达·芬奇《艾尔沃斯蒙娜丽莎》高清图片

作品简介

《艾尔沃斯蒙娜丽莎》是一幅创作于16世纪初的布面油画，描绘主题与达·芬奇《蒙娜丽莎》相同，但画中人物(丽莎·德尔·乔康多)显得更为年轻。该画作据信于1780年代从意大利流入英格兰，直至1913年英国鉴赏家休·布莱克从萨默塞特郡某庄园购得时才进入公众视野——据考该画作已在庄园悬挂逾百年。因布莱克工作室位于西伦敦艾尔沃斯区，画作由此得名"艾尔沃斯蒙娜丽莎"。自1910年代起，多领域专家及画作收藏者均主张该画主体部分实为达·芬奇亲笔所作，系《蒙娜丽莎》更早版本。

1914年，艺术评论家保罗·乔治·科诺迪批评早期报道存在谬误，导致学界对画作产生"敌意质疑"，但他仍认定画作"绝大部分由大师本人完成"。科诺迪更指出该作某些特征"比卢浮宫版本更动人美丽"。1920年代多位意大利专家在全面检测后支持科诺迪的达·芬奇作者说。后世权威学者对其归属度评价不一：2012年《卫报》称艺术界对此"分歧严重";2013年路透社报道该作虽"遭部分专家否定"，但"仍获艺术界支持"。艺术史学家让-皮埃尔·伊斯布茨认可达·芬奇的参与，声称"27位公认达·芬奇学者中24位认同此为真迹";而马丁·坎普教授则完全否认达·芬奇参与创作，2012年他批评同行对此态度暧昧，仅作出"鼓励性但模棱两可的声明"。

坎普等质疑派学者将其归为"达·芬奇画派"作品，认为这是工作室助手学生的摹本之一——正如达·芬奇传记作者沃尔特·艾萨克森所言："或许偶尔得到大师指点"。2010年成立的蒙娜丽莎基金会专门研究该作是否部分出自达·芬奇之手，且为卢浮宫《蒙娜丽莎》前身。

学界对科学检测与鉴赏判断的权重存在争议。曾用激光技术检测卢浮宫《蒙娜丽莎》的物理学家约翰·F·阿斯穆斯，1988年通过计算机图像处理研究得出结论：两幅画面部笔触出自同一画家之手，该结论在2016年复检中再次确认。但策展人卢克·赛森强调科学仅是"艺术品真伪鉴定的多重因素之一"。2015年某独立学术期刊亦从风格学角度论证此为达·芬奇真迹。

The Isleworth Mona Lisa is an early 16th-century oil on canvas painting depicting the same subject as Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, though with the subject (Lisa del Giocondo) depicted as being a younger age. The painting is thought to have been brought from Italy to England in the 1780s, and came into public view in 1913 when the English connoisseur Hugh Blaker acquired it from a manor house in Somerset, where it was thought to have been hanging for over a century. The painting would eventually adopt its unofficial name of Isleworth Mona Lisa from Blaker's studio being in Isleworth, West London. Since the 1910s, experts in various fields, as well as the collectors who have acquired ownership of the painting, have asserted that the major elements of the painting are the work of Leonardo himself, as an earlier version of the Mona Lisa.

In 1914, art critic Paul George Konody criticized early reports of the painting, which contained errors that he believed caused skepticism about the painting to become "hostile incredulity", but Konody nonetheless found that the painting was clearly "very largely worked up by the master himself". Konody also found the painting to have features "far more pleasing and beautiful than in the Louvre version". A number of Italian experts in the 1920s echoed Konody's assessment of authorship by Leonardo at a time when the painting was more broadly examined. Much later authorities have made varying characterizations of the degree to which the painting can be ascribed to Leonardo; in 2012, The Guardian described the art world as being "split" over the question, and in 2013, Reuters said that it was "dismissed by some experts", but "also won support in the art world". Art historian Jean-Pierre Isbouts has endorsed Leonardo's involvement in painting the work, asserting that "24 of 27 recognised Leonardo scholars have agreed this is a Leonardo", while art historian Martin Kemp dismisses the proposition that Leonardo painted any part, and in 2012 described his contemporaries in the art world as being equivocal, or making "encouraging but noncommittal statements" on this point.

Kemp and others who doubt Leonardo's hand in the painting attribute it to the Leonardeschi, Leonardo's workshop, believing it to be one of a number of copies of the Mona Lisa produced by Leonardo's collaborators, assistants, and pupils, though, as Leonardo biographer Walter Isaacson expressed it, "perhaps with an occasional helping hand from the master". In 2010, The Mona Lisa Foundation was founded to investigate if the Isleworth Mona Lisa was painted in part by Leonardo, but as an earlier version of the Louvre Mona Lisa.

Differing views have been expressed on the relative weight to be given to scientific evidence versus connoisseurship. Physicist John F. Asmus, who pioneered laser-restoration techniques for Renaissance art, and who had previously examined the Mona Lisa in the Louvre for this purpose, published a computer image processing study in 1988 concluding that the brush strokes of the face in the painting were performed by the same artist responsible for the brush strokes of the face of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, and replicated that finding in a 2016 study. However, curator Luke Syson has argued that science is "only ever one of several factors we'd use to assess the authenticity and authorship of a work of art". An independent 2015 academic journal article also attributed the work to Leonardo on stylistic grounds.