Mona Lisa (Prado)

Prompt: Focus on Mona Lisa (Prado) and explain the Restoration.

Previous to its restoration, the painting was catalogued as an anonymous copy from the first quarter of the 16th century. However, it usually hung in the Prado alongside masterpieces of Italian artists such as Raphael or Andrea del Sarto. A lithograph of the painting also exists, which is unusual for an anonymous copy.Although there were elements that clearly distinguished the copy from the Louvre's version, the most striking point was the fact that until the restoration of the Prado's version, no landscape background was visible. That landscape was fully recovered through the restoration carried out by the Prado between 2011 and 2012, for a request to include the Prado's work in a temporary exhibition in the Louvre called Leonardo's last masterpiece: The Sainte Anne, from 29 March to 25 June 2012. The oxidized varnishes indicated that the black repaint had been made 200 years after the copy was painted, that is to say, not before 1750. During this restoration process, the copy was also submitted to a study of infrared reflectography and radiography, where the results revealed that the painting had been made in the workshop of Leonardo da Vinci at the same time the original Mona Lisa was painted. The "key" of this discovery was the underlying drawing, as it is the same but with different style in both paintings, as well as the drawing's corrections.These findings, coupled with the excellent state of preservation in regard to the Louvre's version, show the original colours of the Prado's painting and indicates what the copy must have originally looked like, as the varnish on the original has become cracked and yellowed with age. It is anticipated that such revelations also may offer further insight into Leonardo's original.The suggestion that the Prado version was painted in the workshop of Leonardo at the same time as the Louvre version, presumably by an apprentice, is supported by the observation that it appears to have been rendered from a slightly different perspective than the original. This has fuelled speculation that the pair may constitute the world’s first stereoscopic image, and hence when viewed dichoptically (i.e. with the Prado version viewed by the left eye, and the Louvre version by the right) may produce a distinct 3D appearance. This possibility is plausible, given the fact that Leonardo discussed the rudiments of stereoscopic vision in his Trattato della pittura. However, a more recent report has demonstrated that this pair in fact gives no reliable stereoscopic depth.

File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

File:Gioconda (copia del Museo del Prado restaurada).jpg

Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations

File:Copy of La Gioconda - Leonardo da Vinci's apprentice.jpg

The Prado's ''Mona Lisa'' before its restoration, with the black repaint of the landscape background.

Category:Paintings in the Museo del Prado by Italian artists


Mona Lisa (Prado)

Prompt: Explain the Restoration of this artwork, Mona Lisa (Prado).

Previous to its restoration, the painting was catalogued as an anonymous copy from the first quarter of the 16th century. However, it usually hung in the Prado alongside masterpieces of Italian artists such as Raphael or Andrea del Sarto. A lithograph of the painting also exists, which is unusual for an anonymous copy.Although there were elements that clearly distinguished the copy from the Louvre's version, the most striking point was the fact that until the restoration of the Prado's version, no landscape background was visible. That landscape was fully recovered through the restoration carried out by the Prado between 2011 and 2012, for a request to include the Prado's work in a temporary exhibition in the Louvre called Leonardo's last masterpiece: The Sainte Anne, from 29 March to 25 June 2012. The oxidized varnishes indicated that the black repaint had been made 200 years after the copy was painted, that is to say, not before 1750. During this restoration process, the copy was also submitted to a study of infrared reflectography and radiography, where the results revealed that the painting had been made in the workshop of Leonardo da Vinci at the same time the original Mona Lisa was painted. The "key" of this discovery was the underlying drawing, as it is the same but with different style in both paintings, as well as the drawing's corrections.These findings, coupled with the excellent state of preservation in regard to the Louvre's version, show the original colours of the Prado's painting and indicates what the copy must have originally looked like, as the varnish on the original has become cracked and yellowed with age. It is anticipated that such revelations also may offer further insight into Leonardo's original.The suggestion that the Prado version was painted in the workshop of Leonardo at the same time as the Louvre version, presumably by an apprentice, is supported by the observation that it appears to have been rendered from a slightly different perspective than the original. This has fuelled speculation that the pair may constitute the world’s first stereoscopic image, and hence when viewed dichoptically (i.e. with the Prado version viewed by the left eye, and the Louvre version by the right) may produce a distinct 3D appearance. This possibility is plausible, given the fact that Leonardo discussed the rudiments of stereoscopic vision in his Trattato della pittura. However, a more recent report has demonstrated that this pair in fact gives no reliable stereoscopic depth.

File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

File:Gioconda (copia del Museo del Prado restaurada).jpg

Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations

File:Copy of La Gioconda - Leonardo da Vinci's apprentice.jpg

The Prado's ''Mona Lisa'' before its restoration, with the black repaint of the landscape background.

Category:Paintings in the Museo del Prado by Italian artists


Mona Lisa (Prado)

Prompt: How does Mona Lisa (Prado) explain its Restoration?

Previous to its restoration, the painting was catalogued as an anonymous copy from the first quarter of the 16th century. However, it usually hung in the Prado alongside masterpieces of Italian artists such as Raphael or Andrea del Sarto. A lithograph of the painting also exists, which is unusual for an anonymous copy.Although there were elements that clearly distinguished the copy from the Louvre's version, the most striking point was the fact that until the restoration of the Prado's version, no landscape background was visible. That landscape was fully recovered through the restoration carried out by the Prado between 2011 and 2012, for a request to include the Prado's work in a temporary exhibition in the Louvre called Leonardo's last masterpiece: The Sainte Anne, from 29 March to 25 June 2012. The oxidized varnishes indicated that the black repaint had been made 200 years after the copy was painted, that is to say, not before 1750. During this restoration process, the copy was also submitted to a study of infrared reflectography and radiography, where the results revealed that the painting had been made in the workshop of Leonardo da Vinci at the same time the original Mona Lisa was painted. The "key" of this discovery was the underlying drawing, as it is the same but with different style in both paintings, as well as the drawing's corrections.These findings, coupled with the excellent state of preservation in regard to the Louvre's version, show the original colours of the Prado's painting and indicates what the copy must have originally looked like, as the varnish on the original has become cracked and yellowed with age. It is anticipated that such revelations also may offer further insight into Leonardo's original.The suggestion that the Prado version was painted in the workshop of Leonardo at the same time as the Louvre version, presumably by an apprentice, is supported by the observation that it appears to have been rendered from a slightly different perspective than the original. This has fuelled speculation that the pair may constitute the world’s first stereoscopic image, and hence when viewed dichoptically (i.e. with the Prado version viewed by the left eye, and the Louvre version by the right) may produce a distinct 3D appearance. This possibility is plausible, given the fact that Leonardo discussed the rudiments of stereoscopic vision in his Trattato della pittura. However, a more recent report has demonstrated that this pair in fact gives no reliable stereoscopic depth.

File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

File:Gioconda (copia del Museo del Prado restaurada).jpg

Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations

File:Copy of La Gioconda - Leonardo da Vinci's apprentice.jpg

The Prado's ''Mona Lisa'' before its restoration, with the black repaint of the landscape background.

Category:Paintings in the Museo del Prado by Italian artists


Mona Lisa (Prado)

Prompt: In Mona Lisa (Prado), how is the Restoration discussed?

Previous to its restoration, the painting was catalogued as an anonymous copy from the first quarter of the 16th century. However, it usually hung in the Prado alongside masterpieces of Italian artists such as Raphael or Andrea del Sarto. A lithograph of the painting also exists, which is unusual for an anonymous copy.Although there were elements that clearly distinguished the copy from the Louvre's version, the most striking point was the fact that until the restoration of the Prado's version, no landscape background was visible. That landscape was fully recovered through the restoration carried out by the Prado between 2011 and 2012, for a request to include the Prado's work in a temporary exhibition in the Louvre called Leonardo's last masterpiece: The Sainte Anne, from 29 March to 25 June 2012. The oxidized varnishes indicated that the black repaint had been made 200 years after the copy was painted, that is to say, not before 1750. During this restoration process, the copy was also submitted to a study of infrared reflectography and radiography, where the results revealed that the painting had been made in the workshop of Leonardo da Vinci at the same time the original Mona Lisa was painted. The "key" of this discovery was the underlying drawing, as it is the same but with different style in both paintings, as well as the drawing's corrections.These findings, coupled with the excellent state of preservation in regard to the Louvre's version, show the original colours of the Prado's painting and indicates what the copy must have originally looked like, as the varnish on the original has become cracked and yellowed with age. It is anticipated that such revelations also may offer further insight into Leonardo's original.The suggestion that the Prado version was painted in the workshop of Leonardo at the same time as the Louvre version, presumably by an apprentice, is supported by the observation that it appears to have been rendered from a slightly different perspective than the original. This has fuelled speculation that the pair may constitute the world’s first stereoscopic image, and hence when viewed dichoptically (i.e. with the Prado version viewed by the left eye, and the Louvre version by the right) may produce a distinct 3D appearance. This possibility is plausible, given the fact that Leonardo discussed the rudiments of stereoscopic vision in his Trattato della pittura. However, a more recent report has demonstrated that this pair in fact gives no reliable stereoscopic depth.

