This Sunday, January 28th, two activists they poured soup on the famous Gioconda, exhibited at the Louvre. Fortunately, Leonardo de Vinci’s painting was not damaged thanks to armored glass it protects her. However, both women achieved what they wanted. Let headlines from all over the planet tell about them and their fight for change in the world. global food model. Moreover, many people have criticized the risk of these types of attacks on works of art; despite the fact that in reality the danger, at least in protected works such as this, is zero. In fact, attacking the Mona Lisa with a bowl of soup is the least of his problems, since what is enclosed under the glass is much more damaged than what is on top.
To understand this statement, you would need to go to Spain. In that Prado Museum, in Madrid you can see a copy of da Vinci’s painting made by one of his students. It is unknown who may be responsible, although many experts point to Gian Giacomo Caprotti or Giovan Francesco Melzi. Whoever he was, subsequent analyzes of the work showed that he painted it at the same time as his master, making the same changes to it as Leonardo. But today there is a big difference. The Prado Monastery has experienced fewer difficulties and, in addition, has been restored, so its former works are clearly visible. original colors.
On the other hand, the work of the Louvre is eclipsed by the passage of time. An attack on the Mona Lisa, if it had not had protective glass, might have damaged it, but time has already taken care of that. It is logical that this happens to all paintings, especially when they survive the disasters that the so-called Mona Lisa suffered. The problem is that the Louvre refuses to restore itas if the only thing that could harm her was a sad bowl of soup.
Is attacking the Mona Lisa the least important thing?
In fact, those responsible for the attack on the Mona Lisa achieved what they were looking for. These are two activists of the collective Riposte Alimentairewhose mission is to raise awareness of the risks of current dietary patterns.
They declare the need for very profound changes, both at the agricultural and industrial levels. Of course, they believe that it is necessary to change the diet of the population, and at the individual level. And to do this, they need the media to listen to them. Last year, many groups like yours around the planet made demands similar to the attack on the Mona Lisa. Almost always with food or paints and on works of art. enormous size.
The good part of all this is that precisely because of their large size, they are very well protected pieces and therefore have not suffered any major damage, with the exception of some frames. Responsibility for such an attack on cultural heritage should not be downplayed. There’s no denying that there must be other ways to do this. Now if we really believe that the biggest problem integrity of Mona Lisa This is the bowl of soup in which we lack information.
This is not a picture chosen at random.
The attack on the Mona Lisa was not accidental. It is considered one of the most important works of art of all time. Definitely, from an artistic point of view it is of great importanceBut how is it different from the rest?
Many reasons can be given, although their disappearances and attacks are perhaps the most important reason. Because no, this attack on the Mona Lisa was not the first. Not at all.
It all started August 22, 1911 when Mona Lisa disappeared from the Louvre. After searching everywhere, the museum staff realized that they had just been subjected to a grand robbery. The news soon spread like wildfire, reaching newspapers around the world. The public flocked to visit the empty space within the museum’s walls. And suddenly a painting that only a few experts knew about became a cultural icon.
Perhaps it was this renewed fame that made it possible to find her abductor, a museum worker named Vincenzo Perugia. A few years after the robbery, when he believed the dust had died down, he tried to sell the painting in Florence, but it was no longer an unknown painting, so he was easy to find and arrest.
The bombing of World War II again put the work in jeopardy. They also Nazi looting. For this reason, da Vinci’s painting was evacuated several times, so that the German army could not find it. Fortunately, they succeeded.
Later, in 1956, someone threw a stone on the glass that protected him. This attack on the Mona Lisa was more destructive than the activist attack, as the projectile passed through the glass and damaged the work at elbow height. Despite later restoration, some traces of this destruction still remain.
Attacks on the Mona Lisa in the 21st century
The first attack on the Mona Lisa in the 21st century occurred in 2009when a Russian woman launched cup against the glass of a painting in protest against the denial of French citizenship. Then the safety of the painting was much higher, as in 2022, when the man abandoned piece of cake against armored glass. Thus, the latest attack was by no means the first attack on the Mona Lisa.
The plus is that it is very well protected from the outside. What can’t be said inside.
Reasons for the darkening of the Mona Lisa
Over time, pigments in works of art decompose, changing their color. This is a process that is accelerated by exposure to light, which is why the works are exhibited in museums. you end up degrading faster than those stored in dark places. This is also why flash photography is prohibited in most museums.
On the other side, environmental dirt May penetrate through unpainted layers of paint. In the case of the Mona Lisa, it is varnished, so the painting is protected from contamination. However, varnishes also they darken and turn yellowas can be seen from the predominant colors.
All this resulted in the colors of da Vinci’s original work being very different from those of the original. Gioconda del Prado. Fortunately, this can be fixed with recovery; but at the moment those responsible for the Louvre refuse to implement this.
In several statements on this matter, the museum assured that the restoration would lead to public rejection, since the new colors will not match those that everyone associates with the work. There are also those who believe that this is because it would mean that the painting would not be exposed for a long time and this would affect influx of visitors.
For one reason or another, it’s still curious to worry about soup that only stained a glass rather than actually damaging one of the most important works of art of all time.
Source: Hiper Textual
