BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 03:45 PM

Picasso didn't do most of the paintings and drawings in the portfolios he submitted to get into the art acadamies, but he didn't last long enough in the acadamies for anyone to care - except his father who's tombstone records daddy's accusation of Pablo's forgeries.

John

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 08:56 AM

Shakespeare didn't write the stuff he's credited with. It was written by someone else with same name.

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: Amergin
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 08:17 AM

I just never really cared. Just like I don't care whether or not Shakespeare wrote those plays and sonnets.

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: GUEST,LTS pretending to work
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 07:25 AM

You sure that Kokopelli thingy isn't just his banjo?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 03:05 AM

What about the Mooner Lisa, then? Same lady, different angle...

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 12:21 AM

Must be something wrong with comcast as another member tried posting their webpage and I got the same error page as Bill's.

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: Sorcha
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 09:33 PM

Nope...sure don't Bill.

And here, all this time I thought the wee smile was because she had a 'secret'....maybe pregnant?

Kat, don't give away all our Kokopelli secrets! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 09:24 PM

Bill, your page doesn't work.

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 09:17 PM

she's amused by the comparison

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: Bee
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 09:14 PM

Vasari was by all reports a huge gossip, but is considered generally to have got the names right.

A practical if unromantic explanation for the smile is that the model likely had bad or missing teeth, and practiced smiling with closed lips.

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 08:54 PM

Yo9u are PRO-jecying again, Carol C. Besides, you iz better looking nor her.


A

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 08:42 PM

Her Secret

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 08:10 PM

Only adds a little more possible evidence.
A note in a book margin indicates that Leonardo was working on a portrait of Lisa del Giocondo along with two other paintings (of whom or what?).
Vasari, the art historian and artist had stated back in 1550 that the subject was Lisa del Giocondo. Admittedly after Leonardo's death, but I would imagine that families who paid well were known to the artists of the time.

"All doubt" is not removed, although the combined evidence is good.

That rather weak and condescending grin on her puss has been hyped to death. A good portrait, I imagine Leonardo got paid well, but I think some of his other works are superior.

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 08:05 PM

I guess they wouldn't like the authentic kokopelli then.

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: bobad
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 07:50 PM

When I saw the thread title I thought it was going to be about this story One Holy Hardon.

Subject: RE: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 07:44 PM

I could have told them who it was if they'd only asked. Here's a little illustration of how he did it: Click Here

Subject: BS: One More Time the Art World Shakes
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 07:20 PM

Once again, this time irrefutibly (again), unquestionably (one more time) laying to rest (again) all the unfounded speculations about the subject of Leonardo's Mona Lisa, new (of course) ancient evidence (what else) solves the mystery.

An unquestionable (again) expert (obviously) has discovered (again) in ancient documents (absolutely incontrovertible) NEW NOTES (as always) that positively (who'd a' guessed) identify the model for the painting.

German experts crack 'Mona Lisa' ID

Reuters
updated 2:35 p.m. CT, Mon., Jan. 14, 2008

BERLIN - German academics believe they have solved the centuries-old mystery behind the identity of the "Mona Lisa" in Leonardo da Vinci's famous portrait.

Lisa Gherardini, the wife of a wealthy Florentine merchant, Francesco del Giocondo, has long been seen as the most likely model for the 16th-century painting.

But art historians have often wondered whether the smiling woman may actually have been da Vinci's lover, his mother or the artist himself.

Now experts at the Heidelberg University library say dated notes scribbled in the margins of a book by its owner in October 1503 confirm once and for all that ...

[Hey guys and gals, this is so momentous (again) a discovery I'm gonna insist that you use the link and read it for yourselves.]

The "evidence" is pretty good, I guess - probably.(?)

As soon as the initial frantic excitement dies a bit, other "art mysteries" could perhaps be discussed(?).

I'd likely be more excited about somebody finding that "schtick" bullfighter painting that was asked about some months ago here, although I guess the above is significant news, and should be noted.

John