File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

File:Gioconda (copia del Museo del Prado restaurada).jpg

Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations

File:Copy of La Gioconda - Leonardo da Vinci's apprentice.jpg

The Prado's ''Mona Lisa'' before its restoration, with the black repaint of the landscape background.

Category:Paintings in the Museo del Prado by Italian artists


Mona Lisa (Prado)

Prompt: Focus on Mona Lisa (Prado) and explain the Attribution.

Before the restoration, the Prado's copy was sometimes attributed to a painter of the Flemish school. This conclusion was based on the long-held belief that the copy's wooden frame was thought to be oak and due to its repainting. However, during the 2010 restoration, conservators realized the frame's material is walnut, an expensive wood frequently used in works of Leonardo, such as Lady with an Ermine, La Belle Ferronnière or Saint John the Baptist.After the restoration, it was suggested that two of Leonardo's pupils, Francesco Melzi or Salaì, were among the probable painters, though others questioned this assumption; they suggest the author could have been a Spanish student of Leonardo, namely Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina or Hernando de los Llanos. The painting cannot be considered as a typical workshop copy due to its careful and thorough execution, as well as its use of materials such as lapis lazuli or red lacquer.Ana Gonzáles Mozo, curator at the Prado Museum in Madrid, wrote in the catalog for the exhibition Leonardo and the Copy of the Mona Lisa that the so-called Ganay copy of the Salvador Mundi was likely done by the same artist that painted the Prado Mona Lisa.

File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

File:Gioconda (copia del Museo del Prado restaurada).jpg

Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations

File:Copy of La Gioconda - Leonardo da Vinci's apprentice.jpg

The Prado's ''Mona Lisa'' before its restoration, with the black repaint of the landscape background.

Category:Paintings in the Museo del Prado by Italian artists


Mona Lisa (Prado)

Prompt: Explain the Attribution of this artwork, Mona Lisa (Prado).

Before the restoration, the Prado's copy was sometimes attributed to a painter of the Flemish school. This conclusion was based on the long-held belief that the copy's wooden frame was thought to be oak and due to its repainting. However, during the 2010 restoration, conservators realized the frame's material is walnut, an expensive wood frequently used in works of Leonardo, such as Lady with an Ermine, La Belle Ferronnière or Saint John the Baptist.After the restoration, it was suggested that two of Leonardo's pupils, Francesco Melzi or Salaì, were among the probable painters, though others questioned this assumption; they suggest the author could have been a Spanish student of Leonardo, namely Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina or Hernando de los Llanos. The painting cannot be considered as a typical workshop copy due to its careful and thorough execution, as well as its use of materials such as lapis lazuli or red lacquer.Ana Gonzáles Mozo, curator at the Prado Museum in Madrid, wrote in the catalog for the exhibition Leonardo and the Copy of the Mona Lisa that the so-called Ganay copy of the Salvador Mundi was likely done by the same artist that painted the Prado Mona Lisa.

File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

File:Gioconda (copia del Museo del Prado restaurada).jpg

Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations

File:Copy of La Gioconda - Leonardo da Vinci's apprentice.jpg

The Prado's ''Mona Lisa'' before its restoration, with the black repaint of the landscape background.

Category:Paintings in the Museo del Prado by Italian artists


Mona Lisa (Prado)

Prompt: How does Mona Lisa (Prado) explain its Attribution?

Before the restoration, the Prado's copy was sometimes attributed to a painter of the Flemish school. This conclusion was based on the long-held belief that the copy's wooden frame was thought to be oak and due to its repainting. However, during the 2010 restoration, conservators realized the frame's material is walnut, an expensive wood frequently used in works of Leonardo, such as Lady with an Ermine, La Belle Ferronnière or Saint John the Baptist.After the restoration, it was suggested that two of Leonardo's pupils, Francesco Melzi or Salaì, were among the probable painters, though others questioned this assumption; they suggest the author could have been a Spanish student of Leonardo, namely Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina or Hernando de los Llanos. The painting cannot be considered as a typical workshop copy due to its careful and thorough execution, as well as its use of materials such as lapis lazuli or red lacquer.Ana Gonzáles Mozo, curator at the Prado Museum in Madrid, wrote in the catalog for the exhibition Leonardo and the Copy of the Mona Lisa that the so-called Ganay copy of the Salvador Mundi was likely done by the same artist that painted the Prado Mona Lisa.

File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

File:Gioconda (copia del Museo del Prado restaurada).jpg

Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations

File:Copy of La Gioconda - Leonardo da Vinci's apprentice.jpg

The Prado's ''Mona Lisa'' before its restoration, with the black repaint of the landscape background.

Category:Paintings in the Museo del Prado by Italian artists


Mona Lisa (Prado)

Prompt: In Mona Lisa (Prado), how is the Attribution discussed?

Before the restoration, the Prado's copy was sometimes attributed to a painter of the Flemish school. This conclusion was based on the long-held belief that the copy's wooden frame was thought to be oak and due to its repainting. However, during the 2010 restoration, conservators realized the frame's material is walnut, an expensive wood frequently used in works of Leonardo, such as Lady with an Ermine, La Belle Ferronnière or Saint John the Baptist.After the restoration, it was suggested that two of Leonardo's pupils, Francesco Melzi or Salaì, were among the probable painters, though others questioned this assumption; they suggest the author could have been a Spanish student of Leonardo, namely Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina or Hernando de los Llanos. The painting cannot be considered as a typical workshop copy due to its careful and thorough execution, as well as its use of materials such as lapis lazuli or red lacquer.Ana Gonzáles Mozo, curator at the Prado Museum in Madrid, wrote in the catalog for the exhibition Leonardo and the Copy of the Mona Lisa that the so-called Ganay copy of the Salvador Mundi was likely done by the same artist that painted the Prado Mona Lisa.

File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

File:Gioconda (copia del Museo del Prado restaurada).jpg

Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations

File:Copy of La Gioconda - Leonardo da Vinci's apprentice.jpg

The Prado's ''Mona Lisa'' before its restoration, with the black repaint of the landscape background.

Category:Paintings in the Museo del Prado by Italian artists


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: Focus on A Bar at the Folies-Bergère and explain the abstract.

A Bar at the Folies-Bergère (French: Un bar aux Folies Bergère) is a painting by Édouard Manet, considered to be his last major work. It was painted in 1882 and exhibited at the Paris Salon of that year. It depicts a scene in the Folies Bergère nightclub in Paris. The painting originally belonged to the composer Emmanuel Chabrier, a close friend of Manet, and hung over his piano. It is now in the Courtauld Gallery in London.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère.

A Bar at the Folies-Bergère (French: Un bar aux Folies Bergère) is a painting by Édouard Manet, considered to be his last major work. It was painted in 1882 and exhibited at the Paris Salon of that year. It depicts a scene in the Folies Bergère nightclub in Paris. The painting originally belonged to the composer Emmanuel Chabrier, a close friend of Manet, and hung over his piano. It is now in the Courtauld Gallery in London.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: How does A Bar at the Folies-Bergère explain its abstract?

A Bar at the Folies-Bergère (French: Un bar aux Folies Bergère) is a painting by Édouard Manet, considered to be his last major work. It was painted in 1882 and exhibited at the Paris Salon of that year. It depicts a scene in the Folies Bergère nightclub in Paris. The painting originally belonged to the composer Emmanuel Chabrier, a close friend of Manet, and hung over his piano. It is now in the Courtauld Gallery in London.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: In A Bar at the Folies-Bergère, how is the abstract discussed?

A Bar at the Folies-Bergère (French: Un bar aux Folies Bergère) is a painting by Édouard Manet, considered to be his last major work. It was painted in 1882 and exhibited at the Paris Salon of that year. It depicts a scene in the Folies Bergère nightclub in Paris. The painting originally belonged to the composer Emmanuel Chabrier, a close friend of Manet, and hung over his piano. It is now in the Courtauld Gallery in London.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: Focus on A Bar at the Folies-Bergère and explain the Painting.

