|
|
|||||||
|
"Do
you not see that, among human beauties, it is a very beautiful face and
not rich ornaments that stop passers-by?
Do you not
see beautiful young people diminish their excellence with excessive ornamentation? "1 -- Leonardo da Vinci
|
|||||||
| Though
shrouded in mystery, Leonardo da Vinci's creation known as the "Mona
Lisa" is the most recognized and reproduced image from the art historical
record. Scientists, scholars, writers, and poets have philosophized and
voiced countless theories concerning technical aspects of the painting,
the sitter's identity, her social class, and the meaning behind her famous
smile. One significant aspect of this work that is seldom discussed is the
figure's simple, yet classically elegant attire. Her manner of dress is
unusual for portraiture in the Renaissance era and provokes further questions
as to da Vinci's intent. Is the Mona Lisa simply an unusual portrait of
a wealthy merchant's wife? Was she meant to personify a religious figure,
or is this painting simply the culmination of da Vinci's quest to accurately
capture the natural unadorned beauty of the sitter and the landscape beyond?
"Her hair, shoulder length, is wrapped in a translucent veil. She wears a sober, dark dress. Her left shoulder is adorned by a thickly pleated mantle. Her neckline reveals the inception of her breasts. She wears no jewels. She Smiles."2 In Becoming
Mona Lisa, author Donald Sassoon explains that the identity of the
sitter for this famous work was not questioned until the twentieth century.3
Andre Charles Coppier, a distinguished engraver, suggests that
the sitter was not simply a Florentine wife, but an idealized person.4
A wealth of information exists to support this theory that is directly
related to the way in which the figure is dressed. Renaissance portraits
of Florentine women traditionally reflect the social status and familial
role of the sitter.5 A wealthy merchant like Francesco
del Giocondo (Lisa's husband), would have been an appropriate patron for
da Vinci as it was common for the wealthy to commission well established
artists to paint portraits of their wives.6 However,
in this piece, the figure lacks the traditional symbols of status present
in the majority of these works. The figure is completely unadorned. Joanna
Woods-Marsden writes "Although she came from a family with only a
modest income, and her small dowry of 170 florins may have included few
jewels, it seems inconceivable that any husband active
in the marketplace
would have concurred with this suppression of all markers of rank."7
Raphaels work "Pendant Portrait of Maddalena Strozzi, wife of Angelo
Donni" provides an excellent contrast to da Vinci's work and illustrates
Marsden's point. Raphael's piece was clearly influenced by da Vinci's
masterpiece, however the two works are very different. Da Vinci's figure
is displayed "as a beautiful work of nature," while Raphael's
portrait seeks to accentuates his sitter's status and position in society
(Figure 1). For example, Raphael copied Leonardo's depiction of
crossed hands, but in this case, the device works to accentuate and effectively
display the sitters jewel encrusted rings.8 "Do you not see that, among human beauties, it is a very beautiful face and not rich ornaments that stop passers-by? Do you not see beautiful young people diminish their excellence with excessive ornamentation? "16 Da Vinci often turned to nature as his source for painting as opposed to copying the pictures of others. He believed that to create from nature was to "practice its perfect and divine creative method."17 It is possible that the Mona Lisa was the end result of the artists efforts to marry his desires to depict nature (as seen in the background of the piece), and the unadorned beauty of his human subject.. If this was da Vinci's intent, he surely succeeded. One thing however, is for sure; the intrigue, mystery and sheer celebrity of the Mona Lisa is proof positive that clothes do NOT make the woman. It's definitely the other way around! 1 Vezzosi,
Alessandro. Leonardo da Vinci: The Mind of the Renaissance. New York:
Abrams,1996. 137.
|