The impressionist sculpture: Medardo Rosso

The Impressionism painter we know well because it was that first deny, for technical motives, of academic painter, hence nothing that can interest, because it is known perfectly; but the sculpture is different, because translation of this sharp technique, through the quick brushstrokes is other matter and above all difficult to representation. Medardo Rosso(1858-1928), Italian sculptor, has translated in sculpture this style, that he could know from 1889, when he moved about to Paris, and in 1902 he become the French citizen; he could see the Impressionist painter, and the real subjects the impressionist painters used; he translated this realism, that in painter was landscapes, because the light was in plain air, Medardo hasn’t used the light, but alone the definition of forms, that are very sharp and imprecise, he has used the quick technique of Impressionism for the human portrait; he has took alone the brushstrokes, but for human and not certainly to landscapes; to confirm it is sufficient the confront between a Impressionist(Figs.1-4) painter and the sculpture of Medardo(Figs.5-7); the same approximate definition of form, same imprecise touch, that in painter is through the brushstroke, but in sculpture it is possible through the matter that sculptor uses, in this case Medardo used above all the wax, chalk, bronze and terracotta, all almost the soft materials necessary to give that effects of confusion that Impressionist given to their paintings. The subject of Medardo are common people, I don’t think that it is a ideological choose but alone a monetary question, because a model, woman or man were too expensive, instead the common people(Figs.8-14), were certainly more forthcoming; other great innovation, regard to Impressionism was that Medardo hasn’t used the landscapes, it is more than revolutionary is cunning, because on landscapes the translation of this approximation was very difficult, and the effects could be more partial, and also on the human bodies the light could not have same effects, because the iridescent effects is very limited, because the change of the light on body are very irrelevant, and in sculpture the change of light are very impossible translate, because the moment is very soon and the matter doesn’t allow these identification of these changes. We can appreciate the use of the style of impressionism, that then was a very good idea because nobody has made that before. The momentary embrace of a mother is moment to an subject(Fig.10), hence Medardo has translated the real use of Impressionism, but he has translated also this concept to human behavior, thereupon the subject is real both to Impressionism painting and also sculpted, I repeat, without the ideology, otherwise the Impressionist painters today could be eco-fanatic, but both the Impressionist and Medardo evidently have had scant money to pay models, but we must consider that the landscape want not the payment and common people neither, whereby other the style, that in art is essential, there is also a economic question, that never is considered, but is basic to work of art. The last notation about the correspondence between Medardo and Impressionism is a step of his declaration, when he has said that the face and the space around are symbiotic because one interpenetrates in other being the symbiotic matter; this concept is alone an impression of Medardo certainly, but if we consider attentive this concept it is the same concept that the Impressionism used for the light, that was symbiotic with environment, the light was the basic factor of union between the human and natural matters, Medardo could not mentioned the light because in a studio it is impossible, he sculpted in home and no in plain air, but the similar concept is evident, and I think that one is from other.  

Alessandro Lusana              

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Fig.13

Fig.14

 

 

 

 

 

.  

 

