Knowledge Organization Louiza Patsis
DIS 810 December 15, 2004

Representations of Art Works: The Mona Lisa as a Case Study
Abstract
Much research has been done on the categorization of art works, but not on the categorization of representations of art works. The Mona Lisa, painted around 1503 by Leonardo da Vinci, is one of the most famous paintings in the world, and is a good example of an art work with many representations. A case study of the Mona Lisa is used to find out the types of representations of the Mona Lisa, and what natural groupings of these representations exist. The aim of this empirical study is to add to the new theory of the work by developing a taxonomy of representations that can aid in developing similar taxonomies of other works of art. This taxonomy will be useful to librarians for cataloguing representations of the Mona Lisa, and would lead to effective information retrieval by art expert and average users.
1. Introduction and Background
A vast array of representations of some art works exist in art libraries and museums today, especially in the modern digital age. Each year, the amount of information in the world increases, especially after the advent of the Internet. The growth of representations of art work is no exception. Many works are communicated through art, and contain much information about culture, times and humanity. They are of interest to people around the world. Discovering what representations of works of fine art exist is thus important, and can lead to improved information retrieval.
The Mona Lisa was composed of oil on panel on poplar wood panel. It is 77cm X 53 cm (30 X 20 7/8 in). As McMullen (1977, 29-30) wrote, various sources cite different years for the painting of the work, ranging between 1503 and 1515. The original is in the Louvre Museum in Paris, France, and is the only instantiation of the painting. The painting has inspired stories and myths on who the sitter in the Mona Lisa was. Copies, photographs, critiques, books, movies and even chocolates in several languages on or about this famous image have been produced since then.
McMullen (1977, 40) wrote that the Mona Lisa is a painting about the third wife of merchant Francesco di Bartolomeo de Zanobi del Giocondo, Lisa di Antonio Mari di Noldo Gherardini, who was born in 1479. Gould (1975, 110) wrote that this what most people still believe; that is why the painting is called La Gioconda. Stites (1970, 329-331) wrote that some people think the painting is of Isabella d’Este, daughter of Duke and Duchess of Ferrara. Accordign to Stites (1970, 333), Da Vinci turned down offers by the Pope and others to work on paintings, but did not turn down painting the Mona Lisa, which he worked on for three years. He carried it with him everywhere, even to his retreat in Ambroise, France. He never said that he had finished it.
There is one instantiation of the Mona Lisa. Smiraglia (2001, 167) wrote that an instantiation is “a realization of a work that takes physical form in a document”, or a manifestation of a work. This is the immutable original, the progenitor in the Louvre in Paris. The instantiation is unique in ideational or semantic content (see section 2), and in physical characteristics. Leonardo da Vinci did not paint more than one Mona Lisa. Even if a contemporary of Leonardo da Vinci “copied” the painting, it would not be an exact copy or instantiation of the original. Representations include paintings by contemporaries of da Vinci, paintings by subsequent painters that added their interpretation to the work, and photographs. At the International Society for Knowledge Organization conference in 2004, Smiraglia presented a meta-theory of “works”, where the evolution, derivation and mutation of ideational content varies across time, culture, linguistic boundaries and canonicity. Smiraglia (2004) conducted a study on Etruscan artifacts to demonstrate the inherence of the work in non-documentary artifacts, and chose eight artifacts, intending find their representations. Smiraglia (2004, 311) wrote that representations are infinitely mutable. The representations in the books found are copies of such paintings or photographs and are thus second or third generation representations.
A user might want to find a representation of the original, or they might want to find an X-ray of the painting, or the Andy Warhol mutation of the painting. Or they might want a description in a catalog of exactly what type of representation they have found. If the library catalog is a bibliographic tool, it will assist the user in finding the edition that he or she wants. The first step is categorization of representations of the art work.
1.1 The Myth of the Mona Lisa
A myth has surrounded the Mona Lisa since it was first painted. The Mona Lisa has come to mean different things to different people and cultures throughout time – from the wife of Francesco del Giocondo to Leonardo da Vinci painted as a woman, to a woman who holds the knowledge and mystery of all of life, to Mary Magdelena, possible wife of Jesus Christ in Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code. Some believe that it the painting is a self-portrait. According to McMullen (1977, 84) This belief may have been influenced by rumor that da Vinci was a homosexual, and by the androgynous figures in his other works such as The Last Supper. Some people believe that the sitter is a young man in women’s clothes, perhaps because several figures in da Vinci’s works were androgynous. In the twentieth century, some believed that the Mona Lisa is part of da Vinci’s religious works. Costume analogies can be made between the Mona Lisa and his depictions of the Virgin Mary, Apostles and angels. What adds to the mystery of the Mona Lisa is that it is unsigned and undated. There are no traces of commission or records of payment. Part of this myth has had to do with the myth around Leonardo da Vinci, who was considered a new Pythagoras by people in his time. (McMullen 1977, 12) Although he was considered a genius by some, and royals and clerics welcomed him into their homes, he had some disadvantages. Da Vinci was left-handed which was almost like being cursed at his time, and he was the out-of-wedlock son of Caterina and Ser Piero da Vinci. (McMullen 1977, 15)
A myth has surrounded the smile. Does she know a secret that we do not know? Was she a saint? Some viewers would think that the smile is self-satisfied, while other viewers may think that it is provocative. At the same time, according to McMullen (1977, 80), it was customary for ladies of that time to lift the left side of their mouth in a smile, and not to laugh, which was considered low-class. The mystery surrounding the Mona Lisa led Clark (1961, 117) to write that the Mona Lisa is “one of those works of art must be re-interpreted by each generation.” He wrote that artists prior to this painting did not depict the people in their portraits with a soul, unless they used gestures to show the soul.
Many painters tried to produce copies of the Mona Lisa, and others reinterpreted it in their paintings. About twenty years after the painting of the Mona Lisa, the “Flemish Gioconda” appeared. (McMullen 1977, 144) Through the 1600s and early 1700s, people were enthralled by the Mona Lisa. During the latter part of the eighteenth century, the Mona Lisa was relatively unnoticed. This was partly because French monarchs had kept the painting in out-of-the-way places like the storerooms of the Direction des Bâtiments, equivalent to modern ministry of fine arts. In 1800 the Mona Lisa was listed as hanging in Bonaparte’s bedroom, and in 1804 the painting was taken to the Louvre. (McMullen 1977, 161) Here the painting became more popular than ever. Romanticism and Romantic movements such as Neo-Gothicism, Aestheticism, Decadence and Symbolism emerged. McMullen (1977, 163 and 168) wrote that the lady in the Mona Lisa was often regarded as a femme fatale, and, at the same time, gifted painters and literati depicted the lady in the Mona Lisa as a saintly, mysterious and erotic figure. The mystique of the painting grew.
Art movements such as Dadaism and Surrealism also presented a less idealized view of the Mona Lisa. The painting was stolen in 1911 by Vincenzo Peruggia, who wanted it to be in Italy. The theft shows the symbolic importance of the art work. The painting was displayed in various places in Italy before being returned to France on January 4, 1914. (McMullen 1977, 205) When it was returned, it inspired more awe. But many people started being tired of the following of the Mona Lisa, and began to satirize it. This attitude to the work is found in the many cartoon mutations found in this study. An example is Dali as Mona Lisa by Philip Halsman (McMullen 1977, 220 image 131). Modernists thought that the Mona Lisa was irrelevant to their work. According to della Chiesa (1967, 105), with the advent of Pop Art, many protested against the Mona Lisa, as it symbolized academic museum culture and beauty.
Other people were still keeping the myth going. Through all of the cultural interpretations and art history periods, the Mona Lisa is still a popular art work that inspires the production of many derivations and mutations. McMullen (1977, 242) wrote that the Mona Lisa, as opposed to other art works, was most popular because of “sheer availability for meaning, of the general, uncommitted sign that invites the viewer-reader to discover for himself, perhaps invent, exactly what is signified”. The painting is still being interpreted.

