The itinerary <em>TITULORECORRIDO</em> has been successfully created. Now you can add in works from the Collection browser
<em>TITULOOBRA</em> added to <em>TITULORECORRIDO</em> itinerary

Technical investigation and restoration

Study of the Prado Museum's copy of La Gioconda Anónimo 21 February 2012

The study of this work began two years ago on the request of the Louvre within the context of the research undertaken in relation to the exhibition 'L’ultime chef-d’œuvre de Léonard de Vinci, la Sainte Anne'. The extremely interesting results obtained from the comparison of the infra-red reflectograph of the Prado’s panel with the one of the original painting led to the decision to undertake a more detailed study of the Prado’s painting and subsequently to restore it. The technical study undertaken was the habitual one carried out at the Museum and included infra-red reflectographs, x-ray, ultra-violent induced visible fluorescence and examination under a binocular magnifier. The aim of this study was to learn how the work was painted and to determine its state of preservation. After the above-mentioned documents (x-ray, infra-red etc) were analysed, laboratory tests were requested in order to resolve any doubts about the nature of the materials of which the work was made as well as the varnishes and the nature of any repainting.

Study of the Prado Museum's copy of La Gioconda

La Gioconda, Atelier of Leonardo da Vinci, ca. 1503-16. Oil on walnut panel, 76.3 x 57cm, 18mm thick. Cat. no. P-504. Old inventory nos: 393,666,199

Supported by:

Videos

Technical analysis

La Gioconda (copia) antes de la restauración. Taller de Leonardo da Vinci. H.1503-16. Óleo sobre tabla de nogal. 76,3 x 57cm, 18mm de grosor. Nº Cat. P-504

El análisis técnico y la restauración han permitido recuperar la imagen original del cuadro y uno de los testimonios más representativos de los procedimientos de taller de Leonardo, convirtiéndola en la versión más importante de la Gioconda conocida hasta el momento.

La Gioconda (copia) después de la restauración

La Gioconda (copia) después de la restauración. Taller de Leonardo da Vinci. H.1503-16. Óleo sobre tabla de nogal. 76,3 x 57cm, 18mm de grosor. Nº Cat. P-504

El estudio cruzado de las dos obras y de sus documentos técnicos está contribuyendo también a comprender la pintura del Louvre y a completar la secuencia de los pasos de su ejecución, puesto que la nitidez de las imágenes generadas por el examen de la copia ayuda a distinguir rasgos en los documentos de la original que, hasta ahora, habían pasado desapercibidos o cuya comprensión no era fácil.

La Gioconda(copia) junto a La Gioconda (©Elsa Lambert, C2RMF)

Los datos aportados por el examen comparado de las dos obras, corroboran también lo que se conoce sobre el funcionamiento del taller de Leonardo, descrito por Martin Kemp en su investigación sobre las versiones existentes de la Madonna del huso y registrado en una carta escrita por Fray Pietro de Novellara a Isabella d'Este, tras visitar la bottega del maestro, en la que le mencionaba haber visto a dos de sus aprendices hacer copiasporque el maestro estaba muy atareado.

La existencia del paisaje bajo el fondo negro se detectó en la reflectografía infrarroja y el examen de la superficie con luz rasante, antes del comienzo de la restauración, confirmándose después con la radiografía. A pesar de la evidencia, fue necesario determinar si la adición de la sustancia negra era posterior a la ejecución de la pintura y, en este caso, si ocultaba algún daño en ella. Los análisis químicos concluyeron que se trataba de un repinte.

Reflectografía infrarroja (izquierda) y Radiografía (derecha) de la Gioconda (copia)

,

La Gioconda before the restoration process. Studio of Leonardo da Vinci, ca.1503-16. Oil on walnut panel, 76.3 x 57cm, 18mm thick. Cat. no. P-504. Old inventory nos: 393,666,199

Technical analysis and the recent restoration have resulted in the recovery of the original appearance of the work, which is extremely valuable for the way in which it casts light on workshop procedures in Leonardo’s studio. It is the most important version of La Gioconda known to date.