Confessions: Matisse

The my vocation to painting is in 1890 when after a medical operation I past some time in home of my oncle in Bohain, and there a fortunate meeting, because I known the director of a works of cloth, that was lover of painting, I followed him and I failed in love to painting; the my first painting is the Died nature with books(Fig.1), and I have signed it with my anagram M.H.;but then I worked in a laywer studio, but when it was possible I painted always, and after the boring work and for me useless, I gone soon to my room and I drown until later, and after I have decorated the ciling of home of my oncle, Emile Gerard. In 1892 I gone to studio of Gustave Moreau(1826-1898); but I could gain some money thank to copies of Poussin(1594-1665), Chardin(1699-1779) and other. I painted also in plain air, in conformity of French language, this is in open plac aout from studio, and the Guardin of pigs(Fig.2), is influenced directly from Corot(1796-1875). The painting The read(Fig.3) I have felt strong the influence of Corot, because the light and the color is again, as the Guardian, ocher, but the predominant note of these painting is the realism. The realism that has accompanied the lesson of impressionionism in the Port of La Palais(Fig.4), and this lesson of tecnique brushstroke continued also to The table to lunch(Fig.5), but I have exasperated this lesson to paesage of Corsica(Fig.6), and in Corsica I have tried the lesson of Impressionism because  I have seen the light and I felt very freedom from academical definition, hence I have tried every impression that I have had, in fact I was upset because there everyting shines, everything is color, everything is light. For my sculpture as the servant(Fig.8), I have took as model for the style from Rodin(Fig.9), although I have took from classic scuptures of Italy, where I have visited often. For the Madaleine(Fig.10),I have took from Impressionism brushstroke and I have translated it in sculture as made Medardo Rosso(1858-1928) in Italy, that has impressed to sculpture the tecnique of Impressionism. The gulf (Fig.11) I have felt the influence very strong of brushstroke of Pisarro(1830-1903)(Figs.12-14), I have took his correctness and coherence to shape lands and the figures. Instead to Luxury, calm and voluptuesness(Fig.15), I have took from Signac(1863-1935), his brushstroke has involved me and I have used his tecnique to my landascapes, this is the divion of colors in point of brush, and I have divided the colors through the short touches; in fact Signac bought this painting, that I have exposed in Salon de Indépendant in year 1905. After I have gone to Collioure, in far south of France. The woman with hat(Fig.19) is mine adesion to divisionism, this is the nect division of colors, pure color brushstroked on the canvas, without mixture, as it is solit on painting, it is a lesson of impressionism, that used pure colors, and I have took it both from the impressionist pianters and from the Signac. The joy of life(Fig.20) is the begin of Fauvisme, this is the fears whereby the abstact represenations, distant and distincted from academic representation, but although it is very against academic it took from the academical style, how? The pure color is from Signac, the divionism is same source, the line is different because the character have to be different, otherwise it be same academic work. The recumbent nude(Fig.21), I have followed my sculpture address, because the style is similar to The servant(Fig.8), but I have took also from medardo Rosso, in Italy and I have founded the sculpture fauvisme, the style I have took from my The joy of life(Fig.20), and I have translated in tridimension matter the figure of painting. It is basically athe against academicism that has fashined, but this with and concetion is begun fro Impressionism, we have alone followed this intention.The my painting more famous, this is The dance(Fig.22), commissioned by Scukin, a Russian collectionist, that has bought much my painters, and he wanted a painting with subject of dance, I have took suggest from a dance that was made in Moulin de la Galette, the name of this dance is farandola(Fig.23).

 

 

Alessandro Lusana

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Fig.13

Fig.14

Fig.15

Fig.16

Fig.17

Fig.18

Fig.19

Fig.20

Fig.21

Fig.22

Fig.23

     

 

The visitors

The museum of Borghese Gallery, in Rome Italy, opened the doors in 8:30 am and until to 10:30 nobody entered because other busies were important; but from 10:30very much wives and husbands were in museum, some student that gazed a painting and spook to painting; somebody has looked this student and approaching to him, asked: “Excuse me but do you are speaking to?”, and student wearing a black hat gazed the painting and answered: “I am speaking to Caravaggio”, and the visitor: “No you are speaking to the David and Goliath of Caravaggio(1571-1610)(Fig.1), but not certainly to him because he is died in 1610”, the student turned to his side and: “She doesn’t see you”, and the visitors soon gazed a figure that becomes material and a man with a cloth of 17^th century and a long mantel bowed herself and seen to eyes of lady, that very astonished gazed this man, and asked: “Who are you?”, and he: “Michelangelo Merisi called Caravaggio, died to 1610”, and the lady, whose around very much visitors were gathered, said: “Do you better than other explain because this Goliath has your face?”, and Caravaggio: “Because I wanted foresee my destiny, because in Rome pope Paul 5^th has condemned me to capital sentence, and I wanted represented me as I am going to be after the sentence”, and the lady: “But thank this painting the pope has forgiven you”, and Caravaggio: “Yes, hence say that the art isn’t useful is error”, the lady smiled and turned and gazed the Virgin of Palafrenieri(Fig.2), and asked: “This painting were in Vatican why it is here now?”, and Caravaggio: “because the cardinal Scipione Borghese, the nephew of pope Paul 5^th, judged this painting very shameful, so ugly that he has made the sacrifice of welcome to his gallery, true a saint man, and other figure from group gone ahead and in front to lady, this is Raffaello Santio(1483-1520): “Saint very scant, because he has robbed my painting with Deposition(Fig.3), originally this painting was in church of Saint Francis to Prato in Perugia, he tried the purchase but the monks refused and he made robbed it; he is very steal; and other figure come ahead and Caravaggio presented him, lady I want present to you Antonio Canova(1757-1822), sculptor, author of Paolina Borghese in other room(Fig.4), the lady followed the Canova and she gazed the sculpture, and turned to Antonio she commented: “It is beautiful”, and Antonio: “Thank you very much”, and lady together the group: “Who is she?”, and Canova: “She is the minor sister of Napoleon, and wife of Camillo Borghese”, and the one member of group: “Why it is so precise?”, and Antonio: “What?”, and the visitor: “Why? It is so short natural?”, and Antonio: “Because the neoclassicism is perfect always, because the naturalism in Neoclassicism isn’t never, we sculptor of that period and cultural address have took inspiration from ancient sculptures and never from the natural, because the nature we have ennobled in our brain through the imagination, for example while I sculpted some my pupil read the Odyssey of Iliad of Homer, because I wanted imagine the heroes and the figure, although Home and Virgil didn’t describe them”, while he is spoking  an figure gone ahead and Antonio welcome and presented to lady: “He is Tiziano Vecellio(1488-1576), a painter and author of Profane and Sacred love(Fig.5), and the lady: “Where is your painting?” and Titian: “Follow me please”, and in front of paining, Titian: “The nude female is identifiable as the pure love, the true love, that nothing hides, hence the divine love, and the female dressed is the natural love, the human love, and the child, Eros is middle love, this is the middle between the terrain love and heaven love, because it is in both”. While the time was past and the museum was closing, whereby every figure disappeared and the visitors gone away. The follow day, other visitors, and now the museum was very full, and one visitor approached to other and asked: “Excuse me lady but what means this painting”, and the lady: “I can said to you what has said yesterday Titian”, and the visitor accepted and actually he called others and the lady repeated what Titian has said to her, and in the group she seen also the painters and sculptors that the after day has explained the works, she seen also members of hers group that has seen the after day, and she explained to painters, that didn’t read the mean of painting of Titian, to sculptors, to her group and the new group until the close.

