From the Champs-Elysées to Saint Germain des Près, the Bastille
to posh Passy, Paris is the undisputed capital of girl watching.
And with their pert presence, sense of style, and fashion flair,
the ladies in question are indeed well worth a look. The city has
even turned it into a spectator sport of sorts — besides fiddling
with cell phones, what else are all those sidewalk cafés for? This
year’s long simmering summer was an exceptionally good vintage,
café tables overflowing to the curbs with goggle-eyed male patrons
looking their fill.
But la Parisienne, for all her many assets and
attributes, is not actually the most ogled woman in the city. That
title goes to an aloof Italian beauty who neither flounces by nor
makes with the saucy repartee. She merely gazes back with a subtle,
enigmatic smile.
For a look at her, you have to start an epic journey in a
cavernous crypt beneath a glass pyramid. You climb worn, crowded
stone stairs of an ancient palace now known, for reasons no one can
remember, as the Louvre. On the way you pass a cast of extras
including an Italian slave, an ancient Greek warrior, and a
carelessly draped winged lady. On the second floor you invariably
come across a horde jockeying and elbowing as close as they can get
to a bulletproof, air-conditioned showcase. If you can squeeze your
way in, you are entitled to a harried look at Lisa Gherardini,
a.k.a. Mona [a variation of Madonna, Lady] Lisa, the wife of a
wealthy Renaissance Florentine merchant, Franceso del Giocondo.
Louvre officials estimate that fully 80 percent of the museum’s
6.6 million annual visitors come mainly to look at Leonardo da
Vinci’s 500-year-old portrait. The question is, why? One answer is
that like most celebrities, Mona Lisa is famous for being famous.
Another is that they come to see the cultural archetype that has
provoked more arcane analysis, gross imitations, and crass
commercialization than just about any other object in the
world.
If there was ever any doubt about her world-class status, that
was laid to rest in January 1963, when Mona Lisa arrived in
America. President John F. Kennedy and an evening-gowned Jacqueline
formally welcomed her to Washington’s National Gallery of Art,
where white-gloved U.S. Marines stood guard around the clock and
crowds waited for hours. It was the same mob scene later at New
York’s Metropolitan Museum. In all, more than 1.5 million Americans
looked over Mona Lisa.
What they saw is defined by that tight-lipped smile. After
looking carefully, the art critic Bernard Berenson considered that
Leonardo’s subtle sfumato technique of modeling light and
shade reached its apex here, carrying “facial expression perilously
close to the brink of the endurable.” For centuries many an artist
has tried to equal it. One, the mid-19th-century French artist Luc
Maspero, threw himself out the window of his Paris room, leaving a
farewell note: “For years I have grappled desperately with her
smile. I prefer to die.”
These days we don’t need suicidal artists to analyze the dreamy,
diaphanous atmosphere that seems to envelop her. We can use an
X-ray fluorescence spectroscope, as technicians at the Louvre have
recently done. With this they were able to detect dozens of layers
of translucent glaze, each only one or two micrometers thick, that
give her face a sense of depth and reality. Leonardo’s
sfumato technique was well known before, but this is the
first scientific explanation of exactly how he did it.
But beyond mere technique, the question remains of what it all
means. The Marquis de Sade, for one, found Mona Lisa full of
“seduction and devoted tenderness,” and “the very essence of
femininity,” though given his tastes in women one wonders exactly
what he meant. Walter Pater, leader of the 19th-century English
Aestheticism movement, was even more overwrought at the sight of
her. “She is older than the rocks among which she sits,” he
swooned, “like the vampire, she has been dead many times, and
learned the secrets of the grave; and has been a diver in deep
seas.”
Sigmund Freud, too, went into raptures. Terming Leonardo an
obsessive neurotic in Leonardo da Vinci: A Study in
Psychosexuality, the Viennese supershrink decided that Mona
Lisa’s expression could only resemble the mysterious smile of the
artist’s mother: “This picture contains the synthesis of the
history of Leonardo’s childhood.” As for Mona Lisa herself, he
proclaimed her nothing less than “the most perfect representation
of the contrasts dominating the love-life of woman, namely reserve
and seduction, most submissive tenderness and the indifferent
craving, which confront man as a strange and consuming
sensuality.”
