transactionsON THE NATURE OF THE.docx

tr
a
n
s
a
c
ti
o
n
s
ON THE NATURE OF THE BACKGROUND BEHIND
MONA LISA
Claus-Christian Carbon (experimental psychologist),
Department of General Psychology and Methodology,
University of Bamberg, D-96047 Bamberg, Germany.
Email: <[email protected]>.
Vera M. Hesslinger (experimental psychologist), Department
of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz,
Germany & Department of General Psychology and
Methodology, University of Bamberg, Germany. Email:
<[email protected]>.
See <www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/leon/48/2> for supplemental
files
associated with this issue.
Submitted: 21 April 2014
Abstract

One of the many questions surrounding Leonardo’s Mona Lisa
concerns the
landscape visible in the portrait’s background: Does it depict an
imagination of
Leonardo’s mind, a real world landscape or the motif of a plane
canvas that
hung in Leonardo’s studio, behind the sitter? By analyzing
divergences between
the Mona Lisa and her Prado double that was painted in parallel
but from an-
other perspective the authors found mathematical evidence for
the motif-canvas
hypothesis: The landscape in the Prado version is 10% increased
but otherwise
nearly identical with the Louvre one, which indicates both
painters used the
same plane motif-canvas as reference.
When the conservators of the Museo Nacional Del Prado in
Madrid were asked by the Louvre to lend them their copy of
La Gioconda to be presented in a special exhibition in 2012,
they started to inspect the painting closely. Though the Prado’s
Gioconda and the Louvre’s original Mona Lisa both depict a
similar looking young lady in about the same pose, their re-
semblance was rather limited at first sight, particularly because
of the dense black background of the Prado version. So it must
have been kind of an “Aesthetic Aha!” [1] when the first infra-
red examination revealed a landscape hidden beneath the black
color.
In the course of the subsequent restoration, the black
overpainting was removed and it became visible that the land-
scapes in the Prado’s Gioconda and the Louvre’s Mona Lisa
do look very much alike (Fig. 1). Using infrared and x-rays,
the Prado’s conservators further analyzed and compared the
portraits. They found that both share several corrections also in

the tracing and lower paint layers; this is why it is now as-
sumed that the paintings were executed simultaneously in Leo-
nardo’s studio [2].
On the Perspective
The high visual similarity of the Prado and the Louvre versions
could additionally be confirmed by means of bi-dimensional
regression analysis. Applying this method to compare the co-
ordinates of corresponding landmarks in the two paintings (e.g.
the tip of Mona Lisa’s nose), Carbon showed that the landmark
configurations of the face areas do match to a degree of above
99.8% [3].
Still, there is a small systematic difference: The sitter is de-
picted from slightly different perspectives. As we revealed
recently [4], this difference does not only allow for recon-
structing the positions of Leonardo and the second artist rela-
tive to each other and the sitter, respectively. It also causes
grounds for the hypothesis that the two versions together rep-
resent a stereo pair as the identified horizontal disparity be-
tween the two depictions of the sitter (about 69 mm) quite well
reflects the perspectival difference resulting from human
interocular distance. In fact, it is statistically not different
(p = .13, n.s.) from the mean interocular distance of (Italian)
Caucasians being approximately 64 mm [5]. Whether this was
or was not intended by Leonardo is debatable indeed. Never-
theless, the Prado version and the Louvre version, generated in
Leonardo’s studio about 330 years before Wheatstone invented
the stereoscope [6], can be combined to an image of Mona Lisa
that has obvious stereoscopic qualities.
On the Background
The background is one of the much discussed aspects of Leo-
nardo’s Mona Lisa. The issue is whether it just depicts some-
thing Leonardo had imagined or rather something real, be it a

real-world landscape (e.g. the Val di Chiana [7]) or simply the
motif of a plane canvas that hung in Leonardo’s studio behind
the sitter. (The same question can also be asked with regards to
the loggia, including the balustrade and the columns to the
right and left of the portrayed lady.)
In order to obtain further insights concerning the back-
ground, we utilized the above mentioned logic of analysis [3,
4]: We defined so-called landmark points, that are unique pic-
torial properties (such as a specific tear-off edge of a moun-
tain) to be found in the background of both versions. Figure 2
displays the linear trajectories between corresponding land-
marks in the Louvre version (start) and the Prado version.
Black arrows indicate trajectories for the landscape; light blue
arrows indicate trajectories for the loggia.
Mere visual inspection of the trajectories reveals already that
there is a constant pattern of expansion, except for a slight
deviation concerning the upper left part of the mountainside.
Most importantly, the expansion is not stronger for parts that
seem to be nearer (e.g. the loggia should be the nearest while
those bizarrely shaped higher mountains in the upper part of
the painting should be the farthest). Following Gibson’s eco-
logical approach to visual perception [8] such a constant pat-
tern of expansion is incompatible with the actual depth
provided by a real landscape.
Using bi-dimensional regression analysis, we revealed con-
stant scaling factors that were around 10% (Euclidean geome-
try approach; 10.4 % for the landscape and 10.2% for the
loggia; ps < .0001). This means that the backgrounds of the
Prado and the Louvre versions are statistically not different
with regards to shape, yet the background of the Prado version
is zoomed in by a constant factor of 10% as compared to the
background of the Louvre version. (The zooming can be ob-

Fig.1. La Gioconda/Mona Lisa: The Prado (left panel) and the
Louvre (right panel) versions.
©2015 ISAST doi:10.1162/LEON_a_00980 LEONARDO, Vol.
48, No. 2, pp. 183–184, 2015 183
tr
a
n
s
a
c
ti
o
n
s
served in an animation available elsewhere [4] that shows the
morphing transition between both versions. Interestingly, an
inconsistency can be detected here as the foreground figure
itself is not zoomed at all—this might reflect the process of
painting the two portraits: While the same cartoon might have
been used to transfer the outlines of the figures onto the panels,
the outlines of the backgrounds were probably created using a
different technique.)
In sum, our analysis of the trajectories revealed that Mona
Lisa’s background was not created after a real world landscape
actually present during painting. This is indicated by the con-
stant pattern of expansion to be found in the trajectories, which

does not fit the pattern that would arise from actually present
depth information in a real-world setting. Most probably, the
background was produced by reference to a plane landscape
motif painted on canvas. Such a canvas may have hung behind
the sitter in Leonardo’s studio serving as scenery. Further, we
showed that the background of the Prado version is zoomed in
as compared to the background of the Louvre version. This
means that the artist working on the Prado version must have
stood closer to the motif-canvas than Leonardo did.
With the given data we cannot, however, decide whether the
landscape depicted on the motif canvas itself was of imaginary
or real quality, but as several journeys to Northern Italy in the
recent years have revealed, such landscapes do not seem to be
too far away from what we can observe in parts of Tuscany or
Lombardy. We will keep our eyes open to finally find the
area depicted.
Concluding Remarks
The present paper paradigmatically shows how methods from
mathematics and natural sciences can enrich aesthetic and art
(history) research. Integrating these multiple disciplines into
a comprehensive framework provides a fascinating and prom-
ising approach for future aesthetics research. Such a joint
“new science of aesthetics” will give the opportunity to reca-
pitulate unsolved questions and opens new perspectives on
issues awaiting investigation.
References and Notes
1. Muth, C. and C.C. Carbon, "The Aesthetic Aha: On the
pleasure of having
insights into Gestalt,"Acta Psychologica, 2013, 144(1): p. 25-
30.
2. Prado Museum, "Study of the Prado Museum's copy of La
Gioconda" (2012).