Alessandro Lusana              

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

                 

 

Ea petit: interview to Hegel

George Hegel(1770-1831) seat to his desk and he was writing, he raised the eyes and gazed a woman in front of him, he lowered the eyes and spoke: “Usually late, you are a woman and it is enough to justify it”, and woman: “You are always punctually polite, you stress that I am late, but you make it very much politely, compliment. Any way you have failed because I am allegory of Aesthetic, and no a woman”, George raised the eyes and spoke: “I am gather lessons about your nature, this is the aesthetic , and I am correcting some error of Heinrich Gustav Hotho, that has transcript my lessons on aesthetic but sometime he has transcript badly”, and aesthetic: “Yes lord master, you seem the master of elementary level that corrects the assignments of pupils”, George gazed hers and asked: “Beyond a fuck you, what do you want?”, and aesthetic: “I known perfectly that you would be angry, for this I have used this expression”, and George: “I know you very well, and I know what amuses you”, and aesthetic: “I know me perfectly, but anyway I am here for tow causes, the first is break your balls”, and George: “In fact you are managing completely”, and aesthetic: “I know it”, and George: “And second?”, and aesthetic: “I not a clue, but something I am going to have an idea”, hence George: “You are here because…”, while entered in room a waitress of George and asked: “Excuse me, I want ask if do you want something”, and George: “Yes! A sword to decollation, because very soon a will have a execution, capital execution”, the aesthetic smiled and to waitress: “A tea thank you”, and George: “The sword, don’t forgotten and a tea I too”, the waitress turned and gone away, whereby the aesthetic: “What is your think about the aesthetic?”, and George: “Why do you ask it, you know perfectly it”, and aesthetic: “I yes, but the read of this essay may not, thereupon, since somebody, a breaker balls, I know him and he is very boring”, and George: “It seems that you know him very well”, and aesthetic: “Yes, he think always to your Aesthetic and he has three masters and read from 36 years”, and George: “What is his name?” and aesthetic: “Alessandro”, and George: My God! He has written around me and he has written 1008 essay, you are right, he is very boring, anyway, what do you want?”, and aesthetic: “Your explication of lessons about aesthetic”, and George: “Some ask?” and aesthetic: “What do you think to absolute spirit?”, and George that was beginning drink his tea, gazed the aesthetic and: “I think that translation of the human brain in matter; this is, the human intellect that form the shape, or shapes, the absolute spirit is the brain, human brain, that gives the form both in poetry, in painting, in sculpture, in architecture, in art craft and in music and other”, and aesthetic: “it is improbable that is other, you have mentioned every art”, and George: “Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patient nostra…(Until do you will abuse of our patience Catilina)”, and aesthetic: “So what now Cicero?”, and George: “I have forgotten the rhetoric, and Cicero was master”, and aesthetic: “Do you think that Cicero has translated his with in The first catilinaria?” and George: “Certainly, as the sculptor and other artist given the shape, the rhetoric is an art, and the rhetoric is in opinion of Cicero and exercise that must movere, delectare, persuadere”, and aesthetic: “What is”, and George. “I must explain it to you alone or also our readers?”, and the aesthetic. “Both because I haven’t understood nothing”, and George: “Cicero, that was born in 106 b.Ch. and died in 43 b.Ch., and he turned to whom is written it essay, I say it to him doesn’t remember, this is you that are writing”, and the writer answered: “Ok. Can we follow or you must drink other tea?”, and George to aesthetic: “Movere is provoke the emotions in hearer, and Delectare it is to like, give pleasure to hearer and, finally, Persuadere is convince the hearer”, and aesthetic: “I think that with an oration alone it is impossible”, and George: “In your opinion Catilina is guilty?”, and aesthetic: “Certainly, he wanted kill Cicero, hence he guilty, and stop”, and George: “You think it because you have read The first catilinaria, and stop” and aesthetic: “Yes! Fir this I think it”, and George: “But we know it because Cicero in 8^th November of 63 b.Ch. in the temple of Jupiter Stator in Rome”, and aesthetic: “It is motive!”, and George: “hence Cicero has took the three sakes, you believe to Cicero because he has Delectatus, Motus and Persuasum you”, and aesthetic: “Yes!” and George: “Do you know the truth about the accuses of Cicero that he told in the fist catilinaria?”, and aesthetic: “Yes!” and George: “Why?”, and aesthetic: “Because Cicero…”, and George breaking the woman: “Cicero has said it, but we have heard alone Cicero, do you have heard also Catilina?”, and aesthetic. “No, but I think that isn’t…”, and George again breaking: “You don’t think that it is important, but in tribunal the judge must hear the prosecuting attorney and defense lawyer, and you must same thing, as every historic man”, and aesthetic: “If the defense lawyer isn’t?”, and George: “You must doubt of accuse until you have a secure proof; but it is the ascertain that I have right, because Cicero as Michelangelo, Beethoven and other artist, has given to their works the soul, it is the absolute spirit, this is the identification in something  that is owner activity, the possibility to create something; the spirit is the brain that leads the hand of sculptor, the hand of architect, the hand of music the hand of writer and artisan, we become the work that we are forming, but every thing is the first moment the brain“.

Alessandro Lusana      

  

 

                          

 