The painting exemplifies Manet's commitment to realism in its detailed representation of a contemporary scene. Many features have puzzled critics but almost all of them have been shown to have a rationale, and the painting has been the subject of numerous popular and scholarly articles.The central figure stands before a mirror, although critics—accusing Manet of ignorance of perspective and alleging various impossibilities in the painting—have debated this point since the earliest reviews were published. In 2000, however, a photograph taken from a suitable point of view of a staged reconstruction was shown to reproduce the scene as painted by Manet. According to this reconstruction, "the conversation that many have assumed was transpiring between the barmaid and gentleman is revealed to be an optical trick—the man stands outside the painter's field of vision, to the left, and looks away from the barmaid, rather than standing right in front of her." As it appears, the observer should be standing to the right and closer to the bar than the man whose reflection appears at the right edge of the picture. This is an unusual departure from the central point of view usually assumed when viewing pictures drawn according to perspective.Asserting the presence of the mirror has been crucial for many modern interpreters. It provides a meaningful parallel with Las Meninas, a masterpiece by an artist Manet admired, Diego Velázquez. There has been a considerable development of this topic since Michel Foucault broached it in his book The Order of Things (1966).The art historian Jeffrey Meyers describes the intentional play on perspective and the apparent violation of the operations of mirrors: "Behind her, and extending for the entire length of the four-and-a-quarter-foot painting, is the gold frame of an enormous mirror. The French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty has called a mirror 'the instrument of a universal magic that changes things into spectacles, spectacles into things, me into others, and others into me.' We, the viewers, stand opposite the barmaid on the other side of the counter and, looking at the reflection in the mirror, see exactly what she sees... A critic has noted that Manet's 'preliminary study shows her placed off to the right, whereas in the finished canvas she is very much the centre of attention.' Though Manet shifted her from the right to the center, he kept her reflection on the right. Seen in the mirror, she seems engaged with a customer; in full face, she's self-protectively withdrawn and remote."The painting is rich in details which provide clues to social class and milieu. The woman at the bar is a real person, known as Suzon, who worked at the Folies-Bergère in the early 1880s. For his painting, Manet posed her in his studio. By including a dish of oranges in the foreground, Manet identifies the barmaid as a prostitute, according to art historian Larry L. Ligo, who says that Manet habitually associated oranges with prostitution in his paintings. T. J. Clark says that the barmaid is "intended to represent one of the prostitutes for which the Folies-Bergère was well-known", who is represented "as both a salesperson and a commodity—something to be purchased along with a drink."Other notable details include the pair of green feet in the upper left-hand corner, which belong to a trapeze artist who is performing above the restaurant's patrons. The beer bottles depicted are easily identified by the red triangle on the label as Bass Pale Ale, and the conspicuous presence of this British brand instead of German beer has been interpreted as documentation of anti-German sentiment in France in the decade after the Franco-Prussian War.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: Explain the Painting of this artwork, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère.

The painting exemplifies Manet's commitment to realism in its detailed representation of a contemporary scene. Many features have puzzled critics but almost all of them have been shown to have a rationale, and the painting has been the subject of numerous popular and scholarly articles.The central figure stands before a mirror, although critics—accusing Manet of ignorance of perspective and alleging various impossibilities in the painting—have debated this point since the earliest reviews were published. In 2000, however, a photograph taken from a suitable point of view of a staged reconstruction was shown to reproduce the scene as painted by Manet. According to this reconstruction, "the conversation that many have assumed was transpiring between the barmaid and gentleman is revealed to be an optical trick—the man stands outside the painter's field of vision, to the left, and looks away from the barmaid, rather than standing right in front of her." As it appears, the observer should be standing to the right and closer to the bar than the man whose reflection appears at the right edge of the picture. This is an unusual departure from the central point of view usually assumed when viewing pictures drawn according to perspective.Asserting the presence of the mirror has been crucial for many modern interpreters. It provides a meaningful parallel with Las Meninas, a masterpiece by an artist Manet admired, Diego Velázquez. There has been a considerable development of this topic since Michel Foucault broached it in his book The Order of Things (1966).The art historian Jeffrey Meyers describes the intentional play on perspective and the apparent violation of the operations of mirrors: "Behind her, and extending for the entire length of the four-and-a-quarter-foot painting, is the gold frame of an enormous mirror. The French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty has called a mirror 'the instrument of a universal magic that changes things into spectacles, spectacles into things, me into others, and others into me.' We, the viewers, stand opposite the barmaid on the other side of the counter and, looking at the reflection in the mirror, see exactly what she sees... A critic has noted that Manet's 'preliminary study shows her placed off to the right, whereas in the finished canvas she is very much the centre of attention.' Though Manet shifted her from the right to the center, he kept her reflection on the right. Seen in the mirror, she seems engaged with a customer; in full face, she's self-protectively withdrawn and remote."The painting is rich in details which provide clues to social class and milieu. The woman at the bar is a real person, known as Suzon, who worked at the Folies-Bergère in the early 1880s. For his painting, Manet posed her in his studio. By including a dish of oranges in the foreground, Manet identifies the barmaid as a prostitute, according to art historian Larry L. Ligo, who says that Manet habitually associated oranges with prostitution in his paintings. T. J. Clark says that the barmaid is "intended to represent one of the prostitutes for which the Folies-Bergère was well-known", who is represented "as both a salesperson and a commodity—something to be purchased along with a drink."Other notable details include the pair of green feet in the upper left-hand corner, which belong to a trapeze artist who is performing above the restaurant's patrons. The beer bottles depicted are easily identified by the red triangle on the label as Bass Pale Ale, and the conspicuous presence of this British brand instead of German beer has been interpreted as documentation of anti-German sentiment in France in the decade after the Franco-Prussian War.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: How does A Bar at the Folies-Bergère explain its Painting?

The painting exemplifies Manet's commitment to realism in its detailed representation of a contemporary scene. Many features have puzzled critics but almost all of them have been shown to have a rationale, and the painting has been the subject of numerous popular and scholarly articles.The central figure stands before a mirror, although critics—accusing Manet of ignorance of perspective and alleging various impossibilities in the painting—have debated this point since the earliest reviews were published. In 2000, however, a photograph taken from a suitable point of view of a staged reconstruction was shown to reproduce the scene as painted by Manet. According to this reconstruction, "the conversation that many have assumed was transpiring between the barmaid and gentleman is revealed to be an optical trick—the man stands outside the painter's field of vision, to the left, and looks away from the barmaid, rather than standing right in front of her." As it appears, the observer should be standing to the right and closer to the bar than the man whose reflection appears at the right edge of the picture. This is an unusual departure from the central point of view usually assumed when viewing pictures drawn according to perspective.Asserting the presence of the mirror has been crucial for many modern interpreters. It provides a meaningful parallel with Las Meninas, a masterpiece by an artist Manet admired, Diego Velázquez. There has been a considerable development of this topic since Michel Foucault broached it in his book The Order of Things (1966).The art historian Jeffrey Meyers describes the intentional play on perspective and the apparent violation of the operations of mirrors: "Behind her, and extending for the entire length of the four-and-a-quarter-foot painting, is the gold frame of an enormous mirror. The French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty has called a mirror 'the instrument of a universal magic that changes things into spectacles, spectacles into things, me into others, and others into me.' We, the viewers, stand opposite the barmaid on the other side of the counter and, looking at the reflection in the mirror, see exactly what she sees... A critic has noted that Manet's 'preliminary study shows her placed off to the right, whereas in the finished canvas she is very much the centre of attention.' Though Manet shifted her from the right to the center, he kept her reflection on the right. Seen in the mirror, she seems engaged with a customer; in full face, she's self-protectively withdrawn and remote."The painting is rich in details which provide clues to social class and milieu. The woman at the bar is a real person, known as Suzon, who worked at the Folies-Bergère in the early 1880s. For his painting, Manet posed her in his studio. By including a dish of oranges in the foreground, Manet identifies the barmaid as a prostitute, according to art historian Larry L. Ligo, who says that Manet habitually associated oranges with prostitution in his paintings. T. J. Clark says that the barmaid is "intended to represent one of the prostitutes for which the Folies-Bergère was well-known", who is represented "as both a salesperson and a commodity—something to be purchased along with a drink."Other notable details include the pair of green feet in the upper left-hand corner, which belong to a trapeze artist who is performing above the restaurant's patrons. The beer bottles depicted are easily identified by the red triangle on the label as Bass Pale Ale, and the conspicuous presence of this British brand instead of German beer has been interpreted as documentation of anti-German sentiment in France in the decade after the Franco-Prussian War.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: In A Bar at the Folies-Bergère, how is the Painting discussed?