3. Carbon, C.C., "BiDimRegression: Bidimensional regression
modeling using R,"
Journal of Statistical Software, Code Snippets, 2013, 52(1): p.
1-11.
4. Carbon, C.C. and V.M. Hesslinger, "Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa
entering the next
dimension," Perception, 2013, 42(8): p. 887-893.
5. Farkas, L.G., M.J. Katic, and C.R. Forrest, "International
anthropometric study
of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races," Journal of
Craniofacial
Surgery, 2005, 16(4): p. 615-646.
6. Wade, N.J., "On the late invention of the stereoscope,"
Perception, 1987, 16(6):
p. 785-818.
7. Pezzutto, D., "Leonardo’s Val di Chiana map in the Mona
Lisa," Cartographica,
2011, 46(3): p. 149-159.
8. Gibson, J.J., The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception
(Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin, 1979).
Glossary
The effect in which patterns we detect, or
Gestalts, are
particularly aesthetically pleasing [1].
J.J. Gibson
[8] favored direct perception and direct realism instead of the
information
processing view of cognition.
depth in a

plane image by means of binocular vision [6].
Fig. 2. The perspectival change between the backgrounds
of the Louvre and the Prado versions is indicated by ar-
rows showing the linear trajectories between correspond-
ing landmark points, with the Louvre coordinates taken as
starting points. The contrast and color spectrum have been
modified in order to enhance visibility of the trajectories.
184 Transactions
Copyright of Leonardo is the property of MIT Press and its
content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
Leonardo’s Val di Chiana Map in the Mona Lisa
Donato Pezzutto
London / ON / Canada
Abstract
Leonardo arranged the landscape in the Mona Lisa to hold two
disjoined halves of one image. That image can be
reassembled by juxtaposing two copies of the painting side by
side. The newly reconstituted landscape corresponds

to an actual place, as depicted in Leonardo’s Val di Chiana map.
In this article, the identity of the sitter and opinions
relevant to the background landscape are considered,
Leonardo’s developments in the depiction of depth outlined, and
his technique of topographic perspective introduced. Analysis
of these observations, along with Leonardo’s investigations
in perception, perspective, monocular and binocular vision, and
cartography, lead to understanding of his technique.
Speculation as to Leonardo’s motivation include a pun on La
Gioconda and his attempt at stereoscopy.
Keywords: Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa landscape, La
Gioconda, Val di Chiana map, perception, topographic
perspective, cartography,
visual pun, binocular vision, stereoscopy
Résumé
Léonard de Vinci a fait le paysage du portrait de Mona Lisa de
manière à ce qu’il représente deux moitiés disjointes d’une
image. Cette image peut être réunie par juxtaposition de deux
copies de l’œuvre mises côte à côte. Le nouveau paysage
reconstitué correspond à un lieu réel, représenté dans la carte
Val di Chiana par Léonard. Dans l’article, on parle de
l’identité de Mona Lisa et des diverses opinions concernant le
paysage, on étudie l’évolution de la représentation de la
profondeur par Léonard et on examine sa technique de
perspective topographique. Une analyse de ces observations,
ainsi
que des études menées par Léonard sur la perception, la
perspective, la vision monoculaire et binoculaire, et la carto-
graphie permettent de mieux comprendre sa technique. Parmi
les hypothèses émises sur les motivations de Léonard, on
inclut un jeu de mots visuel sur La Joconde (La Gioconda) et sa
tentative de stéréoscopie.

Mots clés : Léonard de Vinci, paysage du portrait de Mona Lisa,
La Joconde, carte Val di Chiana, perception, perspective
topographique,
cartographie, jeu de mots visuel, vision binoculaire,
stéréoscopie
All our knowledge has its origins in our perceptions.
—Leonardo da Vinci
Introduction
Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa is traditionally viewed as
mysterious (see Figure 1). The enigmatic smile is em-
blematic of the notion that she and Leonardo are hiding
secrets from the viewer. Efforts at solving this mystery or
puzzle have largely focused on the sitter, but perspective,
as displayed in this work, will be shown to provide the
answer to this puzzle.
Much of the effort aimed at solving the puzzle has focused
on the identity of the sitter, who is generally accepted to
have been Madonna Lisa Gherardini, wife of a Florentine
merchant, Francesco del Giocondo – hence Mona Lisa or
La Gioconda (Greenstein 2004, 17–38). Many alternative

candidates have been, and are still being, proposed (Zapperi
2010, 40), including the suggestion that the painting is a
self-portrait of Leonardo as a woman (Schwartz, 1988,
40–48). The traditional view, as above, (Vasari 2008 [1550],
294) is well supported by the work of Frank Zöllner
(1993, 115–38) and bolstered with recently discovered
contemporaneous documentation dated October 1503. A
handwritten note by Agostino Vespucci, an acquaintance
of Leonardo, stated that he was working on three paint-
ings, including a portrait of Lisa del Giocondo (Dorfman
2008, 39).
In his thorough review of the evidence that Lisa Gherardini
is or is not the subject of the painting, Jack Greenstein
(2004, 32) questions whether or not the identity of the
sitter matters, as I will show below. The term gioconda
can be translated from Italian as ‘‘playful or jocular.’’
Thus we can rephrase Greenstein’s conclusion as follows:
whether La Gioconda is or is not Mona Lisa, she remains

a gioconda. So the exercise of identifying the sitter leads
back to the conclusion that the painting is a gioconda – a
jocular prank or puzzle.
Cartographica 46:3, 2011, pp. 149–159
doi:10.3138/carto.46.3.149 149
The mystery has also been approached from the perspec-
tive of the landscape as allegory. This approach has been
thoroughly discussed by Webster Smith (1985, 183–99),
who summarizes the view that the Mona Lisa landscape
reflects the analogy that Leonardo drew, figuratively and
literally, between the body of humans and the Earth as a
body. Smith quotes opinions such as that of Kenneth D.
Keele: ‘‘Mona Lisa represents Leonardo’s concept of the
formulation of the earth and the analogy so vital to him
of the macrocosm of the world and the microcosm of
man’’ (Smith 1985, 183) and of Martin Kemp on the
landscape as ‘‘a meditation on the human and terrestrial
bodies’’ (Smith 1985, 184). This exploration of the land-

scape as metaphor does not help to solve the puzzle but
does add to the painting’s mystique. Smith does con-
tribute some key observations, however:
The surfaces of the upland lakes, both to the right and to the
left, appear slanted or curved rather than horizontal, as
though to indicate the curvature of the earth or, rather, ‘‘the
sphere of water,’’ and thus that the landscape represents not a
mere view but the globe, ‘‘the body of the earth’’ itself. It does
appear that Leonardo introduced this effect of curvature on
the basis of a concept rather than empirical observation (how
comparable expanses of actual water would really look in the
distance as seen from Mona Lisa’s balcony) . . .
Two sheets of water, one to the upper right, not far below the
eye level of the figure, and the other, merely glimpsed, on the
same level to the left, might be understood as parts of one
enormous lake, and, seen together, these two indications of
water describe a curvature, a bowed effect, across the panel.
Additional, concentric curves are suggested by the tongues of

shoreline on the lower lake to the left and the streaks of light
on its surface. ‘‘The globe of our world,’’ Leonardo says in MS
A
(fol. 58v) ‘‘. . . is composed of water and earth, having the
shape of a sphere,’’ although it is not perfectly round ‘‘excep-
ting in the places where the sea is, or marshes or other still
waters.’’ In the Codex Hammer (fol. 34v) he specifies that the
surface of any large and still body of water is everywhere
equidistant from the center of the earth, even ‘‘lakes placed at
the tops of high mountains’’ and ‘‘those that give rise to great
rivers.’’ His diagrams of the world, in MS A and the Codex
Arundel and also MS L, show schematically something like the
Mona Lisa landscape as though in the full round: the entire
globe, ‘‘composed of water and earth,’’ the water surfaces all
spherical, the earth here protruding above, there submerged
beneath, the watery sphere. (Smith 1985, 190)
The passage above reiterates the idea that Leonardo’s
cosmological view is demonstrated in the painting, but it

also illustrates the vast scale and depth portrayed in the
landscape. The scale is ‘‘global’’; the distances portrayed
require including the curvature of the Earth. This high-
lights the unusual perspective demonstrated by Leonardo.
Reconstituted Landscape
At first glance, the painting seems to be a simple portrait
of a lady at a balcony; we see the subject sitting in a loggia
with a view behind her (see Figure 1). But as we study the
work, it becomes obvious that its perspective is most
unusual. The sitter is shown as viewed from eye level; she
is gazing directly at the viewer. The perspective of the
landscape, however, is that of an aerial view; the vantage
point is at, or above, the highest peaks, looking out onto
a vast territory. The enormous depth of this territory con-
tinues to a vaguely defined horizon – so distant that, as
noted above, the curvature of the Earth is appreciable. A
large section of the cosmos is revealed. Furthermore, we
see that the horizon on one side does not match the hori-