2. Literature Review

Smiraglia (2001) wrote about the history of the concept of “a work” since the Bodleian library in 1674. Since the earliest libraries, one author sometimes produced more than one edition of a book. It is important to define what a work is in order to keep an organized account of material produced from one primary source, including editions, abridgements, commentary and more. The interest in a work, before the term was coined in knowledge organization, was for the purpose of cataloguing material by one author.
Between 1994 and 1995, Yee published four articles about what a work is. Yee wrote in “What is a Work? Part I: The User and the Objects of the Catalog”.
From the earliest libraries, there was concern about how to record and classify several versions of one book, commentary on a book, or a book written by an anonymous author. Panizzi called for displaying all the “works” of an author [artist], including editions of a book, under a uniform original title, regardless of a change of title. (Yee 1994c, 11) Cataloguing was more difficult with anonymous works or works where an author had a pseudonym. Jewett went further. He listed editions of a work under the name of an author that had a pseudonym (if the author was found). He called for a translation of a work to go under its original title. Cutter’s rules made the objects of the catalog explicit and brought together all editions of a work, whether entered under author or title.
Yee (1994c, 10 and 13) wrote that the first Anglo-American code in 1908 did not define a work, and left out the objects of the catalog, dropped the rules for arrangement that had called for the gathering and careful organization of all editions of a work entered under the author, and dropped the rules for entering translations of modern anonymous works under their original titles. Works do not need to have an author. Smiraglia (2001, 28) wrote that the AACR2 often used the terms “work” and “item” interchangeably.
These rules were in effect for about 50 years. Lubetzky in the 1950s wrote the Code of Cataloguing Rules, in which he wrote the importance of collocating all editions of a work, including works published in manifestations with different titles. He saw the importance of the user being able to retrieve a particular edition of a work. At the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles in Paris in 1961, the first formal definition of a work was produced: “1. work: Any expression of thought in language or symbols or other medium for record and communication; 2. version: One of several intellectual forms taken by the same work. (These may be an original text and its translation, or various texts in one language based on the same original work.); and 3. adaptation: A work re-written or presented in another intellectual form to serve a different purpose from the original version, or converted into a different literary form.” (Smiraglia 2001, 24-25)
In 1968 Wilson recognized that a work is a group or family of texts with one original ancestor. He wrote about the dichotomy between a work and the item, and about a family of texts with a common progenitor. He also proposed two domains of bibliographic control: descriptive power and exploitative power. Descriptive control exists in cataloguing, classification and indexing. Wilson wrote that users need exploitative control, which is an evaluative or selecting function. Understanding the concept of a work, and creating taxonomies of representations of works, can lead to better library catalogs, and thus exploitative power.
Carpenter (1981, 118-119) distinguished between the ideational and semantic content for a work. Writing about books, he called the subject matter of a text ideational content and the set of linguistic strings expression the text, the semantic content. Carpenter used “ideational content” to refer to the intellectual or artistic content of a work. In the case of the Mona Lisa, this would be the idea of a lady sitting and smiling. The semantic content of the work for the Mona Lisa is the material of the work, in this case the oil paint on poplar wood panel, as the text is the semantic content of a book.
What constitutes the ideational content of the Mona Lisa is subjective. The painting is obviously about a woman sitting in front of a mirror, with crossed arms. She is smiling and is dressed in a veil and dress. The background outside is of a mountainous scene with streams and a bridge, and no people. People throughout history have guessed at why the lady smiles. McMullen (1977, 165) wrote that some people believed that da Vinci kept musicians and jesters in the room while he worked on the painting, to keep the lady amused. Gould (1975, 113) wrote that some people have interpreted her smile and gaze as “regal relaxation” that expressed superb confidence and tranquility. Some twentieth century artists believe that several sitters sat for the painting. (McMullen 1977, 84) To add to this mystery, the hair and costume of the Mona Lisa seem to be deliberately neutralized so as to imply no paritcular time or place. Some people believe that the sitter is a young man in women’s clothes. Perhaps an apprentice sat for the painting, as was cusotmary, since women were usually absent in workshops. (McMullen 1977, 85) The ideational content differs according to viewers, culture and time, and the interpretation of what is depicted in the painting and what this means. Myths surrounding the Mona Lisa increased the perceptions of ideational content through culture and time, and the mysterious nature of the painting itself led to varying perceptions. The ideational content is also the foggy, mysterious background, painted by the da Vinci technique sfumato, where nature not depicted identically to what it is, but viewers are deceived that it is depicted identically.
The semantic content of the Mona Lisa is the material of the work, in this case the oil paint on poplar wood panel. Rules for pictorial material were developed in the 1950s at the Library of Congress. Since then, a change in medium, which would be the semantic content of a painting, with a different artist producing the work, signifies a new work. Photography has been considered the same work as the work reproduced.