La Gioconda after the restoration process. Studio of Leonardo da Vinci, ca.1503-16. Oil on walnut panel, 76.3 x 57cm, 18mm thick. Cat. no. P-504. Old inventory nos: 393,666,199

The comparison of the two works and the technical documentation relating to them has also contributed to an understanding of the Louvre painting and to completing the sequence of the known phases of its execution, given that the precision of the images produced during the examination of the Prado’s copy revealed features in the x-rays and infra-reds of the original that had previously passed unnoticed.

La Gioconda (copy) alongside La Gioconda (©Elsa Lambert, C2RMF)

In addition, data resulting from the comparative examination of the two works confirms what was already known about the way Leonardo’s studio functioned, which has been described by Martin Kemp in his research on the existing versions of the Madonna of the Yardwinder and which are also recorded in a letter from Fra Pietro de Novellara to Isabella d’Este after the former had visited Leonardo’s studio. In his letter Novellara mentions having seen two apprentices making copies as the master was extremely occupied.

The existence of the landscape beneath the black background was detected with infra-red reflectography and from an examination of the surface under raking light before restoration started. It was subsequently confirmed with x-ray. Despite this evidence it was necessary to determine whether the addition of the black substance was subsequent to the execution of the painting, and in that case whether it concealed any damage on it.

Infra-red reflectographs (left) x-ray examination (right) of La Gioconda (copy)

Chemical analysis

Chemical tests undertaken on this layer revealed that it consisted of repainting and that the binder was linseed oil, meaning that it had been added no earlier than 1750 (see fig.1). The landscape underneath was well preserved but was not entirely finished, which may have been one of the reasons why it was covered over.

In addition, an organic layer that was probably a varnish was also detected between the landscape and the overpainting, which functioned to separate the two. This information, together with solubility tests, supported the decision to remove the layer of black overpainting that had nothing to do with the original conception of the portrait (see fig.2).

The recovered landscape conforms to the colour range and forms of Leonardo’s evanescent landscapes despite obvious differences in the pictorial quality.

A surprising element, for example, located to the right of the figure, is the area of mountains taken from the autograph drawing by Leonardo of A rocky outcrop (ca.1510-15) in the Royal Collection, Windsor.

<p><strong>Fig.2: </strong>Stratigraphic sample of La Gioconda (copy)</p>

Fig.2: Stratigraphic sample of La Gioconda (copy)

<p><strong>Fig.1: </strong>Layer of black overpainting</p>

Fig.1: Layer of black overpainting

Materials

The materials used in the Prado panel are of high quality and the work is carefully painted. It is executed on a walnut panel, which was a support habitually used in works by Leonardo and his Milanese circle. It is to be found in Lady with the ErmineLa Belle Ferronière, andSaint John the Baptist. The panel does not have the traditional gesso underlayer. Instead it has a double preparation (an internal orangeish layer and an external whiteish one) principally made up of lead white. The results published in the last issue of the National Gallery Technical Bulletin (no. 32) on tests carried out on other works by Leonardo, such as Lady with the ErmineLa Belle Ferronière and The Archinto Portrait of Marco d’Oggiono reveal that although unusual, this type of preparation was used in Leonardo’s bottega when the support was a walnut panel.

Comparative analysis

El extraordinario interés de esta copia reside en que, desde el dibujo preparatorio y casi hasta los últimos estadios, repite el paulatino proceso creativo de la Gioconda, sin pretender hacerse pasar por ella. El análisis comparado de las reflectografías infrarrojas1 ha revelado detalles idénticos, subyacentes a la pintura, que evidencian un proceso de elaboración paralelo. En el documento se ve que las figuras son iguales en dimensiones y forma, quizás traspasadas mediante calco partiendo del mismo cartón.

Análisis comparado de las reflectografías infrarrojas de las dos obras.

El dibujo preparatorio del original no es tan nítido como el de la copia, aunque en él se distinguen las líneas de emplazamiento de la figura y etapas de ejecución intermedias que se repiten en ella.

Detalle del dibujo preparatorio de las dos obras (izq. La Gioconda (©Elsa Lambert, C2RMF)/ dcha. La Gioconda (copia))

Las pinceladas que sitúan las formas en La Gioconda aparecen, siempre ligeramente desplazadas, igualmente bajo la superficie de la figura del Prado: en su espalda, cintura, hombros y manos, en la línea del pecho, en los pliegues de las mangas y en su regazo.