zon on the other side. To reconcile this mismatch we can
consider two copies of the paintings viewed in tandem
with a slight gap between them (see Figures 3a and 3b
below.) The juxtaposed images allow the waters, referred
to above as ‘‘two sheets of water, one to the upper right,
not far below the eye level of the figure, and the other,
Figure 1. Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa / La Gioconda
(1503), oil on poplar panel, 79.4 � 53.4 cm. Musée du
Louvre, Paris. Photo credit: Réunion des Musées
Nationaux / Art Resource, New York.
Donato Pezzutto
150 Cartographica 46:3, 2011, pp. 149–159
doi:10.3138/carto.46.3.149
merely glimpsed, on the same level to the left, [to] be
understood as parts of one enormous lake’’ (Smith 1985,
190). With the surface of this reconstituted lake aligned,
we can see that the horizon is thereby aligned, as is the
edge of the balcony. The painting has deliberately been
created in such a way that the view of the balcony and

the landscape on one edge continues on the other (Bair,
2007, 173–77).
Compared to the old landscape, with its ambiguous sense
of the flow of its waterways and roadways, or waterways
that resemble roadways, the new landscape shows a logical
depiction of terrain. The newly reconciled landscape
shows a distant mountain lake and a closer lake, which
flows into a meandering stream that joins a wider stream.
That wider stream is crossed by a bridge that leads to a
road, which proceeds over a plain to a gap in a ridge of
hills. The old landscape remains confusing; the new land-
scape could resemble an actual place.
Drs Carlo Starnazzi and Carlo Pedretti have identified
features in the Mona Lisa landscape as matching those
in Leonardo’s Val di Chiana map. The bridge, behind
the subject’s left shoulder in the painting, matches the
medieval Ponte Buriano, and the lake behind her right
shoulder matches Lake Chiana (Owen 2003). But that is

not how they should appear relative to each other. The
reconstituted landscape would place these features, and
others, in their proper relative positions. This new land-
scape does, in fact, resemble an actual place: it is an aerial
view of the Tuscan Val di Chiana region, seen from above
Castiglion Fibocchi in the Pratomagno hills, looking in
a south-south-easterly direction toward Castiglione del
Lago on Lake Trasimeno. A review of the reconstituted
landscape allows us to match the painting to the area,
and that area is depicted in Leonardo’s Val di Chiana
map.
Hypothesis
These observations yield the key hypothesis of this article:
that Leonardo incorporated the Val di Chiana, as depicted
in his map, in the Mona Lisa landscape. To arrive at this
hypothesis, it was necessary to reconstitute that landscape,
as described above. To further develop the hypothesis, the
Val di Chiana map will be examined and a point-to-point

correspondence of the map to the landscape will be re-
viewed. Aspects of Leonardo’s landscapes will be com-
pared to his maps. The analogous techniques he used in
creating landscapes and maps resulted in landscapes and
maps that share similar characteristics. Further support
for the hypothesis and implications of accepting it follow.
Observations
The Val di Chiana map (see Figure 2) is a topographic
map, created by Leonardo, that shows the Chiana flowing
from right to left into the Arno. At the top right is Lake
Trasimeno with Castiglione del Lago, then Perugia beyond
them. Siena is at bottom centre, and Arezzo at top left. The
Ponte Buriano can be seen as it crosses the Arno upriver
from the confluence with the Chiana. This map corre-
sponds well with present-day maps, but with some distor-
tions, especially with the course of the Tiber River. The
most obvious difference from then to now would be the
Chiana itself. Leonardo’s map features what was then a

wide dove-shaped lake, which has now been reduced to a
narrow drainage canal. A road, corresponding to a spur of
the Roman Via Cassia, is shown in part as it runs from
the Arezzo plain through a gap in the ridge of hills, then
along the base of the foothills below Cortina to Lake
Trasimeno.
We can take Leonardo’s Val di Chiana map and consider
a line from the Castiglione del Lago to Castiglion Fibocchi
(just off the left-hand edge of the map). Let us call this
line the ligna castigliona. If we then rotate the map
counter-clockwise until the ligna castigliona is vertical,
the line now corresponds to the seam in the reconstituted
Mona Lisa landscape. The reconstituted landscape shows
obvious correspondence with the repositioned map (see
Figure 3c).
A review of the reconstituted landscape allows us to
match the painting to the map. It may also provide insight
into how the master created the work. As we follow the

seam joining the two halves (the ligna castigliona) from
bottom to top, we find that the landmarks correspond to
the following sequence:
f From a point above Castiglion Fibocchi we see a
slope of the Pratomagno (lower left), followed by
f the confluence of the Arno with Ponte Buriano (left)
and the Chiana River (right), separated by the high
ground between them, then
f a road meandering past Arezzo (behind the subject)
to a gap in a ridge of hills (left), then
f a ridge of hills (right) with the wide Chiana beyond
them. Siena would be to the right (behind the sub-
ject), then
f the hills around Cortona leading up to Lake Trasi-
meno, with the spit of land holding Castiglione del
Lago (just to the left), and, finally,
f the distant mountains to the horizon.
These features are linked together by a road. We can see

its path from the Ponte Buriano, veering through the
plain toward Arezzo, then through the gap in the ridge of
hills, where it would merge with the ligna castigliona. This
route corresponds to that of the Via Setteponti – a section
of the Via Cassia, mentioned above, that joined Etruscan
territory to Rome through the Val di Chiana. Via Sette-
ponti still runs through the Pratomagno, Castiglion
Fibocchi, and Ponte Buriano to Arezzo (Repetti 1833,
375, 607, 723). There it is called the Via Cassia and pro-
doi:10.3138/carto.46.3.149 151
ceeds past Cortona through the Val di Chiana – a route
Leonardo would have used (see Figure 4).
These observations allow us to compare Leonardo’s tech-
nique of creating depth in a landscape with his method of
creating a topographic map. As described in his Notebooks
(Leonardo 2005, 95), features closest to the viewer are

treated with full colour and lighting. Beyond that, the
bands of terrain are treated with increasingly muted
colour and diffused lighting, until finally the most distant
lakes and mountains are depicted in a colour-drained
haze. The same is true in the Mona Lisa. In reviewing the
work, we can start at the bottom, with proximal features
such as the Pratomagno slope. This is treated with the
same full colour and light as the subject; in fact, the
shoulder of the hill resembles the shoulder of the sitter.
The band of features including the confluence of the
Arno and the Chiana with the bridge and high ground
gets less colour and light. Likewise the bands of ridges,
then Lake Chiana, then the Cortona hills, are sequentially
less saturated in colour and light. Finally, distant Lake
Trasimeno and its surrounding mountains are washed of
colour and light. Bruno Mottin, in Mona Lisa: Inside the
Painting, states that ‘‘this skilful use of aerial perspective,
in which the depth of field is rendered by a gradation of

colors, prevents us from noticing that the landscape in
the Mona Lisa does not obey the rules of traditional per-
spective, but is rendered in a manner suggesting a relief
map’’ (Mottin 2006, 66).
A topographic map is similarly assembled as bands of
terrain sequenced one behind the other. The effect is like
reading the tabs of a file cabinet. Thus Leonardo could
recall a series of observations to create aerial maps or to
create landscapes. The Mona Lisa landscape is not simply
a bird’s-eye view from one vantage point, however. There
is no one point from which an observer can view the
slope of Pratomagno, the Ponte Buriano, and the sur-
face of the distant, elevated Lake Trasimeno. (Castiglion
Fibocchi and Castiglione del Lago are 50 km apart; see
Michelin map 563.) The landscape should correspond to
a bird’s-eye view along the ligna castigliona, from a point
above Castiglion Fibocchi over the Arno, up the Chiana
valley, to Castiglione del Lago on Lake Trasimeno. If we

try to re-create this using a program such as Google Earth
3D, we see slight discrepancies. First, it must be remem-
bered that the now drained Chiana plain was once marsh-
land. Second, the program tends to flatten height and
Figure 2. Leonardo da Vinci, Val di Chiana (RL12278) 1502–3,
33.8 � 48.8 cm, pen and ink, watercolour, bodycolour, and
chalk on paper; The Royal Collection, Windsor. Photo credit:
Scala / Art Resource, NY.
Donato Pezzutto
doi:10.3138/carto.46.3.149
slope, while Leonardo takes licence to enhance the hills
and mountains. In particular, the high ground separating
the rivers at their confluence seems too high for a vantage
point on or above the Pratomagno hills; it is depicted as it
would appear to an observer at a lower elevation, closer to
the banks, but from that vantage point an observer would
be too low to see the surface of Lake Trasimeno. So a
static view does not fit well.