2.1 Definitions of Works Since 1990

Yee (1994b) examined differences in manifestations and near-equivalents regarding moving-image materials. A manifestation is a version or edition of a work that differs significantly from another version or edition. A near-equivalent is a work that is a copy of the manifestation that differs from other copies “in ways that do not significantly affect the intellectual or artistic content”. (Yee 1994b, 227) Issues dealt with in this paper assisted in this study, in determining whether a piece of art is a mutation or a derivation (Section 5.1), and whether some mutations are so mutated as to warrant a different work. A work of art originally conveys the meaning of the artist.
Yee (1994a, 227) distinguished between a manifestation and a near-equivalent. It is pertinent to this study because it is similar to the difference between a derivation and a mutation, although representations of the Mona Lisa were not categorized into manifestations or near – equivalents. Yee (1994a, 252 and 1994b, 368) proposed that a manifestation results when the continuity of a work (such as the visual, audio or textual aspect), differs from that of the original work. The intellectual or artistic content changes significantly. This is so when the ideational or semantic content changes from the original work as in a mutation. A version or edition of a manifestation differs significantly from another version or edition. A revised revision of a book can be a manifestation. Yee (1994a, 248) wrote three ways that a film work can be a true manifestation: 1. the film is edited to change continuity; 2. new material is appended to the work; and 3. changes to the soundtrack or subtitles can be carried out by identifiable subsidiary authors, the cast can change entirely, and differences in soundtrack can occur. A near equivalent is a copy of a manifestation of a work that differs from other copies in ways that are not significantly different in intellectual or artistic content. Yee (1994a, 369) determined that the length in film is the primary indicator of a copy being a manifestation, as opposed to a near-equivalent. Title frame indicators on which cataloguers relied were not reliable to test if a copy was a manifestation or a near-equivalent.
Yee (1994d, 21) defined a work as a “product of intellectual or artistic activity of a person or persons or of a named or unnamed group expressed in a particular way.” In the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) of 1998, the following grouping of documentary entities was suggested: works, expressions, manifestations and items. (IFLA website) A work is an intellectual or artistic creation. The expression is the intellectual or artistic realization of the work. A manifestation embodies the expression of a work. An item embodied a manifestation. Smiraglia (2001, 48) wrote that the IFLA report was a milestone in treating works in catalogs by defining them in concrete terms and providing an entity-relationship schema for their incorporation into catalogs.
The idea of painting the Mona Lisa was the work. Its expressions could have been various sketches or studies that Leonardo da Vinci composed before the final product: studies of the hands, background and other parts of the painting. The manifestation of the painting was how he chose to finally express his intellectual and artistic ideas, and the item is the physical embodiment of this – the painting in the Louvre in Paris.
Tillett (1991, 156) wrote about seven types of bibliographic relationships: equivalence; derivative; descriptive; whole-part or part-whole; accompanying; sequential; and shared characteristic relationships. Smiraglia (2001, 51 and 130) studied derivative relationships and came up with the following derivative relationships of works: a. derivations, including successive and simultaneous derivations, amplifications and extractions; and b. mutations, including translations, adaptation and performance. Smiraglia (2001, 166-168) wrote that derivations are “instantiations of a work that retain some ideational content from the progenitor but have significantly different semantic content”, and that mutations are “instantiations of a work that have changed ideational or semantic content”.
Svenonius (2000, 36) defined a work as “a set or family of documents in which each document embodies essentially the same information or shares essentially the same intellectual or artistic content.” She derived the term “superwork” for such bibliographic families as Hamlet by Shakespeare. She used an edition for a particular manifestation of a work. It is a collocating device, under which works related to a common progenitor can be grouped. The Mona Lisa can be considered a superwork, because of all of its various representations throughout time. Smiraglia (2001, 151) defined work as “a signifying concrete set of ideational conceptions realized through semantic or symbolic expression”.
Smiraglia (2001, 565) wrote that works are communication vehicles across cultures and times, and that, in the postmodern era, the concept of a work has evolved to a group of instantiations with a collaborative social role, and that a work is the product of intellectual activity across culture and time. Smiraglia (2001, 58-59) wrote that their taxonomy and subsequent cataloguing for information retrieval is essential for the dissemination of knowledge.
Eggert (1994, 75) wrote that the usual assumption is that the viewer plays no role the painting but only reacts to it. But the reality is that a viewer interprets what an art work is, and collective interpretations of the majority of art experts and viewers change throughout cultures and time. Eggert (1994, 76) wrote that the work of art comes into being with each new viewing, and incorporate the reactions of those who encountered them. This is true with each derivation and mutation of the art work as well. The mutations of the Mona Lisa over time, for instance, will show different art movements and cultural aspects of time and place. These affected how the painting was interpreted. The painting itself was an influential force in different art movements.
Smiraglia (2001, 65) wrote that the core literature or canon “functions to preserve and disseminate the parameters of a culture by inculcating cultural values through the information conveyed as a whole and in each of the works that comprise it.” The canonicity of a popular work such as the Mona Lisa includes the academic canon where scholars, art historians and painters study the work, and the popular canon, where products, restaurants and the like have developed from the lure of the work. This, together with the age of the Mona Lisa, ensures that many representations will exist. Relations between works such as the Mona Lisa in a canon and between canons affect the amount and types of derivations and mutations of a work. Culture, commerce and technology affect the representations of a work.
3.0 Research Questions and Methodology
Research questions to be answered in this study are:
• What types of representations of the Mona Lisa exist?
• What natural groupings of Mona Lisa representations exist?
• What constitutes a new work?
• What can these groupings tell us about the cultural influence on representations of an art work?
The terms "Leonardo da Vinci" were searched as subject in the catalog of the Bobst Library, New York University. A total of 401 records were found. Books with call numbers between ND623.A5 1938 and ND623.L53Z83 were located, to make the sample a manageable size for this study. These books were about Leonardo da Vinci, and took up the space of three and half book shelves. Representations of the Mona Lisa from these books were photocopied. These photocopies were second version representations, if they were copies of photographs of the progenitor, or third version representations, if they were copies of photographs of amplifications or mutations of the progenitor. A total of 131 representations were photocopied. Some representations were found in more than one source book (See Appendix I for a list of source books). Representations were identified as mutations or derivations, as per the theory of the work (Smiraglia, 2001). A taxonomy of the representations was constructed, and an analysis of the representations was conducted.

