century oil on canvas painting depicting the same subject as Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, though with the subject  depicted as being a younger age. The painting is thought to have been brought from Italy to England in the 1780s, Since the 1910s, experts in various fields, as well as the collectors who have acquired ownership of the painting, have asserted that the major elements of the painting are the work of Leonardo himself, as an earlier version of the Mona Lisa.In 1914, art critic Paul George Konody criticized early reports of the painting, which contained errors that he believed caused skepticism about the painting to become "hostile incredulity", but Konody nonetheless found that the painting was clearly "very largely worked up by the master himself". Konody also found the painting to have features "far more pleasing and beautiful than in the Louvre version". A number of Italian experts in the 1920s echoed Konody's assessment of authorship by Leonardo at a time when the painting was more broadly examined. Much later authorities have made varying characterizations of the degree to which the painting can be ascribed to Leonardo; in 2012, The Guardian described the art world as being "split" over the question, and in 2013, Reuters said that it was "dismissed by some experts", but "also won support in the art world". Art historian Jean-Pierre Isbouts has endorsed Leonardo's involvement in painting the work, asserting that "24 of 27 recognised Leonardo scholars have agreed this is a Leonardo", while art historian Martin Kemp dismisses the proposition that Leonardo painted any part, and in 2012 described his contemporaries in the art world as being equivocal, or making "encouraging but noncommittal statements" on this point.Kemp and others who doubt Leonardo's hand in the painting attribute it to the Leonardeschi, Leonardo's workshop, believing it to be one of a number of copies of the Mona Lisa produced by Leonardo's collaborators, assistants, and pupils, though, as Leonardo biographer Walter Isaacson expressed it, "perhaps with an occasional helping hand from the master". but as an earlier version of the Louvre Mona Lisa.Differing views have been expressed on the relative weight to be given to scientific evidence versus connoisseurship. Physicist John F. Asmus, who pioneered laser-restoration techniques for Renaissance art, and who had previously examined the Mona Lisa in the Louvre for this purpose, published a computer image processing study in 1988 concluding that the brush strokes of the face in the painting were performed by the same artist responsible for the brush strokes of the face of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, and replicated that finding in a 2016 study. However, curator Luke Syson has argued that science is "only ever one of several factors we'd use to assess the authenticity and authorship of a work of art". An independent 2015 academic journal article also attributed the work to Leonardo on stylistic grounds.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザに焦点を当てて、その抽象を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Isleworth
Jean-Pierre Isbouts
John F. Asmus
Leonardeschi
Leonardo da Vinci
Louvre
Luke Syson
Martin Kemp
Mona Lisa
Paul George Konody
Physicist
Renaissance art
Reuters
The Guardian
Walter Isaacson


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

The Isleworth Mona Lisa is an early 16th-century oil on canvas painting depicting the same subject as Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, though with the subject  depicted as being a younger age. The painting is thought to have been brought from Italy to England in the 1780s, Since the 1910s, experts in various fields, as well as the collectors who have acquired ownership of the painting, have asserted that the major elements of the painting are the work of Leonardo himself, as an earlier version of the Mona Lisa.In 1914, art critic Paul George Konody criticized early reports of the painting, which contained errors that he believed caused skepticism about the painting to become "hostile incredulity", but Konody nonetheless found that the painting was clearly "very largely worked up by the master himself". Konody also found the painting to have features "far more pleasing and beautiful than in the Louvre version". A number of Italian experts in the 1920s echoed Konody's assessment of authorship by Leonardo at a time when the painting was more broadly examined. Much later authorities have made varying characterizations of the degree to which the painting can be ascribed to Leonardo; in 2012, The Guardian described the art world as being "split" over the question, and in 2013, Reuters said that it was "dismissed by some experts", but "also won support in the art world". Art historian Jean-Pierre Isbouts has endorsed Leonardo's involvement in painting the work, asserting that "24 of 27 recognised Leonardo scholars have agreed this is a Leonardo", while art historian Martin Kemp dismisses the proposition that Leonardo painted any part, and in 2012 described his contemporaries in the art world as being equivocal, or making "encouraging but noncommittal statements" on this point.Kemp and others who doubt Leonardo's hand in the painting attribute it to the Leonardeschi, Leonardo's workshop, believing it to be one of a number of copies of the Mona Lisa produced by Leonardo's collaborators, assistants, and pupils, though, as Leonardo biographer Walter Isaacson expressed it, "perhaps with an occasional helping hand from the master". but as an earlier version of the Louvre Mona Lisa.Differing views have been expressed on the relative weight to be given to scientific evidence versus connoisseurship. Physicist John F. Asmus, who pioneered laser-restoration techniques for Renaissance art, and who had previously examined the Mona Lisa in the Louvre for this purpose, published a computer image processing study in 1988 concluding that the brush strokes of the face in the painting were performed by the same artist responsible for the brush strokes of the face of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, and replicated that finding in a 2016 study. However, curator Luke Syson has argued that science is "only ever one of several factors we'd use to assess the authenticity and authorship of a work of art". An independent 2015 academic journal article also attributed the work to Leonardo on stylistic grounds.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの抽象を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Isleworth
Jean-Pierre Isbouts
John F. Asmus
Leonardeschi
Leonardo da Vinci
Louvre
Luke Syson
Martin Kemp
Mona Lisa
Paul George Konody
Physicist
Renaissance art
Reuters
The Guardian
Walter Isaacson