If, instead, we take a virtual fly-over, staying on the same
heading as the ligna castigliona (as above), we will observe
the sequence of vistas used to create the map. From above
Castiglion Fibocchi we see the slope of Pratomagno; we
then descend, flying toward the rivers, and the vista of
the confluence with Ponte Buriano will appear. Likewise,
as we continue on the same heading but at a higher eleva-
tion, the vista will match the distal sections of the land-
scape on to Castiglione del Lago. In this manner we can
appreciate the process that Leonardo used to compile
these remembered vistas and reproduce them so faith-
fully. This treatment, which can be called ‘‘topographic
perspective,’’ uses the cartographic techniques of map-
making to depict depth in landscapes.
Figure 3. The images in (a) and (b) show the reconstituted
landscape of the Mona Lisa. Compare the features along the
seam of the juxtaposed halves with those along the line on the
Val di Chiana map in (c). This demonstrates the painting
as a puzzle and reveals its solution.

doi:10.3138/carto.46.3.149 153
Results
I have demonstrated above the first objectives of this
article, namely that
1. The Mona Lisa contains, as background, a land-
scape image divided in two parts.
2. The two parts can be reconciled into one image by
aligning the two lateral edges, as outlined above.
3. The reconstituted image depicts an actual place,
namely the Val di Chiana as mapped by Leonardo.
4. That image consists of a sequence of vistas assem-
bled in the form of a topographic map.
Discussion
Support for these observations would include compari-
sons of the reconstituted image to photographic images
obtained during an actual fly-over of the Val di Chiana.

The original map and painting, along with early copies of
the Mona Lisa, including un-cropped versions, should be
reviewed in consideration of the above. Further support
would be the finding of any study sketches of the com-
ponent vistas. Some support does exist in Leonardo’s
works in which the landscape is treated using topographic
perspective. Examples of such works, including the
Annunciation, the Madonna of the Yarnwinder, and the
Virgin and Child with St Anne and Lamb, are discussed in
the Appendix. The discussion that follows also bolsters
the hypothesis.
Descriptions of Leonardo’s maps could well apply to his
landscapes after 1500. Eugen Oberhummer, describing
Leonardo’s Map of Tuscany, reveals that the
mountains, mostly crowned by towns, are drawn in perspec-
tive, with the light falling from the left (south). Rivers are
indicated by double lines, towns and villages by vignettes. The
second [Val di Chiana] map is similarly executed and embraces

eastern Tuscany between Arezzo, Siena, and Perugia. The scale
is about the same, but the orientation is to the east, and the
light falls from the right (south). Besides the blue expanse of
Lake Trasimeno with its three rather exaggerated islands, we
notice in the Valle di Chiana a large and long sheet of water,
no longer existing, which drains both to the Arno and the
Tiber. (Oberhummer 1909, 546)
Both Leonardo’s maps and his landscapes feature topogra-
phy drawn in perspective, with the vertical heights ‘‘exag-
gerated.’’ Vegetation and human-made features – trees,
towns, bridges – are rare; when they do appear, they may
be indicated as vignettes. Maps, by their nature as projec-
tions of the Earth’s curved surface onto a plane, amend
the laws of linear perspective. Distortions are required;
straight lines become curved, and areas are expanded or
contracted; the vertical axis may be flattened or enhanced.
The scale, or point of view, of any vignette may not match
its surroundings. The same is true of Leonardo’s land-

scapes.
Oberhummer also offers his opinion on landscapes by
Leonardo that display the map characteristics described
above, some of which are also referred to in the Appendix:
His studies of Alpine scenery were not confined to the
western Alps, as is shown by his geographical observations
in the Adige basin and the artistic reproduction of mountain
forms evidently taken from the Dolomites, and partly,
perhaps, from the Karst. His preference for steep and rugged
rocks and grottoes is seen in his treatment of the background
of several of his most famous pictures. Among these are one
of his greatest masterpieces, the portrait of Mona Lisa in the
Louvre, and also the Madonna of the Rocks (‘‘La Vierge aux
Rochers’’), which exists in two versions, one in the Louvre,
the other in the National Gallery in London, of which the
relationship has not been definitely explained; the Madonna
[and Child] with St. Anna [and Lamb] and [Madonna] with
the scales (‘‘La Vierge aux Balances’’) [now titled Madonna of

the Yarnwinder]. (Oberhummer 1909, 560–61)
Implications
These observations should rekindle the ongoing debate as
to the nature of Leonardo’s landscapes – whether they are
reproductions of a specific place or a synthesis of various
elements (Kemp 2004, 219). In the case of the Mona Lisa,
along with the examples in the Appendix, it has been
Figure 4. Schematic drawing outlining the features that
correspond between the reconstituted landscape and the
repositioned map: (1) Pratomagno, (2) Arno, (3) river
confluence, (4) Chiana stream, (5) Ponte Buriano, (6) ridge
of hills, (7) Via Setteponti, (8) road in gap of ridge, (9) hills
near Siena, (10) Chiana Lake, (11) Cortona hills, (12)
Trasimeno Lake, (13) Castiglione del Lago, (14) island in
Trasimeno, (14) mountains beyond lake
Donato Pezzutto
doi:10.3138/carto.46.3.149
demonstrated that the landscape is actually the synthesis
of a series of vistas of a specific place. This can be restated
using Leonardo’s terminology. The landscape is not

simply a work of fantasia (imagination); rather, Leonardo
used intelletto (the faculties of intellect) to survey and
memorize an area, then recall and assemble a sequence
of vistas. His intelletto, combined with fantasia, would
transform each vista from the observed vantage point to
an aerial view by imagining a flight over that area.
perspective
These findings – the reconstituted landscape matching a
specific location documented as a map by Leonardo –
provide a unique opportunity to study his innovative
approach to perspective.
By the time Leonardo was studying in the school of
Verrocchio, linear perspective had been codified by Filippo
Brunelleschi and Leon Battista Alberti in De picture
(1435), available in Italian as Della pittura (1436) (Wright
1984, 52–71). Leonardo demonstrated his mastery of this
perspective in the Cartesian grid-like study and final work
with the Adoration of the Magi (1481; Pedretti 2000, 34),

which remained unfinished. His Notebooks refer to linear
perspective as ‘‘nothing else than the seeing of an object
behind a sheet of glass, smooth and quite transparent, on
the surface of which all the things may be marked that are
behind this glass’’ (Leonardo 2005, 92). The use of the
phrase ‘‘nothing else’’ makes this statement seem dismis-
sive, but Leonardo may have been implying that there is
more to the creation of depth than linear perspective
alone.
Leonardo proceeded to consider the effect that the air
between object and viewer would have on the depiction
of depth. What he termed ‘‘atmospheric perspective’’ is
masterfully demonstrated in the Madonna of the Rocks
(1483; Pedretti 2000, 36). Yet he reached beyond atmo-
spherics in considering the limitless portrayal of depth
available in cartography – that is, topographic perspective –
for use in painting. As I have noted, cartography allows,
even demands, the manipulation of linear perspective.