4.0 Results
With all of the myth and popularity of the work, many representations exist, as is evidenced from the 111 distinct representations obtained from the sample of 20 books. (Some of these representations appeared more than once. Counting all of them, the total number of representations found is 131. This was noted in Appendix II.) While, ideational content did not vary much in derivations, as was expected, it varied a great deal from the progenitor to mutations, and among mutations. Most of the representations found in the books studied did not have a changed semantic content. Sometimes, the type of paint used was not described in the books. No sculpture representations were found. All of the representations found were copies of photographs, or second and third version representations. The semantic content of the representations that were photographed and copied to book form was considered in the taxonomy.
Appendix II is composed of tables of representations found, categorized under type of representation. An “*” indicates that a representation can belong to more than one category. That representation is listed in all of the appropriate tables. “NA” signifies that the artist or date of production is not available. The taxonomy reflects the natural groupings of representations found among the source books. Some proposed sections of the taxonomy, such as “Both” for color and black and white in one representation, and “Impressionism”, were not found in the representations studied, but are anticipated to be likely. Some representations might constitute new works. That is discussed in Section 5.2. The cultural and time influences on the interpretations of the Mona Lisa, and thus on the types of representations found, are apparent, and are discussed in Section 5.1.2.
The most common type of derivation was an extraction. A total of 24 extractions were found. A total of 16 subsequent representations and four amplifications were found. The most common type of mutation was “cartoon”, with 34 different representations found. Three were each found in two different source books. This was a total of six representations. The image was counted as a cartoon once. The next most common mutation was “embedded”, with 9 representations found. Following that in order of most to least found are: nude renderings(9); sketches (6); “copies” by contemporaries of da Vinci (5); photographic abstractions (3); photographic negative and computerized (2 each); and amplified mutation, study and radiography (1 each).
The following is the proposed taxonomy, based on the representations found:

4.1 Proposed Taxonomy of the Representations of the Mona Lisa
Taxonomy of an Art Work
Derivations: Painting with slightly changed or similar ideational content and semantic
content
Subsequent representations: Published copies of photographs of the Mona Lisa: in paper, manuscripts, books
-Color
-Black and white
Amplification: art work (painting, photograph, sculpture, etc.) with more than one representation of the progenitor
-Color
-Black and white
-Both
Extraction: art work with a portion of the progenitor, such as art work featuring the eyes, lips, face, or part of the background of the Mona Lisa
-Color
-Black and white
-Both
Mutations: Painting by artists with changed ideational or semantic content or
both
- Attempts to recreate the Mona Lisa:
-contemporary to Leonardo da Vinci
-1600s
-1700s
-1800s
-1900s
-Surrealism
-Modern Art
-Color
-Black and white
-Both
- Changed ideational content on purpose
-contemporary to Leonardo da Vinci
-1600s
-1700s
-1800s
-1900s
-Surrealism
-Modern Art
-Postmodern
-Color
-Black and white
-Both
Nude renderings of the art work
-Color
-Black and white
-Both
Cartoon* renderings of the art work
-political
-Color
-Black and white
-Both
Radiography of the Mona Lisa
Sketches of the art work
Studies of the art work (can include lines of symmetry)
-Color
-Black and white
-Both
Embedded: art work with the image of part or the whole of the image of the painting of the Mona Lisa inside it
-Color
-Black and white
-Both
*a drawing intended as satire, caricature, or humor (Merriam Webster online)

Photographic Negative
Photographic abstraction- the use of photography to produce an abstract representation
Computerized edition: a computer generated edition of the image, or part of the image
5.0 Discussion
The two large categories of the taxonomy, derivation and mutation, were taken from Smiraglia (2001, 154). The representations were first divided into these the two groups derivations and mutations for clarity in categorization. Successive and simultaneous derivations were not found. Da Vinci did not paint more than one exact Mona Lisa. Derivation here was defined as subsequent representations (photographs or copies of the Mona Lisa), extractions of the Mona Lisa, or amplifications of the Mona Lisa. Extractions were representations of part of the painting. Amplifications were representations where all or part of the painting were shown. Ideational content was slightly changed since a photograph or paper image will not yield the same feel as the progenitor. The semantic content, which was photographic film, did change. (The second level representations of the photographs were the representations in the books, and the semantic content was the ink, paper, and other material that made up the image.) The biggest difference between a derivation and a mutation in this study is that the ideational content of a derivation changes slightly from the progenitor, as opposed to a mutation, where there is a greater change in ideational content, even if viewed subjectively.

Mutations were representations where the ideational or semantic content, or both, were changed. Productions by artists contemporary to da Vinci trying to copy the Mona Lisa or producing pieces with significantly changed ideational content were grouped under “mutations”. None of these were exact copies of the progenitor. No attempts to copy the Mona Lisa were found that were produced by painters that lived after da Vinci’s time. Further studies will probably reveal that artists in different time periods tried to copy the progenitor, with ideational content staying the same and semantic content staying the same or differing. These “copies” would still be considered mutations, since they cannot be exactly the same as the progenitor. One limitation is that the type of paint or panel used was not evident in the source books for all representations, and many of the productions were by anonymous artists and had no title. It was thus difficult to find the exact semantic content through print and online research.
A right handed image was found and was given a category of its own; more such representations might be found upon further research. Da Vinci was left handed, and researchers may want to study the work painted by a right-handed man. An amplified mutation was a representation where one or more mutated versions of the Mona Lisa were present. Many nude renderings of the painting, as early as the early 1600s were found. The amount of such representations found seemed appropriate for a new category. Several embedded mutations were found. In these mutations, whole or part of the Mona Lisa was “inside” other art productions. Sketches are representations where the progenitor is copied or studied with pencil, ink, or marker. Further research may reveal more of these, such as those by famous artists starting a career while studying a great painting like the Mona Lisa, for instance. Studies are representations with notes by the artist to study proportion. Sketches can be studies and studies can be sketches. Radiographic representations are representations where an X-ray or other radiographic image was taken of the Mona Lisa. Photographic negatives are negative photographic representations. These are not like the photographs under derivation, since the ideational content or idea is changed to an abstract, scientific one, rather than an idea of a lady with a mysterious smile. The semantic content is highly changed. A photographic abstraction is a representation that is a photograph of an abstraction of the progenitor. The abstraction is achieved through mirrors or optical instruments. A scientific mutation is a mutation produced through scientific equipment, other than photography or computers. A computerized mutation is a mutation produced through computer equipment. Technology made it possible for more mutations to arise. The last three categories make the grouping of some of these mutations possible.