A confirm of the absolute spirit: Giovanni Gentile

The philosophical think of Giovanni Gentile(1875-1944) is called in history of philosophy as actualism, this word has owner meaning in Aristotelian philosophy, this is from act, that in opinion of Aristotle is the action ended, that is from a will, that the potency, the action ended it the act terminated, this is the pragmatic or intellectual action; it is distinct from possibility of make something, what is? The potency in opinion of Aristotle is a possibility, for example: make something, we can see something but we can close the eyes and don’t see something and nothing, we can make an act or no, it is the potency; it is normal action, thereupon it isn’t philosophy, but simple desire or will; Aristotle distinguished these actions common names, but this possibility and realization are the potency and the act, one is consequence of other, if we can’t something we can realize it; it is normal, but we must consider that before of Aristotle nobody has ennobled these daily action through the philosophy; it is specular philosophy, whose Aristotle is founder; hence in Gentile’s opinion the act is definition of reality, objective reality, that is from human think, this is a humanization of think of Barkeley(1685-1753), whose after. It is this is the conception that thinks the reality exists alone because it is thought,  much Gentile’s pamphlets explains what is actualism; he has took the think of George Berkeley, an Irish philosopher, that has thought the reality alone a translation of God will; it is the Platonism in poor version, in fact Gentile is explaining the think of Berkeley says: “…the reality isn’t the object or content of human think, and neither think of this brain, but alone the whole of representations that are correspondent to objective braine, absolute, presupposition of itself human brain…although the same Berkeley that has thought the reality to perception, he given a distinction between think that thinks now the word, and absolute Think, eternal, transcendent the single brain…This eternal think isn’t out think, that in every moment ascertains owner limits; this think is God. God is wherefore is the condition that through we can think the think of man as it is reality, and reality as think…”, so aid it isn’t a philosophical concept but alone a declaration of war, because it hasn’t meaning, because is very strange from our reality; but the explication is simple, Berkeley is saying that everything that we think is possible think to God; I have called it poor Platonism, because the originality of this philosophical concept is inexistent because he known also the ancient Greek, whereby he has read the books of Plato and has took this concept. Gentile has took from Hegel(1770-1831) and Kant(1724-1804), and has thought the absolute wit, that for Kant was alone metaphysic and Hegel, was never explained what is the absolute spirit, was human, but he, I repeat, never has clarified it, with the actualism of Gentile we have had a explication of this concept, that is speculative philosophy, as Aristotle, and now is, differently from Kant and Berkeley, no certainly metaphysic but alone human; hence it confirms that Hegel has thought the absolute spirit as the human brain, that can think, and through the act, make something, that become the act because is thought, the act is present also before the man thinks it, but when the man see something it is become a concept, philosophical concept, whereby it is present in brain, therefore exists. Other example: “We can distinguish the Divine comedy from Dante that has written and from us that read it; but we can think that this Divine comedy, that is distinguished from us,  is in us, this is in our brain, and thought distinguished from us. It is, this is, in us because we think it, hence it isn’t stranger to us that have thought it. Detach therefore the fact of wit from real life, it is as lost it and don’t see it from the intimate nature for that it are when are realized. Other chapter explains better, at last in two lines, the concept of human wit as the absolutely spirit: “The subject as act. Who says spiritual act, says wit, and to say spirit is to say concrete individually, historical, subject that isn’t thought but relized”, this is he is present because he is thought from himself. Therefore it isn’t spirit and spiritual act that we must know, but alone the wit as subject…and we can know it because its objectivity is manifest in real activity of subject that knows it.”