With topographic perspective, a series of vistas are treated
to atmospheric perspective and sequenced, as I have
demonstrated, with diminished colour and light. Instead
of linear perspective’s vanishing point on a distinct hori-
zon, Leonardo’s landscapes recede to a suggested infinity.
Luba Freedman (1997) notes that Leonardo’s innovation
of the ‘‘blurred’’ horizon was used to create the effect
that, as Leonardo wrote, ‘‘one should lose oneself in look-
ing’’ at the Mona Lisa.
motivation
Any attempt to answer the question of how Leonardo
came to hide a map in a landscape should start with a re-
view of what is known. The means has been demonstrated
by exploring his technique. The opportunity was present,
as the map was likely in his workshop when he worked
on the painting. Before starting the Mona Lisa (1503),
Leonardo had travelled through and extensively studied
the Arno and Chiana valleys; he was employed as a

military engineer by Cesare Borgia, notorious son of
Pope Alexander VI, during Borgia’s campaign through
Romagna, including the Val di Chiana. Leonardo was
also involved with Niccolò Machiavelli in a failed scheme
to divert the Arno away from Pisa during the latter’s
hostilities with Florence (Masters 1998, 88). Leonardo
created maps of the region, including the Val di Chiana
map (ca. 1502–3).
To understand why Leonardo came to create the Mona
Lisa as he did, we must look beyond his well-known
pursuits in the arts and his inquiries in the sciences to
consider his jocular nature. There is less scholarly material
on this aspect of Leonardo’s life, but there is evidence of
his fondness for puzzles and puns (Feinberg 2004, 38–
41), rebuses (Marinoni 1954, 186), and transformations
(Capra 2007, 267–70). A most satisfying explanation
for Leonardo’s motive in creating the Mona Lisa involves
his taste for trickery. Leonardo is known to have been

involved in entertainment and spectacles; for example, he
apparently used the intestines of a bullock, hidden in one
corner and inflated (by means of a bellows hidden in
one corner) to fill a room, to crowd people into another
corner (Vasari 2008, 296). Vasari also offers another anec-
dote that shows the extent to which Leonardo would go
just to play a practical joke. A buckler, or round shield,
was left to be painted; Leonardo turned it into a monster
from which issued venom and smoke, and presented it in
such a way as to startle his father (Vasari 2008, 287–9).
Leonardo used perspective to create an illusion with the
Mona Lisa. The viewer is certainly manipulated by the
master, who fools us into the sense of depth created by
the atmospherics of the landscape. Viewers accept the
effect even though the rules of logic are stretched to a
surrealistic breaking point; the horizons to left and right
do not match, the waterways flow in a nonsensical manner,
and the perspective of the background is different from

that of the subject. Mona Lisa’s loggia would seem to be
situated on an impossibly high tower. The sense of dis-
tance is expanded beyond linear perspective. Although
logically there is so much wrong with the work, emo-
tionally the viewer seems compelled by it.
visual pun
Leonardo, as a jester performing this trick of illusion,
would have been rewarded by observing the reaction it
created in the viewer. The piece is relatively small (ca.
79 � 53 cm), and therefore portable. It was a commis-
sioned portrait, but it was kept by the artist, frequently
displayed to visitors, and remained with him throughout
his travels, even to the court of the French king, Francis
I. It has remained in France, now displayed in the Louvre
museum in Paris (McMullen 1975). As discussed, whether
doi:10.3138/carto.46.3.149 155

La Gioconda is or is not Mona Lisa, she remains a gioconda.
More to the point is who she is not. She is not a religious
figure, nor is she a powerful and dangerous man; she is
someone whom it would be safe to depict in a prank. In
retrospect, a prank seems conceivable in a work that con-
tains such a glaring error as a mismatched horizon and
a clue in the bridge featured in the scene. The Ponte
Buriano would be recognized by anyone familiar with the
area. Another clue may be in the placement of the sitter’s
hands and the crossed arms, meant to point out a criss-
crossed background (and, some would add, a cross-dressed
subject). Leonardo would have found it amusing to see
who might recognize the deception.
Accepting the painting as a prank or puzzle places the
Mona Lisa alongside Leonardo’s other portraits of
women, which generally follow a motif or theme. His
‘‘Madonna’’ paintings follow conventional religious icon-
ography, with Mary looking on the Christ Child in a scene

foreshadowing the Passion. In the Virgin and Child with St
Anne and Lamb, the sacrificial lamb seems the obvious
reference (Pedretti 2000, 38); the winder, held as an
upright cross in the Madonna of the Yarnwinder, recalls
the Crucifixion (38). His non-religious female portraits,
likewise, include visual emblems as clues to their identi-
ties. The Portrait of a Woman (Ginevra De’Benci) features
a juniper bush behind the subject, juniper (ginepro in
Italian) being a pun on Ginevra (Pedretti 2000, 38). In
Portrait of a Lady with an Ermine, the subject fondling
the pet is Cecilia Gallerani, mistress of Ludovico Sforza;
Sforza apparently commissioned the work, and the ermine
was a reference to him (Shell and Sironi 1992, 47–66).
Such references seem conspicuously lacking in the Mona
Lisa, until we consider the split landscape. It would be in
keeping with Leonardo’s typical practice that the Mona
Lisa would also follow a theme: La Gioconda, the play-
ful lady, features a prank or puzzle, namely a landscape

hidden and finally revealed.
stereoscopy
For a genius such as Leonardo, play was a legitimate pur-
suit and an opportunity for investigation and inspiration.
An example is Leonardo’s approach to the geometric
games in De Ludo geometrico; his obsessive ludo (game)
of sectioning the circle by lunes can be seen as a proto-
calculus (Capra 2007, 270–74). This form of amusement-
as-muse also characterized his exploration of optical
illusions – basically experiments in which visual variables
are controlled to investigate perception. We have discussed
Leonardo’s dissatisfaction with the Albertian approach to
perspective, which is essentially monocular; his investiga-
tion of binocular aspects of perspective is seen in the
Mona Lisa. What has been described as a playful approach
in the painting proved a legitimate opportunity for inves-
tigating perception: ‘‘Leonardo correctly observed that
because the eyes normally receive different views of a 3-D

scene, it is impossible, even in principle, to convey a full
sense of 3-D on a 2-D canvas . . . He puzzled over how
we can see a single world of solid objects given the dif-
ferent eye views (now known as Leonardo’s paradox)’’
(Ramachandran and Rogers-Ramachandran 2009, 12).
Nicholas Wade and others explain that ‘‘Leonardo . . .
struggled with the differences between the perception of
a scene and a painting of it, which he reduced to the
differences between binocular and monocular vision. He
could not produce on canvas what, in the terminology of
[Adelbert] Ames, was an equivalent configuration. This
was provided 300 years after Leonardo by Wheatstone’s
stereoscope’’ (Wade, Ono, and Lillakas 2001, 231). Kim
Veltman (2007) writes, ‘‘After 1500, his major paintings
can be seen as attempts to address one fundamental chal-
lenge: how to create effects of three-dimensional relief
under carefully controlled conditions. Speaking anachron-
istically, he was trying to create auto-stereoscopic effects

in paintings.’’
Leonardo’s investigations of binocular perception led him
to attempt his own version of a stereogram in the Mona
Lisa. Early copies featuring two columns have been cited
to support unsubstantiated reports that the work was
originally larger, then cut down to its present size. Any
cropping of a Mona Lisa that originally included more
of the two columns remains a contentious issue. In the
opinion of Martin Kemp (2004, 219), no such painting
existed; copyists included full columns as their own
invention. Élisabeth Ravaud (2006, 32) relays evidence of
trimming of the unpainted border, but not beyond the
barbe (i.e., the crest of gesso and paint layer meeting a
support frame). This seems conclusive with respect to the
painting as it exists in its present frame, but still leaves
open the possibility that a preliminary sketch or a mini-
mally painted larger panel existed before the painting was
cropped and framed, or that the remaining panel was

previously kept in a frame that depicted these columns –
either painted or in relief.
While the existence of such a purported painting, holding
two columns, is debatable, attempting to re-create it does
prove fruitful. Consider three copies of the Mona Lisa
arrayed in tandem, with two columns extrapolated into
position. These would create a stereoscopic arrangement.
If the Mona Lisa were to succeed as a stereogram, a
column would have to be the central feature of the 3D
effect, prominently situated on the balcony, before the
distant landscape (see Figure 5.)
Figure 5 shows a painterly display of the very example dis-
cussed by Leonardo in his Notebooks under ‘‘Differences
of perception by one eye and by both eyes,’’ where the
column is the ‘‘object in relief t.’’
Let the object in relief t be seen by both eyes; if you will look
at the object with the right eye m, keeping the left eye n
shut, the object will appear, or fill up the space, at a; and if

