Some days I wonder if I should forget all about cipher mysteries – which are, quite frankly, far too much like hard work – and instead start up a news feed that promises subscribers one thing and one thing only: a freshly hatched cracked Leonardo da Vinci theory every day.
But even if such a tragic nadir of historical non-journalism were to prove possible (and, unfortunately, I suspect it probably would), it would surely be no more than a postmodernist anti-triumph: for what would it prove? That “war, war is stupid, people are stupid, and love means nothing in some strange quarters“? I rest my case, m’lud.
Yet despite the obvious foolishness of sending yet another Leonardo theory floating off into the ether like some flying Chinese lantern, even the very best Leonardo writers still feel the need to do just that. For example, Martin Kemp – Emeritus Professor of History of Art at Oxford, the crème de la crème of da Vinci-studying historians – recently co-write a book (“La Bella Principessa: The Story of the New Masterpiece by Leonardo Da Vinci”, summarized here) arguing that a picture long thought to be a 19th century fake is in fact a real 15th century drawing of Bianca Sforza by none other than Leonardo. Is it definitely by Leonardo (to be honest, Kemp’s not-quite-smoking gun proof is a fingerprint identification that seems more tendentious than tentative), or a German “Nazarene Brotherhood” creation from closer to 1820, as Christie’s wrote in their auction catalogue? Given the strong arguments both ways, I suspect Kemp may have subtly damaged his credibility by not really balancing his case out. He of all people should know that when it comes to Leonardo, things are rarely that one-sided. 🙁
But actually, that’s all by the by. Today’s fruity Mona Lisa story comes courtesy of p.22 of the Sunday Times, which reports “a startling theory about the work’s background” proposed by “Canadian doctor and amateur art historian” (do those words fill you with dread as well?) Donato Pezzutto. If, the good doctor claims, you join the right-hand edge of the Mona Lisa to the left-hand edge, you end up with a depiction of “Lake Trasimeno in Umbria” verrrry similar to the one that Leonardo depicted in his 1502-3 topographical map of Val di Chiana. If you want more, all I can do is refer you to Pezzutto’s article in the journal Cartographica: but… being honest… I have to say it sounds to me a lot like superficial nonsense built around a single rather unconvincing datapoint.
All of which of course points to why I couldn’t be the brains behind dailyleonardotheory.com: having to bite my tongue every day would kill me. Or rather, I’d probably need a new tongue every couple of days. Not my idea of fun, not by a long way. 🙁
Dear nickpelling,
I too despair at the amount of dubious material that is inspired by Mona Lisa and Leonardo. It is partially for this reason that I have maintained a distance from these theories. I have tried to present my hypothesis, of the Mona Lisa landscape matching a particular place, as depicted by Leonardo in his Val di Chiana map, in a coherent and convincing manner. Art history journals have passed it over but cartography experts have validated the merit of this argument by accepting the article, after a blinded peer-review process by the respected journal, Cartographica, published by University of Toronto Press.
No, I do not have any formal art history training but I know that to make a judgement on an article, I should first read it. If you read the article you will see that the hypothesis is built on much more than “a single rather unconvincing datapoint”.
That “datapoint”, that the image on one edge of the Mona Lisa continues on the other edge, is an important observation that art historians have ignored for too long. Yet it is discussed in popular literature. If the art community takes your closed-minded approach, a scholarly discussion of the observation will never happen. If you read the article, you may agree, or disagree with the hypothesis, or decide that you must study the matter longer to form an opinion. Whichever way it goes you won’t have to bite your tongue and you might even have fun. See “Leonardo’s Val di Chiana Map in the Mona Lisa”, in Cartographica, 46:3, 2011.
Sincerely, Donato.
Donato: I’ll be sure to read your article as soon as practical. What I didn’t mention in my post was that I created my own copy of the right-to-left edge you described and image-enhanced it in multiple ways to see if I could bring out the details as described in the Sunday Times piece to any significant degree of satisfaction- but I could not. That’s not exactly the “closed-minded approach” you were quick to presume.
Thank you. The article displays the match with better images. Donato.
I understand your reluctance to be the spiritual sire of dailyleonardotheory.com. But have you considered davincidujour.com? It has such a nice ring to it!
In relation to Leonardo’s inventions, this author mentions a fascinating connection between the Catlans and Transylvania.
Do read –
http://riowang.blogspot.com/2009/05/ad-astra.html