# Is the Martin Kemp /Pascale Cotte debate over Cotte's Mona Lisa findings over? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 18, 2019, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-martin-kemp-pascale-cotte-debate-over-cottes-mona-lisa-findings-over/840408 "2019-09-18T00:28:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2019, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-martin-kemp-pascale-cotte-debate-over-cottes-mona-lisa-findings-over/840408/1 "2019-09-18T00:28:51Z")
Hi Is the Martin Kemp /Pascale Cotte debate over Cotte’s Mona Lisa findings over? The last I heard was that Martin Kemp had held Pascale Cottle’s findings ‘untenable’. Has the issue been resolved? I look forward to your feedback. > **[Hidden portrait 'found under Mona Lisa', says French scientist](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35031997)** > > An earlier portrait of the Mona Lisa has been found under the existing painting using reflective light technology, according to a French scientist. He claims the earlier portrait lies hidden underneath the surface of Leonardo’s most celebrated artwork. > **[Hidden portrait 'found under Mona Lisa', says French scientist](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35031997)** > > An earlier portrait of the Mona Lisa has been found under the existing painting using reflective light technology, according to a French scientist. But the idea that there is that picture as it were hiding underneath the surface is untenable. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2019, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-martin-kemp-pascale-cotte-debate-over-cottes-mona-lisa-findings-over/840408/2 "2019-09-18T07:32:27Z")
Martin Kemp has, if anything, been one of Cotte’s more positive supporters over this, in the sense that other art historians are mostly been even less convinced. Some of that is personal - Cotte was one of Kemp’s few supporters in the _Bella Principessa_ controversy, to the extent of being the joint author of Kemp’s book on the subject. As for the LAM scans of the _Mona Lisa_, Kemp has since set out his views at greater length in his _Living with Leonardo_ (2018), pp. 231-3. The results are real enough; it is the interpretation that is complicated. > [@](#): > > Pascal has produced convincing images that show how Leonardo manoeuvred the composition as he painted. The sitter’s costume underwent particularly notable changes. But whatever we are seeing, we are not witnessing a series of quasi-finishing versions of the _Mona Lisa_ under the present surface. We are being presented with new evidence of Leonardo’s very fluid processes of creation, on the ground-plan of an initial cartoon. (p. 233) Other art historians haven’t so much dismissed Cotte’s findings as ignored them. Or, at least, reserved judgement. That’s not unreasonable. It is for Cotte to demonstrate what his methods can do. A particular problem is that there is so little in the way of published examples to which his findings on the _Mona Lisa_ can be compared. As things stand, many of the claims made by him in his 2016 _Lumière on the Mona Lisa_ seem decidedly optimistic. It is more the art history version of a Rorschach test. ---
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2019, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-martin-kemp-pascale-cotte-debate-over-cottes-mona-lisa-findings-over/840408/3 "2019-09-18T08:17:31Z")
> [@APB](#): > > Martin Kemp has, if anything, been one of Cotte’s more positive supporters over this, in the sense that other art historians are mostly been even less convinced. Some of that is personal - Cotte was one of Kemp’s few supporters in the _Bella Principessa_ controversy, to the extent of being the joint author of Kemp’s book on the subject. > > As for the LAM scans of the _Mona Lisa_, Kemp has since set out his views at greater length in his _Living with Leonardo_ (2018), pp. 231-3. The results are real enough; it is the interpretation that is complicated. > > Other art historians haven’t so much dismissed Cotte’s findings as ignored them. Or, at least, reserved judgement. That’s not unreasonable. It is for Cotte to demonstrate what his methods can do. A particular problem is that there is so little in the way of published examples to which his findings on the _Mona Lisa_ can be compared. As things stand, many of the claims made by him in his 2016 _Lumière on the Mona Lisa_ seem decidedly optimistic. It is more the art history version of a Rorschach test. Thanks APB. Very helpful.