you shut the right eye and open the left, the object (will
occupy the) space b; and if you open both eyes, the object
Donato Pezzutto
doi:10.3138/carto.46.3.149
will no longer appear at a or b, but at e, r, f. Why will not a
picture seen by both eyes produce the effect of relief, as [real]
relief does when seen by both eyes; and why should a picture
seen with one eye give the same effect of relief as real relief
would under the same conditions of light and shade?
(Leonardo 1970, 29; see Figure 6)
It is more likely, however, that this attempt at stereoscopy
proved unsatisfactory, for several reasons, including the
choice of foreground object, the scale of the painting, the
position of the sitter, and the lack of sufficient image
overlap. The column is an unfortunate choice because,
being smooth and round, it lacks the characteristics that
would make it appear distinct from the vantage point

of one eye or the other. Compared to the smaller-scale
images of stereograms in popular use, such as the Magic
Eye, the larger-scale images of the painting would be
more difficult for the viewer to appreciate as stereoscopic
without the use of special apparatus, such as the lenses or
mirrors of a Wheatstone stereoscope. On a small scale,
such that the image-overlap distance is less than the intra-
ocular distance, it is easier for viewers to converge their
gaze to fully appreciate the phenomenon. On the larger
scale of the painted panel, the image-overlap distance is
much larger than the intraocular distance, which means
that it is more difficult for viewers to diverge their gaze
to appreciate the phenomenon. Placing the painting at a
distance where convergence rather than divergence of
gaze could be used to appreciate the phenomenon would
greatly diminish the 3D effect.
Another factor that diminishes the stereoscopic effect is
the placement of the sitter, which hides the meeting-point

of the disjointed landscape but distracts the viewer during
eye convergence. Finally, the painting fails to provide
more image overlap beyond the columns. If a painting or
a preliminary work (as in Figure 5) did exist, an unsatis-
factory result might have led Leonardo to crop out the
repeated elements. Alternatively, damage similar to the
fissure on the remaining panel (Menu and others 2006,
36) might have led to the loss of part of the original;
cropping to create symmetry perhaps followed, giving us
the painting we know today.
The Mona Lisa can be considered Leonardo’s failed or
incomplete attempt at creating a stereoscopic effect. This
idea should be viewed in the context of Vasari’s state-
ments in Lives of the Artists:
It is clearly evident that because of Leonardo’s understanding
of art, he began many projects but never finished any of
them, feeling that his hand could not reach artistic perfection
in the works he conceived, since he envisioned such subtle,

marvellous, and difficult problems that his hands, while
extremely skilful, were incapable of ever realizing them.
(Vasari 2008, 286–87)
Despite the Mona Lisa’s appearance as a completed paint-
ing, Vasari believed that ‘‘after toiling over it for four
years, he [Leonardo] left it unfinished’’ (Vasari 2008,
294). If the Mona Lisa is in fact an incomplete stereogram,
Vasari would be correct in referring to it as unfinished.
Leonardo might well have stumbled upon the stereoscopic
phenomenon, as can happen to anyone staring at a
repeated geometric pattern such as tilework. Just such a
repeating pattern is actually featured in the stitching on
the collar of Mona Lisa’s dress. The eye fatigue that results
from depicting such demanding detail would inevitably
lead to the cross-eyed view needed to appreciate this
small-scale stereoscopic effect. Such incidental findings
could have inspired a larger-scale attempt at stereoscopy.
Another noteworthy feature, again relating to perspective,

can be seen in what remains of the columns. The bases of
the columns are another departure from linear perspec-
tive. The convergence lines, imagined from the parallel
edges of the column bases, do not recede to a single
vanishing point on the horizon, as expected; instead, the
lines of the left column base converge at the sitter’s right
eye, while those of the right column base converge at the
sitter’s left eye. This seems to signal Leonardo’s intent for
viewers to do likewise – that is, to cross our eyes so that
we see the left column and background with the right eye
and the right column and background with the left eye.
Another work that should be considered potentially auto-
stereoscopic is Leonardo’s Last Supper. Matteo Bandello
Figure 5. Mona Lisa stereogram. Stare at the two white
dots and cross your eyes until four dots appear, then
reposition your eyes until the two central dots overlap.
Look down at the reconstituted column and landscape.
This illustrates the stereoscopic effect, easily shown on
a small scale with a guide-frame that would be less
satisfactorily seen on the larger scale of the actual
painting. An original uncropped painting, or frame,
may have included part of this image.

doi:10.3138/carto.46.3.149 157
describes Leonardo as staring at his work: ‘‘He might
labour on the piece all day without a break, then leave
and not be seen for the rest of the week. He was observed
on one occasion staring at the painting for several hours,
then making one or two tiny brush strokes, then leaving’’
(Bandello 1554, 121). Leonardo could have been checking
for stereoscopic opportunities; his composition, with the
figures and food items arrayed in sequence along the
horizontal line of the table, would be suitable for stereo-
scopic effects (Ciuffreda and Engber 2002, 37–40). Un-
fortunately the image quality of the painting may now be
too deteriorated for us to see any intended auto-stereo-
scopic effect.
Conclusion

Leonardo presents us with an enigma in the Mona Lisa.
The two parts of the landscape, with their mismatched
horizons and incongruous terrain, represent a puzzle to
be solved. The figure, La Gioconda, hiding the unimagined
confluence of this landscape, will be our playful guide in
solving this gioconda or playful puzzle. She smiles know-
ingly, looking directly at us and pointing to both edges of
the panel. We follow as she indicates the hint of columns
seen along those edges; we see that the bases of the
columns have their lines of perspective converging not to
one point but, instead, back to the eyes of Mona Lisa; the
left lines converge on her right eye, the right lines on her
left eye. We understand this as a direction to look back to
the columns with our eyes converged. The two columns
then resolve into a stereographic image of one column.
The resulting reconstituted landscape likewise is revealed –
puzzle solved.
Thus we see that the Mona Lisa is an elaborate and

sophisticated puzzle. Leonardo perpetrated this prank as
a visual pun on La Gioconda, the playful or jocular lady,
and as an incomplete stereogram resulting from his
investigations of binocular perception. The Mona Lisa
landscape, as painted, is disjointed and unlikely, while
the reconstituted landscape provides a plausible setting
displayed as a topographic map. In fact, it matches an
actual place, the Val di Chiana, as mapped by Leonardo.
This article presents findings that should stimulate scholar-
ship in the fields of art history and cartography. Art his-
torians are challenged to reconsider the current interpre-
tation of the Mona Lisa, in particular, and of Leonardo’s
landscapes, in general; cartographers are challenged to
take the findings of the painted landscapes’ matching spe-
cific locations and develop tests to measure the strength of
this hypothesis.
Author Information
Donato Pezzutto is a graduate of the University of Western

Ontario, School of Medicine, and practices family medicine
in London, Ontario. His amateur pursuits include art his-
tory and philosophy with an abiding interest in Leonardo
and vintage maps.
References
Bair, D. 2007. Discovering Da Vinci’s Daughter. Raleigh, NC:
Lulu
Press.
Bandello, M. 1554. Novelle. Lucca: Edizioni Joker.
Capra, F. 2007. The Science of Leonardo: Inside the Mind of
the
Great Genius of the Renaissance. New York: Doubleday.
Ciuffreda, K.J., and K. Engber. 2002. ‘‘Is One Eye Better Than
Two When Viewing Pictorial Art?’’ Leonardo 35 (1): 37–40.
doi:10.1162/002409402753689290.
Dorfman, J. 2008. ‘‘The ‘Mona Lisa’: Case Closed.’’ Art and
Anti-
ques 31 (3): 39–44.
Feinberg, L.J. 2004. ‘‘Visual Puns and Variable Perception:
Leonardo’s Madonna of the Yarnwinder.’’ Apollo 160: 38–41.
Freedman, L. 1997. ‘‘The ‘Blurred’ Horizon in Leonardo’s
Paint-
ings.’’ Gazette des Beaux-Arts (ser. 6) 129: 181–94.
Greenstein, J.M. 2004. ‘‘Leonardo, Mona Lisa and La