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

The Isleworth Mona Lisa is an early 16th-century oil on canvas painting depicting the same subject as Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, though with the subject  depicted as being a younger age. The painting is thought to have been brought from Italy to England in the 1780s, Since the 1910s, experts in various fields, as well as the collectors who have acquired ownership of the painting, have asserted that the major elements of the painting are the work of Leonardo himself, as an earlier version of the Mona Lisa.In 1914, art critic Paul George Konody criticized early reports of the painting, which contained errors that he believed caused skepticism about the painting to become "hostile incredulity", but Konody nonetheless found that the painting was clearly "very largely worked up by the master himself". Konody also found the painting to have features "far more pleasing and beautiful than in the Louvre version". A number of Italian experts in the 1920s echoed Konody's assessment of authorship by Leonardo at a time when the painting was more broadly examined. Much later authorities have made varying characterizations of the degree to which the painting can be ascribed to Leonardo; in 2012, The Guardian described the art world as being "split" over the question, and in 2013, Reuters said that it was "dismissed by some experts", but "also won support in the art world". Art historian Jean-Pierre Isbouts has endorsed Leonardo's involvement in painting the work, asserting that "24 of 27 recognised Leonardo scholars have agreed this is a Leonardo", while art historian Martin Kemp dismisses the proposition that Leonardo painted any part, and in 2012 described his contemporaries in the art world as being equivocal, or making "encouraging but noncommittal statements" on this point.Kemp and others who doubt Leonardo's hand in the painting attribute it to the Leonardeschi, Leonardo's workshop, believing it to be one of a number of copies of the Mona Lisa produced by Leonardo's collaborators, assistants, and pupils, though, as Leonardo biographer Walter Isaacson expressed it, "perhaps with an occasional helping hand from the master". but as an earlier version of the Louvre Mona Lisa.Differing views have been expressed on the relative weight to be given to scientific evidence versus connoisseurship. Physicist John F. Asmus, who pioneered laser-restoration techniques for Renaissance art, and who had previously examined the Mona Lisa in the Louvre for this purpose, published a computer image processing study in 1988 concluding that the brush strokes of the face in the painting were performed by the same artist responsible for the brush strokes of the face of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, and replicated that finding in a 2016 study. However, curator Luke Syson has argued that science is "only ever one of several factors we'd use to assess the authenticity and authorship of a work of art". An independent 2015 academic journal article also attributed the work to Leonardo on stylistic grounds.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザ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。

Isleworth
Jean-Pierre Isbouts
John F. Asmus
Leonardeschi
Leonardo da Vinci
Louvre
Luke Syson
Martin Kemp
Mona Lisa
Paul George Konody
Physicist
Renaissance art
Reuters
The Guardian
Walter Isaacson