Algunas de las líneas del trazado inicial de la copia están corregidas a mano alzada y se ven trazos sutiles de dibujo libre hecho con piedra negra y pincel, que no tienen ninguna relación con las formas pintadas y, por lo tanto reflejan ensayos y titubeos del pintor, y nos hablan de un proceso mucho más complejo que el de una copia habitual.

Lo que es más importante, es que cada una de las correcciones del dibujo subyacente del original se repiten en la obra del Prado:

La transformación del contorno de la cintura, que como en él, está cubierta por los pliegues de superficie; la posición de los dedos, el contorno del velo y el de la cabeza, incluso ajustes menores de los perfiles de las mejillas y el cuello.

Un copista "tradicional" transcribe lo que ve en la superficie pintada, y no lo oculto, y la existencia de estas modificaciones comunes bajo la pintura demuestra que el autor de la tabla del Prado presenció todo el proceso de concepción y el desarrollo de la Gioconda, dibujando, además, elementos que Leonardo dibujó en las capas subyacentes y no incluyó en la superficie: como el brazo derecho de la silla o algunas partes internas del traje.

Correcciones del dibujo subyacente de La Gioconda (©Elsa Lambert, C2RMF) (izquierda) que se repiten en la copia (derecha)

,

The enormous interest of the Prado’s copy lies in the fact that from the preparatory drawing to almost the final paint layers it repeats the creative process of La Gioconda without aiming to be an imitation of it. Comparative analysis of the infra-red reflectographs1 has revealed identical details beneath the paint layers that reveal a parallel process of elaboration. In the document here it can be seen that the figures are of the same size and shape and have possibly been transferred onto their respective supports using the same cartoon.

Comparative analysis of the infra-red reflectographs. La Gioconda (copy) (left) / La Gioconda (©Elsa Lambert, C2RMF) (right)

The preparatory drawing on the original is not as precise as that on the copy although it also has the lines that indicate how the figure’s position was shifted and the intermediary phases of execution that are also found on the copy.

Detail La Gioconda (©Elsa Lambert, C2RMF)(left), La Gioconda (copy)(right)

The brushstrokes that define the forms in the original also appear beneath the paint surface of the Prado figure, all slightly displaced. They are to be found on the figure’s back, waist, shoulder and hands, on the line of the breast, on the folds of the sleeves and on her lap.

Some of the lines of the initial outline of the figure on the Prado version are corrected in free hand and it is possible to see subtle, drawn lines made in black chalk and brush that have no relationship with the painted forms. As such, they reflect the painter’s experiments and hesitations and suggest a much more complex creative process than that of a normal copy.

The most important point, however, is that each of the corrections to the underlying drawing on the original are also to be found on the Prado version:

The transformation of the outline of the waist, which, as in the original, is covered by drapery on the surface; the position of the fingers, the outline of the veil and of the head, even lesser modifications to the outlines of the cheeks and neck.

A “traditional” copyist transcribes what is seen on the surface but not what is hidden, and the existence of these shared modifications beneath the paint surface reveals that the artist who painted the Prado panel saw the entire process of the conception and execution of the Mona Lisa. In addition, he drew elements that Leonardo drew on the under-layers but did not include on the surface, including the right arm of the chair and some internal parts of the dress.

Detail La Gioconda (©Elsa Lambert, C2RMF) (left), La Gioconda (copy) (right)

1

Shot with Osiris camera by opus instrument.

Conclusions

All this information undoubtedly indicates that a member of Leonardo’s studio produced the Prado panel and that the copy and original were produced at the same time and in parallel. With regard to who the artist might be, the pictorial handling is not comparable to the style of pupils or collaborators such as Boltraffio, Marco d’Oggiono or Ambrogio di Predis, who have a defined artistic personality. However, it is possible to locate this work stylistically in a Milanese context, close to Salaï or perhaps to Francesco Melzi, Leonardo’s most trusted pupils, heirs of his work and the painters who had direct access to his landscape drawings.

The high quality of the materials used for the Madrid panel suggest that it was an important commission. In addition, up to now all known copies of La Gioconda were executed after its creation and reproduce what was a celebrated work from an early date. Technical analyses demonstrate that the Prado’s version was executed at the same time as the original, supporting the hypothesis of a workshop “duplicate” produced at the same time and with direct access to the gradual process of creation of Leonardo’s original work.

