Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
May 30, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Rising Star

Truthdig Bazaar
Motherhood Manifesto

Motherhood Manifesto

By Joan Blades and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner

more items

Arts and Culture
Email this item Print this item

Is the Mona Lisa da Vinci in Drag?

Posted on Jan 26, 2010
Mona Lisa
Wikimedia Commons/Musée du Louvre

Leonardo, is that you? This might just explain the Mona Lisa’s knowing smile.

There’ve been a number of theories bandied about concerning the famously enigmatic masterpiece we know well as the Mona Lisa, but this latest one about Leonardo da Vinci’s mysterious muse is a doozy, and it definitely wins points for creativity and flair. A group of Italian scientists and art historians have joined forces for a startling project that could involve exhuming da Vinci’s remains to entertain the notion that his famous painting could actually be a portrait of the artist as a young woman.  —KA

However, supporters of the investigation point to similarities between the Mona Lisa’s facial structure and that of the artist’s own face as evidenced in a circa 1515 self-portrait, also citing da Vinci’s homosexuality and interest in riddles as support for the conjecture. The undertaking would have tickled Marcel Duchamp.

Read more

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By cierralisazinn, February 8, 2010 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment

Mona Lisa is not Da Vinci’s self portrait. It is us who didn’t know well about his other work, because the engematic Mona Lisa took over fame she is in that painting called Mon Salai,too. rearranged alphabets for Mona Lisa, or do they want to say that it was him too, as his own self lover. Da Vinci was alot of things but i don’t support psychofrenia, narcissism in his case or else why would he be the subject his paintings that way! there is so many works that he eleft behind that should sugesset he used models and had clients.Is it the name that is doing this to isolated from reality scientists?
They are taking steps,1 step, 2 steps and so.
every thing about him comes in the entire number of work he done and the people in it, Mona Lisa name is not strange, Mona is an irsih name and lisa is from alexy or ellisa, a combine name. But Mon Salia explains better what she and him were doing, if she looked more like a boy then this is what he liked, that face in almost all his painiting, the proof is in the much desreved answer at critics of her looks in the painitng he made for her in Mon Salai. It was Mona who was the questionable factor in an artist like him work of choice, some still think she was ugly, NO? he was ahead of his time, now a days models look boyish a little. Horray for Mona Lisa and Da Vinci together, the painitng has a spirit that can’t be ignored it follows you with her eyes.ask those who went to the louvre

Report this

By johannes, January 29, 2010 at 3:55 am Link to this comment

Mythical or tru it make no difference, its all in the play, to geth pictures or musea in the readers eye, you have to come with something, something mystically is the best ” the stupid people like that “.

Their is an NEW ARTISTIC PAINTER BUILDING, its about ” Arshille Gorky, not his real name that is Vostanik Manoog Adoyan ” Armenian descent, nice work beautiful history sometimes very sad, but real beautiful paintings, but who is the owner of all this beauty, why is he been pushed all day and every where, yes thats making money with the mind and feelings plus all the wear and tear of live, as always they do the same unhuman and don’t give a shit people.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 28, 2010 at 9:07 am Link to this comment

Interesting how News is not News! This theory has been kicking around for some time, linking Leonardo da Vinci’s possible proclivity to homosexuality would seem more credible if one linked it to the Catholic Crutch.

Drag Queen da Vinci? Though, their is a story floating around Leonardo at one time wore kilts and played the bagpipes.

Maybe a new Italian religiosity will come from tall of this?

Report this

By dihey, January 28, 2010 at 7:03 am Link to this comment

I have seen the painting in Paris. The notion that this is a male is ridiculous.

Report this

By NYCartist, January 27, 2010 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment

Crossdressing and homosexuality are not overlaps,so the hypothesis as presented is false.  And ...silliness.

Report this

By The Estate Of LG Williams, January 27, 2010 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This article is a drag.

The Mystery of Mona Lisa can be found here:

Report this
CJ's avatar

By CJ, January 26, 2010 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment

Duchamp became a chess player, not that ironically. Absurdity grows tiresome very quickly, and anyway by now has been entirely co-opted by capital, as have all types and forms of anything and everything. Capitalism is itself the embodiment of absurdity, culturally as much as political-economically, well put elsewhere here by Chris Hedges for those of us either plant or animal. But I lied: We never grow tired of absurdity so long as by state of mindlessness. (Which Duchamp well knew.)

This latest idiocy among what’s become a daily avalanche of idiocies must somehow, I imagine, be due to Berlusconi, closely related to Murdock in the only way relations really count up in this era of rabid capitalism whose real face is that of one of Goya’s monsters, or Picasso’s figurines, one not particularly good one of which recently starred in its own slasher film, aided and abetted by a cut-up. (Which, as someone noted, ought render the thing of even greater monetary “value,” like a bad penny. A hundred and sixty mil? Now THAT is ANAL!)

In the same way authors write autobiographically painters paint even pictures of other people autobiographically. da Vinci hardly needed a model, and probably dashed off Mona Lisa during a week of sleepless nights. (Possibly not that long depending on how long it took for underpainting to dry. It’s well known da Vinci experimented with formulas, some of which resulted in conservation disasters like the Last Supper. Which also means that painting atop broken crockery glued to a surface isn’t like to hold up for long. Possibly mercifully not for long, along with countless other art product manufactured over the last half century or so. Unless one plans a career in conservation, in which case a lot of product is headed one’s way over the coming decades. So long, anyway, as not yet known to be nothing more than broken crockery of absolutely no value, let alone use, whatsoever, whether or not MOMA clings to it very much like the Virgin to the Christ child. Bearing in mind the Christ child was not of quite so much MOMA/Art Forum/American Idol-determined monetary worth.) Who really knows or will ever know exactly of the means and ways of Ms. Lisa, or of the great da Vinci, as the case might be?

Little of solidity is known of da Vinci, luckily for him given posterity’s tendency to misinterpret whenever and wherever power persists like an intractable toenail-dwelling fungus.

Speaking of which, might the same team of equally intractable PR types about to disinter what remains of Leonardo’s person so as to reach a foregone conclusion afterward look into whether or not Berlusconi resembles a fungus? As we know already Murdock does, and not only facially? Along with most every other in pose.

But wait, thinking twice now. This sort of deal might really be worthy of da Vinci’s (also capitalist) genius. Does Obama know about this thing? Does Emanuel? Does Velshi of da Vinci? Does that guy who wrote Dada Vinci Code? (Got your code right here, pal.) Does Ron Howard? Does Mayberry? Stimulus please, Mr. President; there’s still serious work to be done. Okay, not another Hoover Dam but digging up just as much dirt, anywhere and everywhere all of the time. Like I just did, stupidly without first applying at least for a grant.

Report this

By sook81, January 26, 2010 at 8:29 pm Link to this comment

This is old. I 1st heard this notion at least 15 years ago. Also: we’ll never
know, so it’s a “waste of time,” in the truest sense of the expression.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook