The Col last post sort of,

Content deleted by editor

[dj51d]

Guest, I don't think anybody had a problem with the content of your posts. A few of the regulars, were however disconcerted to see their name attached to posts they didn't make.

[setter]

Guest

I am sure you are amused by all of this - be a man and front your own coments, it smaks of a stong sense of an insecure personality type and latent inadequacy tendancies.

Kindst regards
John P

[Warhawk]

Guest

I am sure you are amused by all of this - be a man and front your own coments, it smaks of a stong sense of an insecure personality type and latent inadequacy tendancies.

Kindst regards
John P

American translation Guest:

"SOUND OFF LIKE YOU'VE GOT A PAIR"

[Scott Rose]

Strange... that last post was definitely not mine.... Jim

I have deleted that message. Sorry about that Jim.

[James Church]

Thank you Scott, keep up the great work. We all appreciate your efforts to keep this place sane. Jim

Content deleted and IP banned.

Content deleted and IP banned.

Are you sure?

And also I need somebody to explain me WHY??????

Nonsense, Annoying Guest. You know very well why, else why would you adopt such a handle. As for caps lock: turn it off, thanks. I catch your meaning perfectly well without being shouted at. Impersonating others won't do at all, in any society. It's faking. It makes anything you might have to say worthless.

As for belligerent ripostes referring to balls, they aren't helpful. Courage doesn't depend on testes, and scribblers of this sort don't lack courage any way. What they lack is common sense and courtesy.

Scott, this person is likely on a dial-up connection with an ISP-allocated IP: it'll be hard to ban him, unless you can block the whole group used by the ISP. In which case no one else on that carrier will be able to guest, either.

[setter]

Hi Don

I agree with your post - all quite true

However This person feeds on attention and creating a place in the Sun for himself - we are only feeding that by responding.

My opinion is that the best thing to do is totally ignore it from now on - after a period of non participation he will get bored and move on to somewhere else - people with these sort of personality disorders follow such a pattern and they also often can't accept rejection so it's best not to fan the flame so as to speak. The condition is clinically treatable but it is unlikely that he has taken that step yet as the subject needs to acknowledge the problem first.

I shan't be participating in this thread from now on so I suggest that if you want to talk further send me an email or private message.

Kindest regards
John P

[Don Martin]

Just a note on the Mona Lisa of Maine. And Sir John, how could anybody really think that they could get away with impersonating both you AND Mr Church! Dispicable, just dispicable!

Mona Lisa at the Portland Museum of Art

In conjunction with the special lecture The Da Vinci Code Deciphered on January 10, the Museum?s own Mona Lisa, attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, will be on view through March 28 for the first time in almost a decade. This enigmatic painting, officially entitled La Gioconda, is thought to be either a preparatory study for the Mona Lisa by Leonardo himself or a copy painted by one of his followers shortly after the creation of the original, which now resides in the Louvre Museum in Paris.

The painting was given to the Museum in 1983 by Henry H. Reichhold, a summer resident of Prouts Neck, who purchased the work in the 1960s after the death of its European owner. Subsequently, La Gioconda was analyzed at the Straus Center for Conservation and Technical Studies at Harvard University. Conservators determined that the painting was executed before 1510, but they were unable to confirm or refute Leonardo?s hand in its creation.

Unlike a true copy, the Museum?s Mona Lisa, on the basis of technical analyses, differs from the original in size, composition of background landscape, and, most notably, the absence of the enigmatic smile?details which suggest an early study rather than a simple reproduction. Regardless of the true authorship of the painting, La Gioconda brings into sharp focus the kinds of problems facing conservators and art historians today, and it is a compelling work of undeniable artistic quality on its own.

Frequently asked Questions

How does the Museum?s Mona Lisa differ from the original?
The original was painted between 1503 and 1507 and measures 53 by 77 centimeters. The Portland version was painted no later than 1510 and measures 54 by 64 centimeters. Additionally, the Portland work is unfinished. The colors are less bright, the position of the figure in the space is slightly different, and the landscape in the background has less detail. Finally, the sitter?s famous smile is much less developed in Portland?s painting. However, the Museum?s Mona Lisa was clearly painted by a skilled artist, exhibiting marks of high-quality workmanship.

Are there other known versions or copies of the Mona Lisa?
Yes, numerous copies exist, including at least two others in the United States, one at the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore and one at the National Gallery. From the 16th century through the late 19th century artists traditionally copied acknowledged masterpieces in order to learn more about the stylistic and compositional techniques of the great masters.

What did the analysis by the Straus Center for Conservation and Technical Studies determine?
The painting underwent infrared, ultraviolet, and microscopic examination and x-radiography. Pigment analysis was done with scanning electron microscopy, x-ray diffraction and polarizing microscopy. Analysis of the basic structure of the painting showed that the original 16th-century canvas was later mounted onto a wood panel, so that on top of the panel there are now layers of adhesive, gauze, deteriorated canvas (the original support), red-brown ground, white ground, and the surface layer of pigments. Analysis of paint samples taken from various parts of the painting showed that the horizontal strip at the bottom was added sometime after 1820 (probably at the same time the canvas was mounted on the panel). Otherwise the tests found nothing inconsistent with an early 16th century date. The study stated, "Definite conclusions about the original state of the painting are difficult to arrive at because of the present overall poor condition of the painting and the extensive restoration it has undergone."

Is there further evidence that Leonardo da Vinci painted the PMA?s Mona Lisa?
A section of the painting, a river near a bridge, has the characteristics of a left-handed stroke, consistent with Leonardo?s work as a left-handed artist. The final question of attribution, however, may never be determined conclusively.

Why isn?t the painting always on view?
The Museum has a very small collection of works by Old Master artists, making it difficult to display the painting in any meaningful context. However, curators are currently developing a reinstallation plan for the Payson Building which they hope will allow for the painting to be viewed on a more regular basis.

Scott,

I understand from the FAQs there is an "Ignore" function in prospect. I suggest you press for it to be brought on line, and when available put in in place on this board with a big fanfare.

Thanks for the board.
Regards
Don Clark