The painting exemplifies Manet's commitment to realism in its detailed representation of a contemporary scene. Many features have puzzled critics but almost all of them have been shown to have a rationale, and the painting has been the subject of numerous popular and scholarly articles.The central figure stands before a mirror, although critics—accusing Manet of ignorance of perspective and alleging various impossibilities in the painting—have debated this point since the earliest reviews were published. In 2000, however, a photograph taken from a suitable point of view of a staged reconstruction was shown to reproduce the scene as painted by Manet. According to this reconstruction, "the conversation that many have assumed was transpiring between the barmaid and gentleman is revealed to be an optical trick—the man stands outside the painter's field of vision, to the left, and looks away from the barmaid, rather than standing right in front of her." As it appears, the observer should be standing to the right and closer to the bar than the man whose reflection appears at the right edge of the picture. This is an unusual departure from the central point of view usually assumed when viewing pictures drawn according to perspective.Asserting the presence of the mirror has been crucial for many modern interpreters. It provides a meaningful parallel with Las Meninas, a masterpiece by an artist Manet admired, Diego Velázquez. There has been a considerable development of this topic since Michel Foucault broached it in his book The Order of Things (1966).The art historian Jeffrey Meyers describes the intentional play on perspective and the apparent violation of the operations of mirrors: "Behind her, and extending for the entire length of the four-and-a-quarter-foot painting, is the gold frame of an enormous mirror. The French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty has called a mirror 'the instrument of a universal magic that changes things into spectacles, spectacles into things, me into others, and others into me.' We, the viewers, stand opposite the barmaid on the other side of the counter and, looking at the reflection in the mirror, see exactly what she sees... A critic has noted that Manet's 'preliminary study shows her placed off to the right, whereas in the finished canvas she is very much the centre of attention.' Though Manet shifted her from the right to the center, he kept her reflection on the right. Seen in the mirror, she seems engaged with a customer; in full face, she's self-protectively withdrawn and remote."The painting is rich in details which provide clues to social class and milieu. The woman at the bar is a real person, known as Suzon, who worked at the Folies-Bergère in the early 1880s. For his painting, Manet posed her in his studio. By including a dish of oranges in the foreground, Manet identifies the barmaid as a prostitute, according to art historian Larry L. Ligo, who says that Manet habitually associated oranges with prostitution in his paintings. T. J. Clark says that the barmaid is "intended to represent one of the prostitutes for which the Folies-Bergère was well-known", who is represented "as both a salesperson and a commodity—something to be purchased along with a drink."Other notable details include the pair of green feet in the upper left-hand corner, which belong to a trapeze artist who is performing above the restaurant's patrons. The beer bottles depicted are easily identified by the red triangle on the label as Bass Pale Ale, and the conspicuous presence of this British brand instead of German beer has been interpreted as documentation of anti-German sentiment in France in the decade after the Franco-Prussian War.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: Focus on A Bar at the Folies-Bergère and explain the Cultural references.

The 1934 ballet Bar aux Folies-Bergère with choreography by Ninette de Valois and music of Chabrier was created from, and based around, Manet's painting. The 1947 film The Private Affairs of Bel Ami faithfully references A Bar at the Folies-Bergère twenty nine minutes into the film with a look-alike actress, set and props as the main characters enter the establishment.The painting was the inspiration of a song (possibly by Sydney Carter) in the popular theatre production The Lyric Revue, in London in 1951. The refrain went "Oh, how I long to be back in my dear Brittany [...] But fate has chosen me for the bar at the Folies-Bergères".The painting The Bar (1954) by Australian artist John Brack, which depicts a comparatively grim and austere Melbourne bar-room scene, is an ironic reference to A Bar at the Folies-Bergère.In the 1988 Eddie Murphy film Coming to America, a spoof on the painting in which the barmaids are dark-skinned women in red dresses and there is a hamburger on a plate on the counter can be seen hanging at the McDowell residence.Canadian artist Jeff Wall makes reference to A Bar at the Folies-Bergère in his work Picture for Women (1979). The Tate Modern wall text for Picture for Women, from the 2005–2006 exhibition Jeff Wall Photographs 1978–2004, outlines the influence of Manet's painting:In Manet's painting, a barmaid gazes out of frame, observed by a shadowy male figure. The whole scene appears to be reflected in the mirror behind the bar, creating a complex web of viewpoints. Wall borrows the internal structure of the painting, and motifs such as the light bulbs that give it spatial depth. The figures are similarly reflected in a mirror, and the woman has the absorbed gaze and posture of Manet's barmaid, while the man is the artist himself. Though issues of the male gaze, particularly the power relationship between male artist and female model, and the viewer's role as onlooker, are implicit in Manet's painting, Wall updates the theme by positioning the camera at the centre of the work, so that it captures the act of making the image (the scene reflected in the mirror) and, at the same time, looks straight out at us.Adventure in Paris, a book in the popular British Oxford Reading Tree scheme for children, clearly references the painting in a scene where the children travel back to 19th-century Paris to enquire as to the whereabouts of the Eiffel Tower.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: Explain the Cultural references of this artwork, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère.

The 1934 ballet Bar aux Folies-Bergère with choreography by Ninette de Valois and music of Chabrier was created from, and based around, Manet's painting. The 1947 film The Private Affairs of Bel Ami faithfully references A Bar at the Folies-Bergère twenty nine minutes into the film with a look-alike actress, set and props as the main characters enter the establishment.The painting was the inspiration of a song (possibly by Sydney Carter) in the popular theatre production The Lyric Revue, in London in 1951. The refrain went "Oh, how I long to be back in my dear Brittany [...] But fate has chosen me for the bar at the Folies-Bergères".The painting The Bar (1954) by Australian artist John Brack, which depicts a comparatively grim and austere Melbourne bar-room scene, is an ironic reference to A Bar at the Folies-Bergère.In the 1988 Eddie Murphy film Coming to America, a spoof on the painting in which the barmaids are dark-skinned women in red dresses and there is a hamburger on a plate on the counter can be seen hanging at the McDowell residence.Canadian artist Jeff Wall makes reference to A Bar at the Folies-Bergère in his work Picture for Women (1979). The Tate Modern wall text for Picture for Women, from the 2005–2006 exhibition Jeff Wall Photographs 1978–2004, outlines the influence of Manet's painting:In Manet's painting, a barmaid gazes out of frame, observed by a shadowy male figure. The whole scene appears to be reflected in the mirror behind the bar, creating a complex web of viewpoints. Wall borrows the internal structure of the painting, and motifs such as the light bulbs that give it spatial depth. The figures are similarly reflected in a mirror, and the woman has the absorbed gaze and posture of Manet's barmaid, while the man is the artist himself. Though issues of the male gaze, particularly the power relationship between male artist and female model, and the viewer's role as onlooker, are implicit in Manet's painting, Wall updates the theme by positioning the camera at the centre of the work, so that it captures the act of making the image (the scene reflected in the mirror) and, at the same time, looks straight out at us.Adventure in Paris, a book in the popular British Oxford Reading Tree scheme for children, clearly references the painting in a scene where the children travel back to 19th-century Paris to enquire as to the whereabouts of the Eiffel Tower.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: How does A Bar at the Folies-Bergère explain its Cultural references?

The 1934 ballet Bar aux Folies-Bergère with choreography by Ninette de Valois and music of Chabrier was created from, and based around, Manet's painting. The 1947 film The Private Affairs of Bel Ami faithfully references A Bar at the Folies-Bergère twenty nine minutes into the film with a look-alike actress, set and props as the main characters enter the establishment.The painting was the inspiration of a song (possibly by Sydney Carter) in the popular theatre production The Lyric Revue, in London in 1951. The refrain went "Oh, how I long to be back in my dear Brittany [...] But fate has chosen me for the bar at the Folies-Bergères".The painting The Bar (1954) by Australian artist John Brack, which depicts a comparatively grim and austere Melbourne bar-room scene, is an ironic reference to A Bar at the Folies-Bergère.In the 1988 Eddie Murphy film Coming to America, a spoof on the painting in which the barmaids are dark-skinned women in red dresses and there is a hamburger on a plate on the counter can be seen hanging at the McDowell residence.Canadian artist Jeff Wall makes reference to A Bar at the Folies-Bergère in his work Picture for Women (1979). The Tate Modern wall text for Picture for Women, from the 2005–2006 exhibition Jeff Wall Photographs 1978–2004, outlines the influence of Manet's painting:In Manet's painting, a barmaid gazes out of frame, observed by a shadowy male figure. The whole scene appears to be reflected in the mirror behind the bar, creating a complex web of viewpoints. Wall borrows the internal structure of the painting, and motifs such as the light bulbs that give it spatial depth. The figures are similarly reflected in a mirror, and the woman has the absorbed gaze and posture of Manet's barmaid, while the man is the artist himself. Though issues of the male gaze, particularly the power relationship between male artist and female model, and the viewer's role as onlooker, are implicit in Manet's painting, Wall updates the theme by positioning the camera at the centre of the work, so that it captures the act of making the image (the scene reflected in the mirror) and, at the same time, looks straight out at us.Adventure in Paris, a book in the popular British Oxford Reading Tree scheme for children, clearly references the painting in a scene where the children travel back to 19th-century Paris to enquire as to the whereabouts of the Eiffel Tower.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: In A Bar at the Folies-Bergère, how is the Cultural references discussed?

