The Mona Lisa Test
by
Lorenz Dahl III
copyright 1995
www.leadershipdefinitively.com
lorenzdahl3@hushmail.com
This is a two-part test
Part the First: Analysis
1) Obtain a decent, color reproduction of the Mona Lisa (La Joconde) by Leonardo da Vinci.
(see reproductions below)
2) Obtain a sheet of black or dark blue paper large enough to cover the entire painting.
(see the reproductions below)
3) Place the dark paper over the side of the painting that contains the left arm, the left shoulder and
left side of the subject’s face so that the edge of the paper bisects the face of the subject from top to
bottom down the center line of the face so that only the right arm, the right shoulder and the right side of
the subject’s face can be seen, and, the background of the painting from top to bottom can be seen on
only that side.
In this manner, only half of the mouth can be seen, i.e. the half on the right side of the subject’s face.
4) Examine the subject’s right eye carefully, making notes as to exactly what you see expressed in this eye.
5) Perform the same procedure for the subject’s left eye by placing the paper so as to cover the entire
right side of the painting, again placing the edge on the center line of the subject’s face. Make note of exactly
what you see expressed in the subject’s left eye.
6) Remove the paper and examine the details of the painting:
* Note that the darker side of the face is the subject's left side and the lighter side of the face is the right side
* Make the same note with regard to the hair, the darkened side being on the subject’s left side.
* Make the same note with regard to background, the side to the subject’s left side being darker than the side
to the subject’s right side.
* Note the shading on the neck, the subject’s left side being darker.
* In a relaxed, sitting position cross your hands. Note the position of your own hands.
Note the position of the hands in the painting.
* Examine the subject’s mouth. Repeat the procedure with the dark paper, examining the subject’s mouth
and then the eyes.
Here endth Part the First. Part the First must be completed properly and thoughtfully before proceeding to
Part the Second.
Part the Second: Discussion
The subject’s eyes express two emotions. The right eye expresses a profound sadness, while the left eye
expresses playfulness. It is not possible for a human being to do this.
Everything else in the painting is camouflage, except the mouth. The mouth is a decoy, as beautifully crafted as
a perfect, hand-carved canvasback or black duck decoy and perfectly positioned as if placed on the water by a
master duck hunter to create an atmosphere of supreme serenity.
The lighter side of the painting is on the side with the sad eye, and, the dark side of the painting is on the side
with the playful eye, done so as to deliberately confuse, distract, cause the viewer to focus on the decoy,
and be fooled into believing that here is a perfect serenity and not to see that it is all a trap. Even the crossing
of the hands is unnatural, a part of the camouflage.
This painting is a deliberate and clever trick. The mouth is the most famous decoy in history.
The mouth could be expressing either pain or pleasure, which is certainly within the realm of human behavior.
It was painted thusly so it could be interpreted in either way so that the resulting debate would prevent the
discovery of the trap.
But not the eyes. The eyes can express pain or pleasure but the eyes cannot ever simultaneously express pain
in the one eye, and, playfulness or joy in the other. Anybody who has ever looked into a woman’s eyes and
seen pain, and looked at some other time into the same eyes and seen playfulness would ever confuse the two
as being the same emotion, nor ever see both at the same time with each eye expressing the opposite of what
was being expressed in the other. Every genuine leader knows this because that is where a genuine leader
looks first, and most often.
I first saw this back in the 1950s when I was about fifteen.
So when I came to France a few years ago, and was concentrating on leadership, and looking into the eyes
of a woman, and seeing reproductions of the painting, it all came back, but this time I felt that I should
say something. I have mixed feelings about announcing this, similar to the feelings I had when I first had to
look at a full moon that had men walking around on it. I knew it would never again look the same as it did
before the men got there. I knew it would never feel the same looking at it.
It was no longer an untouchable piece of nature’s beauty. The mystery was gone. It was just another big rock
in a close orbit. But having worked on the Apollo program I was prepared for the eventuality and I moved on
and turned the page.
So it is with the Mona Lisa. The mystery will be gone for some. Some may say that the mystery is still there,
and that the smile is still a riddle. Others will admit that it is a clever trick but that it is still a great painting,
which it is. But if it is only a clever trick, is it art? Op art is nothing but a clever trick, but is it art?