. It is the human nature that through the activity, this is the act, knows his spirit, this is his concrete nature and the external nature; therefore the man.But the explication that is between real and ideal is in Gentile’s actualism in these words, above all because these words deny that the ideal annuls the empiric: “Unity of transcendental I and multiplicity of empiric I. We not believe that the concept of this deeper personality, this is of person that has not plural, excludes and annuls the empiric I. The idealism doesn’t, because this absolute I, that is one and in himself unifies every particular I and empiric, unifies and doesn’t destroys…”; it is the Hegel’s concept that has unifies in himself the particular, this is the empiric, and ideal, in fact after we read: “The reality of transcendental I includes also the reality of empiric I, whose badly they speak when they prescind from his immanent(direct) rapport to transcendental I”, it is the human version of abstract absolute spirit of Hegel, that is human always. The following chapter is more explicit for hegelian and Aristotelian nature of this transcendental spirit: “So that we can understand the nature of this subject…and it is impossible that it stopped him in front of other spiritual being different from it and it hasn’t in front other that himself…”, mentioned so it is a problem because the hegelian and Aristotelian read aren’t certainly frequent, but it is a concept that says that the absolute spirit can see alone himself, because everything is this absolute spirit; for major and practical understanding, it is as we in front of a mirror, we can gaze alone ourselves, because other isn’t, the absolute spirit is same, this is it can gazes alone itself; but it is the think of think of Aristotle and after of Hegel, and this nature is more explicit in these words: “The concept of truth coincides to the made”; the comments are, it is normal, certainly but overcome this obviousness it is meaningful because the human nature expresses itself in the made, thereupon the human nature is also the transcendental concept. Other words very truth: “True is that we make”. The modest connection to Platonism is in following words: “In the nature we see alone dark and mystery. Every that we think our work, its evident that the truth is in ourselves. For example: what is a right line? We can know it because we build it through our fantasy, in our think. The right line isn’t in nature, and we can think it alone through the brain…”. A concept very human is expressed in following words, gentile taking some step of Giambattista Vico(1668-1744), that in his major book, The new science, has expressed a laic think regard to history and his formation, this is the human and not certainly divine built, and Gentile: “So in The new science the same Vico says that the human brain can know the law of eternal historical process(this is the develop of spirit) because in same human brain it is the cause and the first origin of every historical occurs”. It is the laic consideration that Gentile took for explication of human become, and the historical become, because the historical occurs are alone the human built. He translated other mention from William Humbold(1767-1835), a German philosopher, that regard to longue has said: “The langue isn’t work but working, it isn’t the result of linguistic process, but this process self, that is developing in act. Hence the each longue, it we can know in his definitive process (that isn’t) but alone grade after grade during his develop”. It is the real become of history that is alone human, in its develop hence its occur; and: “Destroy the grades of become and you have destroyed the develop, this is the same reality that we must make and know”; the knowledge in opinion of Gentile is the actualism this is, I repeat, the capacity of man of make something, the capacity of man, hence the wit, of make. Other mention: “True is that the made, through the true is converted, because is same spiritual reality that realizes itself, it isn’t a fact but a become, thereupon is right say: “verum et fieri convertentur (true and become are converted)”, this dynamic evaluation of become of human and nature is expressed in other chapter: “Nature and spirit. The stone is, because it is it can be: it has realized its essence. It is also the plant, and the same animal since every their determinations are consequence necessary and ordered of their nature, that is all those can be, and can’t freely determiners itself though new manifestations unforeseeable, this is not determined from their nature, and hence isn’t… In nature, everything is determined by nature; in the spirit nothing is nobody or nothing is by nature; but it is all that becomes by its work ”. It is meaningful and says that what is determined in his nature can become in conformity of his nature, as the plant and stone, but the man can change his nature or character, because the mankind is mutable. We can follow the discourse with this mention: “We don’t know nothing spirit that is overcome its manifestations; and we consider these manifestations as interior and essential realization”, this is the spirit isn’t abstract but it is concrete and real, because it realizes itself by works. The our spirit is alone the spirit of our experience, we don’t confuse the experience with its content, but the act of experience, or pure experience, that is liver, it is actually alone live and real in our experience”; it is says alone that the dynamic of our experience is act, necessary to move the spirit, but independently by experience; it is alone the capacity of human with and brain to understand what an experience brings so we grow.   