5.1 Derivations and Mutations Found

5.1.1 Derivations

Several subsequent representations were found. Examples are the color representation in Vallentin (1938, 354) and the black and white representation in Bodmer (1931, 36). An example of an amplification is Andy Warhol’s Thirty Are Better Than One. (McMullen 1977, image 129) This can also be categorized as a cartoon since Warhol was poking fun at the prestige of the Mona Lisa. Examples of extractions are extractions of the eyes, lips, face, and background, such as the extraction of mouth in image 195 in McMullen (1977, 195) and the color image of the hands in Reti (1974, 95).

5.1.2 Mutations
Copies of artists can be divided into attempts to recreate the Mona Lisa and “abstractions” where the ideational content is changed on purpose. The latter can be divided by art movement or time period. Examples of copies from contemporaries of da Vinci are the Italian copy, image 83 of McMullen (1977), and the Spanish copy, image 84 in McMullen (1977). Other copies had ideational content changed to different degrees on purpose. One such copy is that by an artist contemporary to da Vinci is a Florentine portrait by Raphael, dated as early as 1504 (McMullen 1977, image 15). This is a sketch of a young lady in a similar pose as that in the Mona Lisa. Raphael produced other copies: Maddelena Doni (image 86, McMullen 1977) and La Muta (image 87, McMullen 1977)
An amplified mutation is The Occasion Makes the Gioconda by Rene Bertholo (McMullen 1977, 228 image 135). Amplified cartoon images of the sitter are part of the artistic piece, which is also a cartoon. An example of a nude Mona Lisa is the one by a follower of da Vinci. (McMullen 1977, 67, image 38) These nude renditions date back to the sixteenth century. According to McMullen (1977, 67) some believe that they are copies of the original Mona Lisa by da Vinci. Other nude representations include representations 91, 92, 93 and 97 in McMullen (1977, 150-151, 157), image XV in della Chiesa (1967, 105). People started thinking that the lady in the Mona Lisa had sophisticated sexuality, and she appeared in mutation copies as a courtesan. An example is Lady in Her Bath by François Clouet, which is discussed under “New Works”.
Many representations of cartoons were found. These increased in the twentieth century, as Dadaism, Surrealism and Pop Culture became popular, and interpretations of the Mona Lisa varied. Examples of cartoons include the sitter making a face (della Chiesa 1967, 105, IV), and the sitter with her hands over her eyes (della Chiesa 1967, 105, XXVI).
Examples of embedded representations include representations 101 and 122 in McMullen (1977, 166, 206). Image 101 is of the scene of da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa. It depicts the lady sitting and being entertained by court jesters, while Raphael and a monk look on. Image 122 King Carnival with Mona Lisa by G.A. Mossa depicts the lady of the Mona Lisa snuggling up to a Rabelaisian figure of King Carnival. Here the semantic content is changed; it is ink. Gioconda with Keys by Fernand Leger (McMullen 1977, 224, 133) is an example of an embedded representation which is also a cartoon, where the admiration of the Mona Lisa is satirized.
An example of a sketch is image eight in Scalliérez (2003, 16). An example of a study is Plate XV in Goldblatt (1961, 62). It is also an extraction which focuses on the face, and includes circular marks to study facial proportions.
An example of radiography is the image on page 10 of della Chiesa (1967) and image 66 in McMullen (1977, 113). The latter is also an extraction, since it is an image of the face of the lady in the Mona Lisa. A photographic negative representation is the one by J. Margat (della Chiesa 1967, 105, XXI). A photographic abstraction representation is the Mona Lisa as a narrower image (Della Chiesa 1967, 105, image XXXVI).
An example of a scientific mutation is the Squared Gioconda (McMulllen 1977, 231, 141) This was produced in 1973 using optical equipment during experiments aimed at finding how people remember faces. Examples of computerized representations include representations 142 and 143 in McMullen (1977, 232). Image 142, Striped Gioconda, and 143, Abstract Gioconda, were produced by artist Shigeo Fukuda by playing with printing methods.
The ideational and semantic content vary more with mutations than with derivations. The ideational content varies the most with cartoons, and scientific or computerized representations. The semantic content varies with most with scientific or computerized representations.

5.2 New Work
Sometimes the ideational content of a representation is changed so much, the work can be considered new. An example is Lady in Her Bath, painted by Francois Clout (McMullen 1977, image 94). It is not so obvious that the painter derived his idea for the painting from the Mona Lisa. The lady does have a mysterious look and smile. She is nude, her arms are not crossed and she is holding something with one hand, and several people appear in the painting, including a mother suckling her baby. The latter can just as easily be said to be derived from a painting of the Virgin Mary. Furthermore, Nature is not depicted. Another work that can be considered new is Raphael’s Lady with a Unicorn, dated to about 1506. (McMullen 1977, image 37) McMullen wrote that this is part of a Florentine series which Raphael painted under the influence of the Mona Lisa. The position of the lady is similar, yet there is no mysterious smile, or Nature depicted, or plain dress. The overall feel, although subjective, is different. The sitter is holding a unicorn. According to McMullen (1977, 37), X-ray studies revealed that a saint’s mantle and wheel had been repainted by another hand, presumably da Vinci’s, with a unicorn emerging in the work.

