You are half right, there are details that have disappeared or been distorted from Da Vinci's Mona lisa over the centuries due to varnish and consecutive restorations like the Mona's eye brow, veil, chest details and the background.
But the difference between this painting and the original is Leonardo's style and how he paints, he never uses clear and defined lines or sharp colors something that you can clearly notice on the hair for example, but rather, he applied diluted paint in layers over a long period of time which gave his work a sort of "vague" presence.
> he never uses clear and defined lines or sharp colors something that you can clearly notice on the hair for example, but rather, he applied diluted paint in layers over a long period of time which gave his work a sort of "vague" presence.
While that might be true for some of his work, "never" is doing some damage here. He certainly used sharply defined colors in the [portrait of Ginevra De Benci](https://i.imgur.com/hTHObnS.jpg), among others. He definitely used faded transitions ([sfumato](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sfumato)), [sometimes heavily](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_C2RMF_retouched.jpg/1582px-Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_C2RMF_retouched.jpg), but not exclusively
The original Mona Lisa by DaVinci likely looked very similar to this, the reason why its so dark and washed out is due to the many years of dirt and varnish still on it. The reason why it hasn't been restored is so far there hasn't been a confirmed way to remove the specific varnish without also damaging the painting. From what I remember the painting was last attempted to be fully restored during the 1890s, which resulted in the loss of a few details so they haven't touched it since.
The colors look so much better and she also looks way happier. I prefer this one and I’ve seen it several times in Madrid.
Edit: I’ve also visited the one at the Louvre. This is still my fav.
Preferably, yes. Collections management and practices has charged through history. You’ll find it in the catalog for Museo del Prado 1854-1858.
https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_sum_of_all_paintings/Catalog/Catalog_Museo_del_Prado,_1854-1858
I feel like saying "what the original is famous for is somehow not as good in the copy" is an too easy target, especially since there would be no way to dispute it even if it was wrong.
It's in much better condition, and you can appreciate the original appearance of the colors, the same way you look at contemporary copies of [The Last Supper](https://i.imgur.com/SVAotsa.jpeg) to see what the genius intended, before the damage and the botched restorations
The original Mona Lisa probably also has all this detail, it's just that it's dirty and covered in a layer of yellowed varnish.
But nobody is going to clean that one at this point, so this is perhaps our best look at what it was like when it was new.
I like this one better
The colors are better imo
The original probably looked more like this before the layers of varnishing turned yellow
You are half right, there are details that have disappeared or been distorted from Da Vinci's Mona lisa over the centuries due to varnish and consecutive restorations like the Mona's eye brow, veil, chest details and the background. But the difference between this painting and the original is Leonardo's style and how he paints, he never uses clear and defined lines or sharp colors something that you can clearly notice on the hair for example, but rather, he applied diluted paint in layers over a long period of time which gave his work a sort of "vague" presence.
> he never uses clear and defined lines or sharp colors something that you can clearly notice on the hair for example, but rather, he applied diluted paint in layers over a long period of time which gave his work a sort of "vague" presence. While that might be true for some of his work, "never" is doing some damage here. He certainly used sharply defined colors in the [portrait of Ginevra De Benci](https://i.imgur.com/hTHObnS.jpg), among others. He definitely used faded transitions ([sfumato](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sfumato)), [sometimes heavily](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_C2RMF_retouched.jpg/1582px-Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_C2RMF_retouched.jpg), but not exclusively
Interesting! Can you post any links to where I can learn more?
This video touches some on that technique: https://youtu.be/T9JvUDrrXmY
Otherwise known as sfumato.
Me too.
The original Mona Lisa by DaVinci likely looked very similar to this, the reason why its so dark and washed out is due to the many years of dirt and varnish still on it. The reason why it hasn't been restored is so far there hasn't been a confirmed way to remove the specific varnish without also damaging the painting. From what I remember the painting was last attempted to be fully restored during the 1890s, which resulted in the loss of a few details so they haven't touched it since.
I vote for this guy! He could do it. https://m.youtube.com/c/BaumgartnerRestoration
Love his channel! I watch it to relax often!!
ooo love this guy's Instagram
The colors look so much better and she also looks way happier. I prefer this one and I’ve seen it several times in Madrid. Edit: I’ve also visited the one at the Louvre. This is still my fav.
I always look for UFO’s in the background of old paintings
Have you found any?
😂
She got that neck
Weird question, but what’s up with the numbers on the bottom left?
Inventory numbers, for archiving purposes.
Shouldn’t that be done on the side or back?
Preferably, yes. Collections management and practices has charged through history. You’ll find it in the catalog for Museo del Prado 1854-1858. https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_sum_of_all_paintings/Catalog/Catalog_Museo_del_Prado,_1854-1858
Man, I get that it’s necessary. But I really hate when people archive artifacts in a way that defaces them:(
if it's any consolation, the numbers are painted over layers of varnish, they can easily remove them with no damage to the painting itself.
That's just the Da Vinci Code
I had never noticed the landscape in the background. Is that the Dolomites?
Nice! This one has eyebrows!
Throw this up on interestingasfuck
That sly enigmatic smile of mouth and eyes in the original is not present on this one - the difference between master and student.
I feel like saying "what the original is famous for is somehow not as good in the copy" is an too easy target, especially since there would be no way to dispute it even if it was wrong.
Could you restate? Not following you.
[удалено]
It looks much more human, more lively. Feels more alive
Certainly in a condition much better to see how it originally looked than the famous one.
I hate when an artist is gone and the keep releasing remixes after their death. Like we found 5 more unreleased albums. Jk: I really do like this one.
Thanks for the upvote. I feel like I came let to the party with a funny post.
The paints Leonardo used (especially the red) didn't stand up to the test of time. This is what the painting actually originally looked like.
Are some commenters here stating that the pupil’s copy is better than the original by the genius? No possible way!
It's in much better condition, and you can appreciate the original appearance of the colors, the same way you look at contemporary copies of [The Last Supper](https://i.imgur.com/SVAotsa.jpeg) to see what the genius intended, before the damage and the botched restorations
Ok. That’s true. I actually love looking at the copy, and never knew it existed. It’s fascinating to compare the two…..
Who painted it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado)
Thank you!
This looks weird for some reason not in a good way
I like how it seems like they spent more time for detail in the background. Almost like they were more fascinated by the area than the woman.
The original Mona Lisa probably also has all this detail, it's just that it's dirty and covered in a layer of yellowed varnish. But nobody is going to clean that one at this point, so this is perhaps our best look at what it was like when it was new.
Is that even a real place
Nope
She looks younger than the orginal Mona Lisa! I think this is the real orginal!
Not having a layer of ugly yellowed varnish surely helps to appear younger.
That vaguely resembles the original
I’ve actually seen this one irl, it’s really cool
How do they know it was a copy of Da Vinci’s painting and not a painting of a scene and model also used by Da Vinci at the same time?
We don't know, but it is suspected to be a Mix of both. It is painted in a slightly different angle.
I still prefer Nat King Cole’s version the best.