The 1934 ballet Bar aux Folies-Bergère with choreography by Ninette de Valois and music of Chabrier was created from, and based around, Manet's painting. The 1947 film The Private Affairs of Bel Ami faithfully references A Bar at the Folies-Bergère twenty nine minutes into the film with a look-alike actress, set and props as the main characters enter the establishment.The painting was the inspiration of a song (possibly by Sydney Carter) in the popular theatre production The Lyric Revue, in London in 1951. The refrain went "Oh, how I long to be back in my dear Brittany [...] But fate has chosen me for the bar at the Folies-Bergères".The painting The Bar (1954) by Australian artist John Brack, which depicts a comparatively grim and austere Melbourne bar-room scene, is an ironic reference to A Bar at the Folies-Bergère.In the 1988 Eddie Murphy film Coming to America, a spoof on the painting in which the barmaids are dark-skinned women in red dresses and there is a hamburger on a plate on the counter can be seen hanging at the McDowell residence.Canadian artist Jeff Wall makes reference to A Bar at the Folies-Bergère in his work Picture for Women (1979). The Tate Modern wall text for Picture for Women, from the 2005–2006 exhibition Jeff Wall Photographs 1978–2004, outlines the influence of Manet's painting:In Manet's painting, a barmaid gazes out of frame, observed by a shadowy male figure. The whole scene appears to be reflected in the mirror behind the bar, creating a complex web of viewpoints. Wall borrows the internal structure of the painting, and motifs such as the light bulbs that give it spatial depth. The figures are similarly reflected in a mirror, and the woman has the absorbed gaze and posture of Manet's barmaid, while the man is the artist himself. Though issues of the male gaze, particularly the power relationship between male artist and female model, and the viewer's role as onlooker, are implicit in Manet's painting, Wall updates the theme by positioning the camera at the centre of the work, so that it captures the act of making the image (the scene reflected in the mirror) and, at the same time, looks straight out at us.Adventure in Paris, a book in the popular British Oxford Reading Tree scheme for children, clearly references the painting in a scene where the children travel back to 19th-century Paris to enquire as to the whereabouts of the Eiffel Tower.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: Focus on A Bar at the Folies-Bergère and explain the References and sources.

ReferencesSourcesGary Tinterow, et al. Manet/Velázquez: The French Taste for Spanish Painting, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: Explain the References and sources of this artwork, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère.

ReferencesSourcesGary Tinterow, et al. Manet/Velázquez: The French Taste for Spanish Painting, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: How does A Bar at the Folies-Bergère explain its References and sources?

ReferencesSourcesGary Tinterow, et al. Manet/Velázquez: The French Taste for Spanish Painting, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Prompt: In A Bar at the Folies-Bergère, how is the References and sources discussed?

ReferencesSourcesGary Tinterow, et al. Manet/Velázquez: The French Taste for Spanish Painting, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003.

Category:Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery

Study for ''A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'' (1881)


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: Focus on Madonna of the Yarnwinder and explain the abstract.

The Madonna of the Yarnwinder (Italian: Madonna dei Fusi, "Madonna of the Spindles") is a subject depicted by Leonardo da Vinci in at least one, and perhaps two paintings begun in 1499 or later. Leonardo was recorded as being at work on one such picture in Florence in 1501 for Florimond Robertet, a secretary to King Louis XII of France. This may have been delivered to the French court in 1507, though scholars are divided on this point. The subject is known today from several versions of which two, called the Buccleuch Madonna and the Lansdowne Madonna, are thought to be partly by Leonardo's hand. The underdrawings of both paintings show similar experimental changes made to the composition (or pentimenti), suggesting that both evolved concurrently in Leonardo's workshop.The composition shows the Virgin Mary seated in a landscape with the Christ child, who gazes at a niddy-noddy used to collect spun yarn. The niddy-noddy serves both as a symbol of Mary's domesticity and as a foreshadowing of the Cross on which Christ was crucified. The painting's dynamic composition and the implied narrative were highly influential on later High Renaissance depictions of the Madonna and Child by artists such as Raphael and Andrea del Sarto.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Madonna of the Yarnwinder.

The Madonna of the Yarnwinder (Italian: Madonna dei Fusi, "Madonna of the Spindles") is a subject depicted by Leonardo da Vinci in at least one, and perhaps two paintings begun in 1499 or later. Leonardo was recorded as being at work on one such picture in Florence in 1501 for Florimond Robertet, a secretary to King Louis XII of France. This may have been delivered to the French court in 1507, though scholars are divided on this point. The subject is known today from several versions of which two, called the Buccleuch Madonna and the Lansdowne Madonna, are thought to be partly by Leonardo's hand. The underdrawings of both paintings show similar experimental changes made to the composition (or pentimenti), suggesting that both evolved concurrently in Leonardo's workshop.The composition shows the Virgin Mary seated in a landscape with the Christ child, who gazes at a niddy-noddy used to collect spun yarn. The niddy-noddy serves both as a symbol of Mary's domesticity and as a foreshadowing of the Cross on which Christ was crucified. The painting's dynamic composition and the implied narrative were highly influential on later High Renaissance depictions of the Madonna and Child by artists such as Raphael and Andrea del Sarto.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: How does Madonna of the Yarnwinder explain its abstract?

The Madonna of the Yarnwinder (Italian: Madonna dei Fusi, "Madonna of the Spindles") is a subject depicted by Leonardo da Vinci in at least one, and perhaps two paintings begun in 1499 or later. Leonardo was recorded as being at work on one such picture in Florence in 1501 for Florimond Robertet, a secretary to King Louis XII of France. This may have been delivered to the French court in 1507, though scholars are divided on this point. The subject is known today from several versions of which two, called the Buccleuch Madonna and the Lansdowne Madonna, are thought to be partly by Leonardo's hand. The underdrawings of both paintings show similar experimental changes made to the composition (or pentimenti), suggesting that both evolved concurrently in Leonardo's workshop.The composition shows the Virgin Mary seated in a landscape with the Christ child, who gazes at a niddy-noddy used to collect spun yarn. The niddy-noddy serves both as a symbol of Mary's domesticity and as a foreshadowing of the Cross on which Christ was crucified. The painting's dynamic composition and the implied narrative were highly influential on later High Renaissance depictions of the Madonna and Child by artists such as Raphael and Andrea del Sarto.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: In Madonna of the Yarnwinder, how is the abstract discussed?

The Madonna of the Yarnwinder (Italian: Madonna dei Fusi, "Madonna of the Spindles") is a subject depicted by Leonardo da Vinci in at least one, and perhaps two paintings begun in 1499 or later. Leonardo was recorded as being at work on one such picture in Florence in 1501 for Florimond Robertet, a secretary to King Louis XII of France. This may have been delivered to the French court in 1507, though scholars are divided on this point. The subject is known today from several versions of which two, called the Buccleuch Madonna and the Lansdowne Madonna, are thought to be partly by Leonardo's hand. The underdrawings of both paintings show similar experimental changes made to the composition (or pentimenti), suggesting that both evolved concurrently in Leonardo's workshop.The composition shows the Virgin Mary seated in a landscape with the Christ child, who gazes at a niddy-noddy used to collect spun yarn. The niddy-noddy serves both as a symbol of Mary's domesticity and as a foreshadowing of the Cross on which Christ was crucified. The painting's dynamic composition and the implied narrative were highly influential on later High Renaissance depictions of the Madonna and Child by artists such as Raphael and Andrea del Sarto.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: Focus on Madonna of the Yarnwinder and explain the History.

The earliest reference to a painting of this subject by Leonardo is in a letter of 14 April 1501 by Fra Pietro da Novellara, the head of the Carmelites in Florence, to Isabella d'Este, Marchioness of Mantua. Leonardo had recently returned to his native city following the French invasion of Milan in 1499; the intervening years he had spent first in Isabella's court, during which brief stay he produced a cartoon (now in the Louvre) for a portrait of her, and then in Venice. Isabella was determined to get a finished painting by Leonardo for her collection, and to that end she instructed Fra Pietro, her contact in Florence, to press Leonardo into agreeing to a commission. Two letters of reply by the friar survive. In the second, written after he had succeeded in meeting with the artist, he writes that Leonardo has become distracted by his mathematical pursuits and is busy working on a small painting for Florimond Robertet, which he goes on to describe:"The little picture which he is doing is of a Madonna seated as if she were about to spin yarn. The Child has placed his foot on the basket of yarns and has grasped the yarn-winder and gazes attentively at four spokes that are in the form of a cross. As if desirous of the cross he smiles and holds it firm, and is unwilling to yield it to his Mother who seems to want to take it away from him."The passage is valuable for being one of the few descriptions by a contemporary viewer of a work by Leonardo; it matches the composition of the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas in all respects except that there is no basket in either painting. Robertet's painting was probably commissioned late in 1499 just before Leonardo left Milan, and was possibly begun there.Scholars disagree on whether Robertet received his painting or not. In January 1507 Francesco Pandolfini, the Florentine ambassador to the French court in Blois, reported that “a little picture by [Leonardo’s] hand has recently been brought here and is held to be an excellent thing”. The Madonna does not, however, appear in a posthumous inventory of Robertet's collection made in 1532 (though the authenticity of the inventory has been called into question). One hypothesis holds that it passed from Robertet's collection into that of the French king, thus explaining its absence from the inventory. It is unclear, however, why it would have left the royal collection.In 1525 two inventories were drawn up of the possessions of Leonardo's assistant and heir Salaì, who died the preceding year. These mention a “Madonna with a Child in her Arms”. This is thought to be evidence that one of the prime versions of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder remained in Leonardo's possession while the other was sent to Robertet.Neither of the paintings accepted as prime versions has a provenance that can be traced back to Robertet or Salaì, or further back than the 18th century, though the Buccleuch Madonna was in France at that time. However, the Lansdowne Madonna could easily have been bought by its earliest known owners from a French collection in the period following the French Revolution, when many works with a French aristocratic provenance were bought by British collectors.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: Explain the History of this artwork, Madonna of the Yarnwinder.