6.0 Conclusion

Old popular works of art have many derivations and mutations. Work must be done to find the types of derivations and mutations, and to categorize them into a taxonomy that would be a first step toward more effective information retrieval tools. The sample taken for this study was small, and was not obtained in a systematic way. Studies to obtain representations of the Mona Lisa from print, Internet and commercial sources will undoubtedly retrieve more, various types of representations. Different technological mutations may be found in the future.
Difficulty might arise since categories of representations can overlap: an extraction can be a cartoon, for instance. One type of mutation may also be another type of mutation, or even another type of derivation. The cartoon mutation of the Mona Lisa smile on a dog in della Chiesa (1967, XIX) is also an extraction derivation. The radiography mutation in della Chiesa (1967, 10) is also an extraction derivation. Only the face of the sitter, for the most part, is shown. King Carnival with Mona Lisa (McMullen 1977, 206, image 122) is both a cartoon and an embedded mutation. More research is needed in this area.
Future research can be done to comprise more terms to describe derivations or mutations of an art work such as the Mona Lisa which is old and popular and has influenced and whose interpretation has influenced culture over time. More research can be done to define what would compose a new work altogether. Research can also be done to explore the various interpretations of the painting across time and culture, and to see how these interpretations influenced the emergence of derivations and mutations. This research can include categorizing representations of the Mona Lisa according to different art movements in the United States, Europe, and other areas.
An interesting study would be to see if the Mona Lisa is in fact part of a work of an older progenitor. McMullen (1977, 80 and 84) wrote that mysterious smiles were prominent in Gothic religious paintings, and that fictional natural scenery was prominent in his religious works.
So many representations of the Mona Lisa exist: in museums, in books, in products in stores, or on Ebay, on the Internet. Research will result in a complete taxonomy of derivations and mutations that will ultimately aid in taxonomies of art works in general, and in the production of more effective information retrieval tools for these art works.


Works Cited

Carpenter, Michael. 1981. Corporate authorship: Its role in library cataloging. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Clark, Kenneth.1961. Leonardo da Vinci An account of his development as an artist Baltimore: Penguin Books.
Chiesa, Anglela Ottino della, ec. 1967. The complete paintings of Leonardo da Vinci London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Eggert, Paul. 1994. Editing paintings/conserving literature: The nature of the “work”. In Studies in bibliography, vol. 47, ed. By David L. Vander Meulen, 65-78. Charlottsville, Pub. For The bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia by the University Press of Virginia.
Gould, Cecil Hilton Monk. 1975. Leonardo: The artist and the non-artist Boston: New York Graphic Society Ltd.
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
http://www.ifla.org
Accessed on December 1, 2004
McMullen, Roy. 1977. Mona Lisa: The picture and the myth New York: Da Capo Press, Inc.
Merriam-Webster Online http://www.merriamwebster.com Accessed on December 8, 2004
Sassure, Ferdinand de. 1959 (repr. 1966) Course in general linguistics. Ed. By Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye; in collaboration with Albert Riedlinger; trans., with an introduction and notes by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Smiraglia, Richard P. 2001. The nature of work: Implications for the organization of knowledge. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press.
Smiraglia, Richard P. 2003. The history of the work in the modern catalog. Cataloging & classification quarterly 35(3/4): 553-67.
Smiraglia, Richard P. 2004. Knowledge sharing and content geneology: extending the “works” model as a metaphor for non-documentary artifacts with case studies of Etruscan artifacts. In: Knowledge Organization and the Global Information Society, ed. By Ian C. McIlwaine, 309-321. Wurzburg, Germany: Ergon Verlag.
Tillett, Barbara B. 1991. A taxonomy of bibliographic relationships. Library Resources and Technical Services 35(2): 150-158.
Accessed on November 10, 2004.
Vellucci, Sherry L. Bibliographic Relationships. International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, Toronto, Canada, October 23-25, 1997. Available at: http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/200/300/jsc_aacr/bib_rel/r-bibrel.pdf
Accessed on November 10, 2004.
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa
Accessed on December 8, 2004
Wilson, Patrick. 1968. Two kinds of power: An essay on bibliographical control. Berkeley: University of California.
Yee, Martha M. 1994a. Manifestations and near-equivalents: Theory, with special attention to moving-image materials. Library Resources and Technical Services 38(3) 227-255.
Yee, Martha M. 1994b. Manifestations and near-equivalents of moving image works: A research project. Library Resources and Technical Services 38(4):355-372.
Yee, Martha M. 1994c. What is a work? Part 1: The User and the Objects of the Catalog
Cataloguing & Classification Quarterly 19(2): 5-22.
Yee, Martha M. 1995d. What is a work? Part 4: The User and the Objects of the Catalog
Cataloguing & Classification Quarterly 20(2): 3-24.

Appendix I
Bibliography of Source Books

ArtBook Leonardo. London: Dorling Kindersley; 1999.
Bodmer, Heinrich. 1931. Leonardo: Des meisters gemalde und zeichnungen in 360 abbildungen Berlin: Stuttgart Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.
Calder, Ritchie. 1970. Leonardo and the Age of the Eye New York: Simon and Schuster.
Clark, Kenneth.1961. Leonardo da Vinci An account of hisdDevelopment as an artist Baltimore: Penguin Books.
Constantino, Maria. 1994. Leonardo Greenwich, CT: Brompton Books.
Chiesa, Anglela Ottino della, ec. 1967. The complete paintings of Leonardo da Vinci London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Fumagalli, Guiseppina. 1952. Leonardo: Omo sanza lettere Florence: G.C. Sansoni SPA.
Gould, Cecil Hilton Monk. 1975. Leonardo: The artist and the non-artist Boston: New York Graphic Society Ltd.
Hohenstatt, Peter. 1998. Leonardo da Vinci Berlin: Konemann.
McMullen, Roy. 1977. Mona Lisa: The picture and the myth New York: Da Capo Press, Inc.
Philipson, Morris, ed. 1996. Leonardo da Vinci: Aspects of the Renaissance Genius New York: George Braziller.
Roger-Miles, Leon. 1923. Leonard De Vinci et les jocondes Paris, H. Floury.
Rosci, Marco. 1977. The hidden leonardo Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.
Scaillierez, Cecile. 2003. Leonard De Vinci: La joconde Paris : Réunion des musées nationaux
Siren, Osvald. 1916. Leonardo da Vinci, the artist and the man New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Stites, Raymond S. 1970. The sublimations of Leonardo da Vinci Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Svenonius, Elaine. 2000. The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Vallentin, Antonina. 1938. Leonardo da Vinci: The Tragic Pursuit of Perfection New York: Viking Press.
Wallace, Robert. 1967. The world of Leonardo, 1452-1519 New York: Time, Inc.
Wasserman, Jack. 1984. Leonardo Da Vinci: Leonardo New York: Harry N. Abrams.