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

The Isleworth Mona Lisa is an early 16th-century oil on canvas painting depicting the same subject as Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, though with the subject  depicted as being a younger age. The painting is thought to have been brought from Italy to England in the 1780s, Since the 1910s, experts in various fields, as well as the collectors who have acquired ownership of the painting, have asserted that the major elements of the painting are the work of Leonardo himself, as an earlier version of the Mona Lisa.In 1914, art critic Paul George Konody criticized early reports of the painting, which contained errors that he believed caused skepticism about the painting to become "hostile incredulity", but Konody nonetheless found that the painting was clearly "very largely worked up by the master himself". Konody also found the painting to have features "far more pleasing and beautiful than in the Louvre version". A number of Italian experts in the 1920s echoed Konody's assessment of authorship by Leonardo at a time when the painting was more broadly examined. Much later authorities have made varying characterizations of the degree to which the painting can be ascribed to Leonardo; in 2012, The Guardian described the art world as being "split" over the question, and in 2013, Reuters said that it was "dismissed by some experts", but "also won support in the art world". Art historian Jean-Pierre Isbouts has endorsed Leonardo's involvement in painting the work, asserting that "24 of 27 recognised Leonardo scholars have agreed this is a Leonardo", while art historian Martin Kemp dismisses the proposition that Leonardo painted any part, and in 2012 described his contemporaries in the art world as being equivocal, or making "encouraging but noncommittal statements" on this point.Kemp and others who doubt Leonardo's hand in the painting attribute it to the Leonardeschi, Leonardo's workshop, believing it to be one of a number of copies of the Mona Lisa produced by Leonardo's collaborators, assistants, and pupils, though, as Leonardo biographer Walter Isaacson expressed it, "perhaps with an occasional helping hand from the master". but as an earlier version of the Louvre Mona Lisa.Differing views have been expressed on the relative weight to be given to scientific evidence versus connoisseurship. Physicist John F. Asmus, who pioneered laser-restoration techniques for Renaissance art, and who had previously examined the Mona Lisa in the Louvre for this purpose, published a computer image processing study in 1988 concluding that the brush strokes of the face in the painting were performed by the same artist responsible for the brush strokes of the face of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, and replicated that finding in a 2016 study. However, curator Luke Syson has argued that science is "only ever one of several factors we'd use to assess the authenticity and authorship of a work of art". An independent 2015 academic journal article also attributed the work to Leonardo on stylistic grounds.

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザに関して、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。

Isleworth
Jean-Pierre Isbouts
John F. Asmus
Leonardeschi
Leonardo da Vinci
Louvre
Luke Syson
Martin Kemp
Mona Lisa
Paul George Konody
Physicist
Renaissance art
Reuters
The Guardian
Walter Isaacson


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

thumbnailrightThe thumbnailrightHands of the Louvre Mona Lisa  and the Isleworth Mona Lisa The Isleworth Mona Lisa is of the same subject as the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and there are many similarities between the two. Both paintings depict a dark-haired woman, Lisa Gherardini, who sits at an angle and is surrounded by the landscape behind her. The work measures 84.5 × 64.5 cm, slightly larger than the Louvre Mona Lisa. However, the Isleworth Mona Lisa is differentiated by the model being noticeably younger, having columns, and being painted on canvas. The canvas is of hand-woven linen cloth, characterized by "simple 'tabby' weaves with an average count of 18 threads per cm in the warp and 16 threads per cm in the weft, that cross one another regularly, with some variation in thickness. The result is a deformation in which the warp is slightly tighter than the weft".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザに焦点を当てて、その説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

thumbnailrightThe thumbnailrightHands of the Louvre Mona Lisa  and the Isleworth Mona Lisa The Isleworth Mona Lisa is of the same subject as the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and there are many similarities between the two. Both paintings depict a dark-haired woman, Lisa Gherardini, who sits at an angle and is surrounded by the landscape behind her. The work measures 84.5 × 64.5 cm, slightly larger than the Louvre Mona Lisa. However, the Isleworth Mona Lisa is differentiated by the model being noticeably younger, having columns, and being painted on canvas. The canvas is of hand-woven linen cloth, characterized by "simple 'tabby' weaves with an average count of 18 threads per cm in the warp and 16 threads per cm in the weft, that cross one another regularly, with some variation in thickness. The result is a deformation in which the warp is slightly tighter than the weft".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

thumbnailrightThe thumbnailrightHands of the Louvre Mona Lisa  and the Isleworth Mona Lisa The Isleworth Mona Lisa is of the same subject as the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and there are many similarities between the two. Both paintings depict a dark-haired woman, Lisa Gherardini, who sits at an angle and is surrounded by the landscape behind her. The work measures 84.5 × 64.5 cm, slightly larger than the Louvre Mona Lisa. However, the Isleworth Mona Lisa is differentiated by the model being noticeably younger, having columns, and being painted on canvas. The canvas is of hand-woven linen cloth, characterized by "simple 'tabby' weaves with an average count of 18 threads per cm in the warp and 16 threads per cm in the weft, that cross one another regularly, with some variation in thickness. The result is a deformation in which the warp is slightly tighter than the weft".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザ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

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

thumbnailrightThe thumbnailrightHands of the Louvre Mona Lisa  and the Isleworth Mona Lisa The Isleworth Mona Lisa is of the same subject as the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and there are many similarities between the two. Both paintings depict a dark-haired woman, Lisa Gherardini, who sits at an angle and is surrounded by the landscape behind her. The work measures 84.5 × 64.5 cm, slightly larger than the Louvre Mona Lisa. However, the Isleworth Mona Lisa is differentiated by the model being noticeably younger, having columns, and being painted on canvas. The canvas is of hand-woven linen cloth, characterized by "simple 'tabby' weaves with an average count of 18 threads per cm in the warp and 16 threads per cm in the weft, that cross one another regularly, with some variation in thickness. The result is a deformation in which the warp is slightly tighter than the weft".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザに関して、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