OVER AT THE LOUVRE, they have a more playful view. What if a pun
lay at the heart of Mona Lisa? After all, Giocondo in
Italian, like Joconde in French, means cheerful, merry,
joyous, as does “jocund” in English. Leonardo had already played
with a sitter’s name by putting a juniper bush in his portrait of
Ginevra (related to “juniper” in Italian) de Benci that hangs in
the National Gallery of Art. “He was punning on Mona Lisa’s married
name when he gave her a subtle smile in La Joconde,” a
curator of 16th-century French and Italian painting at the Louvre
once told me, using the usual French term for the painting. “He
made it emblematic of her. What we really have here is an idea,
more than a realistic portrait, the idea of a smile expressed in a
painting.” She added with a verbal shudder, “That picture always
makes me feel uneasy when I look at it.”
Today’s ideas on art are more down-to-earth. Like, how much is
it worth? King Francis I added Mona Lisa to his royal collections
for 4,000 gold écus, or about $128,700, after Leonardo’s death in
1519 at his chateau of Amboise. Louvre officials say simply that
Mona Lisa’s monetary value is inestimable. In 1911, however, it was
precious but not yet such an icon that it couldn’t be sold. That
made it worth stealing.
The biggest art heist in history — Time recently
ranked it one of the most famous crimes of the last 100 years —
occurred that year, when an Italian laborer named Vincenzo Peruggia
walked out the door with it one evening. Peruggia, who had worked
at the Louvre, was put up to the job by an Argentine con man named
Eduardo de Valfierno, who had a skilled art forger knock off six
copies. Valfierno then sold the copies for the equivalent today of
$67 million. When Peruggia naively proposed the original to a
Florence art dealer he was promptly pinched. Mona Lisa, undamaged,
returned to France on December 31, 1913, riding like royalty in a
special compartment of the Milan-Paris express, escorted by a
squadron of policemen, politicians, museum officials, and
artists.
The damage was to the blind veneration of Mona Lisa. Somehow the
caper and its irreverent press coverage rubbed off some of her
mystique. The age of Giocondoclasm had begun.
Suddenly the public couldn’t get enough of jokey Giocondiana.
One postcard showed a grinning, toothy Mona Lisa thumbing her nose
at the public and saying, “I’m off to see my Leonardo.” Another
postcard, after the return, showed her holding a baby with
Peruggia’s picture in the background, as if she’d been on a
romantic escapade.
With irreverence and reaction against “bourgeois” values the new
order of the day, the painting became the ideal target for
desperately modern iconoclastic artists. Marcel Duchamp, leader of
the Dada anti-art movement, summed up the new zeitgeist in 1919.
Taking a standard postcard reproduction, he naughtily brushed in a
pointy mustache and goatee on the sacred face. Now it looks like no
more than a childish prank. But the uptight Art Establishment was
shocked, shocked.
Joe Medeiros | 9.29.10 @ 10:27AM
For the past two years, I’ve been making a documentary on Vincenzo Peruggia, the man who stole the Mona Lisa. And I can tell you that there is absolutely no proof that Eduardo Valfierno ever existed. He comes from a story written by a former Hearst journalist named Karl Decker and published in the Saturday Evening Post in 1932. Our research has shown us whom Decker may have based the character of Valfierno on, but that person had nothing to do with the theft of the Mona Lisa. It was all the hapless plan of Vincenzo Peruuggia. Check out our website:
http://www.monalisamissing.com/
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.29.10 @ 10:48AM
Boring..........................
Berenson| 9.29.10 @ 11:01AM
What I like aboout Spectator,Standard and National Review (and the Wall STreet Journal) is that they also run serious pieces about Art and Literature. Ken Old Texan, Man does not live by read meat alone!
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.29.10 @ 12:47PM
Berenson,
Forgive me. Jesus said that...sorta. He spoke that after meeting the Samaritan woman at the well, after He gave her the Grace of forgiveness and acceptance.
...not a dip sh_t painting.
RCV| 9.29.10 @ 1:05PM
I'm with Ken. I like "serious pieces about Art and Literature," but this isn't one.