The mystery is not gone for me because I never thought there was a mystery. I was a duck hunter and
had been well trained in leadership and I knew a decoy when I saw it, regardless of whether it was a
classic masterpiece hand-carved from cedar in the 19th century, or, an ugly, molded plastic (but functional)
imitation sold by Sears.
Is the classic duck decoy art, or is it craft? Call it what you will, but all of those beautiful, hand-caved decoys
of the past and even those of the present, were all created for the purpose of fooling real ducks within range
of a shotgun, and da Vinci had the same purpose in mind when he painted the Mona Lisa. If the master
craftsman (or artist) were to give each decoy one sad eye and one playful eye, would it make any difference
to the real ducks?
More importantly, would it make any difference to the art critics? Probably not. The art critics have never been
known to comment on the eyes of the decoy, and in fact, have probably never looked into the eyes of the decoys.
But a lot of art critics have looked at the Mona Lisa and even those that looked at the eyes, never saw what
was there. I suppose that art critics are not trained in leadership, and perhaps they prefer to study art rather than
study the real thing - life itself - because the paintings are less threatening than the power of human emotion.
But as every duck hunter understands, even if the hand-carved artwork of the master craftsman does not work
any better than the molded plastic imitation, it feels better to hunt over the art, because it enriches the tradition
of hunting which has given so much to great art in the last million years, as in the cave paintings, and, it adds a
genuine pleasure to the hunt that can never be felt with the plastic. It is the same with the classics produced by
Herreshoff in the yard in Bristol in Rhode Island. Every real sailor would rather sail the wooden classic than the
plastic imitation. They just aren’t the same. The plastic yachts do not give the same joy.
It is impossible to find a plastic yacht or a plastic decoy that has any real beauty whatsoever.
There is no natural beauty in plastic.
Will the Mona Lisa continue to hang in its place of highest honor at the Louvre?
Will it continue to be called the best painting ever produced? Probably not.
Sooner or later the criteria that are used to distinguish the truly great in art from the works of lesser stature
will be re-applied to the Mona Lisa and there will be a new judgment.
Even the French - who love tricks and fakes and frauds - will cease their intransigence and they will move it to
a special gallery of great tricks, where it will hang supreme forever, where it rightfully belongs, and where
da Vinci knew it would end up.
It is doubtful that da Vinci ever dreamed that the trick would work so successfully for so long.
He probably died wondering why it had survived as long as it did. If he were to show up tomorrow and see it
hung as it is in the Louvre and learn of its reputation as the greatest painting in the world, he would probably
roar with laughter.
As a great artist, da Vinci taught us many things about painting and sculpture. But he had to wait a long time to
teach us this last lesson. The Mona Lisa is powerful testimony to the depth of his genius, and a cause
for reflection for the art world, now and for the future.
Why is da Vinci’s Mona Lisa lesson so important? It is important because it is a fundamental and vital lesson
about learning to examine things very closely, and, to think independently.
That is why I use this test in my courses in leadership.
A genuine leader learns very early how to read a person’s eyes – that is the first place a genuine leader looks.
Da Vinci was a genuine leader. As fortune would have it, he was also a great painter, sculptor, architect,
and engineer.
The Mona Lisa Test is the starting line for all who would be genuine leaders. Da Vinci knew this,
which is why he did the painting.
That it took 500 years for da Vinci’s most important lesson to be revealed should be of some passing interest
- if not deep concern - in the halls of academe throughout western civilization (or what is left of it).
An examination of the history of western civilization since da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa reveals a
rather modest number of genuine leaders, most of whom such as Abraham Lincoln never saw the painting.
Lincoln, had he seen the Mona Lisa, would have detected its significance immediately.
An examination of history from 1500 to 2000 reveals how few genuine leaders are recorded at all levels of
humanity, from the hamlets to the cities, from the cottages and log cabins to the palaces and the penthouses.
My courses in leadership are designed to address this leadership gap. Which is why we study da Vinci and
Machiavelli (a da Vinci contemporary) and why we take the Mona Lisa Test. Therefore, if you cannot pass
the Mona Lisa test, you are not leadership material.
C'est tout.