Appendix II
Subsequent representations of original (photograph representations, with second generation representations in source books as representations)
Representation Artist Source Date
Mona Lisa, B/W Leonardo da Vinci Bodmer 1931, 36 1503-1515
Mona Lisa, color Leonardo da Vinci Calder 1970, 147 1503-1515
Mona Lisa, B/W Leonardo da Vinci della Chiesa 1967, Tav. XLVII-IL 1503-1515
Mona Lisa, B/W Leonardo da Vinci Eissler 1962, 171 1503-1515
Mona Lisa, B/W Leonardo da Vinci Freud 1947, 171 1503-1515
Mona Lisa, B/W Leonardo da Vinci Fumagalli 1952, Tav. XXIV 1503-1515
Mona Lisa, B/W Leonardo da Vinci Gould 1975, 102 1503-1515
Mona Lisa, B/W Leonardo da Vinci McMullen 1977, introduction 1503-1515
*Mona Lisa float in Paris mid-Lent parade [embedded], B/W NA McMullen 1977, 205, image 121 1912
Mona Lisa, B/W Leonardo da Vinci Philipson 1996, Figure 7 1503-1515
Mona Lisa, B/W Leonardo da Vinci Rosci 1976 1503-1515
Mona Lisa, color Leonardo da Vinci Scaillierez 2003, 5 1503-1515
Mona Lisa, B/W Leonardo da Vinci Stites 1970, 330, Figure 283 1503-1515
Mona Lisa, color Leonardo da Vinci Vallentin 1938, 354 1503-1515
Mona Lisa, color Leonardo da Vinci ArtBook Leonardo, 4 1503-1515
Mona Lisa, color Leonardo da Vinci ArtBook Leonardo, 90 1503-1515

Amplifications
Representation Artist Source Date
Three sitters in one, B/W NA della Chiesa, 1967, 105, image XXV NA
Thirty Are Better Than One, B/W Andy Warhol McMullen 1977, 216 image 130 NA

*Mona Lisa shop in Tokyo (photograph, B/W) NA McMullen 1977, 236 image 146 1970s

Extractions
Representation Artist (photographer names are not noted in sources) Source Date (of Extraction)
Face and upper part of painting, B/W Leonardo da Vinci Bodmer 1931, 37 1503-1515
Eyes, color Leonardo da Vinci ArtBook Leonardo NA
Eyes, B/W Leonardo da Vinci McMullen 1977, 238, image 149 NA
Mouth, B/W Leonardo da Vinci McMullen 1977, 195, image 118 NA
*Face, B/W [radiography] Leonardo da Vinci della Chiesa, 1967, 10 NA
Face, color Leonardo da Vinci Hohenstatt 1998 NA
Face, color Leonardo da Vinci Rosci 1977,130 NA
Face, B/W Leonardo da Vinci McMullen 1977, 119, image 70 NA
Upper part of Painting, color Leonardo da Vinci Constantino1994, 97 NA
*Upper part of Mona Lisa
with superimposed geometrical designs (also study) Leonardo da Vinci Goldblatt 1961, 62 Plate XV NA
Upper part of painting, thumbnail, B/W Leonardo da Vinci Reti 1974, 21 1503-1515
Upper part of painting, B/W Leonardo da Vinci Reti 1974, 25 1503-1515
Hands, color Leonardo da Vinci Constantino1994, 95 NA
Hands, B/W Leonardo da Vinci della Chiesa, 1967, 10 NA
Hands, B/W Leonardo da Vinci McMullen 1977, 119, image 69 NA
Hands, color Leonardo da Vinci Rosci 1977,132 NA
Hands, color Leonardo da Vinci Scailliérez 2003, 8, image 4 NA
Hands, color Leonardo da Vinci Wasserman 1984, 147 NA
Hands, color Leonardo da Vinci ArtBook Leonardo NA
Part of face and left background, B/W Leonardo da Vinci Wasserman 1984, 40 NA
Bodice, B/W Leonardo da Vinci McMullen 1977, 60, image 30 NA
Background, B/W
(left) Leonardo da Vinci McMullen 1977, 102, image 62 NA
Background, B/W
(right) Leonardo da Vinci McMullen 1977, 102, image 63 NA
Background, color Leonardo da Vinci ArtBook Leonardo NA

Mutations
Copy by contemporary artist
Representation Artist Source Date
Italian copy, B/W Anonymous McMullen 1977, 141, image 83 and Siren 1916,156 NA
Spanish copy, B/W Andrea Salai McMullen 1977, 141, image 84 Bodmer 1931, 84, Siren 1916,156, and Goldblatt 1961, 104 NA
Maddelena Doni, B/W Raphael McMullen 1977, 143 NA
La Muta, B/W Raphael McMullen 1977, 143 Around 1506
Flemish Gioconda, B/W Anonymous McMullen 1977, 145 Mid 1500s

Right-handed image
Representation Artist Source Date
Right-Handed Mona Lisa B/W NA McMullen 1977 122, image 71 NA

Amplified Mutation
Representation Artist Source Date
*The Occasion Makes the Gioconda
[cartoon], B/W René Bertholo McMullen 1977, 228 image 135 NA

Nude Renderings
Representation Artist Source Date
Nude Gioconda Anonymous Bodmer 1931, 7 NA
Nude Gioconda, B/W Anonymous McMullen 1977, 150 NA
Nude Gioconda, B/W Joos van Cleve McMullen 1977, 150 NA
Nude Gioconda, B/W Barthel Bruyn McMullen 1977, 150 NA
Nude Gioconda, B/W Anonymous McMullen 1977, 157 and Bodmer 1931, 85 Early 1600s
Monna Vanna Andrea Salai Scailliérez 2003, 31, Bodmer 1931, 86, and Goldblatt 1961, 114 NA
Nude Gioconda Anonymous Siren 1916,156
Nude Mona Lisa in a pot, B/W Souzouki della Chiesa 1967, 105 NA

