There's a lot of nudity in art. Which is why I know that middle America doesn't give a shit about going to see art in any form. Otherwise they wouldn't be so uppity when it comes to nudity and BOOBS being displayed. Of course they're ok with them when they're displayed bringing you a plate of hotwings from hooters, but that's neither here nor there.
It seems that a Nude, Mona Lisa-like painting surfaces
Leonardo da Vinci, in a Renaissance version of Mad Magazine, may have painted his famous Mona Lisa in a number of ways, including nude. Now, a painting has surfaced that looks much like the original, sparking debate over just how far the master took his iconic painting.
The newly revealed painting, hidden for almost a century within the wood wall of a private library, shows a portrait of a half-naked woman with clear links to the famous (and clothed) Mona Lisa.
The work, which documents suggest was at least based on never-seen similar work by Da Vinci, is now on exhibit at the Museo Ideale in the Tuscan town of Vinci, where Da Vinci was born in 1452.
The lady in the portrait does not exactly resemble the original Mona Lisa, but there is little doubt it has parallels with the painting hanging at the Louvre museum in Paris.
"The frontal look, the position of the hands, the spatial conception of the landscape, with columns at the sides, show a clear link with the Mona Lisa's iconographic theme," Alessandro Vezzosi, director of the museum, told Discovery News.
The naked portrait once belonged to Napoleon's uncle, Cardinal Joseph Fesch (1763-1839) and was ensconced within the wood walls of Fesch's private library for nearly a century, before trading more hands within the Napolean family.
An art lover, the Cardinal owned an impressive collection of artworks, including Da Vinci's "St. Jerome" (now in the Vatican gallery), which he discovered in pieces in the Roman shops of a second-hand dealer.
A note dating to 1845 records that the Cardinal bought "the portrait of the Mona Lisa, mistress of Francis I, by Leonardo da Vinci," from the Rospigliosis, a rich aristocratic Roman family.
After changing hands at the death of the Cardinal, the portrait was possibly bought by Napoleon III, and finally landed in the private collection of Count Giuseppe Primoli, a descendant of Luciano Bonaparte, Napoleon's brother.
The documentation from the painting's original purchase is not enough to verify the work is by Da Vinci, himself. The nude portrait will now undergo scientific and artistic investigations in an attempt to date the work and determine its author. Even if it is not by Da Vinci (and it likely isn't, experts say), it may be based on a lost original by the artist himself.
"I think it is very likely that Leonardo da Vinci conceived a naked Mona Lisa," leading Da Vinci scholar Carlo Pedretti, director of the Armand Hammer Center for Leonardo Studies at the University of California at Los Angeles, told Discovery News.
Indeed, several other claims of unclothed Mona Lisa's have been made over the years, pointing to the theory that Da Vinci might have had fun with the famous image he had created around 1503-1506.
"There are at least six nude version which are very close to Da Vinci's hand. All are attributed to the Da Vinci school. The most likely scenario is that his followers got inspired by a now-lost original," Vezzosi said.
According to Vezzosi, the original naked Mona might have been part of a series of erotic portraits by Da Vinci and his pupils, which were never really shown because they were considered inappropriate.
Called "Monna Vanna," the topless versions of the Mona Lisa are indeed often considered the portraits of a court mistress or prostitute.
Nevertheless, these paintings inspired nudes by other artists, including Raphaello's 1518 portrait of his mistress, "The Baker Girl."
"Our quest for naked Mona Lisa's continues. We are now on the tracks of another interesting version in Las Vegas," Vezzosi said.
So what do you guys think? Is this really one of his paintings or simply a rip off? I mean, I know whenever I see a Warhol painting, there's at least five people I know that make up their own little version of the painting trying to be "Creative". Me personally? I'm going to go beat my meat into a coma.
It's only fitting. I mean, how many times do you hear of Playboy making huge offers to famous celebrities to pose for the book nude. Maybe with Mona Lisa's fame from the painting for that smile, the Playboy of that day decided to commission a work and get her to show the goods. Goes to show you that Hugh wasn't the first smut peddler. Can we add Playboy to Da Vinci's list of inventions? If so, he's truly a renaissance man.
If it is her though, I have to wonder why Leonardo painted a lot of retarded looking folk. She's definitely smiling in this one. Maybe the painter also doesn't have clothes. Looks like he's not only hiding a paint brush in his Spock.
To be perfectly honest, she's not that hot. I dunno. Not even the smile gets here the win here. I mean, don't get me wrong. I love a nice smile as much as the next guy. I think my gal has a wonderful smile... when she's actually smiling. But Mona here.. meh. She also looks like she got bad implants. Them titties don't look all that great. And believe me, I'm a big fan of titties. But damn, that left nipple is fucked up. It seriously points in the wrong direction
Little fun fact for you, readers. The Mona Lisa hung in Napoleon's bathroom for a while. So the next time anyone of you people bitch about me having magazines or books in my bathroom and how they wont touch those cause I handled them while doing my business... Yeah, fuck you. Then again, maybe Nepoleon used it as stroking material.