The earliest reference to a painting of this subject by Leonardo is in a letter of 14 April 1501 by Fra Pietro da Novellara, the head of the Carmelites in Florence, to Isabella d'Este, Marchioness of Mantua. Leonardo had recently returned to his native city following the French invasion of Milan in 1499; the intervening years he had spent first in Isabella's court, during which brief stay he produced a cartoon (now in the Louvre) for a portrait of her, and then in Venice. Isabella was determined to get a finished painting by Leonardo for her collection, and to that end she instructed Fra Pietro, her contact in Florence, to press Leonardo into agreeing to a commission. Two letters of reply by the friar survive. In the second, written after he had succeeded in meeting with the artist, he writes that Leonardo has become distracted by his mathematical pursuits and is busy working on a small painting for Florimond Robertet, which he goes on to describe:"The little picture which he is doing is of a Madonna seated as if she were about to spin yarn. The Child has placed his foot on the basket of yarns and has grasped the yarn-winder and gazes attentively at four spokes that are in the form of a cross. As if desirous of the cross he smiles and holds it firm, and is unwilling to yield it to his Mother who seems to want to take it away from him."The passage is valuable for being one of the few descriptions by a contemporary viewer of a work by Leonardo; it matches the composition of the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas in all respects except that there is no basket in either painting. Robertet's painting was probably commissioned late in 1499 just before Leonardo left Milan, and was possibly begun there.Scholars disagree on whether Robertet received his painting or not. In January 1507 Francesco Pandolfini, the Florentine ambassador to the French court in Blois, reported that “a little picture by [Leonardo’s] hand has recently been brought here and is held to be an excellent thing”. The Madonna does not, however, appear in a posthumous inventory of Robertet's collection made in 1532 (though the authenticity of the inventory has been called into question). One hypothesis holds that it passed from Robertet's collection into that of the French king, thus explaining its absence from the inventory. It is unclear, however, why it would have left the royal collection.In 1525 two inventories were drawn up of the possessions of Leonardo's assistant and heir Salaì, who died the preceding year. These mention a “Madonna with a Child in her Arms”. This is thought to be evidence that one of the prime versions of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder remained in Leonardo's possession while the other was sent to Robertet.Neither of the paintings accepted as prime versions has a provenance that can be traced back to Robertet or Salaì, or further back than the 18th century, though the Buccleuch Madonna was in France at that time. However, the Lansdowne Madonna could easily have been bought by its earliest known owners from a French collection in the period following the French Revolution, when many works with a French aristocratic provenance were bought by British collectors.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: How does Madonna of the Yarnwinder explain its History?

The earliest reference to a painting of this subject by Leonardo is in a letter of 14 April 1501 by Fra Pietro da Novellara, the head of the Carmelites in Florence, to Isabella d'Este, Marchioness of Mantua. Leonardo had recently returned to his native city following the French invasion of Milan in 1499; the intervening years he had spent first in Isabella's court, during which brief stay he produced a cartoon (now in the Louvre) for a portrait of her, and then in Venice. Isabella was determined to get a finished painting by Leonardo for her collection, and to that end she instructed Fra Pietro, her contact in Florence, to press Leonardo into agreeing to a commission. Two letters of reply by the friar survive. In the second, written after he had succeeded in meeting with the artist, he writes that Leonardo has become distracted by his mathematical pursuits and is busy working on a small painting for Florimond Robertet, which he goes on to describe:"The little picture which he is doing is of a Madonna seated as if she were about to spin yarn. The Child has placed his foot on the basket of yarns and has grasped the yarn-winder and gazes attentively at four spokes that are in the form of a cross. As if desirous of the cross he smiles and holds it firm, and is unwilling to yield it to his Mother who seems to want to take it away from him."The passage is valuable for being one of the few descriptions by a contemporary viewer of a work by Leonardo; it matches the composition of the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas in all respects except that there is no basket in either painting. Robertet's painting was probably commissioned late in 1499 just before Leonardo left Milan, and was possibly begun there.Scholars disagree on whether Robertet received his painting or not. In January 1507 Francesco Pandolfini, the Florentine ambassador to the French court in Blois, reported that “a little picture by [Leonardo’s] hand has recently been brought here and is held to be an excellent thing”. The Madonna does not, however, appear in a posthumous inventory of Robertet's collection made in 1532 (though the authenticity of the inventory has been called into question). One hypothesis holds that it passed from Robertet's collection into that of the French king, thus explaining its absence from the inventory. It is unclear, however, why it would have left the royal collection.In 1525 two inventories were drawn up of the possessions of Leonardo's assistant and heir Salaì, who died the preceding year. These mention a “Madonna with a Child in her Arms”. This is thought to be evidence that one of the prime versions of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder remained in Leonardo's possession while the other was sent to Robertet.Neither of the paintings accepted as prime versions has a provenance that can be traced back to Robertet or Salaì, or further back than the 18th century, though the Buccleuch Madonna was in France at that time. However, the Lansdowne Madonna could easily have been bought by its earliest known owners from a French collection in the period following the French Revolution, when many works with a French aristocratic provenance were bought by British collectors.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: In Madonna of the Yarnwinder, how is the History discussed?

The earliest reference to a painting of this subject by Leonardo is in a letter of 14 April 1501 by Fra Pietro da Novellara, the head of the Carmelites in Florence, to Isabella d'Este, Marchioness of Mantua. Leonardo had recently returned to his native city following the French invasion of Milan in 1499; the intervening years he had spent first in Isabella's court, during which brief stay he produced a cartoon (now in the Louvre) for a portrait of her, and then in Venice. Isabella was determined to get a finished painting by Leonardo for her collection, and to that end she instructed Fra Pietro, her contact in Florence, to press Leonardo into agreeing to a commission. Two letters of reply by the friar survive. In the second, written after he had succeeded in meeting with the artist, he writes that Leonardo has become distracted by his mathematical pursuits and is busy working on a small painting for Florimond Robertet, which he goes on to describe:"The little picture which he is doing is of a Madonna seated as if she were about to spin yarn. The Child has placed his foot on the basket of yarns and has grasped the yarn-winder and gazes attentively at four spokes that are in the form of a cross. As if desirous of the cross he smiles and holds it firm, and is unwilling to yield it to his Mother who seems to want to take it away from him."The passage is valuable for being one of the few descriptions by a contemporary viewer of a work by Leonardo; it matches the composition of the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas in all respects except that there is no basket in either painting. Robertet's painting was probably commissioned late in 1499 just before Leonardo left Milan, and was possibly begun there.Scholars disagree on whether Robertet received his painting or not. In January 1507 Francesco Pandolfini, the Florentine ambassador to the French court in Blois, reported that “a little picture by [Leonardo’s] hand has recently been brought here and is held to be an excellent thing”. The Madonna does not, however, appear in a posthumous inventory of Robertet's collection made in 1532 (though the authenticity of the inventory has been called into question). One hypothesis holds that it passed from Robertet's collection into that of the French king, thus explaining its absence from the inventory. It is unclear, however, why it would have left the royal collection.In 1525 two inventories were drawn up of the possessions of Leonardo's assistant and heir Salaì, who died the preceding year. These mention a “Madonna with a Child in her Arms”. This is thought to be evidence that one of the prime versions of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder remained in Leonardo's possession while the other was sent to Robertet.Neither of the paintings accepted as prime versions has a provenance that can be traced back to Robertet or Salaì, or further back than the 18th century, though the Buccleuch Madonna was in France at that time. However, the Lansdowne Madonna could easily have been bought by its earliest known owners from a French collection in the period following the French Revolution, when many works with a French aristocratic provenance were bought by British collectors.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: Focus on Madonna of the Yarnwinder and explain the Description.