Gioconda:
Reviewing the Evidence.’’ Artibus et Historiae 25 (50): 17–38.
doi:10.2307/1483789.
Kemp, M. 2004. Leonardo. New York: Oxford University Press.
Leonardo da Vinci. 1970. The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci,
vol. 1, ed. and trans. J.P. Richter. New York: Dover
Publications.
–––––. 2005. Leonardo’s Notebooks, ed. and trans. H.A. Suh.
New
York: Black Dog and Leventhal.
Marinoni, A. 1954. I Rebus di Leonardo da Vinci, Raccolti e
inter-
preti. Firenze: L.S. Olschki.
Masters, R.D. 1998. Fortune Is a River: Leonardo da Vinci and
Niccolò Machiavelli’s Magnificent Dream to Change the Course
of Florentine History. New York: Free Press.
McMullen, R. 1975. Mona Lisa: The Picture and the Myth.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Menu, M., J.P. Mohen, and B. Mottin, eds. 2006. Mona Lisa:
Inside the Painting. New York: Abrams.
Figure 6. Differences of perception by one eye and by
both eyes (image reversed to reverse mirror writing)
Donato Pezzutto
doi:10.3138/carto.46.3.149

http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/002409402753689290
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1483789
Michelin. N.d. Michelin map 563 regional, Tuscana, Umbria,
San
Marino, Marche, Lazio, Abruzzo.
Mottin, B. 2006. ‘‘Mona Lisa’s Wooden Support.’’ In Mona
Lisa:
Inside the Painting, ed. M. Menu, J.P. Mohen, and B. Mottin,
64–71. New York: Abrams.
Nicholl, C. 2004. Leonardo da Vinci: Flights of the Mind. New
York: Penguin Group.
Oberhummer, E. 1909. ‘‘Leonardo Da Vinci and the Art of the
Renaissance in Its Relations to Geography.’’ Geographical
Journal
33 (5): 540–69. doi:10.2307/1777084.
Owen, R. 2003. ‘‘Leonardo’s Maps Solve Mona Lisa Landscape
Puzzle.’’ Times [London], 21 June: 21.
Pedretti, C. 2000. Leonardo Da Vinci. Cobham, UK: TAJ
Books.
Ramachandran, V.S., and D. Rogers-Ramachandran. 2009.
‘‘Seeing
in Stereo: Illusions of Depth.’’ Scientific American Mind, 14
August: 12–14.
Ravaud, E. 2006. ‘‘Mona Lisa’s Wooden Support.’’ In Mona
Lisa:
Inside the Painting, ed. M. Menu, J.P. Mohen, and B. Mottin,
32–37. New York: Abrams.

Repetti, E. 1833. Dizionario Geografico Fisico Storico della
Toscana, vol. 1. Firenze: Università degli Studi di Siena.
Schwartz, L. 1988. ‘‘The Mona Lisa Identification.’’ Visual
Com-
puter 4: 40–48.
Shell, J., and G. Sironi. 1992. ‘‘Cecilia Gallerani: Leonardo’s
Lady
with an Ermine.’’ Artibus et Historiae 13 (25): 47–66.
doi:10.2307/1483456.
Smith, W. 1985. ‘‘Observations on the Mona Lisa Landscape.’’
Art
Bulletin 67 (2): 183–99. doi:10.2307/3050907.
Veltman, K.H. 2007. ‘‘Leonardo da Vinci and Perspective.’’
Leonardo Studies, 1 December. Available at
http://www.sumscorp.com/leonardo_studies/news_106.html
Wade, N.J., H. Ono, and L. Lillakas. 2001. ‘‘Leonardo da
Vinci’s
Struggles with Representations of Reality.’’ Leonardo 34 (3):
231–35. doi:10.1162/002409401750286994.
Vasari, G. 2008. The Lives of the Artists [1550], trans. J.C.
Bondanella and P. Bondanella. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wright, D.R.E. 1984. ‘‘Alberti’s De Pictura: Its Literary
Structure
and Purpose.’’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
47: 52–71. doi:10.2307/751438.
Zapperi, R. 2010. ‘‘Abchied von der Mona Lisa.’’ Weltkunst 80

(1):
40–45.
Zöllner, F. 1993. ‘‘Leonardo’s Portrait of Mona Lisa del
Giocondo.’’
Gazette des Beaux-Arts 121: 115–38.
Appendix
Topographic perspective has been demonstrated here with
the Mona Lisa as a fly-over view of the Val di Chiana.
Charles Nicholl, in his Leonardo biography (appropriately
subtitled Flights of the Mind ), seems to imply as much for
the part of landscape visible under the wing in the Annun-
ciation with a part of the Map of Tuscany (Nicholl 2004,
47–53). This is an early example of Leonardo’s use of
topographic perspective that corresponds to a particular
place. The view is looking east from the mouth of the
Arno River. At left, below the angel’s wings, are the Pisan
hills, then the palude (wetlands), with the gap between
Montecatini to the north and the Monte Albano range,
with the distinctive ‘‘mnemonic icon’’ peak of Monsu-
mano, to the south. On the right is the view upriver, past

a city that should be, but doesn’t quite resemble, Pisa,
with high peaks on the south bank, to the distant and
highest mountains on to the horizon. (This, incidentally,
would place Leonardo’s hometown of Vinci hidden be-
hind the angel’s head.) Some years after painting this
work, Leonardo would produce the Map of Tuscany
(c. 1503), outlining his plan to divert the Arno through
Serravalle. Thus the painting came to feature the Arno
with its actual course on the right and the proposed
course on the left.
The landscape in the Madonna of the Yarnwinder corre-
sponds to the Adda River. The view is looking north, up
the Adda River from Vaprio with Trezzo sull’Adda, then
steep banks upriver, then valley toward the Lecco arm of
Lake Como, on the left side of the landscape. The high
Alps along the horizon are seen at right. The area is fea-
tured in Leonardo’s Map of the Adda at Trezzo and his
drawing of the Ferry Crossing at Vaprio. A problem arises

because the Madonna and child are shown on high
ground, with a bridge below them. The physical features
fit best with a view from the hills above Villa d’Adda,
looking north, upriver, with a bridge at Brivio, but there
is no record of such a bridge at that time. A possible solu-
tion is that the bridge is at Trezzo, with the high ground
near Vaprio (either imagined or the exaggerated slope of a
steep and rocky riverbank), or that the initial vista is posi-
tioned very far across the Po plain, in the Apennine range
above Piacenza.
There are various candidate locations that may corre-
spond with the landscape for the Virgin and Child with
St Anne and Lamb. A good fit is one based on the Storm
over Valley drawing and the Monte Rosa area discussed
in Leonardo’s Notebooks. The view is looking north-west,
from Mt Barone toward Mt Rosa (Dufour) across the Val
di Sesia, with a valley to Rima San Giuseppe on the right
and the main Sesia valley with Piode on the left.

All these landscapes, along with that in the Mona Lisa,
demonstrate topographic perspective. They include se-
quences of mountainous terrain not appreciable from
one vantage point but assembled as a series of fly-over
vistas, imagined above the highest peaks. It is with the
human-made features (bridges and buildings), as scarce
as they are, that Leonardo takes the most licence. These
do represent some difficulty with matching. Allowing for
Leonardo’s tendency to exaggerate the vertical height of
hills and mountains, however, the natural features provide
the best match for the landscapes to particular places.
doi:10.3138/carto.46.3.149 159
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1777084
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1483456
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3050907
http://www.sumscorp.com/leonardo_studies/news_106.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/002409401750286994
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/751438