    Alessandro Lusana   

 

The science in art: Leonardo da Vinci

Leonard da Vinci gone in Louvre and among hundreds tourist he waited the night after the closure of museum, and after that the last tourist was gone out he turned to Gioconda(Fig.1), and asked: “Can you explain what is the art of Leonard da Vinci?”, and the painting answer: “It is very strange because you are Leonardo da Vinci”, and Leonardo: “Yes but I want know what is your think around my art”, and the Gioconda: “You are a scientist that has worked the painting, in fact in the Virgin of stones(Fig.2), is the representation of your interest in geology, because you have painted those stones with scientific precision(Figs.3-4); and you interest to science is evident above all in human expressions(Fig.5), that you have took to your fresco with The fight of Anghiari(Fig.6); the faces are very interesting for you, and it are…”, Leonardo interrupted and: “It are the true manifestation of wit, of the behavior and reactions in front of different contests, and I can study the human gender both in everybody and in single man; the expression that I have used again, to show the human nature; it is for me important”, and the Gioconda: “Certainly it is motive, but for the merely artistic and stylistic what is your address?”, and Leonardo: “I am one and every address; because I have took the reality and used it but to angel in Virgin of stones(Figs.7-8), isn’t realistic or naturalistic but it is Leonardo alone, in my face when I must imagine it I think and took from every face that I meet, but for angel it is very imagination, that hasn’t character of classic or real, as other my drawing; I have imagined a face and I have drawn it”, and Gioconda: “Your interests are very multiple because you have also designed the armies”, and Leonardo: “Yes, when I was called by Ludovico the Moro to Milan, I have presented also armies, because he was lord of Milan and I was an artist and I have to entice his interest, but I have to consider also what were his needs and preferences; hence the drawings for armies were necessary to defense of Milan. We must consider that also the invention of armies is science, therefore you is right, I am a scientist that uses also the art”, and Gioconda: “In fact to my face you have took from reality; because your widows you have took from reality, actually in your Treatise on painting, you describe the nature of widow and its characteristic”, and Leonardo: “I haven’t never written a treatise on painting; it is a book for collection of my personal notes that Francesco Melzi around 1540 has pooled, and stop”. The Gioconda: “Dear Leonardo you have considered the science and the art; every science because everything has interested you, and you drawings are the evident representation of these interest, but I must interrupt here my discourse because the museum is opening the doors, thereupon we are going to next closure”. The tourists gone in and asked soon to Gioconda: “What has said Leonardo?”, and she hinted a light smile.

Alessandro Lusana  

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10