The composition of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder shows the Christ child twisting his body away from his mother's embrace, his eye caught by her niddy-noddy whose arms (crosspieces) give it the shape of a cross; he precociously recognises it as a symbol of his destiny. The Virgin's reaction is ambiguous, a mixture of alarm at the harm her son will come to and resigned acceptance of it. The gesture of suspense made with her right hand is repeated from Leonardo's Milanese altarpiece The Virgin of the Rocks. The use of a symbol of the Passion as an object of childish play recurs throughout Leonardo's paintings, appearing for instance in the Benois Madonna and the Virgin and Child with St Anne. The depiction of the Virgin spinning also alludes to her antitype, Eve, who was sometimes portrayed spinning wool after her expulsion from Paradise, accompanied by her infant sons Cain and Abel. The iconography therefore recalls humanity's fall, its ensuing travails and its redemption through Christ's sacrifice.As with later works by Leonardo, the figures appear in a vast unpopulated landscape. The rocky outcrop in the foreground of the Buccleuch Madonna is painted with a minute attention to geological detail. A major difference between the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas is in their background landscapes. Whereas the background of the Buccleuch version is a watery landscape indifferently painted, that of the Lansdowne Madonna has a dramatic mountain range far more typical of Leonardo. It has been proposed that this is a specific location in the valley of the river Adda, as it runs from Lecco to Vaprio, an area familiar to Leonardo and which he mapped. It is possible that the landscape of the former picture was added by a pupil after Leonardo failed to complete the work. For Martin Kemp the “late” character of the landscape in the Lansdowne Madonna suggests that it was the later painting to be completed and that the Buccleuch Madonna was the one sent to Robertet in 1507.The underdrawings of both the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas show several features not in the finished works, but present in some copies; it is likely that these were originally copied from the prime versions during an early stage of the composition's development. One such feature, which appears in both underdrawings, is a group of figures identified as Saint Joseph making a baby walker for the Christ child, who appears with his mother and another female figure, probably a midwife. It has also been suggested that the child learning to walk is the infant John the Baptist, appearing with his mother Saint Elizabeth, as Leonardo would have been unlikely to depict the figures of Mary and Christ twice in the same painting. Leonardo also experimented with including some kind of beast of burden – a horse, ass or ox – which appears in different positions in the two underdrawings. Behind these an architectural structure with an arched opening was planned. At a later stage the landscape of the Buccleuch picture seems to have had a bridge like that of the Lansdowne Madonna, which was then painted over.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: Explain the Description of this artwork, Madonna of the Yarnwinder.

The composition of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder shows the Christ child twisting his body away from his mother's embrace, his eye caught by her niddy-noddy whose arms (crosspieces) give it the shape of a cross; he precociously recognises it as a symbol of his destiny. The Virgin's reaction is ambiguous, a mixture of alarm at the harm her son will come to and resigned acceptance of it. The gesture of suspense made with her right hand is repeated from Leonardo's Milanese altarpiece The Virgin of the Rocks. The use of a symbol of the Passion as an object of childish play recurs throughout Leonardo's paintings, appearing for instance in the Benois Madonna and the Virgin and Child with St Anne. The depiction of the Virgin spinning also alludes to her antitype, Eve, who was sometimes portrayed spinning wool after her expulsion from Paradise, accompanied by her infant sons Cain and Abel. The iconography therefore recalls humanity's fall, its ensuing travails and its redemption through Christ's sacrifice.As with later works by Leonardo, the figures appear in a vast unpopulated landscape. The rocky outcrop in the foreground of the Buccleuch Madonna is painted with a minute attention to geological detail. A major difference between the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas is in their background landscapes. Whereas the background of the Buccleuch version is a watery landscape indifferently painted, that of the Lansdowne Madonna has a dramatic mountain range far more typical of Leonardo. It has been proposed that this is a specific location in the valley of the river Adda, as it runs from Lecco to Vaprio, an area familiar to Leonardo and which he mapped. It is possible that the landscape of the former picture was added by a pupil after Leonardo failed to complete the work. For Martin Kemp the “late” character of the landscape in the Lansdowne Madonna suggests that it was the later painting to be completed and that the Buccleuch Madonna was the one sent to Robertet in 1507.The underdrawings of both the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas show several features not in the finished works, but present in some copies; it is likely that these were originally copied from the prime versions during an early stage of the composition's development. One such feature, which appears in both underdrawings, is a group of figures identified as Saint Joseph making a baby walker for the Christ child, who appears with his mother and another female figure, probably a midwife. It has also been suggested that the child learning to walk is the infant John the Baptist, appearing with his mother Saint Elizabeth, as Leonardo would have been unlikely to depict the figures of Mary and Christ twice in the same painting. Leonardo also experimented with including some kind of beast of burden – a horse, ass or ox – which appears in different positions in the two underdrawings. Behind these an architectural structure with an arched opening was planned. At a later stage the landscape of the Buccleuch picture seems to have had a bridge like that of the Lansdowne Madonna, which was then painted over.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: How does Madonna of the Yarnwinder explain its Description?

The composition of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder shows the Christ child twisting his body away from his mother's embrace, his eye caught by her niddy-noddy whose arms (crosspieces) give it the shape of a cross; he precociously recognises it as a symbol of his destiny. The Virgin's reaction is ambiguous, a mixture of alarm at the harm her son will come to and resigned acceptance of it. The gesture of suspense made with her right hand is repeated from Leonardo's Milanese altarpiece The Virgin of the Rocks. The use of a symbol of the Passion as an object of childish play recurs throughout Leonardo's paintings, appearing for instance in the Benois Madonna and the Virgin and Child with St Anne. The depiction of the Virgin spinning also alludes to her antitype, Eve, who was sometimes portrayed spinning wool after her expulsion from Paradise, accompanied by her infant sons Cain and Abel. The iconography therefore recalls humanity's fall, its ensuing travails and its redemption through Christ's sacrifice.As with later works by Leonardo, the figures appear in a vast unpopulated landscape. The rocky outcrop in the foreground of the Buccleuch Madonna is painted with a minute attention to geological detail. A major difference between the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas is in their background landscapes. Whereas the background of the Buccleuch version is a watery landscape indifferently painted, that of the Lansdowne Madonna has a dramatic mountain range far more typical of Leonardo. It has been proposed that this is a specific location in the valley of the river Adda, as it runs from Lecco to Vaprio, an area familiar to Leonardo and which he mapped. It is possible that the landscape of the former picture was added by a pupil after Leonardo failed to complete the work. For Martin Kemp the “late” character of the landscape in the Lansdowne Madonna suggests that it was the later painting to be completed and that the Buccleuch Madonna was the one sent to Robertet in 1507.The underdrawings of both the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas show several features not in the finished works, but present in some copies; it is likely that these were originally copied from the prime versions during an early stage of the composition's development. One such feature, which appears in both underdrawings, is a group of figures identified as Saint Joseph making a baby walker for the Christ child, who appears with his mother and another female figure, probably a midwife. It has also been suggested that the child learning to walk is the infant John the Baptist, appearing with his mother Saint Elizabeth, as Leonardo would have been unlikely to depict the figures of Mary and Christ twice in the same painting. Leonardo also experimented with including some kind of beast of burden – a horse, ass or ox – which appears in different positions in the two underdrawings. Behind these an architectural structure with an arched opening was planned. At a later stage the landscape of the Buccleuch picture seems to have had a bridge like that of the Lansdowne Madonna, which was then painted over.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: In Madonna of the Yarnwinder, how is the Description discussed?

The composition of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder shows the Christ child twisting his body away from his mother's embrace, his eye caught by her niddy-noddy whose arms (crosspieces) give it the shape of a cross; he precociously recognises it as a symbol of his destiny. The Virgin's reaction is ambiguous, a mixture of alarm at the harm her son will come to and resigned acceptance of it. The gesture of suspense made with her right hand is repeated from Leonardo's Milanese altarpiece The Virgin of the Rocks. The use of a symbol of the Passion as an object of childish play recurs throughout Leonardo's paintings, appearing for instance in the Benois Madonna and the Virgin and Child with St Anne. The depiction of the Virgin spinning also alludes to her antitype, Eve, who was sometimes portrayed spinning wool after her expulsion from Paradise, accompanied by her infant sons Cain and Abel. The iconography therefore recalls humanity's fall, its ensuing travails and its redemption through Christ's sacrifice.As with later works by Leonardo, the figures appear in a vast unpopulated landscape. The rocky outcrop in the foreground of the Buccleuch Madonna is painted with a minute attention to geological detail. A major difference between the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas is in their background landscapes. Whereas the background of the Buccleuch version is a watery landscape indifferently painted, that of the Lansdowne Madonna has a dramatic mountain range far more typical of Leonardo. It has been proposed that this is a specific location in the valley of the river Adda, as it runs from Lecco to Vaprio, an area familiar to Leonardo and which he mapped. It is possible that the landscape of the former picture was added by a pupil after Leonardo failed to complete the work. For Martin Kemp the “late” character of the landscape in the Lansdowne Madonna suggests that it was the later painting to be completed and that the Buccleuch Madonna was the one sent to Robertet in 1507.The underdrawings of both the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas show several features not in the finished works, but present in some copies; it is likely that these were originally copied from the prime versions during an early stage of the composition's development. One such feature, which appears in both underdrawings, is a group of figures identified as Saint Joseph making a baby walker for the Christ child, who appears with his mother and another female figure, probably a midwife. It has also been suggested that the child learning to walk is the infant John the Baptist, appearing with his mother Saint Elizabeth, as Leonardo would have been unlikely to depict the figures of Mary and Christ twice in the same painting. Leonardo also experimented with including some kind of beast of burden – a horse, ass or ox – which appears in different positions in the two underdrawings. Behind these an architectural structure with an arched opening was planned. At a later stage the landscape of the Buccleuch picture seems to have had a bridge like that of the Lansdowne Madonna, which was then painted over.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: Focus on Madonna of the Yarnwinder and explain the Buccleuch Madonna.