Copyright of Cartographica is the property of University of
Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Zach Falasz
Art 203
Museum Compare and Contrast Essay
Art is an ever-changing discipline. As time
progresses, movements, styles,
and people become outdated. Adjustments are made
and people forgotten.
Nevertheless, as long as creative minds still roam
the earth, inspiration will be
drawn from Pablo Picasso and Salvador Dali.
Although painting in different styles
for much of their lives, both instituted profound
meaning and elegance into their
work. Comparisons and differences alike will be
entertained throughout by
investigating pallet, style, and viewer

interpretation.
Pablo Picasso’s The Old Guitarist is an oil
painting composed in Madrid
between 1903 and 1904. It was illustratedduring
his blue period, lasting from
1901-1904, triggered by the suicide of a close
friend. During this time,Picasso used
a “monochromatic pallet, flattened form, and
tragic, sorrowful themes” (The Art
Institute of Chicago). The blue motif slated in
The Old Guitarist speaks to the
heartbreak Picasso felt for the years following
his friend’s death. The old man,
portrayed skeletal and weak, is sitting cross-legged
in dim lighting, either outside
during the nightor inside with the lights
dimmed. His skin is painted a sickly bluish-
white in accordance with his hair, which lacks
colors and fullness. His clothes,
ripped and torn, resemble rags. The only captivating
form in the work is the old
man’s guitar. The guitar, breaking awayfrom the
grim pallet, fractures the despair
otherwise surrounding the old man. It has been said,

although destitute, that the old
man is oblivious to his dejected surroundings due to
the hope he receives by means
of his guitar.
Zach Falasz
Art 203
Salvador Dali produced one of his most iconic pieces
in 1931. Setting oil to
canvas, Dali created The Persistence of Memory, a
surrealist work that is 9 ½ inches
tall and 13 inches wide. Dali, an outspoken and
extravagant individual, joined the
surrealist movementtwo years previous to The
Persistence of Memory. Dali, when
asked about his work, stated they were like
“hand-painted dream photographs”
(Salvador Dali and Surrealism). This statement could
not be more accurate,
especially when analyzing the improbable forms
depicted in The Persistence of
Memory. One clock melts off the side of the
table while a tree, now dead, has another

melting clock resting over a lifeless limb. A
closed pocket watch covered in ants lies
in the foreground. At the center of the canvas,
an unrecognizable, unanimated white
beastand, laying over it, another melting clock.
The white beastrepresents
metamorphosis, a device Dali and otherSurrealists
used to “merge human, vegetal
and animal forms into a single unit”(Salvador
Dali and Surrealism). By placing
impossible realities of authentic objects recognizable
to humans in the work, Dali
allows only one way for humans to see such
inconceivable matter: in his work and in
their dreams.
The Old Guitarist and The Persistence of Memory
have opposing colorpallets
that work to create differing outcomes in each work.
Picasso’s blue monochromatic
pallet is utilized to create a somber mood
and is especially achieved when paired
with the skeletal, downtrodden man. The Persistence of
Memory adopts mostly
earthen tones with the exception of white and

blue. The earthen complexion does
not compare to the gloomy extent of The Old
Guitarist, however, it does add to the
barrenness of Dali’s work. Excluding the clocks
and the white beast, the white and
Zach Falasz
Art 203
blue are serviced in the background of the piece
in the sky and sea. The two works
have contrasting suggestions of colorand how it
relates to life as it dwindles in The
Old Guitarist while The Persistence of Memory
lacksvigor altogether.
Two contrasting styles were employed to create
The Old Guitarist and The
Persistence of Memory. Picasso used expressionism, a
movementin which artists
perceived the world from a subjective standpoint, to
emotionally disturb the viewer.
Dali exercised surrealism, a movementin which
“artists sought to channel the
unconscious as a means to unlock the power
of the imagination” (Surrealism

Movement, Artists and Major Works). While it
is true that both paintings enable the
viewer to use their insight to draw significance
from the work, The Persistence of
Memory allows a wider range of conclusions
to be drawn. In this particular case,
Picasso wants his observer to fathom the level of
anguish the old man feels. Dali, on
the otherhand, allows the viewer to ascertain
any meaning behind his art.
Unlike The Old Guitarist, The Persistence of
Memory has no discernable
interpretation. While art critics have entertained
the possibility of both The Old
Guitarist and The Persistence of Memory having
characteristics of self-portraits, more
distinct conclusions can be drawn to Picasso
and the guitarist than Dali and the
white beast. Many believe Picasso saw himself
in the old man during his blue period
– art his only hope in a downtrodden time.Picasso
oftenrelated to the poor, as he
himself was poverty-stricken in 1902. On the
otherhand, Dali, an extravagant

individual, might have identified with the white
beastwhen creating it. A one-of-a-
kind individual creating an unconventional beastin an
eccentric scene is a legacy a
surrealist such as Dali would have wanted to leave
behind.
Zach Falasz
Art 203
Pablo Picasso and Salvador Dali had more differences
than similarities
during their lives. Dali acted outlandish at
times, even arriving to an art showin a
diving suit. Picasso oftenworked in solitude, his
paintings reflecting periods of his
life. While it may be easier to see the
differences in their styles, pallets, and
meanings, the two men shared a bond that will
associate them for eternity: exquisite
art. At the core of their beings, both were Spanish
men who spent their days
creating beautiful images for all to adore. For
that reason, they were more alike than

different.
Zach Falasz
Art 203
"The Persistence of Memory." The Museum of Modern
Art. The Museum of Modern
Art, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.
"Surrealism Movement, Artists and Major
Works." The Art Story. The Art Story
Foundation, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.
"The Art Institute of Chicago." The Old Guitarist. The
Art Institute of Chicago, n.d.
Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

"Salvador Dali and Surrealism." Art Beyond Sight.
Art Beyond Sight, n.d. Web. 17
Nov. 2016.
Zach Falasz
Art 203
Compare and Contrast Essay
In this assignment, you will compare and contrast two works of
art. Use scholarly
resources and visual input to back up your statements. Every
opinion must be supported
by something you read or see.
REQUIREMENTS
• Choose two reputable works of art to compare and contrast
(cannot be works
discussed in class).
• Essay must contain between 800 - 1,000 words. (Your works
cited page is not
considered part of your word count.)
• 12-point font
• Double-spaced
• Proper MLA format for citations
• At least 2 scholarly sources from the library must be used and
cited

• Include clear images of the artworks you are discussing
• Include your name and a title at the top of the paper
• Attach the paper as a word document to Blackboard
• Go to the Writing Center on campus to have your essay edited
and make sure I am
notified. You will be receiving a separate grade for this.
_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________
KEY POINTS
Compare and contrast as much of the following as you can. You
may have a brief paragraph
to introduce each artwork, but use the remaining points as a
source for comparison. You
may of course introduce topics not listed below if that is where
your research leads you.
Identity
• Who is the artist?
• What period or style is it?
• What is the name of the artwork?
• What are the dimensions and medium of the artwork?
• To what culture does it belong?
• What is its subject matter?
Style
• Does its medium affect the content?
• What are its formal elements (line, color, composition, etc.)?
• Is it abstract, naturalistic, idealistic, realistic, or a
combination?
• How is the subject being depicted?
• What is the origin of the style? Is it a combination of cultural
styles?
Function/Symbolism (Often relates to cultural context)
• What was it used for? Why was it made?
• Is it sacred or secular?
• Does it communicate a message? It is asking for something?

• Does it contain symbolism? What does it mean?
Cultural Context
• What was happening historically, politically, socially,
religiously, intellectually,
and/or economically at the time it was made? What were
qualities of life at the time
and place the piece was made that may have effected its
function and style? Do
historical events or overall aesthetic tastes relate to the
image/story depicted?
_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________
Suggested Organization
Introduction:
• Introduce the artists and artworks to be discussed (title, size,
medium, origins).
• Identify a main idea of the comparison and state it. Sometimes
it is helpful to
begin writing about the similarities and differences of your
artworks first and let
them lead you to a thesis.
Discuss the similarities between the images
This will likely be multiple paragraphs
• Style
• Function/Symbolism
• Cultural context
Discuss the differences between the images
This will likely be multiple paragraphs
• Style
• Function/Symbolism
• Cultural context
Conclusion:

• Conclude with a paragraph that sums up your main ideas.
• Discuss the main similarities and differences as well as your
own ideas about the
work.
This is just a suggested way to organize your paper. Please use
your best judgment when
organizing the content. Ensure the paper has an easy to follow
train of thought. Also,
remember that this is a compare and contrast essay. The bulk of
your writing should
consist of comparing and contrasting the chosen artworks.

transactionsON THE NATURE OF THE.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to transactionsON THE NATURE OF THE.docx

Similar to transactionsON THE NATURE OF THE.docx (16)

More from turveycharlyn

More from turveycharlyn (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

transactionsON THE NATURE OF THE.docx