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

It is generally agreed that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was painted during Leonardo's lifetime and in his studio, the question being whether Leonardo himself painted any substantial portion of the painting. A number of arguments have been made for and against this proposition. Sources have suggested that Leonardo occasionally worked on paintings being prepared by others in his studio, for example in Fra. Pietro de Nuvolaria's 1501 letter stating that "two of Leonardo's pupils were painting portraits which he occasionally worked upon himself", and Isaacson's assertion that students painting in Leonardo's studio may have received "an occasional helping hand from the master". Konody wrote in his evaluation of the Isleworth Mona Lisa that "it is worth noting that the painting of two versions of the same subject would not be an isolated instance in the practice of Leonardo—witness the 'Virgin of the Rocks', of which both the Louvre and the National Gallery in London own authentic versions".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザに焦点を当てて、その帰属を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Isleworth
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Virgin of the Rocks


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

It is generally agreed that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was painted during Leonardo's lifetime and in his studio, the question being whether Leonardo himself painted any substantial portion of the painting. A number of arguments have been made for and against this proposition. Sources have suggested that Leonardo occasionally worked on paintings being prepared by others in his studio, for example in Fra. Pietro de Nuvolaria's 1501 letter stating that "two of Leonardo's pupils were painting portraits which he occasionally worked upon himself", and Isaacson's assertion that students painting in Leonardo's studio may have received "an occasional helping hand from the master". Konody wrote in his evaluation of the Isleworth Mona Lisa that "it is worth noting that the painting of two versions of the same subject would not be an isolated instance in the practice of Leonardo—witness the 'Virgin of the Rocks', of which both the Louvre and the National Gallery in London own authentic versions".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの帰属を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Isleworth
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Virgin of the Rocks


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

It is generally agreed that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was painted during Leonardo's lifetime and in his studio, the question being whether Leonardo himself painted any substantial portion of the painting. A number of arguments have been made for and against this proposition. Sources have suggested that Leonardo occasionally worked on paintings being prepared by others in his studio, for example in Fra. Pietro de Nuvolaria's 1501 letter stating that "two of Leonardo's pupils were painting portraits which he occasionally worked upon himself", and Isaacson's assertion that students painting in Leonardo's studio may have received "an occasional helping hand from the master". Konody wrote in his evaluation of the Isleworth Mona Lisa that "it is worth noting that the painting of two versions of the same subject would not be an isolated instance in the practice of Leonardo—witness the 'Virgin of the Rocks', of which both the Louvre and the National Gallery in London own authentic versions".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザはどのように帰属を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Isleworth
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Virgin of the Rocks


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

It is generally agreed that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was painted during Leonardo's lifetime and in his studio, the question being whether Leonardo himself painted any substantial portion of the painting. A number of arguments have been made for and against this proposition. Sources have suggested that Leonardo occasionally worked on paintings being prepared by others in his studio, for example in Fra. Pietro de Nuvolaria's 1501 letter stating that "two of Leonardo's pupils were painting portraits which he occasionally worked upon himself", and Isaacson's assertion that students painting in Leonardo's studio may have received "an occasional helping hand from the master". Konody wrote in his evaluation of the Isleworth Mona Lisa that "it is worth noting that the painting of two versions of the same subject would not be an isolated instance in the practice of Leonardo—witness the 'Virgin of the Rocks', of which both the Louvre and the National Gallery in London own authentic versions".

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザに関して、どのように帰属が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Isleworth
Louvre
Mona Lisa
Virgin of the Rocks


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザに焦点を当てて、その参照を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの参照を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザ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。


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザに関して、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。


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

;Books  Reprinted from Optical Engineering, Vol. 28 , pp. 800–804  }}   }}  }}  }}  }}    }}  ;Academic Journals ;Articles        ;Web

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザに焦点を当てて、その情報源を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

;Books  Reprinted from Optical Engineering, Vol. 28 , pp. 800–804  }}   }}  }}  }}  }}    }}  ;Academic Journals ;Articles        ;Web

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザの情報源を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

;Books  Reprinted from Optical Engineering, Vol. 28 , pp. 800–804  }}   }}  }}  }}  }}    }}  ;Academic Journals ;Articles        ;Web

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザはどのように情報源を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

アイルワースのモナ・リザ

;Books  Reprinted from Optical Engineering, Vol. 28 , pp. 800–804  }}   }}  }}  }}  }}    }}  ;Academic Journals ;Articles        ;Web

Prompt: アイルワースのモナ・リザに関して、どのように情報源が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。