Cartoon
Representation (name or description) Artist Source Date
Sitter laughing, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, I NA
Sitter laughing hand to mouth, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, II NA
Sitter laughing thumb to nose, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, III NA
Sitter in apron, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, IV NA
Sitter making a face, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, V NA
Lady looking like sitter and standing between two men; B/W postcard NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, VI NA
Sitter with eyeglasses, mustache, hat and two birds on her shoulders; B/W postcard NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, VII NA
Sitter with a pipe, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, XI NA
Sitter with bullet holes, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, XIII NA
Sitter with pins, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, XVI NA
The sitter on a motorcycle, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, image XVIII NA
*Smile of sitter on a dog [embedded] , B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, XIX NA
Dissociated Mona Lisa in the figure of a pair of shoes, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, image XX NA
The Mona Lisa with an old man’s face, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, image XXII NA
*Abstract Sketch with enlarged head of the sitter, B/W [sketch] Anonymous della Chiesa, 1967, 105, image XXIII Mid 1900s
Sitter with elongated neck, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, image XXVIII NA
Skull on sitter, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, XXIV NA
Hands over sitter’s eyes, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, XXVI NA
Man’s face inplace of sitter’s face, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, XXXIII NA
Sitter with bob, as a transvestite B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, XXXIV NA
Sitter as seen through water, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, XXXVI NA
Deconstructed sitter with geometrical shapes, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, XXXVII NA
King Carnival with Mona Lisa, B/W G. A. Mossa McMullen 1977, 206 image 122 Early 1900s
L.H.O.O.Q. Marcel Duchamp McMullen 1977, 220 image 131 and della Chiesa 1967, 105, IX 1919
Dali as Mona Lisa Philip Halsman McMullen 1977, 220 image 131 and della Chiesa 1967, 105, X NA
In Tears Paul Wunderlich McMullen 1977, 227 image 134 NA
*The Occasion Makes the Gioconda B/W [amplified mutation], B/W René Bertholo McMullen 1977, 228, image 135 Early 1900s
*Great American Nude No. 31, B/W [embedded] Tom Wesselmann McMullen 1977, 228, image 136 Early 1900s
*Gymnastic Gioconda B/W [embedded] Urbaniec Maciej McMullen 1977, 230, image 137 Early 1900s
Stalin as Mona Lisa
(political) Marinus McMullen 1977, 230, image 138 and della Chiesa 1967, 105, VIII Early 1900s
Golda Meir as Mona Lisa (political) David Geva McMullen 1977, 230, image 139 Early 1900s
Mona Owl (political) Chris Marker McMullen 1977, 230, image 140 Early 1900s

Lisa Reacting NA McMullen 1977, 233, image 144 NA
Tokyo Poster NA McMullen 1977, 237, image 148 1970s

Embedded
Representation Artist Source Date
*Smile of sitter on a dog [cartoon] , B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, XIX NA
Troubadourish canvas showing Leonardo da Vinci painting the sitter and the painting, B/W Aimée Bruné-Pages McMullen 1977, 166, image 101 1845
*Mona Lisa float in Paris mid-Lent parade [subsequent representation], B/W NA McMullen 1977, 205, image 121 1912

The Return of the Mona Lisa, B/W Orens McMullen 1977, 211, image 125 NA
Gioconda with Keys,
B/W Fernand Léger McMullen 1977, 225, image 133 1930
*The Occasion Makes the Gioconda B/W [cartoon], B/W René Bertholo McMullen 1977, 228, image 135 Early 1900s
*Great American Nude No. 31, B/W Tom Wesselman McMullen 1977, 229, image 136 Early 1900s
*Gymnastic Gioconda, B/W Urbaniec Maciej McMullen 1977, 229, image 137 Early 1900s
*Mona Lisa viewers in Tokyo (photograph) NA McMullen 1977, 236, image 147 1974

Sketches
Representation (name or description) Artist Source Date
Maddelena Doni, B/W Raphael della Chiesa 1967, 104, McMullen 1977, 28, image 15 and Siren 1916, 156 1506
Mona Lisa with Skull, B/W Maurice Henry della Chiesa, 1967, 105, image X Early 1900s
*Abstract Sketch, B/W [cartoon] Anonymous della Chiesa, 1967, 105, image XXIII Mid 1900s
Cover of Bizarre magazine, B/W Siné della Chiesa 1967, 105, image XXVII 1959
Sketch of face and bust of Mona Lisa, B/W Anonymous McMullen 1977 1651
NA pencil or ink right-handed three-quarter representation NA Scailliérez 16, image 8 NA

Study
Representation (name or description) Artist Source Date
*Detail of Mona Lisa with superimposed geometrical designs [extraction] Leonardo da Vinci Goldblatt 1961, 62 Plate XV NA

Radiography
Representation (name or description) “Artist” Source Date
*Face, B/W
[Extraction] Leonardo da Vinci della Chiesa, 1967, 10 NA
La Joconde radiography Laboratory of the Museum of France Scailliérez 2003, 7 1951

Photographic Negative
Representation (name or description) Artist Source Date
Photographic negative J. Margat della Chiesa 1967, 105, image XXI 1959
Photographic negative NA McMullen 1977, 219 image 130 NA

Photographic abstraction
Representation (name or description) Artist Source Date
Face of sitter widened as in mirror effect, B/W A. Snelling della Chiesa 1967, 105, image XXIX NA
Profile of sitter, B/W L. Vala della Chiesa 1967, 105, image XXX NA
The Mona Lisa as a narrower image, B/W NA della Chiesa 1967, 105, image XXXVI NA

Scientific
Representation (name or description) Artist Source Date
Squared Gioconda NA McMullen 1977 231, image 141 1973

Computerized
Representation (name or description) Artist Source Date
Striped Gioconda Shigeo Fukuda McMullen 1977, 232 image 142 1970
Abstract Gioconda Shigeo Fukuda McMullen 1977, 232 image 143 1970