Bibliography

Inventario Palacio Real de Madrid. 1686. I. Pinturas. Gabinete del Salón de los espejos vol. III, Madrid: [s.n], 1686, pp. 26, nº 3343.

Inventario Alcázar. 1686. Galería del Mediodía, Madrid: [s.n], 1686.

Inventario Alcázar. 1700. Galería del Mediodía, Madrid: [s.n], 1700.

Inventario Palacio Nuevo. 1772, Madrid: [s.n], 1772, p. nº 95.

Inventario de las Pinturas del Museo Hecho a la Muerte del Rey Fernando VII, Madrid: [s.n], 1834, pp. 28, nº 393.

Angulo Íñiguez, Diego, Museo del Prado.Pintura Italiana Anterior a 1600, Madrid: Gredos, 1979, pp. 71-75.

Bosque, A.De, Artistes Italiens en Espagne.Du XIV Siecle Aux Roix Catholiq..., Paris: Le Temps, 1965, p. 271.

Campoy, A.M., Museo del Prado, Madrid: Giner, 1970, p. 64.

Falomir Faus, Miguel, Pintura Italiana del Renacimiento.Guia, Madrid: Museo del Prado.Aldeasa, 1999, p. 84.

Hohenstatt, Peter. Leonardo, h.f. Ullman Ed. Berlin, 2007

Kemp, Martin. Leonardo, Madrid, Breviarios del Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2006.

Kemp, Martin y Thereza Wells, Madonna of the Yarnwinder. A Historica and Scientific Detective Story, Londres, Artakt-Zidane Press, 2011.

Lafuente Ferrari, Enrique, El Prado. Escuelas Italiana y Francesa, Madrid: Aguilar, 1970, p. 89.

Pérez Sánchez, Alfonso E., Catalogo de las Pinturas. Museo del Prado, Madrid: Museo del Prado, 1985.

Pérez Sánchez, Alfonso E., Museo del Prado. Inventario General de Pinturas.Vol.I. La Colección Real, : Museo del Prado.Espasa : Calpe, 1990.

Ponz, Antonio, Viage de España, vol. VI, Madrid: Viuda de D.Joaquin Ibarra, 1793, p. 44.

Röhl, Juan, ''La Gioconda'' del Prado''. En: Letras y colores, MéjicoCultural, 1961, pp. 21-28.

Ruiz Manero, José María, "Pintura Italiana del Siglo XVI en España.Tomo I. Leonardo y los leonardescos", Cuadernos de arte e iconografía, 1992, pp. 34-36.

Sanchez Canton, F.J., Catalogo de las Pinturas.Museo del Prado, Madrid: Museo del Prado, 1972, pp. 356-357.

Au Cœur de la Joconde Léonard de Vinci décodé, Ed. Jean-Pierre Mohen, Michel Menu y Bruno Mottin. Paris, Ed. Gallimard, 2006

National Gallery Technical Bulletin, XXXII, 2011.

Catálogo de la Exposición Leonardo da Vinci. Painter at the Court of Milan (9 noviembre 2011- 5 Febrero 2012). Ed. Luke Syson y Larry Keith. National Gallery Company, London, 2011.

Credits

Technical study: Ana González Mozo. Technical Documentation Section. Restoration Department

Restoration: Almudena Sánchez Martín, Restoration department, Museo del Prado

Chief Curator of Italian Renaissance Painting, Museo del Prado: Miguel Falomir Faus

Infra-red reflectography and examination under binocular magnifier: Ana González Mozo

Infra-red reflectography Gioconda Musée du Louvre: Elsa Lambert

Research infra-red reflectography Gioconda Musée du Louvre: Bruno Mottin

Laboratory tests. Analysis laboratory, Museo National del Prado

X-rays: Technical section, Museo del Prado

Acknowledgements

Vincent Delieuvin. Conservateur de la Peinture italienne du XVIè siècle, Musée du Louvre

Marie Lavandier. Direction du C2RMF

Bruno Mottin. Conservateur en chef, C2RMF

Enrique Quintana. Head of the Restoration Studio, Museo del Prado

José Baztán. Photographer, Museo del Prado

Ana María Écija Moreno. Head of the photographic and digital archive, Museo del Prado

Manuel Díez Márquez. Restoration department, Museo del Prado

Up