The version of this painting often regarded as the most likely to be by Leonardo is now in the Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh, on loan from the Duke of Buccleuch.  It hung in his ancestral home in Drumlanrig Castle, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, until it was stolen in 2003. It entered the Buccleuch collection in 1767, with the marriage of the 3rd Duke to Lady Elizabeth Montagu, the heiress to a substantial collection of works assembled by her parents, the Duke and Duchess of Montagu. This Madonna of the Yarnwinder was bought at auction in Paris in 1756 from a sale of the collection of Marie-Joseph duc d’Hostun et de Tallard, its earliest documented owner.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: Explain the Buccleuch Madonna of this artwork, Madonna of the Yarnwinder.

The version of this painting often regarded as the most likely to be by Leonardo is now in the Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh, on loan from the Duke of Buccleuch.  It hung in his ancestral home in Drumlanrig Castle, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, until it was stolen in 2003. It entered the Buccleuch collection in 1767, with the marriage of the 3rd Duke to Lady Elizabeth Montagu, the heiress to a substantial collection of works assembled by her parents, the Duke and Duchess of Montagu. This Madonna of the Yarnwinder was bought at auction in Paris in 1756 from a sale of the collection of Marie-Joseph duc d’Hostun et de Tallard, its earliest documented owner.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: How does Madonna of the Yarnwinder explain its Buccleuch Madonna?

The version of this painting often regarded as the most likely to be by Leonardo is now in the Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh, on loan from the Duke of Buccleuch.  It hung in his ancestral home in Drumlanrig Castle, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, until it was stolen in 2003. It entered the Buccleuch collection in 1767, with the marriage of the 3rd Duke to Lady Elizabeth Montagu, the heiress to a substantial collection of works assembled by her parents, the Duke and Duchess of Montagu. This Madonna of the Yarnwinder was bought at auction in Paris in 1756 from a sale of the collection of Marie-Joseph duc d’Hostun et de Tallard, its earliest documented owner.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: In Madonna of the Yarnwinder, how is the Buccleuch Madonna discussed?

The version of this painting often regarded as the most likely to be by Leonardo is now in the Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh, on loan from the Duke of Buccleuch.  It hung in his ancestral home in Drumlanrig Castle, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, until it was stolen in 2003. It entered the Buccleuch collection in 1767, with the marriage of the 3rd Duke to Lady Elizabeth Montagu, the heiress to a substantial collection of works assembled by her parents, the Duke and Duchess of Montagu. This Madonna of the Yarnwinder was bought at auction in Paris in 1756 from a sale of the collection of Marie-Joseph duc d’Hostun et de Tallard, its earliest documented owner.

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: In the context of Madonna of the Yarnwinder, explain the Theft and recovery and the Buccleuch Madonna.

In 2003 the Buccleuch Madonna was stolen from Drumlanrig Castle by two thieves posing as tourists, who said "Don't worry love, we're the police. This is just practice" to two tourists from New Zealand as they exited through a window carrying the Leonardo. In 2007 a Chartered Loss Adjuster acting for the Duke of Buccleuch's insurers was contacted by an English lawyer, who claimed that he could arrange for the painting's return within 72 hours. The lawyer, Marshall Ronald of Skelmersdale, Lancashire, was visited by two undercover policemen who posed as an art expert and an agent for the Duke. The painting was then taken to a lawyer's office in Glasgow; this was raided by police officers from four anti-crime agencies during a meeting of five people. Four arrests were made, including of two solicitors from different firms. The Scotsman, describing the Glasgow firm as "one of the country's most successful and respected law firms", quoted a source as saying their arrested member "was not involved in any criminal act, but was acting as a go-between for two parties by scrutinizing a contract which would have allowed an English firm to 'secure legal repatriation' of the painting from an unidentified party."The 9th Duke of Buccleuch never lived to see the Madonna's recovery as he had died unexpectedly only a month beforehand. The painting was lent to the National Gallery of Scotland (now the Scottish National Gallery) in Edinburgh in 2009, and remains on display there as of 2020. In 2010 Ronald was cleared of the charge of holding the Duke to ransom; in 2013 he mounted legal action against the 10th Duke and the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway, demanding a reward of £4.25 million, which he claims he was promised in the meeting with the undercover policemen six years earlier. In 2015, the judge, Lord Brailsford, ruled these "arrangements were no more than a scheme designed and controlled by the police in an attempt to obtain the return of the stolen property" and rejected Ronald's claim against the Duke, who said "my involvement in supporting the 'sting' operation which involved an undercover police officer was entirely at the request of and under the direction of the police".

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: Explain the Theft and recovery about the Buccleuch Madonna of this artwork, Madonna of the Yarnwinder.

In 2003 the Buccleuch Madonna was stolen from Drumlanrig Castle by two thieves posing as tourists, who said "Don't worry love, we're the police. This is just practice" to two tourists from New Zealand as they exited through a window carrying the Leonardo. In 2007 a Chartered Loss Adjuster acting for the Duke of Buccleuch's insurers was contacted by an English lawyer, who claimed that he could arrange for the painting's return within 72 hours. The lawyer, Marshall Ronald of Skelmersdale, Lancashire, was visited by two undercover policemen who posed as an art expert and an agent for the Duke. The painting was then taken to a lawyer's office in Glasgow; this was raided by police officers from four anti-crime agencies during a meeting of five people. Four arrests were made, including of two solicitors from different firms. The Scotsman, describing the Glasgow firm as "one of the country's most successful and respected law firms", quoted a source as saying their arrested member "was not involved in any criminal act, but was acting as a go-between for two parties by scrutinizing a contract which would have allowed an English firm to 'secure legal repatriation' of the painting from an unidentified party."The 9th Duke of Buccleuch never lived to see the Madonna's recovery as he had died unexpectedly only a month beforehand. The painting was lent to the National Gallery of Scotland (now the Scottish National Gallery) in Edinburgh in 2009, and remains on display there as of 2020. In 2010 Ronald was cleared of the charge of holding the Duke to ransom; in 2013 he mounted legal action against the 10th Duke and the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway, demanding a reward of £4.25 million, which he claims he was promised in the meeting with the undercover policemen six years earlier. In 2015, the judge, Lord Brailsford, ruled these "arrangements were no more than a scheme designed and controlled by the police in an attempt to obtain the return of the stolen property" and rejected Ronald's claim against the Duke, who said "my involvement in supporting the 'sting' operation which involved an undercover police officer was entirely at the request of and under the direction of the police".

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Prompt: In Madonna of the Yarnwinder, how is the Theft and recovery of the Buccleuch Madonna explained?

In 2003 the Buccleuch Madonna was stolen from Drumlanrig Castle by two thieves posing as tourists, who said "Don't worry love, we're the police. This is just practice" to two tourists from New Zealand as they exited through a window carrying the Leonardo. In 2007 a Chartered Loss Adjuster acting for the Duke of Buccleuch's insurers was contacted by an English lawyer, who claimed that he could arrange for the painting's return within 72 hours. The lawyer, Marshall Ronald of Skelmersdale, Lancashire, was visited by two undercover policemen who posed as an art expert and an agent for the Duke. The painting was then taken to a lawyer's office in Glasgow; this was raided by police officers from four anti-crime agencies during a meeting of five people. Four arrests were made, including of two solicitors from different firms. The Scotsman, describing the Glasgow firm as "one of the country's most successful and respected law firms", quoted a source as saying their arrested member "was not involved in any criminal act, but was acting as a go-between for two parties by scrutinizing a contract which would have allowed an English firm to 'secure legal repatriation' of the painting from an unidentified party."The 9th Duke of Buccleuch never lived to see the Madonna's recovery as he had died unexpectedly only a month beforehand. The painting was lent to the National Gallery of Scotland (now the Scottish National Gallery) in Edinburgh in 2009, and remains on display there as of 2020. In 2010 Ronald was cleared of the charge of holding the Duke to ransom; in 2013 he mounted legal action against the 10th Duke and the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway, demanding a reward of £4.25 million, which he claims he was promised in the meeting with the undercover policemen six years earlier. In 2015, the judge, Lord Brailsford, ruled these "arrangements were no more than a scheme designed and controlled by the police in an attempt to obtain the return of the stolen property" and rejected Ronald's claim against the Duke, who said "my involvement in supporting the 'sting' operation which involved an undercover police officer was entirely at the request of and under the direction of the police".

The Virgin and Child with St. Anne (Leonardo)

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

File:Couple of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.jpg

The ''Lansdowne Madonna'' (left) and the ''Buccleuch Madonna'' (right) at the monumental 2019–2020 exhibition ''Léonard de Vinci'' at the [[Louvre

Category:Paintings in National Galleries Scotland

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci